NAFTA negotiations.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Machjo said:

I know you weren't addressing me in this post, but just to clarify: when I say Canada needs to trade more freely with the world, I am including the US here. I know some might want freer trade with the rest of the world and then raise tariffs against the US. I don't see it that way. I actually would like to see even more free trade with the US at least in principle, but just more with the rest of the world too. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

 

Canada has slightly reduced its dependence on exports to the U.S. (about 80% to 75%), but there are several factors working against serious increases in export diversification, some that Canada does not control.  Unlike the U.S., Canada's economy is more exports driven as a percentage of GDP.    Compounding the problem, not only is the U.S. Canada's biggest market, it is also the biggest single source of foreign direct investment (FDI), which ruling governments have actively courted as a matter of economic policy/survival.

So, at least in the short term, there needs to be less impact by the U.S. and more diversification to get  better balance (and power) in trading relationships.  Whether it be quotas, tariffs, countervailing duty, etc., Canada should not be in the position of facing economic calamity at the hands of any U.S. president or recession.

 

Quote

That said, Canada never should have signed a deal that limited its freedom to negotiate trade agreements with other states. Had NAFTA died, Canada's economy would have been reeling. I don't deny that. However, Canada could then have gone unilateral free trade with the world including the US that would raise tariffs against us. There would be big growing pains, but Canada would have come out stronger in the end and the US could do nothing about it.

 

Agreed....the loss of NAFTA would have hurt all three economies, but would have also hastened a move by Canada to be less dependent on U.S. exports and perhaps exports in general.   I suspect that Trudeau/Freeland accepted such onerous terms for a short term gain and long term, coordinated bulwark against China.

[Machjo]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Canada has slightly reduced its dependence on exports to the U.S. (about 80% to 75%), but there are several factors working against serious increases in export diversification, some that Canada does not control.  Unlike the U.S., Canada's economy is more exports driven as a percentage of GDP.    Compounding the problem, not only is the U.S. Canada's biggest market, it is also the biggest single source of foreign direct investment (FDI), which ruling governments have actively courted as a matter of economic policy/survival.

So, at least in the short term, there needs to be less impact by the U.S. and more diversification to get  better balance (and power) in trading relationships.  Whether it be quotas, tariffs, countervailing duty, etc., Canada should not be in the position of facing economic calamity at the hands of any U.S. president or recession.

 

 

Agreed....the loss of NAFTA would have hurt all three economies, but would have also hastened a move by Canada to be less dependent on U.S. exports and perhaps exports in general.   I suspect that Trudeau/Freeland accepted such onerous terms for a short term gain and long term, coordinated bulwark against China.

Three factors force Canada to trade with the US:

 

1. Canada's small population prevents economies of scale under protectionism. This forces Canada to open its borders so as to take more advantage of economies of scale.

 

2. Geographical proximity to the US. I'd been shopping for things online and had found some products from the UK that interested me that I couldn't fine either in Canada or the US, but the shipping costs made me rethink it. I might end up going with a somewhat inferior North-American product due to much lower shipping costs. There is just no getting around that.

3. Canada's low population density compared to the US'. It's more efficient for Canada to trade North-South than East-West even within our own country. For example, artificial barriers aside, It clearly makes more sense for Montreal to trade with NYC than with Vancouver as it makes more sense for Vancouver to trade more with Seattle than with Montreal. While the same holds true in the US (for example, the distance between NYC and Seattle make it such that at least in terms of geography, it makes more sense for them to trade with Canada than with one another), at least their larger population allows for greater economies of scale to offset that.

Given the three factors above, I think trying to reduce Canadian dependence on the US is a fool's errand (even if we should decide to greatly expand our population and trade more freely with other states). Of course we should open our borders to other states so as to diversify, and of course population growth could benefit Canada too, but none of that could replace a more open border between Canada and the US. We have no control over US protectionism, but we should lower our tariffs against the US and then let the US hurt itself all it wants.

