Canada could be in for a lot more trade trouble under Trump than just NAFTA

Je partage la perception pessimiste de Corcocan du Financial Post, la négociation va être difficile.

Trump a promis à son peuple qu’il va rapatrier des emplois aux États-Unis, pour y arriver il faut que le protectionniste instauré soit suffisamment contraignant pour que les emplois délocalisés reviennent aux États-Unis, en espérant qu’ils nous épargnent un peu, car les travailleurs canadiens ont le même problème que les Américains, délocalisations excessives des emplois payants vers les pays émergents.

Écoutez le vidéo, il est intéressant, démontre la totale ‘bullshit’ que les politiciens nous ont claironnée en faisant la promotion de l’accord Nafta.


Extrait de: Terence Corcoran: Canada could be in for a lot more trade trouble under Trump than just NAFTA, Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, November 17, 2016

There is general concern that Donald Trump’s trade policies and anti-globalization stances are bad news for global trade and growth, a certain rosy haze seems to have rolled over parts of Canada. If Trump were to, say, undo NAFTA as promised, maybe that will be good for Canada, said former Quebec Premier Jean Charest. It could be “a huge, a new opportunity” to strike up new partnerships with China, maybe, or the Middle East.

clip_image003Then there’s Jerry Dias, head of Unifor, being interviewed on CBC last week. “NAFTA has been a disaster for Canada,” said Dias, sounding very Trumpish.

“There definitely has to be a renegotiation of NAFTA,” he said, noting that Canada has lost 50,000 auto jobs under the trade agreement, although it’s not clear how any of those jobs will re-materialize under a new deal.

Some — including Canada’s ambassador to Washington — suggest that there’s not that much to worry about. Trump is really taking aim at Mexico, and if NAFTA is ripped up Canada can simply fall back on the previous Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA), which continues to exist to protect Canada against an anti-free-trade Trump administration. Canada has trade issues it would like to clear up and, said the Prime Minister, we would be “more than happy” to sit down and work out some details.

All very nice, but these optimistic views of the future of Canada-U.S. trade relations under Trump seem somewhat disconnected from the realities of international trade negotiations. Trade conflicts and agreements are never simple — and they are never reducible to one or two issues. Instead, they are political cans of entangled policy worms that reach throughout the economy and into every business sector and every policy faction across the ideological spectrum.

There’s a good chance that it’s not just the 1994 NAFTA deal that’s on the table. There are already signs that, while the original 1987 FTA is still in force, it is likely to get reopened, if not renegotiated.

On Tuesday, CNN reported on a Trump transition document of uncertain provenance that not only NAFTA is in the Trump crosshairs. So is softwood lumber and country-of-origin labeling on products such a beef.

Once Trump the bargainer and his trade appointees start picking over Canada-U.S. trade beyond NAFTA, the inter-relationships and thorny trade issues are likely to surface, including agricultural protections, intellectual property, environmental regulations, telecom rules, and labour provisions.

Mexican President Carlos Salinas (L) shakes hands with Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (R) as US President George Bush looks on (C) after the three leaders made remarks at the signing ceremony for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),in San Antonio (Texas) on October 7th 1992.

Trade lawyer Lawrence Herman says he believes it is all but inevitable that areas in the foundational FTA will be reopened for discussion. “I think it is incorrect to say ‘Well, scrap the NAFTA, we’ll still have the FTA,’” Herman says. Trump’s advisers and cabinet officials will be focused on policies, and “if the FTA guarantees Canada something they don’t like, then they are going to go after the FTA as well.”

Herman notes that all of this is speculation until Trump’s trade agenda is made clear and we’re not depending on leaked documents that may or may not accurately reflect the new administration’s priorities. But anything and everything could be up in the air, creating uncertainty for corporations whose executives might be inclined to put major decisions on hold pending resolution of key conflicts.

The North American economy has become more and more integrated, with more than $1 trillion in trade among the three nations. Much of the trade exists within integrated supply-chain networks in many industries, from autos to plastics. If Trump wants to open up NAFTA for renegotiation, Canada faces several challenges.

Voici des excellentes qui posent ?

Does Canada want to get sucked into a protectionist Canada-U.S. partnership? If Trump attempts to install a 35-per-cent tariff on auto imports to the U.S., where would Canada stand? Would we accept tariffs on cars made in Mexico if it meant more factory jobs in Canada? Would Canada join the U.S. and Mexico in a new NAFTA that aimed to restrict imports from other nations? And what of the billions of dollars invested in Mexico by Volkswagen and other foreign automakers who were taking advantage of the NAFTA opportunity?

Untangling the worms could take years, and it would be unwise to see the unraveling of the North American trade deal as a dazzling opportunity to turn Canada into in international trade powerhouse without the U.S. and Mexico. It’s a perennial Canadian industrial strategy, but the potential cannot be realistically seen as an alternative or an offset.

There’s a good chance that it’s not just the 1994 NAFTA deal that’s on the table

The objective should be to open and maintain free trade with all regions — including Trump’s America. Achieving that objective will not be as easy and predictable as many in Canada seem to think.

As the Trump trade policy takes shape, many more issues and agreements are going to be on the negotiating table than Canada’s trade watchers now expect, including the very concept of free trade.

Trump says he wants “fair trade” not free trade. Jerry Dias says he wants “fair trade” not free trade. The Council of Canadians wants “fair trade” not free trade. Mark Fields, CEO of Ford Motor Co., says he wants “fair and free trade.”

The fair-trade negotiation door is now open, and it could take years before it closes again. By then, it could be a lot less free.


Allen F Mackenzie ·

Maharishi University of Management

The issue is much larger than one trade deal or even the principle of free trade when it comes to Trump.

More than anyone,Trump has heard the silent majority's call for more employment, less corruption and greater security. In health care, education, corporate competitiveness and productivity, and even in foreign affairs, Trump recognizes the need for GREATER market forces, more decentralization, less regulation and taxation and greater individual responsibility to bring employment, prosperity and security back.

Having diagnosed the problem correctly, Trump is now staking out negotiating positions that will redress the pretensions and excesses of the forces of globalism, elitism and big government that have led to much of the chaos.

We will all be winners if he succeeds in a small measure.