Almost all agricultural commodities are facing existential threats. War has triggered supply chain disruptions and is pushing up input costs. Trade within North America is suddenly uncertain. Protectionism is on the rise around the world, with Chinese tariffs on pork and Europe’s non-tariff trade barriers being two leading examples.

Pulling in the same direction

Agriculture should be taking a “whole plate” approach to addressing these issues and not trying to fix things one commodity at a time. If the industry can step out of commodity silos and regional perspectives, we can not only address these threats, but realize the vision of making Canada a global food powerhouse.

There are positive steps in this direction, but no standard practice. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has brought together a coalition under the banner “Let’s Grow Canada” to support policies that will encourage investment in research and development. CropLife Canada’s “Grow Canada Strong” initiative has similar objectives. Farm Credit Canada has launched a “Let’s Grow Canada” website with the intent of showcasing the stories behind Canadian farmers and food producers.

Canada currently ranks last in ag research investment among the top seven countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This must change if we are to weather the geopolitical storms the country is facing. Canada is at an inflection point where agriculture has an opportunity to present governments with a vision for attracting private sector research and development investment rather than just waiting for public sector solutions.

A united front on CUSMA

The review of our most important trade agreement, CUSMA, is underway. The implications for Canadian agriculture are massive. The aggressive shift in U.S. foreign and trade policies over the past years, coming from both political parties, clearly show us that the renegotiation will be difficult.

All of export agriculture needs to come together to develop a strategic plan on how we approach these negotiations. We need to be prepared to deliver real-time advice to our negotiating team that is consistent and united. We need to be prepared to tell our governments things they might not want to hear. We need to have systematic outreach to our partners in the U.S. commodity groups, who cannot afford to “go it alone” and hope for positive outcomes.

Developing this united front requires leaders who are willing to take some risks and step outside of the comfort zone that operating in commodity and regional silos offer.

Immigration an agriculture solution

Labour is another key policy issue that requires a common front if Canada is to become an international food powerhouse. Almost all sectors of agriculture face labour shortages. New Canadians are an integral part of meeting these needs. Immigration policies in Canada are being questioned due to housing and service shortages in our major cities, but what is needed in Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal is not what is needed in rural Canada and at our processing plants.

Agriculture needs a unified voice to tell the story about how stable jobs for new Canadians in agriculture and food production are building communities across the country. Rather than short soundbites from political leaders, we need thoughtful immigration and labour policies targeting regional, and sectorial, needs.

The Canadian economy is facing undeniable threats due to geopolitical instability and rising protectionism. Agriculture and food production in Canada can be key in mitigating these threats. To seize the opportunity, we need to present governments with united and consistent policy solutions. Agriculture needs to lead the way rather than wait for others to present solutions to us.

The post OPINION: Agriculture needs to lead its own solutions appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Here’s everything you need to know about CUSMA, the upcoming review process and what it could mean for the agriculture sector.

WHY IT MATTERS: The review of CUSMA could set the stage for a new era of trade and tariffs between Canada and the U.S.

CUSMA replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was active from 1994 to 2020. The current trilateral agreement allows producers in all three countries to trade with each other in a mostly tariff-free environment.

U.S. President Donald Trump has consistently expressed his displeasure with CUSMA despite the fact that it was negotiated during his first administration.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has also claimed the relationship Canada thought it had with the U.S. is over, signalling a possible new era in North American trade.

According to Patrick Leblond, a professor at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, it is unlikely the three countries will return to the original mode of tariff-free trade under CUSMA.

“It sounds like the Americans are not in a compromising mood,” Leblond said. “It sounds like, ‘Okay, we’re going to put the gun to your head, and you’re going to give us what we want’.”

U.S. could abandon CUSMA with minimal legal consequences

Any of the three parties may leave the agreement as long as they provide six months’ notice, but Leblond said nothing is stopping the U.S. from taking more drastic action.

He also said there is nothing forcing the parties to start negotiating on July 1, the official start of the review.

“The reality is … the U.S. can just pull out and say, ‘Yeah, as of tomorrow, we are not applying (CUSMA) anymore,” said Leblond. “We’re pulling out and we don’t care about the six months’ notice’.”

“The sort of attitude would be, ‘well, just sue us’.”

If Canada and Mexico were to sue, a panel of arbitrators would likely rule the U.S. at fault and give permission for the two countries to retaliate with tariffs.

It would still be on Canada and Mexico to decide how to react.

“It’s a bit of a moot point where yes, the U.S. legally has to give notice, but in practice, they can do what they want.”

It leaves Canada in a precarious place, especially as the terms of the agreement may not feel permanent.

“The Trump administration ultimately cannot be trusted,” Leblond said. “And therefore, yes, we can negotiate, we can try to come to a deal, but we have no guarantee whether that deal will be respected. And even existing deals are not being respected.”

U.S. may split Canada and Mexico to weaken negotiating leverage

Leblond said the U.S. could push for bilateral negotiations instead of trilateral, meaning individual meetings with Canada and Mexico.

This could weaken the leverage Canada and Mexico would otherwise have working together.

Leblond said there are three likely options.

“One is really trilateral negotiations, comprehensive,” he said.

