Trade retaliation might feel good—but it will hurt Canada’s economy

To state the obvious, president-elect Donald Trump’s threat to impose an across-the-board 25 per cent tariff on Canadian exports to the United States has gotten the attention of Canadian policymakers who are considering ways to retaliate.

Reportedly, if Trump makes good on his tariff threat, the federal government may levy retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of American-made goods including orange juice, ceramic products such as sinks and toilets, and some steel products. And NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he wants Canada to block exports of critical minerals such as aluminum, lithium and potash to the United States, saying that if Trump “wants to pick a fight with Canada, we have to make sure it’s clear that it’s going to hurt Americans as well.”

Indeed, the ostensible goal of tariff retaliation is to inflict economic damage on producers and workers in key U.S. jurisdictions while minimizing harm to Canadian consumers of products imported from the U.S. The hope is that there will be sufficient political blowback from Canada’s retaliation that Republican members of Congress will eventually view Trump’s tariffs as an unacceptable risk to their re-election and pressure him to roll them back.

But while Canadians might feel good about tit-for-tat retaliation against Trump’s trade bullying and taunting, it might well make things worse for the Canadian economy. For example, even selective tariffs will increase the cost of living for Canadians as importers of tariffed U.S. goods pass the tax along to domestic consumers. Retaliatory tariffs might also harm productivity growth in Canada by encouraging increased domestic production of goods that are produced relatively inefficiently here at home compared to in the U.S. Make no mistake—once trade protections are put in place, the beneficiaries have a strong vested interest in having the protections maintained indefinitely. While Trump will be gone in four years, tariffs imposed by Ottawa to retaliate against his actions will likely remain in place for longer.

The U.S. president has substantial leeway under existing legislation to implement trade measures such as tariffs. While Trump has several legislative options to impose new tariffs against Canada and Mexico, he’ll likely use the International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the president power to regulate imports and impose duties in response to an emergency involving any unusual and extraordinary threat to national security, foreign policy or the economy. According to Trump’s rhetoric, the emergency is illegal immigration and drug traffic originating in Canada and Mexico.

However risible Trump’s emergency claim might be when applied to Canada, overturning any action under the IEEPA, or some other enabling legislation, would require a legal challenge. And in fact, because no president has yet used the IEEPA to impose tariffs, the legality of Trump’s actions remains in doubt. In this context, a group of governors sympathetic to Canada’s position (and their own political fortunes) might spearhead a legal challenge to Trump’s tariffs with encouragement and support from the Canadian government.

To be sure, any legal challenge would take time to work its way through the U.S. court system. But it will likely also take time for domestic opposition to Trump’s tariffs to gain sufficient political momentum to effect any change. Indeed, given the current composition of Congress, it’s far from clear that a Team Canada effort to rally broad anti-tariff support among U.S. politicians and business leaders would bear fruit while Trump is in office.

While direct retaliation might be emotionally satisfying to Canadians, it would likely do more economic harm than good. And while a legal challenge will not obviate the immediate economic harm Canada will suffer from Trump’s tariffs, it might help limit the ability of Trump (and any future president) to use trade policy for political leverage in our bilateral relationship. After all, there’s no guarantee that the next president will not be a Trump acolyte.

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #RetaliatoryTariffs #StevenGloberman CanadaUSRelations CanadaUSTrade TrumpTariffs

Up Next

Trump, taunts and trade—Canada’s response is a decade out of date

Don't Miss

Is There Any Canadian Province More Proud of their Premier Today…

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump: ‘We’ have control over Iranian airspace; know where Khomeini is hiding

conflict / 3 hours ago

Trump Threatens Strike on Khamenei as Israel Pounds Iranian Military Command

Business / 3 hours ago

The CBC is a government-funded giant no one watches

Business

The CBC is a government-funded giant no one watches

Published on June 17, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Kris Sims

The CBC is draining taxpayer money while Canadians tune out. It’s time to stop funding a media giant that’s become a political pawn

The CBC is a taxpayer-funded failure, and it’s time to pull the plug. Yet during the election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney pledged to pump another $150 million into the broadcaster, even as the CBC was covering his campaign. That’s a blatant conflict of interest, and it underlines why government-funded journalism must end.

The CBC even reported on that announcement, running a headline calling itself “underfunded.” Think about that. Imagine being a CBC employee asking Carney questions at a campaign news conference, while knowing that if he wins, your employer gets a bigger cheque. Meanwhile, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has pledged to defund the CBC. The broadcaster is literally covering a story that determines its future funding—and pretending there’s no conflict.

