ONTARIO GRAIN FARMER 7 COVER STORY continued on page 8 and in hesitation around major investments in things such as bins, dryers, land, and equipment. It also raises questions about whether Canada’s strategy is to deepen North American integration, diversify beyond the United States, or attempt both at once. To understand why those questions matter so much, panelists zoomed out to look at the broader trade map Canada operates within. Laura Dawson, executive director of the Future Borders Coalition, outlined the basic structure plainly: about 75 per cent of Canadian exports still go to the United States, eight per cent to Europe, and roughly 12 per cent to the Asia-Pacific region. This pattern has not fundamentally changed in decades. When Ontario grain leaves the farm gate, it enters a deeply integrated North American and global system. Corn may move into feed or ethanol sectors tied closely to U.S. markets. Soybeans may enter food-processing chains whose final products appear on grocery shelves across North America. Wheat and canola compete globally with exporters from Brazil, Argentina, the Black Sea region, and the United States. Across Canada, different regions contribute distinct strengths. The Prairies dominate bulk grain exports and energy. Central Canada drives manufacturing and food processing. Atlantic and Pacific ports connect Canadian commodities to Europe and Asia. What happens at Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Hamilton or Montreal ultimately influences the value of grain grown in Ontario. EUROPEAN POLICY COMPLICATES Kessie emphasized that agriculture trade now exceeds US$2 trillion annually. Yet the rules governing that trade are becoming less stable. Traditional tariffs still matter, but countries are increasingly turning to non-tariff barriers tied to environmental rules, pesticide regulations, traceability requirements, and domestic political priorities. That shift is particularly evident in Europe. Greg MacDonald, Canada’s agriculture counsellor to the EU, described an agriculture system under growing internal pressure. European farmers have protested environmental regulations, administrative burdens, and trade competition. Meanwhile, Brussels is pursuing policies under its Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategy that many exporters fear could become de facto trade barriers. MacDonald pointed specifically to proposed mirror clauses involving pesticide standards. Under those proposals, imports could face restrictions if the pesticides used are banned within the EU, even if they remain approved under Canada’s own sciencebased regulatory system. “The government is very concerned about this,” MacDonald said. Canada has been challenging those proposals through WTO committees and bilateral discussions under the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. The concern is not just differing standards, but whether regulations remain rooted in science rather than domestic political pressure. Under WTO sanitary and phytosanitary rules, Kessie explained, countries must base restrictions on scientific evidence and use the least trade-restrictive measures possible. “Even if those measures are science-based, but they are excessive, then they will still be found to be inconsistent with the WTO,” he said. Still, MacDonald acknowledged changing European policy is difficult. “It’s pushing a rock up a hill,” he said. That matters because the EU’s regulatory influence extends far beyond Europe itself. European standards often become templates copied elsewhere, meaning decisions made in Brussels can ripple into export markets around the world. A TRADE MESSAGE FOR CANADIAN FARMERS Peter Hoekstra, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, provided the following advice to Canada’s grain sector at the Canadian Crops Convention in Toronto: 1. Ag = National Security Hoekstra put farmers right in the middle of the national security discussion. Food security and access to key inputs (like glyphosate) are now being treated as strategic issues in Washington. For Canadian producers, that means grain, oilseeds and livestock aren’t just export commodities, they’re part of how the U.S. thinks about “fortress North America.” 2. CUSMA review: Our market, their politics Hoekstra warned there’s been no real progress in CUSMA talks since late October. Business and farm groups on both sides of the border like the deal, but Canadian public opinion is lukewarm or negative, which raises political risk. That means the stability of current market access can’t be taken for granted. 3. Get in the lowest ‘bucket’ Hoekstra was clear about the fact that U.S. President Donald Trump wants some tariffs on every trading partner, despite existing trade deals. His message was simple: • Don’t say: “America needs our grain.” • Do say: “Here’s why buying Canadian grain is the best deal for U.S. buyers and for North American food security.” Real stories about cross border contracts, jobs and investments are the kind of evidence Hoekstra says will help put Canada in the “lowest tariff bucket.”
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQzODE4