if, I WHITBY FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1987, PAGE 7 PAGE SEVEN FREE TRADE - A POLITICAL DEAL On October 4th, Canada and the United States reached a tentative agreement to proceed to a formal 'free trade" deal. The debate has raged fast and furious ever since, yet only now, two months later will we finally see a legal text. This deal has been badly flawed ever since Canada walked away from the negotiations just a week before the October 4th deadline. Until then the talks were being handled by experts, well versed in the nuances of our bilateral trade. They knew their respective bottom lines and after eighteen months were still miles apart on several vital issues. A deal was not possible - that's where it should have ended! Enter the politicians. Both the Mulroney and Reagan governments have staked a lot on free trade. Hang the bottom line - a deal was politically necessary. The subsequent problems of trying to agree on what they agreed to leaves little doubt that neither side gave nearly as much attention to the economic nuances as they did to the potential political fallout. The deal on October 4th was so different in detail from what the Mulroney government had set out to achieve that all the economic analyses that preceded it were suddenly obsolete. Yet the supporters of free trade have moved into gear as if nothing was different - one free trade deal is just as good as the next. If that were true why did we spend 18 months negotiating. The initial flurry of pro free trade propaganda smothered a lot of doubts. Politicians and business' leaders who chose to conduct an intelligent constructive debate based on an actual text have been drowned out by partisans. But as that wait became a month, then six weeks, then two months, more and more business leaders have expressed a growing concern for a process that has obviously gone wrong. I support the concept of free trade - I believe that Canada can and should compete freely in an open market whether it be the world or N. America, but protectionism still reigns supreme in the States and the current deal has not changed that. It gives us access to some markets but not others - it is a selective trade deal not a free one. And in spite of the fact that everybody from Mulroney down said there had to be a binding dispute settlement mechanism, that element was so watered down as to be non-existent. When politicians and economists first began to talk about free trade a few years ago it was presented as a win-win situation, but by the time negotiations began two years ago the main argument had shifted toe cutting our losses against strong protectionist sentiments south of the border. Now win-win is hardly mentioned anymore - does that mean we lost? Now Mulroney talks of Ontario's obligation to make some sacrifices so that other provinces can share its prnsperity - a clear admission that Ontario will lose. Is a deal which sacrifices one part of the country for another worthwhile? There are businesses that will benefit tremendously from this deal and there are others that will die. As for exact numbers, nobody knows - it all depends on who you talk to and who they're working for. The voice of reason is drowned out by the partisan clamor. Certainly any deal that will affect millions of jobs cannot afford to be rushed. This deal was political and it is inherent in the political process that short-term expedience (winning the next election) always over-rides long term social or economic interests. (Virtually every democratic country in the world is in a debt crisis because it is politically so much easier to spend money than collect it.) The Mulroney government staked its political future on free trade and to back away from that now would smash any remaining hope of winning the next election. Unless they can find a scapegoat. They could always blame David Peterson, the Premier of Big Bad Ontario who has said he will not implement those parts of the deal that are in Ontario's jurisdiction. They could also hope that the American Congress will scuttle it and then blame them. The federal Liberal party would be a suitable scapegoat - particularly the Liberal-controlled Senate which will almost certainly hold the legislation up for months. They could blame it on the big Canadian labor unions (particularly CAW and Bob White) and other nationalists who could make its implementation rather messy. They could blame it on the market collapse and say it should wait for a better economic climate. The* American economy is in such disarray right now that I really wonder why anyone would want to tie themselves even closer to it. In the end, the Conservative government may (but I doubt it) choose to put the matter to a national referandum and then blame it (whichever way it goes) on the Canadian people. Canadians deserve a better deal - something closer to what was originally sought. If that cannot be achieved right now then we have to back away and show the Americans that there really is a bottom line, Once they know that, we may be able te get down te some realistic negotiations. It may take several years and it may have te be done in stages but that would be better (certainly less disruptive) than implementing a deal that ne one has had the time to properly analyse. The United States faces a major trade crisis with just about every country of the world except Canada. It is only now beginning to face the fact that the world has changed - its status as the driver of the world's economy is challenged by both Europe and the Far East. Canada will achieve a much botter trade deal when the U.S. government bas accepted the new economic order. 4, k~$ J'i RESIDENCE OF SAMUEL TREES, 1907 This massive brick mansion was built on Dundas Street West between King and Henry Streets in 1877 for George Young Smith, a Whitby lawyer and later Judge of the Surrogate Court. In the early 1900s it was purchased by Toronto industrialist Samuel Trees who operated a blanket factory where the Henry Buildall store is today. In 1929, Mr. Trees added the buckle factory on Brock Street South to his holdings. In 1958, Mr. Trees sold his home to the Town of Whitby and it was demolished to make way for a new town hall. The building became Whitby's public library in 1973. The Trees estate was known for its beautiful gardens. Whithv Archives Photo 10 YEARS AGO from the Wednesday, December 7, 1977 edition of the WHITBY FREE PRESS • Tom Edwards was guest speaker at the 50th anniversary of Royal Canadian Legion Branch 112. ' The Safeway Centre on Brock Street South officially opened on Dec. 3. • Accidents at the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital cost $13,000 a month. An increase in accidents has been reported. 25 YEARS AGO from the Thursday, December 6, 1962 edition of the WHITBY WEEKLY NEWS • Whitby Progressive Conservative Association is planning to honor cabinet ministers Michael Starr and Dr. Matthew B. Dyrmond at a banquet on Dec. 8. • The Ontario Registrar General has granted Letters Patent to incorporate the Whitby General Hospital. • The Whitby Lions Club has offered to develop D'Hillier Park which is presently being used as a landfill site. • Fred Twist, a member of the Whitby Planning Board since it was formed in 1946. has resigned. 100 YEARS AGO from the Friday, December 9, 1887 edition of the WHITBY CHRONICLE * Lucius 0'Brien, president of the Canadian Society of Artists, held an art exhibition and lecture at the Ontario Ladies' College on Dec. 5. • About 200 music lovers attended an organ recital by Ontario Ladies' College Director of Music, J. W. F. Harrison at the Methodist Tabernacle on Dec. 7. • Whitby Township council has paid H. Meen $10 to act as caretaker of the township gravel pit for three years.