A DECADE OF FREE TRADE

Standing Firm On Free Trade Interview with the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney

Brian Mulroney will likely go down in Cana- dian history as the Prime Minister who introduced the most controversial changes in economic policy in the last half century, especially the Canada-US Free Trade Agree- ment. Many Canadians voted against free trade in the 1988 federal election, and some continue to argue against it. But with the benefits of the actual deal now showing themselves, the historical epitaphs will sure- ly recognise the value of Mulroney’s political courage and economic foresight. He was interviewed in his Montreal office at Ogilvy Renault in July by Christopher Ragan, Edi- tor of World Economic Affairs.

agreement with the United States. I was June 1983. I was seeking the leadership. The Free-Trade Vision in favour of free trade, but not, as I refer I said that one of the principle objectives WEA: We have just celebrated the to it, unfettered free trade. I was con- of my administration would be to 10-year anniversary of the Canada-US cerned that we could not get a free-trade expand dramatically the management of Free Trade Agreement. Free trade agreement with an independent dis- trade and trading opportunities with the now seems to be something that most pute-settlement mechanism that would United States and to refurbish the rela- Canadians accept. But it was obvi- allow us to even the scales. As it turned tionship of trust between Canada and ously very controversial. Judging by out in the event, we did. It changed a lot the United States. some of your comments before you of things for me. WEA: What role did the report of became Prime Minister, even you Apart from that, there was the scepti- the MacDonald Royal Commission seemed a little sceptical of the idea. cism engendered by the growing inten- play in your thinking? Were you really that sceptical of free sity of the protectionist lobby in Wash- Mulroney: A very significant role. At trade in the early 1980s? And if so, ington at the time, and my reluctance to that time, there had not been any recent why? engage in that at that time, pretty well in economic literature on this entire ques- Mulroney: The comments to which the middle of a recession. tion. Proponents and detractors were you refer came during the course of the That was some of the thinking that relying on outdated information. The 1983 leadership convention. Mr Crosbie surrounded my comments at that time. MacDonald Commission, which was an had come out during that convention in You can check with my speech to the excellent piece of work in all areas, hit favour of a comprehensive free-trade Conservative convention on the 11th of this one clearly on the head with up-to-

