It is recognized that the trade relationship between Canada and Mexico remains less developed than the existing one with the United States, although a wide margin for growth is identified, either under the USMCA or through a bilateral agreement, but work must be done to eliminate barriers.
According to the Ministry of Economy, Mexico’s trade with Canada is still limited. Imports from that country represent close to 2% of the total, while exports barely reach 3.3%.
The alerts
The energy sector appears as the main focus of concern. Calgary and Alberta point out that policies that prioritize Mexican state companies, particularly Pemex, reduce access to foreign capital and limit investment opportunities for Canadian companies. The criticism is not directed at the role of the State, but at the absence of equitable and predictable conditions for private participation.
The Business Council of Alberta adds that this environment is aggravated by the USMCA’s restrictions on the dispute settlement mechanism between investors and States in energy, which weakens protection for foreign investment. For Alberta energy companies, this design increases the risk of projects in Mexico and slows regional energy integration.
The Calgary Chamber of Commerce agrees that the review of the agreement should address these distortions, especially to facilitate trilateral cooperation in low-emission energy, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and nuclear. Without clear rules and legal certainty, he warns, North America loses ground compared to other blocks that are advancing more quickly in the energy transition.
Both organizations identify a possible turning pointbecause the intention of the Mexican government is to withdraw the financial support to Pemex By 2027, this opens the expectation of greater space for partnerships with foreign capital. For Canadian business, this shift can redefine the balance between state control and private participation, although it emphasizes that any change must be reflected in clear rules within the T-MEC.
He second critical axis is miningparticularly that of critical minerals. Calgary and Alberta agree that lithium, cobalt and other strategic inputs are essential for batteries, electric vehicles, advanced technologies and defense systems. In this context, they propose that the T-MEC should serve as a platform to create integrated supply chains in North America and reduce dependence on China.
It is mentioned that “state control of lithium reserves in Mexico” represents a barrier to fully integrating a supply chain of critical minerals within the region.
Adding to this concern is the fear that Chinese companies will use subsidiaries in Mexico to access the North American market. The two organizations propose strengthening the rules of origin and the application of labor provisions to close this space, an issue that directly connects mining with regional manufacturing.
He third front is the agriculturalwith canola as the main irritant. Both Calgary and Alberta point out that the Mexican ban on the import of genetically modified canola constitutes a non-tariff barrier incompatible with the principles of the T-MEC. For Canadian business, this measure restricts access to the Mexican market for one of its most relevant agricultural products and sets a precedent that weakens trade based on scientific evidence.
The Calgary Chamber of Commerce emphasizes that eliminating these types of restrictions would allow expanding agri-food exchange with Mexico.
In this sense, it highlights the importance of strengthening economic ties with Mexico in a context where the country became the main trading partner of the United States.
Taken together, the positions of Calgary and Alberta draw a coincident vision. Mexico is essential for the energy, mineral and food security of North America, but faces pressure to adjust its regulatory framework.
