Following an explosive morning at the justice committee, QP got underway without any of the major leaders in attendance. That left Lisa Raitt to lead off, asking if the prime minister asked David Lametti to leave the room when Wilson-Raybould addressed Cabinet on Tuesday. Lametti first accused Raitt of cherry-picking the testimony, and said that since Clerk of the Pricy Council, Michael Wernick, released him from Cabinet confidence he recused himself of his own volition. Raitt asked why Trudeau met with Wilson-Raybould after the Director of Public Prosecutions made a decision on SNC-Lavalin, to which Bardish Chagger read that it was confirmed verbally and in writing that Wilson-Raybould was not being directed on the file. Raitt went through the timeline, and accused Wernick of pressuring Wilson-Raybould, to which Chagger read out about Raitt’s own meetings with SNC-Lavalin. Alain Rayes took over and re-asked in French why Trudeau had the meeting with Wilson-Raybould, and Chagger read that they need to respect the independence of committees. Rayes tried again, and Chagger read out Wernick’s assurances that the kinds of discussions that Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould had were perfectly appropriate. Alexandre Boulerice led off for the NDP, and he demanded that Wilson-Raybould be allowed to speak, and Lametti assured him that the issue was complex but they too wanted to ensure she could speak. Boulerice asked if Trudeau’s meeting with Wilson-Raybould was to change her mind, and Chagger stood up to remind him that the NDP leader also met with SNC-Lavalin, and that the government respects the legal system. Nathan Cullen stood up to repeat the allegations in the Globe and Mail that Wilson-Raybould told Cabinet she was pressured, to which Chagger reminded him that committees are independent and should do their job. Cullen railed about the government not caring about employees and pensioners, to which Chagger praised the Ethics Commissioner and the government’s record.
Tag Archives: Parliamentary Budget Officer
Roundup: A hard Wilson-Raybould exit
The day got off to a quiet start, with news of an emergency Cabinet meeting (via teleconference), followed by the news that Jody Wilson-Raybould had resigned from Cabinet (but not caucus), and retained a former Supreme Court of Canada justice as a lawyer to figure out what she’s able to say. Trudeau’s office later said that she informed him last night, and that Harjit Sajjan would be temporarily taking over the Veterans Affairs file until someone new can be put into the position. And people noticed that Trudeau didn’t thank Wilson-Raybould for her contributions after the fact either.
PM's statement on JWR's resignation, which suggests he had an entire night to cringe uncontrollably while watching clips of the press conference in which he pointed to her presence in cabinet as speaking for itself. pic.twitter.com/ZxcHybTrtJ
— kady o'malley (@kady) February 12, 2019
When he did face the media later in the day, Trudeau said that he was surprised and disappointed by Wilson-Raybould’s decision, and that he couldn’t understand why she made it. But as is his usual way of doing things, it was all a bit rehearsed, because he repeated those words almost verbatim in response to reporters’ questions. But he also said that if Wilson-Raybould felt like rules weren’t being followed that she should have come to him, and she didn’t. He did also say that he’s trying to figure out the options around what they can say under solicitor-client privilege because they don’t want to have unintended consequences for the two other ongoing court cases related to the SNC-Lavalin matter, which is fair and valid, but he’s already given flat denials about what was reported in the Globe and Mail initially. (Here is a more in-depth explanation of the restrictions she is under when it comes to Cabinet confidence and solicitor-client privilege, neither of which have a time-limit).
The next battleground is going to be the justice committee, which meets today, and the question is how the Liberals are going to decide to go. Trudeau is publicly saying he’s not directing them because that would be against their parliamentary role (and I will say it was mighty galling for Candice Bergen to go on TV yesterday to say that the Liberals direct what happens at committees when they are far more hands-off than the Conservatives ever were, given that they had ministers’ staff directing their committee members when they were in government). The chair, Anthony Housefather, says that he is leaning toward hearing from witnesses on the issue, but he is more likely to do so under an amended motion rather than the one the Conservatives and NDP tabled (in part because of the suggested witness list), not to mention the fact that he’s wary of the whole exercise turning into a partisan gong show rather than a non-partisan way to get some answers. But with this in mind, the Conservatives are doing everything they can to make this a partisan exercise, from Andrew Scheer tweeting out the phone numbers and email addresses of the Liberals on the committee so that people can “demand” they agree to their motion, and the fact that they are putting Pierre Poilievre on the committee as one of their “replacement” members, because “logistics” with the snow storm. It would almost sound to me like they want to do as much as they possibly can to annoy the Liberals and to turn them off from holding any kind of hearings so that the Conservatives can claim they’re participating in a cover-up. Because they would never engage in that kind of concern trolling. (Note that Scheer has also demanded that they “preserve all records” on this, because he is also pushing the narrative that the same Liberals from Queen’s Park who destroyed the gas plant files are now in Ottawa).
Yes, it is 100 percent going to turn into a hyperpartisan battleground and as yet, it's anyone's guess what the signal to noise ratio will be as far as getting to the bottom of the story, but it would still look terrible to kill it.
— kady o'malley (@kady) February 12, 2019
As for Wilson-Raybould’s departure, some of the reporting is getting a bit cringe-worthy, particularly how they keep reaching out to her father for comment. I can think of no other ministerial demotion or resignation that sought comment from their parents, for what it’s worth. As well, the fact that the reaction from Indigenous leaders as this being some kind of betrayal also leaves me a bit unsettled because it was no secret that things were not being well managed in Wilson-Raybould’s office in Justice, and the narrative seems to reinforce the notion that it’s not the quality of the job being done, only the symbolism of the person holding the office. That particular lens on what has taken place over the past few days seems to be absent, while Wilson-Raybould is tactical in her silence. Meanwhile, some Cabinet and caucus colleagues are tweeting support for Wilson-Raybould, while others try very much to walk the line.
You taught me so much – particularly about Indigenous history, rights and justice. I’m proud of the laws we worked on together – C14 (assisted dying), C37 (harm reduction), C45 (public health approach to cannabis) and so much more. I know you will continue to serve Canadians. pic.twitter.com/veQ0ATPcz1
— Jane Philpott (@janephilpott) February 13, 2019
It’s worth adding that SNC-Lavalin is in the midst of yet another criminal investigation in Quebec regarding their bid for the Cartier Bridge. This while every newspaper in Montreal is running columns wondering why the opposition wants the federal government to let SNC-Lavalin fail – something that will have impacts come the election.
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095350523933278208
Meanwhile, Anne Kinston parses Wilson-Raybould’s resignation letter, while Susan Delacourt notes the weight of the silence on what has taken place – and offers us some new information about the shuffle and the discussions with Wilson-Raybould that took place at the time. Paul Wells looks at all of the behind-the-scenes work done by SNC-Lavalin through the past few years, and the way in which they attempt to exert influence in Ottawa, and shows that this seems to be the underlying way things work in Ottawa amidst the government’s talk of a new way of doing things.
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095517895205871617
https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/1095519163601154048
Roundup: The myth about the tweet
At a townhall event in Surrey, Andrew Scheer made a very big deal about the border and the “integrity” of our immigration system. At the centre of it is his invention is the mythology that the #WelcomeToCanada tweet two years ago somehow opened the floodgates. It’s ridiculous on its face, and it ignores the context during which that tweet happened – the recent election of Donald Trump, and the talk of the “Muslim ban” that was ramping up tensions and causing a spike of panic among asylum seekers and refugee claimants in the States, as well as a demonstrable rise in hate crimes. And we can’t forget that within days of this tweet, the Quebec City mosque shooting happened, from which there was a direct correlation drawn to the rhetoric of Trump and his surrogates around Muslims. Trudeau was attempting to take a different approach, and to highlight the decision to bring over Syrian refugees when Trump and his surrogates were insisting that it would be bringing in terrorists (recall the “poisoned Skittles” meme), but Scheer is choosing to ignore all of this.
