You are on page 1of 19

An Analysis of the Canada-U.S.

Free Trade Agreement A Canadian Perspective

Pat ri ck l{cEvoy-HaI s ton

Htstory 344 R01 Prof. Brad Rennie August LL/1997

-

fn Canada, the signing on January 2, between those The debate their 1988a\ brought in favour

of the Canada-u. S Free Trade Agreement to a close a three its year long debate

and those

opposed to

implementation. each wi th upon to favour of'

was waged between two ideol ogical

diseernabl e groups , bent which they

own partieular viewpoint

drew

advance their free

on the deal.

Although

those in

trade stere often described is the often trade

as logical,

and their

opponents as appeal

emotional , it
a,i
,!-r. 'l i. l'

unappreciated side, which

immediate emotional may be the most their

rL
t'

of

the

P r.oi , . .f r e e '1 ,
l

important stance, has been

ilr L.^riI r , r.(

intangiblerin in a eountry,

allowing sinee

a near draw or even a win for

t"ri

t"i
/ ! , '

+li - l j r .

confederation, one politieally. expanded

where such a stance

I " {.

r'.^

largely

an impotent

The new momentum f or largely made possible 80's.

f ree in

trade

with

the

u. s. the

r{as ?0's to

by the

recession

Canada during

and early investigate time

The Macdonald Royal

Commission was formed

the source of troubles,

and suggest solutions. recession,

At the

the U.s had emerged from their in line with

and the commission to their

r e c o m m e n d e ds o l u t i o n s economic probl ems. The l{acdonal d

the American solution

Commissi on their

message

that

Canada

needed

to

significantly not also war. only with to

increase the

reliance

on market forces

was similar but

neo-conservative trends

Reaganism, and Thatcherism, the

global

which had emerged after m u l t i 1a t e r a l I owering of

second world and the

GATT, the general

tari ffs,

general that

post-war etorld-wide properity trade with is not onl y

serve as forceful , but

f{ge

benef icial

argufments ,,,.ol naturat .r"t .rl long past

inevitable,

those opposed as hangers on to

a time

7

-a-

rel evance. Yet this open market was newly threatened by irkesome 5 )f',,noises coming fron the U.S, uncomfortable with its lprotectionist large trade deficit with other countries. establlsh This accesn to suggest*J tUe their most to

inmrediate need for important trade

Canada to

partner,

the U.S,

by creating

a trade

deal

compliment GATI, the Canada-U.S Free flrade Agreement, This 'recent' devel opment of protectionism is used by

opponents to emphasize another interpretation war global EEc. trends, the creation of sorld

of post second world trade blocks, lile the

can be seen as less a romantic open{ing of Canada t^ The spirit ofl f^ to the world, and more hiding in 'fortress lmerica'. Free trade than being cornplimented by freer
from multilateral gtobal

GATT, rather
suggests

trade with the u.s, , (!.,'' t'* \ \"'- ;,Canadian linkg. -''' ""'"

\ """i

t

a withdrawal

This f igurative opponents through

fortess , . is

cI aim{

the

opponents,

is

I iteral

as weI I

as the

Another the

post -grorld

war two trend

recogni zed by with the

increased and

mi I itary the

integration Park

U. S, which

NORAD, NATO,

New Hyde

Agreement

essentially

severed British complete

and commonwealth ties, coordination free trade partner in the $rith

and suggested a the U.S. of

conmitment to opponents their

a

military

The by

enourage interpreting game

as part to

a plan

geopolitical

playing that

secure of

natural freedom,

resources. free trade

They suggest may restrict

cloaked

spirit

Canadian future

possibilities

to those in

-5-

I ine

with

their

pol itical

, mi I itary,

and eeonomic master

in

the

u. s.
This post nar influence trend state. limiting state, to might the do damage to sustained free another partially the gtobal national damage to the

towards

development of trade it

wel fare done by welfare between increased

glhen opponents of

e m p h a si z e is the

the

Canadian sovereignty, them, Canada, that the most vital and most they

threat

and important reason for

differenee opposing

U. S and

evident

integration,

emphasize. as a wel lspring their from which both

These global

trends

serve

sides of the debate find free trade group, is

evidence to sustain semi-correctly

views.

