TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2026-03-03 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00029350

CANADA RENEGOTIATING CUSMA ... Everyday Retirement / George Conway Carney, Trump and the U.S. Pressure on Canada to Keep CUSMA Together \| George Conway PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS0IQAR1uyo
5 Minute Ago: Carney, Trump and the U.S. Pressure on Canada to Keep CUSMA Together \| George Conway Everyday Retirement Dec 20, 2025 545 subscribers ... 60,713 views ... 1.3K likes As trade talks intensify, Carney and Trump stand at the center of growing U.S. pressure on Canada over the future of CUSMA. This video examines the key demands coming from Washington and how Canadian leadership is responding behind closed doors. We break down the economic stakes, political strategies, and possible outcomes that could redefine North American trade relations. Stay tuned to understand what these negotiations mean for businesses, markets, and the broader U.S.-Canada partnership. Peter Burgess COMMENTARY Peter Burgess Transcript 0:00 You know, when I first saw the headlines coming out of Washington this week, I had to pause and really take in what we're witnessing here. The Trump administration has essentially handed Canada a list of demands. And I mean a very detailed list of demands that reads like an ultimatum more than a negotiation. This is the kind of moment that could reshape North American trade for the next two decades. And I don't think most people fully appreciate what's at stake. We're talking about the fundamental architecture of economic relations between two of the largest trading partners in the world, and it's all hanging in the balance right now. So, let me walk you through exactly what happened. US Trade Representative Jameson Greer appeared before Congress this week, and what he laid out was nothing short of a comprehensive wish list for restructuring the Kosma agreement. Now, for those who might not remember, KUSMA is the United States Mexico Canada agreement that replaced NAFTA during Trump's first term. At the 1:02 time, Trump hailed it as a massive victory for American workers and farmers. But apparently, that victory wasn't quite complete enough because now we're being told that significant changes are needed before the administration will agree to extend this agreement for another 16 years. That's right. 16 years of trade stability is on the table. and the price tag is a complete overhaul of several key provisions. What really struck me about Greer's testimony was the tone. This wasn't the language of partnership or mutual benefit. This was the language of demands of expectations of non-negotiables. He acknowledged that Kosma has been successful to a certain degree. And I want you to notice that qualifier to a certain degree. It's the kind of diplomatic hedge that tells you everything about where this administration's head is at. They see the current agreement as incomplete, as 2:00 insufficiently favorable to American interests, and they're prepared to use the extension negotiations as leverage to extract concessions that they couldn't get the first time around. Now, the specific demands are where things get really interesting and frankly where the potential for conflict becomes crystal clear. First and foremost, the administration wants greater access to Canada's protected dairy market. This has been a thorn in the side of American agricultural interests for decades. Canada operates under what's called supply management, a system that essentially controls production and prices to protect Canadian dairy farmers from foreign competition. American dairy producers have long complained that this system locks them out of a lucrative market just across the border. Trump himself has been vocal about this issue, calling Canada's dairy protections unfair and even disgraceful in previous statements. But the demands don't stop at dairy. Greer also targeted Canada's 3:03 streaming legislation, specifically the requirements that mandate Canadian content on platforms operating in the country. This is about cultural sovereignty versus market access, and it's a fight that touches on some very sensitive nerves in Canada. The Canadian government has long argued that without content requirements, American media would simply overwhelm Canadian voices in the digital space. From the US perspective, these requirements are barriers to trade that disadvantage American streaming services and content creators. It's a clash of values as much as it is a clash of economic interests. And then there's the issue of provincial procurement practices. This might sound technical, but it's actually quite significant. Different Canadian provinces have different rules about how government contracts are awarded, and many of these rules favor local suppliers. The Trump 4:01 administration wants these barriers removed, opening up Canadian government contracts to American companies. When you add all of this together, what you're looking at is a comprehensive attempt to reshape the Canadian economy in ways that benefit American producers and corporations. The question now is whether Canada will accept these terms, push back, or try to find some middle ground that preserves its core interests while keeping the trade relationship intact. The Canadian response to these demands has been fascinating to watch and I think it tells us a lot about how this negotiation is likely to unfold. Prime Minister Mark Carney, who brings his own considerable experience in international economics to this confrontation, has drawn what I would call a very clear line in the sand. And that line runs right through the middle of the dairy issue. Carney stated categorically, and I mean categorically, 5:00 that Canada will not budge on supply management for the dairy sector. Those were his words, not mine. Canada continues to stand by supply management and will continue to protect it. Now, I want you to think about what that means for the dynamics of this negotiation. The Trump administration has made dairy access one of its primary demands and the Canadian government has responded by saying that particular demand is completely off the table. We're not at the starting line of a negotiation here. We're already at an impass on one of the central issues. This is the kind of situation where skilled diplomacy becomes absolutely essential because without it, you have