And then there’s the entire mischaracterisation of the immigration and refugee determination systems, and the very deliberate conflation of the two. They’re separate, and are resourced separately, which makes the constant attempt to portray asylum seekers as somehow disadvantaging “legitimate” immigrants a deliberate attempt to turn immigrants against refugees and asylum seekers. Scheer will then insist that he’s not anti-refugee – that he’s met people in refugee camps who don’t understand why other people can cross the border and “jump the queue” – except of course that there isn’t an actual queue, but rather a process. In fact, those in the camps are usually chosen for resettlement by the UNHCR, and often done by private sponsorship – something that Scheer is a big fan of. In fact, during the Harper era, they reformed a lot of the refugee system to try and offload as much responsibility for resettlement onto the UNHCR, and to more heavily weight private sponsorship over government. (Note that Maxime Bernier is making a big deal about taking more responsibility for refugee determination away from the UN, which could create a wedge, or push Scheer to up his tinfoil hattery around the UN’s processes). Again, asylum seekers who cross the border are separate from those processes, and don’t have the same system impact, because it’s not Canadian officials doing most of the work. It’s another artificial dichotomy that ignores the context of the situation of these asylum seekers and seeks to again create divisions between people involved in those separate processes. Nothing about refugee claimants or asylum seekers is actually impacting the “integrity” of the immigration system – it’s a false dichotomy.
But it’s a wedge, and one built on lies, which is what Scheer is hoping for. Is there a cost to asylum seekers? Yes, absolutely. But we also need to remember that Canada is getting off extremely lightly by sheer virtue of our geography, surrounded by ocean on three sides and the US border on the other, which filters out the vast majority. Scheer shouldn’t expect sympathy from anyone about the influx we’ve seen (which, I remind you, is not out of step with historic norms). In a world facing a migrant crisis, with more displaced people since the Second World War, there are far more who would argue that Canada isn’t doing enough, and telling lies to make it look like we’re under siege because of a single tweet is more dangerous than he realizes.
Roundup: To travel or not to travel?
There’s a battle brewing in the Senate over Bill C-69, and some of it seems like a concern trolling on the face of it. Given that the bill – which aims to reform the environmental assessment process – is contentious among certain sectors, and has been subject to a misinformation campaign by the Conservatives (who have dubbed it the “no more pipelines bill” based on zero actual evidence), there is a push by Conservative senators to have the Senate’s energy and environment committee take hearings on the road. You know, to hear directly from those affected. The bill’s sponsor, government whip – err, “liaison,” Senator Mitchell, resists that, and it looks like he’s got the leader of the Independent Senators Group, Senator Woo, more or less backing him, Woo saying that travel is unnecessary when you can videoconference.
The Conservatives are looking to delay the bill, likely to death, given that the number of sitting days in this parliament is rapidly dwindling. Never mind that many affected industries are behind the bill, or that most others say that they would rather see amendments at this stage than a whole new process because that just increases the uncertainty (and it should be pointed out that the current system, which the Harper government implemented, has not worked and has resulted in a number of court challenges). And to add to that fact, the senator who chairs the committee is inexperienced (and many will openly say that she doesn’t know what she’s doing), and the Conservatives on that committee haven’t been cooperative in getting the hearings up and running because they are protesting the fact that she appears to be taking dictation from the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Harder. So, this is all turning into a giant mess. And did I mention that the number of sitting days is rapidly dwindling? I suspect this is going to get ugly.
QP: Bigger deficit fears
It being nearly the last day of the season, the benches were filling up, and both Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were present. Scheer led off in French, worrying about the report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer who says the deficit could be bigger than anticipated. Trudeau stood up without a script, and talked about how much better off Canadians are now and how great the economy was doing. Scheer reiterted the question in English, and Trudeau deployed his talking points about bringing up the growth rate and the lowest unemployment rate in modern records. Scheer said that Trudeau doesn’t care about spending because he came from wealth, and Trudeau hit back with the $150 billion debt the Conservatives left with nothing to show for it. Scheer tried to respond by burnishing the Conservative record and accused Trudeau of squandering the good fortunes left to him, for which Trudeau listed the ways in which cuts made to ensure a “phoney” balanced budget hurt Canadians. Scheer tried to get pointed in his retort, that Trudeau was “darn right” that they were obsessed with treating taxpayer dollars with respect before repeating his slight about Trudeau’s family wealth, and Trudeau noted that Scheer was resorting to personal attacks because he had nothing else to offer. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, and he railed that trade deals meant that VIA Rail couldn’t prefer Bombardier for its fleet renewal. Trudeau took up a script to read that they wanted to ensure that people got the best value for money and that government interference would be bad for business. Caron changed topics to talk about the CUPW court challenge of the Canada Post back-to-work legislation, and Trudeau noted that they undid the labour law changes from the Conservatives and how they worked with labour to ensure tripartite agreements. Karine Trudel repeated the question in French, and Trudeau read that the litany of measures they took to ensure that negotiations kept going and that the recently appointed a new arbitrator to deal with the outstanding issues. Tracey Ramsey then repeated the VIA Rail question in English, for which Trudeau said that those trade deals mean that Canadian firms can access procurement in other countries.
