Who is the Government of Canada Really Listening to on CUSMA Consultations?

Global Affairs Canada (GAC) released the short document What We Heard – 2025 Public Consultations on the CUSMA Review on February 6th. GAC noted that:

The Government of Canada received a significant volume of input from a diverse mix of individuals, businesses, industry associations, provinces and territories, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from regions across Canada. In total, we received 5,143 submissions. Contributions were received from 184 businesses, 238 industry associations, councils, and labour unions, 4670 individuals, 10 provinces and territories, 8 public sector organizations, 26 Civil Society, NGOs, and public policy groups, and 7 Indigenous groups.

This is a much welcome increase over the 137 submissions received by GAC during its 2024 CUSMA consultations. It was particularly heartening to see that 4,670 individuals submitted last year compared to only 7 in 2024. With all of Donald Trump’s aggressive and erratic behaviour, it is not surprising more Canadians want to have a say.

But the initial findings that GAC chose to report on raises some red flags. It is clear that GAC is amplifying the voice of business over that of working people. There is no mention as of yet about the fate of the Rapid Response Mechanism which as a novel feature of the CUSMA, has improved labour protections and expanded independent union membership in Mexico. Canada’s unions would like to see it be made more effective, both to address the existence of poverty and exploitation in Mexico amid immense corporate profits, and to reduce the ability of these corporations to engage in a “race to the bottom” that also puts pressure on Canadian workers. Canadian unions would like to see its scope expanded to Canada and the US as well.

GAC also says that it received seven submissions from Indigenous groups but there is no mention of Indigenous issues at all. Ditto for issues of gender equality or any other parts of the government’s supposed commitment to “inclusive trade.” The only mention of the environment is that of the “North American trading environment.”

GAC much prefers to emphasize predictability and business confidence over worker concerns, the modernization of regulations with no mention of how that relates to labour and allowing for skilled workers to be able to cross the border with little friction which is only a small fraction of workers affected by Trump’s trade war on Canada.

Given what GAC has decided to highlight in this statement, and what it appears to have left off the table, this should raise legitimate concerns about how the government will head into the CUSMA review from July 2026 onwards. Given the overarching attention demonstrated here towards business concerns, workers, Indigenous peoples and anyone else left behind by Canada’s economy have every reason worry that the government may sell their interests out to maintain CUSMA in some form.

It is also very insulting that GAC would lump in unions and businesses under one group. While there are many points of shared agreement between business and unions about Trump’s trade war, unions have clearly said that no deal is better than a bad deal, supported Canadian counter-tariffs over business objections, and have called for industrial policies to lessen Canada’s dependence on the American market. Whereas lobby groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business issues statements critical of plans to develop the EV sector in Canada.

In these uncertain times, Canadians deserve clear statements that their government is on their side and doing more to protect their jobs, communities, and the public services they rely on. This corporate-first messaging not only will leave many behind but also signal to the Trump administration that Canada is desperate to sign a deal, which will ultimately lead to a bad one.