In the military we used to assess the success or failure of a mission shortly after it was completed. The “After Action Report” was used to create a lessons learned summary from the mission to ensure that we could learn from it. Positive learnings can be reinforced with future training and negative outcomes can lead to the re-visiting of strategy or tactics for the future. With the NAFTA negotiations now concluded, Canadians are left to sift through the details of the new United States Mexico Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) to see how we fared.

Before we begin this assessment it is critical to note two things. First, it was certainly difficult dealing with a protectionist administration that resorts to taunts and hyperbole. I recognize that and appreciate the hard work done by the Canadian team. While they worked hard, they did not always work smart in my view. Second, it is critically important for Canadians to understand that our relationship with the United States is far greater than any one person or administration. Passions run high in our country about President Trump, but we cannot allow frustration or emotion lead us to make poor decisions or to view Americans in a negative light. Canada and the United States are friends, partners and allies and we must not lose sight of this despite these challenging times.

Our review must start at the beginning with a review of the priorities of both countries. The United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued objectives for the negotiations last July in a detailed document that provided a glimpse into what the Americans wanted changed in NAFTA. A month later, Minister Freeland outlined Canada’s priorities for NAFTA negotiations in a speech at the University of Ottawa. Her speech made careful note of the historic relationship between our two countries, but did not attempt to find common ground on the priorities the Americans had just released. I think this was a strategic error. Rather than drive towards early consensus on some key areas of mutual interest – like the auto sector – the Canadian speech outlined many non-trade issues as priorities. In many ways, it sounded more like a Liberal campaign speech than a response to US concerns about trade.

The best way to assess whether Canada met its objectives in the NAFTA negotiations is to compare Minister Freeland’s stated objectives with outcomes in the final deal. In her speech she enumerated six central objectives for Canada that touched upon as many as ten or more distinct issues. In my assessment, the Liberals only achieved two of their stated goals, but only one of those was really an issue. The Americans had not listed cultural exemptions as an area they wanted address with NAFTA so preserving that was never really at risk. Therefore, Canada’s only achievement was to preserve the Chapter 19 dispute resolution provisions. This is a positive outcome, but paltry when considered alongside what we gave up.

The well-publicized “progressive agenda” did not materialize at all. There were no chapters on gender or indigenous issues and no movement on climate change or other objectives. There were no updates to reflect the nature of the digital economy and questions about data transfer and localization remain. There was no serious advancement on regulatory harmonization and no expansion of temporary entry provisions for Canadian professionals. There was no movement on Buy American provisions with respect to government procurement. And finally, there were major concessions on Canadian supply managed agricultural sectors deemed to be “key to our national interest” by Minister Freeland, but no movement by the Americans to curb their use of agricultural subsidies. On top of failing to meet our stated objectives in the NAFTA talks, Canada also made key concessions on intellectual property that will see provinces burdened with higher costs for biologic drugs and smaller concessions on de minimis provisions and other items. Canada also restricted future trade deals with countries like China and Vietnam with unparalleled provisions granting the Americans an indirect veto over Canadian trade priorities with non-market economies. Perhaps most disappointing of all was the fact that the unfair tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum remain in place. These are already eroding our competitiveness and should have been removed with a new NAFTA.

The After Action Report on NAFTA suggests that Canada was on the receiving end of a very one-sided deal. Some observers suggest that Canada was merely a bystander to these trade talks because the Americans were so unreasonable, but I do not accept that narrative. I think Canada made critical errors in strategy. Canada was spending political capital and alienating the parties on social issues that would not even form part of a trade deal. Domestic politics were being placed ahead of jobs by the Liberals. On top of this, both Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Freeland participated in events and gave speeches that were viewed as veiled criticisms of the US administration. It may have made them feel good and showed their progressive bona fides to their supporters, but how was it helping advance the economic interests of Canadians and the millions of jobs relying on trade with the US? It did not. While I am thankful there is a deal given the importance of the auto industry and the threat of further tariffs, I am very disappointed that many Canadians, including farming families, will pay the price for this failed strategy.