The pro

often

label led business.

as consisting

mainly

of economists and members of big

Semi-correctly, showed

because surveys of both large, overwhelming support trade and the closer for

medium and small

corporations

the FfA.

They see the unfolding

of global as

economic ties

between Canada and the U.s. of economic views

an obvious endorsement of the hold.
/i zl - l.q {{'r \ r I ^..+ I f ..f 'rJ'Ll

'correctness'

they

what has been witnessed
. l?.,

by the prosperity

of post-war

lower

uli' r.r

", #.{

C. " \;{ j

tariffs,

eompared especial ly with is the vindication

Smoot-Hawley tariff of Adam Smith's

and pre-war doctrine of

't7,t'.t.', t'

,l
(

:.t.'i,^,(,,,
I .nl
' I ' ; '

protectionism, Iaissez-faire.

'

,l *\

\

i
l . _

' ' ^

l{aximum prosperity

is assured as eachtcountry
t i\

takes to

I

t'. t{t

, 1,.,i ,,^l

i !, !: " f,'ti) S,;., ,i

:. ') i',

advantage of their a world
r

own specializations rather than to

and market, th,gi-r product a timited national one.

.- lv i { ,i.

poPulation

This

,'.r'... I t-

yt!*

t
.1.,., l,'.i' :

:

1"
!'r' '

' t' ',., r,, J { n ',,0 "

-+-

scale of enterprise allow for low costs

is necessary not only for of operations. then,

large profits, trade with

but to the U.S ES is

Increased

since WWII is increased

a good thing

providing providing

a larger capital

market, for

American

investment,

expanding

p roduct i on . Government interferenee, restrictions or involvement government in the eeonomy is government national Changing to one is be

inefficiency. to trade are

Provincial, barriers. tariff but the trade,

qual ifications

from a more government involvement, with less,'can bring trade about

or high

disslocations,

end result

more efficientS

by more efficient

businesses and, is will for all.

developed further, wel fare state

jobs and prosperity weeds in into

The growth of the trapping energy

has been I ike

a garden ,

which otherwise W h a t Lo o k These others
I

could have flowered l ike are weeds to

more general prosperity, I ike roses a to group others . whose

some, smel I of free

the

opponents

trade ,

member$ip includes and artists, the exeeption

most of the eultural 1y al I the labour

community, that

isrwriters

practical of

movement, academies with groups culture

economists ,-^,"r""n's 'A All

groups , envi ronmental American political

and peace groups.

of them perceive .

a s 1e s s f a v o u r a b l e t o t h e i r i n t e r e s t s They suspicion. view I{hat the is post first war

integration and

with economic

the

U. S

with

military as well.

integration, that unless a

becomes political

and social

They fear

-5-

strong stand is taken, Canada wilt they perceive as the criminal,

inevitably

move closer lax,

to what the

environmental ly

land of

rich and the poor{-the U.S. Rather than nultilaterisn, they emphasize the devel opment of

world blocks as suggesting that free trade is not a clean argu4nent for broadened trade continentalism vier . as their opponents suggest, but a suspicious and economic needs. of a series of They

motivatcd by U.S nilitary first

the Alaska Highway as the
I

grabs for this

Canadian resources, and suggest that free trade be viewed sith in mind.- The inclusion for American of services, and the right unusual

of establishment-l n,..",f for a free tt"a. fl.l
i'

companies in

canada is

1rr

agreement suggesting instead something larger lihe a corlnon narket with its implied enlarged effect

the formation .f {J;A-'"}. on sovereig"ty. /il,IJ,, who have rrr"tr'"t ilL.