WORLD ECONOMIC AFFAIRS ● AUTUMN 1999 19 A DECADE OF FREE TRADE

date approaches and data and very per- the smaller party by far, wanted and by the way, a few years later when they suasive arguments. My recollection is needed this agreement much more than were adopted for the World Trade that in March of 1985 I met President did the United States. Perhaps they felt Organisation. But by and large I am Reagan in Quebec City and put to him a that in the crunch, if Canada made quite satisfied. I’m very pleased with the proposal that we should initiate enough substantive gains we would result. exploratory talks on a comprehensive remove that particular demand. free-trade agreement and he agreed with We had a small group of ministers in Selling the FTA Politically that. Some time later—in the early fall of the Privy Council Office on the last night WEA: Let me move on to selling the 1985—the report of the MacDonald of the negotiations going on in Wash- deal politically. Trade has always been Royal Commission came out. The argu- ington. Toward the end of that evening, important for Canada and it has ments in the report were very helpful in I took a call from Jim Baker who was in always been a source of debate. The focusing the national attention and the charge of the American team at that 1988 election, of course, was fought national debate on these things. time. (By the way, it was a very good almost entirely on that issue. Was sell- thing because had Baker not been there ing the idea of free trade difficult Negotiating the Deal we would not have had a deal—he was within your own cabinet and caucus? WEA: By many accounts of the dif- absolutely instrumental in bringing the Mulroney: There is a new book out by ficult negotiation process, the FTA American side to a position where they Daniel Savoie that talks about the grow- almost didn’t happen. The negotia- would deal.) Baker said to me that he ing concentration of power in the office tions over the dispute-settlement had met with various Senators and Con- of the Prime Minister. I think there is mechanism were apparently very gressmen and, for the reasons I just gave some truth in that. I think this has been heated. Why was the dispute-settle- you, he felt there was little or no chance an inexorable and highly controversial ment mechanism so contentious? that an independent dispute-settlement development over the years. Savoie Mulroney: The argument in the US mechanism worth its salt could be makes the point that if and when the Congress was that the establishment of included in the final deal. I told him: “I Prime Minister decides that he is going an independent dispute-settlement want you to advise the White House that to do something, he would be a very mechanism was the equivalent of a sur- I am going to be placing a call to Presi- weak Prime Minister if he could not render of sovereignty. Under the Ameri- dent Reagan. I am going to tell him that carry his own party and his caucus and can Constitution the Congress is sover- I have just been advised that the Ameri- his cabinet. And so while there was eign in matters of international trade. can side has been able to do a nuclear opposition in some areas within my cab- The view then was that trade disputes arms reduction treaty with its worst inet and my caucus, I could see that we were essentially resolved through brute enemy and cannot do a free-trade agree- were going to carry the day in terms of strength and power. So any formal dis- ment with its best friend.” So Baker said: getting it through the party, getting it pute-settlement mechanism was viewed “Well, why don’t you give us a little time through the government. as a dilution of American sovereignty, on that.” He called me back within the But there were some tough spots. I particularly on the Congressional side. hour. We had the dispute-settlement remember when there was a break-down My argument with the Americans was mechanism that night, as we wanted it. in the negotiations and I indicated that that when you join an international If I had needed to speak to President Simon Reisman should interrupt the organisation—NATO, the United Na- Reagan—he was very committed to free negotiations and come home. That was tions, or whatever—you surrender a trade, particularly free trade with Cana- widely construed in the country as sig- small bit of your sovereignty in the inter- da—he would have been very tough on nalling the end of negotiations. Paren- ests of greater international harmony the American side in demanding expla- thetically, the Americans made it very and social and economic intercourse. nations of this obstructionism. And as clear while they were here at the McGill That is just a fact of life. But it is not a the last decade has established, the exis- conference that for them that was a turn- surrender in the abject sense. It is a con- tence of the dispute-settlement mecha- ing point as well. They realised how seri- ciliation in the positive sense. And in any nism has not in any way diminished ous we were and they knew that they case, I indicated to them that there were American sovereignty; it has civilised the would have to answer to Ronald Reagan no circumstances—none—under which trading relationship in an enormous way about how this thing had fallen apart, I would agree to a free-trade agreement but it has not vitiated American sover- and so that brought Baker deeply into that did not contain an independent dis- eignty. the negotiations—which was beneficial pute-settlement mechanism. WEA: In retrospect, what would for all concerned at the end of the day. WEA: Did they seem to think that you identify as the significant items I remember a cabinet meeting that took Canada would go to the trouble of that could have been improved? place immediately following my decision negotiating an agreement without Mulroney: I had hoped that we could to bring Reisman home, and the deci- one? If there is no dispute-settlement have done more about anti-dumping and sion was greeted with some relief by a mechanism, what would be the point? the American law itself as it would be number of members of the cabinet, Mulroney: Well, you never can tell. It applied to disputes. I would like to have whose names will be unmentioned, but could be that, in the minds of some seen the independent dispute-settlement who said, “Well, you tried hard Prime important strategists there, Canada, as provisions tightened up—as they were, Minister, you gave it your best.”

WORLD ECONOMIC AFFAIRS ● AUTUMN 1999 20 A DECADE OF FREE TRADE

WEA: Crocodile tears, I’m sure. States had swung the political and Mulroney: Well, I think the biggest Mulroney: That’s right. Some of them economic pendulum toward the right. change is the attitude. Canadian busi- were not looking forward to fighting an Could you speculate on how this free- ness people are much more outward election on the issue of free trade and were trade battle would have been, say, ten looking and global in their thinking. quite relieved that, at that moment, it years earlier? They realise that success at home is appeared that free trade had evaporated. Mulroney: Let me answer by means going to come from the capacity to fight WEA: What did you sense in the of an example. When we began in 1984 and win abroad. The day I signed the mood of the people, the mood of the talking about deficit reduction and pri- Free Trade Agreement, something like country, that told you vatisation, this was 24% of our GDP came from trade. It the people were finally anathema to most Cana- is now somewhere in the neighbourhood ready to say yes to free You can’t be dians. We could get very of 43%. That change is in just one trade when it came to negative all your little support for all of decade. I constantly meet small-business the ballot box? that. Remember the Lib- people—from Montreal, Peterborough, Mulroney: This was life, whether you’re erals’ great argument Winnipeg, or what have you—on planes really about leadership in in opposition or about the debt, as articu- all over the world. They’ll come to me on the sense that you have to lated by Warren Allmand, the plane and I’ll say “What are you stand for something. You the government. was that there is nothing doing here?” They respond “Well, I’ve got can’t be negative all your You have to stand to worry about because a joint venture going with a company in life, whether you’re in this is only money we Indonesia, or a company in China selling opposition or the govern- for something. owe each other. Today, agricultural products, or high-tech prod- ment. If it’s free trade, or deficits are being elimi- ucts.” This was not the case ten years the GST, or Meech Lake, or the privatisa- nated everywhere by both socialist and ago. So I think the most fundamental tions, or a low-inflation policy, or the Gulf conservative governments, both in Cana- change has been attitude. The evidence War, whatever it is—you have to stand for da and elsewhere. This was heresy when of the success of that attitudinal change something. And it doesn’t matter if it is we brought it in and started to fight for is in the numbers. controversial or unpopular. In fact, the it in 1984. And so when people say the WEA: Let me ask you about the more unpopular it is, the more likely it is Conservatives did not do enough on the investment chapter of NAFTA to turn out historically accurate. Canadi- deficit-reduction side, what they fail to because it has drawn a lot of criti- ans are notoriously resistant to change. remember is the context. We were fight- cism. Some of these criticisms car- We had been told for decades that our ing deficits when some of the provincial ried over to opposition to the Multi- standard of living is guaranteed, that gov- premiers were, metaphorically, in short lateral Agreement on Investment. We ernments could do pretty well anything pants. It was a hell of a lot have situations where and that we really wouldn’t suffer. I sup- tougher 15 years ago then companies on both pose it’s something about the air we it is today. We had the There was a sides of the border are breathe, the location of the Great White Liberals—Paul Martin general view that launching suits against North, or whatever. There was a general and Jean Chrétien—fight- the opposing govern- view in some quarters that we were some- ing us every step of the we were somehow ment for “expropriat- how immune to the realities of interna- way on free trade, on the immune to the ing” their assets. It tional finance and international trade— GST, on deficit reduction. appears that Canada which, of course, is daft. And so I got the Now they have swung realities of and perhaps even the impression that the free-trade discussions around and come to this international United States cannot and debate merged into a debate on lead- view, which makes it pursue even a reason- ership. If you stand for free trade—alright, much more acceptable, finance and able non-discriminato- we know where you are. If you don’t stand much easier. I think the international ry environmental poli- for free trade then what is your alterna- same can be said of Mar- cy without running up tive? And the opponents’ alternative was garet Thatcher and trade—which, of against these suits. Do the status quo. And the status quo, as Ronald Reagan’s role. Did course, is daft. you see this as a prob- everybody knows, was getting to be unac- their policies and the lem, and, if so, what’s ceptable and untenable. The campaign, of thrust of their economies the response? course, was crucial (as they always are) in make it easier for me to introduce these Mulroney: I think the kind of misun- terms of polarising the issue. Strategical- policies? The answer is yes. derstanding we are seeing indicates that ly, we had the free-trade argument and the there’s going to have to be some clarifi- opposing groups were split between the Criticisms of the Deal cation of those chapters. There’s nothing Liberals and the NDP, and so they had WEA: What do you see as the best wrong with litigation. We are talking more difficulty on their side. measure of success of the FTA and the about two-way trade in goods and ser- WEA: This all happened at a time NAFTA, aside from the fact that no vices and investment and dividends that when Margaret Thatcher in Britain government currently wants to elimi- this year will probably be in the neigh- and Ronald Reagan in the United nate them? bourhood of $600 billion. It is not sur-

