You can't negotiate CUSMA with contradictions and false narratives

Canada, the United States and Mexico begin the first formal review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) on July 1. For most Canadians, it may seem like another bureaucratic milestone. For the agri-food sector, however, it could shape investment, food prices and trade flows for years to come.

This is precisely the moment when Canada should be projecting clarity, consistency and economic pragmatism. Instead, we are getting mixed messages.

Only weeks ago, the federal government released a video portraying Canada's reliance on the United States as a strategic weakness. Shortly thereafter, Prime Minister Mark Carney stood before an audience in New York proclaiming that Canada could help "Make America Great Again."

Which message are our trading partners supposed to believe?

Trade policy is not branding. It is about confidence. Businesses investing billions in food processing plants, logistics networks and manufacturing facilities need to know where Canada stands. Policy cannot shift depending on the audience.

The Prime Minister has also attempted to reassure Canadians by claiming that Canada is now creating jobs at twice the rate of the United States.

The data tell a different story.

Over the past year, Canada has recorded a net loss of roughly 25,000 jobs while the United States has added nearly 900,000. Canadians are entitled to their political preferences, but they are equally entitled to expect public statements to reflect publicly available data.

READ: Economy adds 88,000 jobs as unemployment rate falls to 6.6%: StatCan

What is equally troubling is how little scrutiny these claims receive. When economic statements from the country's highest office do not align with official statistics, one expects journalists, economists and the opposition to ask difficult questions. Increasingly, that seems not to happen. Regardless of which party governs, evidence—not messaging—should drive public debate.

The government's optimism about export diversification deserves similar scrutiny.

Yes, exports to countries outside the United States have increased. But much of that growth has been driven by higher shipments of gold and other commodities. Statistics Canada has noted that excluding precious metals, export performance is considerably weaker. Other analyses show that the gains have largely come from established exporters selling more abroad rather than new Canadian firms successfully entering foreign markets.

For agri-food, diversification has made even less progress.

Roughly 70% to 72% of Canada's agri-food exports still go to the United States. That dependence is not a policy failure; it is an economic reality. Geography matters. Integrated supply chains matter. Shared food safety standards matter. Decades of commercial relationships matter.

READ: Economic growth expected to hit 0.7% in 2026, rebounding to 2% in 2027, Deloitte says

Diversification should remain an objective, but it cannot become an excuse to underestimate the importance of our largest customer.

Recent tensions surrounding the opening and operation of the Gordie Howe International Bridge illustrate the point. Nearly one-quarter of all Canada-U.S. agri-food trade moves through the Detroit-Windsor corridor, where the aging Ambassador Bridge has long served as the backbone of cross-border commerce. Every unnecessary political dispute involving this critical gateway increases uncertainty for exporters, processors and distributors on both sides of the border.

The United States' reported demand for a share of toll revenues—even though Canada financed the construction of the bridge—is difficult to justify. Canada assumed virtually all of the financial risk, and many Canadians understandably view Washington's position as unreasonable.

But it is what it is. Trade negotiations are not about fairness. They are about leverage and outcomes, and food supply chains do not respond well to diplomatic friction.

That is why the tone of Canada's relationship with Washington matters. Public disagreements are sometimes unavoidable, particularly when national interests diverge. But there is a meaningful difference between defending Canada's interests and allowing political theatre to overshadow economic diplomacy.

If Canada hopes to influence the upcoming CUSMA review, it must recognize a simple reality: successful trade negotiations are built through credibility, relationships and continuous engagement. They are rarely advanced through public rhetoric alone.

Canada has every right to defend its interests. It should do so firmly and confidently. But firmness is most effective when accompanied by consistency, accuracy and strategic discipline.

CUSMA has transformed North American agriculture into one of the world's most integrated food systems. Millions of consumers benefit every day through lower costs, greater product availability and more resilient supply chains. That success should not be taken for granted.

As the agreement enters its first formal review, Canada needs fewer slogans and more strategy.

Our exporters, our farmers and Canadian consumers deserve nothing less.