The possibility of a new Canada–U.S. trade agreement remains alive, but Washington is offering little reassurance about when an agreement might arrive. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has confirmed that officials from both countries remain in contact, while declining to establish a deadline for reaching a deal.
His comments come as Prime Minister Mark Carney faces growing pressure to secure relief from American tariffs that have disrupted Canadian industries and complicated cross-border investment decisions.
With Washington maintaining its ability to introduce additional trade restrictions, Canadian businesses remain exposed to shifting policies. The situation has become particularly sensitive for automakers, manufacturers and exporters whose operations depend on predictable access to the American market.
Greer Confirms Discussions but Refuses to Commit to a Deadline
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer confirmed on November 12, 2026, that American and Canadian officials had communicated within the preceding several days about reaching a mutually beneficial trade agreement. Speaking during a CNBC interview, Greer acknowledged that President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Mark Carney remain in regular contact. However, when asked about the timing of a potential agreement, he declined to provide a deadline, emphasizing that the substance of any arrangement mattered more than the calendar. His response offered reassurance that communication channels remained open but stopped short of identifying when negotiators might deliver a breakthrough.
The remarks contrasted with more optimistic expectations expressed by U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra, who had suggested an agreement could emerge before the end of 2026. Greer did not rule out that possibility, but he also offered no commitment to it. For Canadian manufacturers planning production schedules, negotiating contracts and evaluating investments, the distinction matters. Diplomatic conversations can provide hope, but they do not deliver the certainty companies need when deciding where to manufacture products or hire workers.
Communication Continues Even Without a Formal Negotiating Schedule
The latest developments highlight an important distinction between diplomatic engagement and structured trade negotiations. Canada’s chief trade negotiator, Janice Charette, has previously confirmed that communication with American counterparts continued despite uncertainty about when detailed formal negotiations would resume. Canada–U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc has also maintained contact with senior Washington officials, including Greer. These conversations help preserve relationships and identify potential areas of compromise, but regular communication does not necessarily mean that negotiators are exchanging final agreement language or have established a timetable for completing a deal.
Carney offered a more encouraging assessment on November 3, saying that more intensive negotiations had begun after a conversation with Trump. He indicated that Washington had softened some demands and that progress was being made. Nevertheless, important differences remained unresolved. The contrast illustrates how trade diplomacy can advance at different levels simultaneously. Political leaders may reach an understanding on broad principles while negotiators still face complicated technical questions. Until both governments agree on terms and announce a concrete arrangement, Canadian exporters must continue operating under existing trade restrictions.
Washington Is Keeping Its Tariff Options Available
Greer’s latest comments also reinforced Washington’s determination to retain tariffs as a negotiating instrument. During his November 12 interview, he defended the administration’s trade approach and indicated that additional trade actions could be taken when considered necessary. That position is consistent with decisions made earlier in 2026. In September, the White House used Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to introduce import restrictions on specified Canadian products and adjust existing tariffs. Certain restrictions affected products associated with the dairy, alcoholic beverage and motor-vehicle sectors.
The administration subsequently modified the list of Canadian products covered by additional tariffs, with changes taking effect on October 30. The adjustments demonstrated how the White House could alter trade restrictions without completing a broader agreement. Importantly, some Section 338 duties apply even when products otherwise qualify as originating goods under CUSMA. For businesses, this creates an additional layer of uncertainty. A manufacturer may meet established North American content requirements yet still encounter a separate American tariff. Greer’s refusal to establish a deadline therefore leaves Canadian companies managing not only existing costs but also the possibility of further policy changes.
CUSMA Remains in Force Despite Washington’s Refusal to Renew It
The uncertainty surrounding bilateral negotiations should not be confused with the immediate disappearance of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement. On July 1, 2026, Washington declined to renew CUSMA in its existing form during the agreement’s scheduled six-year review. U.S. officials said they wanted to address outstanding concerns involving trade deficits, market access and the structure of North American supply chains. Canada and Mexico supported renewing the agreement, but the three governments did not reach the unanimous decision required to extend its term.
Under the agreement’s existing provisions, CUSMA remains in force while the countries conduct further annual reviews. Without an agreed extension or another legal change, its scheduled expiration date is July 1, 2036. That distinction is significant because declining renewal in 2026 did not automatically terminate the trade agreement. Businesses can still rely on applicable CUSMA provisions, although separate American tariffs have weakened some benefits of preferential access. The prolonged review process nevertheless presents its own challenge. Companies considering factories, equipment purchases or long-term supply contracts must weigh the possibility that future negotiations could substantially change the rules governing North American commerce.
Automotive Trade Rules Could Become a Major Sticking Point
One of Washington’s most consequential demands involves changing how vehicles qualify for preferential treatment under CUSMA. Existing rules generally require passenger vehicles and light trucks to contain at least 75% North American regional value to qualify. Reuters reported in May that American negotiators had proposed increasing that requirement to 82%, while requiring 50% of the value to originate specifically in the United States. These figures were reported as negotiating proposals, not agreed changes to the trade agreement. Nevertheless, they illustrate Washington’s determination to direct a greater share of automotive manufacturing toward American factories and suppliers.
Such changes could have substantial consequences for Canada’s automotive industry. North American vehicle production relies on integrated supply chains involving assembly plants, engine manufacturers, electronics suppliers and parts producers operating across three countries. Requirements that favour American-made content could make Canadian components less attractive to manufacturers attempting to qualify for preferential treatment. Greer has previously indicated that complex automotive rules, labour provisions and environmental standards could remain under discussion into 2027. A temporary tariff arrangement might therefore provide some financial relief without resolving the deeper dispute over where future vehicles and components should be manufactured.
The Stellantis Dispute Shows What Canadian Workers Have at Stake
Canada’s automotive industry is already confronting difficult decisions about production and investment. On November 12, Industry Minister Mélanie Joly confirmed that Ottawa had issued Stellantis a formal notice alleging violations of a federal funding agreement. The dispute concerns the company’s idled Brampton, Ontario, assembly plant, which Stellantis agreed to sell to Canadian armoured-vehicle manufacturer Roshel. Stellantis had previously abandoned plans to manufacture the Jeep Compass in Brampton and shifted the project to Illinois. More than 2,000 Canadian workers were left without employment at the facility, making its future a significant concern for employees and their families.
The federal government committed up to $529 million in 2022 to support the retooling of Stellantis plants in Brampton and Windsor. Joly said the company had 30 days to address alleged breaches or face legal action aimed at recovering government funding. Stellantis has offered to repay funds associated with the Brampton project. Although corporate decisions involve several factors, the episode demonstrates how the trade conflict has intensified pressure on Canadian vehicle manufacturing. For workers who once expected new production at the plant, diplomatic promises offer little immediate comfort without investment commitments and a clearer economic future.
Canada’s Retaliatory Tariffs Are Creating Additional Economic Pressures
Ottawa has responded to American tariffs with countermeasures intended to protect Canadian industries and increase pressure on Washington. Following the introduction of additional American duties on approximately $27.6 billion in Canadian goods, the federal government implemented matching tariffs on an equivalent value of American imports beginning September 8, 2026. Rates of 15%, 25% and 50% apply to specified products, including goods associated with steel, aluminum, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment and electronics. Some Canadian counter-tariffs on steel and aluminum rose from 25% to 50%, reflecting the administration’s effort to match American trade restrictions.
However, retaliation also complicates business operations when Canadian companies rely on materials or equipment purchased from American suppliers. Recognizing these challenges, Ottawa announced further adjustments to its tariff relief program on November 9. The government extended certain exemptions until June 30, 2028, while expanding or modifying assistance for qualifying businesses and industries. These measures illustrate the difficult balance facing policymakers: responding firmly to American trade restrictions while limiting unintended harm to domestic manufacturers. For smaller companies, understanding which goods qualify for relief can become almost as important as negotiating the original purchase price.
