document_title: North American Free Trade Agreement

question_text: when was the north american free trade agreement signed

question_tokens: when was the north american free trade agreement signed

text: North American Free Trade Agreement

text: Negotiation and U.S. ratification

text: Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990 among the three nations, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992.[14] The signed agreement was then ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

text: The earlier Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement had been controversial and divisive in Canada, and the 1988 Canadian election involved discussion on the issue. In that election, more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the Liberals and the New Democrats) but the split caused more seats in parliament to be won by the pro-free trade Progressive Conservatives (PCs). Mulroney and the PCs had a parliamentary majority and were easily able to pass the 1987 Canada-U.S. FTA and NAFTA bills. However, he was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by Kim Campbell. Campbell led the PC party into the 1993 election where they were decimated by the Liberal Party under Jean Chrétien, who had campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA; however, Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with the new U.S. president. In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the United States Senate Clinton added two side agreements, The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, plus allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.[citation needed]

text: After much consideration and emotional discussion, the House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234–200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61–38.[15] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.[16][17] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[18]

text: This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (December 2009)

text:
Remarks on the Signing of the NAFTA Implementation Act (December 8, 1993)

Play media

Bill Clinton's remarks on the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 8, 1993.

Remarks on the Signing of the NAFTA Implementation Act (December 8, 1993)

Problems playing these files? See media help.

text: Provisions

text: The goal of NAFTA was to eliminate barriers to trade and investment between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. The implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994 brought the immediate elimination of tariffs on more than one-half of Mexico's exports to the U.S. and more than one-third of U.S. exports to Mexico. Within 10 years of the implementation of the agreement, all U.S.-Mexico tariffs would be eliminated except for some U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico that were to be phased out within 15 years.[19] Most U.S.-Canada trade was already duty-free. NAFTA also sought to eliminate non-tariff trade barriers and to protect the intellectual property rights on traded products.

text: Chapter 52 provides a procedure for the international resolution of disputes over the application and interpretation of NAFTA. It was modelled after Chapter 69 of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement.[20] The roster of NAFTA adjudicators includes many retired judges, such as Alice Desjardins, John Maxwell Evans, Constance Hunt, John Richard, Arlin M. Adams, Susan Getzendanner, George C. Pratt, Charles B. Renfrew and Sandra Day O'Connor.

text: Intellectual property

text: The North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act made some changes to the copyright law of the United States, foreshadowing the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 by restoring copyright (within the NAFTA nations) on certain motion pictures which had entered the public domain.[21][22]

text: Environment

text: Securing U.S. congressional approval for NAFTA would have been impossible without addressing public concerns about NAFTA’s environmental impact.[23] The Clinton administration negotiated a side agreement on the environment with Canada and Mexico, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which led to the creation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. To alleviate concerns that NAFTA, the first regional trade agreement between a developing country and two developed countries, would have negative environmental impacts, the CEC was given a mandate to conduct ongoing ex post environmental assessment of NAFTA.[24]

text: In response to this mandate, the CEC created a framework for conducting environmental analysis of NAFTA, one of the first ex post frameworks for the environmental assessment of trade liberalization. The framework was designed to produce a focused and systematic body of evidence with respect to the initial hypotheses about NAFTA and the environment, such as the concern that NAFTA would create a "race to the bottom" in environmental regulation among the three countries, or the hope that NAFTA would pressure governments to increase their environmental protection mechanisms.[25] The CEC has held four symposia using this framework to evaluate the environmental impacts of NAFTA and has commissioned 47 papers on this subject. In keeping with the CEC’s overall strategy of transparency and public involvement, the CEC commissioned these papers from leading independent experts.[26]

text: Agriculture

text: From the earliest negotiation, agriculture was (and still remains) a controversial topic within NAFTA, as it has been with almost all free trade agreements that have been signed within the WTO framework. Agriculture is the only section that was not negotiated trilaterally; instead, three separate agreements were signed between each pair of parties. The Canada–U.S. agreement contains significant restrictions and tariff quotas on agricultural products (mainly sugar, dairy, and poultry products), whereas the Mexico–U.S. pact allows for a wider liberalization within a framework of phase-out periods (it was the first North–South FTA on agriculture to be signed).

text: Transportation infrastructure

text: NAFTA established the CANAMEX Corridor for road transport between Canada and Mexico, also proposed for use by rail, pipeline, and fiber optic telecommunications infrastructure. This became a High Priority Corridor under the U.S. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

text: Impact

text: Canada

text: Like Mexico and the U.S., Canada received a modest positive economic benefit as measured by GDP. Many feared declines failed to materialize, and some industries, like the furniture industry, which were expected to suffer, grew instead.[citation needed] Canadian manufacturing employment held steady despite an international downward trend in developed countries.[citation needed] One of NAFTA's biggest economic effects on U.S.-Canada trade has been to boost bilateral agricultural flows.[27] In the year 2008 alone, Canada exports to the United States and Mexico were at $381.3 billion, and imports from NAFTA were at $245.1 billion.[28]

text: A 2007 study found that NAFTA has "almost zero welfare impact on member and nonmember countries".[29] A 2015 study found that Canada's welfare decreased by 0.06% as a result of the NAFTA tariff reductions, and that Canada's intra-bloc trade increased by 11%.[30]

text: Mexico

text: Maquiladoras (Mexican assembly plants that take in imported components and produce goods for export) have become the landmark of trade in Mexico. These are plants that moved to this region from the United States, hence the debate over the loss of American jobs. Income in the maquiladora sector has increased 15.5% since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994.[31] Other sectors now benefit from the free trade agreement, and the share of exports from non-border states has increased in the last five years while the share of exports from maquiladora-border states has decreased. This has allowed for the rapid growth of non-border metropolitan areas, such as Toluca, León and Puebla; all three larger in population than Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, and Reynosa.

text: The overall effect of the Mexico–U.S. agricultural agreement is a matter of dispute. Mexico did not invest in the infrastructure necessary for competition, such as efficient rail roads and highways, which resulted in more difficult living conditions for the country's poor. Mexico's agricultural exports increased 9.4 percent annually between 1994 and 2001, while imports increased by only 6.9 percent a year during the same period.[32]

text: One of the most affected agricultural sectors is the meat industry. Mexico has gone from a small player in the pre-1994 U.S. export market to the second largest importer of U.S. agricultural products in 2004, and NAFTA may be credited as a major catalyst for this change. The allowance of free trade removed the hurdles that impeded business between the two countries. As a result, Mexico has provided a growing market for meat for the U.S., leading to an increase in sales and profits for the U.S. meat industry. This coincides with a noticeable increase in Mexican per capita GDP that has created large changes in meat consumption patterns, implying that Mexicans can now afford to buy more meat and thus per capita meat consumption has grown.[33]

text: Production of corn in Mexico has increased since NAFTA's implementation. However, internal corn demand has increased beyond Mexico's sufficiency, and imports have become necessary, far beyond the quotas Mexico had originally negotiated.[34] Zahniser & Coyle have also pointed out that corn prices in Mexico, adjusted for international prices, have drastically decreased, yet through a program of subsidies expanded by former president Vicente Fox, production has remained stable since 2000.[35] Reduction in agricultural subsidies in the developed world, especially corn subsidies, has been suggested as a way to reduce harms to Mexican farmers.[36]

text: A 2001 Journal of Economic Perspectives review of the existing literature found that NAFTA was a net benefit to Mexico.[8] By the year 2003, 80% of the commerce in Mexico was executed only with the U.S. The commercial sales surplus under NAFTA with the U.S., combined with the deficit on the rest of the world, created a dependency in Mexico's exports. These effects were evident in 2001–2003; the result of that recession was either a low rate or a negative rate in Mexico's exports.[37]

text: A 2015 study found that Mexico's welfare increased by 1.31% as a result of the NAFTA tariff reductions, and that Mexico's intra-bloc trade increased by 118%.[30] Inequality and poverty fell in the most globalization-affected regions of Mexico over the introduction of NAFTA.[38] 2013 and 2015 studies show that Mexican small farmers benefitted more on NAFTA than large-scale farmers.[39][40]

text: NAFTA has also been credited with the rise of the Mexican middle class. A Tufts University study found that NAFTA lowered the average cost of basic necessities in Mexico by up to 50%.[41] This price reduction has increased cash-on-hand for many Mexican families, allowing Mexico to graduate more engineers than Germany each year.[42]

text: The growth from new orders of products indicates that there was an increase in the demand from manufacture products. This increased demand resulted in an expansion of the production and a higher employment rate to satisfy the increment in the demand. The growth in the maquiladora industry and in the manufactory industry has been of 4.7% by August, 2016.[43] Three quarters of the outer market of importation and exportations comes from the U.S.

text: Tufts University political scientist Daniel W. Drezner has argued that NAFTA made it easier for Mexico to transform to a real democracy and become a country that views itself as North American. This has boosted cooperation between the United States and Mexico.[44]

text: United States

text: Economists consider NAFTA to have been beneficial for the United States.[45][46] In a 2012 survey of leading economists, 95% supported the notion that on average, U.S. citizens benefited on NAFTA.[7] A 2001 Journal of Economic Perspectives review found that NAFTA was a net benefit to the United States.[8] A 2015 study found that US welfare increased by 0.08% as a result of the NAFTA tariff reductions, and that US intra-bloc trade increased by 41%.[30]

text: In 2015, the Congressional Research Service concluded that the "net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies." The report also estimated NAFTA added $80 billion to the US economy in the years since NAFTA's implementation, equivalent to a 0.5% increase in US GDP.[47]

text: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce credits NAFTA with increasing U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL-CIO blames the agreement for sending 700,000 American manufacturing jobs to Mexico over that time.[48]

text: University of California, San Diego, economics professor Gordon Hanson has said that NAFTA helped the U.S. compete against China and therefore saved U.S. jobs.[49][50] While some jobs were lost to Mexico as a result of NAFTA, considerably more would have been lost to China if not for NAFTA.[49][50]

text: Trade balances

text: The U.S. had a trade surplus with NAFTA countries of $28.3 billion for services in 2009 and a trade deficit of $94.6 billion (36.4% annual increase) for goods in 2010. This trade deficit accounted for 26.8 percent of all U.S. goods trade deficit.[51]

text: In a study published in the August 2008 issue of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, NAFTA has increased U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada even though most of this increase occurred a decade after its ratification. The study focused on the effects that gradual "phase-in" periods in regional trade agreements, including NAFTA, have on trade flows. Most of the increase in members’ agricultural trade, which was only recently brought under the purview of the World Trade Organization, was due to very high trade barriers before NAFTA or other regional trade agreements.[52]

text: Investment

text: The U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in NAFTA countries (stock) was $327.5 billion in 2009 (latest data available), up 8.8% from 2008.[51] The U.S. direct investment in NAFTA countries is in nonbank holding companies, and in the manufacturing, finance/insurance, and mining sectors.[51] The foreign direct investment of Canada and Mexico in the United States (stock) was $237.2 billion in 2009 (the latest data available), up 16.5% from 2008.[51][53]

text: Jobs

text: For impacts specific to the United States, see NAFTA's effect on United States employment.

