Liberals caved to U.S. in new trade agreement

Restrictive USMCA provides Canada little in return for major concessions

This week marked the surprising announcement of agreement on the terms of a new NAFTA.

Until now, it seemed that the Trudeau Liberals had seen through the empty threats issued by the Trump administration. But instead, they appear to be locking Canada into its most restrictive trade deal yet (called the United States-mexico-canada Agreement, or USMCA).

When it came to the most familiar trade disputes with the U.S., the Liberals made concessions while receiving little in return. We’ll pay more for medications due to corporate-driven intellectual property rules, lose some of the stability of our agricultural supply management system, and the U.S. will be able to maintain its arbitrary tariffs and preferences.

But beyond those muchdiscussed points, the new NAFTA also contains jarring new provisions that haven’t been subject to much scrutiny.

One new addition will provide the U.S. with a veto over the negotiation of new trade deals with “non-market” countries — which has been interpreted as an attempt to limit ties between Canada and China, but which might apply far more broadly. And a new chapter on macroeconomic policies will both tie Canada more tightly to the U.S. in general, and provide for a closed committee of officials to override other considerations in the name of financial interests.

But another new addition might hold the potential for even more drastic long-term implications. Under the guise of “good regulatory practices”, the new NAFTA requires the diversion of substantial public resources toward an ideological crusade against regulation in the public interest.

The new Chapter 28 sets out a mandatory procedure for new regulations. U.S. corporations and lobby groups would be provided with specific input rights into both the development of new regulations, and the assessment of existing ones. And lest there be any doubt what positions are intended to be promoted, the “suggestions for improvement” spelled out in the new NAFTA consist of boilerplate anti-regulation talking points.

That combination would be worrisome at the best of times. But it’s especially so within the United States’ current political context.

While the Trump administration may be making news primarily for its scandals and corruption, it’s also engaged in a thorough teardown of any environmental regulation. Never mind climate obstruction, which at least has some analogues across borders: Trump’s wrecking crew is in the process of trashing decades of consensus on the regulation of public dangers from asbestos to radiation to mercury, all based on little more than unabashed hostility toward the idea that government should ever act to promote public health and safety.

By agreeing to Trump’s terms, the Liberals are accepting that Canada will cater to the expectations of the polluters who are writing the public interest out of U.S. law. And they’re making that choice even when there’s a plausible prospect of a more reasonable negotiating partner within a few months.

The entire NAFTA renegotiation process has been designed to maximize the influence of departing rightwing lawmakers. Bilateral negotiations between the

U.S. and Mexico were timed to ensure that a departing Mexican administration was at the table. And Trump’s rush to get a new deal signed and approved is based in part on the need to have a deal ratified by Congress — where there’s a substantial possibility that more socially responsible Democrats might be in a better position following next month’s elections.

The end result is that Trudeau has made major concessions to help Trump lock North America into decades of Republican-style anti-social government without allowing voters any say in the matter. And we shouldn’t let that poor governing practice stand without serious question.

Fingas is a Regina lawyer, blogger and freelance political commentator who has written about provincial and national issues from a progressive NDP perspective since 2005.