Why this manufacturing industry insider thinks the U.S. will soon come around on CUSMA

Article content

And with Prime Minister (Mark) Carney trying to strike economic partnerships with different countries and economies, especially with the middle powers, that has brought a lot of attention back to the U.S. and Canada, where we’re looking at diversification in a strategic way, but at the same time that also sends a signal to the U.S. that we’re ready to play ball where required.

Article content

If Washington pushes hard on one issue in negotiations, what’s the pressure point most likely to force Canada to make a concession?

Article content

There are several trade irritants and issues that have existed for decades. When we look at the dairy sector, for example, the U.S. has always felt that Canada hasn’t provided full access to the dairy sector. So I would say concessions are likely to happen if both parties come to the table.

Article content

Article content

A few topics will be front and centre where either of the parties will have to negotiate, concede, or come to a middle ground. Definitely the sectoral tariffs on aluminum, steel, and lumber. When it comes to automotive, we’re talking about the rules of origin and how the regional content valuation is defined. We’re also talking about agricultural inputs, which have also been a key discussion topic.

Article content

Article content

I would say that in most areas, Canada will be okay to concede on certain aspects like digital service trade, as well as tightening the automotive rules (of origin), with an important element being avoiding transshipment … cheaper goods coming from other parts of the world easily entering North America via Canada and Mexico.

Article content

I don’t see Canada making any concessions on supply-chain management. Where they might make certain concessions is on the tariff quotas — on up to what percentage of volume is probably allowed within the Canadian market. I think that’s where they may show some flexibility to provide the U.S. with some comfort.

Article content

What specific concessions could Canada realistically extract using the leverage of critical minerals?

Article content

Critical minerals are certainly an important part of Canada’s strategic value … In my opinion, Canada’s value proposition goes well beyond minerals.

Article content

We have reliable energy sources, strong agricultural production, aerospace capabilities, advanced manufacturing expertise, engineering talent, and emerging leadership in areas like AI and clean technology…

Article content

Article content

Where Canada’s issue probably would lie is making sure that there is national sovereignty retained while it gives the U.S. access to critical minerals.

Article content

Canada has also had several procedural aspects and regulatory approvals that are challenging. Considering the nation-building projects and some of the other initiatives: we hope that the approval process can be expedited in many ways, which can actually give the U.S. faster access to some of those critical minerals.

Article content

But it obviously is going to be more strategic rather than just a straight-up access to critical minerals, because Canada is also going to try and see where it can hold its leverage and position without over-compromising.

Article content

Are you seeing U.S. buyers or manufacturers already adjusting sourcing strategies in ways that strengthen Canada’s negotiating position?

Article content

Yes, but the change is more strategic rather than immediate. Companies are not simply moving suppliers overnight. They’re reassessing risk.

Article content

Historically, procurement decisions were often dominated by cost. Today, executives are asking broader questions. How resilient is the supplier? Are we exposed to geopolitical disruption? Do they have visibility into their supply chain? Can they continue delivering during periods of volatility?