Canadian Sovereignty Remains Central to the Negotiations
The disagreement between Ottawa and Washington involves more than tariff percentages and market access. When Carney suspended formal negotiations in August, he argued that American demands threatened important Canadian interests, including French-language protections, cultural policy and the country’s independence in negotiating trade agreements with other nations. Washington offered a different interpretation, with Greer accusing Canada of abandoning an agreement that American officials considered favourable. These competing explanations demonstrate how negotiations became entangled with questions of national sovereignty rather than remaining focused exclusively on economic concessions.
There have since been indications of progress. On November 3, Carney said American negotiators had withdrawn or softened some demands involving Canada’s cultural protections and freedom to pursue international trade agreements. He suggested Washington was asking less and offering more, although substantial issues remained unresolved. The development created an opening for renewed engagement without guaranteeing success. For Ottawa, securing tariff relief while preserving control over domestic policy remains a central challenge. For Washington, the administration continues emphasizing stronger American manufacturing and supply-chain security. Whether those objectives can coexist in a mutually acceptable agreement will help determine how quickly negotiations advance.
Democrats’ Midterm Victories Could Complicate Trump’s Tariff Strategy
The political environment in Washington changed significantly after the November 3 American midterm elections. Democrats secured control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, giving them expanded oversight powers when the new Congress takes office in January 2027. Several Democratic lawmakers have criticized the economic consequences of Trump’s tariffs, arguing that import duties increase costs for American consumers and businesses. Senator Ron Wyden has identified reversing tariffs on Canada as a legislative priority, raising the possibility that Congress could challenge some of the administration’s trade decisions.
However, Democratic control of Congress does not automatically eliminate existing tariffs. Trump retains presidential veto authority, and substantial changes to trade legislation could require bipartisan support. Legal challenges create another layer of uncertainty. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in February 2026 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the tariffs imposed under that law. The administration subsequently relied on other trade statutes, including Section 338. In October, an American importer challenged the use of Section 338 against Canadian products in federal trade court. That challenge remains separate from the earlier Supreme Court decision. Consequently, political and legal pressure could reshape Washington’s tariff strategy without producing immediate relief for Canadian exporters.
The Economic Data Show Why Businesses Want Greater Certainty
The broader economic picture demonstrates why both governments face pressure to stabilize their trading relationship. Statistics Canada reported that Canadian merchandise exports reached $78.6 billion in September 2026, increasing just 0.2% from August. However, the modest overall improvement concealed weakness across several industries. Exports of motor vehicles and parts declined 4.9%, while forestry products and related materials fell 9.8%. Increased shipments of crude oil and precious metals helped offset declines elsewhere, highlighting how stronger performance in some commodities can obscure difficulties facing manufacturers.
Scotiabank’s November economic assessment estimated that the effective American tariff rate on Canadian exports had risen to approximately 4.5%, compared with around 3% before the latest tariff increases. Its analysis indicated that approximately 26% of Canadian goods imported into the United States faced tariffs in September. That means much bilateral trade continued without duties, although businesses in affected sectors confronted substantial costs. For a company operating on narrow margins, even a relatively small increase in expenses can alter pricing decisions or investment plans. The statistics reinforce why predictable trade conditions remain valuable even when the majority of commercial activity continues.
An Interim Agreement May Arrive Before a Comprehensive Settlement
One possible outcome is a narrower agreement addressing immediate trade disputes while leaving more complicated CUSMA revisions for later. During testimony before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee in July, Greer expressed hope that Washington could establish interim arrangements with Canada and Mexico before the end of 2026. He indicated that more complex questions involving automotive rules of origin, labour standards and environmental provisions might require negotiations extending into 2027. Such an approach could allow governments to provide limited tariff relief without resolving every disagreement in a single package.
Nevertheless, Greer’s November 12 refusal to establish a deadline demonstrates that even an interim agreement is far from guaranteed. The administration continues defending tariffs as a means of strengthening American manufacturing, while Ottawa insists that any agreement must protect Canadian industries and sovereignty. Future progress will depend on whether negotiators can translate ongoing discussions into concrete commitments acceptable to both governments. For Canadian exporters, workers and investors, the immediate priority is not simply another encouraging statement from Washington. It is an enforceable arrangement that reduces uncertainty and restores confidence in the economic relationship connecting the two countries.