Erm, yes, the cost of living keeps going up. That’s called inflation. We generally consider a certain amount of it to be a good thing. #QP
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 11, 2018
Roundup: Ginning up the Grewal resignation
As the stories on Raj Grewal’s gambling debts and intended resignation continue to trickle through, a number of them have taken on a vaguely conspiratorial tone. A lot of facts that shouldn’t be out of the ordinary are treated as suspicious for absolutely no reason at all. For example, people keep wondering why he was reassigned from the finance committee in September “with no warning.” Gee, what else happened in September that would have affected committee memberships? Could it have been the fact that the parliamentary secretaries all got shuffled, so committee assignments need to be rejigged? Maybe? And whoa, he asked questions on catching money launderers to law officials and FINTRAC agents during a study on – wait for it – “Confronting Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing: Moving Canada Forward.” Such an amazing coincidence that is totally suspicious. And the latest “revelation” is that Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais says that a retired Mountie told him a year ago that he heard Raj Grewal was under investigation, and he therefore thinks PMO should have known then. Erm, except that neither the OPP nor the RCMP tell the PMO what they’re investigating because they operate at arm’s length, and more to the fact, Grewal was a backbench MP, which I cannot stress enough.
To that end, Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column looks at the issue of parties policing MPs’ off-hours, considering the Clement and Grewal situations, while Susan Delacourt cites those same two cases, and wonders if we need to do a better job of screening backbenchers. And I’m pretty dubious because backbenchers are not ministers. They don’t have access to secret materials (Clement, I remind you, is a former minister and thus a member of the Privy Council, and his activities on NSICOP are outside of the usual activities of a backbencher), nor are they public office holders. Their job is to hold government to account – they are not part of the government, and it doesn’t matter what committees they’re on. Treating them as the same thing is not only a gross overreach, but frankly it will give MPs a wrongheaded sense of their place in the system, which is already suffering because of civic illiteracy.
Are Grewal’s debts concerning? Yup. Is it a crisis that he was mentioned in passing as part of an investigation into other suspicious characters? Maybe, but we don’t know enough to say whether it is or not, and the baseless speculation and ginned up allegations aren’t helping. Should Trudeau and the PMO have been more candid from the start about the reasons Grewal was resigning? Probably, and given this government’s inability to communicate their way out of a wet paper bag, their approach once again blew up in their faces. But treating this affair with clickbait headlines and spinning random facts out of context in order to make them seem sinister is bad reporting.
QP: Grewal and false border numbers
While Justin Trudeau was off to Argentina for the G20, Andrew Scheer was elsewhr, as was Guy Caron, more unusually. Mark Strahl led off, worrying about new revelations about investigations that Raj Grewal may have been swept up into, to which Bardish Chagger responded that last week he made them aware of his serious challenges and treatment, and they hoped he got the help he needed. Strahl didn’t believe her, but Chagger reiterated the response. Strahl got even more incredulous, but Chagger’s response varied only by saying the RCMP operates independently. Luc Berthold tried again in French, and got the same answer in French, and then they went yet another round of the same. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led for the NDP, demanding that the government take action. Patty Hajdu said that it was troubling, but this was a global decision affecting plants in the US and elsewhere, so they were going to help workers where they could. Brosseau then demanded the government not sign the New NAFTA until an oversight clause around milk classes was removed, to which Lawrence MacAulay deployed his well-worn points about defending Supply Management. Tracey Ramsey was worried that we didn’t know what was in the deal and demanded that it not be signed, to which Mélanie Joly stood up to assure her it was a good deal for Canada. Brian Masse, whose rant about the auto sector didn’t reach the question before he got cut off, and Hajdu recited some talking points about their support for the industry through the auto innovation fund.
