Translate

December 8, 2017

CANADA ECONOMICS



CANADA - CHINA



The Globe and Mail. 8 Dec 2017. Liberals abide by progressive trade despite China deal’s failed launch
BILL CURRY, OTTAWA

Canada is doubling down on what it calls a progressive approach to international trade, even as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and some of his top ministers return from China empty-handed as expected new negotiations failed to launch.
Federal Employment Minister Patty Hajdu will meet with Canada’s largest labour unions on Friday to look ahead to the next round of negotiations under the North American free-trade agreement, which is scheduled to take place next month in Montreal.
Meanwhile, Trade Minister François-Philippe Champagne is planning to focus on progressive issues when he arrives in Buenos Aires this weekend for a ministerial conference of the World Trade Organization. Specifically, the minister intends to promote discussions on gender equality, labour and environmental sustainability, according to a government official.
Ms. Hajdu is scheduled to discuss Canada’s approach to NAFTA with union leaders on Friday morning in Mississauga. Unions invited to attend include the Canadian Labour Congress, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Unifor, the United Steelworkers and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
While Chinese and Canadian officials have not clearly stated why the two countries did not launch formal trade talks during the Prime Minister’s visit, some signals suggested Canada’s focus on progressive issues, such as labour rights, was an irritant to China.
In an interview on Thursday, Ms. Hajdu said Canada will stick with its approach .
“Canada’s going to continue to push on the perspective of labour and ensuring protection for Canadian workers in all of our trade deals,” she said. “We cannot have a race to the bottom, regardless of which country we’re negotiating with.”
Ms. Hajdu said ensuring workers are protected in the countries that Canada trades with has the effect of also protecting jobs at home.
“When you don’t protect the rights of workers through strong labour standards, what you do is create an unlevel playing field. And what we don’t want is we don’t want companies or organizations, through trade agreements, to be able to move their work force to countries that have weaker labour standards than ours, largely motivated by profit. What that does is it’s obviously bad for workers in that country, but it’s very bad for Canadian workers as well.”
There are questions, however, as to the practical significance of including progressive language in free-trade deals. Dan Ciuriak, a trade consultant and former deputy chief economist in Canada’s Foreign Affairs Department, said there is little evidence historically that such trade provisions have made a difference.
Mr. Ciuriak said on Thursday that Canada is likely highlighting these issues in order to dampen the potential for populist sentiment that has led to upheaval elsewhere. He said the inclusion of general principles about such issues is unlikely to hold up any deals. He cautioned though that insistence on specific issues – such as Canada’s opposition to “right-to-work” laws would be strongly opposed by the United States during NAFTA talks.
“The progressive trade agenda is well-framed conceptually, but it’s a minor part of the big picture,” he said. “It should not be, at this point in time, a stumbling point for Canada signing trade agreements. I am mystified at the failure to launch negotiations with China.”
An editorial that appeared this week in China’s Global Times newspaper, which is run by China’s Communist Party, criticized Canadian media coverage of China and dismissed the notion that human-rights concerns and trade are connected. “When Canada imports a pair of shoes from China, will Canada ask how much democracy and human rights are reflected in those shoes?” it asked. “It would be as absurd as China questioning the capitalist nature of every single good it imports from Canada.”



NAFTA



The Globe and Mail. 8 Dec 2017. Why U.S. tax reform is good for NAFTA
ANDREI SULZENKO

