Skip to content
HighOnCity Toronto
BEYOND

Fortress North America trade deal would threaten Canada's sovereignty, experts warn

A proposed continental trade arrangement to replace CUSMA would leave Canada vulnerable to U.S. pressure on policy across sectors, according to C.D. Howe Institute analysis.

· 2 min read · HOC Newsroom
Fortress North America trade deal would threaten Canada's sovereignty, experts warn
★ FREE NEWSLETTER
Get the best of Greater Toronto in your inbox

The day's top stories, food & events — every morning at 7. Unsubscribe anytime.

A proposed "Fortress North America" trade arrangement designed to secure continued U.S. support for a revised continental trade agreement would inevitably be one-sided and threaten Canada's sovereignty, according to analysis from the C.D. Howe Institute.

The concept—a co-ordinated North American program of secure supply chains and external tariffs—has been advocated by the Ontario government and supported by the Business Council of Canada. Prime Minister Mark Carney has appeared open to exploring it in certain sectors, though he has not specified which ones.

However, Lawrence Herman, writing for C.D. Howe, argues that Canada and Mexico are now engaged in lengthy and acrimonious negotiations with the U.S. following President Trump's refusal to extend CUSMA for another 16 years. The Trump administration is applying pressure across many sectors in exchange for continued access to the American market.

"While it's an interesting initiative in some ways, the brakes should be put on this whole 'fortress' business," Herman wrote. "Such an arrangement will inevitably be one-sided and involve the surrender of major aspects of Canadian policy to Washington."

Beyond sovereignty concerns, CUSMA itself is structurally unfit to serve as a vehicle for co-ordinated North American trade policy. Unlike other trade agreements, CUSMA has no central administering body with executive authority to settle differences or issue corrective decisions. The agreement is theoretically overseen by a "Free Trade Commission" comprised of trade ministers from the three governments, but that body has no real power—a deliberate design choice reflecting U.S. hostility to any supranational trade authority that might constrain American unilateral action.

This contrasts sharply with trade agreements like Mercosur, which has a common external tariff, a permanent executive body with supervisory powers, and requires consensus among member governments to change tariffs. Under CUSMA, the U.S. calls the shots as the dominant partner.

By the numbers

What organizations have supported the Fortress North America concept?

The Ontario government and the Business Council of Canada have advocated for or supported the Fortress North America trade arrangement.

Why does CUSMA lack the structure for coordinated North American trade policy?

CUSMA has no central administering body with executive authority to settle disputes or make corrective decisions. The Free Trade Commission that theoretically oversees it comprises trade ministers from the three governments but has no real power—a deliberate design choice reflecting U.S. resistance to supranational trade authority.