Canada believes that Trump may pull out of NAFTA and negotiations

(January 10)Chrystia Freeland, Canada's Foreign Minister told reporters today that the United States must be taken seriously when it warns that it might walk away from NAFTA.

Two Canadian government sources said on Wednesday that Canada is convinced Trump will soon announce that the U.S. intends to pull out of NAFTA. The comments may have resulted in lower values for Canadian and Mexican currencies as well as driving down stock prices.

Canadian complaints to WTO may be the last straw for Trump

Trump has often described NAFTA as a terrible deal for the U.S. even though it gives favorable access to Canada's natural resources and to cheap Mexican labor. However, Trump's populist America First policy would try to reformulate the agreement to meet what he thinks are the interests of the U.S. rather than of U.S.-based global corporations. Many of these policies are not acceptable to Mexico or Canada.

As a recent, Digital Journal article reports, Canada is filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization(WTO) against the U.S. claiming its imposition of duties and other penalties against exporting nations constitute violations of international trade law.

U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer said: “Canada’s claims are unfounded and could only lower U.S. confidence that Canada is committed to mutually beneficial trade.”

This move may make the next round of negotiations on NAFTA even more difficult assuming Trump does not announce he is pulling out before they happen.

Factfile on NAFTA. US President Donald Trump has denounced NAFTA as a "disaster" and the worst agreement ever signed by the United States, blaming it for a $64 billion trade gap with Mexico and loss of countless jobs

John SAEKI, AFP

Upcoming negotiations on NAFTA in Montreal

The sixth round of talks are to run from Jan. 23-28 in Montreal and there is only one more round to take place after that.

Freeland claims that Canada had come up with some creative ideas to deal with some of the challenges facing negotiators but did not say what these were. Freeland also said it was “absolutely possible to have a positive outcome” at the Montreal talks if all three sides showed good will. Translated that means if they all agree to meet the main demands of global corporations.

Even if Trump were to give the required six months notice to withdraw from NAFTA he is not required to act on the notice. He could very well face strong opposition in the US Congress where both Republicans and Democrats will be under pressure from U.S.-based global corporations who want a trade deal in their interests.

An announcement to withdraw could be both a negotiating tactic and a sop to Trump's populist base that could help boost his slumping popularity ratings.

The NAFTA proportionality clause

Reports about the negotiations in the press rarely mention this provision and the government has not shown that it has the least intention of changing it. However, it is unique among trade deals in that it prevents the Canadian government from considering the needs of Canadians before those of the other two partners. We cannot put the energy needs of Canadians to access our energy resources before those of the US or Mexico. In practice, this means mostly the U.S.

Proportional sharing requires NAFTA members to make available the current share of energy exports to other member countries even when facing energy shortages at home.

Richard Heinberg, a California energy expert said that proportionality is unique in all of the world's trade treaties. Heinberg said: "Canada has every reason to repudiate the proportionality clause, and to do so unilaterally and immediately."

This is just one of the reasons why Canada should be walking away from the talks. However the Liberal government represents the interests of global corporations at the talks and is not about to abandon them if it sees any way for a successful completion of negotiations.

Published previously in Digital Journal

Canada will be better off if Trump dumps NAFTA

Many commentators appear worried that US President Trump will end up sabotaging any new NAFTA deal by insisting on new provisions that Mexico and Canada cannot accept.

 

An article by Thomas Walkom suggests what Canada can do if Trump kills NAFTA. If U.S. President Donald Trump rejects the North American Free Trade Agreement, there are essentially three things that Canada can do. One reaction would be to try and keep what remains of NAFTA with Mexico and hope that Trump's presidency wont last too long. Negotiations could resume with a new US president more amenable to a free trade deal that all three nations could accept. However, there may be a deep-seated negative attitude towards globalism in the US that could continue even if Trump's presidency ends. A second reaction would be to try to negotiate a bilateral deal with the US. That is not likely to be successful as Trump will insist on terms unacceptable to Canada. If NAFTA is ended then the 1989 US-Canada Free Trade Agreement would automatically come into force. Trump might very well demand it be renegotiated and end up rejecting it as well.