text: Many American small businesses depend on exporting their products to Canada or Mexico under NAFTA. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, this trade supports over 140,000 small- and medium-sized businesses in the US.[54]

text: According to the Economic Policy Institute, California, Texas, Michigan and other states with high concentrations of manufacturing jobs were most affected by job loss due to NAFTA.[55] EPI economist Robert Scott estimates some 682,900 U.S. jobs have been "lost or displaced" as a result of the trade agreement.[56] However, other studies have found that NAFTA only had a modest impact on manufacturing employment, and that automation explains away 87% of the losses in manufacturing jobs.[57]

text: According to University of California, Berkeley professor of economics Brad DeLong, NAFTA had an insignificant impact on US manufacturing.[58] The adverse impact on manufacturing has been way exaggerated in US political discourse according to DeLong,[58] which is something that Harvard economist Dani Rodrik agrees with.[59]

text: Environment

text: According to a study in the Journal of International Economics, NAFTA reduced pollution emitted by the US manufacturing sector: "On average, nearly two-thirds of the reductions in PM10 and SO2 emissions from the U.S. manufacturing sector between 1994 and 1998 can be attributed to trade liberalization following NAFTA."[60]

text: According to the Sierra Club, NAFTA contributed to large-scale, export-oriented farming, which led to the increased use of fossil fuels, pesticides and GMO.[61] NAFTA also contributed to environmentally destructive mining practices in Mexico.[61] It prevented Canada from effectively regulating its tar sands industry, and created new legal avenues for transnational corporations to fight environmental legislation.[61] In some cases, environmental policy was neglected in the wake of trade liberalization; in other cases, NAFTA's measures for investment protection, such as Chapter 11, and measures against non-tariff trade barriers threatened to discourage more vigorous environmental policy.[62] The most serious overall increases in pollution due to NAFTA were found in the base metals sector, the Mexican petroleum sector, and the transportation equipment sector in the United States and Mexico, but not in Canada.[63]

text: Mobility of persons

text: According to the Department of Homeland Security Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, during fiscal year 2006 (i.e., October 2005 through September 2006), 73,880 foreign professionals (64,633 Canadians and 9,247 Mexicans) were admitted into the United States for temporary employment under NAFTA (i.e., in the TN status). Additionally, 17,321 of their family members (13,136 Canadians, 2,904 Mexicans, as well as a number of third-country nationals married to Canadians and Mexicans) entered the U.S. in the treaty national's dependent (TD) status.[64] Because DHS counts the number of the new I-94 arrival records filled at the border, and the TN-1 admission is valid for three years, the number of non-immigrants in TN status present in the U.S. at the end of the fiscal year is approximately equal to the number of admissions during the year. (A discrepancy may be caused by some TN entrants leaving the country or changing status before their three-year admission period has expired, while other immigrants admitted earlier may change their status to TN or TD, or extend TN status granted earlier). According to the International Organization for Migration, deaths of migrants have been on the rise worldwide with 5,604 deaths in 2016.[65] An increased number of undocumented farmworkers in California may be due to the initial passing of NAFTA[66]

text: Canadian authorities estimated that, as of December 1, 2006, a total of 24,830 U.S. citizens and 15,219 Mexican citizens were present in Canada as "foreign workers". These numbers include both entrants under the NAFTA agreement and those who have entered under other provisions of the Canadian immigration law.[67] New entries of foreign workers in 2006 were 16,841 (U.S. citizens) and 13,933 (Mexicans).[68] Nevertheless, the institutional frameworks of the cross-border migrations are weak, so as the institutional roles and responsibilities at both in the national and international levels.[69]

text: Disputes and controversies

text: 1992 U.S. presidential candidate Ross Perot

text: In the second 1992 Presidential Debate, Ross Perot argued:

text:
We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor,...have no health care—that's the most expensive single element in making a car— have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south.
    ...when [Mexico's] jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it's leveled again. But in the meantime, you've wrecked the country with these kinds of deals.[70]

text: Perot ultimately lost the election, and the winner, Bill Clinton, supported NAFTA, which went into effect on January 1, 1994.

text: Legal disputes

text: This article needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (August 2009)

text: In 1996, the gasoline additive MMT was brought into Canada by Ethyl Corporation, an American company. At the time, the Canadian federal government banned the importation of the additive. The American company brought a claim under NAFTA Chapter 11 seeking US$201 million,[71] from the Canadian government and the Canadian provinces under the Agreement on Internal Trade ("AIT"). The American company argued that their additive had not been conclusively linked to any health dangers, and that the prohibition was damaging to their company. Following a finding that the ban was a violation of the AIT,[72] the Canadian federal government repealed the ban and settled with the American company for US$13 million.[73] Studies by Health and Welfare Canada (now Health Canada) on the health effects of MMT in fuel found no significant health effects associated with exposure to these exhaust emissions. Other Canadian researchers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disagree with Health Canada, and cite studies that include possible nerve damage.[74]

text: The United States and Canada have been arguing for years over the United States' decision to impose a 27% duty on Canadian softwood lumber imports. Canada had filed numerous motions to have the duty eliminated and the collected duties returned to Canada.[75] After the United States lost an appeal from a NAFTA panel, it responded by saying "We are, of course, disappointed with the [NAFTA panel's] decision, but it will have no impact on the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders." (Nick Lifton, spokesman for U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman)[76] On July 21, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade found that imposition of the duties was contrary to U.S. law.[77][78]

text: Change in income trust taxation not expropriation

text: On October 30, 2007, American citizens Marvin and Elaine Gottlieb filed a Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under NAFTA, claiming thousands of U.S. investors lost a total of $5 billion in the fall-out from the Conservative Government's decision the previous year to change the tax rate on income trusts in the energy sector. On April 29, 2009, a determination was made that this change in tax law was not expropriation.[79]

text: Impact on Mexican farmers

text: Several studies have rejected NAFTA as the force responsible for depressing the incomes of poor corn farmers, citing the trend's existence more than a decade before NAFTA's existence, an increase in maize production after NAFTA went into effect in 1994, and the lack of a measurable impact on the price of Mexican corn due to subsidized corn coming into Mexico from the United States, though they agree that the abolition of U.S. agricultural subsidies would benefit Mexican farmers.[80]

text: Zapatista Uprising in response to NAFTA in Chiapas, Mexico

text: The preparations for NAFTA included cancellation of Article 27 of Mexico's constitution, the cornerstone of Emiliano Zapata's revolution of 1910–1919. Under the historic Article 27, Indian communal landholdings were protected from sale or privatization. However, this barrier to investment was incompatible with NAFTA. With the removal of Article 27, Indian farmers feared the loss of their remaining lands, and also feared cheap imports (substitutes) from the US. Thus, the Zapatistas labelled NAFTA as a "death sentence" to Indian communities all over Mexico. Then EZLN declared war on the Mexican state on January 1, 1994, the day NAFTA came into force.[81]

text: Chapter 11

text: Another contentious issue is the impact of the investor state dispute settlement obligations contained in Chapter 11 of the NAFTA.[82] Chapter 11 allows corporations or individuals to sue Mexico, Canada or the United States for compensation when actions taken by those governments (or by those for whom they are responsible at international law, such as provincial, state, or municipal governments) violate the international law.[83]

text: This chapter has been criticized by groups in the U.S.,[84] Mexico,[85] and Canada[86] for a variety of reasons, including not taking into account important social and environmental[87] considerations. In Canada, several groups, including the Council of Canadians, challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 11. They lost at the trial level[88] and have subsequently appealed.

text: Methanex Corporation, a Canadian corporation, filed a US$970 million suit against the United States, claiming that a California ban on Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), a substance that had found its way into many wells in the state, was hurtful to the corporation's sales of methanol. However, the claim was rejected, and the company was ordered to pay US$3 million to the U.S. government in costs. The tribunal based its decision namely on following reasoning: But as a matter of general international law, a non-discriminatory regulation for a public purpose, which is enacted in accordance with due process and, which affects, inter alios, a foreign investor or investment is not deemed expropriatory and compensable unless specific commitments had been given by the regulating government to the then putative foreign investor contemplating investment that the government would refrain from such regulation.[89]

text: In another case, Metalclad, an American corporation, was awarded US$15.6 million from Mexico after a Mexican municipality refused a construction permit for the hazardous waste landfill it intended to construct in Guadalcázar, San Luis Potosí. The construction had already been approved by the federal government with various environmental requirements imposed (see paragraph 48 of the tribunal decision). The NAFTA panel found that the municipality did not have the authority to ban construction on the basis of the environmental concerns.[90]

text: Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada[91] is a US$500mn claim for faulty drug patent legislation.[92] Apotex is suing the U.S. for US$520 million because of lost opportunity in a FDA generic drug decision.[92]

text: Lone Pine Resources Inc. v. Government of Canada[93] has filed a US$250 million claim against Canada, whom it accuses of "arbitrary, capricious and illegal" behaviour,[94] because Quebec aims to prevent fracking exploration under the St. Lawrence Seaway.[92] Milos Barutciski, the lawyer who represents Lone Pine, has decried attempts to portray his client as "another rapacious multinational challenging governments’ ability to regulate for health, safety and the environment". Lone Pine Resources is incorporated in Delaware but headquartered in Calgary,[94] and had an initial public offering of stock on the NYSE on May 25, 2011, which offered 15 million shares each for $13 and raised US$195 million.[95] Barutciski acknowledged "that NAFTA and other investor-protection treaties create an anomaly in that Canadian companies that have also seen their permits rescinded by the very same Quebec legislation, which expressly forbids the paying of compensation, do not have the right pursue a NAFTA claim," and that winning "compensation in Canadian courts for domestic companies in this case would be more difficult since the Constitution puts property rights in provincial hands."[94] A treaty with China would extend similar rights to Chinese investors, including SOEs.[94]

text: Chapter 19

text: Also contentious is NAFTA's Chapter 19, which subjects antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) determinations to binational panel review instead of, or in addition to, conventional judicial review.[96] For example, in the United States, review of agency decisions imposing antidumping and countervailing duties are normally heard before the U.S. Court of International Trade, an Article III court. NAFTA parties, however, have the option of appealing the decisions to binational panels composed of five citizens from the two relevant NAFTA countries.[96] The panelists are generally lawyers experienced in international trade law. Since the NAFTA does not include substantive provisions concerning AD/CVD, the panel is charged with determining whether final agency determinations involving AD/CVD conform with the country's domestic law. Chapter 19 can be considered as somewhat of an anomaly in international dispute settlement since it does not apply international law, but requires a panel composed of individuals from many countries to re-examine the application of one country's domestic law.

