WASHINGTON, D.C. — In 2020, then U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer

described the Canada-U.S.-Mexico free-trade agreement (CUSMA)

as the “new gold standard against which all future trade agreements will be judged,” after the deal he helped put together was passed in the Senate. Six years later, in 2026, CUSMA will be facing scrutiny on its real-world results as the three countries begin renegotiating its terms.

Today, the agreement facilitates roughly US$2 trillion in trade of goods and services across North America annually, and it protects the vast majority (85 per cent plus) of Canadian-U.S. trade from President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

Yet, Trump, whose first administration oversaw the creation of CUSMA, has toyed publicly with the idea of withdrawing from it, saying he will “either let it expire or we’ll maybe work out another deal with Mexico and Canada.” The administration has talked about possibly reaching separate bilateral deals with the two countries.

Most trade experts believe CUSMA will probably survive this year’s talks, but there are doubts.

“I expect it to live on,” said Scott Lincicome, vice president at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. “But I wouldn’t be shocked if it imploded.”

Current U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer told Congress last month, following a public consultation period and public hearings on CUSMA with stakeholders, what he thought the review should accomplish.

While Washington would like to see movement on everything from sales of U.S. alcohol to defence procurement when it comes to Canada, Greer highlighted three main issues: Canada’s restricted supply management scheme in dairy, the Online News Act that requires tech giants to pay news organizations for aggregating their content, and the Online Streaming Act, which requires U.S. entertainment companies to promote Canadian programming.

So what is Washington likely to demand, and how far is Ottawa willing to budge?

Milking it

Canada’s supply-management system for dairy controls production and prices and restricts imports to benefit domestic farmers. This means less access for U.S. dairy producers and higher prices for Canadian consumers. The Trump administration wants Canada’s dairy sector opened up to allow more access for U.S. farmers and an end to high tariffs and import quotas.

A

poll in March by the Angus Reid Institute

showed that nearly a third (29 per cent) of Canadians wanted to scrap supply management and another 26 per cent wanted to reduce or suspend it to ease inflationary pressures, while 23 per cent preferred to keep it. The rest were unsure.

But the issue is politically polarizing. Thirty-eight per cent of Bloc Québécois voters, for example, said Canada should keep supply management, while Conservative voters were more skeptical, with only 15 per cent wanting to retain the system.

Critics say the politics of supply management is hostage to

a few powerful electoral ridings, particularly in Quebec

. But Fen Hampson, a politics professor at Carleton University, said, “It’s not just Quebec; it’s also Southwestern Ontario. Whether you’re Liberal or Conservative, given the way our political system is structured, you need these rural ridings if you’re going to form a government.”

“That’s one of the reasons why you see all parties support Canadian farmers,” he added, pointing to historic trends. In June, all parties supported the passage of the Bloc’s Bill C-202 that declares that supply management cannot be negotiated in free-trade talks.

He also pointed out that Washington is not telling Ottawa to get rid of supply management, but that it wants the Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) system, which favours Canadian processors, to be reformed. Canada has allocated much of the TRQ to Canadian importers, who are free to not use it, rather than giving it to American exporters, which

U.S. politicians have said violates the spirit of the tariff-free quotas

.

“There’s no question that we’ve been gaming the system,” Hampson added.

Changing the TRQ system wouldn’t mean changing Bill C-202, he explained. An administrative fix could suffice by granting genuine access to the U.S. under the margins negotiated in 2020 that give U.S. exporters tariff-free access for 3.6 per cent of Canada’s $15-billion dairy market. That’s within the federal government’s power to adjust, Hampson said, and while there will be some squawking from Quebec’s farmers, the changes can be phased in over time to mitigate their concerns.

Lincicome also said Canada is “deservedly vulnerable” on this issue because the out-of-quota tariffs are “very, very high” — taxes on imports beyond the quota range from 200 to over 300 per cent — and are “pretty obviously discriminatory.”

He, like Hampson, said Canada could allow larger in‑quota allocations, rather than dismantling the system.

