Article content continued

The U.S. sets up North American protectionism as a laudable goal, not a regrettable political reality

True free trade means: you eliminate barriers to trade; people and businesses on both sides of the border go at it; and the chips (and shakes, shingles, logs, plywood sheets and all other goods and services) fall where they may. Trade balances just don’t enter into it. “Reciprocal” trade doesn’t enter into it. You may hope for and work toward reciprocity in the negotiations and the policy changes — i.e., you reduce your trade barriers as we reduce ours. But “reciprocal trade” just isn’t a concern.

What does it mean, anyway? That all three member countries have to trade back and forth in each and every product? That there have to be U.S. lumber exports to match Canadian lumber exports? That there has to be a Canadian concession on regulation to match each and every U.S. concession on every one of its regulations? That both countries going to zero regulation in a sector isn’t acceptable unless, in doing so, each has reduced its regulation by the identical amount?

And how does the expressed concern about the trade balance get reflected in the deal? Will there be specific language that if one country (guess which!) is running a big deficit, it gets to put its pre-agreement trade restrictions back into place while the other partners have to stick with their concessions? Or will the renegotiation itself involve the U.S. not making as many concessions, or maybe going back on 1994 concessions, in sectors where it currently has a trade deficit?