They impute the post tfi{ll rise of multinationals 1. ,rl^.f.,.",frr ( *u to pit ,"1''',",7'.,n^" )to gain from flexible national borders including the ability ,-t"& ' t3 | ;-r* I J:.,"" ^l nation vs. nation to negotiate terms of trade in their favour.
, - .' ^ " , , ' 1 , . r ' , " ? '

Further tied is.

they accuse the economists of mlopeia. that they can't see the world for

A group so the way it they mention

to an ideology

In response to examples of success of free trade,

the loss of industry barriers vis-a-vis

to the maritirnes with the lessening of trade and suggest that of laissez-

canada through confederation, prove than disprove

poat war years faire, noting

less

the notion

the devel opment of cermany and Japan, both nations large government

whoge econornic devel opment was compl ernented with

involvement.* trade their is

Their

conclusion

then,

is

if

the

suceess

of

free

based on economic premises which are false, f or suecess might prove f alse

then surely

predictions

a s g r e lI . ly having no soul . hiding

They accuse their They elarify the

opponents stith essential terms like

neutered

'reloeation' and a laek region.

as

unemployment, and conununity suffering, for the human eultural ties to

of appreciation Further, their

a speeific

emphasis on efficiency, suggest a further there is financial have

markets,

gross national

product,

profits,

lack of sensitivity success as a result factured everyday

to human needs. That whether of free trade in or not, the

proponents eguation
(ruL\ " ,, | ; " y f 1 ^ er o + t a , , 0 , ^ l o l v l o " ' ' c l i,"'rit),r'tt

canadians

their

economic

as consumers, producers is worth

and not

as people. of+ie of both sides not the

examing the point viewpoint play will of in

of view

t'loi,.'

, , ; l * '.,. ' ' f ^ , r ' ,
r" ll-t,
^ t r ' ^ ' . 1 ! v t \

\orvo
t f .

nurtured only

from their

the post world srar two years, the two specific or destroy concerns jobs, of

t

n t

u v ' ^ " |{ l! r'r,i u.rt' '? -0. ' ./,,, f(il

'l

as they

come into

debate, that

is whether it

create

oE threaten serve that from

or enhanee/ensure Canadian nationhood, as .rg,rd*ents results how they suggeste johs) in themsel ves .

but also because they at times recogn ize

Both sides

of the FTA may be uncertain, say things that the will turn out

or perhaps even different (eg. the pro FTA side not more,

sometimes but better way

outcome wi I I

be perhaps that

and so there

is the implication through of the

perhaps a very fine of and the the

of estimating premQrsis of

the outcome is the argu{ments
I

an examination opposi ti on,

basic exact

-)
- 7-

, ,,l.qf
l,t,

fr^als

1,1;j lu 1^r, f l"- ",n
(t,tttvo ui{ f'eo fr"J" l',

t l " L q i l , i 1 r l ^ . o,l, 1 7 0 ^ o ^,h
,.enllf,, ': ^ J ; u ; , .. ^ 1 , 1 t^oriurgl if'-.-r"i" (rqtli,,h

lter, l,"Jc,- l,uu1fo"1 ar 0^','J

*l^.- i,ipr- {o

I I
compositi on of this of the rich, anti-free onn"rt_a_t m,

ttlrp5q-^l ,fok o " f t . r r " l l ^ e . y ; 1 " " c). I [ r i , t u o o l f . ^ t , . i + . ' , ' . f . , 4 l , ^ l t 1,.-;nd {^ ,,-1.;,1eo, +l.ql I,e" }'o.l{ ,..,qtl iae,'\/li?,{ +Le;, ).oy, w / i ^ { i - o . l , ^ . t l e ' t " - r { ; + k o r" - \ f l < r l.^J . 7 f ."J',g tk" :

+ r - .. " - ^ l , r t , q l , L " l , , - 1 , t ; s , ' - , ' , .

ff,$:t,,

. l-Tffi5tr-adb-toost6ilare want to create a world f avouring the rich, boosters

rniae ui'"r,

, L ^ l _ 1 " *! . - f + o

r,.," wtritJ.'.,i','"1*"

trade

made up of Eovernment funded groups will to do so even if the ,

ensure a future rest of the

where government continues suffers from not

country

keeDing up with

global

economic trends. Although debate itself moved by trends aPparent before the debate, the

of course concerns the future

of Canada. l,tuch of this

debate centers around jobs. the creation

The proponents for free trade envision

of u?-+o hundreds of thousands of jobs over the years trade, backing it up with economic job its

with the inrpl ernentati on of free projections, growth, side, with their

oppSnents attacking 'prove'

both the idea of it. To support

and the econonic models that

the proponents emphasize the \FIA's while their to trade. are often

reductions

in. tariffs

betseen the tro nations, non-tariff limitations

opponents emphasize ehanges to

The tariff unimportant, only

reductions

accused of

being free,

somerhat and that chief

consLdering that many goods are tariff apply for to all other goods.

low tarrifs

However the

Canadian negotiator inportance the tariffs

the

FTA, Simon Reisman, emphasizes the Although he argues that some of high, signicantly, the tariff

of even lower tariffs, are actual ly quite

reductions not only enlarge the access to America's market but act
\ v

-\ .'t^ l " t'' 1
\ l a ? 1 _ 4

as

a

powerful

symbol

in

a

time

of

threatening

American

, . a '

tt
\ 0

t , 1

t^ i{,ir [rv r T
yo*.ro^lI k \nI

l ^ . q u qp , o u ; c h J q \ . rorQ rloor(''!_ fj

a^ txa-,Xln .f a r o - r - r r . f l . . ,-

ho-

(on 1o-

1..1 *[^ol

",

th L.{ l; C""..t;.. <t"..-;. 1r.*+{ er il
co-pcf f,o^ -. 'f 1 ^ 11o irt* -(.^Jia*

g;v4t C..'/;_[c^ ^^o"q

L . - r ; , { " . r , e ( q r e ^ , , q s k ! * 4 . < , , ; , - ^^rkt
rq1* ll.'j in
f I
I i

flny,to-

cor1a"1i01 h

.a,Jh'ciqf t

a fo {.f-a, Aorr ,+:t,(*il.".i'J!,., -, l[ r

,.0--- on]

_\r

$0,

1't

o77o"l-.,l,ae t I

t

{

as e Gtul t I secure ef.r.nomy, w*tF ncr} end bet ter Job: ereat*ou ' of f ered 63 EEE I ogi eal ansrer te jEb grewlhi Thr s general otltccme of-.2 bf f,ron. L adderl tn 'to 1, -ce*braets rith gutte st eeif ic--

eempla*nts

the.opposifion
------\'

bte- *dea of job EfdFTh- rs a ,r-esnlt

I
I I
I

I i

I I

I I

I

I

op1o^a^|,o|r(n'|,oAl,,^,c^*,olf,,o.|Q.'Jl|.*+(o^"o/._.

I

- € a # c d a - b h d . -, e r p l a i n z - i s
n* / lt*f

a "eountry'thct\has

done

taritf,s11
h.---tti ol loL,, lLor: +:,,!r
It I \ 4aorj'd't :^

"it

noul d $
;"dtlt

1j.te.,,{.Ty

dqt'(q I .

on u".s
i^f,^s1,1't

,n,-l|

Lp A*,f

4, f *l

{n^}q

5i^,i* ,'4

to1l1 a.a'- h;$qrr

{\o^

tlry A**it.n

ian agri
-rHl 1 l1-afre dtta.d va^la98t'

cul ture

dbes-no$enef

i t f ront-ltt
fi}f€{r€#q}e**b.y

t
rtlt A ' u q , o fa l ^ a r c

L;1Lo' c^(,I

Yr

@iorr.
;;T,
t o - ll"

.o^ L. C""-o,nl L,n;m:t
i rl " --..1 rel o ,^ { q -l " t {".

"rffi
*--7 *-* industry, the natioris largest manuf ;EEur-TiiE*

busdtrccc*
e Canadian auto

employer, has benefited the past I{ithout to control tariffs,

from the threat practices d* this

of tariff of

implementation

in

trading not only

the American big be lost,

three. but the

threat

-7*

existence entirely,

of

the

entire

Canadian of

branch

economy might (and

rest what

on the

maintenance of our

a low Canadian dol lar

does Ameri ca think Entire the largest to tariff

I ow dol I ar pol i ey? ) .d textiles and clothing which are vulnerable even being face the

industries, industry

including

employers in Canada, are espeeially with this vulnerabi I ity

reduction,

acknowledged by the proponents the real risk of moving to industry the the

of the FTA.