WORLD ECONOMIC AFFAIRS ● AUTUMN 1999 22 A DECADE OF FREE TRADE

prising that in something this vast and ployment insurance were very, very gen- by an explosion of social spending in complex that significant litigation will erous and certainly very comparable to other areas—unemployment insurance, ensue. What is surprising to me is how any of the competing countries, certain- welfare payments, equalisation pay- little litigation there is, how few cases ly the United States. Jean de Grandpré ments. The federal government’s deficit there are compared to the fell to 4.2% of GDP in 1988 volume of trade. But I think but exploded again to 5.9% there is now less substantive during the recession. It was and more vexatious litigation still a third less when I left being engendered by what office than when I came in, appears to be a lack of clari- but still that recession was ty in some of the language. very tough to take for every- And I think the two sides body. would be well advised to get This is a good question. I together. There were proba- think for all kinds of reasons bly deficiencies on our part— that we should have revisited language that we put in that this issue and added pro- in some cases failed to artic- grammes specifically to deal ulate our objectives clearly, with the dislocation. and it should be cleaned up and corrected. But I don’t see Looking Ahead anything lethal in any of it. WEA: Let me turn to In terms of the trade expanding the circle of free issues, the environment, trade. Do you see much energy, resources and so on, promise for greater free the lethal legislation was trade among the Americas? essentially unilateral—it was Mulroney: Absolutely. I see in Canada. The National that after the American elec- Energy Programme, the tion the next President of the PGRT, FIRA—all of those United States is going to goofy things that I had to secure fast-track negotiation George Bush and Brian Mulroney at McGill’s “Free Trade at 10” Conference. scrap that really ran counter capacity and we are going to to the best interests of Canada and ran had been commissioned to consider the see eventually a free-trade zone in the counter to the concept of a modern inter- situation and prepare a report. He Americas. A free-trade association of the nationally liberalised trading system. brought in recommendations for further Americas that will involve 34 countries, This was the Luddites at work. The Lib- action by the federal government, not all 800 million people and annual collective erals in the 1970s and 1980s were a work of which we accepted, if only for psycho- GDP at that time of probably 14 or 15 tril- of art! To think that they’re free traders logical reasons. It might lion dollars, which will today inspires great confidence in the have been wise to do make it the richest and notion of political conversion. more than we did because Canadian business the largest free-trade zone WEA: I’d like to ask you about the Free Trade Agreement people are now in history. It will stretch social policy. Some critics point to the was implemented along from Point Barrow in fact that while free trade may have with the GST in a deepen- much more Alaska to Nunavut to been beneficial overall there were ing recession. Roy outward looking Easter Island and it is many workers displaced for consid- MacLaren, speaking for going to be extraordinary. erable lengths of time. That displace- the Liberal opposition, and global in their So, yes, I see tremendous ment was surely predicted by any the- said “We will blame every thinking.They possibilities for the future. ory of trade liberalisation. Why did sparrow that falls on the WEA: Why are you so the government choose not to put in Free Trade Agreement”, realise that success confident that the Pres- some special temporary FTA adjust- thereby focusing discon- at home is going ident will get the fast- ment programmes to deal with this tent on the FTA when in track authority? displacement? point of fact it wasn’t to come from the Mulroney: This is all Mulroney: Yes, we did choose not to responsible. capacity to fight about leadership. When implement such programmes, and we So to counter that spe- your country’s interest is became persuaded that this probably cious argument we should and win abroad. at stake—if you are going was a mistake. At the time, we were per- have, I think, done more to be the leader of the suaded that, compared with any of the than we did. The reason we didn’t is that country—you have to say to yourself other industrialised countries, our poli- we didn’t have the funds needed because “I am going to take decisions, not for cies for social adjustment and unem- they were being dried up by the recession, flattering headlines in ten days but for a

