Along for the Ride?

Northern Canadians Ponder Their Place on the Free Trade Track

"No truck or trade with the Yankees."

-SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD

"The Canada-United States Trade Agreement...is the biggest trade agreement ever concluded between two countries."

-CANADA - U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT- "OVERVIEW"

 Opinion in the North, as elsewhere, is divided: proponents tout the potential of new market opportunities for northern energy resources and the benefits of freer access for U.S. technology; opponents  decry the perceived threat to aboriginal cultures and fear the imposition of restrictions on programmes designed to nurture local economic development.

 In November 1987, prior to the release of the full text of the agreement, the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee presented its views to the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade in Yellowknife. CARC called on advocates of free trade to prove that the agreement would result in net benefits to Canada and to ensure that regional interests, including matters of particular concern to the North, would be taken into account. Excerpts from that submission appear on the following pages.

The Yukon Territorial Government's position on free trade has ranged from outright denunciation of the pact to a somewhat more equivocal view. In a February 15 speech to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, Government Leader Tony Penikett said free trade "would lead the territory back to the narrow, weak, and colonial past that the community has rejected." But an analysis of the agreement issued by the government two weeks later referred to free trade as a "mixed blessing" for the Yukon. Highlights from that document are featured on pages 4 to 6.

 Canada's northern water resources have been a hotly debated issue in the free trade discussions. As noted in the October 1987 issue of Northern Perspectives, Canada's chief trade negotiator, Simon Reisman, favoured making water transfers such as the GRAND Canal scheme a key component of any trade arrangement with the United States. Although Environment Minister Tom McMillan attempted to downplay the issue of export sales in announcing a new federal water policy last autumn, it appears that the trade agreement now awaiting congressional approval is less watertight than public statements would suggest. Indeed, as Don Gamble and Mel Clark point out, a specific exemption for water resources reflective of the minister's statement is strangely absent from the final text.

 What can be stated with certainty is that free trade will continue to dominate public policy debate in Canada for many months to come; its ultimate impact on the North, a regional economy clearly distinct within the Canadian federation, can be assessed only if and when full implementation is complete.