Christopher Sands, director of the Hopkins Center for Canadian Studies in Washington, said dairy is seen as one of the toughest CUSMA issues to be debated, but that there is no time like the present for reform.

“If I were Ottawa,” Sands said, “I would take this as the opportunity to reform the sector … and move towards a more subsidy-oriented system.”

While it won’t be politically popular, he noted that “if Canada’s ever going to change the system, having the pressure of the Trump administration driving that change might lead to a way of making a reform that would be a reasonable compromise that would be beneficial to Canadians.”

It would also lead to less waste and lower prices, he noted.

Not all Washington voices agree that this is a make‑or‑break issue; some see Trump’s dairy demand as a red herring.

“I think that there’s misplaced importance of this on the American side,” said Andrew Hale, senior policy fellow at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation.

Hale noted that CUSMA‑specific U.S. quotas have not been fully used, so the over‑quota protection has not actually constrained U.S. exports. Besides, he said, “more dairy is produced in the state of Wisconsin than there is in all of Canada,” suggesting the issue is overstated.

“Are we really gonna upend (CUSMA) over milk and cheese?” he said.

Digital taxation

For Hale, the bigger risks to CUSMA are Canada’s digital and media regulations, which he fears could be weaponized by the White House.

To that end, both

the Online News Act (Bill C-18)

and the

Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11)

are in Trump’s crosshairs.

The first aims to force major online platforms to pay Canadian publishers for linking or sharing their content in a bid to support domestic journalism. Google has forged an agreement with the government to pay up, but Meta has instead opted out and blocked news content.

C-11 also imposes requirements on digital platforms, requiring them to help fund Canadian content promotion by paying five per cent of their Canadian revenue into a fund, and forcing them to promote Canadian productions.

Together, these laws mark Ottawa’s attempt to preserve a distinctly cultural news system.

Hale is sympathetic to Ottawa’s efforts, noting that “most Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S. border” and can easily be “very Americanized” by U.S. media.

Measures that block U.S. news or content, however, are seen as censorship by the White House, which is notably fighting similar efforts in the EU and Britain.

“I would think that the Canadians might want to pull back on this,” said Hale, “given the reaction the U.S. has had to  similar policies and laws coming out of the European Union and the United Kingdom.”

Sands also understands Canada’s point of view and noted that many countries are trying to figure out how to regulate the media in the AI age. But when the Justin Trudeau government

split from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) consensus

approach to deal with taxing internet transactions and large tech firms, he said, “it muddied the waters.”

“It led Canada to be kind of out on its own and therefore vulnerable,” Sands added.

To address the USTR’s concerns, Sands said Canada could pause or slow implementation of the rules, to get them “off the USMCA table,” or propose an approach that more aligns with American preferences.

Hampson sees both digital acts as discriminatory, but instead of repealing them or offering exemptions, he said Canada should offer tax credits or crediting investments in Canadian productions instead.

He also thinks Ottawa should work more closely with its allies to align its policies.

“If you take them on independently, you’re going to get clobbered, and you’re going to be subject to exactly the kind of pressure that we’re seeing right now,” Hampson said.

“We’ve got to change our game. This is a classic collective-action problem, and if we join forces with the Europeans and do it together, it’s much harder for Trump to play the divide-and-conquer game with us.”

The price of survival

All these policies are similar in their protectionism, according to Nathaniel Baum-Snow, an economics professor at the University of Toronto.

“There are some parallels (in digital policies) with supply management and dairy … These acts are making it more costly and more difficult for Canadian consumers to access mostly American digital content,” he said, noting that most consumers would probably appreciate being able to access the products and services for less.

But Lincicome notes the irony in the Trump administration targeting Canadian protectionist policies and claiming to be hard done by them, while maintaining a level of U.S. protectionism the world hasn’t seen in decades.

“They like to find things they don’t like, and then blow those things completely out of proportion … and then, in typical Trumpian fashion, kind of accept a ‘compromise’ that is still somewhat of a win for them, while at the same time maintaining massive new U.S. protectionism,” said Lincicome.