text: A Chapter 19 panel is expected to examine whether the agency's determination is supported by "substantial evidence." This standard assumes significant deference to the domestic agency. Some of the most controversial trade disputes in recent years, such as the U.S.-Canada softwood lumber dispute, have been litigated before Chapter 19 panels.

text: Decisions by Chapter 19 panels can be challenged before a NAFTA extraordinary challenge committee. However, an extraordinary challenge committee does not function as an ordinary appeal.[96] Under NAFTA, it will only vacate or remand a decision if the decision involves a significant and material error that threatens the integrity of the NAFTA dispute settlement system. Since January 2006, no NAFTA party has successfully challenged a Chapter 19 panel's decision before an extraordinary challenge committee.

text: Criticism from 2016 U.S. presidential candidates

text: In a 60 Minutes interview in September 2015, the American businessman Donald Trump, having announced his candidacy for the 2016 presidential election just three months earlier, condemned the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), calling it "the single worst trade deal ever approved in [the United States]",[97] going on to say that if elected president, "We will either renegotiate it, or we will break it."[98][99] Juan Pablo Castañón, president of the Consejo Coordinador Empresarial, expressed his concerns about the renegotiation and the willingness to focus on the car industry that has brought a lot of success[100] A range of trade experts have said that pulling out of NAFTA as Trump proposed would have a range of unintended consequences for the U.S., including reduced access to the U.S.'s biggest export markets, a reduction in economic growth, and increased prices for gasoline, cars, fruits, and vegetables.[101] Members of the private initiative in Mexico said that in order to eliminate NAFTA there are a lot of laws that have to be adapted by the U.S. Congress and this will also eventually result in legal complaints by the World Trade Organization.[100] The Washington Post fact-checker furthermore noted that a Congressional Research Service review of the academic literature on NAFTA concluded that the "net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP."[30]

text: Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders is also opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which he has called "a continuation of other disastrous trade agreements, like NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China." He believes that free trade agreements have led to a loss of American jobs and have depressed American wages. Sanders has said that America needs to rebuild its own manufacturing base by using American factories and supporting well-paying jobs for American labor rather than outsourcing to China and other countries.[102][103][104][105]

text: Policy of the Trump administration

text: Renegotiation

text: Shortly after being elected, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to begin renegotiating the terms of NAFTA, seeking to resolve issues with trade outlined during his campaign for the presidency. The leaders of Canada and Mexico have indicated their willingness to work with the Trump administration, and although vague on the exact terms that he will be seeking in a renegotiated NAFTA, Trump has threatened to withdraw from it if negotiations fail.[106]

text: In July 2017, the Trump administration provided a detailed list of changes that it would like to see to NAFTA.[107] The top priority for the administration is the reduction in the United States' trade deficit.[107][108] The administration also called for the elimination of provisions that allowed Canada and Mexico to appeal duties imposed by the United States and limited the ability of the United States to impose import restrictions on Canada and Mexico.[107] The list also voiced concerns about subsidized state-owned enterprises and currency manipulation.[107][109]

text: According to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Trump administration's list "is very consistent with the president’s stance on liking trade barriers, liking protectionism.[107] This makes NAFTA in many respects less of a free-trade agreement." The concerns over subsidized state-owned enterprises and currency manipulation are not deemed applicable to Canada and Mexico.[107] Jeffrey Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics noted that it would not be possible to conclude renegotiations quickly while also addressing all the concerns on the list.[109] He also said that it would be difficult to do anything about trade deficits.[109]

text: Impact of withdrawing from NAFTA

text: Following Donald Trump's election to the presidency, a range of trade experts have said that pulling out of NAFTA as Trump proposed would have a range of unintended consequences for the U.S., including reduced access to the U.S.'s biggest export markets, a reduction in economic growth, and increased prices for gasoline, cars, fruits, and vegetables.[12] The worst affected sectors would be textiles, agriculture and automobiles.[110][13]

text: According to Tufts University political scientist Daniel W. Drezner, the Trump administration's desire to return relations with Mexico to the pre-NAFTA era are misguided. Drezner argues that NAFTA made it easier for Mexico to transform to a real democracy and become a country that views itself as North American. If Trump acts on many of the threats that he has made against Mexico, it is not inconceivable that Mexicans would turn to left-wing populist strongmen, as several South-American countries have. At the very least, US-Mexico relations would worsen, with adverse implications for cooperation on border security, counterterrorism, drug-war cooperation, deportations and managing Central American migration.[44]

text: According to Chad P. Bown (senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics), "a renegotiated NAFTA that would reestablish trade barriers is unlikely to help workers who lost their jobs — regardless of the cause — take advantage of new employment opportunities."[111]

text: According to Harvard economist Marc Melitz, "recent research estimates that the repeal of NAFTA would not increase car production in the United States."[11] Melitz notes that this would cost manufacturing jobs.[11]

text: Trans-Pacific Partnership

text: If the Trans-Pacific Partnership comes into effect, existing agreements like NAFTA will be reduced to those provisions that do not conflict with the TPP, or that require greater trade liberalization than the TPP.[112] However, only Canada and Mexico will have the prospect of becoming members of the TPP after U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement in January 2017. In May 2017, the 11 remaining members of the TPP, including Canada and Mexico, agreed to proceed with the trade deal without U.S. participation.[113]


document_title: List of India national cricket captains

question_text: who was the first indian captain of cricket

root

text: List of India national cricket captains

text: International cricket[edit]

text: Where a player has a dagger (†) next to a Test match series in which he captained at least one Test, it denotes that the player deputised for the appointed captain or was appointed for a minor proportion in a series.

tag: p

text: Test match captains[edit]

text: This is the list of the 33 cricketers who have captained the Indian cricket team for at least one Test match. Mahendra Singh Dhoni is the most successful Indian test captain with 27 wins.

text: The table of results is complete as of 27 January 2018.

text:
Indian Test match captains[1]

Number
Name
Year
Opposition
Location
Played
Won
Lost
Drawn

1

CK Nayudu
1932
England
England
1
0
1
0

1933/4
England
India
3
0
2
1

Total
4
0
3
1

2

Maharajkumar of Vizianagram
1936
England
England
3
0
2
1

Total
3
0
2
1

3

Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi
1946
England
England
3
0
1
2

Total
3
0
1
2

4

Lala Amarnath
1947/8
Australia
Australia
5
0
4
1

1948/9
West Indies
India
5
0
1
4

1952/3
Pakistan
India
5
2
1
2

Total
15
2
6
7

5

Vijay Hazare
1951/2
England
India
5
1
1
3

1952
England
England
4
0
3
1

1952/3
West Indies
West Indies
5
0
1
4

Total
14
1
5
8

6

[[File:|400px|alt=]]

Vinoo Mankad
1954/5
Pakistan
Pakistan
5
0
0
5

1958/9†
West Indies
India
1
0
1
0

Total
6
0
1
5

7

Ghulam Ahmed
1955/6†
New Zealand
India
1
0
0
1

1958/9
West Indies
India
2
0
2
0

Total
3
0
2
1

8

Polly Umrigar
1955/6
New Zealand
India
4
2
0
2

1956/7
Australia
India
3
0
2
1

1958/9†
West Indies
India
1
0
0
1

Total
8
2
2
4

9

Hemu Adhikari
1958/9†
West Indian
India
1
0
0
1

Total
1
0
0
1

10

Datta Gaekwad
1959
England
England
4
0
4
0

Total
4
0
4
0

11

[[File:|400px|alt=]]

Pankaj Roy
1959†
England
England
1
0
1
0

Total
1
0
1
0

12

Gulabrai Ramchand
1959/60
Australia
India
5
1
2
2

Total
5
1
2
2

13

Nari Contractor
1960/1
Pakistan
India
5
0
0
5

1961/2
England
India
5
2
0
3

1961/2†
West Indies
West Indies
2
0
2
0

Total
12
2
2
8

14

Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi
1961/2
West Indies
West Indies
3
0
3
0