These industries where indeed,

American south itself here in

northern U.S. texile and 19?0 's . nomen with areas being of

transplanted jobs of at the risk jobs

during the 1950's bel ong I argel y to

lloreover , a large

percentage

these

manufacturing nastiness

f il led by $romen, emphasizing of the jobs to be I ost . this

the particular

the nature

The opponents of FTA suggest that the multinationals the

nastiness financial of

is nothing backers

to of

who are the most important a sizeable portion

FTA, and owners of

Canadian

business.

The openning of borders to the U.S, they believe, the larger general U. S, This context of to the the movement of ltagui I adora all part of

must be viewed in industries zones in to the

southern Mexico. business against industry general

and further is, they to

northern

suggest, pit

a multi-national national or 1o c a l of I oner

conspiracy, each other. production, transportation

regions,

whether through of

The multinationals inereased costs, powers

sirnplification

contrnunication,

and better

developed transportation

- lo-

arteries, please, Iow.
7

are now in a position and they please

to move industries

w h e r e \ _ , e v e rt h e y are of of

to move where eosts

of human capital

So unlessl,

Canada ean compete with see large

the human wage levels in jobs as a result

l . l e x ic o , C a n a d a w o u l d s u r e l y free trade. As mul tinational will
LI

loss

s

are

I ooking

towards

llexico,

Americans

be looking

out for will citing

their

own country. this trade

America, the oPponents deal to mean job losses of this . trade One

to FTA believe, for themselves

not allow two

items

as cl ear

evidence in the free

being the Whi I e1 in this is

lowering

of tariffs

on services

deal.

manufacturiDg, true with

America

I eadership industry is

has retarded

I atel y ' leads

not

their

service

where America

world wide. alt in about in

Serviees,

they suggest, world, to

what the future

economy is area

a post-industrial

and thus growth in this

Canada shoul d be expected to the elimination I osses for second set

be dontinated

by the U . S , perhaPs with Canada,

leading and job

of America's

trade deficit

Canada as wel I . item is the perceived ineffectiveness free of the trade its

The tribunal

up to regulate the tribunal Only in the

the FTA.

The oPPonents to the tiniest

suggest that operations. own law in

is to have only

scope in

cases where the Americans have aPPIied their reckless fashion would the tribunal of be their

most

empowered to overturn decision is in dispute

an American decision, as wel I , with

The finality that

the suggestion

Americans

-il-

will

always be able to appeal to American courts.E Non-tariff barriers of FTA to at risk suggest to opponents of FTA of The FTA would

the

real

threat current resources, times this

national timiting

sovereignty.

eliminate natural even in reply stake'

provisions

American access to canadian of canadian favour ene rgy of FTA

so as to make secure a flow energy shortages. is a small elimination

of global provision or

Those in

that the

one compared with of

what sras at American

creation

seeure aceess to

markets . But if got it America had long wanted aecess to canadian the FTA, wasn't eoneerning it reasonable energy, and

through

to suggest that as well?

other Non-

Ameriean desires tari ff senators subsidies artificial boards , provisions reductions trade

canada, ilight the focus

be realized of complaint

barriersl

were

by Ameriean complained of

meeting

to discuss to

the FTA. These senators industry which

by government ly artd to in competitive. subsidized

made canadian just al so is

products wheat

They complained not energy costs , but rt

about

unempl oyment non-tariff

Newfoundland the free trade trade

fisheries.

these

agreement which are so focused on by a new limitation their ability on canadian their

the anti-free sovereignty

side

as implying

by the FTA, in particular Canadian way of life.

to create

own distinctive
.'t / , , : r i, ,r. , t l . " l ^lo o'^.'.J l"+

canada, i t is argued, is ideol ogical y I di fferent The country neither subscribes to the magic of

from the u. s. place

the market

- l t-

approach private

to

policy

nor

draws

sharp of

lines

between the of

public

and a

sectors.

