Escalating trade tensions between Canada and the United States continue to create uncertainty for the North American agricultural sector. Divergent narratives from both sides of the border have left industry stakeholders looking for clear signals amidst the policy noise, particularly regarding tariffs and supply chain disruptions.
In this interview, RealAg Radio host Shaun Haney speaks with Jim Wiesmeyer of the Wiesmeyer's Perspectives podcast to break down the latest developments in Washington, D.C. Wiesmeyer notes that key figures within the U.S. administration altered previous understandings at the 11th hour last week, complicating trade negotiations.
"I think Canada is probably— I mean, you know, some of the policies in Canada should be changed relative to the U.S. perspective. And we've discussed that before in the dairy end and things like that," says Wiesmeyer. "However, it does appear that certain people in the Trump administration changed some of the goalposts, and I think that's where we're at now. And what I'm hearing from your side, from the Canadian side, is they no longer can trust trade policy in the United States."
The discussion addresses specific sectoral vulnerabilities, including potential retaliatory measures on American ethanol imports and how such actions could impact cross-border supply chains. Wiesmeyer says the integrated nature of the two economies means negotiators must move carefully, and he cautions against a retaliatory cycle that could harm agricultural interests in both nations.
"Let's hope the leaders talk with each other rather than at each other. And let's hope— get the emotion out of it right now," Wiesmeyer advises. "And let's get back to the North American market."
Trending
Water is the primary driver of crop performance, yet many producers overlook how efficiently fields convert available moisture into yield. While standard assumptions often underestimate crop water requirements, establishing true water-driven yield potential allows growers to identify management gaps, optimize nutrient efficiency, and maximize profitability with the moisture already present in the profile. In this...
Read more » Let's start off today's show by talking about the issue that is on everyone's mind. It is the Canada-US trade relations. Joining us right now to fill us in on all the details, it is Jim Wiesmeyer of Wiesmeyer's Perspectives Podcast. How we doing today, Jim?
Pretty good, and you're absolutely right, it's a lot more questions than answers on US-Canada trade relations. I'm telling you the truth.
Yeah, it seems that both sides, at least since Friday up until this point here on Tuesday, there's some differences in the storey as far as what broke these 2 parties in separate directions. What are you hearing in DC in terms of what happened?
Let me hopefully give you the signal from the noise. In this case, you can take your cue from Republican lawmakers. They're upset about the latest developments that the U.S. is probably trying to put too much leverage on Canada. That's what I'm hearing from lawmakers and their staffs. The reason I say that is you can get into a war of words intra-administration, you know, within the Trump administration, but it does appear that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick Although was part of the process from the get-go, he did change some key elements of the apparent agreement that President Trump signalled earlier in the week, if you recall.
Yep.
It looks like our side did alter some of the language as a result of not just Lutnick, but Stephen Miller, who's a very conservative advisor, deputy policy advisor, and Peter Peter Navarro, who's to the right of Attila the Hun. And so that's why I think Canada is probably— I mean, you know, some of the policies in Canada should be changed relative to the US perspective. And we've discussed that before in the dairy end and things like that.
Yeah.
And entrance into your markets. However, it does appear that certain people in the Trump administration changed some of the goalposts, and I think that's where we're at now. And what I'm hearing from your side, from the Canadian side, is they no longer can trust trade policy in the United States. And this may be a longer haul than I even thought last week, Shaun.
Yeah, that's my take too. It seems that at 100,000 feet, if we want to put it in like altitude references, There was obviously some sort of agreement. We had President Trump making graphics about Keystone Pipeline. Like, there was something positive that was happening. As it sits here today, in this September 8th deadline of Canada's going to be releasing its list of retaliatory tariffs, there's a bit of a window there, but it doesn't seem like either side is that inclined to get back to the table as we see President Trump Talking about renaming Lake Ontario this morning to Lake America, like only, you know, that, that, that is a part of his shtick. And that is some trolling that is going on. So I really don't think that people should put too much on that.
But no, that's emotion, not policy.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think what a lot of people keep on coming back to was, wait a minute, the original bad agreement was renegotiated to become the USMCA or CUSMA or T-MEX agreement, depending on which country you're in.
Yes.
So that's a terrible deal. Like, we're willing to scrap all— like, what exactly are we doing here besides creating drama? Because on the dairy file, it seems that the Canadian side was willing to compromise and meet the US requests on some of those dairy TRQ admin changes.
Yes, all of that is correct. And there were a couple of other elements. They will never admit this publicly, but Jameson Greer is the nerd of the cabinet relative to trade He's our US trade rep.
Yeah.
He was telling Trump that there was an agreement that we've just discussed. But then in the last day, if not hours, that's when Lutnick et al. came in and said, wait a minute, we've got to pump up our manufacturing element in the United States. And that's why they got into the truck thing where they separated—
Yes.
The trucks. But Canada— Ford has a big plant in Canada, but still, it looks like we pulled the rug out from under that on people within Trump's cabinet saying, look, we can't do this because we're hyping the return of manufacturing to the United States, not to Mexico, not to Canada, but to the United States. So that was one element. And the second one was The leverage that Lutnick thinks that they can play at the last minute to have a country go along, and in this case, Canada said no agreement was better than the agreement that changed on their part.
I think one of the other signals here that has always been a concern of mine about the US trade policy in this administration is that all countries are viewed the same and that, you know, Brazil and China and the pressures you would execute or how you would deal with those countries is exactly the same as like Canada or Mexico. But the reality is, is that those countries aren't the same. It's because of the connection from a geographical standpoint and integration of the supply chains that some of the solutions you would use on China create real problems back in North America if you execute under the exact same premise in the exact same way. And that's what we're seeing right now is this is President Trump doing to Canada no different than if it was China.
I agree. The Art of the Deal is not so artful, okay?
It's a little messy. It's a little messy.
Yeah, it's not artistic. Let's put it that way. I can feel Canada's pain here. Again, not that you're totally right, although—
Oh yeah, there's things to be corrected.
It did have elements of, it looked like a really good win-win. And if that would have been announced, then we could have gone the next step relative to the USMCA, where we would have had more cordial talks between the US and Canada on the renegotiation of the USMCA. But now that's not off the table totally, but that the timeline The deadline has been extended. So now, yes, with the 50% tariffs taking effect January 1st, that gives months.
Yeah, that gives a lot of time. There's a bit of a signal in that, is there not?
There is. Yeah, there is. Yeah. And I think once cooler heads prevail and Trump and Congress comes back to town, okay, it's not very often, I'll tell you, between now and November 3rd, President Trump's going to continue to hear from really supporters of his saying, you know, you, you went too far on this one, so finagle your way around this one now. That's what I'm hearing.
Yeah, so all members of Congress are not the same, okay? And so there is a bit of a delusion here, I think, on the Canadian side. I had it last night again. I heard from a friend where You know what? Just got to get past the midterms and this is going to look a lot different. And I keep on arguing that that is basing a strategy on a very, very, very false premise. I don't think that's a real strategy. And you're going to be very disappointed if that's what you're relying on. Who are the key members on the Republican side in Congress that provide a signal here? Because I saw yesterday Representative Don Bacon from Nebraska. He's a Republican, but he is not necessarily in Team MAGA.
Okay? No, far from it.
Yeah, no, he is.
I would use him as a— Mike Johnson, House Speaker.
Okay.
Listen to him. Now, Thune has been on the opposite side, to be blunt, of Trump's trade policy from the get-go, so I don't know how much he will listen to the Senate Majority Leader, but on the House side, Mike Johnson is hearing from his members, so I would have a dumbbell ear to listen to him.
Okay.
On your element, as far as the election, if, as it appears likely, the Republicans lose at least one of the chambers, the House, no, I think you're absolutely correct. Trump is going to double down on executive authority because he won't be able to do anything legislatively. So that's when he'll even be— I hate to scare you— no, no, no, more Trump, more Trump.
This is what I've been arguing, is that Congress has approved— well, and maybe you could argue they have approved the strategy based on the apathetic reaction, but they have played no part in crafting this strategy. So what makes you think that all of a sudden who controls the House is going to have some sort of great impact on the strategy going forward. Like, that's not, that's not a reality.
You know, the ethanol trade, where Canada garners about a third of US ethanol exports, I will tell you privately, okay, this is what people are looking at, to whether or not Canada goes the aggressive step and puts that as part of their retaliation.
Right.
Why do I say that? That would get the attention of farm state lawmakers, Corn Belt states, because of the significance there. And Trump would really hear it. I'm not suggesting that Canada should, I'm just hearing that from usually pretty good trade policy analysts in this country, that, that could surprise the United States negotiators if that's part of your retaliation list, then it's tit for tat.
There's just such a dangerous spiral. Okay, because yes, Canada is the largest purchaser of US ethanol. Okay. But then, you know, that happens and Canadians are like, yep, we showed them, we got the attention, we're good. And then on the US side, the response is, is that, well, you know what, Canadian feedstocks no longer qualify under 45Z, and that really hurts canola oil exports out of Western Canada into the US. So you see what I mean? Like there's—
That's your retaliation.
Tit for tat is super dangerous here.
It is.
Hey Jim, I'm gonna take a quick break.
Cooler heads, listen to Greer because initially he has defended, oh, there's no difference between me and Lutnick. Well, there is. Yeah, but listen to his comments and try to read through them in the next few weeks, I would say.
And of course, we're talking about some of the trade issues that are happening right now between Canada and the US and what, what do we need to be looking for from a signal perspective. We're joined by Jim Wiesmeyer of Wiesmeyer's Perspectives podcast. Jim's with Ag Bull Media. Jim, all of this escalation of, you know, tit-for-tat and trade war, trade battle, however you want to put it, is all happening at a time where both Canadians and Americans, their number one concern is affordability. Haha, this ain't helping.
No, and, and it could— this is what I think hopefully that Kevin Hassett, our National Economic Council director, would Would inform President Trump saying, hey, look, there's aluminium and steel components of this that will factor into higher inflation in the months ahead if we don't have an agreement. 2 other aspects of the usual North American market that we all know that if you pull the plug out on that, it definitely will cause an affordability— a continued affordability problem in the months ahead. And so I don't know how long that's going to take to surface, but even Trump is starting to worry about aluminium prices. Okay. Yeah. So out loud.
Can we— but this is the, this is the part that is hard to reconcile when you apply critical thinking. If you're worried about aluminium prices, then why do you have tariffs on aluminium products coming out of the number one supplier of aluminium to your country? This is the part that doesn't reconcile for a lot of people. And hey, we, and we've seen this, tariffs on coffee, right? We, we saw, and, and then there was a repeal. Well, hey, last Friday on beef, the 300,000 metric tonnes. By the way, do you think they're gonna repeal that? Do you, do you think there's gonna be a, like, if you can unite US Cattlemen's and NCBA, and like, if you can unite all of those groups and everybody that it embraces, you've done something.
It landed with a thud. Yeah, I want to see if they ever release the documents to implement it because they've done that before, Shaun, that they've announced some things and they never really did issue an executive order. No, this thing is just— I agree with you, I have not seen a When the USDA Secretary, Brooke Rollins, was informed of the decision, that means she wasn't a part of it, that decision. Again, who is making those calls? Stephen Miller? Kevin Hassett is smarter than that. He's an economist. He knows the basis. What I'm saying is that if Trump keeps on saying, we don't need Canada, we don't need Mexico, that's just a falsity. You know, I hate to say that about my president, but that's not a true statement. We need each other. But I think Canada, when I hear your Prime Minister say—
Yep.
You know, this thing is longer term, and this may run through the Trump administration because the history, he's not seeing changes that to go to the normal North American market principles of it. So unless that changes, I just know this could be a tit-for-tat war, trade war.
Yeah, one of the pillars that I think allows people to understand why, you know, if we, you know, Canada walking away is, you know, and we don't have the details, and one of the things I've been asking people is, okay, so in the US request, because Prime Minister Carney on Saturday, he said that, you know, one of the things the US wanted was Canada couldn't sign trade deals with other countries. Now, if it is other countries, that seems to be a rather stiff ask and becomes a question of sovereignty.
Sovereignty, yes.
But was that request specifically about China? And you could argue those are the same things, but they also can be different because remember, in the USMCA agreement, there is a non-market economy clause where both Mexico and Canada agreed to do that, China being the big non-market economy.
Yeah.
So we need to get some of these details out. And there's a lot of pressure in Canada for there to be transparency on what was the deal, what, and, and what pushed Canada away so that Canadians can get a little, like 70% of Canadians believe that the US or Canada was right to walk away.
I do.
Carney's got some support here.
I think you have people telling Trump they're not surprised that Canada walked away privately.
Well—
Another signal I would watch, I think the 2 top officials need to meet again, whether it's on the phone or personally, because then the other appendages, officials, are out of the way, so to speak. I think that would be a good sign if I see that Trump and your leader is going to speak, are going to meet. I think they can work a deal.
I really wonder if— and I know that there is a lot of support in Canada for we need to push back, we need to fight back, and we need to show that we're not putting up with this. I really question if the retaliatory tariffs are a good strategy because I wonder if this is exactly what President Trump wants and he's goading Canada into this situation. You know, I saw Zippy Duvall yesterday from American Farm Bureau say that, you know, hey, we need to get back to the table. Let's restart these negotiations.
Yes.
I, I really hope that— I, I think that's the best thing that could happen here is that it, it's sort of like, you know, there's marriage troubles. The worst thing you can do is not talk for 3 months.
Mm-hmm.
The best thing is let, let's talk through this issue. Let's sort it out. That's what I hope happens here before Labour Day and Canada doesn't apply these retaliatory tariffs. There is some progress that would be encouraging because agriculture is trying to stay out of this prop wash that is being created by steel, aluminium, and autos and forestry. It's not good for ag.
I agree. So common sense is not so common right now.
That's true.
In trade policy.
And politics plays a part.
It does. And so again, I think if Trump and Jameson Grier, who I think is the realistic official within the cabinet, he knows how far he can go. If it's limited to that, I think we'll eventually have a settlement. But if not, then we're in it for the long haul. I mean, I just don't know, because I've switched. Last week I thought, oh, now we have an agreement. It makes sense.
Me too.
Each country got something on on it, not perfect, but yet it's progress. But then the rugs were pulled out where these strident people within the White House had their say. In the past, that has been watered down after Trump got involved, more involved. But for last week, he was more worried about race cars than, frankly, than trade agreements.
Yeah, the IndyCar race was in DC and a stump speech on Friday night in South Carolina to try to support Lindsey Graham's sister in that senatorial race. And I misread that. I thought the fact that he was doing that was a bit of a signal that this was kind of a done deal and we were good. I misread that. I thought we had a deal on Friday.
Norman is increasing in the poll as far as that race. But Trump thought there was an agreement with Canada. I mean, you heard his statements and then all of a sudden, because when we both talked on AgriTalk Friday, this It was going pretty good.
It was.
And then I got calls late in the day Friday saying, this thing's not going well now. So I thought that's— I went, honestly, I went to bed early Friday evening for me because I knew I was going to have to get up about midnight Eastern time because that's when that took effect. And absolutely, the signals were right that I got late Friday. So again, where we're at, bottom line, Let's hope the leaders talk with each other rather than at each other. And let's hope— get the emotion out of it right now. And let's get back to the North American market.
Yeah, we don't— and we got to wrap up here, but we don't need what Transportation Secretary Duffy did on Sunday. Howard Lutnick's comments, Premier Ford's, Premier Kenney in Manitoba. All of that is domestic politics, and it doesn't get us closer to an actual resolution to this, which is in the best interest, as you said, Jim, both countries. Jim, thanks so much for joining us. Encourage everybody to cheque out Wiesmeyer's Perspectives podcast, and, uh, Jim, we'll talk to you again soon.
Okay, anytime. For the latest ag news, agronomic advice, and more, cheque out RealAgriculture.com and RealAg Radio.