U.S. Sees 'No Urgency' on Canada Trade Deal as Formal Talks Stall
The United States feels "no urgency" to reach a trade deal with Canada.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer made the comment in an interview with CNBC, reported Sept. 25. He described contacts with Ottawa as sporadic conversations. He did not say active negotiations are underway. The Globe and Mail
A Canadian official gave a matching account. Communication with Washington continues, but there are no formal negotiations right now. Channels are open, but talks are not active.
Speaking about talks that stopped in August, Greer said the United States gave Canada a deal. He gave no details in the material reported. He added the United States still gets the oil, gas, potash and other goods it needs from Canada. Potash is a mineral used mainly in fertilizer. The Globe and Mail
That followed an exchange earlier in September. Prime Minister Carney said Sept. 1 the United States needs to start being serious and stop trying to be tough before talks on a possible deal can restart. Reuters
Ottawa had already announced new tariffs on U.S. goods, to take effect Sept. 8, 2026. Tariffs are taxes charged at the border. The announcement was reported Aug. 23. Reuters
Mexico and Washington were working toward a bilateral deal between the two countries before the U.S. elections. That effort followed the collapse of U.S.-Canada talks and was reported Sept. 11. Reuters
Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland has also said there is no urgency to ratify the new deal with the United States and Mexico. No date was attached to that comment. It is background to the impasse, not a response to it.
The broader context here is a split map. Washington and Mexico City pursued a two-country track after three-country talks with Ottawa broke off. Ottawa kept lines open while holding to its tariff timetable. Neither capital describes a formal table now.
In my view, the wording matters. Sporadic conversations mean exchanges without a mandate, text or timetable, more like passing messages than sitting down with an agenda. No formal negotiations means no agreed framework for concessions. Continuing contact keeps the file from going cold, but it does not create momentum alone.
Looking at what this means for Ottawa, the near-term question is process, not substance. A government that favours a return to talks must decide what counts as serious engagement, who tests it, and how to describe that test without giving up leverage. Washington says it can meet current needs for energy, potash and other inputs while it waits. That lowers U.S. pressure to move fast and leaves the next step in plain view.
