Call Trump’s bluff, walk away from NAFTA
Everyone who’s ever done business with Donald Trump knows his favourite tactic: don’t negotiate; intimidate. Well, he’s at it again, threatening to pull the plug on the North American Free Trade Agreement because Canada and Mexico are being “very difficult.”
This broadside is the equivalent of rolling a live grenade into the room when trade talks have only just begun.
Canadian trade negotiator Chrystia Freeland has tried to remain calm, reminding the public that “heated rhetoric” is common in these situations.
However, a prudent negotiator would also begin thinking the unthinkable — calling Trump’s bluff and abandoning NAFTA entirely.
Although it would significantly affect trade across the U.S./Canadian border, there are clear advantages to Canada in doing so. In the first place, abandoning NAFTA would end the false notion that Canada gained special privileges in agreeing to a trade deal with the U.S.
Before NAFTA, the U.S. was constantly changing the rules of crossborder trade to benefit domestic producers. A significant Canadian objective in the original Canada-U.S. trade deal (and subsequently NAFTA) was to obtain secure and stable access to the U.S. market.
Regrettably, nothing has changed; the U.S. continues to unilaterally alter the rules whenever it suits its commercial interests.
For example, last April the U.S. Department of Commerce ignored the NAFTA agreement (and the World Trade Organization) when it unilaterally imposed a 24 per cent countervailing duty on imports of Canadian softwood lumber. U.S. border agents were told to begin collecting duties immediately and specific Canadian producers were warned that these charges would be retroactive (to an as-yet-unspecified date).
Unfortunately, this is kind of action is common practice. Since the signing of NAFTA, the U.S. has routinely imposed antidumping and countervailing duties against Canadian agricultural products, including cattle and live swine.
U.S. authorities have also imposed non-tariff restrictions on trade, including “safeguards” against Canadian beef and lamb. Individual U.S. states often take direct action, imposing physical blockades of trucks at the border carrying Canadian goods. In past years, they seemed particularly obsessed with Canadian imports of durum wheat and barley sold through the (now terminated) Canadian Wheat Board.
It seems “free” trade is simply a façade, for behind it lies a host of U.S. domestic trade legislation including “Section 301” actions, whereby the U.S government is authorized to take wide-ranging action against “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” foreign government practices that interfere with U.S. business interests.
Regrettably, agriculture is not the only area where free trade has delivered only marginal benefits for Canadians. Consider energy.
In the original Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, the U.S. negotiated hard for unhindered access for investment in Canada’s resources sector. This access must — they insisted — be “without Canadian government surveillance or restriction.”
The consequence of NAFTA on energy has been to essentially jettison Canadian sovereignty and frustrate the idea of national energy security.
Is it any wonder that, rather than build upgrading and refining facilities in Canada, we transport our energy products (including raw bitumen) thousands of kilometres from Alberta to the Gulf Coast? Is it surprising that even Canada’s conventional crude is uniformly pipelined to the U.S. where it is sold at a significant discount to world prices?
No, we should not be surprised. NAFTA is designed to serve the interests of the U.S. and its desire for cheap Canadian energy.
Jettisoning NAFTA would not be the end of U.S.-Canada trade. We are each other’s No. 1 trading partners. The rules would change, of course, but cross-border trade would simply revert to international standards.
It must be remembered that, before NAFTA, 80 per cent of Canadian exports to the U.S. entered tarifffree and those items that did face import duties (mostly clothing, textiles, footwear and some petrochemicals) had to pay a tariff of only five to 10 per cent.
In a perfect world, populated with reasonable people, NAFTA and other free-trade deals would be win-win arrangements that respected the rights of individual nations to govern themselves. But the world is obviously not populated with noble, thoughtful individuals.
We Canadians have known for decades that we must build alternative trading partnerships first at home (naturally) and then in international markets. Abandoning NAFTA would force us to do it.
The bottom line is, either we stand up and defend our rights or, after 150 years as a nation, we’ll simply have traded one colonial master for another.