By trading strategic discipline for populist slogans, the Carney government is eroding the leverage we need to secure a favourable CUSMA review

Canada cannot expect to negotiate from a position of strength while sending contradictory messages about its economy and its relationship with the United States. Yet that is precisely the position Ottawa has created as the first formal review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) begins on July 1.

For a country whose economy, and particularly its agri-food sector, depends on stable, predictable access to the U.S. market, credibility matters.

Only weeks ago, the federal government released a video portraying Canada’s reliance on the U.S. 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.

Carney has also attempted to reassure Canadians by claiming that Canada is now creating jobs at twice the rate of the U.S.

The data tell a different story.

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

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.

Canada’s export diversification narrative deserves similar scrutiny.

Yes, exports to countries outside the U.S. 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.

Nowhere is that disconnect more apparent than in Canada’s agri-food sector.

Roughly 70 to 72 per cent of Canada’s agri-food exports still go to the U.S. 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.

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 why Canada’s relationship with Washington matters beyond the negotiating table. 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.

Media reports that the U.S. is seeking a share of toll revenues are difficult to justify given that Canada financed the construction of the bridge. 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.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, co-host of The Food Professor Podcast and visiting scholar at McGill University.