1963/4
England
India
5
0
0
5

1964/5
Australia
India
3
1
1
1

1964/5
New Zealand
India
4
1
0
3

1966/7
West Indies
India
3
0
2
1

1967
England
England
3
0
3
0

1967/8
Australia
Australia
3
0
3
0

1967/8
New Zealand
New Zealand
4
3
1
0

1969/70
New Zealand
India
3
1
1
1

1969/70
Australia
India
5
1
3
1

1974/5
West Indies
India
4
2
2
0

Total
40
9
19
12

15

Chandu Borde
1967/8†
Australia
Australia
1
0
1
0

Total
1
0
1
0

16

Ajit Wadekar
1970/1
West Indies
West Indies
5
1
0
4

1971
England
England
3
1
0
2

1972/3
England
India
5
2
1
2

1974
England
England
3
0
3
0

Total
16
4
4
8

17

Srinivas Venkataraghavan
1974/5†
West Indies
India
1
0
1
0

1979
England
England
4
0
1
3

Total
5
0
2
3

18

Sunil Gavaskar
1975/6†
New Zealand
New Zealand
1
1
0
0

1978/9
West Indies
India
6
1
0
5

1979/80
Australia
India
6
2
0
4

1979/80
Pakistan
India
5
2
0
3

1980/1
Australia
Australia
3
1
1
1

1980/1
New Zealand
New Zealand
3
0
1
2

1981/2
England
India
6
1
0
5

1982
England
England
3
0
1
2

1982/3
Sri Lanka
India
1
0
0
1

1982/3
Pakistan
Pakistan
6
0
3
3

1984/5
Pakistan
Pakistan
2
0
0
2

1984/5
England
India
5
1
2
2

Total
47
9
8
30

19

Bishan Singh Bedi
1975/6
New Zealand
New Zealand
2
0
1
1

1975/6
West Indies
West Indies
4
1
2
1

1976/7
New Zealand
India
3
2
0
1

1976/7
England
India
5
1
3
1

1977/8
Australia
Australia
5
2
3
0

1978/9
Pakistan
Pakistan
3
0
2
1

Total
22
6
11
5

20

Gundappa Viswanath
1979/80†
Pakistan
India
1
0
0
1

1979/1980
England
India
1
0
1
0

Total
2
0
1
1

21

Kapil Dev
1982/3
West Indies
West Indies
5
0
2
3

1983/4
Pakistan
India
3
0
0
3

1983/4
West Indies
India
6
0
3
3

1985
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
3
0
1
2

1985/6
Australia
Australia
3
0
0
3

1986
England
England
3
2
0
1

1986/7
Australia
India
3
0
0
2[2]

1986/7
Sri Lanka
India
3
2
0
1

1986/7
Pakistan
India
5
0
1
4

Total
34
4
7
23[2]

22

Dilip Vengsarkar
1987/8
West Indies
India
3
0
1
2

1988/9
New Zealand
India
3
2
1
0

1988/9
West Indies
West Indies
4
0
3
1

Total
10
2
5
3

23

Ravi Shastri
1987/8†
West Indies
India
1
1
0
0

Total
1
1
0
0

24

Krishnamachari Srikkanth
1989/90
Pakistan
Pakistan
4
0
0
4

Total
4
0
0
4

25

Mohammad Azharuddin
1989/90
New Zealand
New Zealand
3
0
1
2

1990
England
England
3
0
1
2

1990/1
Sri Lanka
India
1
1
0
0

1991/2
Australia
Australia
5
0
4
1

1992/3
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
1
0
0
1

1992/3
South Africa
South Africa
4
0
1
3

1992/3
England
India
3
3
0
0

1992/3
Zimbabwe
India
1
1
0
0

1993
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
3
1
0
2

1993/4
Sri Lanka
India
3
3
0
0

1993/4
New Zealand
New Zealand
1
0
0
1

1994/5
West Indies
India
3
1
1
1

1995/6
New Zealand
India
3
1
0
2

1996
England
England
3
0
1
2

1997/8
Australia
India
3
2
1
0

1998/9
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
1
0
1
0

1998/9
New Zealand
New Zealand
2
0
1
1

1998/9
Pakistan
India
2
1
1
0

1998/9[3]
Pakistan
India
1
0
1
0

1998/9[3]
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
1
0
0
1

Total
47
14
14
19[4][5][6][7]

26

Sachin Tendulkar
1996/7
Australia
India
1
1
0
0

1996/7
South Africa
India
3
2
1
0

1996/7
South Africa
South Africa
3
0
2
1

1996/7
West Indies
West Indies
5
0
1
4

1997
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
2
0
0
2

1997/8
Sri Lanka
India
3
0
0
3

1999/2000
New Zealand
India
3
1
0
2

1999/2000
Australia
Australia
3
0
3
0

1999/2000
South Africa
India
2
0
2
0

Total
25
4
9
12

27

Sourav Ganguly
2000/1
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
1
1
0
0

2000/1
Zimbabwe
India
2
1
0
1

2000/1
Australia
India
3
2
1
0

2001
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
2
1
1
0

2001
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
3
1
2
0

2001/2
South Africa
South Africa
2
0
1
1

2001/2
England
India
3
1
0
2

2001/2
Zimbabwe
India
2
2
0
0

2001/2
West Indies
West Indies
5
1
2
2

2002
England
England
4
1
1
2

2002/3
West Indies
India
3
2
0
1

2002/3
New Zealand
New Zealand
2
0
2
0

2003/4
New Zealand
India
1
0
0
1

2003/4
Australia
Australia
4
1
1
2

2003/4
Pakistan
Pakistan
1
1
0
0

2004/5
Australia
India
2
0
1
1

2004/5
South Africa
India
2
1
0
1

2004/5
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
2
2
0
0

2004/5
Pakistan
India
3
1
1
1

2005/6
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
2
2
0
0

Total
49
21
13
15

28

Rahul Dravid
2003/4†
New Zealand
India
1
0
0
1

2003/4†
Pakistan
Pakistan
2
1
1
0

2004/5†
Australia
India
2
1
1
0

2005/6
Sri Lanka
India
2
1
0
1

2005/6
Pakistan
Pakistan
3
0
1
2

2005/6
England
India
3
1
1
1

2005/6
West Indies
West Indies
4
1
0
3

2006/7
South Africa
South Africa
3
1
2
0

2007
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
2
1
0
1

2007
England
England
3
1
0
2

Total
25
8
6
11

29

Virender Sehwag
2005/6†
Sri Lanka
India
1
1
0
0

2009†
New Zealand
New Zealand
1
0
0
1

2010†
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
1
1
0
0

2012†
Australia
Australia
1
0
1
0

Total
4
2
1
1

30

Anil Kumble
2007
Pakistan
India
3
1
0
2

2007/8
Australia
Australia
4
1
2
1

2008
South Africa
India
2
0
1
1

2008
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
3
1
2
0

2008
Australia
India
2
0
0
2

Total
14
3
5
6

31

Mahendra Singh Dhoni
2008†
South Africa
India
1
1
0
0

2008†
Australia
India
2
2
0
0

2008
England
India
2
1
0
1

2009
New Zealand
New Zealand
2
1
0
1

2009
Sri Lanka
India
3
2
0
1

2010
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
1
1
0
0

2010
South Africa
India
2
1
1
0

2010
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
3
1
1
1

2010
Australia
India
2
2
0
0

2010
New Zealand
India
3
1
0
2

2010
South Africa
South Africa
3
1
1
1

2011
West Indies
West Indies
3
1
0
2

2011
England
England
4
0
4
0

2011
West Indies
India
3
2
0
1

2011/12
Australia
Australia
3
0
3
0

2012
New Zealand
India
2
2
0
0

2012/13
England
India
4
1
2
1

2012/13
Australia
India
4
4
0
0

2013/14
West Indies
India
2
2
0
0

2013/14
South Africa
South Africa
2
0
1
1

2013/14
New Zealand
New Zealand
2
0
1
1

2014
England
England
5
1
3
1

2014/15
Australia
Australia
2
0
1
1

Total
60
27
18
15

32

Virat Kohli

2014/15†
Australia
Australia
2
0
1
1

2015
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
1
0
0
1

2015
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
3
2
1
0

2015/16
South Africa
India
4
3
0
1

2016
West Indies
West Indies
4
2
0
2

2016/17
New Zealand
India
3
3
0
0

2016/17
England
India
5
4
0
1

2017
Bangladesh
India
1
1
0
0

2017
Australia
India
3
1
1
1

2017
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
3
3
0
0

2017
Sri Lanka
India
3
1
0
2

2018
South Africa
South Africa
3
1
2
0

Total
35
21
5
9

33

Ajinkya Rahane

2017†
Australia
India
1
1
0
0

Total
1
1
0
0

Grand Total(1932-2018)
521
144
160
217[2]

tag: table

text: One Day International captains[edit]

text: This is a list of cricketers who have captained the Indian cricket team for at least one One Day International. Total 24 players have captained India in ODIs out of which Mahendra Singh Dhoni is the most successful captain with 110 wins. He also hold record of highest loss with 74 match.

text:
Number
Name
Year
Played
Won
Lost
Tied
No result
Win %[8]

1
Ajit Wadekar
1974
2
0
2
0
0
0.00

2
Srinivasaraghavan Venkataraghavan
1975–1979
7
1
6
0
0
14.28

3
Bishen Singh Bedi
1975-1978
4
1
3
0
0
25.00

4
Sunil Gavaskar
1980-1985
37
14
21
0
2
40.00

5
Gundappa Viswanath
1980
1
0
1
0
0
0.00

6
Kapil Dev
1982-1992
74
39
33
0
2
54.16

7
Syed Kirmani
1983
1
0
1
0
0
0.00

8
Mohinder Amarnath
1984
1
0
0
0
1
NA

9
Ravi Shastri
1986-1991
11
4
7
0
0
36.36

10
Dilip Vengsarkar
1987-1988
18
8
10
0
0
44.44

11
Krishnamachari Srikkanth
1989
13
4
8
0
1
33.33

12
Mohammad Azharuddin
1989-1999
174
90
72
8
4
51.72

13
Sachin Tendulkar
1996-1999
73
23
43
1
6
35.07

14
Ajay Jadeja
1997-1999
13
8
5
0
0
61.53

15
Sourav Ganguly
1999–2005
146[9]
76
65[9]
0
5
53.90

16
Rahul Dravid
2000-2007
79
42
33
0
4
56.00

17
Anil Kumble
2001
1
1
0
0
0
100.00

18
Virender Sehwag
2003-2011
12
7
5
0
0
58.33

19
Mahendra Singh Dhoni
2007–2016
199
110
74
4
11
59.57

20
Suresh Raina
2010–2014
12
6
5
0
1
54.54

21
Gautam Gambhir
2010-2011
6
6
0
0
0
100.00

22
Virat Kohli
2014-2018
49
38
10
0
1
79.16

23
Ajinkya Rahane
2015
3
3
0
0
0
100.00

24
Rohit Sharma
2017
3
2
1
0
0
66.67

text: Twenty-20 International captains[edit]

text: This is a list of cricketers who have captained the Indian cricket team for at least one Twenty 20 International.Only six players captained in T20I for India. From which Mahendra Singh Dhoni is most successful with 41 wins.

text:
Number
Name
Year
Played
Won
Lost
Tied
No result
Win %[8]