The vision

the

government

Canada as is reflected

relationship in

between the individual, of Rights of

state

and society

The Canadian Charter

Freedoms which

supports

the

vision state

of government of Canada as a relationship and society, compares with American BiIl regulation sets

between individual of Rights whieh sees liberty.7 of economic at all Canada ' s eliminated, thei r less

a conflict The

between state deal , they

and individual us on a course

say,

development that ll eve 1s and

deliberately posrer to

weakens political private

authorities

shi f ts

economi e actors . and graduatty the a cul tural less

, w€lfare state will be ruled inefficient : and that Canada wi I I gradual I Iz adopt stronger partner less of to the south, with

I ook of

cooperative, its

egalitarian, probl ems

conununitive outlook, ri ch,/poor

and adopt , and

associated

crime,

divisions

envi ronmental

I axidaziness . Whi I e notabl y recognizing I ess for central getting that the FTA does ( an mean I ess which on to government , was the I argel y pro-free

government provincial

idea

responsible trade side), is

premiers

the idea that absurd by

the Canadian way of life the proponents of free

is on the table trade. They

eonsidered that

emphasize

Canadian
ila

cultural

industries invulnerability reject this

srere specifically to effects I imitation of the on the

exeluded from the debate so their FTA is assured. Thei r

opponents

* r3-

definition Rick Salutin

of

culture,

and suggest :

their

oetn, best

exemplified

by

who says that

our culture or industries sculpture, exist in

is

not a matter -dance,

of particular fi lm, video. context :

sectors

theatre,

I iterature, Al I of these the atmosphere The and

poetry, a l arger

painting, eul tural, imagine,

in which we live,

and exPress ourselves. invaded with

cul tura I ai r ete breathe poisoned imagery, by this Michael

i s a I ready being

deal . tfe are inundated t{ilson says that deal

a ne$t

opponents are Donald "I

dominateed by fear l'lacdonald beats don't his

and weak of will. chest I ike

Tarzan and howls,

see Canada as a sort

of sheltered or the

workshop for less than

the inefficient, capable." full of it

the incompetent

This imagery is Ramboesgue and Nietzschean, about cowardice, and fear, the language and

of taunts tough, lean,

and mean, of winners

and losers

comes to us from the America of Ronald Reagan. 1987z 209-210)

(salutin,

This trade with

fear

of becoming the U.S killed loss

the

1911 move to

freer tale

the U.S, and Laurier's ever

served as a cautionary Yet, it did not

to Canadian politicians

since.

serve so in

- trl-

the

ressurection

of

free

trade

debate

in

the

80's

debate' issue

Analyzses of the flow of the debate shor that the sovereignty was played down later the risk line in the debate with

nore emPhasis placed on of this

to canadian jobs,

Euggesting the ineffectiveness

of arguement. calls

I{hy the turnaround?

tfhy deEpite what aalutin and language used by the turned off to votc out

rightly

sentiment the Rarnboesque canadians sufficiently

proponents weren't

MulroneyinlgSS,andendthethreatofthefurther Ameri cani z at i on? perhapsmuchofthercasonisthatalthoughindiedRarnboesque, thetoneofthedebatemadebytheproponentsofthcFTAisjustas passionate as those rallied against it, and passionate that is' about about

something of more appeal to Canadians. the possibilites for Canada. A vision

Passionate,

for what can be animates

theirdebate,shiningeventhroughtheir.neutered'economic language. The BroBonents catl for a proud nation able to compete

withthebestofnations,acalltobreakfreeofgovernment barriers which keeB canadians from becoming as great as they can

be.t|hiletheiropponentsareaSPassionateintheirvisionof Canada, that vision is as peaceful , cooperative, and egalitarian' their

of canada is one who needs government to sustain

an economy

andofaculturewhichisvulnerabletotheAmericanmenace.In u/ short a nice nation, but a weak one. then for more a more American way of

Are canadians thirsty

-15-

life?

Perhaps.