WORLD ECONOMIC AFFAIRS ● AUTUMN 1999 24 A DECADE OF FREE TRADE

better country in 10 years.” This is what of Commons and on the campaign trail. I say that without pretence or vanity it is all about. The fact that it is unpopu- Life is full of ironies. There is nothing because it probably could have gone the lar and some interest groups don’t like it wrong with that. We need those too. I other way. So I am just satisfied and happy probably means that it is right. mentioned earlier about Roy MacLaren that those policies which were so difficult WEA: Does George W Bush have telling the House of Commons that they and so controversial turned out to be the that vision of trade? would blame every sparrow that falls on right ones for Canada. Mulroney: Well, here is the problem. free trade. That’s okay—it’s a political WEA: Are you dismayed by the Al Gore, who successfully position. But then to find apparent inability of the PC Party and defended NAFTA, and out that Roy MacLaren the Reform Party to either join or to with whom I worked very With two-way was running for the posi- carve out their distinct niches? More closely and very amicably trade in goods tion of Director General generally, what do you see as the for years when he was in of the World Trade Organ- prospects for the political right in this the Senate and then as and services isation—surely, even for a country? Vice-President, is com- and investment Liberal, that’s pretty good Mulroney: Only people with no sense mitted to free trade. The going! So once one gets of history, no knowledge of Canada, problem is that the left and dividends over the sense of ridicule would think that the Progressive Con- wing of the Democratic of $600 billion, that exists in political life servative Party—the party that founded Party is very opposed to from time to time, there is this country—was going to disappear. free trade, and so that’s a what is surprising a great deal of humour Of course it is not going to disappear. It serious problem for him. is how little in it. will one day soon be the government of George W Bush doesn’t The important thing for Canada. There is no doubt about that. have that problem. The litigation there is. me, the important thing The idea that the Conservative Party larger point, however, is for all of us really, is the would wind up in the bosom of the that when you become President or following: All we wanted to do for those Reform Party led by Preston Manning is Prime Minister you have to take a larger controversial days and years was to take really something that no thoughtful per- view of your responsibilities. Many peo- decisions that were in the best interest of son, certainly associated with the Con- ple say the NAFTA vote in 1993 is one of our country, and to do that you take a lot servative Party, could ever accept. I Bill Clinton’s most significant foreign pol- of political pain. What would have been mentioned to you the opposition in icy achievements. And if not the most sig- very unsettling would have been to find 1988 that we had on the FTA. And I nificant, the most durable. Well, the out, after we left office, that indeed there expected the opposition to the FTA to Democratic Party largely opposed him, was a much better way of doing it. Sup- come from the Liberals and the NDP as and yet he rose above that opposition in pose the Liberals had been able to come in well as interest groups such as the CLC the greater national interest. That is why to office, as they said they would, and and what I affectionately refer to as the I am confident it’s going to take place. scrap the Free Trade Agreement, cancel NACs, WACs, PACs, HACs, and FLACs, WEA: As long as we’ve turned to pol- NAFTA, revoke the GST, undo the privati- and indeed it did. They were all out there itics, let’s turn to Canadian politics. In sations, and get rid of our anti-inflation opposing the Free Trade Agreement. your two terms as Prime Minister you, policy. Had they been able to do that and Imagine my surprise when I arrived in among other things, introduced free produce the kind of grow- Alberta to campaign for trade, significantly reformed the ing economy we have the FTA—having disman- income-tax system, introduced the today, I would have felt The Liberals in the tled the National Energy GST, introduced the wave of privatisa- doubly foolish and sad 1970s and 1980s Programme, abolished tions, oversaw the decline of inflation, because, first, we would the PGRT, scrapped and began serious work on reducing have clearly been respon- were a work of FIRA, moved the head- the deficit. The next government, the sible for ill-conceived and art! To think that quarters of the National Liberal government, eliminated the wrong-headed policies Energy Board from budget deficit, reformed the method of and, second, which is no they’re free traders Ottawa to Calgary and transferring money to the provinces, less important, we would today inspires having in my cabinet Joe established formal inflation targets, have endured needless Clark as Secretary of and began the reform of the Canada political fall-out to ensure great confidence State for External Affairs, Pension Plan. One could be forgiven for their passage. So from a in the notion of Don Mazankowski as thinking that the recent Liberal gov- personal point of view it is Deputy Prime Minister ernment appears to be almost as con- satisfying to find that the political conversion. and Minister of Finance servative as the previous Conservative policies that we believed to and Harvie Andre as gov- government. What is your response? be in the national interest are now so con- ernment leader in the House of Com- Mulroney: Well, imitation is the sin- strued by our political opponents to a mons—and my opponents on the left are cerest form of flattery. And I view it all point where—I think it is probably fair to all there but I’ve also got another oppo- with interest, because I remember the say—they’ve reversed themselves com- nent. Preston Manning is running positions that were adopted in the House pletely and have adopted our agenda. And against the Conservatives at a moment