1
Virender Sehwag
2006
1
1
0
0
0
100.00

2
Mahendra Singh Dhoni
2007–2016
72
41
28
1
2
56.94

3
Suresh Raina
2010–2011
3
3
0
0
0
100.00

4
Ajinkya Rahane
2015
2
1
1
0
0
50.00

5
Virat Kohli
2017
10
6
4
0
0
60.00

6
Rohit Sharma
2017
3
3
0
0
0
100.00

Total
91
55
33
1
2
60.44

text: Women's cricket[edit]

text: Where a player has a dagger (†) next to a Test match series in which she captained at least one Test, it denotes that the player deputised for the appointed captain or was appointed for a minor proportion in a series.

text: Test match captains[edit]

text: This is a list of cricketers who have captained the Indian women's cricket team for at least one women's Test match.

text: The table of results is updated as 11 September 2014.

text:
Indian women's Test match captains

Number
Name
Year
Opposition
Location
Played
Won
Lost
Drawn

1
Shantha Rangaswamy
1976/7
West Indies
India
6
1
1
4

1976/7
New Zealand
New Zealand
1
0
0
1

1976/7
Australia
Australia
1
0
1
0

1983/4
Australia
India
4
0
0
4

Total
12
1
2
9

2
Nilima Jogalekar
1984/1985†
New Zealand
India
1
0
0
1

Total
1
0
0
1

3
Diana Edulji
1984/5
New Zealand
India
2
0
0
2

1986
England
England
2
0
0
2

Total
4
0
0
4

4
Shubhangi Kulkarni
1986†
England
England
1
0
0
1

1990/1
Australia
Australia
2
0
1
1

Total
3
0
1
2

5
Sandhya Agarwal
1990/1†
Australia
Australia
1
0
1
0

Total
1
0
1
0

6
Purnima Rau
1994/5
New Zealand
New Zealand
1
0
0
1

1995/6
England
India
2
0
1
1

Total
3
0
1
2

7
Pramila Bhatt
1995/6†
England
India
1
0
0
1

Total
1
0
0
1

8
Chanderkanta Kaul
1999
England
England
1
0
0
1

Total
1
0
0
1

9
Anjum Chopra
2001/2
England
India
1
0
0
1

2001/2
South Africa
South Africa
1
1
0
0

2002
England
England
1
0
0
1

Total
3
1
0
2

10
Mamatha Maben
2003/4
New Zealand
India
1
0
0
1

Total
1
0
0
1

11
Mithali Raj
2005/6
England
India
1
0
0
1

2005/6
Australia
Australia
1
0
1
0

2006
England
England
2
1
0
1

2014
England
England
1
1
0
0

Total
5
2
1
2

Total
35
4
6
25

text: Women's One-Day International captains[edit]

text: This is a list of cricketers who have captained the Indian women's cricket team for at least one women's one-day international. The World Cup Final appearance against Australia in 2004/5 represents India's best performance in a Women's World Cup.

text: Indian women's ODI captains

tag: ul

text:
Number
Name
Year
Played
Won
Lost
Tied
No result
Win %[8]

1
Diana Edulji
1977/8, 1984/5 – 1993
18
7
11
0
0[10]
38.88

2
Shantha Rangaswamy
1981/2-1983/4
16
4
12
0
0
25.00

3
Shubhangi Kulkarni
1986
1
0
1
0
0
0.00

4
Purnima Rau
1994/5-1995/6
8
5
3
0
0[11]
62.50

5
Pramila Bhatt
1995/6-1997/8
7
5
1
1[12]
0[13]
78.57

6
Chanderkanta Kaul
1999
4
3
1
0
0
75.00

7
Anju Jain
2000/1
8
5
3
0
0
62.50

8
Anjum Chopra
2001/2[14]-2002/3-2011/2012
28
10
17
0
1[15]
37.03

9
Mamatha Maben
2003/4-2004/5
19
14
5
0
0
73.68

10
Mithali Raj
2003 – present
81
45
33
0
3
55.55

11
Jhulan Goswami
2008-2011
25
12
13
0
0
48.00

12
Rumeli Dhar
2008-2008
1
0
1
0
0
0.00

13
Harmanpreet Kaur
2013–2013
3
3
0
0
0
100.00

Total
219
113
101
1
4
51.59

text: Women's Twenty-20 International captains[edit]

text: This is a list of cricketers who have captained the Indian women's cricket team for at least one Twenty 20 International.[16]

text:
Number
Name
Year
Played
Won
Lost
Tied
No result
Win %[8]

1
Mithali Raj
2006–present
32
17
15
0
0
53.12

2
Jhulan Goswami
2008-2011
18
8
10
0
0
41.17

3
Anjum Chopra
2012-2012
10
3
7
0
0
30.00

4
Harmanpreet Kaur
2012-2016
13
9
4
0
0
69.23

Total
66
33
33
0
0
50.00

text: Youth cricket[edit]

text: Test match captains[edit]

text: This is a list of cricketers who have captained the Indian Under-19 cricket team for at least one under-19 Test match. The very nature of Under-19 cricket means that in practice no youth captains the side for more than one year. Four men, Srikkanth, Shastri, Dravid and Virat have gone on to captain the senior side.

text: The table of results is complete as of August 2014.* mark has been added after the names of players who went on to represent India in at least one men's international match (Test match or ODI match).

text:
Number
Name
Year
Opposition
Location
Played
Won
Lost
Drawn

1
Krishnamachari Srikkanth*
1978/9†
Pakistan
India
2
0
0
2

2
Vedraj Chauhan
1978/9
Pakistan
India
3
0
0
3

3
Ravi Shastri*
1981
England
England
3
0
0
3

4
Saba Karim*
1984/5
Australia
India
2
0
1
1

5
Anju Mudkavi
1984/5†
Australia
India
1
0
0
1

6
Amikar Dayal
1986/7
Australia
Australia
3
0
2
1

7
Myluahanan Senthilnathan
1987/8
New Zealand
New Zealand
1
0
1
0

8
Janardhanan Ramdas
1988/9
Pakistan
Pakistan
4
1
0
3

9
Ranjib Biswal
1989/90
Pakistan
India
4
1
0
3

10
Rahul Dravid*
1991/2
New Zealand
India
2
1
0
1

11
Manoj Joglekar
1992/3
England
India
3
1
1
1

12
Sridharan Sriram*
1993/4
Australia
India
3
1
1
1

13
Amit Sharma
1994
England
England
3
1
0
2

14
Kiran Powar
1994/5
Australia
Australia
3
0
2
1

15
Sanjay Raul
1995/6
South Africa
India
3
1
1
1

16
Ajit Agarkar*
1996/7†
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
1
1
0
0

17
Jyoti Yadav
1996/7
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
2
1
0
1

18
Reetinder Sodhi*
1998/9
Sri Lanka
India
1
0
0
1

19
Ajay Ratra*
2003/4
England
India
3
1
0
2

20
Manvinder Bisla
2002†
England
England
1
0
0
1

21
Yaleeka Gnaneswara Rao
2002
England
England
2
0
1
1

22
Ambati Rayudu*
2004/5
England
India
3
3
0
0

23
Tanmay Srivastava
2006
England
England
3
1
0
2

2007
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
2
1
0
1

Total
5
2
0
3

24
Piyush Chawla*
2006
Pakistan
India
2
2
0
0

2007
New Zealand
India
3
1
1
1

Total
5
3
1
1

25
Virat Kohli*
2008
South Africa
South Africa
2
1
0
1

26
Ashok Menaria
2009
Australia
Australia
2
1
1
0

27
Vijay Zol
2014
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
2
0
0
2

Total
69
20
12
37

text: Youth One-Day International captains[edit]

text: This is a list of cricketers who have captained the Indian U-19 cricket team for at least one Under-19 One Day International. India's first great success in Under-19 ODI cricket was in 1999/2000, when they won the Under-19 World Cup under the captaincy of Mohammad Kaif. The feat was repeated in 2008/9 and 2012 under the captaincy of Virat Kohli and Unmukt Chand.

text: The table of results is complete as of 16 August 2014.* mark has been added after the names of players who went on to represent India in at least one men's international match (Test match, ODI or T20 match).

text:
Number
Name
Year
Played
Won
Lost
Tied
No result
Win %[8]

1
Ravi Shastri
1981
1
0
1
0
0
0.00

2
Saba Karim
1985
3
0
3
0
0
0.00

3
Anju Mudkavi
1985
1
0
1
0
0
0.00

4
Amikar Dayal
1986
3
1
2
0
0
33.33

5
M. Senthilnathan
1988
8
5
3
0
0
62.50

6
Arjan Kripal Singh
1988
1
0
1
0
0
0.00

7
Ranjib Biswal
1989/90
5
4
1
0
0
80.00

8
Rahul Dravid
1992
3
2
1
0
0
66.66

9
Manoj Joglekar
1993
3
3
0
0
0
100.00

10
Amit Sharma
1994
5
2
3
0
0
40.00

11
Kiran Powar
1995
3
1
2
0
0
33.33

12
Sanjay Raul
1996
3
3
0
0
0
100.00

13
Jyoti Yadav
1997/8
3
1
2
0
0
33.33

14
Amit Pagnis
1997
6
4
2
0
0
66.66

15
Reetinder Sodhi
1999
3
3
0
0
0
100.00

16
Mohammad Kaif
1999/00
9
9
0
0
0
100.00

17
Ajay Ratra
2001
3
2
1
0
0
66.66

18
Parthiv Patel
2002
7
4
3
0
0
57.14

19
Yaleeka Gnaneswara Rao
2002
3
3
0
0
0
100.00

20
Ambati Rayudu
2003/04
10
8
2
0
0
80.00

21
Dinesh Karthik
2004
1
0
1
0
0
0.00

22
Manoj Tiwary
2005
5
4
1
0
0
80.00

23
Ravikant Shukla
2005/06
17
15
2
0
0
88.23

24
Tanmay Srivastava
2006/07
7
7
0
0
0
100.00

25
Piyush Chawla
2006/07
12
11
1
0
0
91.66

26
Ravindra Jadeja
2007
1
1
0
0
0
100.00

27
Virat Kohli
2008
11
11
0
0
0
100.00

28
Ashok Menaria
2009/10
12
8
4
0
0
66.66

29
Unmukt Chand
2011/12
21
15
5
1
0
73.80

30
Vijay Zol
2013/14
22
18
3
0
1
85.71

31
Sanju Samson
2014
1
1
0
0
0
100.00

32
Ricky Bhui
2015
4
4
0
0
0
100.00

33
Virat Singh
2015
1
1
0
0
0
100.00

34
Rishabh Pant
2015
1
1
0
0
0
100.00

35
Ishan Kishan
2015
8
7
1
0
0
87.50

36
Abhishek Sharma
2016
5
5
0
0
00
100.00

Total
193
145
45
1
2
76.17

text: Bibliography[edit]

text: Surya Prakash Chaturvedi,Humaare Kaptaan: Naidu se Dhoni Tak, Rajkamal Prakashan,2010


document_title: Economy of Canada

question_text: how much of canada's gdp is oil

question_tokens: how much of canada 's gdp is oil

text: Economy of Canada

text: Overview[edit]

text: With the exception of a few island nations in the Caribbean, Canada is the only major parliamentary democracy in the western hemisphere. As a result, Canada has developed its own social and political institutions, distinct from most other countries in the world.[31] Though the Canadian economy is closely integrated with the American economy, it has developed unique economic institutions.