Even with the big CUSMA exemption to the U.S. tariff regime, he noted, “the fact is that tariffs on Canadian imports are higher than they’ve been in 30-plus years.”

“The U.S. will attempt to deflect from that by pointing out things like supply management and intellectual property … while trying to defend its radically protectionist tariff regime.”

This hypocritical approach is why the Cato Institute vice president is concerned about next summer’s renegotiation. While the other trade analysts tend to believe that compromises will be made with CUSMA left largely remaining intact, Lincicome said there will be a high cost.

“The president loves tariffs and (his administration is) adamant about keeping them, so the best thing Canada can do is try to pick up some wins here and there and just live to fight another day,” said Lincicome.

“To the extent the Canadian government wants (CUSMA) to live on, (Prime Minister Mark) Carney is going to have to be willing to accept some pretty poisonous terms,” he said.

But after last summer,

when Carney abruptly dumped Canada’s plan for a Digital Services Tax

, seemingly on Trump’s demand, and got nothing in return, Hampson cautioned: “Don’t give concessions until you have to.”

Trade analysts still think a positive outcome from the CUSMA renegotiation is more likely than its demise, even if tough compromises are involved. And while the concessions could be ones Ottawa would have found intolerable a decade ago, Lincicome noted they will likely still be “better than what anybody else in the world is getting” from Trump.

National Post

tmoran@postmedia.com

• How Canada can get more leverage on Trump in 2026
• 2025 was the year of the tariff. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide if 2026 is the year some tariffs die

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our newsletters here.

An immigrant pharmacist whose Canadian citizenship was revoked in November 2024, a decade after officials first suspected she hadn’t met the requirements, has seen that decision set aside and revocation proceedings permanently stayed by a Federal Court judge who criticized officials for waiting so long to act on the allegations of “false representation, fraud, or knowingly concealing material circumstances.”

Nermine Magdi Ibrahim, who became a Canadian permanent resident in July 2003 and subsequently a Canadian citizen in October 2007, applied to the Federal Court for a judicial review of the revocation proceedings.

Immigration officials were not “concerned about the impact of the delay on (Ibrahim’s) ability to defend her case, nor (her) well-established ties to Canada as reasons for granting her special relief,” Justice Avvy Yao-Yao Go wrote in a recent decision out of Toronto.

“In short, the unfairness with which the applicant was treated, coupled with the unfairness in the proceedings caused by the delay, calls into question the integrity of the justice system if the court allows the proceedings to continue under these circumstances.”

In her citizenship application, Ibrahim “declared 166 days of absences from Canada during her relevant residency period from July 9, 2003 to February 18, 2007,” Go said.

Ibrahim’s “citizenship was initially flagged for investigation in 2014, and the investigation was completed in that same year,” said the judge.

The Canada Border Services Agency had “received a tip about companies operating citizenship fraud schemes with (Ibrahim’s) husband’s name appearing as one of the clients who used these services to simulate his residence in Canada,” said the Federal Court decision, dated Dec. 19.

The CBSA referred this information to the immigration minister at the time for further investigation.

“During its investigation, the case management branch … found (Ibrahim’s) LinkedIn profile which suggested that she was continuously employed as a Medical Delegate with Nestlé Infant Nutrition in Kuwait from June 2002 to June 2009,” Go said.

“On July 23, 2014, an analyst of the Immigration Section at the Canadian Embassy in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates verified her continuous employment with the employer.”

It wasn’t until 2023 when Canadian immigration authorities advised Ibrahim of the potential revocation proceedings and offered her an opportunity to respond.

They argued “that the delay was not unreasonable considering this case was part of a large-scale investigation involving 300 other individuals,” said the decision.

The judge wasn’t buying it: “Based on the record before me, I find that the minister has not provided any justification for the delay,” Go said.

To become a Canadian citizen, permanent residents need to have lived in have lived in Canada for three out of the last five years.

In September 2023, immigration officials wrote to Ibrahim indicating she “may have misrepresented herself during the citizenship process and that (she) may have failed to disclose some of her absences from Canada during the four years immediately before the date of her citizenship application,” said the decision.