two sides talking past each other with no obvious path to resolution. What makes Carney's position so firm? Well, you have to understand the political economy of Canadian dairy. Supply management isn't just an economic policy. It's a political institution that has survived for decades because it 6:00 has broad support across party lines and across regions. Canadian dairy farmers are concentrated in politically important provinces like Quebec and Ontario. And any government that appears to be selling them out to American interests would face severe electoral consequences. Carney knows this and he's making it clear from the outset that there are limits to what Canada will concede no matter how much pressure Washington applies. But here's where things get interesting and where I think we can see the outlines of how this might eventually get resolved. Despite all the tough talk and the lengthy list of demands, trade representative Greer indicated that he supports keeping the United States in the trade accord. Think about that for a moment. Even as he's laying out all these requirements and setting up these potential points of conflict, he's also signaling that a complete breakdown may not be inevitable. This is the push and pull of high stakes negotiation where both sides need to appear strong and unyielding 7:00 while also leaving enough room for eventual compromise. What I find particularly noteworthy is how different this is from the typical approach we've seen in trade disputes. Usually, there's a lot of public posturing followed by quiet behind-the-scenes negotiations, but here we're seeing the demands laid out in congressional testimony uh on the public record uh for everyone to see. That changes the dynamics considerably. It makes it harder for either side to back down without appearing weak, but it also creates public accountability that can prevent either side from making secret deals that their constituents wouldn't support. It's a high-risk strategy and the outcome is genuinely uncertain. The next few months are going to be critical. Both sides have established their positions and now the real work of finding common ground begins or doesn't begin if neither side is willing to move. What I'll be watching for is any sign of flexibility 8:00 on the secondary issues, the streaming legislation, the procurement practices. If there's movement there, it could create enough positive momentum to eventually tackle the harder questions. But if both sides dig in across the board, we could be looking at a prolonged standoff that damages both economies and strains a relationship that has been crucial to North American prosperity for generations. I want to take a step back here and put all of this in a broader context because I think it's important to understand why these particular issues have become so contentious. Uh the dairy dispute, for example, isn't just about milk and cheese. It's about fundamentally different approaches to agricultural policy and really to the role of government in the economy. The American system by and large relies on open markets and allows prices to be set by supply and demand. When there's too much milk, prices fall and some farmers go out of business. It's harsh, but it's the market mechanism working as 9:00 designed. Canada took a different path decades ago with supply management. Under this system, production is carefully controlled to match domestic demand and prices are set to ensure farmers earn a stable, predictable income. It protects Canadian dairy farmers from the volatility that American farmers experience. But it also means higher prices for Canadian consumers and limited access for foreign producers. From the Canadian perspective, this is a legitimate policy choice that reflects their values and priorities. From the American perspective, it's a trade barrier that unfairly excludes competitive American products. The streaming and content issue is equally complex, though it gets less attention. Canada has a long history of cultural protectionism, going back to rules about Canadian content on radio and television that date to the mid 20th century. The logic is straightforward. Canada shares a border and a language with the United States, and without some form of protection, 10:00 Canadian cultural production would be overwhelmed by the sheer volume and marketing power of American entertainment. The streaming regulations that the Trump administration is targeting are really just an extension of this long-standing approach into the digital age. But here's the challenge. The global entertainment industry has changed dramatically in recent years, and the old models of cultural protection don't fit neatly onto platforms like Netflix or Disney Plus or Amazon Prime. When you require Canadian content on these services, you're not just promoting Canadian creators, you're also potentially limiting what American services can offer to Canadian subscribers. The Trump administration sees this as an unfair constraint on American companies and they're using the trade negotiations to push for changes. Whether Canada will give ground on this issue is an open question, though I suspect there's more room for compromise here than there is on dairy. The 11:01 procurement issue might seem like the most technical of the three, but it actually has significant practical implications. Government contracts represent billions of dollars in spending, and the rules about who can compete for those contracts determine who benefits from that spending. If Canadian provincial governments are required to open their procurement processes to American biders, it could mean substantial new opportunities for American companies, but also potential losses for Canadian businesses that have relied on preferential treatment. This is exactly the kind of issue where detailed negotiations can produce creative solutions that give both sides something to claim as a win. What concerns me most about the current situation is the tone of the public discourse. When you have the US trade representative making demands in congressional testimony and the Canadian prime minister responding with categorical refusals, you're creating a 12:00 dynamic where both sides are locked into positions that may be difficult to walk back from. The art of successful negotiation often involves finding face- saving ways for all parties to compromise. And that becomes much harder when