[marcus]

Here is a take-away from the deal. Some are good and some are bad:

• Rules that let corporations sue Canada in secretive tribunals have been removed between Canada and the US. Canada is the most sued developed country in the world because of NAFTA.
• Canada retained its cultural exemption, meaning that Canada can protect its cultural industries - like newspapers or TV stations - from getting bought out by US giants.
• Improved labour standards, including increased wages and collective bargaining rights for Mexican workers.
• Canada thwarted Trump’s threat to slap 25% tariffs on our auto exports while also getting the US to agree that no hard limit will be placed on Canadian auto exports.
• Canadian markets will now be open to a greater share of U.S. dairy products — U.S. dairy products will increase competition, which is is good in my opinion, but there will be more exposure to products that contain bovine growth hormone (BGH), a genetically modified hormone that has been banned in Canada due to health concerns. So it will be interesting to see how consumers will respond to that.
• Caving on affordable medicine: patents on certain types of medication - like for Arthritis and Crohn's disease - have been extended. 
• The agreement does not address, or even mention, climate change, and provides far less binding environmental protection than past agreements.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Machjo said:

Given the three factors above, I think trying to reduce Canadian dependence on the US is a fool's errand (even if we should decide to greatly expand our population and trade more freely with other states). Of course we should open our borders to other states so as to diversify, and of course population growth could benefit Canada too, but none of that could replace a more open border between Canada and the US. We have no control over US protectionism, but we should lower our tariffs against the US and then let the US hurt itself all it wants.

 

Canada has other challenges...both are internal:

1) Inter-provincial trade barriers....regionalism...nation-within-a- nation....etc.

2) Commerce regulation at provincial vs. federal level (related to #1)

I read a story a few weeks back that related how much New Brunswick was impacted by Canadian decisions that reduced north-south trade to the Northeast US in favour of Quebec/Ontario.

I agree that Canada's mixed economy should not be compared to the much larger and more diversified U.S. economy/population, but by the same token Canada should not expect trade equality if it can't run with the big dogs.

Edited October 2, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Zeitgeist]

These last posts are quite thoughtful and accurate, but I think Canadians have to decide whether they want to be a big dog and enjoy both the up and downsides of that.  It’s true that our small size prevents an economy of scale that would allow for more self-sufficiency and a wider range of industries, but being big brings with it a complexity of societal and environmental challenges. Much American art has human figures in it, whereas most Canadian art is of landscapes, the representative ones anyway (as opposed to the abstract).  There’s a beauty to vast emptiness.  Just look at the Lauren Harris paintings of the North.  I think there’s probably a happy medium in terms of population size, but with all of the pressure to grow, we’re going to have to manage that growth very carefully.  I realize these are bigger questions than trade, but the point is that trade and economic growth alone do not a country make. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Machjo]

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

These last posts are quite thoughtful and accurate, but I think Canadians have to decide whether they want to be a big dog and enjoy both the up and downsides of that.  It’s true that our small size p an economy of scale the would allow for more self-sufficiency and a wider range of industries, but it brings with it a complexity of societal and environmental challenges. Much American art has human figures in it, whereas most Canadian art is of landscapes, the representative ones anyway (as opposed to the abstract).  There’s a beauty to vast emptiness.  Just look at a Lauren Harris paintings of the North.  I think there’s probably a happy medium, but with all of the pressure to grow, we’re going to have to manage that growth very carefully.  I realize these are bigger questions than trade, but the point is that trade and economic growth alone do not a country make. 

Your last sentence gives much to think about. In Canada, most English and French Canadians don't even share a common language with one another. That's probably the single biggest barrier to trade between Quebec and Ontario. Many Inuit know neither official language well too. So we don't even share a common language. Overall, an English Canadian identifies more with an American or Briton and a French Canadian with a Frenchman or Belgian at least culturally in terms of books, TV, film, music, newspapers, and other media.

With that in mind, Canada needs to maintain close ties with English-speaking and French-speaking countries to allow us to participate in the wider world economy since even within Canada itself, Canadians have closer cultural ties with the outside world than with parts of Canada itself.

