Monday, November 12, 2018

Effects of USMCA on Saskatchewan 论USMCA对萨省的影响



Abstract: USMCA is a pending free trade agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Premier Scott Moe is positive for the USMCA deal as Saskatchewan needs access to the No. 1 trading partner. Compared to NAFTA, the agreement gives the U.S. more access to Canada's $19 billion dairy market, incentivizes more US production of cars and trucks, increases environmental and labor regulations, and introduces updated intellectual property protections. The Trump administration had built on the previous work done on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a comprehensive, 12-country trade agreement representing roughly 40% of the value of goods and services produced worldwide, which US President Trump pulled out from. The pact was designed to boost exports, remove tariffs and non-tariff barriers, open access to more markets and bring forward transparency in trade rules. Canada would have given American farmers access to roughly 3.25% of its dairy industry, instead of 3.6% under USMCA, while enjoying the increased market access to the US, as in the free trade agreement with EU (which 100% is allowed). There’s also the formal new requirement that Canada notifies the U.S. and Mexico of any intent to negotiate with non-market economies (i.e. China and India) 3 months before it can sign a free trade agreement with China or India. In addition, a committee will be set up to monitor the macroeconomic and exchange rate policies of the three countries to deter competitive devaluation. Impact on SK Line Pipe exports will be about C$26.4 million, yet according to MP Melanie Joly, USMCA means continued market access security for $15.3 billion in Saskatchewan’s exports to the U.S. and stability for workers. The Canada West Foundation modelled the economic impact of the agreement without the U.S., and surprisingly, found that Canada did better with the Americans out of the agreement. Saskatchewan can seek pro-Canadian lobbyists to change certain clauses. It should also actively explore trading with other countries, esp. within the CPTPP framework. In short, USMCA provides certain confidence and certainty and reduces transaction costs. With CPTPP ratified, Saskatchewan may enjoy wider and deeper benefits, and it should be ready for both the coming challenges and the new opportunities.

Key Words: USMCA, Saskatchewan, trade, CPTPP

I.                   Background
Many people may have heard of USMCA, especially around October 1, 2018. USMCA is a pending free trade agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States. It is also referred to as "NAFTA 2.0", in order to distinguish it from its intended current predecessor North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which came into effect on January 1, 1994.. It is the result of the 2017–2018 renegotiation of NAFTA including threats of tariffs by the United States against Canada in addition to the possibility of separate bilateral deals instead. The member states informally agreed to the terms on September 30, 2018, and formally on October 1, with the final ratification and implementation pending. The present agreement was the result of more than a year of negotiations Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, ceasing to be part of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and significantly increasing tariffs with China, President Trump reinforced that he was serious about seeking changes to NAFTA[i].

As 55% of exports from SK and 85% imports into SK are with the US, “preserving that kind of trading environment with that kind of partner is of crucial importance,” Premier Moe said[ii]. With the above in mind, this is absolutely true.

II.                General Situation
Some of the highlights of this agreement include the U.S. getting more access to Canada’s protected dairy market; no U.S. tariffs on cars Canadian and Mexico export unless it exceeds 2.6 million units a year; Canada and Mexico are both raising their duty-free levels with the former going from $20 to $150 and the latter from $50 to $100; and Canada will extend the patent protection for an important class of prescription drugs called biologics from 8 to 10 years, a move some have criticized could result in increased health-care costs by delaying the cheaper generic copies into the market. Canada was also able to keep the dispute resolution mechanism Chapter 19 intact, which allows companies to request arbitration when they feel their products have been unfairly hit with anti-dumping or undo duties[iii].

Someone commented that this agreement is in every respect worse for Canada than the status quo, which is reiterated by the Wall Street Journal. “If you look at the details on this, we made new concessions,” Garnett Genuis, MP of Fort Saskatchewan, said. “There were major outstanding issues for Canada that were not addressed. It is worse than the status quo but better than no deal at all.” [iv]

According to Premier Scott Moe, he was positive for the USMCA deal as Saskatchewan needs access to the No. 1 trading partner. However, he was concerned about the non-market clause as he was in China for a week and he cherished trade with China as export to China tripled in the last decade. He is also heading for India, which is included in the clause as well. Nevertheless, he said it depended on how you would interpret a free trade country as we in Canada could not even have a free market across the country[v].

III.             Comparison to Other Trade Agreements
1.      NAFTA
Compared to NAFTA, the agreement gives the U.S. more access to Canada's $19 billion dairy market, incentivizes more US production of cars and trucks, increases environmental and labor regulations, and introduces updated intellectual property protections.

NAFTA took effect in 1994 and was designed to last indefinitely; USMCA will take effect in 2020, be reviewed every six years and could expire in 2036, or be extended to 2052.

Starting in 2020, 30% of vehicle production must be done by workers earning an average production wage of at least $16 per hour. That’s about three times the pay of the average Mexican autoworker. In 2023, the production percentage rises to 40%. This could result in job production moving from Mexico to the U.S. 70% of the steel and aluminum used in vehicles will have to come from the U.S., Canada or Mexico, and automakers can qualify for zero tariffs if 75% of their vehicles’ components are manufactured in the three countries (under NAFTA it was 62.5%)[vi].

With USMCA, Canada will give away to the US $560 million worth of dairy products or 3.5% of Canada’s total diary market.

If the U.S. imposes new auto tariffs, Mexico and Canada would be able to export up to 2.6 million passenger vehicles to the U.S. annually without any tariffs. Exports above that amount could be subject to tariffs. Pickup trucks built in both countries would be completely exempt from the tariffs.

For the first time, law enforcement officials can stop suspected counterfeit or pirated goods in any of the three countries. Harsher punishments will be added for pirated movies online and civil/criminal penalties for satellite/cable signal theft.

2.      TPP
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer acknowledged that, in negotiating the new deal with Canada and Mexico, the Trump administration had built on the previous work done on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Trans-Pacific Partnership was a comprehensive, 12-country trade agreement that Obama signed in 2016 after seven years of negotiation. The pact was designed to boost exports, remove tariffs and non-tariff barriers, open access to more markets and bring forward transparency in trade rules.