“There’s the (option) we renew CUSMA, but the U.S. negotiates bilaterally with Canada, bilaterally with Mexico, and then they try to fit that within the existing CUSMA.”

Or the countries could make bilateral deals outside of CUSMA.

There is precedent for this, as the U.S. recently negotiated a new deal with South Korea which goes against the countries’ existing agreement. The free trade agreement is still there, but it’s superseded by the new deal.

“Is that what the Americans are going to try to push with Canada on the one hand and Mexico and the other? It’s very possible,” Leblond said.

The ever-present possibility of the U.S. pushing more tariffs on Canada should be motivation for the government to seek other trade deals in the interim, he added.

Carney and other government officials have recently taken several trips to countries like India and Vietnam.

Longer-term, reducing dependency on the U.S. is a good idea, Leblond said.

“Even if we have a deal, let’s say some kind of renegotiation, a deal that we reach with the U.S., what’s the guarantee that that deal is going to hold? There is none.”

Congressional approval could limit Trump’s options

Michael Harvey, executive director of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance (CAFTA), said it’s unlikely Trump will pull out of the agreement completely.

Under the American system, the president would need congressional approval for major changes. Harvey said this could be a problem for Trump, who is already seeing pushback on his tariffs including a recent Supreme Court challenge.

“Significant changes to the treaty would require going to Congress, and we haven’t seen the administration be all that interested in going to Congress with trade agreements,” Harvey said.

There could also be disagreement within the administration’s base. Harvey said in the two trade missions it took to Washington, D.C., last year, CAFTA started to see increased doubt about the tariff agenda amongst Republicans, particularly in agriculture states.

U.S. producer groups have also shown support for a CUSMA renewal.

“That’s really positive, because first, it’s our direct counterparts in the United States,” Harvey said. “Second, the agri-food sector, let’s face it, they tend to be supporters of President Trump. So, it’s a positive thing for supporters of President Trump to be so in favour of the agreement.”

“Tariffs mean increased cost for consumers, for producers,” he said. “We’ve been working hard at making sure that decision-makers understand that, and what we’ve seen in Washington is that they do, and it’s great to see the U.S. ag sector being sold about it.”

Trump has also protected the agri-food elements of the agreement. When the president imposed tariffs on Canada, CUSMA-compliant agri-food goods were exempted.

Full renewal with minor tech updates is best outcome for Canada

Harvey said the best-case scenario for Canada would be a full renewal with some minor updates on agricultural technology, but “just renewal with no changes at all would be a great-case scenario.”

The deal works well for the agri-food sector.

“It’s one of the best agreements in the world,” Harvey said. “We’ve got three countries working together, highly integrated supply chains, highly integrated markets. That’s something that we need to protect.”

It’s still likely Trump will hardball in the initial negotiations.

“He has a style that attracts attention to his demands,” Harvey said. “His demands are often quite high at the beginning of a negotiation and often change quickly.”

Leblond also called it a best-case scenario for Canada to maintain the current terms, but suspected the U.S. would continue to push for more access in Canada, particularly in supply-managed sectors.

“If we can play for time and try to maintain the status quo, to me that would be the best option for now for Canada,” he said. “And hopefully then, … for a lot of the agricultural goods that we export to the U.S., they will continue to be exported without tariffs because we meet the rules of origin.”

That’s why both sides seem to be pushing for “just don’t make things worse,” Leblond said.

“Talk, engage, negotiate, but don’t look for a quick deal,” he said. “That that would be my view.”

The post CUSMA review 2026: What agriculture needs to know about trade negotiations appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

WHY IT MATTERS: Conversations between Canadian and American agriculture groups could help set a tone ahead of the CUSMA review this summer.

Hoekstra spoke at the Canadian Crops Convention in Toronto on March 12.

He said tariffs are likely to stay on as cost of doing business in the American market. Canada should “do everything they can to get into the lowest tariff buckets.”

“You can make compelling cases for us to do business with Canada and Canada to get the lowest tariffs of any trading partner in the world,” Hoekstra said.

U.S. and Canadian businesses both need to advocate for that relationship.

Cross-border relationships

Some in the Canadian agriculture sector say that advocacy is already underway.

Michael Harvey, executive director of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance said many Canadians have been advocating for cross-border business relationships. Last fall, CAFTA led a trade mission to Washington D.C. involving 12 national industry groups. The group’s goal was to highlight the importance of renewing the Canada-U.S. Mexico Agreement.

Pierre Petelle, CEO of CropLife Canada, said he has seen U.S. farm groups openly support CUSMA over the last six months — something not common in the early days of the second Trump presidency.

“That puts us in a much, much better position,” he said.

Canada shouldn’t overestimate its value: Hoekstra

When negotiating trade, Hoekstra said Canada must not overestimate its value to the American market.

“We don’t wake up in the morning worried about Canada,” he said. “You don’t find Americans advocating … ‘boycott Canadian products.”

“When you walk into the negotiating team, or you get on TV and you say, ‘America needs our fill-in-the-blank,’ whatever commodity you’re talking about, you’re going to get a certain kind of response,” Hoekstra said.

