Almost all agricultural commodities are facing existential threats. War has triggered supply chain disruptions and is pushing up input costs. Trade within North America is suddenly uncertain. Protectionism is on the rise around the world, with Chinese tariffs on pork and Europe’s non-tariff trade barriers being two leading examples.

Pulling in the same direction

Agriculture should be taking a “whole plate” approach to addressing these issues and not trying to fix things one commodity at a time. If the industry can step out of commodity silos and regional perspectives, we can not only address these threats, but realize the vision of making Canada a global food powerhouse.

There are positive steps in this direction, but no standard practice. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has brought together a coalition under the banner “Let’s Grow Canada” to support policies that will encourage investment in research and development. CropLife Canada’s “Grow Canada Strong” initiative has similar objectives. Farm Credit Canada has launched a “Let’s Grow Canada” website with the intent of showcasing the stories behind Canadian farmers and food producers.

Canada currently ranks last in ag research investment among the top seven countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This must change if we are to weather the geopolitical storms the country is facing. Canada is at an inflection point where agriculture has an opportunity to present governments with a vision for attracting private sector research and development investment rather than just waiting for public sector solutions.

A united front on CUSMA

The review of our most important trade agreement, CUSMA, is underway. The implications for Canadian agriculture are massive. The aggressive shift in U.S. foreign and trade policies over the past years, coming from both political parties, clearly show us that the renegotiation will be difficult.

All of export agriculture needs to come together to develop a strategic plan on how we approach these negotiations. We need to be prepared to deliver real-time advice to our negotiating team that is consistent and united. We need to be prepared to tell our governments things they might not want to hear. We need to have systematic outreach to our partners in the U.S. commodity groups, who cannot afford to “go it alone” and hope for positive outcomes.

Developing this united front requires leaders who are willing to take some risks and step outside of the comfort zone that operating in commodity and regional silos offer.

Immigration: an agriculture solution

Labour is another key policy issue that requires a common front if Canada is to become an international food powerhouse. Almost all sectors of agriculture face labour shortages. New Canadians are an integral part of meeting these needs. Immigration policies in Canada are being questioned due to housing and service shortages in our major cities, but what is needed in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal is not what is needed in rural Canada and at our processing plants.

Agriculture needs a unified voice to tell the story about how stable jobs for new Canadians in agriculture and food production are building communities across the country. Rather than short soundbites from political leaders, we need thoughtful immigration and labour policies targeting regional, and sectoral, needs.

The Canadian economy is facing undeniable threats due to geopolitical instability and rising protectionism. Agriculture and food production in Canada can be key in mitigating these threats. To seize the opportunity, we need to present governments with united and consistent policy solutions. Agriculture needs to lead the way rather than wait for others to present solutions to us.

The post OPINION: Agriculture needs to lead its own solutions appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Our neighbour to the south is focused on “America First.” United States policies are moving away from supporting free and open trade. Canadian agriculture faced a short period of tariffs, but ultimately was protected by the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

However, we don’t know if this will continue until the end of 2026 as CUSMA is up for review. This is the most important policy file for the 90 per cent of Canadian farmers who depend on the international markets. The agreement will either be extended to 2032, put into a cycle of annual reviews or terminated. The outcome of the review will determine the fiscal sustainability of many farms across Canada, including Manitoba.

Tariffs are a threat, but they are not the only protectionist measures faced by farmers and food processors. The revival of country-of-origin labelling in the U.S. and individual state legislation (such as Proposition 12 in California) that’s fragmenting the North American market are just two other examples of protectionist policies threatening Canadian agriculture and food exports.

Uncertainty in world trade is costly for both Manitoba farmers and processors. Unfortunately, this uncertainty will remain throughout 2026 and will likely intensify during the review of CUSMA. Securing the North American market, offsetting the cost of trade uncertainty, and trade diversification need to be at the top of the policy list for all governments in 2026.

Food and agriculture need to be top of mind at every Canadian negotiating table in 2026. Canadian governments and negotiators need to be continuously reminded that food and beverage processing is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada with sales worth about $175 billion. The sector accounts for over 20 per cent of total manufacturing sales.

Meat products comprise the largest proportion of the food manufacturing sector in both Manitoba and Canada. If agriculture and food are left behind in trade discussions, livelihoods in every region of Manitoba will be significantly impacted.

