NAFTA negotiations.

[bush_cheney2004]

54 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What concessions of the same magnitude is the US prepared to make?

 

Absolutely none....the U.S. is prepared to let Canada keep special carve outs that mean little to America, like "cultural protection", banking barriers, etc. because Canada has historically been afraid of the American bogeyman.

Canada's supply management regime has been attacked many times by other nations long before Trump came along...this is just another run at it with a bigger sledgehammer.

Edited September 22, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Queenmandy85]

We can't blame President Trump. Secretary Clinton also promised to re-negociate / cancel NAFTA. This was the most important issue for many working class voters who never experienced the recovery that came in 2009. Trump won the election because voters believed he was listening to them. If NAFTA fails, it is the will of the American people. As Menken said, Democracy is the philosophy that people should get the government they want...good and hard.

[Wilber]

He also said. "There is always an easy solution to every problem, neat, plausible and wrong" Should be the populist's mantra. Definitely Trump's.

[Zeitgeist]

I don't think many Americans are aware of the fact that they sell more cars that they produce into Canada than Canada sells into the U.S. market.  The counter-tariffs will hurt the U.S. auto sector.  So will the fact that the U.S. will have fewer trade barriers with Mexico in their new bilateral agreement, which means that Mexican cars sold into the U.S. market will be cheaper than Mexican cars sold into the Canadian market.  Basically the new bilateral agreement without Canada incentivizes Canadians to buy fewer cars made in Mexico.  This is good for Canadian auto production.

[taxme]

19 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

This is just so far off the mark of how most Canadians feel about Canada that it's hard to imagine your remarks coming from a Canadian.  

If you can see Canadian production declining at the same rate as U.S. production, why target Canada with tariffs or a lopsided NAFTA?  It isn't that Canada doesn't get it, it's that we're trying to set policy that will actually level the playing field, such as implementing a higher Mexican minimum wage in the auto sector.  This policy wasn't concocted in the U.S. State Department.  These ideas have been floated in Canada and other countries for years and are quite progressive.  The trade war is dangerous and may not end well for all trading partners.   

My remarks are coming from a pissed off Canadian that is fed up with our present day and past governments and their useless and stupid socialist and liberal programs and agendas that have done not one good thing for Canada except to cost me the taxpayer plenty of my tax dollars washed down the drain. You need to wake up and start looking at programs and agendas like multiculturalism, foreign aid, massive third world immigration and illegal refugees that is costing the taxpayer's of this country billions of their tax dollars every year. Do you even give a crap as to how your tax dollars are being wasted at all? By the looks of things you appear to be quite happy with forking over thousands of dollars in taxes that we are all forced to pay to the thieves in Ottawa every year. My opinion is that I do not think that most Canadians really give a bloody chit. They appear to be more for bike lanes, save the whales and run for some cure. Pathetic. 

Can you tell me what you meant by "implementing a higher Mexican minimum wage in the auto sector"? The trade war is dangerous but I doubt very much that America will lose if all does not go well. Gender equity is not a trade item. 

[Centerpiece]

It appears that the Trudeau government made a major strategic error in appointing Freeland as lead negotiator. Putting aside her lack of experience in trade negotiations, Freeland has recently found herself a somewhat willing participant in some anti-Trump situations - including a key foreign policy speech that she made in Washington. Adding fuel to the fire is the fact she is married to a New York Times investigative reporter - Graham Bowley. Trump hates the Times. With Trudeau shooting himself in the foot with his G7 shenanigans, Canada now has no one who can meet with Trump to have that final "save the day" and close the deal conversation - like Mulroney was able to do with Reagan.

Quote

 

While the speech received much critical praise, the White House felt differently. Sources say both U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and President Trump viewed the speech as an insult, not only targeting administration publicly but doing so on their turf in Washington.

Link: https://globalnews.ca/news/4412338/analysis-chrystia-freeland-raised-trumps-ire-with-key-speech/

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

...  Basically the new bilateral agreement without Canada incentivizes Canadians to buy fewer cars made in Mexico.  This is good for Canadian auto production.

 

If true, then Trump is doing Canada a big favour, because Ontario lost lots of automotive production/jobs long before Trump became president. 

[Zeitgeist]

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

If true, then Trump is doing Canada a big favour, because Ontario lost lots of automotive production/jobs long before Trump became president. 

In the long run maybe letting go of NAFTA is the way to go for Canada.  I can see a major energy/resource reorientation as well as expanded international trade.  

[Zeitgeist]

25 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

It appears that the Trudeau government made a major strategic error in appointing Freeland as lead negotiator. Putting aside her lack of experience in trade negotiations, Freeland has recently found herself a somewhat willing participant in some anti-Trump situations - including a key foreign policy speech that she made in Washington. Adding fuel to the fire is the fact she is married to a New York Times investigative reporter - Graham Bowley. Trump hates the Times. With Trudeau shooting himself in the foot with his G7 shenanigans, Canada now has no one who can meet with Trump to have that final "save the day" and close the deal conversation - like Mulroney was able to do with Reagan.

 

Inexperienced?  Freeland just came off of negotiating CETA.  She is very well educated and experienced on foreign affairs/trade.  You may not like her, but she’s no dummy. 

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

In the long run maybe letting go of NAFTA is the way to go for Canada.  I can see a major energy/resource reorientation as well as expanded international trade.  

 

Sounds good to me....bring home American jobs and capital from Canada and Mexico.   Ford and GM can phase out assembly plants in Ontario...there are no Canadian-Mexican cars/trucks.

[Zeitgeist]

28 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sounds good to me....bring home American jobs and capital from Canada and Mexico.   Ford and GM can phase out assembly plants in Ontario...there are no Canadian-Mexican cars/trucks.

Ha ha, no.  We’ll have more auto plants in Canada to supply our hungry market, since Canadians won’t pay more for tariffed U.S. made vehicles, obviously.  We’ll also import more from Europe and Asia, since those countries’ tariffs will be much lower than the tariffs on US made vehicles.  

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Ha ha, no.  We’ll have more auto plants in Canada to supply our hungry market, since Canadians won’t pay more for tariffed U.S. made vehicles, obviously.  We’ll also import more from Europe and Asia, since those countries’ tariffs will be much lower than the tariffs on US made vehicles.  

 

Canadians pay more for U.S. AND Canadian made vehicles already, so that isn't necessarily true.

Ontario's auto industry has been shrinking for at least 10 years....plants closed or shifts reduced....jobs lost....all before Trump.

 

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Canadians pay more for U.S. AND Canadian made vehicles already, so that isn't necessarily true.

Ontario's auto industry has been shrinking for at least 10 years....plants closed or shifts reduced....jobs lost....all before Trump.

 

Yes it's true that Ontario's auto industry is smaller now.  It used to be larger than Michigan's.  For a while it was the biggest auto producer in North America.  Both Canada and the U.S. lost auto jobs to Mexico, 24% and 26% of auto jobs respectively (see article below).  Canada also lost auto jobs to "Right to Work" U.S. states, but that was a mixed blessing for the U.S. workers who have accepted lower wages for the same work (see article below).  The wisest move would have been to standardize wages based on purchasing power within each jurisdiction, such that the Mexican salary buys the same amount in Mexico as a US salary buys in the US and a Canadian salary buys in Canada.  Doing so would level the playing field and make plants compete on productivity.

Mexican Auto Jobs Quadrupled As Canada’s Industry Shrank: Report

Canada should side with the U.S. in NAFTA talks on the auto industry, ex-CIBC chief economist says.

 

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

•  
  By Daniel Tencer

Henry Romero / Reuters

Chrysler cars are lined up in preparation for delivery outside Chrysler's plant in Toluca near Mexico City, Mexico, June 2, 2017.

 

A new analysis suggests Canadian negotiators may want to side with the U.S., and against Mexico, when the auto industry comes up in NAFTA negotiations in Washington, D.C. this month.

And its author, former CIBC chief economist Jeff Rubin, is arguing Canada may have no choice but to follow the U.S. and slap tariffs on Mexican auto imports, if the Trump administration chooses to do so.

The analysis, conducted for the Center for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), paints a good-news, bad-news picture of the 23-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). On one hand, the deal has allowed consumers to enjoy lower prices on vehicles, and has improved carmakers' profit margins; on the other hand, Canada's auto industry has been losing jobs for years — principally to Mexico.

Over the past decade, the number of auto jobs in Mexico has quadrupled, while Canada has shed 26 per cent of its auto-related positions, the report stated.

The U.S. experienced a similar 28-per-cent decline in auto employment.

 

Jeff Rubin/CIGI

In 2007, employment in the auto industry was roughly at the same levels in Mexico and in Canada. Since then, Mexican employment has quadrupled while employment in Canada has shrunk by 26 per cent.

 

As recently as a decade ago, Canada and Mexico produced roughly the same number of vehicles; today, Mexico produces some 1.5 million more cars annually than Canada.

For Rubin, that's proof it's NAFTA, not automation, that's behind Canada's shrinking position in the global auto industry. The country was the world's fourth-largest auto producer in 1999; today, it has fallen to 10th place.

Automation "has been used as an all-sweeping explanation for job loss," he told HuffPost Canada by phone. But the reality is there has been "a fundamental shift in investment" from Canada and the U.S. to Mexico, he said.

He raised a question about NAFTA that today, in Canadian policy circles, is little short of heresy: "Does this really make sense for Canada's economy?"

See what Canada's politicians are saying about the NAFTA talks:

 

 

 

For automakers, the logic of shifting jobs to Mexico is hard to deny. Rubin's report pegs the average wage at Mexican auto-parts plants at US$2.45 an hour — about one-eighth of what Canadian and U.S. auto workers make.

But Rubin notes that labour accounts for roughly half the price of a car; local costs such as marketing and advertising account for the other half. The implication is that shifting auto jobs back to Canada and the U.S. is feasible, even if it does result in some increase in prices.

Which is why the U.S. may choose to slap tariffs on Mexican auto imports, if NAFTA negotiators fail to come to a new agreement, Rubin said.

He said if that happens, the U.S. will suddenly enjoy a major new advantage against Mexico's car industry, and that Canada "will have no viable option but to follow suit."

Doing so would run counter to what the federal Liberal government has been saying — that Canada will stand by its NAFTA partner Mexico. But Canada's interests are more aligned with the U.S.'s than with Mexico's, Rubin argues.

 

Bloomberg via Getty Images

The General Motors assembly in Oshawa, Ontario, photographed with a tilt-shift lens. Ontario's auto manufacturing base has hollowed out to the point that The Economist has dubbed the region "the new rust belt."

 

Echoing a now-familiar refrain, Rubin — the author of several bestselling books including "The End of Growth" and "The Carbon Bubble" — suggests Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump are signs that free trade deals have distributed their benefits too unevenly, leading to a backlash.

He suggests unless these issues are addressed, the same anti-free trade sentiment could come to Canada as well.

Rubin points to the hollowing-out of Ontario's manufacturing sector, a phenomenon so severe that The Economist dubbed the region "the new rust belt."

"The same things that have happened in Ohio and Wisconsin have happened in Ontario as well," he said, referring to U.S. states that voted for Trump in the last election.

Canada demands U.S. end ‘right to work’ laws as part of NAFTA talks

Open this photo in gallery:

Followers of the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) listen to a speech given by Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador during a rally at the Revolution Monument in Mexico City on Sunday.

PEDRO PARDO/AFP/Getty Images

Adrian MorrowThe United States of America

MEXICO CITY

Published September 3, 2017Updated June 20, 2018

Canadian negotiators are demanding the United States roll back so-called "right to work" laws – accused of gutting unions in some U.S. states by starving them of money – as part of the renegotiation of the North American free-trade agreement. The request is part of a push by Ottawa to get the U.S. and Mexico to adopt higher labour standards under the deal.

Mexico, meanwhile, is campaigning to include its oil and gas sector in the deal.

These major moves on the labour and energy files came over the weekend at the second round of NAFTA renegotiations in Mexico City.

 

Explainer: NAFTA, Trump and Canada: A guide to the trade file and what it could mean for you

One group of negotiators spent all day Sunday working on the labour file, according to a schedule of the talks obtained by The Globe and Mail. One source familiar with the discussions said Canada wants the United States to pass a federal law stopping state governments from enacting right-to-work legislation; the source said the United States has not agreed to such a request. Canada believes that lower labour standards in the United States and Mexico, including right to work, give those countries an unfair advantage in attracting jobs.

Edited September 22, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Centerpiece]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Inexperienced?  Freeland just came off of negotiating CETA.  She is very well educated and experienced on foreign affairs/trade.  You may not like her, but she’s no dummy. 

You're right - she is no dummy. But let's be clear - CETA negotiations were concluded in August, 2014 - considerably before the Liberals came into power. Freeland's background is in journalism - really smart but as I said, inexperienced in trade negotiations.

Link: https://cfreeland.liberal.ca/biography/

Edited September 22, 2018 by Centerpiece

[Zeitgeist]

16 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

You're right - she is no dummy. But let's be clear - CETA negotiations were concluded in August, 2014 - considerably before the Liberals came into power. Freeland's background is in journalism - really smart but as I said, inexperienced in trade negotiations.