FroPonents for free trade rere largely as suggested earlier to small business, this

econornists not

and businessmen, but complete. In addition

sumrary is

during the 80's in both of the silent can

Canada and the U.S, the previously majority began to find letters their voice'

unspoken voice

This is the opinion

that

be found in thernselvcs. wrote attacks cultural it is

to the editor,

but BerhaPs not from editors voice' tfith ttilliam Gairdner he

As a rePresentative the

of this Trouble

a 11 Cdn bestseller,

canada, rhere

much of the stereotypes industries.

made of the u.s,

by the canadian PerhaPs

Anongst other things he asserts that

the the Americans rho are thc rnore generous' and certainly 'Iand of the safety net' Perhaps the citizens of the .ot. ft...tt 'land of were looking south in apDreciation of the appeal of the buying American books, watching American movies' the more free', at because they offered something they nanted, something missinE home. Visions whieh motivate especially with for a nation that ones, notably the citizenry of a natioa can change' own vlsion Perhaps the

has always accompanied its Britlsh and American'

outside state

welfare -/ leaving

had been established

long enough to seem assured, pride'

an openninE for nes ideas to secure national debating grounds, it

on much safer that

must also be emphasized' trade resent the appeal to

as much as the opponents to free

resented canadians as consumers, Canadians themselves may not have

*t6*

i t

as much as they prices , a

did . vision

llany Canadi ans responded of eased cross border

lower

idea of r;The shopping. to the of the economic be lead has to an to do

proponents

of the FTA emphasized this of sort free out trade. whether

as a result

transformation eeonomist to job loss

So whi Ie, free quite trade

you may need to will eventually what trade

or growth,

and eannot

figure

with national the most

sovereignty, resul t

the appeal for of freer is trade.

lower prices After

seemed like as every

assured

al I ,

Canadian shopper knows, shopping in the U. S. Canadians may have willing 'free' earlier, trade, but not also only as if its it

much less

expensive

when done

agreed emphasis

to on

accept liberty pitch

the

emphasis on as sqggested

lrere a sales

where a new deal So rather than

I owers prices a path to

absent of any negative it

conseqluences.

to Lower standards, which

may have been the appeal the benef it of the

to the path doubt and

l ower prices

gave l.{ul roney

allowed

the passage of the FTA. to the would opponents surely of FTA, their the, years after its

Sadl y, implementation works to

realize

darkest ability destiny.

fears, to

?s FTA its

permanently

reduce its

Canada's national

shape

political-eeonomy period the after

and thereby

The seven year aside to define to define al l

the implementation nature of subsidies

which had been set woul d surel y

exact

serve

subsidies

in a eray pl easing to the Americans.

Canada had af ter

-l?-

given up its to prcvcnt one.

greetest bargaining the stronger

tool , access to natural its vier

resources,

poner from forcing

on thc reakcr

Yet, pcrhaps thc more truc Canadien citlrcnry had becn negotiated not mean that nen demoeratic it

vision,

plays on a vision

of the

ruggestcd by tdichael Bliss. bfr elite intcrcstg, for clitc

That a trade deal intcregts, need

would incvitably spirit of the

servc thcrn. majorltt',

Hc. emphasizes the thc citizenry of

silcnt

Canada, l egg inel inod torard,g thc habtt less predictably gubgervlcnt to

of authori ty, dcelg

goverilncnt

and perhaPs t, of any kind,

is confident enough of thcir own power to Perhaps, thtg cittzenry 'f havc seen ree trade as something to try. lfho knows, perhaps it would do somc good. Thls would not be thc kind of citlzenry to be

easi I y scared by a suppotcd Ameri ean menace, rightly, that ths futurc

parhaXrg bel i eving their own

of Canada can bc made to sult out to be.

wishcs whatcvcr thcy may turn

l,.l,'.I.

@

l d i s q f f o ; ^ l * J- , ' 1 4 A ; , . ^ " , l . t ' 4 j i , t , f r a t J i oi n + \ " 1 y o . ^ h q u c ( e , . J '-n#." ^^A!'$lu^J fLe ill*el , a^01l.^o,^ Ar,^., a^elyz.{ +-;/.lr 0n 1o* r.! jr.f , o.("-l *1.1 (^^J io^y ,^lffo'{n"(#* f f ff (r( -,'k ff.q... J o^^" "$ ] onr' iJtNe l to, **51 [.

