News   Apr 24, 2024
Latest Iteration of 50 Eglinton West Proposes 46- and 58-Storey Towers
 889     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Sustainability Month: Mass Timber Construction Showing Long-Term Economic Benefits
 1.2K     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 605     0 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

ErieHall said:
The full text of the USMCA
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/f...-mexico-canada-agreement/united-states-mexico
Click to expand...

Thank you. Helpful Post.

Just got through skimming it.

At first blush, its mostly the same as NAFTA.

Notable changes:

Higher minimum wage for Mexican auto workers
Some changes to labour laws required in Mexico to make Unions more accountable to their members, as opposed to business (secret ratification votes etc. )
Canada cracks open the dairy market a tiny bit and moves away from a milk classification that we used to target certain US dairy.
In exchange for the above US cracks open 'big sugar' just a hair.

There are a few 'modernizations' some of which may concern some, notably around genetically modified food.

No changes to dispute settlement, or culture, supply management is intact though eroded by this, TPP and the Canada-EU deal.

Canada also agreed not to permit quotas for Canadian wine in retail, specifically in BC, but presumably more broadly.
 
United States Marine Corps Auxiliary

Just glancing through the Agriculture chapter. There's some pretty contentious text in here, for example:
Article 3.4: Export Competition 1. No Party shall adopt or maintain an export subsidy on any agricultural good destined for the territory of another Party. 2. If a Party considers that an export subsidy or export financing support granted by the other Party results or may result in a distorting effect on trade between the Parties, with respect to an agricultural good, it may request to discuss the matter. The responding Party shall agree to meet with the requesting Party as soon as practicable.
Click to expand...

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/FTA/USMCA/03 Agriculture 30 Sept clean.pdf

My first impression (although it could change radically)?

This is a long way from being as nuanced as Nafta was. This could spell serious trouble further down the road.

Addendum: The more I read of this chapter, the more I believe it was written presuming there wasn't going to be a dispute resolution mechanism.

I'm finding some of the text scary...and I'm very pro-free-trade. Canada's insistence on inclusion of that mechanism was an absolute must.

Late Addendum:

Financial Times reports:
[...]
upload_2018-10-1_10-49-36.png
Click to expand...
Financial Times, Oct 1, 2018

The Devil still lies in the details. And the language.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-10-1_10-49-36.png
    upload_2018-10-1_10-49-36.png
    127.9 KB · Views: 350
Last edited:
Some supplementary notes on our 'new' NAFTA

The ISDS is to be phased out between Canada and the US (retained for Mexico). This is the clause that allowed companies to sue countries.

Also of interest, the proportionality clause is gone. This was the US quota on accessing our energy.

***

Finally, we've agreed to extend patents for the 'biologic' class of drugs to 10 years, this will adversely affect consumers in the US and Canada with higher prices for this drug class.
 
Obviously. Not giving those pardons would have been unethical. Well, at least as unethical as criminalising the people in the first place.

There was no other option. I would have lost the last smidgen of respect I have for this government if they didn't offer pardons to wrongfully criminalised people.

I mean I still might if they insist on holding to their ignorant and power-hungry line against opening up debate about a rational drugs policy in this country....but I'll give them this.

Baby steps because the populace is too drunk on false morality? Doesn't sound so good when I think of it in those terms.
 
Videodrome said:
The CPC wouldn't do this, far from it. They are still in Reefer Madness mode.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's probably true. But you can't expect ethical behaviour from irrational people.

Also, let's not give the Liberals too much credit. They're still stuck on stupid in terms of "Molly Madness" or "Shroom Madness", or whatever term for any myriad of psychotropics that are safer than alcohol and marijuana.

In fact, legalisation has almost been done backwards in this country, starting with the most dangerous and addictive drugs first: alcohol, nicotine, opioids for pain (and laziness), amphetamines for psychiatric disorders, marijuana.

Yet, all the relatively benign drugs (save salvia and a few analogues) are illegal and the Liberals refuse to open a rational discussion on the subject.

So, we should be wary of giving credit where it's not due. This is a step in the right direction but this government is far from helpful by continuing to be rather irrational when it comes to drugs policy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top