public statements have been so definitive. As I look at where we are right now, I can't help but think about what's really at stake for ordinary people on both sides of the border. Trade agreements can seem abstract, like something that only matters to economists and politicians and policy wonks who spend their days pouring over tariff schedules and regulatory frameworks. But the reality is that millions of jobs and livelihoods depend on the smooth flow of goods and services between the United States and Canada. Any serious disruption to that flow would be felt immediately and painfully in factories and farms, in small businesses and large corporations, in communities across both countries that have built their entire economies around crossber trade. We're not talking about abstract economic theory here. We're 13:01 talking about real people with real families who depend on this trading relationship continuing to function. The Cusma agreement, for all its imperfections and for all the criticisms that have been leveled at it from various quarters, provides a framework of stability and predictability that businesses absolutely rely on when making major investment decisions. When a company decides to build a factory or expand operations or hire new workers, they need to know what the trade rules will be, not just today, but years and even decades into the future. That's why the 16-year extension matters so much to the business community on both sides of the border. It's not just a bureaucratic formality or a piece of paper that gets signed and filed away. It's a signal to investors and entrepreneurs about whether North American economic integration will continue on its current path or whether we're heading into a period of uncertainty and potential 14:00 fragmentation that could upend business plans and investment strategies across the continent. Think about what happens when businesses don't have that certainty. They pull back on investment. They delay expansion plans. They hesitate to hire new workers because they're not sure what the regulatory environment will look like in two or three or five years. That uncertainty has real economic costs that add up over time. And it's something that both governments should be keenly aware of as they navigate these negotiations. The longer this dispute drags on without resolution, the more that uncertainty will weigh on business confidence and economic activity. I've seen this pattern play out before in other trade disputes, and it's never pretty for the workers and communities who end up bearing the brunt of the economic fallout. What I find somewhat encouraging in all of this, and I want to be clear that I'm looking hard for silver linings here, is Greer's statement about wanting to keep the United States in the agreement despite all the demands and tough rhetoric. 15:03 That single statement tells me that there's at least some recognition in the administration that walking away from Kusma entirely would be more costly than working through the disagreements. However difficult and protracted that process might be. Canada is America's largest trading partner and the economic integration between our countries runs incredibly deep. After decades of cooperation and development, supply chains crisscross the border multiple times before products reach consumers. Manufacturing operations are designed around the assumption of free trade. Untangling all of that would be enormously disruptive and expensive. And I think cooler heads in the administration recognize that even if the public messaging suggests a more confrontational approach. The economic interdependence between the United States and Canada is really quite remarkable when you step back and look at the full picture. Every single day, 16:01 billions of dollars worth of goods cross the border in both directions. American cars contain Canadian parts, and Canadian cars contain American parts. Energy flows south from Canada to power American homes and businesses, while American agricultural products flow north to feed Canadian families. financial services, technology, professional expertise. All of this moves back and forth across what is still the longest undefended border in the world. This isn't just a trading relationship. It's an economic partnership that has been built up over generations, and unwinding it would cause tremendous harm to both sides, regardless of who might claim victory in the short term. The coming negotiations will test the diplomatic skills of both governments in ways that we haven't seen in quite some time. Prime Minister Carney brings his own considerable experience in international economics to this confrontation, having led both the Bank of Canada and later the Bank of 17:01 England through some of the most turbulent financial periods in recent memory. He understands how to navigate complex international financial issues and how to communicate effectively with markets and stakeholders who are watching every word for signals about future policy direction. Whether those skills translate effectively to the more politically charged world of trade negotiations remains to be seen, but I wouldn't underestimate his ability to find creative solutions to seemingly intractable problems. On the American side, the Trump administration has shown throughout its tenure that it's willing to play hard ball on trade issues, using tariffs and other pressure tactics to extract concessions from trading partners. But the administration has also demonstrated a willingness to eventually cut deals when the circumstances are right and when it can claim some form of victory for domestic audiences. The pattern we've seen repeatedly is tough rhetoric followed by 18:01 intense negotiations followed by agreements that both sides can spin as wins for their respective interests. Whether that pattern will hold in this case depends on a lot of factors, including how much political capital both leaders are willing to spend on reaching a compromise. My prediction, and I want to be clear that this is just my analysis based on what I've observed over many years of watching trade politics unfold, is that we'll see a lot more heated rhetoric before we see any real movement toward compromise. Both sides need to demonstrate to their domestic audiences that they're fighting hard for national interests and not giving away the store to foreign demands. That's just the political