Talk:United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 August 2020 and 5 September 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andrew Dale24.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Full-text USMCA agreement[edit]

Primary source of full-text USMCA agreement published by the Office of the United States Trade Representative.[1]Oceanflynn (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Text, Office of the United States Trade Representative, September 30, 2018, retrieved October 1, 2018
We would need the Canadian English and French sources and Mexican Spanish source as well, just the U.S. source may be incomplete -- (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any versions outside of the U.S. government's version yet. Trentonpottruff (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"The main achievement of the Trump renegotiation of NAFTA is changing its name. The rules on trade are almost exactly the same as they were." ~Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark[1] Benjamin (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is no opposition, I'll add it. Benjamin (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just opposed and removed it (after including the full quote). Comes from his party's website. Things around here need secondary coverage. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Primary sources are suitable for directly attributed opinions. Benjamin (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that were true, imagine the horror. Our articles would be filled with indiscriminate collections of everything anyone with an Internet presence (which is increasingly approaching everyone on Earth) has ever though about a subject. WP:SPS explains how such things are generally unwanted, and should "never" be used about living people. Granted, there's some room for hairsplitting on whether "the Trump renegotiation" is specifically about Donald Trump and/or his cabinet members, but Sarwark's non-expert opinion on the trade deal itself will always be more clearly welcome here with a secondary source treating it as something worth reprinting. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He's clearly far more notable than "everyone on Earth". Why make such a comparison? Benjamin (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He's the recent leader of a political party with no political power or experience in any level of government for the one country where it kind of matters. Granted, he has a Wikipedia article that explains he's technically more notable than that, but even if we made exceptions to our self-publishing policy for notable people (which we never have), imagine the horror. In the last two days alone, Donald Trump has opined the US Navy, Melania Trump, Andrew Brunson, Jim Brown, American farmers, the State of Kentucky, the State of Georgia, (potential) US-Turkey relations and (maybe) Ivanka Trump are "great". Do you think it suitable to heap praise onto those nine articles just because some guy with an Internet presence, a Wikipedia article and actual influence said so? If so, don't even get me started on Norm MacDonald's wild world of sports analysis. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Heap? No. Judiciously include? Sure. The opinions of politicians should be included on subjects that are relevant to politics. Norm MacDonald is a comedian and therefore not relevant to sports. Benjamin (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If his opinion is truly relevant to politics, you should have no problem finding it covered by some outside political news piece. For what it's worth, MacDonald has spent a fortune betting on sports. We just see more of his comedy. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it safe to assume that everything worth knowing will be reported on? Benjamin (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not by a longshot. Also wrong to assume everything reported is worth knowing. But (at least ideally) everything worth knowing on Wikipedia is previously reported. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ron Wyden[edit]

Ron Wyden has not stated opposition to the USMCA, he has only said something to the effect of not considering it before the 2018 elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecirpcire (talkcontribs) 09:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

usmca-in-2018[edit] (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

agreement status[edit]

It's clear the agreement has not entered into force, but I wonder if the text already has been finalised. The text now referred to in the external links section (] this US gov source] still has empty chapters in it (see eg Article 34.1). Is it possible that we are basically having an agreement of which the main negotiations have finished, but of which the text is not final yet? L.tak (talk)

Error in the orthographic projection[edit]

The globe in the infobox does not have Hawaii or Puerto Rico colored green, despite being part of the United States. Grngu (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. skew-t (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent renaming and moving of the article[edit]

I note Lmatt recently moved this article from "United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement" to "United States–Mexico–Canada free trade agreement". With respect, I am not sure that is appropriate. While the agreement is known in English by different names one of the official names (perhaps the most popular one) is "United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement" (ie USMCA). It is also known by many, as the "Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement" (ie CUSMA). I would suggest that the name of the article should use one of these names (as they would be the most popular). That seems to be in line with what we have done at Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also a bit puzzled by the move. USMCA is a name for this specific agreement while the new title is a more general term. skew-t (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no position on the matter, but procedurally reverted to the original version, so a discussion can be held. A possible move that is contested can be discussed best through a wp:requested move so consensus can be sought. Note that two things changed in the rename: the words "free trade" were added, and the word agreement was decapitalized. the edit summary indicated WP:MOSCAPS, which is only relevant to the decapitalization... L.tak (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canadian ratification[edit]

I may be wrong, but I do not think there is any such thing as "ratification" in Canada, just coming into force (defined by treaty) and implementation (up to parliament). (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you are wrong but your heart is in the right place.
Parliament must approve treaties and other international agreements negotiated by the federal government. This process is known as ratification.
The enabling legislation, which may amend previously passed legislation, may also contain a coming into force date but parts or indeed entire agreements may only come into force through the approval of subsequent regulations, likely involving approval by cabinet (some regulatory updates only require the appropriate minister's approval). I haven't read the Act so don't know the specifics for CUSMA.
Regulations or ammendments to existing ones are often required when legislation is passed and can be seen as the specific rules of implementation which in turn have a human element of program delivery and enforcement by public servants (such as the CBSA, for example).
It can be a dry subject and it is often poorly taught in schools, in that civics courses tend not to dig too deeply even at the university level, but understanding the fundamental operation of government is something I encourage everyone to learn more about. 2607:9880:4168:C7:30BD:A619:495C:ADD (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I forgot to mention the role of the provinces. They may also need to ensure they're in compliance of the agreement by, say, adjusting dairy quotas. But they don't have to ratify the entire agreement themselves. Federalism can certainly make things complicated. 2607:9880:4168:C7:30BD:A619:495C:ADD (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Implementation date[edit]

Just as a note, it appears the intended implementation date is June 1, 2020, though I don't know if this is official yet: [1] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These sources confirm that the planned implementation date is, at least, supposed to be June 1: 1,2,3 --1990'sguy (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The USTR has confirmed that the implementation date will be July 1: [2] --1990'sguy (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why only the US name?[edit]

This agreement has four different names (two English, one Spanish and one French) used in the three different countries concerned. Would it not be more appropriate to include all four names in the opening definition? I appreciate that this may be a little top-heavy, but relegating the other names to a footnote seems to suggest a bias in the entry, skewed towards a US view. KitePerson (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]