Manitoba hog farmers continue to be world leaders in disease prevention and management. The entire sector has recognized the need to work together to effectively protect the health of animals under our care. Sometimes this means that parts of the value chain take actions that are not in their short-term fiscal interest but will deliver long-term benefits to the entire sector. This level of collaboration is not often found in other countries or regions. Manitoba’s pork sector should be congratulated for this accomplishment.

Working with the entire value chain to prevent and mitigate disease impacts is a key priority for Manitoba hog farmers in 2026. This includes preventing diseases like porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome and porcine epidemic diarrhea virus where possible, and limiting their spread when it is not. We are also working with processors, veterinarians, transport companies and Manitoba’s Office of the Chief Veterinarian to keep foreign animal diseases like foot and mouth disease and African swine fever out of Manitoba. Again, collaboration is the key factor in developing effective disease prevention and response plans.

On the economic front, 2025 was a profitable year across the hog sector. Profitability is being driven by strong pork demand around the world, relatively affordable pork prices for consumers — especially when compared to beef — disease pressures in other pork producing regions and reasonable feed costs.

I expect profitable conditions to continue into 2026, at least for the first half of the year. Profitability in the second half of 2026 will depend in large part on the world trade situation.

Given current profitability, 2026 should be a year of renewal and growth for Manitoba’s hog sector, but investing in the future is difficult when markets and trade patterns remain uncertain. Financing barns with a 25-year lifespan becomes more costly and difficult with growing uncertainty. Manitoba’s Economic Development Plan recognizes the impact of international uncertainty on the province’s investment climate and recognizes the need to reduce our reliance on trade with the U.S.

A priority for 2026 will be to develop ways to partner with government and industry to offset some of these financial risks and costs to facilitate industry renewal.

In some ways, 2026 will likely look a lot like 2025. We will continue to see significant trade and market uncertainty, with the potential to see this uncertainty increase going into the CUSMA review. Positive profitability should continue, based on strong demand, disease pressure in other jurisdictions, and manageable feed costs. The question at the end of 2026 will be whether the potential negatives coming from the political environment outweighed the natural potential positives of the market.

Cam Dahl is the general manager of the Manitoba Pork Council.

The post Agriculture, including the pork sector, has monsters to slay in 2026 appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The policy of the Canadian government from 2015 to 2023 was one of wide-open doors, with the country admitting a record number of newcomers. Facing housing shortages, rising rents, and high unemployment for youth and in some immigrant populations, the federal government pivoted, cutting immigration targets. The targets for 2025 were almost 20 per cent below the 2024 levels, with further reductions planned in the years to come. The initial allocation for the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program was cut in half.

These broad shifts do not serve the Canadian economy, nor new Canadians.

The drivers behind the policy shift are real. Canada’s big cities do have a housing crisis. Canadian youth are facing a difficult time finding jobs. Some regions of the country have seen an increased strain on social services and health care. Too many people have been admitted to Canada without a link to employment opportunities. However, a country-wide one-size-fits-all immigration and labour policy is not the right answer.

What is needed for Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal is not what is needed in other parts of the country. Pressures in other regions of Canada are not the same as in our large cities, and new Canadians are a critical part of the Manitoba labour force in places like Notre Dame de Lourdes, Neepawa, Brandon and Winnipeg. Provinces, not the federal government, are best positioned to manage the labour requirements in their own region.

Lack of access to labour is an issue today for hog producers. There are current cases where farmers have shuttered barn sites due to labour shortages. This problem will only be exacerbated if further restrictions are placed on immigration.

To ensure ongoing sustainable hog production and pork processing, Manitoba producers and processors rely on immigration programs like the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program. The sector hires foreign workers and supports them on a path to permanent residency to fill vacant positions.

This approach successfully matches newcomers with stable full-time work. There is a high retention rate of foreign workers brought in by the hog sector. Foreign workers receive training and put roots into the communities where they settle.

Neepawa is a prime example of a town that has been revitalized by the influx of new Canadians. The town is one of the fastest growing in Canada, boasting a new hospital and new road infrastructure because of investment by the hog sector and immigrants brought in to support the industry.

