CUSMA Matters, but Canadians Are Not Willing to Preserve It at Any Cost

Canada’s trade relationships are entering a period of difficult choices.

The upcoming review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, better known as CUSMA, is not simply a technical negotiation. It comes as Canadian businesses face geopolitical uncertainty, shifting supply chains and growing pressure to expand into new markets. At the same time, Canada’s relationship with its largest trading partner has become a source of greater public caution.

Our latest survey shows that Canadians understand what is at stake. They largely expect the end of CUSMA to hurt the economy, but that concern does not automatically translate into support for compromise. Instead, many want the federal government to protect Canadian interests, even when that approach carries risks.

The message is clear: Canadians see trade as essential, but they increasingly want Canada to pursue it from a position of greater independence.

• Nearly two-thirds of Canadians (63%) believe the Canadian economy would be negatively affected if CUSMA ended without a replacement agreement.
• When asked about the federal government’s main priority in the negotiations, 36% favour rejecting U.S. demands that could harm Canada, even if doing so puts the agreement at risk.
• The United States is the only market tested where more Canadians want trade to decrease (43%) than increase (24%).
• European countries lead Canadians’ trade expansion priorities, with 70% supporting increased trade, followed by Japan at 63% and Mexico at 62%.
• A plurality of Canadians appear willing to take a more pragmatic approach to trade, with 45% saying Canada should be more open to working with countries that have questionable human-rights records when doing so creates new opportunities for Canadian businesses.

Awareness of the CUSMA review is already widespread. Nearly three-quarters of Canadians say they have heard about it, including 31% who consider themselves familiar with the situation. Awareness is particularly high among men and Canadians aged 55 and older, suggesting that the negotiations are already resonating most strongly with groups that tend to follow economic and political developments closely.

The public is not treating the review as a routine renewal process. Concern about the agreement’s future is considerably greater than indifference, and Canadians overwhelmingly reject the idea that its disappearance would benefit the economy. This concern builds on a broader decline in confidence surrounding Canada–U.S. trade relations.

However, economic anxiety is not producing a simple “deal at any cost” mentality. Older Canadians are especially likely to support rejecting potentially harmful U.S. demands, while younger adults are more inclined to accept compromises that would preserve an agreement. The federal government is therefore navigating two public expectations at once: maintaining economic stability and demonstrating that Canada will not concede too much to achieve it.

The most significant strategic finding may be the contrast between Canadians’ views of the United States and their openness to other markets. Support for increasing trade is strongest with Europe and major partners in Asia, while Mexico also emerges as a particularly attractive opportunity. By comparison, enthusiasm for expanding trade with the United States is limited.

This does not mean Canadians believe the U.S. market can be replaced. The perceived consequences of losing CUSMA suggest the opposite. Rather, the results point to a desire to reduce Canada’s exposure to a single relationship and create more options for Canadian businesses. This aligns with the broader national discussion around diversifying Canada’s international trade.

There are also meaningful differences in how potential markets are perceived. China attracts more support for increased trade than India or Saudi Arabia, although it remains well behind Europe, Japan, Mexico and South Korea. Men are consistently more supportive than women of increasing trade with every country or group tested. These gaps matter for organizations pursuing international growth: public support for diversification is broad, but it cannot be assumed to extend equally to every market or every audience.

Canadians also appear willing to reconsider some of the conditions they place on international trade. The most common response in our survey is that Canada should become more open to working with countries that have questionable human-rights records so Canadian businesses can reach new markets.

This does not amount to a rejection of human rights as a consideration. Almost one in five Canadians would prefer Canada to demand more from its trading partners, even if that closes off certain markets, while a similar proportion believes the country should maintain its current approach. The findings instead reveal a public weighing competing priorities: values, resilience and economic opportunity.

The balance differs across the population. Support for a more pragmatic approach is stronger among men, British Columbians and respondents under 55. Women are more likely to be uncertain or to favour stronger requirements.

Canadians may be open to a wider range of partnerships, but they will still expect organizations and governments to explain how those relationships are being managed responsibly. This tension is becoming increasingly relevant as Canada strengthens ties beyond the United States, including through trade relationships with markets such as China. Our recent study on Canadians’ views of Chinese electric vehicles illustrates how economic openness can coexist with concerns about security, quality and geopolitical risk.

Canadians recognize that CUSMA remains central to the economy, but they are also signalling that dependence on the agreement should not limit Canada’s ability to defend its interests.

The opportunity for policymakers and business leaders is to connect these priorities rather than present them as competing choices. Preserving access to the North American market, developing stronger relationships elsewhere and clearly communicating the safeguards surrounding new partnerships can all contribute to a more resilient trade strategy.

These findings also add another dimension to our recent research on how Canadians and Americans see their relationship. The two countries remain deeply connected, but Canadians increasingly appear to be reassessing what that connection should look like and how much Canada should depend on it.

Explore our full report for additional findings and detailed regional, gender and age breakdowns.

This study is based on an online survey of 1,532 Canadian residents aged 18 and older, conducted from July 18 to 20, 2026, using Leger’s LEO online panel. Respondents could complete the survey in English or French.

Results were weighted according to age, gender, mother tongue, region, education and the presence of children in the household to ensure a sample representative of the Canadian population.

A margin of error cannot be associated with a non-probability sample. For comparison, a probability sample of this size would have a margin of error of no greater than ±2.50 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. Percentages have been rounded, and totals may not correspond to the manual addition of rounded figures.