What should Canada give up in new NAFTA

[petros]

Like how there is no way in Hell China can feed it's self so it's unilaterally taking the reigns of SE Asia?

China

China's Southeast Asia investments: A blessing or a curse?

For Southeast Asian countries, an increased economic cooperation with China can be a double-edged sword. Beijing's investment initiatives are not only aimed at regional connectivity, they also seek ideological hegemony.

According to Asian Development Bank estimates, the infrastructure needs for the Southeast Asian region are increasing. To keep pace with their economic growth and growing populations, the countries in the region need huge investments in energy supply, transportation, telecommunication, water capacity and sanitation.

Southeast Asian governments are increasingly aware of an impending infrastructure crisis.

In September last year, the ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) agreed on the "Master Plan on ASEAN connectivity 2015," which seeks to expand the region's railway networks.

However, the implementation of the ASEAN master plan has been very slow, according to Yap Kioe Sheng of the University of Cardiff. "As far as I can tell, there has been little progress."

Wolfram Schaffar, a political scientist at the University of Vienna, shares a similar view. "The ASEAN infrastructure plan is being slowed down by a continuing economic downturn in the region. The countries are mostly investing in low-cost projects, but they have bigger plans that they cannot execute due to the economic situation."

In short, the countries have little money, and the infrastructure construction, especially of new railway networks, is very expensive. This is where China's economic might comes into play.

 

[taxslave]

Well let's hope this doesn't go the way of Electoral Reform and get ignored...


The Canadian Government is seeking input on NAFTA renegotiation


The Government of Canada is listening to Canadians from across the country and from all sectors and backgrounds about trade. This includes conversations with the provinces and territories, industry, unions, civil society, think tanks, academics, Indigenous peoples, women, youth and the general public.

We recognize that trade policies need to respond and contribute meaningfully to Canadians’ economic, social, and environmental priorities. This is a key element of the Progressive Trade Agenda, which supports the Canadian middle class and those working hard to join it.

NAFTA's track record is one of economic growth and middle class job creation in Canada and across North America. As we prepare for discussions with the United States and Mexico on the renegotiation of NAFTA, we are seeking your views. Are there areas of the agreement that could be clarified? Are there parts that should be updated? Are there any new sections that should be part of a modernized agreement?

Any changes to NAFTA would need to support our goals of providing stable, rewarding, and well-paying jobs for Canadians and helping grow our middle class.

Consulting Canadians on the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Mexico

NAFTAhasn't done jack shit for middle class job creation in Canada.

 

[darkbeaver]

Any hope of economic recovery.

 

[captain morgan]

Any hope of economic recovery.

.. Not as long as JT has the nation's wallet in his pocket

 

[Bar Sinister]

The last thing you want is to have an heavily armed and very aggressive country that has a long history of taking unilateral action against other countries whenever it suits them become too reliant on any one of your resources, especially your water.

So you are suggesting that we simply allow the Americans to take whatever resources they wish? I certainly wouldn't want you bargaining for Canada in any foreign trade deal. Also the Yanks tried an armed invasion of Canada once and it didn't work out very well. Since then the US and Canada have forged treaties that created the longest undefended border in the world. The Americans have had about 150 years to break those treaties and have not shown the slightest interest.

 

[tay]

President Trump says that if he doesn’t get the renegotiation he wants, “we will terminate… NAFTA forever.” Canadians didn’t ask for this tempest. A positive outcome for all three parties is possible, but not if renegotiation implies capturing more of the benefits for the US at the expense of Canada and Mexico. Time is on our side. The President can’t be too ambitious because he needs the negotiations to wrap up quickly. The Canadian government has started off well by energetically seeking friends wherever it can find them — in Congress, the states, and industry associations. But what options does Canada have if that’s not good enough either to resist Trump or achieve our own objectives?

Answering this question starts by asking another: How much leverage does the US really have? That depends on the type of deal the Americans want. They have quite a bit of leverage for a good agreement that strengthens North American trade relations; but not so much leverage for a bad agreement that Canada and Mexico would find hard to accept.

President Trump started from false premises, thinking that NAFTA was a disaster. The loss of industrial jobs that he thundered against was primarily due to automation. It may have been due to trade too, but it probably wasn’t due to US trade agreements, and it certainly wasn’t due to US trade agreements with Canada.