The negative impacts of labour shortfalls on hog producers and pork processors go beyond productivity losses. The sector has invested heavily in improving biosecurity and the ability to manage production diseases like porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), as well as keeping foreign animal diseases like African swine fever (ASF) and foot and mouth disease (FMD) out of the country. Labour shortages make this work more difficult and add strain to producers’ efforts to protect the animals under their care from disease.

The impact of diseases like PED and PRRS are not theoretical. The last major outbreak of PED in Manitoba, which began in the fall of 2021 and ran through the spring of 2023, is estimated to have cost the industry more than $100 million. Current estimates indicate that PRRS in the United States is costing the industry there $1.65 billion annually.

Hog production and processing in Manitoba have the opportunity for growth, if barriers like labour shortfalls can be overcome. New building and investment not only provide on-farm and spin-off employment opportunities, but also help build and sustain Manitoba’s rural communities through population growth, increased school enrollments, additional small business opportunities and enhanced community services.

Budget 2025 included commitments to prioritize immigration for rural, remote and tariff-hit businesses and to increase the number of new Canadians that are coming to fill specific jobs. These are positive announcements. However, it is not all that is needed.

First, we need to abandon a blanket approach as Canada is a vast country with different needs for every region. Canadian immigration policy should reflect the country’s diversity. For example, the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program has successfully helped meet regional needs. This program needs to be enhanced, not reduced.

Second, policy should shift emphasis to the quality of immigration, versus a primary focus on the number of people entering Canada. More newcomers should have skills aligned with market needs, like the hog sector in Manitoba.

Immigration and labour needs vary widely across Canada. Rather than governments delivering, short “social media ready” soundbites, we should be focused on thoughtful immigration and labour policies targeting regional, and sectorial, needs.

The post OPINION: Immigration policy needs labour gap nuance appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Biosecurity protocols are key to helping farmers keep production diseases like porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) out of their barns. Biosecurity is also critical in preventing foreign animal diseases like African swine fever (ASF) from entering Canada. Good biosecurity helps keep animals safe and healthy.

The last major outbreak of PED in Manitoba began in fall 2021, lasted through to spring 2023 and is estimated to have cost the province more than $100 million. Current estimates indicate that PRRS in the U.S. is costing the industry there $1.65 billion annually.

Manitoba’s hog and pork producers learnt some key lessons from the last PED outbreak. The first is that the entire sector needs to work together if we are going to effectively protect animal health. The second is more difficult. Sometimes, parts of the value chain will need to take actions that are not in their short-term fiscal interest but are in the long-term interest of industry.

This collaboration demonstrates the industry is willing to do the right thing even when there is a short-term cost. The result of this teamwork is Manitoba’s PED Elimination Plan, which has been effective in stopping disease spread.

Farmers sometimes complain that outside experts are quick to tell them how to farm, but can be slow to recognize the results of their efforts. That should not be the case here. Farmers and industry stakeholders should be recognized and congratulated for their collaboration on biosecurity and disease prevention and containment efforts.

Stringent biosecurity explains why producers are concerned about unauthorized people coming onto their farms, which can render efforts to prevent disease spread useless. This is a key reason why farmers support anti-trespass legislation.

Farmers also work day-to-day to safeguard the overall welfare of their animals. Hog producers across Canada are guided by the 105 Code of Practice requirements for the Care and Handling of Pigs. The code is backed up by legislation and regulation, like Manitoba’s Animal Care Act.

Confirming compliance with high standards for animal care includes verification. The Canadian Pork Excellence (CPE) program is a national platform for producers to demonstrate compliance with food safety, animal care and traceability standards. Program registration is required to ship animals to federally inspected processors. Under these programs, animal care is assessed regularly, including regular visits from the herd veterinarian.

The code is not something made up by industry as a public relations exercise. It is the result of a rigorous development process that uses the best science on pig health and welfare, compiled through an independent peer-reviewed process. The code development committee includes independent scientists, representatives from animal welfare organizations, veterinarians, governments and consumer-facing members, in addition to farmers.

Doing the right thing also includes ongoing improvements in environmental sustainability. For example, modernization of agriculture has revolutionized nutrient management. Past generations did not have today’s research or tools to minimize manure runoff. Currently, over 90 per cent of hog manure in Manitoba is either injected below the surface or incorporated into the soil after it is applied to the land. This prevents leaching into our waterways and positions valuable nutrients next to the seed where it is most beneficial for crops.