Countries in the agreement included Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, Chile, Brunei, Singapore and New Zealand – all representing roughly 40% of the value of goods and services produced worldwide. Trump discarded TPP on his third day in office. However, while the packaging may be different, roughly two-thirds[vii] of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, can be traced back to language in the now-discarded Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal negotiated by Trump’s predecessor.

Under USMCA, Canada would give away 3.5% of Canada’s total $16 billion dairy market, while under Trans-Pacific Partnership Canada would have given American farmers access to roughly 3.25% of its dairy industry. Some parts of the new agreement were not in the TPP. Among them are provisions dictating the percentage of an automobile that must be built from parts made in North America and mandating that that up to 45% of an auto must be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour[viii].

“The original TPP…was fairly location-neutral in terms of investment, the idea was to let companies invest in whichever of the TPP countries made the most sense for them,” Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in the US, said. Alden also says. “If your goal was to build strong relations with allies, and particularly the allies the US is going to need as competition with China intensifies, this probably wasn’t a good strategy. The US has broken a lot of crockery here, and left a lot of bad feelings in Canada, in Mexico, South Korea, we’ll see about Europe.”[ix]

One material difference between the TPP and USMCA appears to be this latter term which under the TPP was 70 years from publication, and USMCA appears to have rejected a provision that was included in the TPP about language interpretation to make a balance. USMCA nevertheless not only recites the language of existing free trade agreements on Section 512 of the DMCA, but adds a new provision pressed by the Internet Association and others to reflect the kind of protection against liability found under Section 230 of the CDA, which maintains an unaccountable status quo and makes addressing internet harms infinitely more difficult[x].

Under TPP, that timeline for biologic drugs to enjoy exclusive data rights was five to eight years, matching current US law, while the one under USMCA is extended to 10 years, regarded a great thing for US pharmaceutical innovators, leaving Americans, Canadians and Mexicans to face higher prices at the drug counter as the clause delays the generic cheaper copies into the market.

IV.             Problems
1.      Dispute Resolution Mechanism
Though Canada is fortunate in keeping the dispute resolution mechanism in Chapter 19, it’s difficult to see how effective it will be given any tariff measures justified in the name of national security.

2.      Non-market Economy Clause
There’s the formal requirement that Canada and Mexico notify the U.S. of any intent to negotiate with non-market economies (i.e. China and India) and notify them three months before it can sign a free trade agreement with China or India. Also, when one country signs an agreement with a non-market economy, the other two countries can choose to remain in the agreement or they can withdraw with a 6-month notice[xi]. While this may put Canada and Mexico into an awkward situation, the US can take advantage of it.

3.      Exchange Rate Monitoring
There’s also the section that establishes a committee to monitor the macroeconomic and exchange rate policies of the three countries ostensibly to maintain market-oriented exchange rates and refrain from competitive devaluation. While there are no doubt fiscal and monetary policy links between Canada and the U.S. already, this more formal process raises questions about the independence of our fiscal and monetary policy and the role of the Bank of Canada. With the US dollar a popular international exchange medium, should Canada follow the US monetary policy while the Canadian dollar is not so popular and widely used?

4.      Sunset Clause
As thousands of businesses would plan their affairs around the new trade patterns with zero tariffs, the impact is so huge that leaving the agreement would be too damaging and disruptive to imagine, especially for small economies like Canada and Mexico. Article 34.6 of the new deal still provides for withdrawal on six months’ notice, with the agreement continuing for parties that don’t withdraw. The new Article 34.7 says in addition that the agreement expires after 16 years (note why 16 is not certain yet) unless each country agrees to extend it. There’s also a compulsory review after six years, at which point countries will indicate if they want to extend for another 16 years. If they don’t agree to this, there will be a review every year, after each of which they shall have the opportunity to renew again for another 16 years. There’s the obvious possibility that in years seven to 15 of the new deal’s life an equally mercantilist and combative U.S. president will hold off on extending the agreement’s life, thus recreating the uncertainty—such as we have seen in the last two years—that will persuade many businesses that in North America the U.S. is the only sure place to invest.[xii]

V.                Possible Effects
1.      Positive Effects
As SK relies heavily on trade with the US, a deal to maintain certainty in conducting trade is important, as stressed by Steve McLellan, CEO of the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce. Secondly, Chapter 19, which has protected Canada’s interests for many times, is kept intact.

There are also some changes regarding online purchases and biological pharmaceutical drugs. While the new $150 duty-free limit for online purchases and $40 sales tax exemption[xiii] may put small Canadian retailers at a competitive disadvantage, the writer believes this is good news for online consumers, and this clause is not to blame if it is treated the same way in the US as it is in Canada. This may be also applied to the case of patent protection of biological pharmaceutical drugs form 8 years to 10 years as more money may be spent on pharmaceutical drugs research, though this may also mean more expensive drugs for Canadians[xiv]. The data-exclusivity extension included in the USMCA essentially means American drug companies will be able to sell their biologics in Canada for a full decade, delaying the entry of cheaper generics by two years, and this could cost taxpayers "tens of millions" annually. Nevertheless, Patented Medicine Prices Review Board policy changes would likely be rolling out simultaneously with the USMCA extension, which could take "a lot of bite”[xv]

2.      Negative Effects
First, the deal doesn’t remove the US tariffs on steel and aluminum, which was used by Trump as a negotiating tool, but Mr Lukiwski said Trudeau broke his promise on this. United Steel Workers of America local 5890 (USW) president Mike Day said this is disappointing news for the 2,000 members working at Regina Evraz steel mill[xvi]. Also, there is going to be three burdens for SK: the US tariff, the carbon tax and the compensation from the federal government, which has to be recouped. Premier Moe said that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 needs to be addressed, and with pipelines and other business included, this means more than Evraz. 

