As spring slowly gives way to summer, it seems President Donald Trump is finally easing off his tariff crusade, though very slowly. He recently announced a trade deal with the United Kingdom and has significantly reduced trade tensions with China.
We don’t yet know when the same will happen with Canada, but there are reports that our two governments are actively negotiating a way forward.
In my opinion, these talks are the perfect opportunity to think differently, leveraging past successes to shape a more effective path forward.
Comprehensive, sweeping trade agreements are a relatively recent development. Prior to the 1980s, trade negotiations were often handled on a sector-by-sector basis, typically grounded in the principle of reciprocity. These negotiations aimed to reduce (though not necessarily eliminate) tariffs and trade barriers.
This piecemeal approach allowed governments to tailor agreements to the specific needs of individual industries. And if circumstances changed, it was easier to revisit and revise a single sectoral agreement without having to renegotiate an entire trade framework.
To be clear, a reciprocal, sector-by-sector model is no silver bullet. In some cases, bundling sectors under a single framework can help an economy. But not so in other cases. As the global trading order shifts with Trump administration signaling a retreat from globalization, Canada must be ready to defend its workers with creative and pragmatic solutions.
Key Sectors Need Protection
Canada is a country built on a diverse economy. What works for the auto industry may not apply to agriculture, and what helps the tech sector might harm traditional manufacturing. By forcing every sector onto a single framework, we often end up with compromises that protect no one adequately.
Take supply management. Canada has long defended this system to protect our dairy, poultry, and egg producers. Yet each time we sign a new global trade deal, pressure builds to water down or give up those protections. A sector-by-sector agreement would allow us to shield sensitive industries like agriculture from being sacrificed in exchange for gains elsewhere.
Another example is aerospace. The workers who build planes and parts across Canada face stiff competition from countries that massively subsidize their own companies. Treating aerospace as just one piece in a larger deal means we lose the chance to push back against unfair practices in a focused and effective way.
Then there is transportation and logistics. Workers in this mainly Teamster represented industry keep Canada running, yet their interests are rarely front and centre in large trade talks. The original NAFTA accelerated the deregulation of Canada’s trucking sector, eroding working conditions and wage growth.
Bringing this model to the table is not about going backward. It’s about making trade work for people, not just profits. It’s about ensuring Canada’s workers, communities, and strategic sectors come first.
At the same time, we recognize that trade alone isn’t enough. Complementary measures like stronger labour protections, robust enforcement mechanisms, and proactive investments in workforce development are essential.
And as Canada moves forward with efforts to improve interprovincial trade, we must insist on trading internally based on the highest standards, lifting everyone up rather than dragging anyone down.
Isn’t it time to think clearly, negotiate smart, and put workers back at the heart of our trade strategies?
