=

Free Trade

Deal threatens 56,730 B.C. jobs

The Mulroney-Reagan trade deal will
mean a net loss for British Columbians
of 56,730 jobs and will be a “disaster for
working people,” according to a major
study produced by the B.C. Federation
of Labour.

The 59-page analysis, entitled, It’s a
Bad Deal for British Columbia, is one of
the first studies based on the final text of
the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement.

Prepared by federation research staff
in conjunction with union researchers
from various affiliates, the study shows
that job losses will result throughout the
province’s industries but with heavy
emphasis in the agricultural sector, a key
part of the B.C. economy.

According to the study, some 30,350

- jobs in both food processing and agricul-

ture will fall victim to the trade agree-
ment if it is ever implemented.

“Tt seems clear that jobs in vegetables,
grapes and wine and soft fruit will disap-
pear altogether and the dairy industry
will decrease up to 75 per cent,” it states.

“Together these sub-sectors account
for almost 40 per cent of farm income in
British Columbia.”

The expected job losses stem from the
elimination of tariffs over a 20-year
period and new restrictions on the impo-
sition of import quotas — both of which
have been crucial to protection of B.C.
agricultural products — as well as
numerous exemptions for U.S. imports
on which tariffs formerly applied. Under
the deal, for example, a whole range of
processed chicken products will now
come into Canada tariff-free, effectively
eliminating B.C.’s_poultry-processing
industry and the jobs that go with it.

Also expected to be severely affected
by the trade deal is the province’s forest
industry.

The study noted that the forestry sec-
tor is not likely to be significantly
affected but in the wood products and
paper products industries, some 10,000
jobs will be lost — more than one-sixth
of the 59,000 jobs in those sectors.

Many of those will be concentrated in
the B.C. plywood industry which is out-
dated and inefficient compared to the
US. industry and therefore would not be

able to compete. In addition, the study
notes, the trade agreement makes provi-
sions for the U.S. industry to compete in
the B.C. housing market which has tradi-

. tionally been protected by higher B.C.

building standards.

The study cites reports from the fed-
eral government’s own Department of
Regional Industrial Expansion (DRIE),
which stated that Canadian manufactur-
ers of such products as windows and
doors would be highly vulnerable if exist-
ing tariffs were removed by free trade.

Similarly, studies by both the B.C.
government and DRIE have emphasized
the danger to local paper products
manufacturers by the huge U.S. industry
which could flood the B.C. market at
lower costs under a free trade deal.

The federation’s analysis also points
to significant job losses in other indus-
tries, including:

© The fishing industry, where 6,000
jobs are at risk, in part because of the
recent ruling by the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which has
demanded the elimination of federal
government regulations which specify
that Canadian herring and pink salmon
must be processed in Canadian plants
before export. The free trade agreement
would force adherence to the ruling.

© The printing and publishing indus-
try which would lose 5,000 jobs because
of stipulations in the free trade agree-
ment that legislation giving tax breaks to
companies advertising in Canadian-
owned publications be eliminated.

© The transportation equipment in-
dustry which faces the loss of 3,500 jobs
as the result of elimination of Canadian
content rules under the deal.

@ The clothing and textile industry
which would lose 3,000 jobs in the wake
of a flood of imports from U.S. compan-
ies which are currently operating below
capacity and have the advantage of
larger production runs and lower wages.

@ The chemical industry which could
lose some 80 percent of its current 3,400
jobs as a result of the elimination of tariff
protection. Virtually all the products
made in B.C. are from foreign-owned
companies.

ABOVE: ALBERNI

PLYWOOD MILL

government’s own reports

acknowledge that B.C. plywood industry jobs would be lost under free trade.

RIGHT: KEN GEORGETTI

@ The metal fabrication
which would lose 2,100 jobs.

The study notes that there are other
sectors of the economy, including trans-
portation, financial services, education
and public administration in which it is
impossible to estimate the job losses. But
the impact of a free trade agreement on
jobs would nevertheless be negative, it
emphasizes. Only in wholesale trade, real
estate and possibly tourism is there any
expectation of an increase in employ-
ment.

One particularly disturbing aspect of
the free trade agreement is the possibility
that it could stimulate military-related
industries because of the U.S. arms
build-up, the study warns. Another sec-
tion of the agreement gives the U.S. the
right to respond to shortages of nuclear
materials — thus restricting our ability
to limit or prohibit uranium mining in
Canada.

In total, the study concludes, “free
trade will result in a certain net loss of
56,730 jobs and the potential loss of
thousands of jobs in British Columbia,
many in regions outside the Lower Main-

industry

Free trade will be a
disaster for working
people... in light of
the tremendous
Impact that it will
have for many
years to come on
the future of this
country, at the very
least it shoud be the
subject of a general
election.

land and many of which are currently
held by people with few other employ-
ment prospects.”

Although the study refers to other
analyses provided by such groups as the
Pacific Group for Policy Alternatives, it
has drawn much of its statistical infor-
mation from provincial government stu-
dies and various federal departments.

It also challenges what it calls the
“irresponsible approach” of the Gor a
Department of Finance and the Eco-
nomic Council of Canada whose studies
were based on assumptions — one was
that American branch plants would not
close Canadian operations — which
could not be made. The finance depart-
ment study has been widely criticized by
economists.

“Free trade would be a disaster for
working people,” the B.C. Fed study
emphasizes. “It must be turned down.
The prime minister has no mandate for
this agreement ... In light of the tre-
mendous impact that it will have for
many years to come on the future of this
country, at the very least it should be the
subject of a general election.” sc

Pacific Tribune Supplement, March 16, 1988 « S3