[Machjo]

2 hours ago, marcus said:

Here is a take-away from the deal. Some are good and some are bad:

• Rules that let corporations sue Canada in secretive tribunals have been removed between Canada and the US. Canada is the most sued developed country in the world because of NAFTA.
• Canada retained its cultural exemption, meaning that Canada can protect its cultural industries - like newspapers or TV stations - from getting bought out by US giants.
• Improved labour standards, including increased wages and collective bargaining rights for Mexican workers.
• Canada thwarted Trump’s threat to slap 25% tariffs on our auto exports while also getting the US to agree that no hard limit will be placed on Canadian auto exports.
• Canadian markets will now be open to a greater share of U.S. dairy products — U.S. dairy products will increase competition, which is is good in my opinion, but there will be more exposure to products that contain bovine growth hormone (BGH), a genetically modified hormone that has been banned in Canada due to health concerns. So it will be interesting to see how consumers will respond to that.
• Caving on affordable medicine: patents on certain types of medication - like for Arthritis and Crohn's disease - have been extended. 
• The agreement does not address, or even mention, climate change, and provides far less binding environmental protection than past agreements.

Actually, the milk market is theoretical. I do oppose protectionism in the milk market but even if we eliminated all trade barriers between Canada and the US, much US milk could not be sold in Canada due to it containing substances that are banned in Canada.

That said, I can certainly see some US entrepreneurs conforming to the Canadian standards so that they can access the Canadian milk market, and I'll welcome that (even though I don't buy dairy myself). Those US milk producers that don't meet Canadian domestic standards will still not have access to the Canadian market no matter how much we open our borders and rightfully so. The deal in no way exempts importers from domestic standards as far as I know.

[bush_cheney2004]

33 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Much American art has human figures in it, whereas most Canadian art is of landscapes, the representative ones anyway (as opposed to the abstract).  There’s a beauty to vast emptiness.  Just look at the Lauren Harris paintings of the North.  I think there’s probably a happy medium in terms of population size, but with all of the pressure to grow, we’re going to have to manage that growth very carefully.  I realize these are bigger questions than trade, but the point is that trade and economic growth alone do not a country make. 

 

Yep...this notion goes far beyond trade.   Canada has longed been knocked for its lack of domestic literary and artistic identity, relying on and consuming far more foreign "content" while desperately trying to preserve domestic culture(s).  (What is the Great Canadian novel ?)  Canada's present prime minister has challenged the very idea of Canadian nationalism as being obsolete.   A cultural identity defined as "not American" is also not very helpful.   Canada naively approached NAFTA negotiations as meetings between "close allies"....but when it comes to trade...the countries are competitors.

Trump did not create an aggressive trade stance out of thin air.   "The business of America is business."  -  Calvin Coolidge

Trump's techniques may be crude and unorthodox, but they are still very American.

As for landscape beauty...Siberia is nice too, but that won't pay the bills.

[Zeitgeist]

Canada has a very rich literary and art scene.  There are countless great Canadian novelists, from Richler to Ondaatje to Atwood.  In art we could talk for days about Les Automatistes, The Painters 11, The Group of Seven, Riopelle, Peel, on and on.  There is far more that binds Canadians than you seem to understand, across languages.  I’d argue that the bonds are strengthening.  We’ve come through wars, separatism, and residential schools.  There are still many challenges and much to do, but Canadians are proud of what they’ve achieved, in peacekeeping, justice, education, and much more, even if it doesn’t register much with Americans, who tend only to see themselves when they see us.  At the same time great partnerships exist and can be improved with our allies.  

Edited October 3, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

12 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada has a very rich literary and art scene.  There are countless great Canadian novelists, from Richler to Ondaatje to Atwood. 

 

I'm sure there are, but my assertion is not original, having been discussed for decades in many Canadian circles.   Indeed, some bemoan the fact that many Canadians know more about American history and culture than their own.

 

Closer to this trade topic, this speech by Maude Barlow back in 1990 could be just as relevant today:

 

CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY: CAN THE NATIONAL DREAM SURVIVE?

 

 

[Machjo]

35 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yep...this notion goes far beyond trade.   Canada has longed been knocked for its lack of domestic literary and artistic identity, relying on and consuming far more foreign "content" while desperately trying to preserve domestic culture(s).  (What is the Great Canadian novel ?)  Canada's present prime minister has challenged the very idea of Canadian nationalism as being obsolete.   A cultural identity defined as "not American" is also not very helpful.   Canada naively approached NAFTA negotiations as meetings between "close allies"....but when it comes to trade...the countries are competitors.

