Gender, Indigenous tabs for new trade deal floated

Unorthodox move symbolic, analysts say

OTTAWA • Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland’s objective to include gender and Indigenous chapters in a re-jigged NAFTA is about political symbolism in Canada, experts suggest, with few convinced U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration will make these a priority.

Freeland floated the idea Monday alongside higherprofile asks, as North American Free Trade Agreement negotiators meet this week to begin work on an update at Trump’s behest: preservation of supply management for dairy, for example, and investor-state dispute mechanisms.

But to include gender and Indigenous issues is unusual for a trade agreement and analysts say it seems intended to demonstrate the Liberal government’s progressive values at home.

“I view it as part and parcel of how the Trudeau government campaigned and came to office,” said Scotty Greenwood, a principal at Dentons in Washington, D.C. and former American diplomat to Canada. She noted Freeland’s speech and appearance at a House of Commons committee Monday are intended for a domestic audience.

Lawrence Herman, an international trade lawyer in Toronto, said he suspects Trump won’t bite and including such chapters could mean concessions from Canada in other areas, because in the end, “this is all about bargaining.”

More broadly, Herman said values are difficult to quantify and questioned whether their place is in a trade agreement. “I know there’s a desire on the part of Freeland and her Canadian colleagues to modernize the agreement. I’m just not certain how far you can take that quote, modernization, unquote, approach into areas that have not been addressed in standard trade agreements.”

Conservative Senator Michael MacDonald, who co-chairs the Canadian side of a bilateral parliamentary group and recently returned from a trip to meet state legislators, cut to the chase and said he thinks this is about “identity politics.”

“I don’t think trade agreements are about values. Trade agreements are about trade and money and jobs,” he said. “This is a big trade agreement. This is about billions of dollars. Let’s deal with what’s on the table here.”

Freeland offered little insight about what gender and Indigenous chapters would contain. Canada and the U.S. run a women’s business council together. “I think there is a really fruitful space for discussion.”

But neither gender nor Indigenous issues are top of mind in Washington, when it comes to trade (and that’s not to mention Mexico, whose interests will also need to be addressed). Women and Indigenous people are only mentioned in one short paragraph within extensive American objectives for the renegotiation, on preserving “preference programs” in government procurement for women- and minorityowned businesses.

The Indigenous chapter idea has no obvious precedent. Freeland said it’s a “really fresh area” and the idea came from Assembly of First Nations National Chief Perry Bellegarde, who sits on a NAFTA advisory council. He was not available for comment Monday.

A member of Freeland’s staff said there are plans to consult Indigenous people on NAFTA and on a chapter that would enshrine “Indigenous concerns from all three countries” into the agreement — indicating the government itself might not have a clear picture of what it wants out of the idea.

New Democrat trade critic Tracey Ramsey was critical, saying she thinks a chapter wouldn’t be enough. “Indigenous people have the right and the authority to be able to negotiate,” she said. “They should be a key partner at the table.”

Although the ideas are bare-bones for now, even vague statements inserted into the text could lay down markers for more substantive action in the future or in agreements with other countries, said Brett House, deputy chief economist at Scotiabank.

An example of a concrete option for an Indigenous chapter could be to exempt Indigenous-led businesses from rules that protect domestic producers in government procurement, he said.