John Manley: Why Canada needs to play it cool on CUSMA — and keep its options open

Canada should approach the Canada-United-States-Mexico-Agreement review from a position of calm realism rather than anxiety., writes John Manley. Photo by Judi Bottoni/The Canadian Press/AP files

Article content

As Canada heads toward what could be a difficult review or reopening of the Canada–United States–Mexico Trade Agreement (CUSMA), it is worth being clear about what is truly at stake, and what is not. Trade agreements matter. Alliances matter. But confidence matters most of all — and confidence is precisely what Canada must project now, both to Washington and to the world.

Article content

Article content

The starting point must be unity. At moments of external pressure, Canada is strongest when it speaks with a single voice. That is why the instinct of the Prime Minister and many premiers to emphasize a “Team Canada” approach is fundamentally sound.

Article content

Article content

Article content

In a world where unpredictability and unreliability have become defining features of U.S. trade policy, Canada has an opportunity to distinguish itself as a country that means what it says and honours its commitments. That is our reputation and it is an asset, one that must not be compromised through internal discord. We need to be the serious country. The sane country.

Article content

This is not an abstract concern. Talk of separatism, whether in Alberta or Quebec, weakens Canada’s position at precisely the wrong moment. Such debates may play well domestically with a narrow audience, but internationally they undermine the perception of Canada as a stable, reliable partner. Investors and trading partners do not take seriously jurisdictions they believe may fracture. The world will not reward self-inflicted uncertainty.

Article content

That broader context matters because CUSMA negotiations will not occur in a vacuum. They will be shaped as much by politics and perception as by economics. And here, Canada must be careful not to talk itself into a corner.

Article content

Article content

There is a tendency in Canada to say, almost reflexively, that we “must” have CUSMA. That language is understandable, but it is strategically unhelpful. It plays directly into the worldview of a transactional negotiator (some might say “bully”) who believes leverage flows from perceived dependence. The reality is more balanced than that.

Article content

Article content

Canada was a successful trading nation long before the Canada–U.S. Free Trade Agreement came into force in 1989. Trade liberalization has unquestionably benefited us, and no serious person argues otherwise. But it does not follow that Canada’s prosperity hinges on the existence of a single agreement, particularly one that the United States itself has periodically questioned, even ignored when convenient to do so.

Article content

The truth is simpler: Americans buy from Canada what they want and need: energy, critical minerals, industrial inputs, agricultural products, manufactured goods. Geography, infrastructure and market logic ensure that trade will continue, with or without CUSMA. The agreement provides structure, predictability and dispute-resolution mechanisms, all of which are valuable. But it is not existential.