An anti-trade poison pill made Canada-U.S. deal ‘easy to walk away from’, say ex-diplomats – The Hill Times An anti-trade poison pill made Canada-U.S. deal ‘easy to walk away from’, say ex-diplomats – The Hill Times

Agreeing to provisions that infringe on sovereignty is part and parcel of trade negotiations, but only to a certain point, says Matthew Kronby, partner, International Trade Group, in an interview with The Hill Times.

“But that’s quite different from giving a trading partner a broad veto of who else you trade with, and on what terms you trade with them,” he says. “It would be antithetical to Canada’s objective of diversifying its trading relationships and not being as dependent on the United States.”

Matthew says that the provision that allowed for the termination of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico (CUSMA) trade agreement if one of the parties entered into a trade deal with a non-market country was quite narrow. A broader provision that would prohibit Canada from entering into trade negotiations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations or with India, for example, would be unacceptable.

In Matthew’s view, added transparency would “help set the record straight and clarify whose narrative is the more reliable” between the two parties. “But, at the same time, trade negotiations are usually conducted with a degree of confidentiality, and, therefore, it may be that the government is reluctant to reveal too much about what has been on the table because it anticipates a resumption of negotiation,” he says,

If you have a subscription to The Hill Times, you can read the full article by Neil Moss posted on August 26, 2026.