CHARLEBOIS: CUSMA-Exempt — the 93% Mirage
While technically true, this statistic masks the much more complicated — and far less reassuring —reality for Canada's agri-food sector.
A prominent December 2024 study from the University of Sherbrooke concluded that 93% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are tariff-exempt.
On paper, that number may seem comforting. But it tells only part of the story — especially when it comes to food. Tariff exemptions are not automatic. To qualify for duty-free access under CUSMA, Canadian agri-food products must meet strict rules of origin and complex documentation standards. For many small and mid-sized food processors, these bureaucratic hurdles are burdensome and costly. Products with mixed or processed ingredients — such as snack bars, frozen meals, or nut butters —often fall into grey zones that create uncertainty at the border.
The result? Products deemed 'exempt' in theory may still be delayed, penalized, or rejected in practice.
Recommended video
Most analyses, including the Sherbrooke study, fail to account for this nuance. As a result, the 93% figure is not only misleading — it's largely irrelevant for food companies navigating real-world trade.
Worse still, these studies often overlook the geopolitical dynamics shaping food trade. Under President Donald Trump, tariffs have become less about technical qualifications and more about political leverage. The real risk today isn't simply tariffs themselves — it's the mere threat of tariffs. Many Canadian food exporters have already lost long-standing American customers spooked by the unpredictability of trade with Canada. Even in the absence of formal tariffs, the perception of risk is enough to drive U.S. buyers toward domestic suppliers. That's the real game Trump is playing — and winning. Whether a product qualifies for exemption no longer matters if market confidence is eroded.
And make no mistake: for the food industry, where net margins are often razor-thin — typically in the range of 2% to 10% — a 35% tariff is not just inconvenient; it's existential. It can erase profitability overnight, making entire product lines unviable and undermining long-term investment.
There is no country in the world currently protected by trade agreements in any meaningful way. If you provoke Washington, tariffs — or their threat — will follow. Since Trump's return, no countries have drawn more retaliatory attention than China and Canada. Both have responded with countermeasures, unlike Japan, South Korea, the U.K., or the European Union — all of which have successfully negotiated more stable trade terms and now face significantly lower tariff exposure than Canada.
Since Mark Carney became Prime Minister in March, Canada has faced more tariffs from the U.S., not fewer. His strategy — if it can be called that — appears to be waiting for the U.S. economy to falter under the weight of its own tariffs. But that's a dangerous gamble. The American economy, for all its recent job market volatility, remains remarkably resilient. Betting against it has never been a winning strategy — just ask Warren Buffett.
Some Canadians might believe that reduced access to U.S. markets will lead to food surpluses here at home, pushing prices down. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how food economics work.
Canadian food exporters rely on scale. Export markets allow companies to spread fixed costs and keep domestic prices affordable. If demand from U.S. buyers dries up, Canadian processors will have no choice but to raise prices domestically to stay afloat.
The result? Higher—not lower—food prices for Canadian consumers.
In short, the 93% tariff exemption statistic may provide political cover or academic reassurance, but it is a mirage. For those of us who work with food companies, study supply chains, and understand export-driven pricing models, the message is clear: Canada's food economy is far more exposed — and vulnerable — than many realize.
— Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is Director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, co-host of The Food Professor Podcast and Visiting Scholar at McGill University.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Modi and Trump once called each other good friends. Now the US-India relationship is getting bumpy
NEW DELHI (AP) — They men shared bear hugs, showered praise on each other and made appearances side by side at stadium rallies — a big optics boost for two populist leaders with ideological similarities. Each called the other a good friend. In India, the bonhomie between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump was seen as a relationship like no other. That is, until a series of events gummed up the works. From Trump's tariffs and India's purchase of oil from Russia to a U.S. tilt towards Pakistan, friction between New Delhi and Washington has been hard to miss. And much of it has happened far from the corridors of power and, unsurprisingly, through Trump's posts on social media. It has left policy experts wondering whether the camaraderie the two leaders shared may be a thing of the past, even though Trump has stopped short of referring to Modi directly on social media. The dip in rapport, some say, puts a strategic bilateral relationship built over decades at risk. 'This is a testing time for the relationship,' said Ashok Malik, a former policy adviser in India's Foreign Ministry. The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment. Simmering tensions over trade and tariffs The latest hiccup between India and the U.S. emerged last week when Trump announced that he was slapping 25% tariffs on India as well as an unspecified penalty because of India's purchasing of Russian oil. For New Delhi, such a move from its largest trading partner is expected to be felt across sectors, but it also led to a sense of unease in India — even more so when Trump, on social media, called India's economy 'dead.' Trump's recent statements reflect his frustration with the pace of trade talks with India, according to a White House official who was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal administration thinking. The Republican president has not been pursuing any strategic realignment with Pakistan, according to the official, but is instead trying to play hardball in negotiations. Trump doubled down on the pressure Monday with a fresh post on Truth Social, in which he accused India of buying 'massive amounts' of oil from Russia and then 'selling it on the Open Market for big profits.' 'They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA,' he said. The messaging appears to have stung Modi's administration, which has been hard-selling negotiations with Trump's team over a trade deal by balancing between India's protectionist system while also opening up the country's market to more American goods. Many expected India to react strongly considering Modi's carefully crafted reputation of strength. Instead, the announcement prompted a rather careful response from India's commerce minister, Piyush Goyal, who said the two countries are working towards a 'fair, balanced and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement.' India's Foreign Ministry also played down suggestions of any strain. However, experts in New Delhi wonder. 'Strenuous, uninterrupted and bipartisan efforts in both capitals over the past 25 years are being put at risk by not just the tariffs but by fast and loose statements and social media posts,' said Malik, who now heads the India chapter of The Asia Group, a U.S. advisory firm . Malik also said the trade deal the Indian side has offered to the U.S. is the 'most expansive in this country's history,' referring to reports that India was willing to open up to some American agricultural products. That is a politically sensitive issue for Modi, who faced a yearlong farmers' protest a few years ago. Trump appears to be tilting towards Pakistan The unraveling may have gained momentum over tariffs, but the tensions have been palpable for a while. Much of it has to do with Trump growing closer to Pakistan, India's nuclear rival in the neighborhood. In May, India and Pakistan traded a series of military strikes over a gun massacre in disputed Kashmir that New Delhi blamed Islamabad for. Pakistan denied the accusations. The four-day conflict made the possibility of a nuclear conflagration between the two sides seem real and the fighting only stopped when global powers intervened. But it was Trump's claims of mediation and an offer to work to provide a 'solution' regarding the dispute over Kashmir that made Modi's administration uneasy. Since then, Trump has repeated nearly two dozen times that he brokered peace between India and Pakistan. For Modi, that is a risky — even nervy — territory. Domestically, he has positioned himself as a leader who is tough on Pakistan. Internationally, he has made huge diplomatic efforts to isolate the country. So Trump's claims cut a deep wound, prompting a sense in India that the U.S. may no longer be its strategic partner. India insists that Kashmir is India's internal issue and had opposed any third-party intervention. Last week Modi appeared to dismiss Trump's claims after India's Opposition began demanding answers from him. Modi said that 'no country in the world stopped' the fighting between India and Pakistan, but he did not name Trump. Trump has also appeared to be warming up to Pakistan, even praising its counterterrorism efforts. Hours after levying tariffs on India, Trump announced a 'massive' oil exploration deal with Pakistan, saying that some day, India might have to buy oil from Islamabad. Earlier, he also hosted one of Pakistan's top military officials at a private lunch. Sreeram Sundar Chaulia, an expert at New Delhi's Jindal School of International Affairs, said Trump's sudden admiration for Pakistan as a great partner in counterterrorism has 'definitely soured' the mood in India. Chaulia said 'the best-case scenario is that this is just a passing Trump whim,' but he also warned that 'if financial and energy deals are indeed being struck between the U.S. and Pakistan, it will dent the U.S.-India strategic partnership and lead to loss of confidence in the U.S. in Indian eyes.' India's oil purchases from Russia are an irritant The strain in relations has also to do with oil. India had faced strong pressure from the Biden administration to cut back its oil purchases from Moscow during the early months of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Instead, India bought more, making it the second-biggest buyer of Russian oil after China. That pressure sputtered over time and the U.S. focused more on building strategic ties with India, which is seen as a bulwark against a rising China. Trump's threat to penalize India over oil, however, brought back those issues. On Sunday, the Trump administration made its frustrations over ties between India and Russia ever more public. Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff at the White House, accused India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine by purchasing oil from Moscow, saying it was 'not acceptable.' Some experts, though, suspect Trump's remarks are mere pressure tactics. 'Given the wild fluctuations in Trump's policies,' Chaulia said, 'it may return to high fives and hugs again.' ___ Associated Press writer Michelle L. Price in Washington contributed reporting. Sheikh Saaliq And Rajesh Roy, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: How markets will punish Trump if he fudges the economic data
President Trump is laying the groundwork for replacing real economic data with his own numbers. It's a terrible idea that will blow up in his face if he tries it — and cause the Trump presidency more damage than any legitimate numbers could. Trump fired the economist in charge of the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Aug. 1 after the latest employment report showed a sharp slowdown in hiring. The problem isn't the data or the economists who produce it. The problem is that, right on schedule, Trump's disruptive policies are messing up the economy. His tariffs are raising costs and jamming up business operations with new inefficiencies. His workplace raids, meant to ensnare unauthorized migrants, are reducing the labor supply and leaving some companies disastrously short of workers. After firing the BLS commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, Trump said in a social media post that she 'rigged' the job numbers to make him look bad. Trump specifically cited revisions in the jobs data for May and June that cut total employment by 258,000. That put average job growth during the last three months at an anemic 35,000 — 80% below the average pace of job growth during Joe Biden's last year as president, an underperformance that Trump must find intolerable. There are legitimate concerns about the quality of the surveys BLS conducts to compute the jobs data. Those are huge surveys relying on accurate and complete responses from thousands of firms and regular people. The methodology is complicated. Trump's own cutbacks to the agency make mistakes more likely. One of the main reasons BLS revises the data in the first place is to provide more accuracy as it refines the results of a given month. The downward revisions for May and June were large, but hardly unprecedented. Trump isn't talking about any of that. The employment numbers aren't rigged, and the few serious economic people in Trump's administration — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House economist Kevin Hassett — ought to be telling him that. A lot of economic data is unflattering to Trump, however, and there's a good chance it will get worse as tariffs and migration raids further stifle the economy. Trump acts like he knows it, and has been thinking for some time about how to provide alternate data that's more flattering to the Trump economy. For most of his second term, Trump has been raging about Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, demanding that the Fed slash interest rates and musing about firing Powell. Trump has also floated the idea of appointing a 'shadow' Fed chair who would give more upbeat assessments of the economy than the Fed's sober analysis, and perhaps replace Powell when his term expires next Trump's commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, wants to change the way the government calculates economic growth. In June, the BLS, which also calculates inflation data, said it was reducing the collection of pricing data in some parts of the country. Starting Aug. 14, it will cut the number of wholesale prices it measures. The agency says staffing shortages are the main reason it's dialing back data collection. Trump, of course, has slashed staffing at myriad government agencies as part of the so-called DOGE efficiency commission's work. Trump makes no secret of seeking to exert maximum control over all facets of government, including agencies established to be independent of political manipulation. He could very well co-op economic data by putting loyalists in charge of the relevant agencies and instructing them to make the data friendlier. He clearly wants a Federal Reserve that will juice the economy on his command, and if he appoints the right people for the rest of his presidential term, he might get that too. If any of that happens, it will backfire, maybe spectacularly. The simple reality is that nobody, not even the president, can fool markets, at least not for very long. Official government data is important, but businesses, investors, and consumers rely on thousands of data points that tell them almost everything they need to know about how the economy's doing. Presidents have tried many times to generate a counternarrative meant to persuade voters they're better off than they think they are. It never works. Ordinary workers know how far their paycheck stretches and whether they're getting ahead or falling behind. Most can tell you that without knowing whether the inflation or unemployment rate is going up or down. Businesses know what's happening with their order book and cash flow, and spend more or less accordingly. Investors read pricing signals the government can't control and buy, sell, or hedge based on what they see. The bond market is the ultimate arbiter of economic truth, and right now it's expressing concerns about the Trump economy and Trump's own policies. Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, points out there's a 'risk' or 'fear' premium in markets right now that's pushing long-term interest rates about 0.65 percentage points higher than they'd otherwise be. That interest rate premium is the extra amount investors demand in order to lock up their money in longer-term bonds. It compensates them for what they think is the risk of higher inflation in the future, along with uncertainty over other factors that could affect the value of their investments. The current term premium is not historically high. But it's higher than it has been for most of the last 15 years. And not all of it involves Trump's policies. Last fall, for instance, long-term rates rose by about a full point while the Fed was cutting short-term rates by a full point. That was a very unusual move, suggesting investors foresaw higher inflation over a five- to 10-year time frame and demanded higher rates to buy bonds maturing during that time. Still, Trump has inherited a dyspeptic bond market, and his tariffs clearly contribute to inflation expectations because they're a tax on imports that literally raises prices paid by businesses and consumers. Another problem is the massive amount of US government borrowing, which may finally be approaching unsustainable levels. If or when the day arrives when there aren't enough buyers for Treasury securities, the only outcome can be higher rates for all bonds to entice buyers. And higher long-term interest rates raise costs for every business or consumer borrowing money. The weird pricing action from last fall shows that if Trump did manage to force the Fed to slash short-term rates, long-term rates might actually rise, because investors would anticipate higher inflation due to looser monetary policy. Trump doesn't care about short-term rates, which only apply to banks making overnight loans. What he really wants is lower long-term rates, so that businesses and consumers borrow and spend more, stoking growth. Trying to force that to happen would probably have the opposite effect. The same thing would happen if Trump tried to fool the world by publishing bogus data showing the economy doing better than it really is. Every serious investor would know it's a sham. Uncertainty would worsen as opacity on some facets of the economy replaced transparency. That would cause upward pressure on the interest rate risk premium, pushing rates higher. Brusuelas's data shows a risk premium of more than 2 percentage points during some periods during the last 25 years. If there were such a premium today, the typical mortgage rate would be more than 8%, instead of 6.7%. In 2008, during the financial crisis, the term premium approached 4%, which would push interest rates today above 10%. That's the range, or trouble, Trump could cause in bond markets if he tries to manipulate the economy and fails. Would it cause a recession? Nobody knows, but that may be the wrong question. Americans are in a foul mood largely because they think management of the economy stinks and they feel prosperity slipping away. When Joe Biden was president, he repeatedly touted record job growth and other things going right, convincing approximately nobody that they were better off than their personal finances led them to believe. Americans want to feel like they're getting ahead at home and at work. Legitimate data won't convince them if they don't see it happening in their own lives, and bogus data won't do any better. Consumer attitudes have been at recessionary levels for much of the last five years, and if Trump starts producing doctored data, it may depress people even more. Truth has value, even to Trump. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CNN data guru in twist calls Trump ‘most influential president' and reveals how he's ‘remaking the USA'
In a surprising TV moment, CNN data guru Harry Enten called Donald Trump the 'most influential president' of the century and revealed how he's 'remaking the United States of America.' Enten, the network's chief data analyst, recently talked with anchor Omar Jimenez on CNN Newsroom about Trump's controversial tariff and immigration policies as well as the flurry of executive orders he has signed in his second term. Trump announced sweeping global tariffs on April 2, which was dubbed 'Liberation Day,' but his tariff policy since then has been anything but predictable. A baseline 10 percent tariff was imposed on all imported goods on 'Liberation Day', with some countries facing additional reciprocal tariffs. These reciprocal tariffs were quickly suspended as the Trump administration attempted to negotiate trade agreements with other countries. Throughout this bumpy tariff ride, critics came up with a nickname for Trump: TACO or Trump Always Chickens Out. But Enten told Jimenez, 'I don't think that's true.' 'I think the theme of this segment is going to be, love it, like it, lump it, Trump's remaking the United States of America,' Enten said. The data guru said the effective tariff rate is at 18 percent, which is up from two percent last year and the highest since the 1930s. 'I can't think of a more influential president during this century, and it starts here with tariffs. He said he was going to raise tariffs, and despite the claims otherwise, he is in fact doing that,' Enten said. The CNN segment came after the Trump administration announced Thursday the 10 percent universal tariffs would remain in place but would only apply to countries where the U.S. exports more than it imports. Most counties face this levy, according to a senior administration official who spoke to CNN. Countries with which the U.S. has a trade deficit now face a 15 percent tariff. Some nations, which the senior official said had some of the highest trade deficits with the U.S., were hit with even higher levies. Enten then jumped into immigration statistics under Trump: 'How about net migration in the United States? Get this, it's down. It's gonna be down at least 60 percent.' 'We may be dealing with, get this, negative net migration to the United States in 2025. That would be the first time there is negative net migration in this country in at least 50 years. We're talking about down from 2.8 million in 2024,' Enten said. He continued: 'And that is a big reason why that I'm saying that Trump, at least in my mind, is the most influential president certainly this century and probably dating a good back chunk into the 20th century as well.' The data guru also talked about the 180 executive orders Trump has signed this year. 'You have to go all the way back to the FDR administration once again to find a year in which there were as many executive orders signed as we have this year. To give you an idea, [former President Joe] Biden, during his first year, signed 77. That's the entire year. We're only a little bit more than halfway through this year,' Enten said.