She was given 30 days “to make written submissions regarding the length of time she spent in Canada before acquiring citizenship and her ties to Canada since becoming a citizen,” it said.

Ibrahim responded on Sept. 21, 2023, with a one-page letter requesting “more details about alleged absences and stated that she has integrated well into Canadian society as shown in her successfully becoming licensed as a pharmacist, being a partner of two pharmacies, and owning property,” said the decision

“She also argued that the revocation would result in severe hardship and added that all her points can be substantiated with supporting documents upon request.”

On May 9, 2024, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) notified Ibrahim it was revoking her citizenship.

“The notification letter cited (Ibrahim’s) LinkedIn profile listing her employment with Nestlé in Kuwait, the Canadian Embassy’s verification with Nestlé’s Human Resource Department of (her) continuous employment from July 2002 to June 2009, and (her) failure to disclose this information as basis for alleging that (she) may have obtained citizenship by misrepresentation.”

Ibrahim responded on July 4, 2024, indicating “that her LinkedIn Profile is not of a factual nature and does not include any leaves taken.”

She “also explained that she was pregnant with her daughter during the relevant period, and that Nestlé had a relatively flexible maternity leave policy that enabled her to stay in Canada for the duration of her pregnancy and throughout the breastfeeding period until her daughter was two years old.”

Ibrahim “noted it has been over 15 years since the relevant period has elapsed,” said the decision.

She “emphasized that it was not only a matter of intellectual recollection, but of documentary recollection.”

Ibrahim “noted the steps she undertook to obtain information from various institutions including the pharmaceutical company she worked for, her bank and her phone company, but was unable to produce records longer than seven years prior due to these institutions’ policy on record retention,” said the decision.

Ibrahim “submitted supporting documentation, including her daughter’s Ontario birth certificate, her Ontario and Manitoba pharmacist licences, document of prior property ownership, an Ontario Profile Report for the two pharmacies she is a partner in, copies of her driver’s licences containing a residential address in Ontario, as well as her and her daughter’s hospital cards containing the same address.”

Ibrahim also “provided copies of Nestlé’s policies regarding maternity and parental support from 2012 to 2019.”

She argued “that the evidentiary burden in revocation cases rests with the minister who asserts that there was a misrepresentation.”

But in Ibrahim’s case, immigration officials “reversed the onus by requiring (her) to prove that she was a resident in Canada when she has no such obligation.”

By reversing the onus, Ibrahim argued, immigration officials did not make the decision to revoke her Canadian citizenship “based on any evidence of misrepresentation.”

Instead, Canadian immigration officials “made their findings based on the absence of evidence to infer that (Ibrahim) was not residing in Canada during the relevant period.”

Immigration officials didn’t dispute that.

But, they said, “the basis for the (revocation decision) is readily apparent: (Ibrahim) produced minimal evidence to support her residence in Canada.”

Ibrahim was asked for “basic evidence to address (her) alleged day-to-day activities and connections in Canada,” immigration officials said, noting it “was not unreasonable” to expect her to produce “at least some evidence about activities” in Canada.

Officials here wanted proof “such as, involvement in their community, school and medical records, evidence of participation in local activities, sports teams, religious organizations or community events, as examples.”

The judge rejected those submissions and agreed with Ibrahim’s arguments.

Go found immigration officials “erroneously required” Ibrahim “to prove that she was in Canada during the relevant residence period, instead of examining whether the minister has, on a balance of probabilities, established that (she) misrepresented her residency,” said the decision.

The judge found the long delay in dealing with Ibrahim’s case constituted “an abuse of process.”

Ibrahim “demonstrates that she suffered significant prejudice directly stemming from such delay as she is unable to obtain the necessary document to substantiate her residency in Canada during the relevant period, thus undermining her ability to present her case,” Go said.

The judge also found “the integrity of the justice system has been prejudiced as a result,” said the decision.

