United States president Donald Trump, a few short weeks ago, signed three proclamations threatening 50 percent tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of Canadian goods—the same tariffs that have now taken effect and pushed the two countries into their latest confrontation.
We put ‘u’ in neighbour and you in Canada’s conversation. Enjoy a roundup of Canada’s best writing. Sign up for The Walrus newsletter and get trusted Canadian journalism straight in your inbox.
At the time, Jamieson Greer, the US trade representative, was asked whether the policy went too far. Trump’s approval rating was then sitting at 37 percent, while more than 65 percent of Americans were telling pollsters that tariffs had made everyday goods less affordable.
Greer’s answer was unequivocal: tariffs would continue despite the administration’s obvious awareness of the polling. “We know people have concerns about the cost of living. We all do. No one wants to be dismissive of that,” he said. “We don’t see it as something that is going to change the trade policy.”
It’s not just the administration. Republican senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a long-time supporter of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement and freer trade, said that President Trump’s most recent tariff threat should serve as a “wake-up call to Canada to make some changes”—what I read as a tacit endorsement of the policy.
These are but two examples. Americans have been telling us something we may not want to hear—an uncomfortable truth or, better put, a more likely outcome: tariffs are going to be with us. And now we know how far Washington is prepared to go. Last week’s negotiations collapsed after the United States introduced eleventh-hour demands that Canada said threatened its economic interests and sovereignty. The 50 percent tariffs are in force, and Ottawa has promised to retaliate dollar for dollar.
That makes the broader question of how Canada responds even more urgent. There does not appear to be much, if anything, Canada can do to eliminate the prospect of ongoing, potentially long-term baseline tariffs. The failed negotiations only reinforce that conclusion. But not being able to stop the tariffs does not mean we cannot shape them—or prepare far more intelligently for the next American demand. That begins with being clear-eyed about what won’t work.
To shape tariffs, don’t talk about tariffs. For Ottawa, the apparent tone-deafness of Trump’s administration and its supporters on the domestic impact of tariff policy looks like gaslighting—an administration ignoring its own electorate. One response in Canada is to reason that American consumers will eventually feel the effects of the tariffs. The pain will find its way to Congress. The policy will bend, and, if Canadians press this point, they can help it bend.
Indeed, that seems to be part of the logic behind the retaliatory tariffs. With the US midterms approaching on November 3, Carney and his team appear to see an opportunity to turn economic pain into political pressure. By targeting products from politically sensitive states, Ottawa hopes higher prices and lost sales will push American businesses, workers, and lawmakers to pressure Trump.
That’s a bet; it’s not a plan. And it’s one that recent insights from field research indicate is unlikely to succeed. To understand why, you need to trace the evolution of thinking that emerged from my team’s recent visit to Denver as part of the New North America Initiative.
The New North America Initiative—or NNAI—is a University of Calgary policy project that studies new approaches to continental trade. We emphasize perspectives outside the traditional Ottawa–Washington policy establishment. One way we do that is by learning how people feel about issues that matter to Canada, and then tracing the answer back to issues that intersect with Canadian interests. Rather than assume, we ask.
Colorado is unusually exposed to trade disruption because Canada is a major buyer of its goods and a major source of the products it needs. For our first test, we began with an online moderated group of sixty Coloradans assembled by Ipsos. We tested the output in a statewide poll of 559, fielded again with Ipsos. Then, to understand what lay behind the polling numbers, we went to Denver to interview key informants—former elected officials and community and business leaders. None of whom had strong ties to Canada, by design.
What was on their minds? Affordability: nothing else comes close. Eighty-seven percent of Coloradans name cost of living, housing, and health care as a significant challenge facing their community. Environmental challenges—water, drought, wildfire—come second at 71 percent, in a state that has been under a statewide drought emergency since June, with nearly 93 percent of its territory in moderate-to-exceptional drought and 75 percent in severe drought or worse.
Cross-border trade and economic relations? One percent.
When discussing jobs and the local economy during interviews, Canada did not come up on its own, and when prompted, there was still no connection. Interviewees generally had an uninformed, vaguely favourable impression of Canada. It just wasn’t associated with anything of importance. One community activist, whose work has no connection to Canada, said, “Not liking Canada is like kicking a puppy.”
