i may have literally been the first to argue that canadian social positions are politics, but i was being cynical - these are the things i want in an agreement.

and, it's easy enough to make the case for environmental & labour standards, as these things are what the agreement is actually about.

as a canadian, i can even understand the indigenous rights part, although the jurisprudence is a bit behind in the united states and, as far as i know, non-existent in mexico. but, even basic language on consultation would be hugely positive. that said, perhaps the prime minister could start at home.

it's the gender section that doesn't actually make any sense to me, in context. what, exactly, does a gender chapter in nafta contain, if anything at all? i'm just not able to imagine what they're imagining. it could take the form of a basic list of rights, i guess, but that would be supplemental - because women are people, too. that's settled case law. i guess i'm aware that the harshest work is disproportionately done by women, but i don't know what that translates to in a nafta chapter that wouldn't, and shouldn't, be approached more broadly.

nafta certainly isn't about political representation or any of the things that the liberals routinely invoke gender around - except, unfortunately, in one way, which is as a distraction.

so, now i see the headlines focusing on the topic, and the prime minister going out of his way to use it as a talking point, which is worrying, because when he does that it almost always means he's hiding something unpopular.

it's very cynical of me, but if you know then you know and i know that the likely truth is that this is intended as a bait and switch.

i just hope we don't wake up to a patent regime or a border arrangements or a resource sharing agreement that was rushed through while everybody was talking about something else.