Article content
The 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.
Sign In or Create an Account
or View more offersArticle content
To 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?
Article contentWe apologize, but this video has failed to load.Try refreshing your browser, or
tap here to see other videos from our team.Article content
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
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.
Article contentArticle content
(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.)
Article content
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.
Article content
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
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.
Article contentRead More
- William Watson: Let’s see the last draft. Inquiring voters want to know
- William Watson: Fact-checking the Canada-U.S. word grenades
- Story continues belowThis advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
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.
Article content
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.