Is Justin Trudeau NAFTA expectations a fantasy wish list destined for side deals, or are the talks simply a hoax to hoodwink Donald Trump?
Canadian free trade
But no matter how many numbers Freeland plucks to show the economy's mighty growth in the free trade years, in those same years, most people's lives have hardened.
In an age when control over energy shapes global politics and the fate of the world, why wouldn't Canadians be happy to leave our energy in the hands of Trump's Washington and Big Oil?
Revision to NAFTA's terms must have at its core the objective establishment of fair trade, not free trade, and economic relations based on social justice, sovereignty and sustainable development.
True believers may think that merely educating citizens about how trade deals really are good for everyone will save the day for globalization. But there's a much deeper problem.
Neighbourly love was on display when U.S. President Barack Obama addressed the Canadian Parliament last week. But where is it in the international trade agreements the U.S. is selling?
Since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1988, promoters of investment protection agreements have held sway. But 30 years after the first experiment, signs of resistence are growing.
If trade deals are the key to trade success, why is it that the more of them we implement, the worse our trade becomes? Perhaps the deals are doing more harm than good.
Place your bets. Will Justin Trudeau and his economic advisers choose a neo-Keynesian approach to the growing economic disaster or will they stick to the stock neoliberal ideology?
Canadian trade negotiators have no mandate to accept terms in Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations that would damage vital Canadian industries, says Jerry Dias, President of Unifor.