text: The Canadian economic system generally combines elements of private enterprise and public enterprise. Many aspects of public enterprise, most notably the development of an extensive social welfare system to redress social and economic inequities, were adopted after the end of World War Two in 1945.[31]

text: Canada has a private to public (Crown) property ratio of 60:40 and one of the highest levels of economic freedom in the world. Today Canada closely resembles the U.S. in its market-oriented economic system and pattern of production.[32] According to the Forbes Global 2000 list of the world's largest companies in 2008, Canada has 69 companies in the list, ranking 5th next to France.[33]

text: International trade makes up a large part of the Canadian economy, particularly of its natural resources. In 2009, agriculture, energy, forestry and mining exports accounted for about 58% of Canada's total exports.[34] Machinery, equipment, automotive products and other manufactures accounted for a further 38% of exports in 2009.[34] In 2009, exports accounted for approximately 30% of Canada's GDP. The United States is by far its largest trading partner, accounting for about 73% of exports and 63% of imports as of 2009.[35] Canada's combined exports and imports ranked 8th among all nations in 2006.[36]

text: Approximately 4% of Canadians are directly employed in primary resource fields, and they account for 6.2% of GDP.[37] They are still paramount in many parts of the country. Many, if not most, towns in northern Canada, where agriculture is difficult, exist because of a nearby mine or source of timber. Canada is a world leader in the production of many natural resources such as gold, nickel, uranium, diamonds, lead, and in recent years, crude petroleum, which, with the world's second-largest oil reserves, is taking an increasingly prominent position in natural resources extraction. Several of Canada's largest companies are based in natural resource industries, such as EnCana, Cameco, Goldcorp, and Barrick Gold. The vast majority of these products are exported, mainly to the United States. There are also many secondary and service industries that are directly linked to primary ones. For instance one of Canada's largest manufacturing industries is the pulp and paper sector, which is directly linked to the logging business.

text: The reliance on natural resources has several effects on the Canadian economy and Canadian society. While manufacturing and service industries are easy to standardize, natural resources vary greatly by region. This ensures that differing economic structures developed in each region of Canada, contributing to Canada's strong regionalism. At the same time the vast majority of these resources are exported, integrating Canada closely into the international economy. Howlett and Ramesh argue that the inherent instability of such industries also contributes to greater government intervention in the economy, to reduce the social impact of market changes.[38]

text: Natural resource industries also raise important questions of sustainability. Despite many decades as a leading producer, there is little risk of depletion. Large discoveries continue to be made, such as the massive nickel find at Voisey's Bay. Moreover, the far north remains largely undeveloped as producers await higher prices or new technologies as many operations in this region are not yet cost effective. In recent decades Canadians have become less willing to accept the environmental destruction associated with exploiting natural resources. High wages and Aboriginal land claims have also curbed expansion. Instead many Canadian companies have focused their exploration, exploitation and expansion activities overseas where prices are lower and governments more amenable. Canadian companies are increasingly playing important roles in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Africa.

text: The depletion of renewable resources has raised concerns in recent years. After decades of escalating overutilization the cod fishery all but collapsed in the 1990s, and the Pacific salmon industry also suffered greatly. The logging industry, after many years of activism, has in recent years moved to a more sustainable model, or to other countries.

text: Unemployment rate[edit]

text:
Province
Unemployment rate
percentage of population
as of July 2017[update][39][40][41]

 Newfoundland and Labrador
15.7

 Prince Edward Island
10.0

 Nova Scotia
7.9

 New Brunswick
6.5

 Quebec
5.8

 Ontario
6.1

 Manitoba
5.0

 Saskatchewan
6.6

 Alberta
7.8

 British Columbia
5.3

 Canada (national)
6.3

text: Measuring productivity[edit]

text:
Part of a series on the

Economy of Canada

Economic history of Canada

Banking history
Petroleum history
Energy policy of Canada
Canadian dollar

Sectors

Primary sector

Agriculture
Energy

Petroleum
Electricity

Fishing
Forestry

Secondary sector

Automotives
Aerospace

Tertiary sector

Social programs
Transportation
Tourism

Finance

Central Bank
Banking in Canada
Stock exchanges

Companies

Companies listed on the TSX

Economy by province

Alberta
Ontario
Quebec
Saskatchewan
more...

Economy by city

Montreal
Toronto
Vancouver
more...

v
t
e

text: Productivity measures are key indicators of economic performance and a key source of economic growth and competitiveness. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)[notes 1] The OECD Compendium of Productivity Indicators,[42] published annually, presents a broad overview of productivity levels and growth in member nations, highlighting key measurement issues. It analyses the role of "productivity as the main driver of economic growth and convergence" and the "contributions of labour, capital and MFP in driving economic growth."[42] According to the definition above "MFP is often interpreted as the contribution to economic growth made by factors such as technical and organisational innovation" (OECD 2008,11). Measures of productivity include Gross Domestic Product (GDP)(OECD 2008,11) and multifactor productivity.

text: Gross Domestic Product (GDP)[edit]

text: The OECD provides data for example comparing labour productivity levels in the total economy of each member nation. In their 2011 report Canada's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $CDN 1,720,748 million.[43]

text: In the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) quarterly World Economic Outlook released in April 2015, the IMF forecast that Canada’s real gross domestic product (GDP) would grow 2.2 percent. In the July World Economic Outlook the IMF forecast that Canada's real GDP would grow by 1.5 per cent in 2015.[44]

text: According to CTV News real estate accounts for half of all GDP growth.[45]

text: Multifactor productivity (MFP)[edit]

text: Another productivity measure, used by the OECD, is the long-term trend in multifactor productivity (MFP) also known as total factor productivity (TFP). This indicator assesses an economy’s "underlying productive capacity ("potential output"), itself an important measure of the growth possibilities of economies and of inflationary pressures." MFP measures the residual growth that cannot be explained by the rate of change in the services of labour, capital and intermediate outputs, and is often interpreted as the contribution to economic growth made by factors such as technical and organisational innovation. (OECD 2008,11)

text: According to the OECD's annual economic survey of Canada in June 2012, Canada has experienced weak growth of multi-factor productivity (MFP) and has been declining further since 2002. One of the ways MFP growth is raised is by boosting innovation and Canada's innovation indicators such as business R&D and patenting rates were poor. Raising MFP growth, is "needed to sustain rising living standards, especially as the population ages."[46]

text: Bank of Canada[edit]

text: Inflation targeting[edit]

text: The Bank of Canada, a federal crown corporation, has the responsibility of Canada's monetary system. During the period that John Crow was Governor of the Bank of Canada—1987 to 1994— there was a worldwide recession and the bank rate rose to around 14% and unemployment topped 11%.[47] In 1991, with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in office, the federal government and the Bank of Canada announced a new inflation targeting monetary policy that has been the cornerstone of Canada's monetary and fiscal policy ever since.[48][49] Although since that time inflation-targeting has been adopted by "most advanced-world central banks",[50] in 1991 it was innovative and Canada was an early adopter when the then-Finance Minister Michael Wilson approved the Bank of Canada's first inflation-targeting in the 1991 federal budget.[50] The inflation target was set at 2 per cent, which is the midpoint of an inflation range of 1 to 3 per cent. They established a set of inflation-reduction targets in order to keep inflation "low, stable and predictable" and to foster "confidence in the value of money," contribute to Canada's sustained growth, employment gains and improved standard of living.[48] Inflation is measured by the total consumer price index (CPI). In 2011 the Government of Canada and the Bank of Canada extended Canada's inflation-control target to December 31, 2016.[48] The Bank of Canada uses three unconventional instruments to achieve the inflation target: "a conditional statement on the future path of the policy rate," quantitative easing, and credit easing.[51]

text: As a result, interest rates and inflation eventually came down along with the value of the Canadian dollar.[47] From 1991 to 2011 the inflation-targeting regime kept "price gains fairly reliable."[50]

text: Following the Financial crisis of 2007–08 the narrow focus of inflation-targeting as a means of providing stable growth in the Canadian economy, was questioned. By 2011, the then-Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney argued that the central bank’s mandate would allow for a more flexible inflation-targeting in specific situations where he would consider taking longer "than the typical six to eight quarters to return inflation to 2 per cent."[50]

text: The central bank— the Bank of Canada— issues its rate announcement through its Monetary Policy Report which is released eight times a year.[48] On July 15, 2015 the Bank of Canada announced that it was lowering its target for the overnight rate by another one-quarter percentage point, to 0.5 per cent[52] "to try to stimulate an economy that appears to have failed to rebound meaningfully from the oil shock woes that dragged it into decline in the first quarter."[44] According to the Bank of Canada announcement, in the first quarter of 2015, the total Consumer price index (CPI) inflation was about 1 per cent. This reflects "year-over-year price declines for consumer energy products." Core inflation in the first quarter of 2015 was about 2 per cent with an underlying trend in inflation at about 1.5 to 1.7 per cent.[52]

text: In response to the Bank of Canada's July 15, 2015 rate adjustment, Prime Minister Stephen Harper explained that the Canadian economy was being dragged down by forces beyond Canadian borders such as global oil prices, the European debt crisis, and China's economic slowdown" which has made the global economy "fragile."[53]