A final reaction would be to accept that the goal of continental economic integration is dead and pursue other economic aims. The US would still be a main trading partner of the US if it rejected NAFTA and as a recent study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives shows 41 percent of Canadian exports to the US would still face no tariffs without NAFTA. However, this may be because of the 1989 Canada-US Free Trade Agreement. US business reaction might be so negative at this point towards Trump that he might find it difficult to reject it as well as NAFTA.

Walkom suggests that the demise of NAFTA would force Canada to search for other markets for its goods and for other trading partners. This would lessen our dependence on the US which Walkom considers would not be such a terrible fate. While Walkom's view may be correct there are strong reasons why NAFTA should be rejected. Canada is not even attempting to remove some of the key provisions in NAFTA that are very much against the interests of Canadians.

Three provisions were set out in a recent Digital Journal article. In order to protect our crucial water supplies from becoming a commodity the provisions must make it clear that water is not a good, service, or investment. Otherwise Canada would be forced to export bulk water and increase privatization. The US no doubt could see Canadian water as a means of re-hydrating some US states that are very short of water.

Canada also needs to do away with the investor-state settlement provisions (SDS) in Chapter 11 of the treaty. This allows corporations to sue governments if they adopt policies restricting corporate profits. The sections have been used to challenge governments when they pass laws intended to protect people's health or protect the environment but have negative effects on corporate profits.

Finally there is the absolutely unfathomable proportionality clause. There is not a mention of this in Canada's list of priorities. The clause requires that if the government of any member of the agreement cuts energy available for export to another country it must cut the supply to the same extent domestically. Canada gave up its right to give priority to Canadians when it comes to access to scarce energy supplies. An expert on energy notes: ."Proportionality is "unique in all of the world's treaties," writes Richard Heinberg, a noted California energy expert... It's unclear how many other countries the U.S. has tried to impose an energy proportional sharing chapter on, but it is clear none has bitten. Heinberg concludes that "Canada has every reason to repudiate the proportionality clause, and to do so unilaterally and immediately."Mexico is not subject to the proportionality clause. Some of the new demands the US has made that may scuttle the negotiations are mentioned in the appended videos. One demand, the sunset clause seems quite reasonable to me, although both Mexico and Canada as well as many business leaders are strongly against it. The problem is that Trump's ideology of America First places US and not global corporations interest first, as well as attempting to get them to produce in the United States. Global business wants agreements favorable to them to last indefinitely without being subject to the threat of a sunset clause or any nationalist demands akin to those of Trump.

Canada increases defence spending by 70 percent over next decade

Canadian Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan reveals that the Canadian government will increase defence spending by 70 percent over the next decade.

Canada's defense spending will increase from $18.9 billion now to $32.7 billion. When asked where the money would come from Sajjan would not say but promised it would be there when required. Money spent on defense is money not available for other programs such as medical care, infrastructure improvements, and other expenditures that arguably would be of much greater value to Canadians.

Sajjan said that Canada will add hundreds of new elite special forces commandos, wage offensive cyber warfare, and also deploy armed drones to international battlefields as part of its military response to global security threats. No doubt these efforts will relieve some of the burden on the US of being a global policeman. As a recent article notes the secrecy that surrounds all the work of the Canadian special forces, and expansion of cyberattacks "raise questions about transparency and civil liberties". The special forces will increase by 605 people and they are to receive new airborne intelligence, surveillance, and intelligence tools. The announcement of the increase comes just two weeks after Trudeau met with NATO countries in Brussels.

The New Democratic Party (NDP) supposedly to the left of the liberals is no critic of military spending except to claim it was too low under the Harper Conservatives. UBC Professor Michael Byers, a former NDP candidate, argued that new Canadian defence spending should come quickly. Byer's was also an adviser to NDP leader Tom Mulcair. Mulciar criticized the Liberals for not spending enough on the military in the March budget: "Canadians have every right to be concerned. We are in desperate need of new ships for our Navy, we're in desperate need of new fighter aircraft for our Air Force, and there's no way that with the type of budget we've seen here that they're going to be getting them."

For a considerable time the NDP policy was to pull out of NATO. However the NDP has for some time abandoned its earlier policies many of them socialist: "With the arrival of Jack Layton as party leader in 2003 came an overhaul that included not only more robust fund raising tactics but also a policy review committee to weed out outdated resolutions from the policy manual. The post-Halifax policy book still contains so-called leftist staples such as the decriminalization of marijuana and “an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land,” but gone are the calls for Canada to leave NATO or nationalize banks." Of course long before that the party abandoned the aim of its predecessor the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation(CCF) to replace capitalism. As the CCF Regina Manifesto put it in its first sentence: "The CCF is a federation of organizations whose purpose is the establishment in Canada of a Co-operative Commonwealth in which the principle regulating production, distribution and exchange will be the supplying of human needs and not the making of profits." While the Canadian left may criticize the Liberals for not spending enough on defense, US President Donald Trump is happy that the Trudeau government is doing exactly what he has long recommended spend more on the military and pay a fairer share of NATO expenses.

The White House reported that Trump had praised Trudeau's increased military spending during a phone call after the announcement. Trump had earlier been lashing out at NATO allies by not paying their fair share of two percent of GDP towards military spending. Ironically the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, Chrystia Freeland said: "The fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership puts into sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course." There is almost zero likelihood that Canada will steer an independent course from the US. Its ties with the US military-industrial complex are too strong. What nonsensical rhetoric "mantle of global leadership", "clear and sovereign course". Variations on this nonsense can be found in a recent New York Times article.

Canada is a country that supposedly showed its independence from the US by not participating in the Iraq war while undertaking a larger role in Afghanistan. Yet, Canada awarded a medal to Walter Natynczyk a medal for service during the Iraq war, a war we were not supposed to be involved in. He later became chief of staff of the Canadian army for a number of years. In February of 2012 Natynczyk was awarded the Legion of Merit (Degree of Commander) by US General Martin Dempsey. There are obviously close ties between US and Canadian military.

PM Trudeau defends Canadian dairy system

Trudeau defended Canada's dairy supply management system noting that every nation including the US defends its agricultural industries as much as it can.

 

	1 of 3
Canada has a supply management system fodairy products, poultry and eggs. It is discussed in a recent Digital Journal article. Trump recently criticized the dairy system during a speech in Wisconsin a cheese-producing state. In an interview with Bloomberg television Trudeau points out that the US actually runs a dairy surplus with Canada. Trudeau noted that the system worked quite well in Canada and said: "Let's not pretend we're in a global free market when it comes to agriculture. Every country protects, for good reason, its agricultural industries." Trudeau made his response after Trump again attacked the Canadian dairy industry as well as lumber, timber and energy sectors. It is Canada that should be complaining about the energy sector under NAFTA. If Trump's slogan is America First, under NAFTA Canada comes second.

As an article in Rabble notes:The proportionality clause says that if the government of any NAFTA member country takes action that cuts the availability of energy for export to another NAFTA member country, it must continue to export the same proportion of total "supply" that it has over the previous three years. If it cuts energy available for export to another member country, it must also cut the supply of that energy domestically to the same extent.The proportionality rule means that Canadians cannot have priority access to their own energy supplies. Richard Heinberg, a noted California energy expert said that proportionality is unique in all of the world's trade treaties. Heinberg claims that "Canada has every reason to repudiate the proportionality clause, and to do so unilaterally and immediately." With the opening of NAFTA Trudeau has every opportunity to do this. However, he has yet to reveal what he intends to change. He has not mentioned this clause, no doubt for good reason. The US would never accept it being dropped. The US wants Canada to be first and foremost a reliable source for oil and gas who will not put the needs of Canadians above those of the US.