Trump did not create an aggressive trade stance out of thin air.   "The business of America is business."  -  Calvin Coolidge

Trump's techniques may be crude and unorthodox, but they are still very American.

As for landscape beauty...Siberia is nice too, but that won't pay the bills.

Canada has produced much cultural content, but it's not in a united form. Most English Canadians could not read most Quebec literature since little of it is translated into English (with probably more Frenchmen and Belgians reading it than English Canadians ever will). The same applies in reverse. Sure English Canada has produced much cultural content, but the average American or Briton could access it far more easily than the average unilingual French Canadian ever will. It's not that Canada does not produce cultural content, but rather that we should divide it more along linguistic lines (With English Canadian, US, and British literature sharing more in common with one another than with French Canadian literature and French Canadian literature sharing more in common with French, Belgian, and Swiss literature than it does with English Canadian). As strange as it might seem and with even unilingual Canadians themselves often not noticing it, Canadian identity is linguistic first and foremost and national only a distant second to that.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Machjo

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Machjo said:

.... As strange as it might seem and with even unilingual Canadians themselves often not noticing it, Canadian identity is linguistic first and foremost and national only a distant second to that.

 

Understood, but that is the issue lamented by many Canadian observers as well.   It is a feature of diversity, but also has the effect of diluting impact on a national and international scale.

Trudeau and Freeland "held out" for continued cultural protections for NAFTA 2.0, but it was hardly a concern for the Americans, who cannot possibly relate to such a circumstance and do not perceive it as a threat.  

[Machjo]

15 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Understood, but that is the issue lamented by many Canadian observers as well.   It is a feature of diversity, but also has the effect of diluting impact on a national and international scale.

Trudeau and Freeland "held out" for continued cultural protections for NAFTA 2.0, but it was hardly a concern for the Americans, who cannot possibly relate to such a circumstance and do not perceive it as a threat.  

One thing I think proponents of 'Canadian-content' laws overlook is how it can harm unofficial language communities. For example, English and French Canadians are populous enough in Canada to exploit at least sufficient economies of scale within a protectionist environment. This protectionism hurts the Deaf community. For example, it could make it far more difficult for Canadian ASL speakers and US ASL speakers to collaborate to establish a common North American ASL broadcasting business for example due to Canadian-content laws preventing Canadian Deaf from collaborating with their US counterparts to exploit economies of scale. I think they use ASL in Liberia too.

These same Canadian-content laws prevent US and Canadian Ojibwa and Greenlandic and Canadian Inuit from doing the same. It undermines their ability to cooperate internationally to benefit from economies of scale. The same applies to Chinese and other language media too. When we look at its history within the context of the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the primary purpose of Canadian-content laws was always to give Canada's English and French language communities an advantage over the others within Canada.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Machjo

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Machjo said:

....These same Canadian-content laws prevent US and Canadian Ojibwa and Greenlandic and Canadian Inuit from doing the same. It undermines their ability to cooperate on an international scale to benefit from economies of scale. The same applies to Chinese and other language media too. When we look at its history within the context of the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the primary purpose of Canadian-content laws was always to give Canada's English and French language communities an advantage over the others within Canada.

 

Interesting...that would be the net effect when one takes time to think about it.   And this kind of cultural fratricide is even more serious at smaller population levels for the marginal groups, languages, etc.  The U.S. has no official language (some states do), and ASL enjoys a recognized lineage to the French LSL and Creole.   Native American hand/sign languages still survive, and the story of WW2 Navajo "code talkers" is well known because of Hollywood productions.

So this matter of scale becomes important if Canada is to sustain a "unique" identity and culture , and that includes the impact of cross border trade.   But this has been the history of developments in North America, if not the world.   Trade with the Americans comes with the good...and the bad.

 

[Machjo]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Interesting...that would be the net effect when one takes time to think about it.   And this kind of cultural fratricide is even more serious at smaller population levels for the marginal groups, languages, etc.  The U.S. has no official language (some states do), and ASL enjoys a recognized lineage to the French LSL and Creole.   Native American hand/sign languages still survive, and the story of WW2 Navajo "code talkers" is well known because of Hollywood productions.

So this matter of scale becomes important if Canada is to sustain a "unique" identity and culture , and that includes the impact of cross border trade.   But this has been the history of developments in North America, if not the world.   Trade with the Americans comes with the good...and the bad.

 

Unfortunately, Canadian laws often hurt Canada more than any US law ever could. Though I oppose Canadian-content laws altogether, I think that at the very least, Canadian law aught to exempt unofficial languages from its Canadian-content laws. But of course since the primary purpose of these laws was precisely to give English and French Canadians a greater advantage over other linguistic communities, that would defeat the very purpose of these laws.

I found the following to be quite enlightening to say the least:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_bilingualism_in_Canada#Official_bilingualism_as_it_applies_to_indigenous_peoples

 

And this too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_bilingualism_in_Canada#Educational,_linguistic,_economic,_and_other_challenges_of_official_bilingualism

Edited October 3, 2018 by Machjo

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Machjo said:

Unfortunately, Canadian laws often hurt Canada more than any US law ever could. Though I oppose Canadian-content laws altogether, I think that at the very least, Canadian law aught to exempt unofficial languages from its Canadian-content laws. But of course since the primary purpose of these laws was precisely to give English and French Canadians a greater advantage over other linguistic communities, that would defeat the very purpose of these laws.

 

There has to be a way to separate the longstanding bi-polar struggle between Anglophones and Francophones from practical and academic preservation of the many other cultures/languages in Canada, the very essence of "multiculturalism".   Fighting off the American cultural horde only complicates the matter.

I don't know the details of any existing NAFTA chapter that grants Canada carve outs,  but it is only as strong as Canada's investment and conservation....the Americans and Mexicans don't care so much.    The Americans only care about losing money to IP and digital media theft !

[Zeitgeist]

French and English are Canada's official languages.  They're the languages of Parliament and government.  Everyone in Canada is promised to be provided federal government services in either of the official languages.  It relates to our history and settlement patterns, which still dominate.  Quebec has ensured that French will continue to dominate in Quebec, as it's a unilingual province, even though there are many Anglophones there who also produce much cultural content.  Even the Quebecers for whom English is a first language easily switch into French.  Ottawa in Ontario and northern Ontario are very bilingual.  Ontario also provides provincial government services in French and English, even though it isn't an officially bilingual province.  New Brunswick is officially bilingual, and there are significant French speaking populations in all the Atlantic provinces (the third languages after French in these provinces would be a distant third).  Manitoba also has a significant French speaking population and of course Metis who are an indigenous and French mix.  There are small French speaking communities as far west as Alberta.  The far north is dominated by indigenous peoples.  In Northern Ontario alone there are 265 different indigenous groups, so you can see the complexity.  Much is done to accommodate indigenous culture and languages, and such languages can be substituted as the second language in our public schools.  However, the national official languages are French and English.  When in mainland China, speak Mandarin.  When in Canada, you should only expect services in English and French.  Multiculturalism is more about celebrating immigrants' cultural backgrounds, with the understanding that the languages of these cultures are languages of foreign countries.  Our national official languages are constitutionally protected.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[Machjo]

14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

French and English are Canada's official languages.  They're the languages of Parliament and government.  Everyone in Canada is promised to be provided federal government services in either of the official languages.  It relates to our history and settlement patterns, which still dominate.  Quebec has ensured that French will continue to dominate in Quebec, as it's a unilingual province, even though there are many Anglophones there who also produce much cultural content.  Even the Quebecers for whom English is a first language easily switch into French.  Ottawa in Ontario and northern Ontario are very bilingual.  Ontario also provides provincial government services in French and English, even though it isn't an officially bilingual province.  New Brunswick is officially bilingual, and there are significant French speaking populations in all the Atlantic provinces (the third languages after French in these provinces would be a distant third).  Manitoba also has a significant French speaking population and of course Metis who are an indigenous and French mix.  There are small French speaking communities as far west as Alberta.  The far north is dominated by indigenous peoples.  In Northern Ontario alone there are 265 different indigenous groups, so you can see the complexity.  Much is done to accommodate indigenous culture and languages, and such languages can be substituted as the second language in our public schools.  However, the national official languages are French and English.  When in mainland China, speak Mandarin.  When in Canada, you should only expect services in English and French.  Multiculturalism is more about celebrating immigrants' cultural backgrounds, with the understanding that the languages of these cultures are languages of foreign countries.  Our national official languages are constitutionally protected.

