trade deal - y raw state, that our timber and ores become the basis for manufacturing and processing industries. In addition, scores of union and other organizations have advocated that both federal and provincial governments ‘adopt policies which would restrict the export of raw resources and stimulate further development of secondary indus- try. But those policies, present and future, have been thrown into question by the free trade deal. Current provincial regulations gov- erning the export of raw logs, ineffective as they are in curbing the increasing flow, could conceivably be challenged on the basis that they, too, violate trade agreements. Certainly the GATT ruling on fish export regulations would effec- tively prevent any government from enacting legislation that would restrict the export of timber which had not been processed by Canadian workers. If future Canadian governments are restricted in their ability to make sover- eign decisions about the country’s devel- opment, B.C.’s economic horizons will shrink. British Columbia will be con- signed to a future as the exporter of raw logs and lumber and the shipper of unprocessed ores and frozen fish — and that only as long as the resources hold out. The free trade deal would be one more step towards that future. _¢ Gg The Reagan-Mulroney trade deal — which encompasses far more than trade, and can, by no stretch of the imagination, be called “‘free’”’ — is the issue facing the Canadian people. In this interview, Wil- liam Kashtan, leader of the Communist Party of Canada, looks at the deal and its implications. Tribune: According to recent polls, 50 per cent of Canadians favour some idea of “free trade”. But is this deal really a free trade agreement? Kashtan: The question here is not what -you call it. This agreement opens the door to American economic penetration of and American investment in Canada ona massive scale. That means increased takeovers of the Canadian economy and little if any benefits to Canada and the Canadian people. One of the negative aspects will be the closing of American branch plants here, along with the moving of Canadian capi- tal to low-wage areas in the United States. This in turn will lead to the loss of jobs, and will be used by monopoly interests in Canada to call on workers to “tighten their belts” so they can compete in the U.S. market.’ While business might claim the deal will create jobs, all it will do is increase the export of capital. Canadian workers are therefore going to be doubly attacked. This could include proposals to amend labour legislation along with other measures in the interests of monopoly in Canada, and not to the advantage of working people. In short, the free trade agreement opens the door to a frontal attack on the working class by monopoly interests and governments in Canada. Tribune: Who are the main protagonists of this deal in Canada? Kashtan: The main protagonists of this deal are Canada’s most powerful corpo- rations, which have an alliance with the Tory government. There is no doubt in my mind that at an early stage after Mul- roney’s election or even before, these corporations tacitly agreed to support the Mulroney government and in return, the Mulroney government would sup- port their efforts to penetrate the Ameri- can market. Corporate eyes today are not on the Canadian market, or extending this market, but on penetrating the U.S. market. Transnationals here feel the domestic market is too small, and are looking elsewhere at the expense of Can- adian development. They are prepared to sell out Canada’s genuine interests for the sake of profit. Economic and military integration is their game, and free trade is their name. Mulroney’s policies fit into that framework. Tribune: The Communist Party of Can- ada has throughout its history opposed closer integration with the United States. Kashtan: It has done so for a number of reasons. Integrating Canada econom- ically with the U.S. will rob our country of its ability to work out its own policies in the interests of the Canadian people. Integrating Canada economically leads to our becoming part of the strategy of American imperialism, which is directed - against the people and the peace of the world. In pursuit of this, U.S. imperial- ism is prepared to offer some crumbs to Canadian corporations, so that they receive some of the benefits, and tie Can- ada to the American war machine. The Communist Party has therefore fought tooth and nail for quite a long time against such policies of integration. Economic integration with the U.S. will close the door to the ability of the Cana- dian people to undertake fundamental social change in a peaceful way. These important factors have determined the policy of the Communist Party through- out the post-war period, when it became clear that U.S. imperialism was using what it thought was its monopoly of the atom bomb against the people of the world, including the socialist countries. Reactionary forces in the U.S. have still not abandoned their objective, des- pite the fact that the U.S. has been com- pelled to sign several accords favouring peace, such as the recent INF accord with the Soviet Union. But that accord isn’t law, because there are still very powerful forces in the U.S. opposed to it. We see the struggle against economic and military integration as a long-term struggle directed to strengthen the sover- eignty and independence of Canada, to open the door to democratic reforms and eventually, to a fundamental change in society. Tribune: The Communist Party says the Canada-U.S. trade deal can be stopped. What are the forces and under what condi- tions can this be done? Kashtan: If the polls are to believed, Canadians are divided 50-50 on the agreement. It is not inevitable that free trade will be foisted on the Canadian people. But the forces opposed to it are wide and growing. The trade union movement is at the centre of the struggle. The women’s movement is actively involved. So are the farm movement and others. In addition there are three. political parties — the Liberal, NDP, and Com- munist parties — that will likewise speak up against the deal in different ways, because of their different aims and programs. Also interesting, sections of monopoly itself are likewise opposed. Just recently the Bank of Nova Scotia came out pub- licly in opposition. It may well mirror the opinion of other Canadian business interests which see little value, and dangers, in becoming tied to U.S. impe- rialism in this way. Along with the free trade bill, the pro- tectionist Omnibus trade bill is currently being debated in the U.S. Congress. It hangs over Canada like the sword of Damocles. It’s hard to say whether this Omnibus bill is really intended to be used, or is rather a lever of pressure on Canadian monopoly interests and the Canadian government to go along with the trade agreement, and perhaps even at this time, to make further concessions to what American imperialism wants. Free trade is still to be debated in the Commons and the Senate here. And it will be the focus of a federal election. There is still time to defeat it. But wha- tever time is left must be used to extend the opposition to this agreement. The 50-50 split must be shifted to 60-40 or even 70-30 against. This depends on the Canadian public, on the determination of all the forces that have united in oppo- sition to it. Tribune: Supporters of the Reagan- Mulroney trade deal accuse opponents of favouring the economic status quo. What are the plausible alternatives for Canada, both immediate and long-term? Kashtan: There are alternatives. Opponents to free trade do not necessar- ily favour the status quo. The Liberals have come up with some kind of alterna- tive, the NDP has an economic program, we certainly have one. The Communist Party said right from the outset that it is not enough simply to say no to this free trade deal. There has to be a real alternative, and the people of Canada have to fight for it. Events bear out the truth of what we said some time ago. The Liberals say they are for liberal- see CHALLENGING page 8 Pacific Tribune Supplement, March 16, 1988 « S5