Modern equipment can test the flow as manure is being applied using near infrared technology, and vary application rates on a real-time basis. Farmers use global positioning technology, ultrasonic speed sensors and radar to ensure that manure is applied in the right place and at the right rate.

Before applying manure, farmers are required to file manure management plans with the provincial government. These plans are tailored to the specific crops being grown and include soil sampling to help prevent the over application of nutrients.

The environmental and animal care record of modern Manitoba hog farmers is one in which they take pride. It is also a record that should be a source of pride for all Manitobans. Manitoba pigs are raised in a sustainable way that will help ensure the industry’s ongoing contributions to our economy and job creation in our local communities.

The post Pork doing the right thing appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

When it comes to providing opportunities for Canadians, however, policy matters far more than partisan politics. We have had a federal election and a cabinet has been appointed. We now need a laser focus on the fundamentals of good policy.

I have heard farmers say that agriculture is an afterthought around the cabinet table.

The sector makes up about seven per cent of the Canadian gross domestic product, or $150 billion per year, and employs 2.3 million Canadians, representing one in nine jobs across the country. An acknowledgement by the whole cabinet of that critical economic contribution would be a good way for the new federal government to offset farmer frustration about the placement of agriculture in national policy priorities.

Trade must be the priority issue for the new Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. In 2024, Canadian agriculture and food exports exceeded $100 billion, yet the policies that will support and expand Canadian agriculture and food exports are not always considered when Canada’s trade positions are set. A positive key first step would be explicit inclusion of agriculture in the “Team Canada” missions that are part of our outreach with United States customers and policy makers.

While agriculture, like most Canadian industries, has rightfully focused on the threat of U.S. tariffs in the past few months, protectionism is growing around the world. Canadian pork and seafood exports to China face a 25 per cent tariff. Certain canola products have been hit with a 100 per cent tariff by the Chinese government. Canadian agriculture and food exports have been sidelined by European non-tariff barriers, despite the Canada–European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).

Growing protectionism is compounded by rising political uncertainty, with the war in Ukraine and instability in the Middle East just two examples. Canada needs a strategic plan to deal with these threats.

The new federal ag minister, Heath MacDonald, could hit the ground running if he were to set up — together with representatives from export agriculture — a task group with the mandate to develop a strategic plan for agriculture and agri-food trade. This joint government and industry task group should set out to answer three basic questions:

First, in the short term, how does Canada mitigate the impact of tariffs and potential tariffs on agriculture and food exports?

Second, what is the strategic plan to eliminate non-tariff and tariff trade barriers currently blocking Canadian agriculture and food exports?

Third, what is the strategic plan to diversify markets for Canadian agriculture and food exports?

The overarching goal of the task group should be to set out a clear plan that will preserve the integrated North American market for agriculture and food products and to eliminate tariff and non-tariff trade barriers around the world.

The effort to develop a strategic plan cannot only be carried out by governments. There is also work to be done by farm groups and industry stakeholders.

There are more than 400 farm groups across Canada. This means that governments do not always receive a coherent consensus position from the sector. If the minister receives 400 different opinions, they face a risky policy position where any action would be subject to opposition by somebody. Lack of consensus within agriculture opens the door for governments to do nothing.

It is incumbent upon farmers, those who represent farmers, food processors and manufacturers to develop clear policy proposals aimed at the expansion of agriculture and food exports.

Agriculture and food trade is not just a matter of economic policy, it is also a national security issue, given the increasingly less stable geopolitical environment. This is especially true for the three countries who are signatories to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). Canadian farmers can help deliver a reliable and safe food supply for consumers. This value from Canadian agriculture must be demonstrated in the strategic plan for agriculture and food trade and emphasized in upcoming trade discussions, including the impending review of CUSMA.

The recent election campaign saw the major parties promising a new approach to trade policy to respond to growing protectionism in both North America and around the world. The new federal government, including the new ag minister, has an opportunity to put these promises into action for farmers, processors and the millions of Canadians who work in the sector.