Former Canadian trade negotiator and currently an Executive Fellow at the School of Public Policy, University of Calgary
All policy focus in the United States is now on tax reform, as congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump seek a big legislative win in 2017. This came closer to reality last week as the Senate passed a bill that now goes forward to bicameral reconciliation with the version passed by the House of Representatives.
Tax reform puts the North American free-trade agreement on the back burner in terms of political focus, and that’s a good thing, allowing all three partners to take stock of desired outcomes, strategy and tactics.
Should tax reform become a reality, it would actually help the NAFTA file in a number of ways, at least from a Canadian perspective.
First, successful tax legislation would provide Mr. Trump with the optics of a big win, taking credit no doubt for an initiative that he has largely been cheerleading. But then, it’s another tick mark on campaign promises.
Second, it would provide Republican members of the House and Senate a substantive platform with which to wage a tough mid-term electoral contest that will start in earnest in the new year, while making relatively less important in 2018 other initiatives, such as recalibrating trade agreements.
Third, once the President’s signature is on the tax-reform bill, it will embolden a greater number of – heretofore reluctant – Republicans to speak and act against his perceived wrongheadedness or excesses on other important files, including NAFTA.
After all, the Republican Party has a tradition of favouring liberalized trade, consistent with other free-market policy positions such as supporting low taxes and light regulation.
So how might the post-taxreform scenario play out?
Let’s assume that a tax bill gets signed into law over the next few weeks. In the immediate aftermath, euphoria will reign in Republican circles and in the White House, especially if the bill also helps to gut Obamacare, another high-priority Republican objective.
As part of this, the stock market will enjoy a steroid-injected “Santa Claus Rally” for which the President will, no doubt, take credit.
There will also be subsequent musings about tackling regulation in banking and other sectors, especially since new spending initiatives will be curtailed by the massive prospective budget deficit resulting from tax cuts.
All this feel-good hoopla will, however, turn into a post-New Year’s hangover as reality sets in on other problematic issues such as the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller, the continuing spat with North Korea or some other unforeseen, but likely, flare-up.
The basic point is that the political visibility of the NAFTA negotiations will be buried under the onslaught of other good- and bad-news events.
At the same time, the Trump administration’s negotiating leverage with Canada and Mexico will have been reduced by a Congress in full mid-term election mode (all House members and about a third of the Senate), with heavy lobbying by pro-NAFTA forces in more than 30 states heavily dependent on trade with Canada or Mexico or both.
This is not rocket science. The U.S. team knows that their best shot at dictating the terms of a deal has already come and gone (ergo the initial tight timetable) and they will either need to compromise on previous extreme positions or grind the process down into drawn-out trench warfare.
The alternative, although now less likely, scenario is that tax reform, like health care, ultimately fails, leaving the President and Republican members of Congress with no legislative wins in 2017.
In these circumstances, smelling blood, Democrats in Congress will move to thwart other initiatives, such as a budget bill and dealing with the federal debt ceiling.
Under either tax-reform scenario (but more likely the second), there is always the possibility of a desperate tactic involving abrogation of NAFTA, playing to the President’s electoral base; but the almost certain response will be a massive counterattack by those in Congress seeking re-election next November.
The bottom line is, either way, the outcome of efforts to pass tax legislation in the United States will probably have a net positive effect for Canada in the continuing NAFTA negotiations.
Success will diminish the need for a big administration win on trade, while emboldening Republicans in Congress against future Presidential excesses.
Failure will further diminish the administration’s ability to make good on its agenda, branding the President as a loser with whom co-operation is perceived to lead only to Congressional unelectability.
That’s a win-win for Canada.



AVIATION



THE GLOBE AND MAIL. THE CANADIAN PRESS. DECEMBER 8, 2017. Liberals ditching CF-18 purchase won't sway Boeing on Bombardier dispute
LEE BERTHIAUME, OTTAWA


A U.S. Air Force F-18 Super Hornet fighter aircraft takes off at the opening ceremony of Aero India 2011 in Yelahanka air base on the outskirts of Bangalore, India, Wednesday, Feb. 9, 2011.

Boeing has weighed in on the Trudeau government's plan to buy second-hand fighter jets from Australia, saying it respects the decision but has no intention of abandoning its trade dispute with Canadian rival Bombardier.

The U.S. aerospace giant was primed to sell 18 of its Super Hornet fighters to Canada at an estimated cost of $6-billion to temporarily augment Canada's fleet of aging CF-18s until they can be replaced in the coming years.

But the Liberals are scrapping that plan because of Boeing's fight with Bombardier and will instead announce next week plans to buy used F-18s from Australia, despite having previously expressed concerns about buying older jets.

Boeing, noticeably silent in recent weeks as talk of the Australian fighters heated up in Ottawa, finally broke its silence Friday in a carefully worded statement.

Citing media reports that the government would choose the used jets, Boeing said it "respects the Canadian government's decision" and will continue to look for ways to work with Canada.

But Boeing also made clear that it had no intention of dropping its dispute with Montreal-based Bombardier, which it accuses of having broken trade rules when it sold dozens of C-Series passenger planes to a U.S. airline.