But I was not referring to the provision of government services above, but rather the imposition of official bilingualism onto the private sector. Though I know of no such case yet (since people generally have a motive to avoid a fine), Quebec's French Language Charter would impose sanctions against an entrepreneur who put up a sign in Algonquin and French in downtown Gatineau if the two languages appeared in the same size even if French should precede Algonquin. This would have nothing to do with the language of government administration and everything to do with ethnic identity construction in the private sector.

Likewise official language laws apply to private-sector packaging and labeling (i.e. you can't sell a product labelled only in French in Quebec City or only in English in Vancouver). Media is mostly private-sector too and so are many other federally-regulated institutions on which official bilingualism is imposed. So in fact official bilingualism extends far, far beyond just government administration and extends very deeply into the market economy. On one occasion, an entitled French-Canadian couple sued Air Canada for failing to serve it a &-Up in French... on an international flight! If only the Deaf and indigenous Canadians could do the same, eh?

I myself work bilingually in English and French and in fact serve Federal Government workers regularly even though I myself work in the private sector. I've even encountered situations in which I've had to communicate with businesses in Austria or Brazil and couldn't function because of my lack of German and Portuguese knowledge. On one occasion, I think my Austrian counterpart was using Google translate or something to help him communicate with me. I eventually got to understand what he was trying to say, but only after much effort. On another occasion, I had to communicate with a Brazilian counterpart. I couldn't get through to him at all but luckily for me, the person I was serving at the time was understanding, knew Portuguese, and told me that he'd resolve the problem himself. I felt like an incompetent fool there seeing that the person I couldn't even do the job I was supposed to do for that Federal worker.

A friend of mine once showed me an immigration hearing transcript in which the police and CBSA reports were written in terribly broken English and even the Minister's counsel's English was terrible as revealed in the hearing transcript. I kid you not, it was shocking! So even our own Government workers (and even lawyers) do not know the official language in which they themselves are working.

Ironically though, outside of work, at least in oral contexts, I use one unofficial language (mainly with my extended family) even more than I do either of my official ones and use both of my unofficial languages about as much as I use both of my official ones. In the written form, I use English the most followed by French outside of work, though I still use one of my unofficial languages a fair bit in the written form too and the fourth much less. And I live in the National Capital Region! When I'd visited Toronto, I spent two days mostly in an unofficial language. Canada is not as Anglo-French as one might think outside of Federal-government institutions and some white-picket-fence neighbourhoods.

[bush_cheney2004]

Now it is time for recriminations....in Canada.    This union of public employees seems very bitter about the way that Trudeau and Freeland caved.....what feminist agenda ?

 

Quote

Promise of progressive trade agenda is dead

What’s more, the Canadian government's much publicized promise of a “progressive trade agenda” is dead. In its place, Canada negotiated a trade deal without any gender or indigenous chapters, that does not even mention “climate change,” the Paris Agreement, or anthropogenic global warming. What it does offer is a labour chapter suffering from limited application and weak enforcement.

“Most of the long-term problems with NAFTA that have caused so much grief were not fixed,” says Brown. “We’ll still lose factories to right-to-work states; we’ll still face wage stagnation caused by direct competition with lower wage countries, both in the U.S. and in Mexico. We gave up our dairy farmers, and we abandoned our steel and aluminum industries. We agreed to a review process which will allow the U.S. to keep us on a short leash. We sold out our wine industry and caved in on demands for higher drug prices — all to keep an agreement that was a disadvantage to Canada in the first place and is now worse.”

Brown adds, “Even the major improvement of an end to the Chapter 11 investor-state dispute resolution system (ISDS) came from the U.S., not from our government.” 