Roundup: A noble bill with problems below the surface
It’s not often that I’ll go out of my way to comment on poor reporting (as opposed to columns), but in this particular case, I’m going to make an exception. The story is the fact that Rona Ambrose’s bill on mandatory sexual assault training for judges has been stalled in the Senate. Ambrose appeared on Power & Politics to express her shock and dismay, but there was very little research done in terms of the concerns that have been raised with the bill to date, and the fact that its passage through the House of Commons was problematic in and of itself (most especially the fact that it was referred to the Status of Women committee instead of the Justice Committee in order to ensure swift passage, with a committee that was sympathetic and didn’t have the expertise on the matter). The written story on the CBC website was simply a recap of Ambrose’s interview with no comment from anyone else, or recounting any of the concerns or pushback from the debates on the bill.
So I decided to take twenty minutes and skim over the Second Reading debates in the Senate on the bill, and lo, there are some pretty important concerns being raised. Senator Jaffer, who is a lawyer who has done judicial training, pointed to the fact that the bill mandating written rulings in all sexual assault cases not only takes away from the fact that there are procedures for clear oral rulings that can be appealed, but that it will cause other delays. The training also disadvantages rural lawyers, and can tip the hand of a lawyer in a firm that they are applying to be a judge.
Senator Joyal, a formidable constitutional lawyer who had a career fighting for minority rights (and who helped write the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) expressed some serious concerns about the powers given to a federal commissioner to determine what qualifies for training. He raised the very real point that the bill stipulates that training must be done by sexual assault survivors and organisations that support them, which automatically biases the training and the presumption of innocence (and others have raised the point that these trainers are often called as expert witnesses, which creates further biases). Joyal also noted the constitutional implications of the bill given that judicial independence includes the ability to maintain control over their education.
Senator Pratte, while not a lawyer, raised the salient logistical issue that for every 500 judicial applicants, maybe 50 make it through, meaning that if everyone needs training before they can be appointed, it delays assessment of applicants and has the potential to create problems with the quality if the training. He also raised the notion that if sexual assault survivors are needed for this training, how long will it be before other victims’ groups demand to be heard for other judicial training?
Senator Fraser, whose objections were briefly noted in the CBC piece, also made points about the inappropriateness of the bill mandating that reports on the number of judges who have taken the training be tabled in Parliament because judges report to Chief Justices in their regions, not to the minister. As well, because the majority of these cases are actually heard in provincial courts, this could qualify as interference in provincial jurisdiction.
The story also went onto state that Senator Joyal, who chairs the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee, wouldn’t give a date for when the bill will be studied, but it didn’t mention that government bills always take precedence at committee, and as you can see from the committee’s schedule, they have a pretty full slate for the coming weeks, possibly months.
Frankly, I’m more than a little dismayed at the lazy reporting on this bill. While it may look like a slam-dunk issue on the surface, there’s a lot beneath the surface that’s not being reported on, which is actually fairly irresponsible. Would that political reporters at the CBC take twenty minutes to do some actual research on their stories than simply transcribe an interview.
Roundup: The big climate reveal
Yesterday was the big day, where Justin Trudeau unveiled the final details of his carbon pricing plan, and how the rebates would work for the provinces subject to the carbon backstop, which are going to be Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, with the Yukon and Nunavut also kicking in slightly later. (You can find breakdowns here). The Conservatives and their provincial premier allies immediately chimed in to predictably call this some kind of scam, and that nobody believed the rebates would happen, and so on, and so on. Also of note is that Trudeau’s nominal ally, Brian Gallant in New Brunswick, has also grumbled about the carbon price (but if he loses and Blaine Higgs forms government, he too is opposed to it). Manufacturers and small businesses are grumbling, despite the fact that there will be rebates for small and medium-sized businesses under the scheme. Also getting larger rebates will be people in rural communities, given that they have higher carbon costs (and it’s no secret that the Liberals have a harder time winning votes there).
https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/1054753060336078848
With this in mind, here are some noted climate economists who can put some of yesterday’s announcement into proper perspective. (Additional thread from Kevin Milligan here, and Nic Rivers here).
