Trump Trade Chief Says Canada Deal Still ‘Not Urgent’ as G20 Ministers Meet in U.S. Today

35,000+ smart investors are already getting financial news, market signals, and macro shifts in the economy that could impact their money next with our FREE weekly newsletter. Get ahead of what the crowd finds out too late. Click Here to Subscribe for FREE.

Trade ministers are gathering in Milwaukee at a moment when North America’s deeply integrated economy is colliding with a much colder political relationship. On the eve of the G20 Trade Ministerial, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said a deal with Canada was “presumably” possible but remained “not urgent for us,” reinforcing Washington’s willingness to let the standoff continue. The timing is striking: new U.S. import bans on selected Canadian alcohol, dairy products and motorcycles took effect only a day earlier, while detailed bilateral negotiations remain paused. The G20 gathering is not a Canada-U.S. negotiating summit, but it places Greer and other trade ministers in the same city as questions grow over tariffs, supply chains, industrial policy and the future of CUSMA.

Greer Brings the “No Urgency” Message to Milwaukee

Greer’s latest comment was not an offhand departure from the administration’s recent line. Speaking to reporters Tuesday night, he said that a Canada deal could happen “at some point,” but that it was not urgent for the United States. Days earlier, he had made a similar case publicly, saying Washington remained comfortable with the existing situation because the United States was still receiving Canadian oil, natural gas, potash and agricultural products. That framing matters because it separates political urgency from commercial activity. The border has not stopped functioning, and most trade continues, even while tariffs and bans hit selected sectors. From Washington’s perspective, Greer is signaling that continued commerce in strategically important goods reduces the pressure to accept terms quickly simply to restore a broader sense of normality.

Milwaukee gives that message a highly visible setting. The official schedule opens Wednesday with a ministerial meeting on global steel excess capacity, followed by a tour of Rockwell Automation and an afternoon G20 trade session led by Greer. Thursday includes two longer ministerial sessions and a public Greer press conference. USTR says the agenda includes forced labour in supply chains, the Most-Favoured-Nation principle, food trade and structural overcapacity. Semafor reported that bilateral meetings are also part of the gathering, although no Canada-U.S. breakthrough had been announced when the ministerial began. Most events are closed to reporters, which means any meaningful movement may emerge through official readouts rather than live public negotiations. For now, the verified message entering the meeting is continuity, not a newly declared deadline.

Washington’s Leverage Rests on Trade That Still Keeps Moving

The scale of the economic relationship helps explain why the standoff can look contradictory. U.S. government data put two-way goods and services trade with Canada at an estimated US$872.3 billion in 2025. Goods alone accounted for US$715.5 billion, including US$333.6 billion in U.S. exports to Canada and US$381.9 billion in imports from Canada. Services added another US$156.8 billion. Those numbers describe an economy in which political disputes sit on top of thousands of ordinary commercial relationships: pipelines delivering energy, factories receiving components, grocery suppliers moving food and companies selling services across the border. Greer’s argument that the United States is still obtaining key Canadian inputs reflects that reality. The current dispute is severe for affected sectors, but it has not erased the underlying commercial architecture connecting the two countries.

The exposure is also uneven. Statistics Canada reported that 71.7 per cent of Canadian merchandise exports went to the United States in 2025, down from 75.9 per cent a year earlier. Canada’s merchandise exports to the U.S. fell 5.8 per cent that year, while trade with other countries expanded: non-U.S. exports rose 17.2 per cent and total non-U.S. merchandise trade climbed 14.3 per cent to C$553 billion. That diversification reduces some concentration risk, but the American market remains exceptionally important to Canadian producers. At the same time, the U.S. exports hundreds of billions of dollars in goods and services to Canada, meaning disruptions can also reach American manufacturers, farmers, distributors and consumers. The dependence is asymmetric, but it is not one-way, which is why even a prolonged standoff carries costs beyond Ottawa.

The Dispute Has Moved Beyond Tariffs to Outright Import Bans

The dispute crossed another line on September 29, when U.S. Customs and Border Protection began excluding specified Canadian products from entry rather than merely charging them higher duties. The covered categories include certain alcoholic beverages, dairy-related products and motorcycles. Before the bans, many of those products had already faced 50 per cent duties under earlier U.S. measures. An estimate cited in Associated Press reporting put the affected 2025 import value at roughly US$967 million, about 87 per cent of it alcoholic beverages. The Trump administration says the action responds to what it describes as discriminatory Canadian treatment of U.S. alcohol, dairy and motor-vehicle exports. Canada has disputed the broader U.S. trade approach and has imposed countermeasures of its own. The shift from tariffs to outright exclusion makes the conflict more tangible for individual exporters.