“Because for just about everything that you bring in, it’s kind of like, ‘no, we really don’t.’”

The U.S. has done a good job of diversifying its markets and cultivating long-term relationships said Darcy Pawlik, executive director of the Wheat Growers Association. This gives some truth to the idea it doesn’t need Canadian imports.

“They’ve done the diversification of their procurement already,” Pawlik said. “Canada, we have really not carried the ball in a mature way, from a trade perspective internationally, from diversifying markets.”

Canada may have some commodities American need, but Pawlik said in many cases it has found other options.

‘We should always aim for free trade’

Hoekstra suggested pitching why doing business with Canada is a “phenomenal deal” for the United States.

“You will get a much different response in Washington than coming in and saying, ‘you absolutely need our stuff.’”

A compelling case could land Canada in the lowest tariff bucket, the ambassador said.

Being in the lowest bucket shouldn’t be Canada’s goal, Pawlik said.

“We need to always aim for zero-tariff,” he said. “We should always aim for free trade.”

“If there’s some points of negotiation that the Canadian government just can’t find a way to work together on and we end up in that lowest tariff bucket, then so be it. But we should never start from a place of being OK with some tariffs. We’ve got to aim for zero.”

Integration of supply chains a key bargaining point

Entering negotiations with a “we have what you need” approach could indeed be harmful, as it will only upset Trump and his administration said Patrick Leblond, a professor at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, in an email to Glacier FarmMedia.

However, the U.S. is not entirely self-sufficient.

“Yes, Canada has some of what the U.S. needs, but we’re not the only ones,” Leblond wrote, adding the U.S. has more leverage than Canada on this issue.

Petelle said it may be important to consider the integration of Canada-U.S. supply chains as opposed to what goods one country needs over the other.

Whether crop protection products and seed, or processing and feed, the supply chain is “extremely integrated,” he said.

In the seed and crop protection sector, Canada probably needs the U.S. more than it needs Canada, Petelle said.

“We import a lot of our seed directly from the U.S. and other regions. A lot of the manufacturing of crop protection is done in the U.S. … so we’re pretty reliant on the input side for seed and crop protection.”

Canada and the U.S. “really produce food together,” Harvey said citing examples of beef crossing the border to be processed and Canadian wheat going to an American plant before being sent back to Canada.

“We’ve really got this deeply integrated production model, and it would be very negative for American interests for that model to be … gummed up,” he said.

American agri-food sector on board with CUSMA

“I think the most important thing is to have American interests who are in favor of the relationship,” Harvey said, “we’re seeing it really clearly that the American agri-food sector is in favor of continuing the treaty.”

In February, 40 American agricultural organizations formed a coalition to support CUSMA. Nearly 100 Canadian groups made a similar plea in December.

Petelle said this alignment between American and Canadian groups is a positive signal and could mean the beginnings of good negotiations between the two countries.

Despite his assertion there will always be a cost of entry in the American market, Hoekstra said the U.S. is interested in renewing CUSMA.

Pawlik said Canadian commodity groups should start talking with their U.S. counterparts ahead of the CUSMA review this summer.

“Wheat organizations talk to the wheat organizations, you know, and soybeans talk to soybeans… so that when they get to the negotiating floor, they can say, ‘hey, no problem. We’ve actually got industry leading these conversations. We’re figuring out ways to get along.’”

‘Get back to the table’

Hoekstra said negotiations around the trade agreement have been stalled by headwinds from Canada. He said there “hasn’t been a substantive discussion since the end of October” between the two countries.

Petelle said he saw things differently.

“It was interesting to hear the ambassador characterize it as ‘four months lost,’” he said. “Last time I checked, it was the U.S. that broke off the discussions.”

“We’ve had several months of nothing really moving, but I think that decision was theirs last fall,” he continued. “So, the first thing is to get back to the table and start having serious conversations, rather than through the media or through public statements by ambassadors and others.”

Pawlik said many Canadians would do well to have a better understanding of CUSMA and how tightly connected the two countries really are.

“The one thing that we continue to forget is that we are allies, right?” he said. “(We should) treat each other with maybe a little bit more respect than what we’ve been seeing to date, and that should be encouraged amongst all Canadians.”

The post ‘We should always aim for free trade’: low tariffs not good enough say agriculture leaders on Hoekstra remarks appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Speaking on Thursday at the Canadian Crops Convention in Toronto, he said the U.S. believes CUSMA, known as USMCA in the U.S., has worked well but there have been no “substantive” talks with Canada since October.

The Canadian minister responsible for Canada-U.S. trade met with his counterpart, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, last week.

“I think we want to get to an agreement, but we are facing some headwinds in the negotiations,” Hoekstra said, citing a lack of “substantive” discussions since October.

Hoekstra said:

• Canada should do everything it can to get into the lowest tariff buckets.
• The U.S. is looking for coalitions with countries that will make sure that if there are trade agreements, then the non-tariff trade barriers are removed.
• U.S. President Donald Trump has said there will be some tariff for getting access to the U.S. market so the Canadian government and businesses should make the case why it is beneficial for the U.S. to do business with Canada at the lowest tariff rate.
• Canada and the U.S. can also work more closely on energy. The U.S. already imports a lot of oil and natural gas from Canada, the U.S. processes much of this energy, and it would want to expand the partnership.
• Canada should also build a stockpile of critical minerals in Canada or the U.S. to use during emergencies. Canada has many critical minerals and it should develop a full supply chain to become an ideal partner for the U.S.