I doubt the issue will even make it to the mainstream press. What we have instead are attacks against the management supply system by international dairy bodies that have already been captured by the neo-liberal policy agendas that will profit large corporations. A recent Globe and Mail article by Campbell Clark, takes on the task of attacking the system and predicting its demise:The end is coming for Canada’s supply managed dairy market, not immediately, but almost inevitably. That’s not because U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed the Canadian system is unfair to U.S. farmers. The hypocrisy of a President who crows about an America First trade policy while demanding access to Canada’s market makes one of the best arguments for keeping the protectionist system. But the political market for supply management is weakening. For Canadian politicians, it will soon be more valuable to give it up in trade talks than it is to use it to buy the votes of dairy farmers.The article points out that from more than 100,000 dairy farms in Canada the number had declined to 11,260 in 2014. Half of these are in the province of Quebec but even there a Conservative MP Maxine Bernier is running for his party's leadership on a pledge to eliminate supply managed. It should be noted that the Conservatives have only 5 seats in Quebec in the federal government.

Campbell notes that the US wants concessions. Canada could trade doing away with the supply management system in order for greater market access for steel pipes, lumber, or exemption from border taxes. US lumber and steel companies may object to any such deal as it conflicts with Trump's America First doctrine. However, Trump may very well abandon that as he has other campaign promises especially as Steve Bannon seems to be losing influence and Wall Street and the military appear to be winning power in his administration. While the strength of dairy farmers under the supply-management system may be waning it may still be strong enough to keep its protections under NAFTA.

Trump has said that the US will report within two weeks what it is intending to do with NAFTA, that he promised to renegotiate.

Trudeau said he planned to move the trade conversation ahead "in a way that both protects consumers and our agricultural producers". Trudeau also noted about Trump: "He has shown if he says one thing and actually hears good counter arguments or good reasons why he should shift his position, he will take a different position if it's a better one, if the arguments win him over." Trump does often flip flop but Trudeau is being overly kind in suggesting Trump's reason for doing so.

There is no sign of the renegotiation being an open transparent process, or that there will be any public consultations on this exceedingly important issue. It is likely to be done in secret behind closed doors with the most important stakeholders giant international corporations having a significant presence. A list of demands from the Council of Canadians can be found here.

Trudeau flip flops to join Trump on Syria attack

(April 7) At first, when many countries jumped on the US bandwagon blaming Assad for the apparent chemical attack in a town near Idlib in Syria, Canada took a common sense cautious approach as an investigation into the incident had not yet even been started.

Trudeau said that the international community had to do more to investigate the the Syrian chemical attack. He roundly condemned the attack that killed more than 70 including children. Trudeau said: "We're all shocked and horrified by the terrible images and actions that just happened in Syria with chemical weapons." Trudeau said the Canadian government 'obviously, unequivocally" condemned the attack and "pushed the international community to do more to condemn, to find out what's going on." He did not blame Assad as the U.S. and others had already done.

Yet after Trump unilaterally, without waiting for a UN resolution or investigation, fired Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase, Trudeau came out in support of his action. Trudeau said that Canada was briefed in advance, about an hour before the U.S. missile strikes on the Syrian airbase. He said U.S. Secretary of State, James Mattis, called Canadian Defence Minister, Harjit Sajjan, Thursday night and Sajjan immediately briefed Trudeau.

For some strange reason, Trudeau's account contradicts what Trump's Press Secretary Sean Spicer had to say. Spicer said: "Missiles were launched at 7:40 p.m. during dinner. Foreign leaders and congressional leaders were notified starting at 8:30 p.m., just as first impacts were hitting the ground." It seems a bit odd if Canada had been warned ahead of other nations but Trudeau repeated his claim in a later speech. Trudeau also said that Canada would continue its mission in northern Iraq but that the government would continue to work to see how it could help in Syria.