"Our commitment to creating a level-playing in aerospace remains," Boeing said. "We will continue to support all efforts to build an environment of free and fair competition marked by compliance with agreed upon rules."

The Liberals said in November 2016 that they would buy 18 "interim" Super Hornets to fill a critical shortage of fighter jets until a full competition to replace Canada's entire CF-18 fleet could be held in the coming years.

The government said at the time that the Super Hornet was the only aircraft able to meet its immediate needs.

But that was before Boeing complained to the U.S. Commerce Department that Bombardier had sold its C-Series jet liners to Delta Airlines at an "absurdly" low price with assistance from federal government subsidies.

Commerce officials have proposed a 300 per cent duty on all C-Series planes imported into the U.S., though the penalties won't be official until a separate ruling on whether Bombardier hurt Boeing's business.

Paris-based Airbus has since proposed to buy a majority stake in Bombardier's C-Series commercial planes, in the hopes that it can skirt any duties by building C-Series planes for U.S. customers at its plant in Alabama.



INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION



StatCan. 2017-12-08. Industrial capacity utilization rates, third quarter 2017


Canadian industries operated at 85.0% of their production capacity in the third quarter, up from 84.3% the previous quarter. This was the fifth consecutive quarterly increase.

The increase in the third quarter was mainly driven by construction and electric power generation, transmission and distribution.

Chart 1: The increase in the industrial capacity utilization rate slows

Chart 1: The increase in the industrial capacity utilization rate slows

Increase driven by construction

In non-manufacturing industries, increased capacity utilization in construction, electric power generation, transmission and distribution, and mining and quarrying were partly offset by a decline in oil and gas extraction, forestry and logging.

The capacity utilization rate in construction posted a fifth consecutive quarterly increase, rising from 87.6% to 89.1% in the third quarter following a period of decline. This gain was the result of an overall increase in construction activities.

The capacity utilization rate in electric power generation, transmission and distribution rose for a third consecutive quarter, reaching 88.9%, the highest level since the fourth quarter of 2008.

Following a 2.7 percentage point increase in the previous quarter, the capacity utilization rate in oil and gas extraction edged down to 81.5% in the third quarter, due to lower conventional oil extraction volumes.

The capacity utilization rate in forestry and logging fell from 86.1% to 81.4% in the third quarter, a fourth consecutive quarterly decline. The decrease was mainly the result of decreased activity in the industry.

Manufacturing increases from durable goods

The manufacturing industry operated at 85.2% of its capacity in the third quarter, up slightly from the previous quarter. This followed four consecutive increases since the third quarter of 2016.

The capacity utilization rate rose in 13 of 21 major manufacturing groups, representing approximately half of the manufacturing sector's gross domestic product.

Chart 2: Capacity utilization in manufacturing edges up

Chart 2: Capacity utilization in manufacturing edges up

Capacity utilization in the machinery manufacturing industry continued to grow, up 2.7 percentage points to 91.3% in the third quarter as most subsectors increased production.

The capacity utilization rate in non-metallic mineral product manufacturing saw its greatest quarterly increase since the third quarter of 2009, rising from 76.7% to 81.4%. Production was up in all non-metallic mineral product manufacturing subsectors.

The overall increase in capacity utilization for manufacturing was moderated by decreases in transportation equipment manufacturing and food processing.

The capacity utilization rate for transportation equipment manufacturers fell from 86.6% to 83.0%, due to a drop in the production of motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts. This marked the fifth decline in six quarters.

Capacity utilization in the food processing industry declined from 87.8% to 87.2%, the first decrease since the second quarter of 2016. Lower production in most food processing subsectors contributed to the decline.

FULL DOCUMENT: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/171208/dq171208a-eng.pdf

REUTERS. DECEMBER 8, 2017. Canada third-quarter industrial capacity rises for fifth consecutive quarter

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada’s industrial capacity rose in the third quarter for a fifth straight quarter as gains in the construction sector offset lower extraction volumes in the oil and gas industry, data from Statistics Canada showed on Friday.

Capacity utilization rose to 85.0 percent, marking a 10-year high and in line with forecasts after the second quarter was downwardly revised to 84.3 percent.