The office of the Canadian Minister Dominic LeBlanc, who is responsible for Canada-U.S. trade, said that
Canada remains committed to establishing a new economic and security relationship with the United States that will deliver for workers and businesses on both sides of the border.

“The Minister looks forward to further engagement with his American and Mexican counterparts over the coming months as we undertake the trilateral and bilateral review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement.”

— Additional reporting by Promit Mukherjee in Ottawa

The post U.S. facing headwinds in trade negotiations with Canada, U.S. ambassador says appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

In her travels, Gwen Young, chair of the Canadian Sugar Beet Producers Association (CSBPA), has heard the desire of Ontario wanting to expand its sugar beet acres, along with Manitoba and Saskatchewan putting an extra value-added crop into their rotation.

But first, increased demand has to be established through procurement.

WHY IT MATTERS: Domestic sugar policy is needed to encourage production of the nation’s only 100 per cent Canadian sugar with sugar beets.

At the recent Canadian Federation of Agriculture AGM, the CSBPA put forth a resolution that the CFA work with government to encourage procurement.

“We have asked the government to look at using 100 per cent Canadian, whatever it is. In our case, it’s sugar. In government facilities — so hospitals, education, government offices, with the military, all of the things that government owns and operates,” said Young at the Alberta Sugar Beet Growers AGM in Lethbridge, Alta., with a sugar beet working group that has been working behind the scenes to draft a report with numerous stakeholders.

“That is our hope, that it would create a market. If we can create a market that then gives a sale to a processor, we can provide the beets here or across the country. There is interest in other spots in the country that are interested in providing beets.”

Other market infiltrations included upcoming CUSMA negotiations with the U.S. and Mexico. The only sugar going into the United States that is tariff-free is sugar beet sugar. That does not apply to sugar-containing products. The CSBPA hopes the agreement says any sugar containing products going into the U.S. must contain sugar beet sugar, which would widen markets and increase processing.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has has been on a whirlwind tour trying to broker free trade deals internationally as tensions continue with the U.S. But Young hopes it is not sugar beets that are sacrificed on the altar of concessions with Thailand, India, UAE and Mercosur (Southern Common Market/Brazil). UAE is an anomaly in that it has one of the largest sugar beet processing plants in the world, and yet does not grow it. All the sugar they process comes in from the aforementioned nations.

• RELATED: Sugar beet harvest underway in southern Alberta

“That gives Brazil, India, Thailand an FTA (free trade agreement) into our market and we don’t want that,” said Young, adding India is the world’s second largest producer and third largest exporter of sugar.

Brazil is the leading supplier of raw sugar to Canada. Even with refined sugar, $2 million came into Canada in 2024, seeing a massive increase to $11 million tariff-free a year later, according to Young. With lagging oil prices pre-Iran war, Brazil has shifted from ethanol production for its sugar cane, to sugar.

“Now they have an abundance of sugar, and they just need to get rid of it. When you’re seeing the No. 11 price drop, some of that is tied directly to Brazil flooding the market with sugar,” said Young.

“So when we’re speaking with government officials about Mercosur, which includes Brazil, we’re asking them in a free trade agreement, fill your boots. Just don’t add sugar into it. We do not want to be part of a free trade agreement with Brazil that is detrimental to us as the only source of 100 per cent Canadian sugar.”

• READ MORE: Alberta’s beets a sweet domestic segment in Canada’s sugar supply

As Canada continues to forge its national identity in trade deals, the 200-plus growers in southern Alberta are the only ones who produce the only source of 100 per cent Canadian sugar. That represents approximately eight to 10 per cent of the nation’s overall consumption, and is processed at the sugar beet refinery in Taber. The other 90 per cent of sugar is produced from raw cane imported from Central/South America and refined in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.

The ASBG voiced its frustrations on some of the red tape and bureaucracy found in the many different levels of the negotiating process trying to bring sugar beets to the forefront, and its potential for expansion in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to encourage more local processing.

“I think government policy is one of the biggest opportunities we have, and one of the biggest risks that we face in agriculture today. I think we made some progress, but it’s very difficult. One of the obstacles we encountered is it turns out that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is very conservative, even risk averse in recommendations that they might want to make,” said Cory Vanden Elzen, who sits on the board of directors and agriculture policy committee for Alberta Sugar Beet Growers.

Sifting through all the different advocacy organizations and levels of provincial and federal government, Young mentioned upcoming meetings with the chief negotiators of Mercosur and India, as it gets its report finalized with the sugar beet working committee.

“All of the ministries like to stay in their lane, and they don’t like to venture out of it to look at anybody else’s problem child, which is kind of what we are. The ag ministry wants to stay in their lane. This would then have to go to trade. From there, we’ll go to finance,” said Young.

