Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism.
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
Just $1.99per week for the first 24weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](,dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); } //

According to our ambassador to the U.S., Canada is worried about "collateral damage" as President Donald Trump has Mexico and the North American free-trade agreement in his gun sight.

But even if Mexico is the main target, Canada is still in the firing range.

Because Canada's overriding interest is to have secure and stable access to the U.S. market, the strategic question is this: Should Canada agree to scrap the NAFTA and conclude a totally new bilateral trade agreement with the United States?

Story continues below advertisement

Read more: Will Trump send America into a trade tailspin?

A look at the U.S.'s biggest trade partners, state by state

Globe Editorial: Sometimes it's like Donald Trump doesn't even get how free trade works

Agreeing to end the NAFTA could allow Canada to get ahead of the issue with the Trump administration, much better than being dangerously on the defensive, trying to defend a three-way deal to preserve our two-way trade.

Given the animus directed at Mexico by Mr. Trump, there's a real danger that the NAFTA can't be rescued. Even if it can, it will have to be radically rewritten and totally asymmetrical to resolve very different problems the U.S. has with Mexico.

There are huge political and technical problems in trying to do this within the tripartite NAFTA framework.

Having three countries at the table makes the process exceedingly complicated and slows the whole thing down. The White House has already made it clear that it won't countenance delay, raising the chances that the U.S. will withdraw from the NAFTA in frustration.

Story continues below advertisement

Because we could to get to that point anyway, wouldn't it be neater, cleaner and strategically advantageous for Canada to propose a totally new and separate Canada-U.S. trade deal? That would give Canada leverage without being hemmed in by the Mexico-U.S. problems.

It's not a matter of throwing Mexico to the wolves. Mexico will have to resolve its trade differences with the U.S. on its own and there's nothing Canada can effectively do to help them in that effort. So Mexico is really alone in dealing with the Trump administration.

Any new set of U.S.-Mexico trade arrangements will have to deal with things like rules of origin, investments, trade balances and immigration, and will be qualitatively different from any U.S.-Canada deal.

That means, ultimately, a new and distinct set of Canada-U.S. trade arrangements. So why not propose going down that route now?

That's the why. Here are some points about the how.

The NAFTA has a withdrawal clause. As commentators have pointed out, the U.S. is free to trigger that clause. It has already threatened to do so if it doesn't get its way. Whether this is just a negotiating tactic and leaving aside the internal U.S. legal and constitutional questions, there thus is a serious risk that the Americans will pull the NAFTA plug. If it does, it will resurrect the 1988 Canada-U.S. free-trade agreement (FTA), which was never terminated when the NAFTA entered into force in 1994.

Story continues below advertisement

It should be remembered that after concluding the FTA with the Americans 30 years ago, Canada entered into negotiations with the U.S. and Mexico in the 1990s in order to not lose FTA preferences, the old "hub-and-spoke" concerns and the worry that Mexico would get a better deal in its bilateral arrangements, diluting Canada's advantages.

With the NAFTA now in Mr. Trump's crosshairs, the FTA comes back into focus.

Ending the NAFTA and reverting to the FTA could be disruptive for Canadian business, no doubt about it. But while more limited in scope, the FTA still continues two-way trade on many fronts. For one thing, it provides duty-free access to the U.S. market for Canadian manufactured goods, keeping the automotive, steel and other sectors free from risk.

Given Trumps' belligerent "America First" stance and the real risk of the NAFTA being terminated, rather than being in a defensive mode, Canada could be ahead of the curve with concrete ideas for improving and modernizing the FTA, in the end making it a 21st-century bilateral trade agreement.

Grabbing the initiative now carries numerous strategic and tactical advantages, not least of which is in setting the agenda and negotiating the framework.

Pending the results of these new talks, there could be interim application of those existing parts of the NAFTA that make sense bilaterally, such as the chapters on intellectual property, trade in services and investments.

Story continues below advertisement

With the FTA in force while keeping key NAFTA rules in place, there would be certainty and stability in our bilateral trade, vital for supply chains and for integrated manufacturing and other business interests.

With this secured in the interim, the new Canada-US negotiations would then address bilateral issues, like U.S. concerns over the binational panel system and rules of origin (though these are less an issue in Canada-U.S. trade) and Canada's concerns over U.S. trade remedies and other issues such as investment disputes.

Given the risks surrounding the NAFTA's longevity as currently structured, the question is whether it's a wiser strategy for Canada to secure what we have now in the FTA, coupled with a clean slate of negotiating items that will pave the way for a new and improved Canada-U.S. bilateral trade agreement.

Lawrence L. Herman is a former Canadian diplomat. He practises international trade law and is a senior fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute in Toronto.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies