rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

If the U.S. is talking about abandoning NAFTA, then maybe we should too

Like this article? rabble is reader-supported journalism. Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

"Just not done." That's the stance of Canadian business and opinion leaders about whether and how the United States could leave the North American free-trade agreement unilaterally. Like David Cameron before the Brexit referendum, their approach is to avoid thinking about it, hope for the best and go without a Plan B.

Whoever wins November's presidential election, Washington will likely push to renegotiate NAFTA or even scrap it. Populist pressures from ordinary Americans feeling the pain of globalization and deindustrialization demand it.

If Washington intends to renegotiate NAFTA, Canada must formulate its own demands. This could be the opportunity we've been waiting for to right the fatal flaws in the agreement.

Most Canadians don’t see NAFTA's benefits. In June, an Angus Reid poll showed that only one-quarter do. As many oppose it, while a third want it renegotiated.

If NAFTA is up for renewal, what should Canada demand?

Things have changed a lot since the mid-1980s, when Canada negotiated the Canada free-trade agreement (FTA) with the United States that formed the basis for NAFTA when Mexico joined in 1994.

In the 1980s, many believed neo-liberal promises that globalization would lift all boats. It didn't. Branko Milanovic’s book Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization shows that more boats sank than rose, at least in the rich countries.

The big winners since 1988 (the year the FTA was signed) have been the global 1 per cent. The big losers have been the lower-income and middle classes in the rich countries. That underlies the populist revolts of Brexit and the presidential candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

NAFTA's first big flaw was to give foreign corporations the right to sue Canadian governments for passing laws that hurt their profits. It's rigged against Canada.

Wealthy foreign owners have sued Canada 39 times, mainly over our environmental protection laws, and won $190-million from Canadian taxpayers. The United States has never lost a case.

Canada sought free trade in the 1980s to overcome unfair U.S. trade laws, such as those that then limited (and still limit) Canadian softwood lumber exports.

But instead of changing bad U.S. laws, the FTA and NAFTA changed the judges. Only they weren't judges -- NAFTA has secret tribunals run by exorbitantly paid corporate lawyers to decide what Canadian laws hurt U.S. corporate profits here.

Canada's first demand should be to scrap these tribunals.

Our second demand should be to get a Mexican exemption from NAFTA's energy proportionality rule. That rule requires member countries to continue to make available for export the same proportion of total energy supply that it has over the previous three years. Its aim was to ensure unlimited U.S. access to Canadian energy resources.

Mexico said no way. Canada should demand a similar exemption -- otherwise we cannot meet our Paris climate commitments.

Thirty years ago, it was believed that the world had plenty of easy oil. Few had heard of the impending climate-change disasters. Most Canadians felt they had boundless energy resources that could be tapped at will without major environmental costs.

It made sense to many to give the United States unrestricted access to our vast energy resources. In return, Canadian Big Oil would get unlimited access to the U.S. market.

President Barack Obama broke that key understanding underlying NAFTA when he stopped TransCanada’s Keystone XL oil pipeline in January, 2012, ending Canada’s unrestricted access to the U.S. energy market.

NAFTA's proportionality rule was broken. But it was never acknowledged.

Canada’s greatest source of emissions is the production of oil and gas -- especially in Alberta's oil sands -- rather than their use in transportation. We must reduce our biggest source to have any hope of meeting our 2030 Paris promises.

According to Environment Canada, the oil and gas sector was responsible for 25 per cent of Canadian emissions in 2013. With Alberta allowing oil sands emissions to rise to 100 million tonnes a year, more than 40 per cent above 2013 levels, the oil and gas sector will account for 44 per cent of Canadian emissions by 2030 if Canada hits its Paris commitments. The rest of the economy would have to cut emissions by 47 per cent. Not a likely prospect.

NAFTA is flawed and outdated. Two of its rules hurt Canada. We must be ready to negotiate hard and to walk away if necessary, using the six-month exit clause.

Gordon Laxer is author of After the Sands: Energy and Ecological Security for Canadians. He is founding director and former head of the Parkland Institute at the University of Alberta.

Reprinted from The Globe And Mail. 

Image: flickr/presidenciamx

Like this article? rabble is reader-supported journalism. Chip in to keep stories like these coming.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.