Link: https://cfreeland.liberal.ca/biography/

Freeland has been heavily involved in trade discussions before and beyond NAFTA:

CETA and provincial/territorial participation in trade negotiations

After the October 2015 Canadian federal election, newly elected prime minister Justin Trudeau mandated CETA’s ratification and implication to be a top priority.[vi] At present, the United Kingdom’s June 2016 referendum to withdraw from the EU has raised concerns about the timeline for CETA’s ratification and implementation. Nevertheless, former Canadian minister of international trade Chrystia Freeland and European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker have expressed their confidence that CETA is still on track and urged member states to approve and implement the agreement in 2017.[vii]

[and on TPP]

Canada will sign TPP trade deal Feb. 4, but ratification not certain

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Reddit

• LinkedIn

'Signing does not equal ratifying,' International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland says

Andy Blatchford · The Canadian Press · Posted: Jan 25, 2016 11:33 AM ET | Last Updated: January 25, 2016

 

International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland says Canada will sign on to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal at a ceremony in New Zealand on Feb. 4. But as for ratifying the deal, Freeland said that will still be a matter for Parliament. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

832 comments

The federal government has confirmed that it intends to sign the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal at a meeting next week in New Zealand.

But when it comes to ratification of the 12-country treaty, the Liberals are still perched squarely atop the fence.

 

"Just as it is too soon to endorse the TPP, it is also too soon to close the door," International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland wrote Monday in an open letter posted on her department's website.

"Signing does not equal ratifying.... Signing is simply a technical step in the process, allowing the TPP text to be tabled in Parliament for consideration and debate before any final decision is made."

• 'We're very much not there yet' on TPP, says trade minister
• Trans-Pacific Partnership: 6 questions answered

Only a majority vote in the House of Commons would ensure that Canada seals the deal, she added. She has also requested a thorough, transparent study of the agreement by parliamentary committee.

In recent weeks, Freeland has conducted public consultations on the wide-ranging accord, which — if ratified — would also set new international rules for sectors beyond trade. Those other areas include intellectual property, which worries some experts.

"It is clear that many feel the TPP presents significant opportunities, while others have concerns," Freeland wrote.

"Many Canadians still have not made up their minds and many more still have questions."

The minister has already indicated the massive accord, which includes major economies such as the United States and Japan, cannot be renegotiated.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes it's true that Ontario's auto industry is smaller now.  It used to be larger than Michigan's.  For a while it was the biggest auto producer in North America.  Both Canada and the U.S. lost auto jobs to Mexico, 24% and 26% of auto jobs respectively (see article below).  Canada also lost auto jobs to "Right to Work" U.S. states, but that was a mixed blessing for the U.S. workers who have accepted lower wages for the same work (see article below). 

 

I seriously doubt that Canada was ever the biggest auto producer in North America.    My main point is that Ontario has been bleeding out for auto sector jobs for many years, long before Trump ever threatened tariffs/NAFTA changes.  

Many unionized auto workers also accepted two-tier pay and benefits labour agreements to save their own jobs before Trump.   GM became more of a retirement fund than auto-maker.

Canada will lose more auto sector jobs, with or without NAFTA.

[Machjo]

On 8/30/2018 at 9:19 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

This is not a complete accounting, but we know this much so far....which may or may not survive Canada's input this week:

 

• Mexico agrees to raise sourced parts content to a 75% vs. 62.5% of North American plants, which will have the impact of reducing Chinese and increasing U.S./Canada parts content (good for Canada); 40  to 45% of Mexican workers making vehicles must earn $16 per hour.

How's that good for Canada if it just deprives Canadian consumers of more choice? Honestly, a bad deal is worse than no deal. Canada should just adopt unilateral global free trade and let the US close in on itself if it wants to, but please don't drag Canada into fortress North America.

[bush_cheney2004]

10 minutes ago, Machjo said:

How's that good for Canada if it just deprives Canadian consumers of more choice? Honestly, a bad deal is worse than no deal. Canada should just adopt unilateral global free trade and let the US close in on itself if it wants to, but please don't drag Canada into fortress North America.

 

Too late for that...Americans already own 50% of Canada's manufacturing base.

Even if Canada walked away from NAFTA, the U.S. would still have a big impact on Canada.

[Machjo]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Too late for that...Americans already own 50% of Canada's manufacturing base.

Even if Canada walked away from NAFTA, the U.S. would still have a big impact on Canada.

The US has around ten times Canada's population and a higher population density to boot. Add to that its geographical proximity to Canada compared to other states and it's inevitable that Canada will need to trade with it to prosper.

 

However, Canada has no control over US policy: it can control only its own policies. With that in mind, Canada's best strategy is unilateral global free trade. That way, even if the US raises tariffs against Canadian businesses, those same Canadian businesses could import the best machinery from the US and abroad tariff free. It could import the lease expensive high-quality products from Asia for its manufacturing. Canadian consumers could also import products from around the world including the US at lower cost and so perhaps be willing to work at a lower wage in compensation for that. That would help to compensate at least somewhat for the US tariffs.

 

Meanwhile, US tariffs would force US businesses to import machinery and other products at higher cost or limit themselves to more expensive or less ideal US products for what they need. It would also push consumer prices up and so force US workers to demand higher wages. All of this would push US prices up. Add to that that if the US raises tariffs against Canada and Canada doesn't reciprocate, Canada's balance of trade deficit relative to the US would push Canadian prices down relative to US prices, which again would compensate for the US tariffs.

Canada should adopt unilateral global free trade and let the US go its own way.

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Freeland has been heavily involved in trade discussions before and beyond NAFTA:

CETA and provincial/territorial participation in trade negotiations

After the October 2015 Canadian federal election, newly elected prime minister Justin Trudeau mandated CETA’s ratification and implication to be a top priority.[vi] At present, the United Kingdom’s June 2016 referendum to withdraw from the EU has raised concerns about the timeline for CETA’s ratification and implementation. Nevertheless, former Canadian minister of international trade Chrystia Freeland and European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker have expressed their confidence that CETA is still on track and urged member states to approve and implement the agreement in 2017.[vii]

.......................................................................

The minister has already indicated the massive accord, which includes major economies such as the United States and Japan, cannot be renegotiated.

Is that all you've got to support her international trade negotiation expertise? As I said - negotiations were completed in August, 2014 and as Freeland indicated, the Agreement could not be renegotiated. Read the Liberal Party Bio that I gave you and see if you can find anything that says anything to the contrary. I grant that she helped stick handle the ratification process - but that's after the fact. My point was not primarily her competence (because she is very intelligent and we have a good team) - my point was her inappropriate participation in anti-Trump activities that clearly has alienated her. Pile that onto Trudeau's G7 debacle and we have no one to meet privately with Trump to close the deal.

[Machjo]

Freeland is complicating things way too much. She needs to promote unilateral free trade and recognize that any tariff the US or the EU imposes on Canada is to their own respective consumers' own detriment. Just because the US and the EU want to shoot themselves in the foot doesn't mean Canada has to do the same.

[bush_cheney2004]

54 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Freeland is complicating things way too much. She needs to promote unilateral free trade and recognize that any tariff the US or the EU imposes on Canada is to their own respective consumers' own detriment. Just because the US and the EU want to shoot themselves in the foot doesn't mean Canada has to do the same.

 

How does this square with a Canada that has hosed its own consumers for decades as a matter of tax revenue and protectionist policies (international and provincial) ?

I just don't see such attitudes changing, regardless of "free trade".

[Machjo]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

How does this square with a Canada that has hosed its own consumers for decades as a matter of tax revenue and protectionist policies (international and provincial) ?

I just don't see such attitudes changing, regardless of "free trade".

That is unfortunate. Canada is just as bad as its neighbours if not worse in some respects. If Trump shoots America in the foot, Trudeau is sure to shoot Canada in the foot with an even higher-caliber rifle when the correct response would be to recoil from such foolishness and follow a different path.

Unfortunately, Sheer and Singh will probably not be much better.

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I seriously doubt that Canada was ever the biggest auto producer in North America.    My main point is that Ontario has been bleeding out for auto sector jobs for many years, long before Trump ever threatened tariffs/NAFTA changes.  

Many unionized auto workers also accepted two-tier pay and benefits labour agreements to save their own jobs before Trump.   GM became more of a retirement fund than auto-maker.

Canada will lose more auto sector jobs, with or without NAFTA.

For a while Ontario produced more autos than any U.S. state or Canadian province.  Those days are behind us.

[OftenWrong]

18 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

With Trudeau shooting himself in the foot with his G7 shenanigans, Canada now has no one who can meet with Trump to have that final "save the day" and close the deal conversation - like Mulroney was able to do with Reagan.

That federal election couldn't come any sooner, I tell ya.