Trump has a political problem of his own making: NAFTA isn’t the cause of the problem he wants to fix, and no sensible outcome of the renegotiation will likely help him with his voters. The problem is compounded by the first item in the July 17 Summary of the Objectives for Renegotiating NAFTA: “Improve the U.S. trade balance and reduce the trade deficit with the NAFTA countries.” This objective is something that trade deals are rather ill-equipped to deliver. So we now find ourselves entering a hugely complicated negotiation whose outcome can’t satisfy the apparent motivations of its instigator. American jobs haven’t migrated to Canada (and the US doesn’t even have a trade deficit with Canada); therefore, if the US objective is to redress the damage done to its economy by trade agreements, the NAFTA renegotiation will fail.

International relations offers three approaches for thinking about what determines negotiating outcomes. The first stresses the salience of power or material interests, such that outcomes are the result of coercion or power. This perspective rightly worries Canadians who think Trump might try to bully us. Others think that outcomes depend on bargaining, based on the interests the parties bring to the table. This perspective assesses what each side ought to want from the renegotiation to estimate the outcome. In contrast, many people think the outcome of negotiations is influenced by interaction and deliberation. These three theories construct a familiar trinity of explanations for international action. In reality no one factor dominates, and each influences the other.

Can Canada be bullied?

Let’s consider whether Canada could be bullied in the negotiations, by thinking about who has power and what it’s good for.

For Trump to have something to show voters in the 2018 Congressional elections, a deal must be submitted to Congress by January 2018. This makes speed a bargaining chip for Canada and Mexico.


It’s no accident, therefore, that the US summary identifies many issues already addressed in TPP, which in effect modernized NAFTA, since the TPP approach is well understood by the three parties. Starting from the TPP is not simple though, even if it’s quick. Each of the NAFTA parties must ask if the TPP texts include provisions inserted only to gain the agreement of the other nine or if the other nine had blocked provisions that the three might want to bring back. Canada must also consider whether we made concessions to the Americans in the TPP only because we were obtaining a concession from one of the others.

Part of the initial bargaining will be agreeing on the issues for negotiation, and ensuring the agenda meets everyone’s needs, while excluding issues that will be too complicated given the time available (such as US offensive investment interests) or too protectionist for Canada and Mexico to accept (such as eliminating the global safeguard exclusion). All of the NAFTA parties might want easier terms for pipeline construction. Canada might want to make it easier for professionals to cross the border to provide services, including in sectors not covered in NAFTA.

more

Who has leverage in the NAFTA renegotiation?


Big link for more stories on NAFTA.......

Trade Policy for Uncertain Times

 

[tay]

History holds many lessons for those of us who care to remember. It shows us the outcome of decisions and the unintended consequences they generate. So it is fitting that we pause, reflect on the actions of past governments and ensure that previous mistakes are not repeated today.

As the country prepares to embark on what’s sure to be contentious negotiations over NAFTA with our neighbours to the south, it will be critical for the Trudeau government to continue to stand tall and defend the interests of Canadian industry with passion and conviction.

As if to remind ourselves of how vital it is to support Canadian manufacturing excellence, media outlets reported recently on attempts to recover scale prototypes from Lake Ontario of the Canadian aerospace industry’s greatest historical achievement, the Avro Arrow.

The fighter jet was a magnificent achievement of engineering, ingenuity and performance that was cast away — a story of opportunity lost and potential unrealized.

The demise of the Arrow in 1959 led to the near collapse of Canada’s aerospace industry: tens of thousands of Canadian jobs were lost and the flood gates for an unprecedented brain drain of talented Canadian aerospace engineers and manufacturers to the United States were opened.

The Arrow was no ordinary plane. It represented the pinnacle of Canadian aerospace and technological achievement in its day, pushing the physical limits of what was deemed possible by engineers across the world. But, the Arrow’s moment in the sun turned swiftly dark as the John Diefenbaker government caved to operational integration with American defence interests, opting for U.S. manufactured missiles over Canadian built fighters.

The wrong decision about a single aircraft program had massive ramifications for the Canadian industry and would haunt the legacy of the prairie lawyer turned prime minister. For many Canadians, the death of the Arrow was unforgivable.
Fast forward to today. What does that experience teach us? Apparently, a lot.

The Trudeau government has moved swiftly and decidedly to defend Canadian interests and Canadian innovation against ludicrous U.S. Trade Law challenges against Bombardier’s C Series program by Boeing.

Like the Arrow, the C Series is reinventing a category, and redefining single-aisle jet travel through technological innovations in fuel efficiency, noise reduction, environmental footprint, and cabin comfort. Canada has developed its passenger jet of the future. And like the Arrow — thousands of jobs and an enormous domestic supply chain, both in Canada and the United States, are supported by its components and assembly.

But drawing upon lessons from the cancellation of the Arrow program, Trudeau and his ministers have been consistent in their position — Bombardier is following the rules, and Boeing’s claims are self-serving and unfounded. And, rather than cave in to the powerful forces south of the border, Canada is standing firm.

In fact, the Trudeau government has even threatened to scrap talks with Boeing on a potential contract from Canada for a fleet of Boeing-produced CF-18 fighters. Trudeau has thus far made it clear that a Canadian defence aerospace deal will not take place with a firm that at the same time seeks to dismantle Canada’s world class commercial aerospace industry. Boeing seems to have severely miscalculated. This government knows its country’s history.

Aerospace conjures images of technology and innovation. Yet, its story includes the greatest missed opportunity in Canadian history. It’s time to write a new, confident and forward-looking story — for Canada, and for the thousands of people who have invented greatness yet again.

Aziz Guergachi is a professor at the Ted Rogers School of Management and is the academic adviser, MBA internships, in the aerospace industry at Ted Rogers MBA. He is also an adjunct professor at York University, mathematics and statistics department.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...member-the-avro-arrow-during-nafta-talks.html

 

[Gilgamesh]

We need to develop new trade partnerships, and fast. We are locked into almost all of our trade with a declining and unstable partner.

America declining? It's doing no such thing although cheapo uneducated knee jerk anti Americans would wish it. Since the last couple of years of Obama The Inept,and (surprisingly) continuing unabated thru Trumps otherwise disastrous regime, the economy is in great shape.

BTW,ours is not.

 

[White_Unifier]

So you are suggesting that we simply allow the Americans to take whatever resources they wish? I certainly wouldn't want you bargaining for Canada in any foreign trade deal. Also the Yanks tried an armed invasion of Canada once and it didn't work out very well. Since then the US and Canada have forged treaties that created the longest undefended border in the world. The Americans have had about 150 years to break those treaties and have not shown the slightest interest.

Canada was a province of the British Empire back then.

 

[JamesBondo]

lets give up CBC

 

[Twin_Moose]

Give them Trudeau

 

[Gilgamesh]

lets give up CBC

Excellent idea.

 

[White_Unifier]

lets give up CBC

Hell no! cut funding to CBC and sell it off to the highest bidder. Our taxes paid for it, why should we just give it up for free?

 

[pgs]

Hell no! cut funding to CBC and sell it off to the highest bidder. Our taxes paid for it, why should we just give it up for free?

It is the liberal way to reward their friends , after all what are friends for .

 

[Curious Cdn]

Hell no! cut funding to CBC and sell it off to the highest bidder. Our taxes paid for it, why should we just give it up for free?

Sell it to the Yanks. That's what the Canadian Alt Reich wants to be ... Yanks.

 

[Hoid]

Let's give up the $12.5 billion trade deficit.

 

[White_Unifier]

Let's give up the $12.5 billion trade deficit.

A trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing. Trump is a fool when it comes to economics.

 

[Liberalman]

If the US pulls out of NAFTA, NAFTA would continue to apply to Canada and Mexico.

But with the US out of the picture, Canada and Mexico could renegotiate an even more open NAFTA between one another.

Right so we don't really have anything to worry about other than renegotiating trade with Mexico.

Since Mexico threw Canada under the bus by negotiating an agreement with America if Canada did continue with Mexico they would have to give up a lot more to Canada

 

[Curious Cdn]

Since Mexico threw Canada under the bus by negotiating an agreement with America if Canada did continue with Mexico they would have to give up a lot more to Canada

There won't be an agreement. Congress is going to choke on it. NAFTA will continue as per usual and the steel and aluminum tariffs will be ruled as illegal.

Chill.

Madman's rope is getting really short.

 

[JamesBondo]

Since Mexico threw Canada under the bus by negotiating an agreement with America if Canada did continue with Mexico they would have to give up a lot more to Canada

Canada doesn't make a pickup truck anymore. They all come from the US and mexico. We are ****ed.