CKNW Editorial
for March 14, 2001

When the Canada/US Free Trade Agreement was being negotiated a dozen years ago or more, there were cries from the left especially, that this would be a very bad thing. These cries became louder when Mexico was admitted forming NAFTA. It’s instructive to note that in 1993, the first general election to follow these agreements, the Liberals pledged to immediately take Canada out of such agreements and one of the first things the new Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, did was to scurry down to Washington to sign us on for NAFTA. There was a reason – the Liberals found, as their own people had told them, that large trade blocs were not only the coming thing but to refrain from entering would leave Canada somewhere in limbo between a developed nation and the third world.

What Mr Mulroney also promised with free trade, and neither he nor his successor fulfilled this promise, was to take care of people who would be sideswiped by agreements that would condemn to new competition the products they produced against those produced elsewhere with cheaper labour, better equipment or both.

We are now reaching another stage in globalization, a phenomenon that all but the silly left regard as inevitable.

Now inevitable doesn’t mean that we have to like what’s happening, What it means is that its going to happen and we must prepare. This next stage is the expansion from two large trading blocs, the Nafta group and the European Community, to three to include a new Asian bloc.

Our problem is always short-sightedness. When the Euro was launched a year and a bit ago it did badly. There was much guffawing by those who wanted to see EC to take a shot of humility if nothing else. The resolve of many in Britain to stay out of the common currency was heightened. What has happened, of course, is that the Euro has very much strengthened. That was bound to happen and it was silly to take pleasure out of what had to be short term pain.

So we are shortsighted about Asia. Admittedly they went into a huge and sudden decline in 1997. It’s also true to say that many of the reasons for their monetary collapse remain. And Japan is back having trouble. For all that, an Asia bloc is certain to emerge.

What all this cries out for, of course, is an international set of business rules. When this was first proposed with MAI it tumbled down with the Battle in Seattle and has taken a couple of bashings since. Probably the main reason MAI died was that governments had made their deals in secret and there were lots of things in the first deal that, frankly, stunk. It is said that this will happen again in Quebec City this year. Be that as it may, the longer we are without rules the greater our problems become.

It’s hard for us to conceptualize just what competition we, in our small bloc – because it is smaller than the EC and will be much smaller than any Asian bloc – will face. Anyone whose memory goes back 30 years – and that’s a pretty short time really – will remember an Asia that was by and large a number of basket cases with the exception of Japan and Singapore. That they still have huge structural shortcomings in the major Asian economies is obvious but they have tasted the fruits of success and have changed accordingly. Just for one instance, they no longer chop capitalists heads off in China – far from it. They will get their house in order and it will be no less in order because it might not look exactly like our house. Think of an Asian Union including China as the only communist/capitalist state in history. Think what this bloc can produce.

Now, of course, each bloc will need to trade outside that bloc for there to be lasting prosperity. And that gets back to the need for rules on everything from subsidies to protecting intellectual property.

As we move into this new era, there will be a loss of sovereignty. That’s inevitable. But it isn’t just Canada that yields some of its independence to the greater group – so does the United States. So does everyone. The new force draws it’s energy from all who participate.

This doesn’t mean that we surrender our individuality as Canadians though that national identity is often hard to see much less describe. What it means is that we look after our identity by doing two things.

First, we do what Mulroney and Chretien forgot to do. We give a mighty helping hand to those hard hit unto redundancy by the new economic arrangements

Second, instead of fingering our worry beads over the loss of our identity we must do everything we can to make that identity flourish on the international scene – something it’s already doing though not because of Ottawa initiatives.

It really is down to this – either we make a virtue of necessity and use all our influence to have us prosper on the world stage or we slink into a corner and whine about our ever increasing bad luck.

This is a young persons’ issue and we should hear not only from those who would riot against the unavoidable elements but those who would seize the occasion as an opportunity to have both prosperity and protection through international understandings that benefit all – not just the major corporations and larger countries, but everyone.