text: The Chinese stock market had lost about US$3 trillion of wealth by July 2015 when panicked investors sold stocks, which created declines in the commodities markets, which in turn negatively impacted resource-producing countries like Canada.[54]

text: The Bank's main priority has been to keep inflation at a moderate level.[55] As part of that strategy, interest rates were kept at a low level for almost seven years. Since September 2010, the key interest rate (overnight rate) was 0.5%. In mid 2017, inflation remained below the Bank's 2% target, (at 1.6%)[56] mostly because of reductions in the cost of energy, food and automobiles; as well, the economy was in a continuing spurt with a predicted GDP growth of 2.8 percent by year end.[57][58] Early on 12 July 2017, the bank issued a statement that the benchmark rate would be increased to 0.75%. "The economy can handle very well this move we have today and of course you need to preface that with an acknowledgment that of course interest rates are still very low," Governor Stephen Poloz subsequently said. In its press release, the bank had confirmed that the rate would continue to be evaluated at least partly on the basis of inflation. "Future adjustments to the target for the overnight rate will be guided by incoming data as they inform the bank's inflation outlook, keeping in mind continued uncertainty and financial system vulnerabilities."[59][60] Poloz refused to speculate on the future of the economy but said, "I don't doubt that interest rates will move higher, but there's no predetermined path in mind at this stage".[61]

text: Key industries[edit]

text: In 2012, the Canadian economy had the following relative weighting by industry, as percentage value of GDP:[37]

text:
12.34 Real estate and rental and leasing
10.86 Manufacturing
07.96 Mining, quarrying and oil or gas extraction
07.03 Health care and social assistance
06.90 Public administration
06.55 Finance and insurance
05.41 Wholesale trade
05.41 Retail trade
05.38 Educational services
05.21 Professional scientific and technical services
04.20 Transportation and warehousing
03.31 Information and cultural industries
02.58 Administrative and support, waste management and remediation services
02.46 Utilities
02.10 Accommodation and food services
02.04 Other services (except public administration)
01.59 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting
00.76 Management of companies and enterprises
00.75 Arts, entertainment and recreation

text: Service sector[edit]

text: The service sector in Canada is vast and multifaceted, employing about three quarters of Canadians and accounting for 70% of GDP.[62] The largest employer is the retail sector, employing almost 12% of Canadians.[63] The retail industry is mainly concentrated in a small number of chain stores clustered together in shopping malls. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of big-box stores, such as Wal-Mart (of the United States), Real Canadian Superstore, and Best Buy (of the United States). This has led to fewer workers in this sector and a migration of retail jobs to the suburbs.

text: The second largest portion of the service sector is the business service and hire only a slightly smaller percentage of the population. This includes the financial services, real estate, and communications industries. This portion of the economy has been rapidly growing in recent years. It is largely concentrated in the major urban centres, especially Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver (see Banking in Canada).

text: The education and health sectors are two of Canada's largest, but both are largely under the influence of the government. The health care industry has been quickly growing, and is the third largest in Canada. Its rapid growth has led to problems for governments who must find money to fund it.

text: Canada has an important high tech industry, and a burgeoning film, television, and entertainment industry creating content for local and international consumption (see Media in Canada).[64] Tourism is of ever increasing importance, with the vast majority of international visitors coming from the United States. Though the recent strength of the Canadian Dollar has hurt this sector, other nations such as China have increased tourism to Canada. Casino gaming is currently the fastest-growing component of the Canadian tourism industry, contributing $5 billion in profits for Canadian governments and employing 41,000 Canadians as of 2001.[65]

text: Manufacturing[edit]

text: The general pattern of development for wealthy nations was a transition from a primary industry based economy to a manufacturing based one, and then to a service based economy. Canada did not escape this pattern - at its (abnormally high World War II) peak in 1944, manufacturing accounted for 29% of GDP,[66] declining to 15.6% in 2005. Canada has not suffered as greatly as most other rich, industrialized nations from the pains of the relative decline in the importance of manufacturing since the 1960s.[67] A 2009 study by Statistics Canada also found that, while manufacturing declined as a relative percentage of GDP from 24.3% in the 1960s to 15.6% in 2005, manufacturing volumes between 1961 and 2005 kept pace with the overall growth in the volume index of GDP.[68] Manufacturing in Canada was especially hit hard by the financial crisis of 2007–08. As of 2010, manufacturing accounts for 13% of Canada's GDP,[37] a relative decline of more than 2% of GDP since 2005.

text: Central Canada is home to branch plants to all the major American and Japanese automobile makers and many parts factories owned by Canadian firms such as Magna International and Linamar Corporation. Central Canada today produces more vehicles each year than the neighbouring U.S. state of Michigan, the heart of the American automobile industry. Manufacturers have been attracted to Canada due to the highly educated population with lower labour costs than the United States.[citation needed] Canada's publicly funded health care system is also an important attraction, as companies are exempt from the high health insurance costs US firms pay, though they are offset by corporate health care taxes.

text: Much of the Canadian manufacturing industry consists of branch plants of United States firms, though there are some important domestic manufacturers, such as Bombardier Inc.. This has raised several concerns for Canadians. Branch plants provide mainly blue collar jobs, with research and executive positions confined to the United States.[citation needed]

text: Energy[edit]

text: Canada is one of the few developed nations that is a net exporter of energy—in 2009 net exports of energy products amounted to 2.9% of GDP. Most important are the large oil and gas resources centred in Alberta and the Northern Territories, but also present in neighbouring British Columbia and Saskatchewan. The vast Athabasca oil sands give Canada the world's third largest reserves of oil after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela according to USGS. In British Columbia and Quebec, as well as Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Labrador region, hydroelectric power is an inexpensive and relatively environmentally friendly source of abundant energy. In part because of this, Canada is also one of the world's highest per capita consumers of energy.[69][70] Cheap energy has enabled the creation of several important industries, such as the large aluminium industries in British Columbia [71] and Quebec.[72]

text: Historically, an important issue in Canadian politics is the interplay between the oil and energy industry in Western Canada and the industrial heartland of Southern Ontario. Foreign investment in Western oil projects has fueled Canada's rising dollar. This has raised the price of Ontario's manufacturing exports and made them less competitive, a problem similar to the decline of the manufacturing sector in the Netherlands.[73][74] Also, Ontario has relatively fewer native sources of power. However, it is cheaper for Alberta to ship its oil to the western United States than to eastern Canada. The eastern Canadian ports thus import significant quantities of oil from overseas, and Ontario makes significant use of nuclear power.[citation needed]

text: The National Energy Policy of the early 1980s attempted to force Alberta to sell low priced oil to eastern Canada. This policy proved deeply divisive, and quickly lost its importance as oil prices collapsed in the mid-1980s. One of the most controversial sections of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement of 1988 was a promise that Canada would never charge the United States more for energy than fellow Canadians.

text: Agriculture[edit]

text: Canada is also one of the world's largest suppliers of agricultural products, particularly of wheat and other grains.[75] Canada is a major exporter of agricultural products, to the United States and Asia. As with all other developed nations the proportion of the population and GDP devoted to agriculture fell dramatically over the 20th century.

text: As with other developed nations, the Canadian agriculture industry receives significant government subsidies and supports. However, Canada has been a strong supporter of reducing market influencing subsidies through the World Trade Organization. In 2000, Canada spent approximately CDN$4.6 billion on supports for the industry. Of this, $2.32 billion was classified under the WTO designation of "green box" support, meaning it did not directly influence the market, such as money for research or disaster relief. All but $848.2 million were subsidies worth less than 5% of the value of the crops they were provided for.

text: Free trade agreements[edit]

text: Free Trade Agreements in force[76][edit]

text:
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (Signed 12-Oct-1987, entered into force 01-Jan-1989, later superseded by NAFTA)
North American Free Trade Agreement (Entered into force 01-Jan-1994, includes Canada, U.S. and Mexico)
Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement (Entered into force 01-Jan-1997, modernization ongoing)
Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement (Entered into force 05-Jul-1997)
Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement (Entered into force 01-Nov-2002, modernization ongoing)
Canada-European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein; entered into force 01-Jul-2009)
Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement (Entered into force 01-Aug-2009)
Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (Signed 21-Nov-2008, entered into force 15-Aug-2011; Canada's ratification of this FTA had been dependent upon Colombia's ratification of the "Agreement Concerning Annual Reports on Human Rights and Free Trade Between Canada and the Republic of Colombia" signed on 27-May-2010)
Canada-Jordan Free Trade Agreement (Signed on 28-June-2009, entered into force 01-Oct-2012)
Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement (Signed on 14-May-2010, entered into force 01-April-2013)
Canada-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (Signed on 11-March-2014, entered into force 01-January-2015)

text: Free Trade Agreements concluded[77][edit]

text:
Trans-Pacific Partnership (concluded 05-October-2015)
Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement (concluded 14-July-2015)
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (concluded 05-August-2014)

text: Ongoing Free Trade Agreements Negotiations[77][edit]

text: Canada is negotiating bilateral FTAs with the following countries and trade blocs:

text:
Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador
Dominican Republic
India
Japan[78]
Morocco
Singapore
Andean Community (FTA's are already in force with Peru and Colombia)

text: Canada has been involved in negotiations to create the following regional trade blocks:

text:
Canada-Central American Free Trade Agreement
Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)

text: Political issues[edit]

text: Relations with the U.S.[edit]

text: Canada and the United States share a common trading relationship. Canada's job market continues to perform well along with the US, reaching a 30-year low in the unemployment rate in December 2006, following 14 consecutive years of employment growth.[79]

text: The United States is by far Canada's largest trading partner, with more than $1.7 billion CAD in trade per day in 2005. In 2009, 73% of Canada's exports went to the United States, and 63% of Canada's imports were from the United States.[80] Trade with Canada makes up 23% of the United States' exports and 17% of its imports.[81] By comparison, in 2005 this was more than U.S. trade with all countries in the European Union combined,[82] and well over twice U.S. trade with all the countries of Latin America combined.[83] Just the two-way trade that crosses the Ambassador Bridge between Michigan and Ontario equals all U.S. exports to Japan. Canada's importance to the United States is not just a border-state phenomenon: Canada is the leading export market for 35 of 50 U.S. states, and is the United States' largest foreign supplier of energy.