Secondly, the new trade deal will shrink the dairy product industry and hurt 165 dairy producers in Saskatchewan. On top of other trade agreements, SaskMilk General Manager Peter Brown said the United States has about 9% market access. Once the system is entrenched, Brown anticipates $200 million of Canada’s dairy industry will flow to the United States annually. Taking over Canada's industry wouldn’t even solve their problem. So it’s going to be a very tiny impact for them, but a large impact for Canada as a smaller country. While the U.S dairy farmers have more access to the Canadian dairy market (note that the Americans have opened up 3% of the dairy market while the Canadians opened up 10%)[xvii], the Canadian market and Canadian dairy farmers have absolutely no increased access to the US. 3.6% of the dairy market was offered up and Canada has vowed to compensate dairy farmers for any losses they might incur. “When the Harper government negotiated the free trade agreement with the European Union, we gave the European Union access to about three percent of Canada’s dairy market, primarily in Québec,” said Tom Lukiwski, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre-Lanigan. “In return, Canadian dairy farmers had access to the entire European Union.”[xviii]. Many politicians claim to support free trade, but are opposed to Canadian consumers having more access to goods produced abroad. While the federal government – again, is doling out tax dollars as corporate welfare to domestic dairy farmers to compensate them for the marginal loss in market share they will experience, Canadians have to pay the dairy farmers, through higher taxes, in order to achieve just slightly freer trade in the dairy sector.

Thirdly, there are the non-market economy clause and the sunset clause which may deter Saskatchewan from furthering trade with China (especially to reach a free trade agreement) and India and make the future uncertain so that Saskatchewan businesses dare not engage themselves in a longer term.

Fourthly, the exchange rate monitoring clause makes Canada and Saskatchewan more in line with the US in monetary policy, which may trigger higher mortgage payments and higher rents following higher interest rates in the US.

VI.             Estimate of Net Benefit/Loss on Saskatchewan
The United States was the primary export destination for Saskatchewan in 2017 with 55% ($16 billion) of all merchandise exports. Exports to Asia represented 28% ($8 billion) of all merchandise exports, which slightly dropped from 32% ($8.4 billion) in 2016[xix].

The writer has calculated the following with the data mostly from 2017 unless otherwise mentioned[xx]:
l  Impact on Line Pipe exports with the assumption that a 25% tariff on steel will cause a 12.5% decrease of US imports: 211479*0.125 = C$26,434,875
l  Impact on dairy products assuming the decrease of dairy exports to the US will be 5%[xxi] based the percentage of exports similar to the percentage of dairy cows with the latter not so different from that of 2015: 378876271*(27.1/959.6)*0.05 = C$534,990.98
l  Impact of the potential price rise after a retaliatory tariff of 10% on the retail goods imported from the US assuming a price rise of 5%:
1750 million*0.05 = C$87.5 million

It can be said briefly that the US tariff on steel will have more impacts on Saskatchewan directly. Nevertheless, according to MP Melanie Joly, USMCA means continued market access security for $15.3 billion in Saskatchewan’s exports to the U.S. and stability for workers[xxii]. As Canada ratified the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnerships (CPTPP), Canada will be positioned to take market share from places like Japan and Malaysia[xxiii]. Therefore, it seems that the final net result will be promising, and this will be strengthened if SK and China can engage more in their future trade deals.

VII.          Adoptable Measures
There are basically things Saskatchewan can do.

First, Saskatchewan can seek pro-Canadian lobbyists to change certain clauses. With the Democrats in charge of the Congress, this may be easier to achieve. Secondly, Saskatchewan should actively participate in trading with other countries, esp. within the CPTPP framework.

The CPTPP is about opening new and growing markets, and using better ways to increase and diversify trade with the possibility of encompassing China, South Korea, Columbia and Japan, and it is not in confliction with USMCA as it is neither a bilateral trade negotiation nor a new negotiation. The Canada West Foundation modelled the economic impact of the agreement without the U.S., and surprisingly, found that Canada did better with the Americans out of the agreement[xxiv].

For Saskatchewan, where trade with Asia is important, the CPTPP gives exporters preferential access in 10 markets that rim the Pacific Ocean, six of them in Asia, including Japan, Vietnam and Malaysia, with China reportedly suddenly showing interest in joining the CPTPP. Given that Canada has only one trade agreement in Asia, gaining the equivalent of six new agreements at once is in itself a huge win. Also, Canada’s Finance Minister Bill Morneau and the Trade Minister Jim Carr will be visiting China on December 11[xxv]. According to Trudeau, nothing in the agreement can prevent Canada from developing its trade relationship with China. With 3/4 of GDP exporting to the US, the federal government has realized that diversity is very important, and enhancing trade with China will be done in the future in a open, practical and thoughtful way. CPTPP represents hundreds of millions in potential tariff savings alone. And thanks to the Americans having been part of the original negotiations, there was more market share on the table as countries made concessions with the Americans at the table.

Benefits of the CPTPP go beyond tariff reduction. The trade facilitation rules, rules of origin, and transparency provisions will also help reduce the cost of doing business with member countries. Given the current climate and the rising trend towards protectionist trade policies around the world, the ratification of the CPTPP will be a welcome opportunity for Saskatchewan’s agriculture sector and an important factor in reaching the targets in the Saskatchewan Plan for Growth[xxvi].

VIII.       Conclusion
USMCA may be worse than NAFTA, but it is better than nothing achieved. The impacts of USMCA on Saskatchewan are yet to determine. However, with CPTPP ratified, Saskatchewan may enjoy wider and deeper benefits, and it should be ready for both the coming challenges and the new opportunities.

美加墨贸易协议对萨省的影响(摘要)