'"T:llA^in
-

1ov,{ lort ^ntanrl qc(\^r'"k1.., t

,,. -r,h1

|o-.t ol

,rr* l^vc A;lf;,* ir rl., Qxprt'tr,, ilaqs.ln*{r ,nor"fo,- tl^^l \ot,^,, ,
,e-i*11

q'(, *,',lro.^-orf / u, /o ^"f (orvr1 vl ,o ,.^r fuf to^^Q- tL\ 1lo'", -(,t nokA in fk ol f

(o1on,,lo^ J;t t'ast l-. f, clto lto / "?"i t\r-ll Aaul f , o - ' . - . , [ ^ . qlfL < f 1r:lA ,l.l''- 4o". tnd^okt n"-l lL. '4t{. f A'/t " Lu^ ,..o{L speill-'oLo.^l'-(o ro;/
J'l"r} +Aq ( Q - f e A ' A ' ''a ( o , { x c ^ p b , 0 . , o , , io , ' ^ / 1 1. , . ? o - q t q t ; + lo'. l-"dt h {& u"tl*qm sf*+q oh fol.s i q-o{ lA' ollel.J fl.,rq^l f*i fota, T A o , r (" . n o l n -, p e r , l i , 0""1 + tt +-o" lir,o*r^1ad. uJrr/. on 10*,,-rili1, 9 - ) 1 Q} r ' , - , o - P " J u ? . t
Ao.-re i., 1'Q'frrl '^'o-lJ A<ut AqlFu/'

o'J o'l ^' ;1 ll,, hod Jt. * |{1 tr'l/o'^, 'lo jt* ol " *,r,fi1 , f hnJ lro'U. nf ^:"\'\ ol fii,,o[ec^.^\c, 1'o'r'

| , -t*1 1ou]to,^trA

NOTES I. Crane, David, 198?. "... He should rededieate ourselves to finding our own solutions to a better economie future", Lapierre, Laur_ier, (ed.). rf You Love This country. Toronto: Mccl el I and and stewart publ ishing, ror . Agenda .

2 . tf arnock , John , 1988 . Free Trade and the New Right Vancouver: New Star Books Ltd. , 95.

3. I'lahant, Edelgard, 1993. Free Trade in American-Canadian Rel ations . Malabar: Krieger Publ ishing Company, 82-g3 . 4 - taxer, James, 1986. Ltd., 59. Leap of Faith. Edmonton: Hurtig publ ishers

5 - Reisman, Simon, 198? . "The l{ature of the Canada-U . S . Trade Agreement", Smith, l-lurray, and Stone, Frank (ed.). Assessing the Canada-U.S Free Trade Agreement. Halifax: Institute foi Research on publ ic pol icy, 43. 6 . I{arnock , 175 . 7 . R a l s t o n - S a u l , J o h n , L g 8 7, " C a n a d a t o d a y , You Love this Country, lgg-LgZ. I . Turner, l,lexico tomorrow. . . rr, If star.

John, Dec. 15, rggz . The Toronto

9. Coyne, Deborah, 1988. "Undermining Canada's Constituation", Cameron, Duncan (ed. ). The Free Trade Deal. Toronto: James Lorimer and Company, 239 . york, Robert, 1990. 10. Farrow, Maureen, "Eeonomic, Soeial, 3nd and Cultural Policy Independence in the post-Free Trade Era: a View From Canada", NoI l e, Daniel ( ed, ) . The Canadau . s . Free Trade Agreement . Nesr York : New york Universi ty Press , L29-I30. 11. Gairdner, I{illiam, 1990. The Trouble ltith General paperbacks, l4O L2. Dasko, Donna, 1988. "The Canadian Public Trade DeaI , 2S3. Canada. Toronto: and Free Trade", Free

13 . Bl iss , l-liehael , 1994 . Right Honourabl e l-len. Toronto: Col I ins publ ishers Ltd. , 314-315.

Harper

!)a ' tlr i '.o.,..ni'",1 'i