“This year, something that was iterated over and over and over and over again (federally) was ‘grow Canada.’ Agriculture is ready to grow today. Ag is ready, and ag is poised, and we can create a lot of great increase in the economy.”

Fast Facts: The push for a Canadian domestic sugar policy

• Canadian: Sugar beets are the only source of 100 per cent grown-and-refined sugar in Canada.
• Eight per cent to 10 per cent: The current share of Canadian sugar consumption met by domestic beet production; the rest is imported raw cane.
• Three new provinces: Farmers in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are ready to expand sugar beet acres if a domestic policy is set.
• Target: government procurement: Growers are calling for 100 per cent Canadian sugar in all hospitals, military bases and federal offices.
• The ‘Brazil factor’: Brazil recently shifted production from ethanol back to sugar, leading to a surge in cheap exports that threatens local price stability.
• Trade risk: Negotiations with India, UAE, and Mercosur pose a major risk of “dumping” foreign sugar into the Canadian market tariff-free.

Sources: Gwen Young, chair, Canadian Sugar Beet Producers Association; Alberta Sugar Beet Growers AGM (Lethbridge, Alta.)

The post Canadian sugar beet growers push for national domestic sugar policy appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

CUSMA replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was active from 1994 to 2020. The current trilateral agreement allows producers in all three countries to trade with each other in a mostly tariff-free environment.

WHY IT MATTERS: The review of CUSMA could set the stage for a new era of trade and tariffs between Canada and the U.S.

U.S. President Donald Trump has consistently expressed his displeasure with CUSMA despite the fact that it was negiotiated during his first administration.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has also claimed the relationship Canada thought it had with the U.S. is over, signalling a possible new era in North American trade.

According to Patrick Leblond, a professor at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, it is unlikely the three countries will return to the original mode of tariff-free trade under CUSMA.

“It sounds like the Americans are not in a compromising mood,” Leblond said. “It sounds like, ‘Okay, we’re going to put the gun to your head, and you’re going to give us what we want.’”

Can the U.S. pull out of CUSMA?

Any of the three parties may leave the agreement as long as they provide six months’ notice, but Leblond said nothing is stopping the U.S. from taking more drastic action.

He also said there is nothing forcing the parties to start negotiating on July 1, the official start of the review.

“The reality is, … the U.S. can just pull out and say, ‘yeah, as of tomorrow, we are not applying (CUSMA) anymore,” said Leblond. “We’re pulling out and we don’t care about the six months’ notice.’”

“The sort of attitude would be, ‘well, just sue us.’”

If Canada and Mexico were to sue, a panel of arbitrators would likely rule the U.S. at fault and give permission for the two countries to retaliate with tariffs.

It would still be on Canada and Mexico to decide how to react.

“It’s a bit of a moot point where yes, the U.S. legally has to give notice, but in practice, they can do what they want.”

It leaves Canada in a precarious place, especially as the terms of the agreement may not feel permanent.

“The Trump administration ultimately cannot be trusted,” Leblond said. “And therefore, yes, we can negotiate, we can try to come to a deal, but we have no guarantee whether that deal will be respected. And even existing deals are not being respected.”

U.S. could face challenges in leaving the agreement

Michael Harvey, Executive Director of the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance (CAFTA), said it’s unlikely Trump will pull out of the agreement completely.

Under the American system, the President would need congressional approval for major changes. Harvey said this could be a problem for Trump, who is already seeing pushback on his tariffs including a recent Supreme Court challenge.

“Significant changes to the treaty would require going to Congress, and we haven’t seen the administration be all that interested in going to Congress with trade agreements,” Harvey said.

There could also be disagreement within the administration’s base. Harvey said in the two trade missions it took to Washington D.C. last year, CAFTA started to see increased doubt about the tariff agenda amongst Republicans, particularly in agriculture states.

U.S. producer groups have also shown support for a CUSMA renewal.

“That’s really positive, because first, it’s our direct counterparts in the United States,” Harvey said. “Second, the agri-food sector, let’s face it, they tend to be supporters of President Trump. So, it’s a positive thing for supporters of President Trump to be so in favor of the agreement.”

“Tariffs mean increased cost for consumers, for producers,” he said. “We’ve been working hard at making sure that decision-makers understand that, and what we’ve seen in Washington is that they do, and it’s great to see the U.S. ag sector being sold about it.”

Trump has also protected the agri-food elements of the agreement. When the President imposed tariffs on Canada, CUSMA-compliant agri-food goods were exempted.

What’s Canada’s best-case scenario?

Harvey said the best-case scenario for Canada would be a full renewal with some minor updates on agricultural technology, but “just renewal with no changes at all would be a great-case scenario.”

The deal works well for the agri-food sector.

“It’s one of the best agreements in the world,” Harvey said. “We’ve got three countries working together, highly integrated supply chains, highly integrated markets. That’s something that we need to protect.”

It’s still likely Trump will hardball in the initial negotiations.

“He has a style that attracts attention to his demands,” Harvey said. “His demands are often quite high at the beginning of a negotiation and often change quickly.”

Leblond also called it a best-case scenario for Canada to maintain the current terms, but suspected the U.S. would continue to push for more access in Canada, particularly in supply-managed sectors.