美加墨贸易协议是加拿大、墨西哥和美国之间的待决自由贸易协议。由于萨斯喀彻温省需要第一大贸易伙伴的市场准入,因此省长斯科特·莫尔对美加墨贸易协议持积极态度。与北美自由贸易协定相比,该协议使美国能更多地进入加拿大190亿元的乳制品市场,鼓励美国更多的汽车和卡车生产,增加对环境和劳动的规制,并引入最新的知识产权保护。该协议是特朗普政府在以前的跨太平洋伙伴关系协定工作的基础上达成的,这是一项全面的12国贸易协定,约占全球生产的商品和服务价值的40%,但后来为美国总统特朗普撤出。该协议旨在促进出口、取消关税和非关税壁垒、开放更多市场,并提高贸易规则的透明度。加拿大本来可以让美国农民获得大约3.25%的乳制品市场,而不是美加墨贸易协议下的3.6%,并同时像对欧盟那样(对欧盟国家是100%准入)享有增加的美国市场准入。还有一项新的正式要求,即加拿大在与非市场经济体中国或印度签署自由贸易协定前3个月必须通知美国和墨西哥。此外,一个监督委员会将得以成立,监督三国的宏观经济和汇率政策,以阻止竞争性贬值。就影响而言,对萨省钢管出口的影响将达到约2640万加元,但根据国会议员梅勒妮乔利的说法,美加墨贸易协议意味着萨斯喀彻温省向美国出口将确保有153亿美元的持续市场准入以及工人队伍的稳定性。加拿大西部基金会模拟了没有美国的协议对经济的影响,并且惊讶地发现加拿大会做得更好。萨斯喀彻温省可以寻求亲加拿大游说者改变某些条款;它还应该积极拓展与其他国家的贸易,尤其是在跨太平洋伙伴全面进展协定框架内。 总之,美加墨贸易协议给我们提供了一定的信心和确定性,并减少了交易成本。随着跨太平洋伙伴全面进展协定的批准,萨斯喀彻温省可能会获得更广泛和更深层次的利益,它应该为即将到来的挑战和新的机遇做好准备。

关键词:USMCA、萨省、贸易、CPTPP



[i] United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, as shown by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93Mexico%E2%80%93Canada_Agreement.
[ii] David Baxter: Steel tariffs, American dairy and cheaper online shopping; what USMCA means for Sask., Global News, Oct 1, 2018, please click the following link to read the interesting article: https://globalnews.ca/news/4504520/sask-steelworkers-disappointed-tariffs-remain-despite-new-trade-deal/.
[iii] Conservative MP calls USMCA “a bad deal” for Saskatchewan and Canada, 620 CKRM, Oct 6, 2018, please take time to click the following link to read the interesting article: https://www.620ckrm.com/2018/10/06/saskatchewan-conservative-mp-not-a-fan-of-the-usmca/.
[iv] David Boles: Conservative MP calls USMCA “a bad deal” for Saskatchewan and Canada, 620 CKRM The Source, Oct 6, 2018, please take time to click the following link to read the article: https://www.620ckrm.com/2018/10/06/saskatchewan-conservative-mp-not-a-fan-of-the-usmca/.
[v] John Gormley: The Impact of the USMCA on Saskatchewan, CJME/CKOM, Oct 3, 2018, https://soundcloud.com/980cjme_650ckom/gormley-the-impact-of-the-usmca-on-saskatchewan-october-3rd.
[vi] George Petras: From NAFTA to USMCA: Key changes on trilateral trade pact, USA TODAY, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/10/01/comparison-nafta-and-usmca-trade-agreements/1487163002/.
[vii] Michael Collins: New trade deal with Canada, Mexico borrows heavily from pact that Trump abandoned, USA Today, Oct 3, 2018, please click the following link to read the article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/03/usmca-new-trade-deal-canada-borrows-pact-trump-abandoned/1498224002/.
[viii] Michael Collins: New trade deal with Canada, Mexico borrows heavily from pact that Trump abandoned, USA Today, Oct 3, 2018, please click the following link to read the article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/03/usmca-new-trade-deal-canada-borrows-pact-trump-abandoned/1498224002/.
[ix] Tim Fernholz: Donald Trump’s new NAFTA is the blueprint for his trade war with China, Quartz, Oct 1, 2018, https://qz.com/1409072/trumps-new-nafta-and-the-anti-china-tpp/.
[x] Neil Terkewitz: The TPP and USMCA: The Good, the Bad & the Ugly, Medium, Oct 3, 2018, https://medium.com/@nturkewitz_56674/the-tpp-and-usmca-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-well-actually-only-the-good-the-ugly-729dade68a8a.
[xi] Livio Di Matteo: New trade deal increases American sway over Canada, Fraser Institute, Oct 13, 2018, please take time to click the following link to read the interesting article: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/new-trade-deal-increases-american-sway-over-canada.
[xii] William Watson: Six months’ notice” and The Art of the Squeeze, Fraser Institute, October 5, 2018, https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/six-months-notice-and-the-art-of-the-squeeze.
[xiii] Carol Thomson: What The Proposed Trade Deal Means For Saskatchewan, Country 600 CJWW, Oct 1, 2018, please take time to click the following link to read the interesting article: https://www.cjwwradio.com/2018/10/01/what-the-proposed-trade-deal-means-for-saskatchewan/?from=groupmessage&isappinstalled=0.
[xiv] David Baxter: Steel tariffs, American dairy and cheaper online shopping; what USMCA means for Sask., Global News, Oct 1, 2018, please click the following link to read the interesting article: https://globalnews.ca/news/4504520/sask-steelworkers-disappointed-tariffs-remain-despite-new-trade-deal/.
[xv] Amy Husser: Will USMCA affect Canada's drug prices? Depends on what happens next, experts say, CBC News, Oct 2, 2018, please click the following link to read the interesting article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/usmca-pharma-drugs-prices-cost-1.4846421.
[xvi] David Baxter: Steel tariffs, American dairy and cheaper online shopping; what USMCA means for Sask., Global News, Oct 1, 2018, please click the following link to read the interesting article: https://globalnews.ca/news/4504520/sask-steelworkers-disappointed-tariffs-remain-despite-new-trade-deal/.
[xvii] Report: Retaliatory tariffs will negate USMCA export gains, Fruit Growers News, OCT 31, 2018
[xviii] David Baxter: Steel tariffs, American dairy and cheaper online shopping; what USMCA means for Sask., Global News, Oct 1, 2018, please click the following link to read the interesting article: https://globalnews.ca/news/4504520/sask-steelworkers-disappointed-tariffs-remain-despite-new-trade-deal/; David Boles: Conservative MP calls USMCA “a bad deal” for Saskatchewan and Canada, 620 CKRM The Source, Oct 6, 2018, please click the following link to read the article: https://www.620ckrm.com/2018/10/06/saskatchewan-conservative-mp-not-a-fan-of-the-usmca/.
[xix] Saskatchewan Export Trade Statistics 2000-2017, Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, Oct 29, 2018, https://theasiafactor.ca/sk.
[xx] Total Saskatchewan Exports to the U.S. by Product - 2017 (CAD Thousands), please check https://www.sasktrade.com/pages/appendix_a_b__c; Snapshot of Canadian Dairy Industry, 2015, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_farming_in_Canada#Snapshot_of_Canadian_Dairy_Industry,_2015%5B3%5D.
[xxi] Saskatchewan dairy farmers caught in the middle of turbulent NAFTA talks, Global News, Aug 19, 2018, https://globalnews.ca/video/4417730/sask-dairy-exports.
[xxiii] Carlo Dade: Canada’s steel and aluminum industry, and the impact of U.S. tariffs, Canada West Foundation, June 1, 2018, please take time to view the article by clicking the link: http://cwf.ca/news/blog/blog-canadas-steel-and-aluminum-industry-and-the-impact-of-u-s-tariffs/.
[xxiv] Carlo Dade: CPTPP ratification a win for West, Winnipeg Free Press, Nov 5, 2018, https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/cptpp-ratification-a-win-for-west-499607091.html.
[xxv] Two Canadian Ministers Will Visit China Next Month to Promote Sino-Canada Trade, Global Times, Oct 18, 2018.
[xxvi] Jayme Gramlich: Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for a Trans-Pacific Partnership presents opportunity for Saskatchewan, Sept 20, 2018, please take time to read by clicking https://www.saskatchewan.ca/business/agriculture-natural-resources-and-industry/agribusiness-farmers-and-ranchers/sask-ag-now/policy-trade-and-market-development/trans-pacific-partnership-agreement.