Trudeau had a phone conversation with Trump on Friday morning. Trudeau told Trump that Canada fully supports the "limited and focused action to degrade the Syrian regime's ability to conduct chemical weapons attacks". Conservative MP Pierre Polievre during question period in the House of Commons, claimed that were inconsistencies in the Trudeau governments' response to what has happened. On Thursday, Trudeau had suggested there were continuing questions about who exactly was responsible for the attack and that the UN Security Council should launch an investigation into who was responsible. Polievre said Trudeau's rapid change of position shows Canada had been "completely out of the loop" on developments in the region. Polievre said: "Now [Trudeau] says he fully supports the United States's unilateral missile strikes against the Assad regime. The government's position seems to change with the wind." It was not exactly the wind but the phone call from Trump on Friday that changed the policy. On Thursday, Trudeau had been "out of the loop" not realizing that like other U.S. allies he was supposed to blame Assad before any investigation as the U.S. and shortly after many U.S. allies had done.

Trudeau's story is that the U.S. had provided him with information about the attack: "Secretary Mattis called Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan to confirm that Bashar al-Assad and his regime were responsible for the horrific attacks on civilians of a few days ago. A trusted and reliable ally in the United States informed us that the Assad regime was responsible for these chemical attacks." Sajjan told the House that Assad's repeated use of chemical weapons must not continue. Canada was back in the loop, accepting the U.S. narrative before any investigation and not questioning the missile attacks but supporting them. Maybe Trump will call and thank him.

Interim Conservative leader, Rona Ambrose, of the main opposition party also supported the missile strikes saying: "The global community cannot sit idly by while deadly nerve toxins are unleashed on innocent civilians." Murray Rankin of the NDP said the Assad regime must be held responsible for these shocking crimes. An NDP statement on its website is somewhat more reticent about blaming Assad already. A CBC article discusses viewers questions with Brian Stewart an award-winning Canadian journalist.

Refugee claimants face dangerously cold conditions crossing Manitoba border

(February 7) Over last weekend almost two dozen refugees walked over the border from the U.S. into Canada. Officials in the municipality of Emerson-Franklin directly south of Winnipeg worry about dealing with the rising numbers as they seem to be increasing.

 

	1 of 3
Doug Johnston a councilor for the municipality said:"This is right off the scale for us." The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) confirmed that 22 people had crossed the border from Noyes, Minnesota into the Emerson area in Manitoba Canada. Johnston said that this is more than he has ever seen within such a short period. Rita Chahai, director of the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council said that last week another 10 refugee claimant files had been opened. Chahai said: "What we notice when they are in our office is that they are just extremely grateful and happy they have a chance at a fair hearing.To us, that's what is really important; that they are out of harm's way."

Most of the refugees come north to Manitoba through Minneapolis Minnesota. They are originally from such places as Somalia, Ghana and Djibouti. Four who arrived this weekend were from Somalia. Many of the refugees have no clue about weather conditions in Manitoba at this time of year and are not properly dressed. Johnston said he fears that some refugee is going to die if the number trying to get in increases while it is dead winter still.

Christmas eve, two Ghanians came by bus and then taxi to a large field that straddles the border. After wading through deep snow they finally reached the main highway to Winnipeg HIghway 75. It took some time to flag down a truck who phoned 911 when he realized how badly frozen the two were. They went by ambulance to Morris and then to Winnipeg as they were so badly frozen. The weather was quite cold even without considering the effect of the wind: "Environment Canada records show the temperature in the Emerson, Man., area on the morning of Dec. 24 was hovering around the –18 C mark before the windchill. CBC meteorologist John Sauder said skin can freeze within 30 minutes in that temperature." The two will suffer serious consequences but both are fortunate to be alive: "A Ghanaian refugee who almost died during a trek to cross the U.S.-Canada border into Manitoba on Christmas Eve will lose all of his fingers, a toe and possibly his arms." It appears from the appended video that neither will lose an arm.

Johnston thinks that when the weather warms up the influx could even be greater and he along with other officials and the local MLA want to meet with the federal and provincial government to devise a plan to deal with the situation. The Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) reports that 410 asylum seekers entered Canada near Emerson in just nine months last year. That is up from 340 in the year 2015-16 and only 68 in 2013-2014. Reeve of the municipality Greg Janzen said: "They are coming at all hours of the night, in the dark. We don't know if they're really bad criminals … if they're into drugs or into crime, and that's a scary thing."

Border staff were under pressure over the weekend but were able to get emergency officials in Emerson to house refugees in a local community hall. Sometimes the hall is opened for drivers stranded in snowstorms but volunteers said they had never had to deal with so many refugees.

Emerson is about 100 kilometers directly south of Winnipeg the capital. Refugees are usually picked up by fire crews or the RCMP and taken to the CBSA where they are processed. Volunteers provided the refugees blankets and warm clothes. They stayed at the hall about 12 hours. Usually refugees are not provided food but the group were hungry and were given bread with Nutella.

The Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S. requires asylum seekers to claim refugee status in the "first safe country they arrive in" Any claimant trying to enter Canada from the U.S. via customs at U.S. land borders will be turned away. The deal was signed in 2004. However, there is a loophole that enables those who cross the border outside of official crossing points to be able to claim refugee status.

Janzen said: "I personally don't think they should be considered refugees. The United States is a safe country, and yet we're giving them refugee status." However, a growing number of critics including Amnesty International have called for scrapping the deal. Trump's recebt executive order is thought to have contributed to the recent influx into Manitoba. Ahmed Hussen, Federal Minister of Immigration defended the agreement claiming it allows Canada to "better handle the asylum system":"It's supported by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to prevent asylum shopping."

A CBC article interviews a number of refugees in Winnipeg about the refugee situation. One, Abdikheir Ahmed, who came to Winnipeg as a refugee in 2003 from Kenya, said Trump's ban is scary for Muslims like himself."We might avoid the U.S. forever. The U.S. is not a safe country for refugees anymore."

Canadian PM Trudeau says he is will to renegotiate NAFTA with Trump

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says that he had a brief but good phone call with president-elect Donald Trump. Trudeau said that Trump "expressed warmth" towards Canada.

Trudeau said he congratulated Trump on his becoming president and expressed his willingness to discuss NAFTA with the Trump administration. Trudeau also extended an invitation to visit Canada.Trudeau said of the phone call: "It was a strong beginning to what will be a constructive relationship".

During his election campaign, Trump had stressed that he would renegotiate trade agreements to get a better deal for Americans. He has already signed an executive order withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Obama had favored but was unable to have ratified in Congress. Trump also criticized NAFTA as a bad deal for America that needed to be renegotiated or dropped altogether. When reporters asked Trudeau what he hoped to gain by agreeing to reopen NAFTA before Trump had even asked to do so he said: “If Americans want to talk about NAFTA, I’m happy to talk about it." Trudeau said that the U.S. and Canada would work together constructively on renegotiating NAFTA as that is what people expect.

Canadian critics of the NAFTA agreement see renegotiation as an opportunity to reform the agreement. The Council of Canadians has always been critical of the agreement. The group even lists five main reasons why it thinks NAFTA should be renegotiated. Maude Barlow head of the Council has been actively tweeting about the renegotiations. A sample tweet: "NAFTA renegotiation must remove Chapter 11 that gives corporations the right to sue governments." Trump claims that he wants to open up NAFTA to create a better deal for Americans. Just as certainly, Canadians and Mexicans will be trying to get a better deal for them. The deal is in the interests of giant global corporations many with headquarters in the U.S. They may be quite unhappy about any attempt to benefit Americans which threatens their profits. Canadians and Mexicans may also be unwilling to accept any changes that hurt their citizens.

NAFTA went into effect on January 1 1994. There was considerable opposition in all three countries at the time. It is the largest agreement of its kind in the world. Critics point to NAFTA as helping to increase the profits of multinational corporations, and causing an increase in inequality in North America. They claim that NAFTA weakened labor rights and environmental protections.