Current disruptions to world trade can be turned into opportunities for Canadian agriculture, but only if we see bold and decisive policy. The alternatives will be bad for farmers, bad for Canadian value-added processing and undermine the potential for growth in the Canadian economy.

Cam Dahl is general manager of the Manitoba Pork Council.

The post Trade policy matters, and Canadian agriculture needs to be on the board appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Does this saying apply to the current United States president’s confrontational approach to allies and friends? Does it apply to the Trump administration’s isolationist trade policies and tariffs? It probably does apply in the long term but, today, hope is in short supply for many Manitoba farmers.

Manitoba exports about $9.3 billion worth of agriculture and food products every year. This represents 13 per cent of the province’s annual gross domestic product (GDP). Almost half of these exports, 46 per cent in 2024, were shipped into the U.S.

On March 4, U.S. President Donald Trump carried through on his threats to put tariffs of 25 per cent on almost all Canadian exports (outside of oil and gas). This means that half of our agriculture and food exports became 25 per cent more expensive, with no return to farmers or processors. The negative impact of this will reverberate throughout every community in Manitoba, large and small.

Tariffs do not come as a surprise. The president talked about tariffs throughout his election campaign. The current U.S. administration views trade surpluses as a foreign subsidy provided by U.S. taxpayers. The president’s closest economic advisors are advocates for tariffs for both revenue generation as well as a tool to drive manufacturing to the U.S.

Given these views, it is likely that these tariffs will be with us for some time.

Many are predicting that a recession is coming and, looking at the pork sector as an example, it is not hard to see why these predictions are being made. The sector supports 22,000 jobs in Manitoba, in almost every part of the province. The industry contributes $2.3 billion to the provincial GDP. Our largest export market is now significantly disrupted, putting those jobs and economic contribution at risk.

Pork is not alone. A recent survey by the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce found that over 60 per cent of businesses will be negatively impacted, with many seeing impacts already.

Governments need to act decisively and rapidly. We have seen positive action from the Government of Manitoba, with the premier, together with his provincial counterparts, engaging with decision makers in the U.S. Manitoba cabinet ministers, like Minister of Agriculture Ron Kostyshyn, have been reaching out to strategic partners in state capitals. The establishment of the premier’s U.S. Trade Council was a positive step. But more can, and must, be done.

At least in agriculture, we have common objectives with our neighbours in Saskatchewan and Alberta. The three governments should come together with a strategic outreach plan for Prairie agriculture and food trade stakeholders in the U.S. Through work done by the Keystone Agricultural Producers, agriculture and food value chains in Manitoba have identified 18 key states with whom we should be engaged.

It would be difficult for Manitoba to effectively launch an advocacy campaign in all 18 states, but together with the other Prairie provinces, we have the necessary resources.

The province should consider leveraging their ‘Buy Local’ campaign to partner with the other two Prairie provinces to further boost consumer demand here at home. Longer term, both the federal and provincial governments should be looking at incentives for investments that would help support export diversification and increase trade between provinces. That could include, for example, providing incentives to both farmers and processors who, considering U.S. trade actions, might want to adjust their operations to meet European regulations.

We also need to have a strategic plan going into the renegotiation of the Canada – U.S. – Mexico Agreement. The aggressive shift in U.S. foreign and trade policies over the past two months clearly show us that the renegotiation of our most important trade agreement will be difficult. We must be more prepared than we are today.

Canada has responded to the U.S. tariffs with our own duties. We really had no option. But a protracted trade war with the U.S. will weaken our province and our country for years to come. There is hard work to be done by both exporting industries, like agriculture, and governments to prevent that from happening and to recharge that hope for the future.

Cam Dahl is the executive director of the Manitoba Pork Council.

The post The tariffs are here: Now what? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

It is an appropriate metaphor for the month when we can look back at the year that was and anticipate the year to come.

If there is such a thing as a good disease year in the hog sector, 2024 was it. Given historical patterns, we expected to see new cases of porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED) this past spring. That did not materialize. While we did not make it though 2024 PED-free, the first case did not show up in Manitoba until December.

This is not an accident. Manitoba’s hog farmers, government, veterinarians and processors came together to develop a comprehensive plan to eradicate PED. The “Manitoba model” is a 2024 success story, one that is being considered throughout North America and is a testament to what can be done through collaboration.

On the economic front, 2024 was a year of relief for hog farmers in Manitoba, with margins coming back to where they should be. I do see the positive financial situation extending well into 2025, but that prediction comes with a lot of global uncertainty and unpredictability.

So, what will farmers face in 2025?

One cannot look ahead without mentioning the new administration in the United States.

Most farmers in Manitoba depend upon international markets. Take the hog industry as an example; 90 per cent of Manitoba’s annual production is directed into international markets, with the U.S. being the No. 1 destination. Both major U.S. political parties advocate for “America First” policies and are moving away from supporting free and open trade. Examples of protectionist policies that threaten our exports include the revival of country-of-origin labelling and individual state legislation that is fragmenting the North American market, such as Proposition 12 in California.

“America First” was brought into sharper focus after the U.S.’s November election, when President-elect Donald Trump called for massive tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports. In the past, he has threatened to rip up the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

Not since the original Canada-U.S. trade agreement have we seen political goals tied to U.S. market access. For example, increased defence spending by Canada is likely going to be a condition of ongoing American support for CUSMA. I do believe that Canadian agriculture exports are going to be a target for U.S. negotiators.

How is Canada going to respond?

It is not just trade with the U.S. that will be unpredictable in 2025. China, which is both the world’s largest food producer as well as the world’s largest food consumer, is also signaling that agriculture and food trade will be tied to outside policy issues. The threat to impose tariffs on Canadian canola, which came about soon after news of Canadian tariffs on Chinese-made electric vehicles, is just one example of this.

What happens if a new trade war erupts between the U.S. and China? Will Canadian farmers be caught in the middle? How Canada responds could very well determine if 2025 will be profitable or show a mess of red ink on farmers’ income statements. Governments and industry need to be planning for all eventualities on Chinese trade before any of these potential problems arise. I am concerned that this is not happening.

Add to this the ongoing uncertainty caused by the war in Ukraine, the threat of foreign animal diseases like African swine fever, production risks, etc., and a picture of a volatile 2025 emerges.

Farmers can offset some uncertainty through tools like currency hedging, forward contracting and other risk mitigation approaches, but they cannot control instability caused by global policies. This is the area where we need the support of our federal and provincial governments.

It is my prediction that protectionism, trade barriers and global uncertainty will be the top topics next January when we look back at 2025.

We will also be talking about the outcome of a federal election.

Elections are the time when politicians are most attentive to concerns raised by constituents. Farmers of all stripes need to be asking the candidates who show up on their doorstep about their party’s plan to deal with global volatility and trade uncertainty.

The post Manitoba Pork reflections and predictions for 2025 appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

On Nov. 5, the elephant did more than twitch; it sneezed, and Canada is likely to catch a cold.

The electorate south of the border has voted and the impact is going to reverberate throughout the Canadian economy, including, or even especially, in agriculture.

In some ways, it does not really matter which party won the White House and U.S. Congress. Protectionism is on the rise in the U.S., and I don’t see Canada being prepared to respond.

On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump called for massive tariffs. In the past, he has threatened to rip up the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA, the former NAFTA).

On the other side, Vice-President Kamala Harris was one of only 10 senators to vote against CUSMA when the agreement was ratified. She has stated that the agreement made it far too easy for companies to outsource jobs and that she would have used the 2026 CUSMA review to address her concerns.

Now we know which version of protectionism we are facing. Trump will be president again. He has vowed to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. by applying tariffs to imported products. He is also tying political goals to U.S. market access. For example, increased defence spending by Canada is likely going to be a condition of ongoing presidential support for CUSMA. Agriculture, particularly dairy, is going to be a target for U.S. negotiators.

How is Canada going to respond?

The first step would be having a strategic plan for agriculture and food trade going into the 2026 CUSMA review. I cannot find evidence of such a plan.

The Government of Canada has a responsibility to call together farmers, processors and provincial governments to develop a strategic response to U.S. policy makers, who are calling for limits on agriculture and food trade. There can be no further delay.

What are the key elements that need to be included in this strategic plan? The first component is that we must not trade off one commodity group or region of the country to protect others. We saw the potential for this when the Chinese government instituted an investigation into canola exports from Canada in response to Canadian tariffs on electric vehicles, aluminum and steel.

Second, Canada needs to stress the benefits to U.S. national security that are created by our open trade. In an uncertain world, agriculture and food trade can be used as a weapon in political disagreements between countries.

Canada and the U.S. are each other’s largest market for food and agricultural products. We need to be able to demonstrate to U.S. negotiators that this trade will not be threatened by diplomatic disputes, something that may happen when trading outside of North America.

It is in the national security interest of both countries to secure trade between us and to limit any political uncertainty within the North American market.

Third, Canada must be ready to demonstrate the cost to U.S. consumers that will result from growing protectionism. For example, recent changes to U.S. country of origin labelling regulations will discriminate against Canadian pigs, cattle and red meat exports. This will introduce new costs into the North American supply chain, which will raise the price for consumers and lower the return for farmers.

Why is the Government of Canada not aggressively pushing back on this legislation? At a minimum, we should be advocating for alternative means of informing consumers while protecting the integrated North American market: a “product of North America” label, for example.

Fourth, going into the CUSMA review, Canada must stress the importance of unified national standards. We have negotiated a trade agreement with the U.S., not with 50 individual states.

Recent actions from state governments have reached beyond their own jurisdictions. For example, Proposition 12 in California not only sets out the conditions under which animals will be raised in the state, but imposes conditions on other jurisdictions, including Canada. Other states are contemplating similar measures.

Moving away from national standards will be a further fragmenting force on North American trade and will cost consumers and farmers on both sides of the border.

Finally, Canada must speak with a common voice across governments, industry and farmers. There must be many voices delivering the same message to Washington and state capitols throughout the U.S., which gets back to the importance of calling all stakeholders together to develop a national trade strategy for agriculture and food trade. Time is of the essence.

Cam Dahl is the general manager of the Manitoba Pork Council.

The post Canada needs a strategic plan for agriculture and food trade, and it needs it now appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The missions are a good thing, but something is lacking. I have heard little mention of cross-border trade in agriculture and food products when “Team Canada” is discussed.

Our federal government talks about securing trade vital to national security, but for some reason agriculture and food seem not to be included in the national security bucket. This is despite the fact that agriculture and food are among our largest export sectors, accounting for about $60 billion in goods to the U.S. annually.

Canada is an exporting nation and Manitoba is an exporting province. For example, 90 per cent of the eight million pigs raised in Manitoba every year are exported, either as pork shipped globally or as live animals to the U.S.

The international agricultural landscape is witnessing a troubling trend toward protectionism, and these exports are at risk. Manitoba’s farmers and processors cannot afford market access restrictions and need our governments to aggressively fight for our interests.

In the U.S., our farmers are facing state level regulations that reach beyond the borders of individual states, like Proposition 12 in California. Extra-territorial legislation by individual states fractures the integrated North American market for agriculture and food products, increases the price for consumers and decreases the return for farmers.

There is also a new country of origin labelling law from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that will discriminate against Canadian pigs and cattle exported to the U.S. Again, this results in higher prices for consumers and lower returns for farmers.

Canada needs to be much more assertive in pushing back against these new trade barriers.

New barriers to cross-border agriculture and food trade are appearing against the backdrop of the upcoming renegotiation of CUSMA. Canadian agriculture will almost certainly be a target, no matter who wins the U.S. elections this November.

Canada needs to develop a comprehensive agriculture and food strategy as we approach these renegotiations. For starters, the sectors’ interests should be included in outreach to state and national legislators. Agriculture should be part of “Team Canada.”

Without a defined national strategy, developed in collaboration with farmers and processors, agricultural and food export interests may be overlooked, or even traded off, to protect other sectors when the CUSMA renegotiations take place.

Farmers have reason to be wary that their trade interests will not be of primary concern. When the Government of Canada announced a 100 per cent tariff on China-made electric vehicles and a 25 per cent duty on Chinese steel and aluminum, China quickly responded by initiating a dumping probe on canola exports.

It is hard to object to the government taking action to protect Canadian jobs from unfair trading practices, but farmers should not carry the costs if retaliatory measures are taken. The government has seen fit to offset the impact of trade agreements on other sectors of agriculture and the same consideration should be given if our exports become political targets. This needs to be part of the comprehensive agriculture and food trade strategy.

The Government of Manitoba also has a key role to play in protecting farmers’ market access. Premier Wab Kinew recently created the Business and Jobs Council, which undertook a trade mission to the U.S. this spring. This is a positive step.

However, our voice could be amplified, both in Washington and Ottawa, if there was a common agriculture trade strategy developed across the Prairies. Collaboration across Western Canada on agriculture and food trade should extend beyond the U.S. For example, it would be a breakthrough in collaborative government if Manitoba were to work with the other prairie governments to establish a presence in key Asia Pacific markets.

Farmers who rely on international markets face significant market access threats that will have substantial negative impacts on incomes, especially in western Canadian provinces, if we fail to act. There needs to be a concerted effort to develop a comprehensive agriculture and food trade strategy aimed at protecting the trade access we have today and breaking open new opportunities to offset protectionist threats.

Development of this strategy must include farmers and processors, and it should include collaboration across provincial governments as well as the Government of Canada.

Cam Dahl is the general manager of the Manitoba Pork Council.

The post Agriculture missing from Canada trade picture appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

It is, however, a critical topic, especially when accessing world markets is being made more difficult, and when enhancing the competitiveness of Canadian farmers is crucial to the economic sustainability of agriculture that helps drive the Canadian economy.

Governments around the world are taking actions that limit the free flow of Canadian agricultural exports and increase farmers’ cost of production.

Examples include label requirements on meat sold in the U.S., which will discriminate against Canadian live animal exports, as well as regulations in individual states whose influence extends across North America, such as Proposition 12 animal welfare regulations in California.

We also see arbitrary European regulations that restrict Canadian red meat exports, despite the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.

The Government of Canada needs to do everything in its power to counter foreign regulations that undermine the competitiveness of Canadian farmers.

Unfortunately, we have a regulatory system that can make the problem worse. For instance, there are federal regulations that impose extraordinary costs on Canadian producers that are not faced by our competitors. The carbon tax is the most cited regulation in this area, but it is not the only problem.

Another example is the approval processes for pesticides, new cropping technologies, animal health products and animal feed ingredients, overseen by Health Canada. These regulations are long past due for reform. Farmers in competing countries like the U.S. have rapid access to new products and technologies, while the slow pace of regulatory approval in Canada can block our farmers’ access to innovation.

In too many cases, companies that bring new products forward do not even apply to Canada because of the cost and time involved in navigating the regulatory system. An animal health company recently told me, “we do business in over 30 countries around the world and Canada is the most costly and time consuming country in which we operate.”

To provide one example, farmers in the U.S. can use a product (sodium metabisulfite) that removes the toxins produced by fusarium. This innovative product helps convert infected grains from a waste product into a valuable feed source.

Canadian farmers are waiting for approvals.

Another product is Carvacrol, an essential oil derived from oregano. Scientific research shows it can improve gut health in pigs, increase appetites of young pigs that have recently been weaned and alleviate diarrhea. U.S. farmers can use Carvacrol, but Canadian farmers cannot.

Preventing Canadian farmers from accessing innovations in animal health and nutrition can also stymie other national objectives, like providing alternatives to antibiotics.

These kinds of access restrictions on novel innovations could be significantly reduced if Health Canada were to accept the research and data that goes into the approval processes in other countries with a robust regulatory approval system, like the U.S. This policy solution has been on the desks of multiple federal health ministers in multiple federal governments.

It is not just products approved in the U.S. first that are a problem. Products approved in Canada but not in the U.S. are of concern because they can become trade barriers, especially in this age of rising protectionism. We have seen in the past that individual state governments can use the lack of harmonization as an excuse to block trade.

When the North American Free Trade Agreement was first signed, Canada and the U.S. created a process, the Regulatory Cooperation Council, whose purpose is to increase North American productivity through harmonization of regulations. Anita Anand, president of the Treasury Board of Canada, has recently held consultations on its priorities.

Removing drags on Canadian agricultural productivity and protecting our export markets by expediting approvals for products already scientifically approved by our key trading partner should be at the top of the minister’s priority list.

There is much governments can do to spur agricultural productivity and protect our export markets. Regulatory alignment with our largest trading partner should be a top priority for our regulatory and international trade agencies. That could rapidly happen if there was political will.

The post Canada needs an approvals overhaul appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.