How do the 2025 trade agreements affect Canadian exporters in key sectors like agriculture and technology?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Recent 2024–25 and 2025 developments in trade policy expand market access for Canadian exporters but also force adjustment costs for sensitive sectors. Agriculture exports topped $100.3 billion in 2024 and the government has earmarked up to $4.8 billion to help producers and processors adapt to market changes from recent trade agreements [1] [2]. New agreements — including concluded deals with Indonesia (Dec 2024) and Ecuador (Feb 2025) and ongoing Indo‑Pacific outreach — aim to diversify markets for both agricultural and technology goods and services [1] [2] [3].
1. Market access wins for agriculture — more buyers, more complexity
Canada’s federal agriculture agencies frame recent trade agreements as clear market-opening wins: the department highlights the conclusion of agreements with Indonesia and Ecuador and says new trade deals create “opportunities in many agriculture and agri‑food sectors,” supporting exporters via trade missions and the trade commissioner network [1] [3]. AAFC links these deals directly to targets and programs — including an Indo‑Pacific Agriculture and Agri‑Food Office in Manila and AgriMarketing programs — designed to turn tariff and quota access into sales [2] [4]. That said, government planning also explicitly acknowledges the need to help supply‑managed sectors and processors adapt to market changes created by these agreements, signaling redistribution of market share rather than uninterrupted gains for all producers [2] [4].
2. Money to manage disruption — compensation and modernization
Ottawa has budgeted substantial supports tied to trade openings: AAFC notes a compensation and adaptation package up to $4.8 billion related to recent trade agreements, including $333 million over ten years for dairy processors to help them “better compete and adapt” [2] [4]. Departmental reporting repeats that supports for risk management, research and innovation are central to government strategy — science and innovation will “remain a major focus” to keep the sector competitive [2] [1]. These funds are both mitigation and signal: the government expects winners and losers from liberalization and is investing to blunt political and economic fallout.
3. Technology and agri‑tech: opportunity through trade and innovation
Sources point to growing linkages between Canada’s tech strengths and agricultural competitiveness. Analysts and federal plans promote leveraging technology — from AI to precision fermentation and cell‑based food dialogues — to make Canadian supply chains more efficient and attractive to new markets [5] [1]. Trade commissioner materials list information and communication technology (ICT) and cleantech alongside agri‑food as priority export sectors in multiple FTAs, suggesting exporters of technology services and inputs can use preferential rules to expand abroad [6] [7]. Available sources do not mention specific tariff reductions for Canadian tech exports in the newest agreements; they emphasize market access, services promotion and sectoral opportunity lists [6] [7].
4. North American rules and agriculture sensitivities remain decisive
CUSMA/USMCA-style rules continue to shape agricultural outcomes: prior modernized North American agreements addressed biotech, dairy and poultry access and eliminated some tariffs such as on whey and margarine, while opening markets for U.S. poultry — a template that both expanded trade and required domestic adjustment [8]. AAFC recognizes that supply‑managed sectors must adapt to similar pressures from new FTAs, hence targeted supports and advocacy remain a consistent government response [2] [4].
5. Diversification strategy — Indo‑Pacific focus, but transition risks persist
Government documents and reporting make clear that policy now stresses diversification away from single markets toward the Indo‑Pacific and other regions, with new offices and mission activity flagged as instruments to achieve that [2] [1]. Complementary budget and program moves — including trade diversification funds and capacity to negotiate/implement agreements — aim to ease exporters’ access to alternative buyers [9] [1]. Yet diversification is a medium‑term strategy; AAFC’s continued emphasis on risk management confirms exporters will face near‑term disruptions as market shares shift [2] [1].
6. Practical implications for exporters: who gains, who pays
Large‑scale exporters of grains, seafood and value‑added food have direct pathways to grow sales under expanded market access and marketing supports [3] [1]. Supply‑managed producers (dairy, poultry) will receive targeted compensation and measures to help processors compete, indicating constrained upside and real adjustment costs domestically [2] [4]. Technology and ICT exporters are repeatedly listed as sectors of opportunity in FTA guidance, but the reporting emphasizes promotional and regulatory engagement rather than immediate, across‑the‑board tariff eliminations [6] [7].
Limitations and competing views: official sources present trade deals as net opportunities supported by mitigation funding [2] [1]. Independent or critical assessments of whether compensation will fully offset lost market share, or whether new trade rules will advantage foreign suppliers in specific niches, are not present in the provided results — not found in current reporting.