“If we can play for time and try to maintain the status quo, to me that would be the best option for now for Canada,” he said. “And hopefully then, … for a lot of the agricultural goods that we export to the U.S., they will continue to be exported without tariffs because we meet the rules of origin.”

That’s why both sides seem to be pushing for “just don’t make things worse,” Leblond said.

“Talk, engage, negotiate, but don’t look for a quick deal,” he said. “That that would be my view.”

Bilateral vs. trilateral negotiations

Leblond said the U.S. could push for bilateral negotiations instead of trilateral, meaning individual meetings with Canada and Mexico.

This could weaken the leverage Canada and Mexico would otherwise have working together.

Leblond said there are three likely options.

“One is really trilateral negotiations, comprehensive,” he said.

“There’s the (option) we renew CUSMA, but the U.S. negotiates bilaterally with Canada, bilaterally with Mexico, and then they try to fit that within the existing CUSMA.”

Or the countries could make bilateral deals outside of CUSMA.

There is precedent for this, as the U.S. recently negotiated a new deal with South Korea which goes against the countries’ existing agreement. The free trade agreement is still there, but it’s superseded by the new deal.

“Is that what the Americans are going to try to push with Canada on the one hand and Mexico and the other? It’s very possible,” Leblond said.

The ever-present possibility of the U.S. pushing more tariffs on Canada should be motivation for the government to seek other trade deals in the interim, he added.

Carney and other government officials have recently taken several trips to countries like India and Vietnam.

Longer-term, reducing dependency on the U.S. is a good idea, Leblond said.

“Even if we have a deal, let’s say some kind of renegotiation, a deal that we reach with the U.S., what’s the guarantee that that deal is going to hold? There is none.”

The post CUSMA: a guide to the review and what it means for the agriculture sector appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The pledges are part of the Trump administration’s 2026 Trade Policy Agenda, issued over a week after the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Here are some key details of the agenda:

• The U.S. will seek to fix deficiencies in the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement (CUSMA), including on regional rules of origin and challenges created by investment from non-market economies and industrial overcapacity.
• The U.S. will seek to manage bilateral trade with China for better balance and fairness and monitor China’s compliance with a trade truce reached last year.
• The Trump administration will work to strike new trade deals with partners and finalize framework deals with the European Union, India, Japan, North Macedonia, South Korea, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Thailand and Vietnam.
• The U.S. will finalize deals with Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia and Taiwan, and enforce all of its agreements through existing trade laws.
• The U.S. will evaluate whether new “Section 301” unfair trade investigations are needed to address global overcapacity, abuses in seafood and fisheries, export-driven agricultural policies, pharmaceutical pricing and digital services taxes.
• The administration will seek to bring back to the U.S. supply chains for critical minerals, semiconductors, auto parts, pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, metals and energy technologies.
• The U.S. will seek to attract foreign investment while ensuring that this will not imperil national security.
• The U.S. will seek to advance its trade interests through the G7, G20, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and World Trade Organization.
• The Trump administration sees limited opportunities for WTO reform but will urge reassessments of “most favored nation” tariffs to pursue bilateral agreements.

— Reporting by David Lawder

The post U.S. to seek more foreign tariff cuts, CUSMA improvements in 2026 appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“They have a few ideas on how they might want to have a deal with us. We’re obviously open to that,” Greer said in an interview on Fox Business Network.

WHY IT MATTERS: Canada and U.S. agricultural supply chains are heavily integrated and could face disruption, depending on the outcome of the CUSMA review.

Greer said he spoke with his trade counterpart earlier on Wednesday and that they would meet in Washington “in a couple weeks.”

“We’re open to talk, and we’ll see what they have to say,” Greer told FBN’s “Mornings with Maria” program.

Representatives for Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

U.S.-Canada tensions have grown in recent months over trade and other issues as Trump has targeted Washington’s northern neighbor.

The Trump administration is reviewing the Canada-United States-Mexico trade pact enacted during Trump’s first term in the White House term and faces a July 1 deadline to notify Congress whether it plans to change the agreement.

‘Reshoring’ not moving fast enough: Greer

Greer said U.S. officials are focused on moving production of cars and other goods back to the U.S. But the reshoring of critical supply chains is not happening fast enough under the current pact, he said in a separate interview with CBC News, expressing concern that China will funnel goods through Canada to avoid certain tariffs as Beijing and Ottawa seek to develop closer ties.

“We don’t want a situation where Canada’s being used as a back door for Chinese goods,” he told CBC reporter Katie Simpson late on Tuesday in a video posted on X.

“If Canada wants to agree that we can have some level of higher tariff on them while they open their markets to us on things like dairy and other things, then that’s a helpful conversation,” Greer added.

Trump has said Washington could leave CUSMA and strike separate deals with Canada and Mexico as his administration pursues separate talks with each bordering country.

Greer told Bloomberg Television on Wednesday that he would continue separate negotiations with representatives of Canada and Mexico over the coming year “because our relationships with those countries are so different.”

One solution could be to “tack on” separate protocols for each nation onto CUSMA “to fix some of the gaps,” he said.

