Canada

ree trade:

Canadians can expect implementing leg-
islation for the Reagan-Mulroney trade deal
to be introduced in the House at the end of
this month. Throughout the summer, it will
be at the centre of Canadian politics.

_ According to current polls, public opin-
ionis divided on the deal. Unfortunately, its
Proponents have done a pretty good job
convincing many Canadians that free trade
is “a good thing” and that this deal is con-
fined to trade alone.

On both counts, they have lied. Free
trade is not at all “a good thing,” nor is the
deal what its supporters claim. These “brief-
ing notes” compiled by the Pro-Canada
Network (and abridged for the Tribune) set
some of the facts straight:

© First, the pact is not simply about
trade. More accurately, at least 10 of the 21
chapters in the agreement concern matters
totally unrelated to the shipment of goods
across the American-Canadian border.

The chapters on energy, investment and
government purchases are not about trade.
Instead, they explicitly remove the right ofa
Canadian government to pursue energy or
investment policies which favour Canadi-
ans Over Americans.

As the opening paragraph of the agree-
ment admits, this trade pact “breaks impor-
tant new ground.” Where it breaks new
ground is that it pushes well beyond matters
of trade. Canada has conceded control of its
national destiny, concessions which go far
beyond the boundaries of any trade-agree-
ment.

® Second, contrary to the claims being
made by the proponents of the agreement,
the deal severely damages Canadian policies
aimed at overcoming regional disparities.

Throughout the final text, there are

_ numerous concessions to American indif-

_ ference towards regional and social inequal-

ity. From agriculture to government
purchasing, the agreement denies Canadian
governments the right to use the tools they
need in order to overcome long-standing
regional income differences.

Canada is a vast country. It is essential
that our energy supplies be used in a way
which encourages regional development.
The section in the deal on energy wipes out
all the potential benefits we could derive
from our great natural endowment of
energy. Once this agreement comes into
effect, the Canadian people lose the right to
direct the use of our energy supplies and we
relinquish control to the United States.

© Third, the Canada-U.S. agreement
even fails on its own terms. It isa trade pact
which fails to gain secure market access to
the American market for Canadian pro-
ducers.

The section on the bi-national dispute
settlement panel confirms the original ver-
dict. American laws that have hurt Cana-
dian industries, such as those affecting
softwood lumber and Atlantic groundfish,
are untouched. These trade laws will con-
tinue to apply and will continue to harass
Canadian producers.

Everyone admits that Canada will suffer
severe job losses because of this agreement,
and that women and minorities will be par-
ticularly hard hit. In return for this high cost
in lost jobs, there is a review panel which
will judge, after the fact, whether or not the
Americans have applied their bad laws cor-
rectly.

We can anticipate the day in the not too
distant future when a panel, comprised
partly of Canadians, renders a decision that
American laws have been properly imple-
mented and the loss of Canadian jobs is
perfectly legal. Canadians now get a chance
to approve of the verdict rendered by Amer-
ican laws which were unfair to begin with.

Even without winning secure access for
Canadian exports, our negotiators were wil-
ling to offer full access for American
imports into Canada. The supporters of the
deal adopt the view that a rising tide lifts all

the eagle poises

Ones

143)
rd YEAR, NO. 42.587 "CANADA'S NATIONAL NEWSPAPER

Canadian

BY JO.
BY Joh vatonzi

Sn os WT yy,

"WEDNESDay, JUNE 4, 1986

firms can’t compete,

S0¢ Mon.—Sat.
* eae
sie jodie sport warns
rade. : Fee trade would affect inces
*) ghee: tibet POU KEE 4 place. at the burKainung

Sie a OS foe

ted 1 be
=e eae Omario Premier David Peterson's warn:
Ms iiws about the adverse effects uf a free take
al are rellected. throuphuut the repan
Sthat the pour productivity ui
on hn

—

Lead and zinc could be next on U.S.

BY JENNIFER HUNTER

‘The Globe ang Mail
VANCOUVER

_._ Canada’s

i -—~

president at Asarco: Inc. of New unit ct
multi-million-dollar York who also heads, Jesd
e business co be the producers -

roducers are of particular concern tee is made up of three companies:
to us at this time in at least two Asarco, Amax Inc;-of Greenwich,
respects,” said Robert Muth, a vice- Conn., and St. Joe

lowever, Mr. Muth said that, if “that some Canadian company
pes believes there are govern- Operating in the U.S. get more pr
ment subsidies to Canadian compa- ernment assistance there than 1
will seek trade action, possi- do here.

~~ ——

boars
U.S. firm
BY JENNIF!

Te GENNIEERLEWINGTON Ruth, director of international cor
WASHINGTON

Some big U.S. companies
Su are consider.
ing a campaign ty build ples ee

hast

enthusiastic advocate of a Promotional

campaign.

