Thanks to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Canadians are once again becoming upset about the state of our relations with the United States. This is part of a cyclical pattern. (Remember softwood lumber?)
Much as Canadians love the Democrats (as polls always show), we have reacted with surprise, and in some quarters astonishment, at the NAFTAbashing being engaged in by these two avatars of liberalism and fair play. Canada is not, of course, the direct object of their hostility. But we are subsumed under the pejorative word "NAFTA," the current codeword south of the border for loss of jobs, industrial decline and unfair trade. In less polite language, Canada and Mexico are the bad guys.
Of course, it should have been obvious to Canadians, well before the Ohio primary, that the Democratic leadership candidates, with their close ties to the unions and their opposition to free trade agreements with Central America and Korea, were not just being warmed up by protectionist fires in Lou Dobbs land, but actually fanning them.
Nevertheless, for some reason, Canadians have been looking the other way at the growth of new obstacles to our access to the U.S. market. In the name of security and counter-terrorism, new U.S. taxes, fees, regulations, inspections and documentation requirements have been piling up. Collectively, they constitute a significant threat to the free and efficient movement of goods, services and people across our common boundary. While our two-way trade tripled under NAFTA, it stopped growing several years ago.
We must take very seriously Hillary and Barack's threat to terminate NAFTA if we don't agree to renegotiate its terms. But even if they don't get the chance, or were not to follow through, we are still witnessing a serious encroachment on the benefits obtained under our historic free trade agreement. This could well become a full-fledged threat to our national interest...
snip
..."We need to explore how we can move our relationship into the 21st century, through building a genuine North American community, starting with Canada and the United States, which would create a single economic and security space for the free movement of our goods, services, investment and people. It was done in Europe. There is no good reason it cannot be done in North America.
If we are to achieve greater integration, this is a process that can be achieved only through top-down visionary leadership.
The two leaders could begin by agreeing to appoint two high-level personal envoys, reporting to them directly in a few months time with recommendations on how best to begin and chart the process. Or they could appoint a small panel of eminent Canadians and Americans to do likewise.
If we go down this path, it will be a long road. But at least the direction would be clear: uphill, not down.
Full story: Whither free trade?
Stumble It!