Today's federal announcement is interesting. The federal approach is *simple* and transparent: flat, universal transfers that for a majority of households exceed exp. CTax costs. Provinces that prefer spending or PIT/CIT rate reductions can do so if they want. #cdnecon #cdnpoli
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) October 23, 2018
It's a big day for environmental policy in Canada. Remember, demand curves slope downward and all policies have distributive impacts. If you want to reduce GHG emissions, spur innovative solutions, and mitigate regressive impacts, best choice is a carbon price w a broad rebate.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 23, 2018
Another bit you'll hear a lot today is that we don't need taxes, we need technology. Decades of economic research has shown that carbon pricing programs are the best spur for emissions-reducing technology because they reinforce/complement market demand https://t.co/JMbVsWv34o pic.twitter.com/Oiebpt1Aru
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 23, 2018
It's almost as if firms respond to prices by changing their behaviour. Lots of other stuff going on in AB, of course, but electricity demand is growing, and emissions are way down. pic.twitter.com/pkcM40hq7J
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 23, 2018
In case you're wondering, this quote isn't from today's announcement. It's from the Turning the Corner Plan which was introduced by the government of Stephen Harper in 2008. #cdnpoli cc @AndrewScheer https://t.co/2GB3H95SOv
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 23, 2018
Meanwhile, here’s a look at whether Trudeau can escape the problems of Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift, with points to Trudeau being a better communicator (but I’d argue that journalists prefacing every explanation of the Green Shift with “it’s complicated” didn’t help either). Chris Selley notes that this is the issue that could make or break Trudeau in the next election, which is why he needs to get it right. Paul Wells drops a bit of reality on the language that Scheer and Ford are using, and wonders whether the carbon backstop rebates will start catching on with other provinces.
Roundup: Counting on LNG
The federal and BC provincial governments made a big ballyhoo yesterday about the fact that a consortium of companies have come together to make a $40 billion investment in Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) in BC, and it’s a project that not only did Indigenous consultation correctly, but got buy-in from the communities. It’s seen as a study in contrasts for other pipeline projects – but it’s also worth noting that natural gas isn’t bitumen, and you’ve got vastly different environmental consequences to a spill or breach. It’s also a major energy project at a time when the dominant narrative is that we apparently can’t get anything built in this country, or that investment is fleeing (not actually true), and that what we need to do is to end carbon pricing (despite the fact that energy companies have been calling for it), gutting environmental legislation (never mind that the regime Harper put into place created far more problems than it solved), and that Indigenous consultation is just a fleeting goalpost that keeps shifting. This project seems to prove otherwise – even if BC promised breaks on provincial and carbon taxes to sweeten the deal (though one could say that it shows there’s enough flexibility in the system as opposed to the whole system being hopelessly broken). Suffice to say, it makes the Conservatives’ talking points far less tenable (not that the truth has really mattered to them).
One of the more interesting questions in all of this is how it will affect emissions – not only locally, but globally, and that’s really the big question. While the local emissions would be high enough that it appears that BC would likely need to virtually decarbonise their economy otherwise, there is the potential that this LNG would be a major help in reducing emissions in Asian economies that are reliant on coal-fired generation – but that’s only if the LNG displaces coal and not other renewables instead. In all likelihood, LNG would be used alongside renewables as a backup or stopgap, but it may be some time before we see if that’s really what happens. Suffice to say, it has the potential to have a major impact on global emissions, if applied in the right way.
More New NAFTA fallout:
- Justin Trudeau says that despite that notification clause in the new NAFTA, Canada will still pursue a deeper trading relationship with China.
- Kim Campbell says it’s a bit cheeky for the Conservatives to suggest that they could have gotten a better deal given the American leadership.
- In Vancouver, Bill Morneau praised the new NAFTA, but also said that dairy and steel sectors still need help. So, there’s that.
- The new NAFTA includes a specific clause to insist that Canadians not be able to watch the American broadcast of the Super Bowl. No, seriously.
- Here’s a deeper dive into the Supply Management issue as it relates to the new NAFTA, including the fears of hormone-laced milk coming in from the US.
- Here’s a look at the government’s efforts at trade diversification, given that NAFTA is more or less renegotiated.
- Here’s a look at next steps when it comes to ratification of the new NAFTA.