On May 18, 2017, the Trump administration sent a message to Congress about its intention to begin talks with Canada and Mexico to renegotiate NAFTA.73 After the 90-day consultation period with Congress, ordered under the Trade Promotion Authority, negotiations began on August 16, 2017. Initially, much of the debate focused on the revision and modernisation of the nearly 25-year-old agreement. The three sides focused on integrating new or expanded language from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations on e-commerce, intellectual property rights, investment, labour, environment, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, state-owned enterprises, data flows and data relocation – data management requirements in the country. One goal, discussions by March 31, was not achieved to complete March 1, 2018; In addition, no goal has been reached to conclude the talks by the end of May 2018, which could allow for consideration at the current session of Congress. The imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum from Canada and Mexico (see “Steel and Aluminum Taxes”) may have further dampened the dynamics of an agreement. Nevertheless, bilateral relations have been congested from time to time by individual issues, such as Canada`s decision not to participate in the Iraq war in 2003 and the Obama administration`s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline in 2015. While the Canadian administration welcomed the Trump administration`s March 2017 decision to revive Keystone XL, several other areas of contention have emerged. Canadian officials have been particularly frustrated by the Trump administration`s approach to renegotiating NAFTA and other trade disputes, such as the government`s decision to impose tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum. ==Political changes have also impacted the views of Canadian citizens, 76% of whom disapproved of the “work done by U.S.
leaders” in 2017.1 This could hamper efforts to reach bilateral agreements or Canadian support for U.S. initiatives. Most Canadians supported this agreement, soon to be known as the Ogdensburg Agreement, believing that it was necessary not only for security reasons, but also to improve relations with the United States (it was also hoped that the agreement would help bring the United States to war). However, some Canadians, particularly former Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Meighen, were furious – they argued that by signing this agreement, Canada not only abandoned Britain, but effectively placed itself under U.S. control. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was also angry, declaring that “all these transactions [at the end of the war] are judged in a different state of mind than the one that prevails while the subject is still pending.” King`s government recognized these concerns; Canadian negotiators categorically refused to give the U.S. control of the Canadian armed forces and rejected proposals to integrate much of the country`s defense into Washington`s northeastern and northwestern defense commandos. . . .