Sunday, September 30, 2018

Reflections on Premier Scott Moe’s Visit to China


I.                    Background
Canada is the first country in the west to initiate trade relationships with China, and established an official diplomatic relationship with China in October 1970. Not many people know that Saskatchewan played a crucial part in it as both Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and Agricultural Minister Alvin Hamilton (who are from Saskatchewan) promoted the export of wheat to China in 1961. With an uncertain future of the NAFTA negotiations, the US retaliation on China and Canada, and the complimentary economic structure between China and Saskatchewan, there is a growing importance to expand trade with China. Actually China is now the second largest trading partner with Saskatchewan, reaching $3.5 billion in the last 5 years. Also, Saskatchewan is a world leader in food, fuel and fertilizer production and exports, with some of them listed below:

Saskatchewan’s Food Production in Canada and the World
Agricultural Item
SK’s Exp in Canada’s Exp (%)
SK’s Exp in World Exp (%)
Canary Seed
87
71
Hyacinth Bean
98
65
Durum
87
39
Oats
62
36
Flaxseed
83
36
Leaf Mustard Seed
57
25
Source: Saskatchewan Trade and Export Partnership, updated Sept 30, 2018, http://ca.chinapulse.org/article/misc/2.html.

II.                  Overview of the Visit
A particular focus of the trip was on Saskatchewan’s value-added agriculture sector. The Premier met with Chinese government entities, including the Governor of Heilongjiang, the Chinese Ministry of Environment and Ecology, the Chinese Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology. The Saskatchewan delegation was also joined by more than 20 Saskatchewan companies at the STEP – Canada China Business Council Showcase focused on promoting Saskatchewan’s exports to China. Cameco CEO, Tim Gitzel, accompanied Moe in meetings with a number of Chinese nuclear agencies, including the China Atomic Energy Authority, China National Nuclear Corporation, and China General Nuclear Power Group, to advance efforts to enable additional exports of Saskatchewan uranium to China, a vital economic interest to Northern Saskatchewan[i]. Mr. Gitzel said China was Camecao's major market, and Cameco was the fastest growing nuclear producer in the world. Premier Moe and representatives from Canpotex and Mosaic also attended meetings and events that promoted the export and increased use of Saskatchewan potash, including meetings with major potash buyers and partners, including Beifeng Corporation and Sinochem/Sinofert. Beifeng Corporation, which is directly under Heilongjiang Supply and Market Cooperative, is the largest border potash importer both for China and Russia, and its imports from Saskatchewan now surpasses that of Sinochem. During the visit, the closest thing to a firm agreement out of the trip came in the form of a memorandum of understanding between the Regina-based Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Knowledge Centre and the China Petroleum University, “to advance our shared interest in using CCS for enhanced oil recovery.”[ii]



III.                Reflections
It should be applauded for Mr. Moe to visit China with a large delegation at this critical moment, and the relationship with Beifeng may bring forward unexpected fruits, as it is a breakthrough after the relationship with Sinochem. Nevertheless, something could be done to achieve a better result. More Chinese trade and culture experts should be consulted, and meetings may be arranged beforehand with Bardish Chagger, the current Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the former Minister of Small Business and Tourism, who had visited China several times. Also, although food was a major topic for the visit, talk with China’s Ministry of Agriculture was not mentioned.

IV.                Conclusion
As everyone may hear the saying “no pains, no gains” and another “you reap what you sow”. Therefore, while we may not see any fruits right now, we have laid a relatively solid foundation.


[i] Premier Scott Moe considers recent Chinese trade mission a success, Naina Rishiraj, Global News, Sept 25, 2108, please click the link to view the whole article as shown below https://globalnews.ca/news/4486103/premier-scott-moe-returns-from-successful-trade-mission-in-china/.
[ii] D.C. FRASER: No trade deal but Premier Moe optimistic about China trip, REGINA LEADER-POST, Sept 25, 2018, please click the link to view the complete article as shown below https://leaderpost.com/news/saskatchewan/no-trade-deal-but-premier-moe-
optimistic-about-china-trip. 

Monday, September 3, 2018

Options for the Trans Mountain Pipeline: An Objective Third Perspective 跨山管道工程的选项:一个第三方的客观视角

Abstract: BC stated it did not support Trans Mountain Pipeline, partly due to its environmental concerns. Many First Nations in BC are also against the expansion project. As the dispute had put the line's financial viability at risk, Kinder Morgan Canada suspended work on the project in April of this year. As Ottawa has the constitutional authority to build inter-provincial projects like pipelines, the Federal government announced in May of this year a deal to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline, the expansion project and terminals from Kinder Morgan Canada for $4.5 billion with an intention to export this portion of crude oil to Asian markets including China as a "new way out" and to boost up oil prices and to protect the “national interest”. Opponents were more united than the supporters in their view that the government made the wrong decision by buying Trans Mountain. The federal government should do more to disclose how it arrived at the purchase price, what cost-benefits were conducted, what potential costs the public is exposed to, and whether Kinder Morgan attempted to sell the pipeline elsewhere. It seems China and other Asian countries have no plan to increase oil imports from Canada, and NAFTA is also at a bottleneck with Mexico reaching a mutual agreement with the US. Canada has to abide by various UNDRIP’s core rights, and the decision of Canada's Supreme Court. Nevertheless, there are other options such as BOT for the federal government besides the purchase. Though there may be many benefits for the project, and many rules and regulations are already in place to protect the environment, the project may still not necessarily be purchased.