reality of trade negotiations in democratic countries where leaders are accountable to voters who care deeply about their jobs and livelihoods. The public posturing serves a purpose, even if it makes the path to agreement seem more difficult than it actually is 19:01 behind closed doors. But underneath all that theater, there will be quiet conversations between officials on both sides about what's actually possible and where the real lines are drawn. Trade negotiations are almost never conducted entirely in public, no matter how much both sides might want to project an image of transparency and toughness. The real work happens in conference rooms and oversecure phone lines where negotiators can explore options and float ideas without committing their governments to positions that might later prove untenable. That's where the outlines of an eventual deal will take shape, assuming both sides are genuinely committed to reaching one. The dairy issue may remain a sticking point for a long time, possibly even left unresolved or only partially addressed in the final agreement. The political constraints on both sides are simply too tight for easy compromise. Canadian dairy farmers have enormous political influence, 20:00 particularly in Quebec and Ontario, and no Canadian government can afford to be seen as selling them out to American interests. At the same time, American dairy producers in key states like Wisconsin have been promised relief from what they see as unfair Canadian protectionism. And the Trump administration has made those promises central to its trade agenda. Finding a formula that satisfies both sides on dairy will require genuine creativity and probably some face- saving mechanisms that allow both governments to claim they protected their farmers interests. on streaming and procurement. However, I think there's genuine room for creative solutions that both sides could live with if they approach the negotiations in good faith. The streaming issue is really about finding a balance between Canadian cultural protection and American market access. And there are ways to thread that needle that don't require either side to completely abandon its principles. Perhaps certain Canadian content requirements could be modified or made 21:00 more flexible while still preserving the basic framework that Canada values. Perhaps American streaming services could be given more input into how those requirements are implemented in exchange for accepting the overall principle. These are the kinds of compromises that skilled negotiators can craft when both sides are motivated to reach agreement. Similarly, on procurement, there may be ways to open up Canadian government contracts to American competition while still preserving some preferences for local suppliers in sensitive sectors or for smaller contracts that are more important to local economies. The key is finding the right level of market access that satisfies American demands for fairness while not completely upending the expectations of Canadian businesses that have relied on government contracts. It's a delicate balance, but it's not impossible to achieve with goodwill on both sides. What I'll be watching in the weeks and months ahead is whether either side offers any 22:00 signals of flexibility that could break the current deadlock and create momentum toward a broader agreement. Trade negotiations are often about finding the right moment to move, the moment when both sides are ready to shift from posturing to problem solving, and that moment hasn't arrived yet. Both sides are still in the phase of staking out positions and testing each other's resolve. But that moment will come because ultimately both countries have too much to lose by letting this agreement collapse entirely. The economic and political costs of failure are simply too high for either side to accept as a final outcome. American businesses that depend on Canadian supply chains would be devastated by a trade war. Canadian exporters who sell billions of dollars worth of goods to American consumers every year would face catastrophic losses. Workers on both sides of the border who depend on crossber trade for their jobs would suffer tremendously. These aren't 23:01 abstract concerns. They're concrete realities that both governments understand even as they engage in tough public rhetoric. That doesn't mean success is guaranteed. And I don't want to sound overly optimistic about the prospects for a smooth resolution. There are genuine disagreements here about important issues and resolving them will require both sides to make compromises that will be politically painful. The dairy issue in particular seems almost designed to resist easy solutions given the political constraints on both sides. But the fundamental interests of both nations point toward finding a way through this impass, even if the path isn't yet clear and even if the journey takes longer than anyone would prefer. What gives me some measure of hope is the underlying strength of the relationship between these two countries. The United States and Canada have been allies and partners for generations. Through world wars and economic crises and countless other 24:00 challenges, the bonds between our peoples run deep, far deeper than any trade dispute or political disagreement. Families span the border. Businesses operate seamlessly across it. Cultural connections tie our societies together in ways that politicians and trade negotiators can't easily undo. That foundation of friendship and mutual respect should ultimately provide the basis for resolving even the most contentious trade issues if leaders on both sides are wise enough to build on it. I'll continue watching these developments closely and bringing you my analysis as events unfold. This is one of the most important trade negotiations in recent North American history and its outcome will shape the economic landscape of this continent for years to come. The stakes couldn't be higher and the path forward couldn't be less certain. But I remain cautiously hopeful that cooler heads will prevail and that 25:01 both countries will find a way to preserve and strengthen a trading relationship that has brought prosperity and opportunity to millions of people on both sides of the border. The alternative, a breakdown in trade relations between neighbors and allies, is simply too costly to contemplate as a serious outcome.

SITE COUNT