WORLD ECONOMIC AFFAIRS ● AUTUMN 1999 25 A DECADE OF FREE TRADE

when the centre and the right needed all that strength then transfers into their re- federal government has put out some the help they could get. He was running election as a national party, which is numbers, and I am not being critical of against Joe Clark in his own constituen- what is going to happen to Mr Clark. His them, but they have put out some num- cy. He wasn’t there to help us bring in party will be elected nationally. There are bers that appear to be in conflict with free trade. He was not there to help us or lessons in Canadian history. Look at the other numbers we are seeing. And I am to acknowledge that we may have done Conservatives in 1935. The Conserva- hoping that this productivity matter will something right in getting rid of the tives left office in 1935 and were in oppo- be resolved because one of the things we National Energy Programme which had sition for 22 years. In all those times hoped for in the Free Trade Agreement devastated the economy in Alberta. None there were movements of various was rising productivity. We seem to be of these. He was running to split the kinds—the NDP, the Progressives, Social seeing it in the manufacturing sector. So Conservative vote. He is the architect of Credit and so on. Then the voters turn, it could be that our productivity is in the disunity, to the extent that he’s suc- 22 years later, to a national party and decline only relative to the United States ceeded thus far, of the so-called political elect John Diefenbaker. And they will where productivity gains are tremen- right in Canada. So I feel that Joe Clark elect Joe Clark. dous because of the new investment in is doing an excellent job. He will WEA: Let me take you back to eco- capital, machinery, and people. emerge—he is already winning the pop- nomics for the last question. What do WEA: There is another perplexing ular vote—significantly ahead of the you see as Canada’s number one eco- problem. A great deal of effort has Reform Party. He offers the only alter- nomic challenge in the years ahead? obviously gone into getting our native vision to the Liberals on a nation- Mulroney: Productivity and declining macroeconomic environment right. al basis, which is why Manning is now per capita income. I am concerned And by anybody’s standard, the envi- seeking a fusion between the parties. about the conflict in numbers regarding ronment is a lot better than it was 15 WEA: So if you were to make a pre- productivity. There are some competi- years ago. Perhaps it just takes a long diction about the future five or ten tiveness numbers that were released the time for those conditions to influence years ahead, you would predict a res- other day that indicate that we are doing productivity? urrection of the Conservatives and a quite well. Then there are the UN num- Mulroney: It could be but I find it side-lining of the Reformers? bers that began under my government, worrisome. I think this is something that Mulroney: I’ll tell you right now that when we were elected the number one we should really look at objectively. Strip the next time there is a change in gov- country in the world. But those per capi- the partisanship away from this one. ernment it will be a Progressive Conser- ta income numbers appear to be eroding Productivity is, in my judgement, the vative government. There is no doubt substantially. I find that very worrisome true measure of durable wealth. If you about that. Who else is it going to be? because per capita income at the end of are not increasing your productivity, you The Bloc Québécois? Is it going to be the the day is your national strength. It is the are on a treadmill to oblivion and we NDP? Is it going to be the Reform Party? capacity of a strong economy that gives absolutely must, as a country, focus on Can you explain to me how the Reform you the national wealth to act with con- this. I say this with no partisanship at all. Party is going to win a viction internationally. What could be partisan about produc- seat in Ontario or in And so I am concerned tivity? Nothing. It is a national problem Québec or in Atlantic When your about our productivity. I and a national concern and I think that Canada given the things country’s interest is am concerned about our there should be a national coming that they have said? I declining per capita together. There should be a national con- don’t know Mr Man- at stake you have income relative to our ference called simply to deal with the ning—I am sure he is a to say to yourself industrialised competi- proper analysis and description of pro- very fine fellow and I tors and I am very con- ductivity and what we can all do collec- wish him well—but the “I am going to take cerned about the govern- tively to enhance it. Because only by currents of history are decisions, not for ment allowing our dollar enhancing our productivity can we playing their role, as we to hang in there at 65 ensure genuine and durable growth. speak. Witness the re- flattering headlines cents. It masks the ill- WEA: What are your personal goals election of the Conserva- in ten days but for nesses in the economy over the next few years? tive government in while this smokescreen Mulroney: My personal goal is to do a Ontario, the election of a a better country of a low dollar, an artifi- lot better than I am doing playing golf. I Conservative government in 10 years.” cially low dollar, is took it up last November in Florida and in New Brunswick, the allowed to continue. I got the lessons and I have been out on possible election of a WEA: Do you have various golf courses demonstrating the Conservative government in Nova Sco- a suggested policy response for the wisdom of the fellow who recommended tia, one in Prince Edward Island, one in productivity issue? that I not take it up. Alberta, one in Manitoba. This is the Mulroney: I don’t and I am per- WEA: Well, thank you very much dynamic of Canada. As federal political plexed. I have to tell you I am perplexed for spending time with me today, parties are replaced nationally, they by the productivity issue, in part because and good luck with your fairway regain strength on a provincial basis and the numbers have been in conflict. The woods. ࡗ

WORLD ECONOMIC AFFAIRS ● AUTUMN 1999 26