“The initial reason why (Ibrahim) was flagged for citizenship investigation was due to CBSA’s concern of residency misrepresentation regarding her husband, who has since passed away. There is no evidence that (Ibrahim) herself was implicated in any citizenship fraud scheme. Nevertheless, the IRCC decided to proceed with the misrepresentation allegations based solely on the applicant’s LinkedIn Profile and the CBSA verification that was never shared with” Ibrahim.

“While (Ibrahim) was given some opportunities to respond to the allegations, the IRCC failed to provide her with adequate disclosure, and denied her of an oral hearing where she could counter (an immigration officer’s) findings of credibility,” said the judge.

Sending Ibrahim’s case back to another decision maker for redetermination “would add further delay, and would add to the difficulties that (Ibrahim) may encounter in gathering further evidence,” Go said.

The judge found “the interests favouring a stay of proceedings outweigh the public interest in proceeding with (Ibrahim’s) citizenship revocation process.”

She granted Ibrahim’s application for judicial review.

“The decision to revoke (Ibrahim’s) citizenship is set aside,” Go said.

“The citizenship revocations proceedings relating to the applicant are permanently stayed.”

• Somali woman who was in a polygamous marriage and lied to get into Canada wins another chance to stay
• Indian refugee claimant’s story ‘strikingly similar’ to nearly 200 others who used same consultant

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

A recent court decision out of Ontario reveals how judges’ hands are tied when it comes to sentencing hard-core criminals.

Justice Craig Brannagan was sentencing Justin Anderson for repeatedly flashing a handgun at a woman he forcibly confined for a week the spring of 2024 while he travelled through the province selling drugs, and for later terrorizing another woman at gunpoint he believed to be an informant. Both the Crown and defence lawyers in Anderson’s case had recommended he be sentenced to 10 and a half years in prison. The judge dubbed their position “very lenient,” but he went along with it, anyway.

Brannagan accepted that he was “not free to interfere on the basis that I may have a different view of what the sentence could or should be. I may only interfere where the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest.”

Joint sentencing recommendations are “vital to the operation of the criminal justice system,” Brannagan said, but they “are not sacrosanct. Trial judges may depart from them.”

The test for departing from them “is, however, ‘undeniably high,’” said the judge.

He acceded to the joint recommendation from both the Crown and defence and sentenced Anderson to 10 and a half years in prison.

The 34-year-old pleaded guilty in the Ontario Court of Justice to nine indictable offences including forcibly confining two women, pointing a firearm, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, breaching a weapons prohibition order, and possessing a firearm with a defaced serial number.

“While I find that this sentence is a generous one, perhaps even very lenient considering the circumstances of the offences and the offender, I am unable to find that the joint submission is ‘so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender’ that accepting it would lead reasonable and informed persons to ‘view it as a break down in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system,’” Brannagan wrote in a recent decision out of Barrie.

• Judge rejects Crown’s ‘unhinged’ 120-day sentence for burglar who tried to disarm cop
• Indigenous man who got ‘huge break’ in sex assault sentencing gets ‘extremely lenient’ penalty for breaching it

The court heard that a woman identified only by the initials R.C. met Anderson in May 2024 through a friend in Belleville.

During the last week in May 2024 Anderson forced her to “travel with him throughout Ontario, while he engaged in drug trafficking activities and made cash deliveries,” according to Brannagan’s decision, dated Dec. 11.

“Throughout that week, Mr. Anderson carried a handgun in his waistband. He would repeatedly flash the handgun towards R.C. as a means of controlling and intimidating her. He controlled her movement and coerced her to stay with him while he engaged in repeated criminal activity.”

She was with Anderson on May 31, 2024, when he trafficked in a firearm, said the decision. “R.C. later recalled to police having seen Mr. Anderson assume control over a firearm wrapped in a pink sweater.”

The woman managed to escape Anderson in Vaughan and called police. “She returned to Belleville safely by train.”

Anderson drove from Vaughan back to Belleville “to regain control over R.C. By that time, however, the Belleville Police had been contacted and Mr. Anderson fled to evade his arrest.”

Anderson “was bound by multiple weapons prohibition orders” at the time, said the decision.