Capacity in the construction sector rose to 89.1 percent from 87.6 percent on an overall increase in activity. Groundbreaking on new homes has been stronger this year than economists had expected.

The gains were also driven by the electric power generation and transmission industry, which saw its utilization rate rise to 88.9 percent from 85.2 percent, the highest level since the fourth quarter of 2008.

But that was tempered by oil and gas extraction, where capacity slipped to 81.5 percent from 81.8 percent due to lower extraction volumes of conventional oil.

Capacity in the manufacturing sector edged up at 85.2 percent from 85.1 percent. The utilization rate rose in 13 of the 21 major manufacturing industries, including machinery and non-metallic mineral product manufacturing.

Reporting by Leah Schnurr; Editing by Bernadette Baum



MANUFATURING



StatCan. 2017-12-08. Sawmills, September 2017

Lumber production rose 1.4% from August to 5 633.4 thousand cubic metres of lumber in September. Production was 4.8% lower than in September 2016.

Sawmills shipped 5 820.8 thousand cubic metres of lumber in September 2017, up 4.2% from August but 3.6% lower than in September 2016.

FULL DOCUMENT: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/171208/dq171208j-eng.pdf

The Globe and Mail. 8 Dec 2017. U.S. trade ruling deals another blow to Canadian softwood producers. Lumber: ‘This vote is designed to apply more political pressure on Canada’
BRENT JANG

Canada’s shipments of softwood lumber south of the border are injuring the American forestry sector, the U.S. International Trade Commission has voted in a ruling that will deepen anger among Canadian producers.
The ITC’s final determination, in a 4-0 decision on Thursday in favour of the United States, comes amid deadlocked talks to overhaul the North American free-trade agreement, adding one more strain to the already tense relationship between Ottawa and the Trump administration.
The U.S. lumber sector “is materially injured by reason of imports of softwood lumber from Canada that the U.S. Department of Commerce has determined are subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value,” the ITC ruled.
The BC Lumber Trade Council criticized the ITC’s “egregious” announcement, describing the panel’s unanimous vote as a failure to be objective. “There can be no doubt that this process is biased in favour of the U.S. industry,” council president Susan Yurkovich said. “The U.S. coalition’s claims of injury ring particularly hollow given the extraordinary financial performance that the U.S. lumber industry is enjoying.”
Montreal-based Resolute Forest Products Inc. is one of the four mandatory respondents from Canada in the countervailing and anti-dumping cases. The others are based in B.C.: West Fraser Timber Co. Ltd., Canfor Corp. and Tolko Industries Ltd.
“The ITC is down to four commissioners, with two more to complete the panel nominated but not yet confirmed,” Resolute spokesman Seth Kursman said in a statement. “This vote is designed to apply more political pressure on Canada to settle on adverse terms. We won’t do that.”
In January, 2017, the ITC issued a preliminary ruling, saying Canadian softwood is harming the U.S. lumber industry – a stand upheld on Thursday.
“The U.S. Lumber Coalition fully supports the enforcement of America’s trade laws,” coalition co-chairman Jason Brochu said in a release. “The evidence presented to the ITC was clear – the massive subsidies that the Canadian government provides to its lumber industry and the dumping of lumber products into the U.S. market by Canadian companies cause real harm to U.S. producers and workers.”
Countervailing duties were imposed because the U.S. Commerce Department ruled provincial stumpage fees paid by Canadian lumber firms are too low and amount to subsidies for cutting down trees. The anti-dumping duties arise from the U.S. contention that Canadian producers sell softwood below market value.
On Nov. 14, Canada took its battle over countervailing duties to one of the most contentious elements of NAFTA – Chapter 19, which sets up trade panels to settle disputes.
Canada then filed a letter dated Dec. 5 to include antidumping duties as part of the Chapter 19 appeal process. This week, a law firm representing the Canadian government hired a courier to drop off the letter marked “via hand delivery” to Paul Morris, U.S. Secretary of the U.S. section of the NAFTA Secretariat.
Ottawa is hoping a binational panel under NAFTA will strike down tariffs on Canadian softwood.
Canada also challenged U.S. lumber tariffs on Nov. 28 by taking its fight to the World Trade Organization.
“In recent weeks, Canada has begun legal challenges against the U.S. duties on Canadian softwood under NAFTA and before the WTO. We will continue to consult with the provinces, the territories and Canadian industry and workers on a durable solution to this vital issue,” Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said in a statement on Thursday, calling the U.S. tariffs “unwarranted and troubling.”
In addition to the punitive duties, most Canadian producers had been facing 90-day retroactive penalties for what are known as critical circumstances. The ITC, however, said on Thursday that Canadian softwood shipments will not be subject to retroactive tariffs.
The 2006 softwood lumber agreement between Canada and the United States expired on Oct. 12, 2015.
The U.S. lumber sector began flexing its muscles in November, 2016, petitioning the Commerce Department to impose countervailing and anti-dumping duties on Canadian lumber shipments into the United States. That move turned out to be successful in 2017, with the Commerce Department deciding to penalize most Canadian producers with preliminary tariffs of 26.75 per cent.
On Nov. 2, the final determination by the Commerce Department resulted in a countervailing rate of 14.25 per cent and anti-dumping rate of 6.58 per cent against most Canadian lumber shipments, for a combined tariff averaging 20.83 per cent.
The new anti-dumping rate of 6.58 per cent – for what the Americans describe as Canada selling softwood below market value – kicked in on Nov. 8.
Preliminary countervailing duties averaging 19.88 per cent lasted for four months, ending in late August. The final countervailing rate of 14.25 per cent against most Canadian producers is expected to take effect in late December.
West Fraser faces a combined duty of 23.76 per cent, Canfor 22.13 per cent, Tolko 22.07 per cent, Resolute 17.90 per cent and New Brunswick-based J.D. Irving Ltd. 9.92 per cent.