S study push for free trade talks

ulfairs at American aera porcerate ‘meet in Ottawa today for the latest round US,

of talks, with agricultural issues on the est in the talks will meet in sent rtepts
. 3 consider plans for lobbying membe:
walt Ruth cautigned 2 ——— ~~ mnnorece ‘and aaa shed phe!

American Express, which has a hie

ships, but this optimistic scenario must con-
tend with the fact that Canada’s future trade
with the United States must change direc-
tion. The American objective in these trade
negotiations, as with all their other current
economic policies, is to reduce their huge
trade deficit and begin exporting more than
they import. Canada will suffer a net job
loss, not a gain.

© Fourth, supporters of the deal claim
social programs are not compromised, just
as they claimed the Auto Pact was not on
the table. In fact, the Auto Pact is in the final
agreement, as are measures which will lead
inexorably to the destruction of Canadian
social programs such as unemployment

insurance and medicare.

The Reagan-Mulroney trade agreement
takes direct aim at the Canadian system of
social security from a number of vantage
points. One is the extension of national
treatment to American service corporations
that wish to operate in Canada. Another is
the commitment to negotiate a definition of
subsidies over the next five to seven years.

With respect to the service sector, the
final text acknowledges that the terms laid
out in the agreement are “more than a mat-
ter of opening up the service markets.” It is
true that there is no way to trade the occu-
pants of a nursing home back and forth
across the border, Instead, American cor-
porations will set up shop in Canada and

' use the terms of this agreement to challenge
any Canadian program which it feels is an

unfair subsidy. All of our social programs
are potential targets.

The ongoing commitment to negotiate a
definition of subsidies means we will once
again be sitting at a table where the deck is
stacked against us. Except at this time the
bargaining chip is our more effective and
compassionate system of medical care and
income supports.

Many people will wonder what could
possibly have motivated Canada’s negotia-
tors and the Mulroney Tories to give up so
much for so little. And even more startling,
why are some Canadians, who are not as
politically desperate as this government, wil-
ling to defend and promote the Canada-
U.S. trade deal?

The answer is not very mysterious. Many
of those who support this deal, such as the
Business Council on National Issues, sup-
port cutbacks in old age pensions and in
unemployment insurance. These supporters
of integration with the United States see this
agreement as an opportunity to bring in,
through the back door, the policies which
they can not bring in through the front door
where the Canadian people are watching.

By signing this deal, the Tory govern-
ment has sent out a clear signal to Canadi-
ans. But there is time still for us to regain
control of our future. There is time to stop
this horrendous deal, and along with it, stop
that very small but powerful group who do
not believe in Canada’s ability to grow as an
independent country.

‘American corporations

Tory film
distribution
bill limp

By BRIAN DAVIS

Shortly after she was appointed
federal minister of culture last year,
Flora. MacDonald promised tough
new legislation to break the economic
stranglehold the American distribu-
tors have on the Canadian film indus-
try.

Foreign companies operating in
Canada, she said, would be allowed to
distribute only films they had financed.
All other films would have to be dis-
tributed by Canadian companies. The
intent was to transfer 10 to 15 percent
of the total film distribution revenue
to Canadian-owned companies, which
would reinvest their profits in local -
film production. It was a modest plan
to expand the Canadian film industry.

When MacDonald first announced
her government’s plans, few people
could believe their ears. Was a
government committed to free trade
at any cost, which was caving in to the
Reagan administration on foreign
investment, softwood lumber, shin-
gles and shakes, energy policy, acid
rain and prescription drugs, really
going to defend Canada’s cultural
sovereignty? It seemed highly unlikely,
and we now know just how foolish
any hopes were.

Not only has the Tory government
brought forward a bill so weak as to
be worthless, but, as a leaked memo-
randum has revealed, Ottawa is even
prepared to let the American corpora-
tions have a surreptitious hand in
drafting the regulations.

To give the appearance of having
done something, MacDonald has
promised to give the Canadian dis-
tributors $85 million in public money
over the next five years so they can
make futile bids for film rights the
have no
intention of giving up. Why should
they? There is nothing in the legisla-
tion which says they must. The Amer-
ican distributors will remain what
they have been for most of this
century — aconduit to funnel Amer-
ican films and cultural values into
Canada, and the wealth out.

A government intent on cracking
American corporate control would
have tackled the problem head on.
Giving large dollops of public money
to privately-owned Canadian distrib-
utors solves nothing. It will not help
create a Canadian film industry. Like
all capitalist enterprises, the Canadian
distributors are guided: by the exigen-
cies of the marketplace and will invest
the money where it will bring them the
highest returns — probably as junior
partners in American film produc-
tions.

If Canadians want an authentic
film industry, we will have to national-
ize both the distribution and exhibi-
tion networks, and create a Crown
corporation committed to ploughing
all the profits back into a national film
industry. Together with the CBC and
the NFB, such a crown corporation
would form a powerful, publicly-
owned nucleus around which a self-
financing, fully-integrated film indus-
try could form and flourish. Anything
short of that, and we are deluding
ourselves.

Pacific Tribune, May 18. 1988 « 5