TORONTO — The outgoing Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, and the Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, are optimistic about the nation’s ability to circumvent the 25% tariffs that President Donald Trump has threatened to impose starting on February 1.
Their argument is centered around the notion that Canada is a powerhouse in energy production, possessing both oil reserves and crucial minerals essential for the thriving U.S. economy that Trump envisions.
In contrast, Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford is anticipating a trade conflict, asserting that Trump has effectively declared an “economic war on Canada.”
In a recent interview, Ford emphasized that Ontario will utilize every strategy available to safeguard its economic interests.
Trudeau expressed readiness to retaliate if necessary but reminded that Canada has navigated similar scenarios previously, during Trump’s first term when they successfully renegotiated trade agreements.
Ford announced that once the tariffs are implemented, he will instruct Ontario’s liquor control board to remove all American-made alcohol from store shelves, claiming Ontario’s status as the leading alcohol purchaser globally.
He intends to encourage provincial leaders to join in this boycott, insisting that Canada will retaliate with equivalent tariffs on American imports.
“We will target Republican held regions as well,” Ford warned. “Canadians will feel the pinch, but Americans will experience consequences, too.”
Trump has publicly committed to implementing tariffs as part of his promise for an economic renaissance in America. Although he has indicated that Canada and Mexico may face tariffs from February 1, he also signed an executive order mandating a report from the Secretary of Commerce by April 1.
He noted that these tariffs are unrelated to the ongoing trade negotiations and are primarily aimed at curbing illegal immigration and drug trafficking.
At the White House, Trump stated he believes the volume of fentanyl entering the U.S. from Canada and Mexico is significant, although the statistics show a stark contrast in seizures: only 43 pounds of fentanyl were seized at the Canadian border compared to over 21,000 pounds at the Mexican border last year.
Canada supplies approximately 60% of U.S. crude oil imports, and despite Trump’s assertions that the U.S. can manage without Canada, nearly a quarter of the oil consumed daily in the U.S. comes from its northern neighbor.
Furthermore, Canada possesses 34 critical minerals that are vital for the Pentagon and is the largest foreign provider of aluminum, steel, and uranium to the U.S.
Each day, nearly CAD 3.6 billion (about USD 2.7 billion) in goods and services traverse the Canadian border, making Canada the top export market for 36 U.S. states.
Trudeau pointed out that if the U.S. economy is to flourish as Trump predicts, it will necessitate increased imports of energy, steel, aluminum, and critical minerals—all key Canadian exports.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum urged a rational approach regarding the tariff threat, suggesting that a closer examination of Trump’s signed agreements is necessary rather than succumbing to his rhetoric.
She expressed hope that the order aligns with the previous free trade agreements, emphasizing that a formal revision of this agreement is set for July 2026.
Smith highlighted that the April 1 deadline offers an opportunity for Canadians to advocate for exemption from the tariffs.
She believes that Canada’s status as a significant supplier of uranium and critical minerals could provide leverage, stating that Canada should be able to secure “a total carve out” from the tariffs due to its strategic importance.
Smith warned that both Canadians and Americans would suffer from a trade war, but emphasized that Canadians would bear a heavier burden, given the size disparity between the Canadian and U.S. economies.
The economic relationship is not symmetrical, as Canada constitutes just one-tenth the size of the U.S. economy.
She cautioned that Americans in states reliant on Canadian resources could see gas prices rise significantly, costing them more than a dollar extra per gallon.
In conclusion, Smith noted that while both parties would incur costs, the ultimate burden would likely be heavier on Canadians in the event of a trade confrontation.