— Additional reporting by Promit Mukherjee

The post U.S., Canada to meet in coming weeks on trade, Greer says appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

The tariff will be “over and above our normal tariffs already being charged,” Trump said in a media briefing.

“The Supreme Court did not overrule tariffs. They merely overruled a particular use of IEEPA for tariffs.”

Trump said his administration would also launch several investigations “to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.”

WHY IT MATTERS: While Canadian agricultural goods largely escaped tariffs under the CUSMA trade agreement, U.S. President Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again tariffs created significant uncertainty.

Trump signed an executive order later Friday imposing a 10 per cent ad valorem tariff to take effect on articles imported into the U.S. starting Tuesday (Feb. 24).

Section 122 allows the president to impose duties up to 15 per cent or quotas for up to 150 days, the Retail Industry Leaders Association explained in a post.

“Specifically, Section 122 allows the President to impose duties of up to 15 per cent or quotas for up to 150 days on imports from all countries, or selectively against countries that maintain unjustifiable or unreasonable restrictions on U.S. commerce.”

The new 10 per cent tariff will not be imposed on any CUSMA-compliant “goods of Canada and Mexico,” the White House said in a fact sheet later Friday.

Nor will it be imposed on “certain agricultural products, including beef, tomatoes, and oranges.”

Other imports exempt from the new tariff will include “natural resources and fertilizers that cannot be grown, mined, or otherwise produced in the United States or grown, mined, or otherwise produced in sufficient quantities to meet domestic demand” as well as “certain critical minerals, metals used in currency and bullion, energy and energy products.”

Among other specific goods, pharmaceuticals and electronics, it will also not apply to “passenger vehicles, certain light trucks, certain medium and heavy-duty vehicles, buses, and certain parts of passenger vehicles, light trucks, heavy-duty vehicles and buses.”

Trump on Friday separately announced the continued suspension, first imposed on Feb. 1 last year, of duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value shipments, including goods shipped through the international postal system. Those goods will also be subject to the new 10 per cent tariff.

In a separate social media post Saturday (Feb. 21), Trump said he would instead set his new Section 122 tariff “effective immediately” at “the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15 per cent level,” but as of Sunday (Feb. 22) had not yet issued a new or updated proclamation or executive order to that effect.

Canadian groups react

Canadian Federation of Agriculture president Keith Currie told Glacier FarmMedia in a text that he hoped the Supreme Court’s decision would bring back some stability to cross-border trade. However, he noted that we’d have to wait and see what other tools the Trump administration utilizes.

“Obviously this court decision supports what we’ve been saying about the tariffs not being justified,” Currie said.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling that the IEEPA tariffs are unlawful is welcome news for equipment manufacturers, which have spent the last year navigating higher input costs and mounting trade uncertainty,” said Kip Eideberg, senior vice-president of industry and government relations for the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, in a statement.

“What equipment manufacturers need most is certainty so they can make long-term decisions that benefit their workers, their customers, and the broader economy.”

Following Trump’s vow to impose other tariffs, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers reiterated equipment manufacturers’ need for certainty while making longterm decisions.

The justices, in a 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld a lower court’s decision that the Republican president’s use of this 1977 law exceeded his authority.

Trump says he’s “ashamed” of SCOTUS members

Trump, in comments at the White House, condemned the ruling as “terrible” and lashed out at the six justices who ruled against him.

“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court – absolutely ashamed – for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump said.

Trump has leveraged tariffs – taxes on imported goods – as a key economic and foreign policy tool.

“Our task today is to decide only whether the power to “regulate … importation,” as granted to the president in IEEPA, embraces the power to impose tariffs. It does not,” Roberts wrote in the ruling, quoting the statute’s text that Trump claimed had justified his sweeping tariffs.

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to issue taxes and tariffs.

Tariffs have been central to a global trade war that Trump initiated after he began his second term as president, one that has alienated trading partners, affected financial markets and caused global economic uncertainty.

Trump has called his tariffs vital for U.S. economic security, predicting that the country would be defenseless and ruined without them.

“Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic,” Trump said on Friday. “They’re so happy, and they’re dancing in the streets, but they won’t be dancing for long that, I can assure you.”

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, had allowed Trump’s expansive exertion of presidential powers in other areas in a series of rulings issued on an emergency basis, and Friday’s ruling represented the biggest setback it has dealt him since he returned to office in January 2025.

“It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think,” Trump said.

“He cannot”

Roberts, citing a prior Supreme Court ruling, wrote that “the president must ‘point to clear congressional authorization’ to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs,” adding: “He cannot.”

Trump has leveraged tariffs – taxes on imported goods – as a key economic and foreign policy tool. They have been central to a global trade war that Trump initiated after he began his second term as president, one that has alienated trading partners, affected financial markets and caused global economic uncertainty.

The Supreme Court reached its conclusion in a legal challenge by businesses affected by the tariffs and 12 U.S. states, most of them Democratic-governed, against Trump’s unprecedented use of this law to unilaterally impose the import taxes.

Trump’s tariffs were forecast to generate over the next decade trillions of dollars in revenue for the United States, which possesses the world’s largest economy.

