So, now that we have some more information about just what is in this renewed NAFTA agreement (no, I’m not going to call it by Trump’s preferred new title because it’s ridiculous), we can get some better analysis of what was agreed to. Here’s a good overview, along with some more analysis on the issues of BC wines, online shopping, intellectual property, Indigenous issues (though not the whole chapter they hoped for, and the gender chapter was also absent), and an oil and gas bottleneck issue whose resolution could now save our industry as much as $60 million. There is, naturally, compensation for those Supply Management-sector farmers who’ve had more access into the market granted (though that access is pretty gradual and will likely be implemented in a fairly protectionist manner, if CETA is anything to go by). There is, however, some particular consternation over a clause that gives the US some leverage over any trade we may do with a “non-market” country (read: China), though that could wind up being not a big deal after all and just some enhanced information sharing; and there is also the creation of a macro-economic committee that could mean the Bank of Canada may have to do more consultation with the US Federal Reserve on monetary policy (though I have yet to find more details about this change). But those steel and aluminium tariffs that Trump imposed for “national security” reasons remain, as they were always unrelated to NAFTA, and their removal will remain an ongoing process.
With the news of the deal also comes the behind-the-scenes tales of how it all went down, and we have three different versions, from Maclean’s John Geddes, the National Post’s Tom Blackwell, and CBC’s Katie Simpson.
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1046750795461357568
Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne posits that the damage in this agreement is slight but there was no hope for a broader trade agreement given that there were protectionists on both sides of the table. Likewise, Kevin Carmichael notes that the deal limited the potential harm that was looming, but didn’t really break any new ground. Andrew MacDougall says that the deal gives Trump the win he needed before the midterms, while it will also make it hard for Andrew Scheer to stick anything on Trudeau around the deal. Chantal Hébert agrees that if Trudeau loses the next election that it won’t be because of this trade deal. Paul Wells, meanwhile, takes note of how the Conservatives are playing this, trying to lead observers by the hand to show them that Trudeau “failed” in these talks, while glossing over all of the actual context around why these negotiations happened in the first place.
Good reads:
- Canada’s ambassador to the UN gave the speech Chrystia Freeland was supposed to, making the case as to why we deserve that Security Council seat.
- Indigenous MPs from both Liberals and NDP want the PMO to meet with Indigenous groups over the duty to consult.
- While export pipelines remain delayed, here’s a look at how oil-by-rail for export has exploded in volume over the past five years.
- The military’s Career Transition Services is being accused of sidelining medical discharges.
- It looks like the government will impose a time limit on the committee study of the electoral reform bill (which could trigger yet more filibusters).
- Spending limits on nomination races has doubled in advance of next year’s election, and some think it could create a barrier for women candidates.
- Quebec elected a CAQ majority, ending a fifty-year streak of two-arty rule. The PQ leader lost his own seat, and the party had their worst showing ever.
- Here’s a longread about the unique class action lawsuit for those LGBT Canadians persecuted in the civil service and military.
- Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at tools available to the Speaker for unparliamentary language (or bad language that’s not officially unparliamentary).
- Christie Blatchford offers some more context to the issue of Tori Stafford’s killer and the prison she was in before being moved to that healing lodge.
- Paul Wells gives his observations of the Quebec election results, and the fact that it may not really be much of a victory for François Legault after all.
Odds and ends:
In the Law Times, I talk to trade lawyers about tariff-rate quotas for TPP given the experience with CETA where they didn’t really open up the cheese market.
Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.
Trump named the “new NAFTA” the USMCA. A bit of an absurdity, however better than CAMUS which would have forever labelled Trump as the absurdity that he is!
Geoffrey Gertz’s piece on the Brookings Institution site describes the USMCA as essentially NAFTA with a few cosmetic changes. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/10/02/5-things-to-know-about-usmca-the-new-nafta/
When former PM Chretien was interviewed on The Current, earlier this year, he was asked about NAFTA, and replied that if he only changed one comma, Pres. Trump would portray it as the greatest treaty ever. I think we’ve seen his prediction come true.
Are there areas where we lost some ground? Sure. Show me a trade agreement between nations that aren’t complete nincompoops, and it will involve all parties giving up a little something they really didn’t want to. Indeed, if one recalls the grumpiness in Canada over the original NAFTA, it was because some sectors thought they would be losing out to the benefit of other sectors. Any revisions to, or “modernization”, of an existing trade agreement will attempt to re-adapt the agreement to whatever has changed in the respective economies over time. But that will almost necessarily modify or shift around which sector is losing ground by how much, and won’t result in any shift from complete victory to complete failure, or the reverse. It’s certainly possible to find least-painful compromises, but one need remember that all signatories to any such agreements are fighting hard for the economic benefit of their own citizens. As such, nobody will get everything they want.