The warning came quietly, but it was unmistakable. According to a Reuters report this week, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer made it clear: Canada’s dairy dispute will be resolved one of two ways, through negotiation or through enforcement.

That is not diplomatic nuance. That is a choice.

CHARLEBOIS: Dairy, diplomacy, and the price of ego Back to video

And it comes at a delicate moment, as the review of USMCA approaches. Dairy is once again at the center of the storm. It always is. Canada’s supply management system, long defended domestically, continues to frustrate U.S. officials over limited market access. As reported by Reuters, tensions remain high around how Canada administers its tariff-rate quotas.

None of this is new. What is new is the tone.

Recent commentary out of the United States, including sharp criticisms aimed at Prime Minister Mark Carney, reflects a growing impatience. Some of it is political theatre. But some of it signals something more consequential, a willingness to move from negotiation to enforcement if progress stalls.

In the food trade, that shift matters.

Structural trading relationship

Canada’s agri-food economy is deeply integrated with the United States. This is not a casual trading relationship. It is structural. Supply chains cross the border multiple times before products reach consumers. Roughly three-quarters of Canadian agri-food exports still head south. You do not casually antagonize the market that anchors your value chain.

The critique coming from voices like Brian Switzer, however undiplomatic, boils down to a familiar expectation. Canada should act like a predictable partner. Not subordinate, but steady. When that perception erodes, the consequences are rarely immediate. They emerge later, in tighter border controls, procurement shifts, or dispute panels.

And eventually, in prices.

Adding to the ambiguity this week was testimony in Ottawa by Max Wiseman, newly appointed to the post. Asked directly about his position on supply management, particularly given that he had penned an op-ed criticizing the system just two years ago, he offered no clear response. Silence, in this context, is not neutral. It leaves both domestic stakeholders and U.S. counterparts guessing about Canada’s negotiating posture.

That uncertainty matters.

Meanwhile, Mexico is taking a markedly different approach. Under President Claudia Sheinbaum, the strategy has been pragmatic and disciplined. Keep discussions focused, avoid personalizing disputes, and keep the machinery of trade moving. It may not make headlines, but it gets results. And in doing so, Mexico risks positioning itself as the more reliable partner in Washington, potentially isolating Canada within the North American trade framework.

CHARLEBOIS: Which CUSMA strategy is it this week, PM Mark Carney?

CHARLEBOIS: Why the most important food prices are rising again

CHARLEBOIS: Canada’s meat scales are off – and so is oversight

Proximity is everything

Canada’s instinct, increasingly, is to talk about diversification, reducing dependence on the United States. That is a sensible long-term goal. But it is not a short-term substitute. Geography still dictates trade flows. Logistics still favour proximity. And in food, proximity is everything.

There is also a political reality that cannot be ignored. Parliament has moved to shield supply-managed sectors from future concessions, reinforcing how sensitive and entrenched this system has become. But trade agreements do not operate in isolation from economic pressure. Nor do they function well under rhetorical strain.

If Canada leans too heavily into confrontation, economically or rhetorically, it risks triggering exactly what Greer warned about: enforcement.

And enforcement, in trade terms, is rarely surgical. It is blunt.

The lesson here is not that Canada should abandon its policies or capitulate under pressure. It is that strategy matters as much as substance. Tone, sequencing, and signalling are not peripheral. They are central to outcomes.

Because in agri-food, disputes are not abstract. They do not stay confined to negotiation rooms or policy papers. They move through supply chains, into contracts, into costs.

And eventually, onto receipts.

Canada does not need to choose between sovereignty and cooperation. But it does need to recognize that in the food trade, pragmatism is not weakness. It is discipline.

And discipline, right now, is in short supply.

– 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

© Edmonton Sun