Barrie Police learned on June 1, 2024, that there was a warrant out for Anderson’s arrest in Belleville.

“He was known to be the driver of a blue four-door BMW.”

Barrie Police found the BMW just before 5 p.m. that day parked in a plaza parking lot on Grove Street East. “They initiated surveillance.”

That night, a woman identified only as T.J. was hanging out with her boyfriend J.L. at a home near the parked BMW when they got in an argument, said the decision. “In anger, J.L. told the occupants of the residence that T.J. was a ‘rat,’ alleging that she had provided information to the police concerning drug trafficking activities in the City of Barrie.”

Anderson was there and heard the accusation that T.J. was an informant, said the decision. “Mr. Anderson became enraged by this. He pulled out a brown and grey handgun and pointed it at T.J., numerous times, forcibly confining her in this manner for approximately one hour.”

While pointing the handgun at T.J., “he told her that he was going to rape her and force her into the sex trade as a prostitute. T.J. feared for her life.”

She fled around 11 p.m.

“She jumped over numerous fences and hid beneath a motor vehicle. Police located her several hours later.”

Soon after she took off, Barrie Police saw Anderson return to his BMW and arrested him.

They found a loaded CZ 9 mm handgun tucked into his waistband, as well as a satchel that contained 429 grams of methamphetamine; 64 grams of cocaine; 19 grams of fentanyl; 948 oxycodone pills; a dozen hydromorphone pills; and 60 pills of a synthetic cannabinoid called nabilone, said the decision. “Mr. Anderson’s satchel also contained $1,185 in cash, and a small scale.”

In the BMW’s trunk, police “discovered a break-action rifle with a defaced serial number.”

Anderson “has a lengthy criminal record, beginning in 2015 with entries consistent through to 2025,” said the decision. “He has upward of 30 convictions for various types of offences, including breaches of court orders, crimes of dishonesty, property offences, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, flight police, assault police, weapons possession and, most seriously, aggravated assault.”

Anderson’s pre-sentence report indicates he “was raised in a pro-criminal environment that included exposure to criminal activity and drug use from a young age. His upbringing was void of structure and positive role-modeling, leaving him to fend for himself. His biological parents separated when he was just one year old.”

When Anderson was three years old, his mother went to his father’s place to pick up her son, said the decision. “She found Justin playing with a bag of cocaine.”

The father of four by three different women “is not permitted to have contact with any of his children,” said the decision.

Anderson admitted “that his peer group consists solely of individuals involved in the drug and gun subculture. He advised that he does not like police. He advised that he regularly uses cocaine and methamphetamine, acknowledging that he has a drug addiction, and that he supports his addiction through drug trafficking. He has never sought treatment for his addictions.”

He reported arming himself with guns “for protection while dealing drugs, noting the unpredictability of people involved in the drug subculture. He readily acknowledged the inherent dangers of guns, accepting their possession as necessary for someone like him ‘being in (the) drug game.’”

The judge found Anderson’s attitude callous. “He demonstrates a marked indifference for the lives or safety of others. He is deeply entrenched in the criminal lifestyle, readily acknowledging his ongoing criminal associations within a subculture that identifies itself through illicit drug trafficking and firearm possession. In my view, he fits the description of a true criminal outlaw.”

The author of Anderson’s pre-sentence report “opined that Justin Anderson is at a high-risk to reoffend,” Brannagan said. “That is a finding with which I wholeheartedly agree and adopt.”

Both the women Anderson confined declined to take part in his sentencing.

“I find that in both cases, Mr. Anderson used a firearm to threaten, intimidate, control, and strike fear into his female victims,” said the judge. “The harm suffered by T.J. and R.C. is both apparent and undisputable.”

Anderson’s “role as a trafficker of hard drugs is pitiless and indifferent to the destructive effects his poisons have on our communities,” Brannagan said.

“While acknowledging that Mr. Anderson is a user himself, I find that the primary motivation behind his drug trafficking activities was for profit; the sheer quantity of hard drugs found on his person is evidence of that. Mr. Anderson was effectively a travelling pharmacy.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.