REUTERS. DECEMBER 7, 2017. U.S. finds Canada lumber harms U.S. producers, duties to remain
Eric Walsh, Leah Schnurr

WASHINGTON/OTTAWA (Reuters) - The U.S. International Trade Commission said on Thursday it made a final finding that exports of softwood lumber from Canada injure U.S. producers, virtually ensuring that hefty duties on imports of the building material will remain in place for five years.

The decision will impose anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties affecting about $5.66 billion worth of lumber and comes amid increasingly acrimonious talks on renegotiating NAFTA, the trilateral trade pact between the United States, Canada and Mexico.

The U.S. Lumber Coalition, an industry lobby group that petitioned the U.S. Commerce Department last year to open a dumping and subsidy investigation, lauded the decision.

“The massive subsidies that the Canadian government provides to its lumber industry and the dumping of lumber products into the U.S. market by Canadian companies cause real harm to U.S. producers and workers,” Coalition Co-Chair Jason Brochu said in a statement.

Andrew Leslie, Canada’s parliamentary secretary of foreign affairs, called the duties “unwarranted, unfair and deeply troubling”. He told the House of Commons that “we will continue to fiercely defend our softwood lumber industry”.

Ottawa last week formally opened a case against the United States at the World Trade Organization over the Commerce Department’s decision to impose the duties.

That followed the launch by Ottawa last month of a NAFTA trade challenge over the move.

The combined final duty rates on the material used widely to build homes range from about 10 percent to nearly 24 percent, below a preliminary range of about 17 percent to 31 percent.

The affected Canadian firms are West Fraser Timber Co Ltd, Canfor Corp, Conifex Timber Inc, Western Forest Products Inc, Interfor Corp and Resolute FP Canada Ltd.

The Lumber Trade Council of British Columbia, a province with a significant forestry industry, said it was confident the decision would be overturned, calling it “completely without merit.”

A U.S. homebuilder group has called the ruling “shortsighted” amid concerns that it would drive up prices for consumers.

The disagreement centers on the fees paid by Canadian lumber mills for timber cut largely from government-owned land. Those fees are lower than fees paid on U.S. timber, which comes largely from private land.

The decision to impose tariffs followed failed talks to end the decades-long lumber dispute between the two countries. Canada dismisses the idea that it is subsidizing producers.

Reporting by Eric Walsh and Leah Schnurr; Editing by G Crosse and Andrew Hay



ENERGY



National Energy Board. December 7, 2017. NEB issues order on constitutional question for Trans Mountain Expansion Project

Calgary – The National Energy Board (NEB) issued an order today declaring that Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) is not required to comply with two sections of the City of Burnaby’s bylaws as the company prepares to begin constructing the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Reasons for the decision will follow.

