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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Canada should therefore approach the CUSMA review from a position of calm realism rather than anxiety. Business in all three countries would like the agreement to continue. We believe it is mutually beneficial. But we do not need to sound as though our economic future collapses without it. If Canada signals desperation, it invites pressure. If it signals confidence, it creates room to negotiate.

That confidence should be grounded in two messages to Washington. The first is straightforward: Canada is the most reliable trading partner and ally the United States has. Our supply chains are deeply integrated. Our standards are compatible. Our political system is stable. No other partner offers the same combination of proximity, trust and capacity. That is not rhetoric; it is fact.

The second message is equally important: Canada has options. If the United States chooses to make trade more difficult, Canada will adapt. We will deepen relationships with other partners. We will pursue diversification. We will continue to advocate for a rules-based trading system.

None of this is said as a threat. It is simply a statement of reality.

This is why the Prime Minister’s remarks in Davos resonated internationally — and why they must now be followed by concrete action. Words matter, but progress matters more. Demonstrating movement on trade diversification, regulatory efficiency and investment attraction will reinforce Canada’s credibility far more than rhetorical appeals to partnership alone.

At home, this moment also calls for discipline. Referenda are blunt instruments. People do not always vote on the question asked; they vote on accumulated grievances. Brexit is a cautionary tale of how easily irreversible decisions can be made without full consideration of consequences. Canada’s constitutional framework, clarified by the Supreme Court and embodied in the Clarity Act, exists precisely to prevent such recklessness. It is the law of the land and must be respected.

The review of CUSMA should cause Canadians to think about how Canada presents itself in any trade negotiation. We are not a supplicant. We are not isolated. We are a country with resources the world needs, institutions that work and a record of constructive engagement. We never know what a day will bring out of Washington: another threat, an outrageous allegation or outright lie. We needn’t react in kind. Do what we are good at: be steady and earnest.

Most Americans like Canada and Canadians and find Trumpian threats to Canada bizarre. That goodwill has been built over many years and purchased in part by the blood and treasure invested alongside U.S. forces. If Canada remembers that — and acts accordingly — it will enter any CUSMA discussion not from a position of weakness, but from one of strength.

  • Macklem says loss of CUSMA would mean recession for the Canadian economy
  • Carney risks running out of time in push to save Canada, says former Liberal leader

John Manley is Chairman of Jefferies Securities and the former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of Canada