Excerpts from Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade

Yellowknife

 25 November 1987

Mr Ken Blower (President, Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines): ...From our standpoint the mechanism they are proposing is infinitely better than a continuation of the present process, where politicians and protectionists of U.S. industry act independently and Canada is left to plead hardship in an attempt to mitigate some of the economic results on this side of the border. If we continue with the existing process, we can see Canada losing jobs, losing revenue, and ultimately suffering a loss of our present standard of living....

From our industry's N.W.T. perspective, successful implementation of a trade agreement with the U.S. would also provide a model for extension of free trade to other major trading partners. That same table highlights the fact that Canada exported approximately $8 billion worth of mineral products to markets other than the U.S., with Japan and the European Economic Community representing the larger portion of those. Those are markets Canada could benefit from increased trade with.

Mr Bill Erasmus (President, Dene Nation): ...First and foremost, we find it very frightening as Canadians, and even more so as an aboriginal people, that the federal government is willing to trade away the ability to maintain our distinct cultural society. Worse yet, we do not know what is really being traded. Access to the American trade market means absolutely nothing to the Dene Nation. We have two major concerns. First, how will this agreement affect land claims? Second, how will it affect social programs?

 Can we expect that the federal government will continue to protect hunters and trappers in the Northwest Territories from foreign investment as the territorial government now does? If we successfully negotiate resource revenue sharing in our claims, can we expect that this will be construed as unfair trade subsidies and therefore subject to countervailing taxes? Will these resources be subject to the trade agreement prior to settlement of land claims? If so, will there be alienation of lands for resource development, these lands which are now frozen pending land selection on the land claims?

 Mr Steven Richards (Volunteer, Consumers' Association of Canada, Northwest Territories Branch): ...Although the benefit side of the ledger is obviously somewhat speculative, there is at least broad agreement that there will be benefits. The argument is about how much. The cost side is even more uncertain. For example, estimates of the job impact of free trade range from tens of thousands to one million workers. The areas most often identified as involving costs are loss of political sovereignty, erosion of cultural sovereignty and job impacts.

 Although these issues do not raise what might be thought to be strictly consumer questions, consumers are also Canadians. We are Canadians first and consumers and workers second, and such impacts are worrying. Therefore, from a consumer viewpoint it is important that solutions be adopted to minimize the adjustment cost to workers affected by liberalized trade. Programs must be adopted and targeted to those groups such as women and youth who may be most affected by adjustment costs. An appropriate phase-in period will be needed to minimize these costs.

 Source: Canada, Parliament, House of Commons, Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, 33rd Parliament, 2nd Session, No. 47, 25 November 1987 (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1987).