That impact is easier to see at company level than in a national trade total. Wolfhead Distillery in Amherstburg, Ontario, told reporters it had stopped shipping whisky to Michigan, leaving prospective product expansion into Michigan and Georgia on hold while the business waits for clarity. Quebec-based BRP has also said its Can-Am Spyder and Canyon motorcycles are affected by the U.S. restrictions, though it expected limited short-term impact because most current-season production and shipping had already been completed. Canada, meanwhile, imposed counter-tariffs of 15, 25 and 50 per cent on C$27.6 billion of U.S. imports beginning September 8, matching the value of the U.S. measures Ottawa was responding to. The targeted Canadian list includes steel, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, plastics and electronics.

Ottawa Is Keeping the Door Open Without Rushing Back

Ottawa’s public position is to keep communication open without returning to detailed negotiations on the same terms that broke down in August. Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc said Tuesday that Canadian officials remain in contact with their American counterparts, but are no longer negotiating detailed text as they were five or six weeks earlier. He also rejected President Donald Trump’s suggestion that Canada would return with an apology, saying the government would not apologize for defending Canadian workers, businesses and the economy. Prime Minister Mark Carney has similarly said Canada remains prepared to negotiate in good faith. At the same time, he said Ottawa does not plan to intensify trade pressure simply because U.S. midterm elections are approaching, while stopping short of ruling out every future option.

The result is a peculiar form of stalemate: dialogue has not ended, yet neither side is describing an active push to close a comprehensive agreement today. Ottawa says any eventual arrangement must protect Canadian sovereignty and serve the country’s economic interests, while Washington has made clear that it wants changes before restoring a more settled trade relationship. That difference helps explain why Greer’s “not urgent” language matters. It is less a declaration that trade with Canada is unimportant than a statement that the U.S. administration does not currently see enough reason to accelerate a compromise. For Canadian businesses exposed to tariffs or bans, however, the calendar looks different. Financing decisions, production schedules and export plans continue to move even when diplomatic negotiations do not, turning political delay into a practical business variable.

The G20 Gives Canada a Broader Stage Than the Bilateral Fight

The G20 meeting broadens the discussion beyond the bilateral quarrel. USTR says ministers in Milwaukee will address forced labour in global supply chains, changes to the Most-Favoured-Nation principle, the use of food trade as leverage and structural excess capacity. Wednesday’s separate steel session is especially relevant to a world already dealing with tariffs, subsidies and concern about excess production. The ministerial therefore gives Canada and the United States a setting where their dispute sits beside larger questions about how global trade should operate. It does not automatically create a negotiating channel for a Canada-U.S. settlement, and no official agreement to restart detailed bilateral talks had been announced at the opening. Still, the concentration of trade officials and bilateral meetings creates opportunities for governments to exchange positions away from a formal negotiating table.

For Canada, that wider setting also aligns with an increasingly explicit diversification strategy. Ottawa says more than 90 per cent of Canada’s bilateral merchandise trade is with G20 countries, making the group economically important well beyond relations with Washington. The federal government is simultaneously pursuing a goal of doubling non-U.S. exports over the next decade, which it says would add C$300 billion in trade. Recent outreach to Southeast Asia illustrates the approach: Canada-ASEAN merchandise trade reached C$52.5 billion in 2025, up 23.7 per cent from 2024, while negotiations on trade agreements with ASEAN and the Philippines have advanced. None of those markets can quickly replace the scale or geography of the U.S. relationship. They do, however, show how Ottawa is trying to reduce the consequences of having so much trade concentrated in one market.

CUSMA Is Still in Force, but the Clock Now Ticks Differently

One point can easily be lost amid the tariff headlines: CUSMA has not expired. At the July 1 joint review, the United States declined to renew the agreement in its current form. USTR said the pact therefore was not renewed, but also stated that it remains in force while the parties continue addressing their differences or until the agreement terminates. Canada says the agreement remains fully in force until 2036 and can still be extended at any time for another 16-year term. The distinction matters because “not renewed” is not the same as “ended.” Businesses continue operating under an existing continental trade framework even as the three governments disagree about its future. That creates an unusual combination of legal continuity and political uncertainty around North American trade.

Because the three countries did not agree to extend CUSMA at the 2026 review, the agreement now moves into annual joint reviews unless they later reach consensus on an extension. Canadian government guidance says those yearly reviews can continue until 2036, with another 16-year extension possible if all parties agree before then. In the near term, the clearest signals will be concrete ones: whether Milwaukee produces a bilateral Canada-U.S. readout, whether officials resume line-by-line negotiations, and what Greer says at his scheduled October 1 press conference. None of those outcomes was confirmed when the G20 meeting opened. For now, “not urgent” accurately describes Washington’s publicly stated timetable, but it does not remove the economic stakes created by tariffs, import bans and an unresolved CUSMA review process.

This Options Discord Chat is The Real Deal

While the internet is scoured with trading chat rooms, many of which even charge upwards of thousands of dollars to join, this smaller options trading discord chatroom is the real deal and actually providing valuable trade setups, education, and community without the noise and spam of the larger more expensive rooms. With a incredibly low-cost monthly fee, Options Trading Club (click here to see their reviews) requires an application to join ensuring that every member is dedicated and serious about taking their trading to the next level. If you are looking for a change in your trading strategies, then click here to apply for a membership.