The new NAFTA: disappointment, and capitulation - Trudeau caves to Trump’s demands, breaks promise to negotiate modern progressive trade deal

 

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Now it is time for recriminations....in Canada.    This union of public employees seems very bitter about the way that Trudeau and Freeland caved.....what feminist agenda ?

 

 

At least it's on record that all of these progressive wishes came from Canada.  None came from the U.S., reflective of the U.S. federal government's agenda of rolling back environmental protections, workers' rights, gender equality, and so forth.  Congratulations.  The U.S. is lurching closer to a dystopian Handmaid's Tale of economic disparity and environmental degradation.  You celebrate this, but it just illustrates lack of hope and vision.  You were able to intimidate allies into an unfair trade deal.  Revel in it and smell the distrust.  Many Canadians agree that Trudeau should not have made this deal and our parliament shouldn't ratify it, though they will.  I will be checking the labels of any dairy I buy because I don't want milk laden with bovine growth hormone that makes udders suppurate with pus.  I think it's poor to relinquish any control over our trade relationships with other countries, especially if the U.S. maintains steel and aluminum tariffs.  The dispute resolution mechanism is good but merely a salvage.  It would have been better not to have a trade deal.   

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

At least it's on record that all of these progressive wishes came from Canada.  None came from the U.S.,

 

Wrong....even Freeland credited the U.S. trade delegation with coming up with the compromise on parts content labour rates instead of Canada's ideas.

Canada caved on USMCA the same way it caved for the CPTPP....Trudeau's "feminist agenda" does not pay the bills.

The American Congress will have more of a say in whether the agreement is ratified, unlike "ruling party" sheep in Canada.

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Wrong....even Freeland credited the U.S. trade delegation with coming up with the compromise on parts content labour rates instead of Canada's ideas.

Canada caved on USMCA the same way it caved for the CPTPP....Trudeau's "feminist agenda" does not pay the bills.

The American Congress will have more of a say in whether the agreement is ratified, unlike "ruling party" sheep in Canada.

The $16.00 minimum wage on 40-45% of Mexican auto production came from Canada, which will protect jobs in both Canada and the U.S..  As for CPTPP, at least we have a free trade agreement with multiple countries.  We also have CETA.  We also have cheap Chinese goods on our shelves, keeping prices down for consumers.  U.S. tariffs on China and other countries will drive up your consumer costs.  It's an inflationary move, like the massive tax cuts.  If the world economy (including the U.S.'s) tanks, as the IMF predicts, there will be few tools left in the U.S. toolkit apart from quantitative easing, but will countries like China, a country on which the U.S. imposed massive tariffs, want to buy that debt?  At some point all this aggression in trade and foreign policy will backfire.  In terms of winning hearts and minds, it already has.  Canadians and the citizens of many countries distrust the U.S. government.  We want to reduce dependency on trade with the U.S..  Not easy, but that desire will have traction in trade policy.  Maybe Congress and/or Parliament don't ratify and we see what changes come out of the mid-terms.  

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

... In terms of winning hearts and minds, it already has.  Canadians and the citizens of many countries distrust the U.S. government.  We want to reduce dependency on trade with the U.S..  Not easy, but that desire will have traction in trade policy.  Maybe Congress and/or Parliament don't ratify and we see what changes come out of the mid-terms.  

 

The Americans have much more leeway than the whipped MPs in Parliament....none will oppose Trudeau without risking expulsion from the Liberal caucus.

Talk is cheap....Canada put itself in the current situation with previous decisions and choices.   U.S. export trade is already far more diversified than Canada's, and it has nothing to do with what Canada thinks about it.

HATE America..but LOVE the American economy.   

[bush_cheney2004]

How Jared Kushner saved NAFTA USMCA:

 

Quote

"The deal fell apart more than once. And in every occasion it was one person that always found a way to put it back together: Jared Kushner," Videgaray told Reuters.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/jared-kushner-nafta-deal-mexico/2018/10/02/id/884382/

 

[GostHacked]

10 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

How Jared Kushner saved NAFTA USMCA:

Jared is the real brains behind the Trump administration and is a close friend of Israel.  I question where his national loyalties lie.