The sections of the bylaws in question required Trans Mountain to obtain preliminary plan approvals and tree cutting permits for project-related work at Trans Mountain’s Burnaby Terminal, Westridge Marine Terminal, and at a nearby temporary infrastructure site.

Trans Mountain’s motion raised constitutional questions related to the applicability and operability of these Burnaby bylaws in relation to the project. The full text of Trans Mountain’s motion [Filing A87282] is available on the NEB website.

This decision allows the company to begin work at its temporary infrastructure site near the Westridge Marine Terminal, and some work at the Burnaby Terminal, subject to any other permits or authorizations that may be required.

The National Energy Board is an independent federal regulator of several parts of Canada’s energy industry. It regulates pipelines, energy development and trade in the public interest with safety as its primary concern. For more information on the NEB and its mandate, please visit www.neb-one.gc.ca

Quick Facts

  • On October 26, 2017 Trans Mountain filed a notice of motion and notice of constitutional question asking the NEB to issue an order declaring that certain sections of the City of Burnaby’s bylaws do not apply to work the company will carry out at its Burnaby Terminal and Westridge Marine Terminal, or its use of a temporary worksite.
  • As this motion included a notice of a constitutional question, in accordance with section 57 of the Federal Courts Act, it was served on the Attorney General of Canada and all provincial attorneys general. The attorneys general of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan participated in the hearing.
  • The Board held a two-day oral hearing in Calgary, AB on November 29, 2017 and December 4, 2017 to consider Trans Mountain’s request.

National Energy Board Letter – Oral hearing details and guidance [Filing A88204]: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/Filing/A88204
National Energy Board Order MO-057-2017 [Filing A88474]: https://apps.neb-one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/Filing/A88474



INTERNATIONAL TRADE - WTO



Global Affairs Canada. December 8, 2017. International Trade Minister to champion Canada’s progressive trade agenda at 11th WTO Ministerial Conference in Argentina

Ottawa, Ontario - Canada is a global leader in championing a rules-based international trading system and its institutions, including the World Trade Organization (WTO). Canada’s historic and ongoing role in shaping the multilateral trading system means working hard to improve and strengthen these rules and institutions for today’s global economy to benefit Canadians and citizens worldwide.

From December 10 to 13, 2017, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of International Trade, will participate in the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Canada will promote a global trading system that reflects an inclusive and progressive approach that benefits the middle class and those striving to join it. Canada will continue to advocate for gender equality, environmental sustainability and better addressing the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises.

Building on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s November 2016 official visit to Argentina, Minister Champagne will meet with Argentinian ministers and senior officials, as well as representatives of Canadian companies and the local business community, to discuss opportunities for increased trade and investment between the two countries.

Minister Champagne will also travel to Uruguay, on December 14 to 15, where he will meet with government officials and representatives of Canadian companies and civil society to discuss Canada’s commitment to open and progressive trade with Uruguay and business opportunities for Canadian companies.

Quotes

“The WTO plays a central role in guaranteeing and improving the rules-based trading system we all depend on for our collective prosperity. Our efforts need to focus on how the benefits of trade can be equitably distributed among our citizens. I look forward to discussing opportunities to chart a new course for the WTO that includes a more progressive vision for the future.

“Argentina and Uruguay are key markets and, as members of Mercosur, are key partners for Canada’s progressive trade agenda.”

- François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of International Trade

Quick Facts

  • The WTO, which has 164 member countries, was created on January 1, 1995.
  • The ministerial conferences are the highest decision-making body of the WTO. Conferences are held at least once every two years and are attended by trade ministers of WTO member countries.
  • In 2016, bilateral trade between Canada and Argentina and Canada and Uruguay totalled $1.9 billion and $245 million respectively.

Canada and the World Trade Organization: http://international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/wto-omc/index.aspx?lang=eng
World Trade Organization: https://www.wto.org/
Canada - Argentina relations: http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/argentina-argentine/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/canada_argentina-argentine.aspx?lang=eng
Canada - Uruguay relations: http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/uruguay/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/canada_uruguay.aspx?lang=eng


________________

LGCJ.:
Elaborado e postado por: