Xref: utzoo can.politics:1813 ont.general:610
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!mks!chris
From: chris@mks.UUCP (Chris Retterath)
Newsgroups: can.politics,ont.general
Subject: Re: Effects of Free Trade on First Nations
Summary: the disadvantaged and the FTA
Keywords: Free Trade and Natives and others
Message-ID: <553@mks.UUCP>
Date: 14 Nov 88 16:07:05 GMT
References: <547@yunccn.UUCP>
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Waterloo, Ont.
Lines: 72

In article <547@yunccn.UUCP>, john@yunccn.UUCP (John Hummel) includes an
article by Murray Klippenstein. [Incidentally, he does not say whether
he has copied it with permission. Are copyright laws for "other" people,
as the Lyin' Liberals imply with their new TV ads?]

This article raises fears of the consequences of the FTA to native peoples.
However, I could only isolate the following potential problems:

1. fear that the FTA will broadly harm native organizations' interests,
by extending the "rule of the market". Fear that energy exports will harm
native land claims.

Rebuttal: so the rule of the market hurts natives? Jeesh. What should we do,
become a communist state to keep natives happy? Better dead then Ed.

With regard to energy, if natives do NOT want to sell oil/gas/coal that lies
on their land, then they do NOT have to sell it. After all, they own it. If
they claim land that has fantastic natural resources, they have to negotiate
those claims. If the land is worth more because there is a market for those
resources, then that is just the "rule of the market". If noone wants their
pelts in Europe, that too is the rule of the market.

2. fear of lessened self-government, because of concerns that natives
will have to follow federal guidelines to prevent discrimination
of non-native industry.

Rebuttal: In other words, natices MAY not be able to continue to show native
preference. Natives claim an inherent right to self-government. Our
government insists that these powers are merely assigned to local tribes,
much like a town has certain rights. This is a political issue, having
nothing to do with trade. 

3. Concern that the monopoly of hunting on reserves will be threatened,
because it is a "monopoly" that must be negotiated with the US to ensure
that no impairment of trade results.

Rebuttal: the hunting and gathering is not a trade issue. No problem.

4. vague fears about what local government powers are lost.

Rebuttal: see 2 above.

5. fear of homogenization of the North American market.

Rebuttal: this is a native concern? I suppose Murray wants us to stop all
world trade as well, to prevent "world homogenization of markets". Get real.


There always seems to be a lot of well paid social activists, lawyers, and
church-people ready to defend disadvantaged social groups. And this is
natural, as their jobs depend on misery and suffering, real or perceived.

But rather then penalize everyone, paying taxes for social programs that
don't provide dignity for anyone other then their administrators, why not
simply raise the overall standards? Provide money and time to help
industries that will be hurt by the FTA, and let the market provide the jobs
that provide new opportunities for the poor that want to escape their past.

And the FTA explicitly allows for this transitional stage, with tariffs
reduced gradually over 10 years for the most sensitive industries.
Adjustments can and will be made, over time and with money.

And if you think this is too expensive, add up the promises Turkey Turner
has made. Do you really think house prices will go DOWN after the government
starts paying 30% of your mortgage? Do you really think Turner can reduce
the deficit? Remember Liberal promises? Zap, you're frozen!

I don't say the Tories have all the answers, but when you look at the
alternatives, this time, there is no choice. When was the last time this
country reduced its deficit and created so many new jobs?

	Chris Retterath