This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: British Columbia / Alberta / Governments This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles This redirect is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. This redirect is supported by WikiProject Alberta. This redirect is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada. Organized Labour This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles Business This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles

The agreement is such that any issue not explicitly excluded is included in the agreement and must be dealt with. Examples of exclusions are social programs such as workers compensation benefits and employment insurance. Water usage is also excluded which may have implications for a British Columbia hydro electric proposal, Site C, on the Peace River.

A company that incorporates in one jurisdiction would automatically be incorporated in the other(s), eliminating the need for multiple home offices and residency requirements.

It is unclear whether environmental standards will also be unified.

the article, as currently written, is very anti-agreement. the only pro-agreement line is followed by "citation needed". I cite that as evidence of breech of NPOV. 74.14.16.208 05:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC) reply

You are welcome to try and bring balance to the article by including other sources and other points, provided they are all properly cited. I don't have time right now but will go over the article for POV language later on, and I'm aware that that may not be enough to bring balance. However disinformation, even if cited, is still POV, from either side, as is promotional language. This is a hot-button issue for those who know about it, on either side, so likely it will be a struggle to write a properly encyclopedic-in-tone article and keep POV at bay; but one of the main Wiki axions is " So fix it". Useful comparisons might be with other articles of the same type; I'll see if I can come up with a list (and many of them may be POV, too, on either side). Skookum1 ( talk) 19:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply