see, this is what i want to hear.

and, it's similar to what the liberal party has historically held to - it's at the crux of their (i think very correct) historical criticism of the nafta deal. i've been over this here; it's similar to what happened in the united states, in that the deal was negotiated by the conservative party, but then the liberals came in in late 1993 and had to basically rubber stamp it, despite opposing it, because the alternative was dire...

i think the difference is that there's more real evidence that the liberals actually believed what they said, or at least that they did in 1993. i didn't vote for justin trudeau as a person so much as i voted for a hope of a return to the social liberalism of his father's liberal party; this is backwards in canada, but he struck me as a figurehead that would ultimately have little real decision-making power. it was the old liberal party machinery (the uplift in diversity, especially female representation, was certainly welcomed) that i wanted back in power. this is pretty much what that old party machinery would say. but, we've seen a lot of conflicting signals that the pmo leans more towards positions that are currently held by democrats, and were held historically by the conservative party :\.

everybody needs to be skeptical. but, this is a good signal, at least. it's the right approach, and for the right reasons. let's see what actually happens..

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/freeland-to-press-for-new-labour-environmental-sections-within-nafta-1.3544101