William Watson: We should not sign free trade’s death warrant

Skip to Content News Archives Economy Energy Oil & Gas Renewables Electric Vehicles Mining Commodities Agriculture Real Estate Mortgages Mortgage Rates Finance Banking Insurance Fintech Cryptocurrency Work Wealth Smart Money Wealth Management Investor Personal Finance Family Finance Retirement Taxes High Net Worth FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials More Innovation Information Technology FP500 Podcasts Small Business Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Financial Post Store Obituaries Place a Notice Advertising Advertising With Us Advertising Solutions Postmedia Ad Manager Sponsorship Requests Classifieds Place a Classifieds ad Working Profile Settings My Subscriptions My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ News Economy Energy Mining Real Estate Finance Work Wealth Investor FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.HomeFP CommentWilliam Watson: We should not sign free trade’s death warrantIt's not clear Americans favour Donald Trump's aggressive protectionism. We should hold out and wait for a new Congress to reassert itselfLast updated 40 minutes ago Jamieson Greer said Canada was offered the best deal of any country. Canadian negotiators said it was a bad deal. Both things can be true. A bad trade deal is the best deal any country will get from this administration. Photo by Alex Wong/Getty ImagesThe fallout from the failure of trade talks with the United States has made a number of things clear, most important among them our strategic choice.THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLYSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESCreate an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountTo clear out non-strategic things first: it turns out “streaming discoverability” for French-language movies and TV shows — a made-up name for what a grocery store would call “prime zone” placement space — is not a red line for the Americans. It shouldn’t be for us, either, though it seems it was. I suspect most francophone Canadians are capable of navigating a search function. It’s not that hard if you know your alphabet and have an idea what you’re looking for. If people want to see French-language movies and TV shows, are profit-seeking content-providers really going to make it hard for them?In his interview with CBC’s Rosemary Barton, U.S. Trade Rep. Jamieson Greer suggested capitalism would match up would-be consumers with what they want to consume. With our more limited experience of capitalism we Canadians may not fully understand that. As it is, when listening to podcasts or watching streamed TV in Quebec, I regularly see or hear French-language ads. Unlike government providers, private ones work to earn our money. They don’t just grab it at budget time.Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again(BTW: Was there ever a clearer representation of the corruption of Canada’s cultural-industrial complex than the ad 42 organizations took out in that other national newspaper singing a full-throated “Thank You” to Ottawa for not agreeing to U.S. demands that Canadian consumers be allowed to make their own cultural choices without dictation by government — though of course they phrased that somewhat differently.)As for U.S. interference in our freedom to make trade deals with other countries: when the Biden administration slapped Trump-style 100 per cent tariffs on Chinese EVs, we snapped to it, too. If the U.S. put similar tariffs on foreign steel, would we have to snap to that, too? In theory, no. That’s what trade agreement “rules-of-origin” are for. Foreign steel that got into Canada because of our lower-than-U.S. tariffs couldn’t be shipped on to the U.S. Only North American-content goods get free entry. But since we raised “Fortress North America” early in the talks — a sign of weakness on our part — the U.S. can be forgiven for thinking we might happily align our high tariffs with theirs. That’s how a customs union works — and why we shouldn’t get into one with the Americans. It’s bad enough that President Donald Trump is in charge of U.S. tariffs. We don’t want him setting ours, too.In his interview with Rosemary Barton, Jamieson Greer said Canada was offered the best deal of any country. For their part, Canadian negotiators said it was a bad deal (after first agreeing with it in principle). But both things can be true. A bad trade deal is the best trade deal any country will get from this administration.There will be tariffs, Greer was saying, so get used to it. The Trump administration is determined to reverse almost 90 years of U.S. trade liberalization and — also a sign of weakness — put permanent tariff protection around the U.S. economy. But it is doing so through the back door, without the consent of Congress, using executive orders based on dodgy legal pretexts. Thus we’ve been tariffed because we supposedly don’t police the fentanyl trade, do traffic in slave-made goods and “discriminate” against the U.S. when we answer their tariffs with tariffs of our own. None of that stands up to scrutiny.The law is that we have a free trade deal with the U.S. Its successive iterations have had strong support in Congress for 40 years. The original Canada-U.S. FTA passed by 366-40 in the House of Representatives and 83-9 in the Senate. The votes on NAFTA in 1993 were closer but still comfortable: 234-200 in the House and 61-38 in the Senate. In 2020, Donald Trump’s re-do of NAFTA, which we call CUSMA, also passed with strong bipartisan majorities: 385-41 in the House and 89-10 in the Senate.This advertisement has not loaded yet.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.The New York Times’ editorial board, which is not always wrong, argues Trump’s tariffs are illegal, his justifications for them “ludicrous.” The Wall Street Journal, no woke hotbed, largely agrees, saying the conflict with Canada is the “dumbest trade war in history.”Past changes in U.S. trade policy, though often initiated by presidents, have always been ratified by Congress, which is constitutionally responsible for trade policy. This time round, in a collective profile in cowardice, Republicans in Congress have been silent, mainly for fear the president will “primary” dissenters out of a job. But there will soon be a new Congress, which may not be Republican, and in two years a new president, who may not be MAGA.So our strategic choice is: do we in effect ratify Donald Trump’s one-man change in U.S. trade policy by agreeing to the ad hoc replacement of CUSMA with permanent double-digit tariffs on important industries? Or do we hold out and insist that the U.S. fulfill the legal commitment it signed onto in 2020 and maintain essentially tariff-free trade between our two countries — in hopes the courts will throw out Trump’s tariffs and less hot-headed deciders will take over, sooner rather than later.It would be better not to have to make such a choice. The fact President Trump’s garish signature doesn’t seem to be worth much makes it easier.Notice for the Postmedia NetworkThis website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.