Rabble claims that since 2004 500,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in Canada many of which were well-paid, permanent, and unionized. A Rabble article argues that Trump changes will not help reform NAFTA in the interest of workers:People should be angry that NAFTA has served the interest of multinational corporations and pushes policies of deregulation and privatization. Power and privilege is being used to skew the economic system to increase the gap between the richest and poorest people. People in all three countries should be under no illusion about Trump's rhetoric of renegotiating NAFTA, which seeks to pit workers against workers while giving tax-dodging big businesses more tax breaks, benefiting the corporate elites in the U.S. and further entrenching economic inequality.In part, Trump won the election because his plans to renegotiate NAFTA appealed to workers in rust-belt areas who were hurt by the terms of the deal. If Trump does nothing to improve their condition they may soon turn against him. However, so far Trump's team is filled with billionaires and people from Wall Street of the very type that he has constantly criticized. It will be interesting to see how Trump manages to change NAFTA in the interests of U.S. workers rather than multinational corporations. Alternative facts will probably play a significant role.

One issue that many critics will try to change are the investor-state dispute settlement provisions (ISDS) that gives corporations the right to sue governments for introducing regulations that could have a negative effect on their investments or expected future profits:These anti-democratic, supra-national corporate tribunals override the national court systems, eliminating government ability to regulate in the public interest by supporting industries that create good local jobs and by protecting the environment. Canada is already the most sued developed country in the world because of NAFTA's ISDS process.

NAFTA has had a devastating effect on more than two million small-scale Mexican farmers as the provisions of NAFTA favor the interests of large agri-business. Many Mexican farmers were forced off their land and some joined the many immigrants crossing the U.S. border searching for work. NAFTA does not recognize indigenous rights. Opening up NAFTA for renegotiating presents an opportunity to remove some of the worst aspects of the deal. Given the makeup of Trump's administration it seems highly unlikely that we will see any movement in that direction. However, pressure can be put on him to make some positive changes. Pressure will be needed by people in all three countries to make this happen. Trump is trying to circumvent this by his appeal to put Americans first thus creating divisions among Mexican, Canadian, and American workers.

With Trump win of US presidency Canada has an opportunity to renegotiate NAFTA

Donald Trump during his campaign vowed he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA). This provides a golden opportunity for Canada to alter some features of the agreement that should be changed.

Trudeau has said he was quite willing to discuss NAFTA with Trump. Trump said that he meant to move quickly on trade policies, according to an internal transition team document. The document claims he would drop out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) unless certain demands were met. Within a hundred days of doing that the US could withdraw from NAFTA also unless his demands were met,

Even if Trump did pull out of NAFTA, the 1989 Canada-US agreement of 1989 removed most tariffs so trade would continue to flow. One benefit of NAFTA failing would be that Chapter 11 of the deal, the investor-state dispute settlement section (ISDS) would be gone. ISDS provisions allow corporations to sue governments before special tribunals. Opponents argue that investor claims that certain laws or regulations negatively impacted profits and were discriminatory could inhibit countries from passing strict environmental, health laws or labour or human rights. An early case involved Philip Morris and Uruguay that challenged Uruguay's strict laws governing smoking. Philip Morris lost. Another case involved the Canadian company Methanex that sued California: as noted by Wikipedia, the "Methanex Corporation challenged California's plan to eliminate methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from gasoline on grounds of water pollution prevention, claiming protection under Chapter 11 of NAFTA and demanding $970 million in compensation from the state."Methanex lost. However, the danger still remains of corporations winning as they often do, especially if based in the US: ISDS has been criticized because the United States has never lost any of its ISDS cases, and that the system is biased to favor American companies and American trade over other Western countries, and Western countries over the rest of the world. Soon after NAFTA was adopted, the Canadian government adopted a policy whereby all new laws and any changes to existing laws have to be vetted by trade experts to ensure they could not be challenged under ISDS rules. The elimination of Chapter 11 would be one giant step forward in renegotiating NAFTA.

NAFTA puts strict limitations on the ability of the Canadian government to reduce energy exports to meet Canadian needs or for environmental reasons: "The deals say that Canada must maintain at least the same level of oil and gas exports to the United States as it had supplied for the past thirty-six months. Only if Canadian consumption is cut proportionately, and then only in times of crisis, could the Canadian government claim jurisdiction over its own energy resources."

While Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., David MacNaughton says that the Liberal government would be glad to renegotiate NAFTA with the U.S. Trump administration, he refuses to disclose what Canada would be seeking in such a renegotiation. McNaughton claims that NAFTA has brought prosperity to the continent. Perhaps for international corporations. Maude Barlow, head of the Council of Canadians, counters: “Since NAFTA came into force on January 1, 1994, we've seen the loss of well over half a million manufacturing jobs in Canada, the net loss of one million jobs in the United States, and the displacement of millions of Mexican farmers. Employment trends suggest part-time precarious jobs with fewer benefits, while the income disparity in all three countries continues to grow."

Many analysts see NAFTA as posing a danger to the Canadian water supply. Maude Barlow writes: "The federal government should remove all references to water in all existing and upcoming trade and investment agreements as a good, a service or an investment, unless to allow for the specific protection or exclusion of water....Removing all references to water as a good from NAFTA would end the debate on whether the federal and provincial bans on water exports are sufficient, as it would remove any potential for a NAFTA challenge. Removing water as a service would help protect water as an essential public service. Removing it as an investment and excluding ISDS provisions would make it much harder for foreign corporations to use trade treaties to fight domestic or international rules that protect water."

The process of negotiating trade agreements is secretive and behind closed doors. There is little transparency, no public consultations, and no processes taking place in public. The Liberal government has given no indication it wants to change the process and has not said which aspects of the agreement it wants to renegotiate. Trudeau said: "The challenge is once you reopen it a little bit, they all tend to unravel, and it's too important for both of our economies to continue to have a strong trading relationship." Only by keeping public pressure on Trudeau for specific reforms are we likely to see Trudeau press for any progressive changes in the trade agreement. Every attempt will be made to retain a NAFTA that gives more power to global corporations. For further analysis, see the appended 1993 interview with Noam Chomsky on NAFTA.

Canadian analyst argues that a Trump win of the US presidency would be net benefit for Canadian economy

Matthew Barasch, Canadian equity strategist for RBC Capital Market, argues that if Donald Trump wins the presidency of the United States in November this would be a "net positive" for both the Canadian economy and Canadian stocks.

Barsch bases his prediction on Trump's pro-oil policies, and proposals for lower tax rates. Barasch notes that reports about a Trump presidency should be taken with a grain of salt: “We would be very cautious with those who suggest that markets will crash and dogs and cats will live together upon a Trump victory as these types of stories often sell newspapers, but have little connection to reality." He made the remarks in a note to his clients.

Barasch claims that Trump's tax cuts would in the near term probably give a boost to the U.S. economy, which would mean more exports to the U.S. from Canada, increasing GDP. He thinks that Trump's policies would lead to higher interest rates as economic growth and deficits increase. This along with less onerous regulations on banks and insurance companies could increase their profits.

Trump has vowed to revive the Keystone XL pipeline project that could help the energy and materials sector. Trump also would increase infrastructure spending which would help stocks such as railways. Trump's restrictive immigration policy could help attract talent to Canada and could boost our technology sector.

However, as Barasch notes, Trump vows to renegotiate NAFTA, and he also rejects the TPP, and this could hurt Canada in the long run. It remains to be seen if Trump would actually follow through on these promises. Barasch remarks: “Any move to roll back NAFTA would weigh on [consumer staples and discretionary stocks] that rely on significant access to the U.S. market, with auto parts a notable standout.”

It's possible that a Trump victory will also lead to an increasing number of Americans coming to Canada as they fear what Trump might do to the U.S. There are already reports of Americans making contingency plans to flee north. There are also reports warning of the difficulties associated with moving to Canada. There have been periods when significant numbers of Americans moved to Canada. In the 1960's thousands of Americans fled to Canada to avoid being drafted for the Vietnam War.