text: Bilateral trade increased by 52% between 1989, when the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) went into effect, and 1994, when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) superseded it.[citation needed] Trade has since increased by 40%. NAFTA continues the FTA's moves toward reducing trade barriers and establishing agreed-upon trade rules. It also resolves some long-standing bilateral irritants and liberalizes rules in several areas, including agriculture, services, energy, financial services, investment, and government procurement. NAFTA forms the largest trading area in the world, embracing the 405 million people of the three North American countries.

text: The largest component of U.S.-Canada trade is in the commodity sector.

text: The U.S. is Canada's largest agricultural export market, taking well over half of all Canadian food exports.[84] Similarly, Canada is the largest market for U.S. agricultural goods, with nearly 20% of American food exports going to its northern neighbour.[citation needed] Nearly two-thirds of Canada's forest products, including pulp and paper, are exported to the United States; 72% of Canada's total newsprint production also is exported to the U.S.

text: At $73.6 billion in 2004, U.S.-Canada trade in energy is the largest U.S. energy trading relationship, with the overwhelming majority ($66.7 billion) being exports from Canada. The primary components of U.S. energy trade with Canada are petroleum, natural gas, and electricity. Canada is the United States' largest oil supplier and the fifth-largest energy producing country in the world. Canada provides about 16% of U.S. oil imports and 14% of total U.S. consumption of natural gas. The United States and Canada's national electricity grids are linked, and both countries share hydropower facilities on the western borders.

text: While most of U.S.-Canada trade flows smoothly, there are occasionally bilateral trade disputes, particularly in the agricultural and cultural fields.[citation needed] Usually these issues are resolved through bilateral consultative forums or referral to World Trade Organization (WTO) or NAFTA dispute resolution.[citation needed] In May 1999, the U.S. and Canadian governments negotiated an agreement on magazines that provides increased access for the U.S. publishing industry to the Canadian market. The United States and Canada also have resolved several major issues involving fisheries. By common agreement, the two countries submitted a Gulf of Maine boundary dispute to the International Court of Justice in 1981; both accepted the court's 12 October 1984 ruling which demarcated the territorial sea boundary. A current issue between the United States and Canada is the ongoing softwood lumber dispute, as the U.S. alleges that Canada unfairly subsidizes its forestry industry.[citation needed]

text: In 1990, the United States and Canada signed a bilateral Fisheries Enforcement Agreement, which has served to deter illegal fishing activity and reduce the risk of injury during fisheries enforcement incidents. The U.S. and Canada signed a Pacific Salmon Agreement in June 1999 that settled differences over implementation of the 1985 Pacific Salmon Treaty for the next decade.[85]

text: Canada and the United States signed an aviation agreement during Bill Clinton's visit to Canada in February 1995, and air traffic between the two countries has increased dramatically as a result. The two countries also share in operation of the St. Lawrence Seaway, connecting the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean.[86]

text: The U.S. is Canada's largest foreign investor and the most popular destination for Canadian foreign investments; at the end of 2007, the stock of U.S. direct investment in Canada was estimated at $293 billion, while Canadian direct investment (stock) in the United States was valued at $213 billion.[87][88] U.S. FDI accounts for 59.5% of total foreign direct investment in Canada while Canadian FDI in the U.S. accounts for 10% (5th largest foreign investor).[89] US investments are primarily directed at Canada's mining and smelting industries, petroleum, chemicals, the manufacture of machinery and transportation equipment, and finance, while Canadian investment in the United States is concentrated in manufacturing, wholesale trade, real estate, petroleum, finance, and insurance and other services.[90]

text: Debt issue[edit]

text: Central Government Debt[edit]

text: The OECD reports the Central Government Debt as percentage of the GDP. In 2000 Canada's was 40.9 percent, in 2007 it was 25.2 percent, in 2008 it was 28.6 percent and by 2010 it was 36.1 percent.[91] The OECD reports net financial liabilities measure used by the OECD, reports the net number at 25.2%, as of 2008,[91] making Canada’s total government debt burden as the lowest in the G8. The gross number was 68% in 2011.[92]

text: The CIA World Factbook, updated weekly, measures financial liabilities by using gross general government debt, as opposed to net federal debt used by the OECD and the Canadian federal government. Gross general government debt includes both "intragovernmental debt and the debt of public entities at the sub-national level." For example, the CIA measured Canada's public debt as 84.1% of GDP in 2012 and 87.4% of GDP in 2011 making it 22nd in the world.[93]

text: Household Debt[edit]

text: In March 2015 the International Monetary Fund reported that Canada's high household debt was one of two vulnerable domestic areas in Canada's economy; the second is its overheated housing market.[94]

text: According to a July 2015 report by Laura Cooper, an economist with the RBC—the largest financial institution in Canada— "outstanding household credit balances" had reached $1.83 trillion.[95] Canadian household credit growth had reached a peak in 2009 then plummeted to a cycle-low in late 2013.[95] There was a quickened pace of growth in household debt in December 2012 and another in April and May 2015.[95][96]

text: Household debt in 2013[edit]

text: According to the August 2013 third annual Ipsos Reid Debt Poll only 24 per cent of Canadians were debt free in 2013 compared to 26 per cent in 2012. The average personal non-mortgage debt in 2013 was $15,920 up from $13,141 in 2012. According to an IPSOS chart produced in 2013 debt levels increased "a staggering 35 per cent" in Western Canada compared to 10 per cent in Eastern Canada since 2012 even before the Alberta floods.[97] In Alberta in 2013 household debt rose 63 per cent to $24,271 per household from 2012 after the 2013 Alberta floods.[98] In 2013 the average personal debt load in British Columbia was "up 38 per cent to $15,549;" in "Manitoba and Saskatchewan, up 32 per cent to $16,145;" in Ontario, "up 13 per cent to $17,416," in Quebec up "3 per cent to $10,458;" and in Atlantic Canada, "up 12 per cent to $15,243."

text: Household debt in 2014[edit]

text: Statistics Canada announced in December 2014 that Canada's household debt-to-income ratio "hit a record high in the third quarter of 2014, climbing to 162.6 percent from 161.5 percent in the second quarter." However "household assets and net worth increased much faster than debt,"[99] with the national net worth at C$8.12 trillion in the third quarter of 2014, a increase of 2.8 percent from the second quarter.[100][101] Also through the inflation-targeting policy of the Bank of Canada, interest rates are kept low improving the ability of households to service their debt. "The debt-service ratio, or interest paid as a proportion of disposable income, fell to a record low 6.8 percent in the third quarter."[100]

text: Household debt in 2015[edit]

text: By 2015 according to the Globe and Mail, "The total debt owed by all Canadians at the end of March 2015 was a record $1.8-trillion with mortgage debt making up $1.29-trillion."[102]

text: According to Philip Cross of the Fraser Institute, in May 2015, while the Canadian household debt-to-income ratio is similar to that in the US, however lending standards in Canada are tighter than those in the United States to protect against high-risk borrowers taking out unsustainable debt.[99]

text: Household debt, the amount of money that all adults in the household owe financial institutions, includes consumer debt and mortgage loans. Paul Krugman argued that by 2007 household debt in the United States, prior to the financial crisis, had reached 130 percent of household income. Krugman distinguished between the total domestic non-financial debt (public plus private) relative to GDP which is "money we owe to ourselves" and net foreign debt.[103][104] Statistics Canada reported in March 2013 that "credit-market debt such as mortgages rose to 165% of disposable income, compared with 164.7% in the prior three-month period" in 2013[105] According to the IMF in 2012, "Housing-related debt (mortgages) comprises about 70 percent of gross household debt in advanced economies. The remainder consists mainly of credit card debt and auto loans."[106]

text: Royal Bank of Canada 2016 report[edit]

text: As shown in the table below—based on the RBC Economic and Financial Market Outlook March 11, 2016 report—in Canada in 2015—while business investments decreased—consumption, housing and government spending along with net exports contributed to a real GDP increase at a subpar 1.2% pace.[107]:4 In December 2015 export volumes reached $1.2 billion—the sixth time since 2010 with sales growing by such a large amount[107]:5-evidence that the Canadian economy is transitioning. In November and December 2015, with the weakening in the Canadian dollar, manufacturing sales and exports increased and employment rose.[107] Job losses in construction, mining, oil and gas were countered by gains in the service sector.[107]

text: Between early December, 2015 and mid-January the price of oil unexpectedly dropped 24%.[107]:1 RBC economists argued that fear not fundamentals led the shift in financial conditions.:1 Risk adverse investors contributed to a global double-digit decline in the first six weeks of 2016. In Canada, the US, UK and Euro-area yields on long-term government bonds reached an all-time low.[107]:1 As financial market volatility continued in March 2016 the Bank of Canada and Bank of England held their policy rate at 0.5%.[107]:6

text:
RBC Economic Forecast March 2016[107]:8

Type
2014 YR
2015 YR
Q1 2015
Q2 2015
Q3 2015
Q4 2015

Household consumption
2.6
1.9
0.6
1.9
2.2
1.0

* Durables
4.3
3.3
-5.6
5.1
10.3
1.7

* Semi-Durables
3.1
2.4
0.2
3.0
1.2
2.6

* Non-durables
2.4
0.7
2.7
-2.9
1.7
-1.0

* Services
2.3
2.1
1.2
3.3
0.8
1.5

NPISH consumption
0.2
1.4
-5.3
6.7
-0.9
-0.1

Government expenditures
0.3
1.4
3.8
2.4
0.1
1.5

Government Fixed investment
2.1
2.6
2.8
0.5
-1.8
-5.1

Residential investment
2.5
3.9
5.9
1.3
2.7
1.8

Non-residential investment
0.0
-8.8
-19.4
-13.0
-10.1
-12.4

* Non-residential structures
-0.4
-12.7
-27.7
-12.8
-11.7
-14.6

* Machinery and equipment
1.0
-1.3
-2.1
-13.4
-7.5
-9.0

Intellectual property
-4.2
-12.6
-32.4
-12.5
-6.4
-4.7

Final domestic demand
1.6
0.5
-1.5
0.1
10.8
-2.2

Exports
5.3
3.0
-0.6
-0.1
10.8
-2.2

Imports
1.8
0.1
0.5
-1.7
-2.4
-8.9

Inventories (change in $b)
9.9
4.5
12.7
8.4
1.1
-4.0

Real gross domestic product
2.5
1.2
-0.9
-0.4
2.4
0.8