This kind of entanglement isn’t journalism. It’s political theatre. When reporters’ paycheques depend on who wins the election, public trust is shattered.

And the rot goes even deeper. In the Throne Speech, the Carney government vowed to “protect the institutions that bring these cultures and this identity to the world, like CBC/RadioCanada.” Before the election, a federal report recommended nearly doubling the CBC’s annual funding. Former heritage minister Pascale St-Onge said Canada should match the G7 average of $62 per person per year—a move that would balloon the CBC’s budget to $2.5 billion annually. That would nearly double the CBC’s current public funding, which already exceeds $1.2 billion per year.

To put that in perspective, $2.5 billion could cover the annual grocery bill for more than 150,000 Canadian families. But Ottawa wants to shovel more cash at an organization most Canadians don’t even watch.

St-Onge also proposed expanding the CBC’s mandate to “fight disinformation,” suggesting it should play a formal role in “helping the Canadian population understand fact-based information.” The federal government says this is about countering false or misleading information online—so-called “disinformation.” But the Carney platform took it further, pledging to “fully equip” the CBC to combat disinformation so Canadians “have a news source
they know they can trust.”

That raises troubling questions. Will the CBC become an official state fact-checker? Who decides what qualifies as “disinformation”? This isn’t about journalism anymore—it’s about control.

Meanwhile, accountability is nonexistent. Despite years of public backlash over lavish executive compensation, the CBC hasn’t cleaned up its act. Former CEO Catherine Tait earned nearly half a million dollars annually. Her successor, Marie Philippe Bouchard, will rake in up to $562,700. Bonuses were scrapped after criticism—but base salaries were quietly hiked instead. Canadians struggling with inflation and rising costs are footing the bill for bloated executive pay at a broadcaster few of them even watch.

The CBC’s flagship English-language prime-time news show draws just 1.8 per cent of available viewers. That means more than 98 per cent of TV-viewing Canadians are tuning out. The public isn’t buying what the CBC is selling—but they’re being forced to pay for it anyway.

Government-funded journalism is a conflict of interest by design. The CBC is expensive, unpopular, and unaccountable. It doesn’t need more money. It needs to stand on its own—or not at all.

Kris Sims is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Business

Trump family announces Trump Mobile: Made in America, for America

Published on June 17, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

On the 10-year anniversary of Donald Trump’s iconic campaign launch, the Trump family announced the debut of Trump Mobile, a new wireless company offering American-built smartphones, 5G coverage, and a values-driven alternative to Big Tech carriers.

Key Details:

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump introduced Trump Mobile’s flagship service Monday, calling it a “transformational” alternative aimed at “our nation’s hardest-working people.”
The “47 Plan,” priced at $47.45/month, offers unlimited talk, text, and data, free international calls to U.S. military families, telehealth, roadside assistance, and no credit checks.
Trump Mobile’s customer support is fully U.S.-based and live 24/7—“not automated,” the company says—while a new American-made “T1 Phone” is slated for release in August.

Diving Deeper:

Marking ten years since President Donald Trump descended the golden escalator to launch his first campaign, the Trump Organization on Monday announced its boldest private sector move yet: Trump Mobile.

Flanked by company executives, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump unveiled the new cellular service, touting it as a patriotic, people-first alternative to legacy providers. “We’re building on the movement to put America first,” Trump Jr. said in a statement. “We will deliver the highest levels of quality and service.”

The cornerstone of Trump Mobile is the 47 Plan. Offered for $47.45/month, the plan includes unlimited data, full 5G coverage across all three major carriers, and a suite of benefits tailored to middle-class families, truckers, veterans, and anyone tired of paying premiums to companies that don’t share their values.

Among the key perks: 24/7 American-based customer service (with “real people,” not bots), comprehensive device protection, roadside assistance through Drive America, and telehealth services including mental health support and prescription delivery. Most notably, the plan includes free international calling to over 100 countries—an effort the Trump family says honors U.S. military families stationed abroad.

“We’re especially proud to offer free long-distance calling to our military members and their families,” said Eric Trump. “Those serving overseas should always be able to stay connected to the people they love back home.”

Unlike traditional providers, Trump Mobile advertises no contracts and no credit checks, appealing to a demographic long underserved by mainstream telecom giants. “Hard-working Americans deserve a wireless service that’s affordable, reflects their values, and delivers reliable quality they can count on,” Eric Trump added.

The company is also preparing to launch the T1 Phone in August—a sleek, gold smartphone “engineered for performance” and “proudly designed and built in the United States.” With that, the Trump Organization is not just entering the mobile market—it’s staking a claim as a direct competitor to Apple and Samsung.