Tariffs will likely need to be refunded

Trump’s administration has not provided tariffs collection data since December 14. But Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists estimated on Friday that the amount collected in Trump’s tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act stood at more than $175 billion (C$239.4 billion). And that amount likely would need to be refunded with a Supreme Court ruling against the IEEPA-based tariffs.

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the authority to issue taxes and tariffs. But Trump instead turned to a statutory authority by invoking IEEPA to impose the tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner without the approval of Congress. Trump has imposed some additional tariffs under other laws that are not at issue in this case. Based on government data from October to mid-December, those represent about third of the revenue from Trump-imposed tariffs.

IEEPA lets a president regulate commerce in a national emergency. Trump became the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs, one of the many ways he has aggressively pushed the boundaries of executive authority since he returned to office in areas as varied as his crackdown on immigration, the firing of federal agency officials, domestic military deployments and military operations overseas.

Trump described the tariffs as vital for U.S. economic security, predicting that the country would be defenseless and ruined without them. Trump in November told reporters that without his tariffs “the rest of the world would laugh at us because they’ve used tariffs against us for years and took advantage of us.” Trump said the United States was abused by other countries including China, the second-largest economy.

U.S. could invoke other legal justifications: Bessent

After the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in November, Trump said he would consider alternatives if it ruled against him on tariffs, telling reporters that “we’ll have to develop a ‘game two’ plan.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other administration officials said the United States would invoke other legal justifications to retain as many of Trump’s tariffs as possible. Among others, these include a statutory provision that permits tariffs on imported goods that threaten U.S. national security and another that allows retaliatory actions including tariffs against trading partners that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative determines have used unfair trade practices against American exporters.

None of these alternatives offered the flexibility and blunt-force dynamics that IEEPA provided Trump, and may not be able to replicate the full scope of his tariffs in a timely fashion.

Trump’s ability to impose tariffs instantaneously on any trading partner’s goods under the aegis of some form of declared national emergency raised his leverage over other countries. It brought world leaders scrambling to Washington to secure trade deals that often included pledges of billions of dollars in investments or other offers of enhanced market access for U.S. companies.

But Trump’s use of tariffs as a cudgel in U.S. foreign policy has succeeded in antagonizing numerous countries, including those long considered among the closest U.S. allies.

IEEPA historically had been used for imposing sanctions on enemies or freezing their assets, not to impose tariffs. The law does not specifically mention the word tariffs. Trump’s Justice Department had argued that IEEPA allows tariffs by authorizing the president to “regulate” imports to address emergencies.

Tariffs generated $195 billion

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if all current tariffs stay in place, including the IEEPA-based duties, they would generate about $300 billion annually over the next decade.

Total U.S. net customs duty receipts reached a record $195 billion (C$266.8 billion) in fiscal 2025, which ended on September 30, according to U.S. Treasury Department data.

On April 2 on a date Trump labeled “Liberation Day,” the president announced what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods imported from most U.S. trading partners, invoking IEEPA to address what he called a national emergency related to U.S. trade deficits, though the United States already had run trade deficits for decades.

In February and March of 2025, Trump invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, citing the trafficking of the often-abused painkiller fentanyl and illicit drugs into the United States as a national emergency.

Trump has wielded his tariffs to extract concessions and renegotiate trade deals, and as a weapon to punish countries that draw his ire on non-trade political matters. These have ranged from Brazil’s prosecution of former president Jair Bolsonaro, India’s purchases of Russian oil that help fund Russia’s war in Ukraine, and an anti-tariffs ad by Canada’s Ontario province.

IEEPA was passed by Congress and signed by Democratic President Jimmy Carter. In passing the measure, Congress placed additional limits on the president’s authority compared to a predecessor law.

The cases on tariffs before the justices involved three lawsuits.

The Washington-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with five small businesses that import goods in one challenge, and the states of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont in another.

Separately, a Washington-based federal judge sided with a family-owned toy company called Learning Resources.

— Additional reporting by David Lawder and John Kruzel. With files from Jonah Grignon and Geralyn Wichers.

The post Trump declares 10 per cent global tariff after Supreme Court decision appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

Charette will act as a senior advisor to the Prime Minister and to Dominic LeBlanc, the minister responsible for Canada-U.S. trade on the upcoming review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, a statement from the prime minister’s office said.

WHY IT MATTERS: CUSMA facilitates the largely free trade between the U.S. and Canada, however U.S. President Donald Trump has not guaranteed it will be renewed.

Canada sends about 70 per cent of its exports to the United States. CUSMA, also known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, is a continental trade pact that has shielded much of Canada’s exports from U.S. tariffs. It is up for joint review by a July 1 deadline.

“With four decades of experience in public policy and diplomacy, Janice Charette brings extraordinary leadership, expertise, and a deep commitment to advancing Canada’s interests,” Carney said.

“As Chief Trade Negotiator, she will advance Canadian interests and a strengthened trade and investment relationship that benefits workers and industries in both Canada and the United States.”

Charette has twice served as clerk of the Privy Council and secretary to the Cabinet, according to the statement. The clerk of the Privy Council is the head of the civil service in Canada.

The post Canada announces new chief trade negotiator to the United States appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.