Key Words: Trans Mountain Pipeline, the federal government, purchase, options


I.                    General Situation
A new Angus Reid Institute poll finds an equal number of Canadians (37 per cent) say the purchase was the right decision as the number who say it was the wrong decision. Opponents of the pipeline project were more united in their view that the government made the wrong decision by buying Trans Mountain. An overwhelming majority of that group — 80 per cent — said it was the wrong call. Only 56 per cent of Trans Mountain supporters, on the other hand, said the Liberals made the right choice in buying the project[1]. Trans Mountain Pipeline is a pipeline that carries crude and refined oil from Alberta to the west coast of British Columbia, Canada. As the only pipeline to run between these two areas, it has been owned by the Canadian division of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (Kinder Morgan) up to 2018 and has been in use since 1953.

Trans Mountain has reported approximately 82 spills to Canada's National Energy Board since 1961. Although a majority have occurred at contained zones such as pumping stations, and a majority were below the mandatory reporting threshold of 1.5 cubic meters[2].

In 2013, Kinder Morgan filed an application with the Canadian National Energy Board to build a second pipeline under an expansion project with an investment of $7.4 billion. In 2016, BC stated it did not support Trans Mountain, partly because Kinder Morgan has not provided enough information about its proposed spill prevention and spill cleanup program. On November 29, 2016, Canada's federal cabinet approved the expansion project, subject to 157 binding conditions. On January 30, 2018, the B.C. government proposed a restriction on increases to the amount of diluted bitumen that can be imported into BC from Alberta, until the completion of studies on whether potential spillage could be mitigated. On April 16, 2018, the Alberta government introduced the Preserving Canada's Economic Prosperity Act, under which any party exporting crude oil, natural gas, or refined fuel from Alberta must obtain a license from the Minister of Energy, who would have the right to approve or deny any application, and this could be used to effectively ban the export of Alberta gas to British Columbia[3]. Many First Nations in BC are against the expansion project. Those who support the pipeline say that it will create jobs and that it has a lower risk of spilling oil than transporting oil by rail, which pipeline proponents say would otherwise have to be used. As the dispute had put the line's financial viability at risk, Kinder Morgan Canada suspended work on the project in April. As Ottawa has the constitutional authority to build interprovincial projects like pipelines, on May 29, 2018, the Federal government announces a deal to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline, the expansion project and terminals from Kinder Morgan Canada for $4.5 billion. This deal is supposed to be closed in August or sometime later[4]. The federal government may carry out the purchase and operate the pipeline via a crown corporation if it cannot find a buyer in due time. The eventual owner will be indemnified by the government for any delays or hindrances to the project that result from legal actions by provincial or municipal governments. The government will also have the option to cover costs or purchase the pipeline back if the new owner is unable to complete the project due to legal pressure, or, despite reasonable efforts, cannot complete the project by an established deadline. The head of Kinder Morgan Canada says work is to resume in August of 2018 to prepare a route for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. This attitude is shown to demonstrate to Canadians and to the prospective new owner that this project can be executed in a manner that serves the interests of everybody[5].

II.                 Discussion
1.         Need or Necessity
As far as need is concerned, the purchase will gain access to the Asian market and higher global prices. There will be more than 400 permanent jobs to operate the line, and the vast majority of the pipe will come from Evraz Steel in Regina[6]. According to news from the US CNBC News, the Canadian government’s purchase proposal is to ensure that the amount of crude oil that Canada sends to the West Coast can be "doubled." By then, the Canadian government intends to export this portion of crude oil to Asian markets including China as a "new way out". It is in the “national interest,” as asserted by the federal government. It will create thousands of jobs, and delays in the project are costing Canada $15 billion per year[7].

The original owner of Trans Mountain Pipeline Kinder Morgan announced in April that it would suspend all expenditures on the expansion of energy pipelines across the mountain. The reason is that "the differences between the governments cannot be resolved." Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hoped that Canada could export crude oil to the new Asian market. Jackie Forest of ARC Financial Group said, the new pipeline expansion plan would help Canada transport more than 300,000 to 890,000 barrels of oil per day, and will earn another ten dollars per barrel of oil[8].
Annual operating revenues of some 200 million will accrue to taxpayers[9]. However, most of the jobs created would be for the construction of the pipeline and end with completion in late 2019 or 2020. According to some other source, with two other approved pipelines likely to be built in the same timeframe, Trans Mountain delays are not costing Canadians anything[10].

Moreover, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), headed by the Persian Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, accounted for 56% of China's total crude oil imports in 2017, which has fallen from a peak of 67% in 2012. Russia and Brazil’s market share in China has grown faster than any other country. There will be more countries, and the share of Russia in China will increase from 9% in 2012 to 14% in 2017. The share of Brazil in China will increase from 2% in 2012 to 5% in 2017. In February of this year, Sinopec and the Chinese Academy of Sciences jointly issued the Oil Blue Book of 2018, saying that "China will further increase its crude oil imports from Russia, the United States, and Brazil." There is no mention of Canada[11].

2.         Morality and Acountability
According to a new filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, two executives at the Canadian unit of Texas-based Kinder Morgan are poised to each cash in with $1.5 million bonuses[12] after Ottawa offered to bailout their west coast oil pipeline system and expansion project. Finance Minister Morneau said in an interview with Evan Solomon from CTV's Question Period that was aired on Sunday morning. The finance minister's office has declined to say whether he knew about these bonuses prior to the federal cabinet's decision to approve the offer to buy the Kinder Morgan assets[13].

With the growth prospects of the oilsands in the latter half of the next decade, Canada’s ability to sell the pipeline without a loss, is in doubt because it has already expressed explicitly it is a involuntary buyer. Morneau would not commit to a timeline on either when the expansion could actually be operational or how long the government could be stuck owning the project if it can’t find a buyer. The federal government should do more to disclose how it arrived at the purchase price, what cost-benefits were weighed, what potential costs the public is exposed to, and whether Kinder Morgan attempted to sell the pipeline elsewhere.

III.               Feasibility for the Purchase
1)        Economic
The cost to purchase the 65-year-old assets is $4.5 billion. David Hughes, a former federal government scientist and research expert with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said it was $1.2 billion overpaid[14]. Also, other costs have to be added, like financial assurances for spills, it has been estimated that the real cost could be as high as $15-to-$20 billion. Kinder Morgan has long said it would cost $7.4 billion to build a second pipeline parallel to the first in order to triple its capacity, but the financial documents now say the company expects a $9.3-billion price tag. Ottawa said it hoped to find a partner from the private sector willing to come in on the deal alongside the Canadian government. The deadline to find such a buyer was July 22, 2018. No such interested party stepped forward[15].

2)        Technical
As admitted by Kinder Morgan Canada, there are many obstacles to the viability of this expansion scenario, including the availability of power along the route, as well as limited space for tanks and terminal infrastructure at Edmonton, Sumas, B.C., and Burnaby. Capacity of the company’s Puget Sound pipeline through Washington State and the ability of Burrard Inlet in Vancouver to accommodate additional vessel traffic would also present challenges[16].

3)        Legal
Various United Nations treaty bodies have tried to persuade states like Canada to abide by UNDRIP’s core rights, and have even recommended moratoriums on further pipeline approvals in both Canada and on the United States’ Dakota Access pipeline until Indigenous rights are properly addressed. The Treaty Alliance against Tar Sands Expansion is an alliance of Indigenous Nations in Canada and the U.S. against pipelines and have been active in protesting on the ground. Moreover, Trudeau also promised to implement all of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 calls to action, focusing first on implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into law. UNDRIP’s Article 19 specifically provides that states must obtain the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples prior to implementing any decisions that would impact them[17].

Canada's Supreme Court recently dismissed an application by the City of Burnaby, British Columbia to appeal a regulatory decision that allowed expansion work on the Trans Mountain oil pipeline to skirt some bylaws. The Supreme Court decision removes some legal uncertainty about whether the Trans Mountain expansion can be built. The project still faces other legal challenges - particularly a federal court case on whether there was adequate public consultation[18].

However, the Federal Court of Appeal has on August 30, 2018 overturned the Trudeau government's approval of the contentious Trans Mountain pipeline expansion[19]. In a unanimous decision by a panel of three judges, the court says the National Energy Board's review of the project was so flawed that the federal government could not rely on it as a basis for its decision to approve the expansion. The court also concludes that the federal government failed in its duty to engage in meaningful consultations with First Nations before giving the green light to the project.

IV.               Other Options
Without Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd, producers are left with two main alternatives: TransCanada Corp’s Keystone XL pipeline and Enbridge Inc’s Line 3 expansion to Superior, Wisconsin. Neither is a silver bullet for Canada’s growing supply glut. The two projects would allow Canada to export more than a million additional barrels a day combined, which is “plenty of new capacity for growth” through 2023, according Mike Walls, a Genscape Inc. analyst[20].

As the federal government’s involvement deals mainly with BC’s opposition, there are several things that the federal government could do without buying the pipeline[21]. Ottawa could withhold discretionary funds from B.C. such as spending on regional economic diversification, innovation or other monies. Secondly, the federal government could, counter-intuitively, require further environmental controls on the project, say double-walled pipelines or increased marine protections to further address Indigenous and environmental concerns — beyond the $1.5-billion oceans protection plan it already promised to address the previous B.C. Liberal government’s concerns — in exchange for some kind of guarantee the B.C. government would cease its opposition. Thirdly, in theory, Ottawa could disallow a B.C. law or regulation that it declares as contrary to the national interest, but that kind of sledgehammer hasn’t been used since the 1940s, and legal experts say convention suggests it should not be used.

In order to secure the project, the federal government may also engage Kinder Morgan to a BOT project, which the federal government can stipulate certain conditions for KM to meet and yet not get financially involved.

Even if the federal government goes ahead with the purchase, the purchase offer may include certain conditions to meet, such as to complete the environmental assessment, a condition subject to financing, and a requirement for KM to top up the yearly construction cost if it exceeds the budget.

V.                 Conclusion
Scott Simms mentioned, a few decades ago, the Government of Canada decided to invest to save the Hibernia project off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. It turns out that it saved the whole project, which has returned dividends since then, as it is now turning a healthy profit[22]. However, this is not the same as said by Elizabeth May[23]. As put by David Hughes and some other experts, pushing through this purchase based on a false premise in order to save face, win favor of Alberta and preserve political capital is a disservice to the long-term interests of Canada, and Canada needs an energy plan based on more than politically motivated rhetoric.

There is already some foundation laid. 89% of all new construction will take place within the existing right-of-way. A new Pipeline Safety Act and a $1.5 million Ocean Protection Plan are in place. The project fits within the terms and limits of Canada’s GHG/Climate Change Plan, including national carbon pricing. $363 million will go to Indigenous communities and their pipeline monitoring committee[24]. If the expansion goes ahead, it could mean oil transport by pipes other than by the more dangerous railway with the prospect of derailment, joint-venture projects for First Nations development agency, upgrades to the fire hall, security jobs and training for the band members, upgraded maritime protection, spill response and co-management of fisheries[25]. However, the project may not necessarily be purchased, let alone some conditions around it.

跨山管道工程的选项:一个第三方的客观视角(摘要)

部分由于对环境问题的担心,卑诗省表示它不支持跨山管道工程。卑诗省的许多原住民也都反对该扩建项目。由于争议使该线的财务可行性处于危险之中,加拿大金德摩根公司于今年4月暂停了该项目的工作。然而,由于渥太华拥有构建跨省管道项目的宪法权力,联邦政府于今年5月宣布以45亿美元收购加拿大金德摩根公司的跨山管道、扩建项目和码头,并计划出口部分原油到包括中国在内的亚洲市场,作为一个“新出路”,并提振油价和保护“国家利益”。然而,跨山管道工程的反对者比支持者更团结,他们认为政府收购跨山管道的决定是错误的。联邦政府应该做更多的事情来披露它如何决定其购买价格,进行了哪些成本效益比较分析,研讨了哪些公众面临的潜在成本,以及金德摩根是否试图在其他地方出售该管道。中国和其他亚洲国家似乎没有计划增加从加拿大进口的石油,而北美自由贸易协定在墨西哥与美国达成共识后也形成瓶颈。加拿大必须遵守各种UNDRIP的核心权利以及加拿大最高法院的决定。联邦政府除了购买之外,还有其他选项,例如BOT。虽然跨山项目可能有许多好处,并且已经有许多规则和法规来保护环境,但项目可能仍未必需要购买。

关键词:跨山管道、联邦政府、收购、选项




[1] Jessica Chin: Canadians Divided On Government's Purchase Of Trans Mountain Pipeline: Angus Reid Institute Poll, Huffington Post, June 19, 2018, please click the link to read the whole article https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/06/19/canadians-trans-mountain-purchase-poll_a_23462799/.
[2] Trans Mountain Pipeline, please click the following link to view the entire article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_Mountain_Pipeline?from=groupmessage&isappinstalled=0.
[3] Trans Mountain Pipeline, please click the following link to view the entire article:
[4] John Geddes: Who will build the Trans Mountain pipeline—and at what cost? MacLeans, May 29, 2018.
[5] The Canadian Press: Trans Mountain pipeline work to resume in August: Kinder Morgan Canada boss, July 27, 2018, please view the entire article by clicking the link below: https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/trans-mountain-pipeline-work-to-resume-in-august-kinder-morgan-canada-boss-1.4031023?from=groupmessage&isappinstalled=0.
[6] Decisive Federal Action to Expand the Trans-Mountain Pipeline, the Goodale Report, Summer 2018, Page 2.
[7] David Hughes: The faulty math behind Trudeau.s reasoning for buying Trans Mountain from Kinder Morgan, MacLeans, May 29, 2018, please view the article by clicking the link below:
[8] Qi’ang Xu: the Canadian government intends to enter Chinese oil market by repurchasing the controvosial pipeline project, June 8, 2018, please also see the article in Chinese by clicking the link http://www.guancha.cn/internation/2018_06_08_459476.shtml.
[9] Decisive Federal Action to Expand the Trans-Mountain Pipeline, the Goodale Report, Summer 2018, Page 2.
[10] David Hughes: The faulty math behind Trudeaus reasoning for buying Trans Mountain from Kinder Morgan, MacLeans, May 29, 2018, please view the article by clicking the link below:
[11] Qi’ang Xu: the Canadian government intends to enter Chinese oil market by repurchasing the controvosial pipeline project, June 8, 2018, please also see the article in Chinese by clicking the link http://www.guancha.cn/internation/2018_06_08_459476.shtml.
[12] Mike De Souza: Kinder Morgan execs Ian Anderson and David Safari offered $1.5 million bonuses under Trudeau bailout, National Observer, June 1, 2018, please click the link as below: https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/06/01/news/kinder-morgan-execs-ian-anderson-and-david-safari-offered-15-million-bonuses-under.
[13] Dylan Weisman: Andrew Scheer slams Trudeau's 'bailout' for Kinder Morgan millionaires, Canada’s National Observer, June 3, 2018, please view the article by clicking the link below: https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/06/03/news/andrew-scheer-slams-trudeaus-bailout-kinder-morgan-millionaires.
[14] MATT MCCLURE: Experts say feds overpaid by $1.2 billion for Trans Mountain pipeline, StarMetro Calgary, May 30, 2018.
[15] Cost to expand Trans Mountain pipeline now $1.9 billion higher, Kinder Morgan says
National Post, Aug 7, 2018; Travis Lupick: Canada fails to find a private-sector buyer for Trans Mountain, set to purchase pipeline alone, Straight, July 23, 2018.
[16] Jeff Lewis: Kinder Morgan blueprint for Trans Mountain pipeline allows for another 240,000 barrels a day, Financial Post, May 27, 2018, please click the like to view the whole article https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/kinder-morgan-blueprint-for-trans-mountain-pipeline-allows-for-another-240000-barrels-a-day.
[17] Pam Palmater: By buying Trans Mountain, the Trudeau government breaks an array of promises, MacLeans, May 30, 2018.
[18] Julie Gordon and Rod Nickel: Top Canadian court quashes city's challenge of Trans Mountain pipeline, Reuters, August 23, 2018.
[19] The Canadian Press: Appeal Court quashes approval of Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, August, 30, 2018, please also view the article by clicking the link attached below:
[20] Robert Tuttle: With or without Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, Alberta has oil shipping options, the Star, April 11, 2018, please also view the article by clicking the link attached below: https://www.thestar.com/business/analysis/2018/04/11/with-or-without-trans-mountain-pipeline-expansion-alberta-has-oil-shipping-options.html.
[21] TONDA MACCHARLES: How can Justin Trudeau solve his pipeline problem? Here are his options, the Star, July24, 2018, please also view the article by clicking the link attached below: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/analysis/2018/04/13/how-can-justin-trudeau-solve-his-pipeline-problem-here-are-his-options.html.
[22] Debates of May 31, 2018, please click the following link to view the comment https://openparliament.ca/debates/2018/5/31/elizabeth-may-2/?page=13.
[23] Zi-Ann Lum: Elizabeth May Calls Liberal Government's Kinder Morgan Deal 'Completely Insane', Huffington Post, May 29, 2018, please click the like to watch the video of Elizabeth May https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/05/29/elizabeth-may-kinder-morgan-trans-mountain-pipeline-insane_a_23446352/.
[24] Decisive Federal Action to Expand the Trans-Mountain Pipeline, the Goodale Report, Summer 2018, Page 2.
[25] Jason Markusoff: Warning: Pipeline Pressure Rising, MacLeans, June 2018, Page 26-28.