Tariffs

As Canadians fight for the right to pay more for dairy products…

A trade war between Canada and the United States that keeps ratcheting up will only lead to more pain for everyday Canadians.

When President Donald Trump imposes tariffs on Canadian goods going into the United States, it makes those goods more expensive for Americans. And every time Canadian politicians decide to slap tariffs on American goods coming into Canada as a response, life becomes more unaffordable for Canadians.

That’s because tariffs are taxes imposed on domestic consumers. They are not, contrary to messaging coming out of the White House, taxes paid for by foreign countries.

Of course, Canadians want to see their leaders respond when Trump imposes tariffs on Canadian goods being sold to the United States. Trump’s tariffs are poised to cause Canada’s GDP to contract by between 2.5 and 3 per cent this year, which will surely cause a recession.

But hitting back with tariffs of our own only increases the pain being felt by Canadian consumers and will only deepen the recession Canadians are staring down this year.

Australia’s political leaders seem to have figured this out. Their government is choosing not to respond in kind to Trump’s tariffs on Australian steel and aluminium.

“Tariffs and escalating trade tensions are a form of economic self-harm and a recipe for slower growth and higher inflation,” said Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. “They are paid for by consumers. This is why Australia will not be imposing reciprocal tariffs on the United States.”

How, then, should Canada respond to Trump’s tariffs? Here are just two of many solutions: tearing down internal trade barriers and unleashing Canadian energy.

Many Canadians would be stunned to know that Canada has trade barriers between our provinces that are nearly as high as the tariffs Trump imposed on Canada earlier this month.

That’s right: because of roughly 400 carve-outs to Canada’s internal free trade deal, goods being traded from one province to another face the equivalent of a 21 per cent tariff on average.

Canadians are rightly indignant at the tariffs the U.S. administration has imposed on Canada. But Canadians should also be angry at our provincial governments, which have created a system of internal trade barriers that, prior to the current trade war, made it easier to trade with the U.S. than within Canada.

That must change.

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston is leading the way on this file and has pledged to remove Nova Scotia’s barriers to trade with any other province that will reciprocate. And the federal government has sent signals that the provinces appear willing to move quickly to tear down internal trade barriers given the circumstances.

Canada’s provinces must agree to tear down all internal trade barriers as quickly as possible. The boon this would be for the national economy would virtually offset the impact of the Trump tariffs.

The federal government must also stop shooting the Canadian economy in the foot by blockading crucial energy projects that represent the key to diversifying our international trade.

Since the Liberals came to power in 2015, they have blocked more than $670 billion worth of energy projects that would have sent western Canadian oil, natural gas, and petroleum products to eastern Canada, Europe, and Asia. 

Canada should be an energy superpower, but for the past decade the feds have stood in the way.

It’s time to get energy projects built and allow our energy to power the world. Right now, most of our energy exports go to the United States. With better pipeline infrastructure, Canada can diversify and send more oil and natural gas to Europe and Asia, two regions desperate to get more clean and ethical Canadian energy.

Under the Trudeau government, countries from Europe and Asia begged the feds to develop more Canadian energy and export it to the world. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau told them there was no business case.

That sentiment was wrong then and it’s even more wrong now. It’s time to build pipelines and sell Canadian energy to the rest of the world. Pronto.

Canada should respond to U.S. tariffs by making our economy more self-reliant and by exporting more of our key products to new markets.

The Trump tariff threat will be present for the next four years. Slapping more taxes on Canadians isn’t a long-term solution. Diversifying our economy is.

Originally published here

Beyond the trade war, Ford’s to-do list is long

Ontarians are also watching Ford closely to make sure he doesn’t take his eye off the ball when it comes to other critical issues. Pictured: Ontario Premier Doug Ford. Photo Credit: Doug Ford/X. 

After a cold and snow-filled election, Ontario Premier Doug Ford emerged as the victor, although he did not make the electoral gains he had hoped for. He was given the third mandate he desired to lead Ontarians through a difficult time marked by a trade war and a fracturing relationship with the United States. However, Ontarians are also watching him closely to make sure he doesn’t take his eye off the ball when it comes to other critical issues. 

Tariffs are not the only government policies set to harm Ontario consumers in the days, months, and years of this renewed majority government. Interprovincial trade, housing, alcohol policy, and broadband internet are all topics that are important to Ontarians and must be addressed. 

Canada’s premiers have long put interprovincial trade on the backburner, seeing it as something that was nice in theory but too difficult to achieve in practice. They wasted an enormous amount of time not making it a reality for the good of Canadian consumers and as an escape hatch in case of economic disaster like the one Canadians are now facing in a Canada-United States trade war. The lack of interprovincial free trade is costing consumers immensely, already by robbing our economy of more than $200 billion a year. Other premiers need to follow Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston’s lead immediately and introduce reciprocal domestic trade legislation. Ford has indicated he plans to do just that, but he should make it an early priority for his new government. 

In addition to interprovincial trade, Ford should set to work coordinating with the federal government to ensure Ontario diversifies its economy by building trade relationships with countries other than the United States. Consumers benefit when they have more economic choice, and this will allow for items to be exported and imported at a lower cost with much more stable and predictable partners. 

Ontarians feeling the financial pinch are more than likely also struggling to buy a home. The election was full of ideas and promises when it comes to housing, with the most prominent being rent control from Marit Stiles, the leader of Ontario’s NDP. Economists have long argued that rent control is actually very bad for low-income people looking for housing. However, even though Ford has peeled back this bad policy, the housing crisis persists. 

There is a housing crisis because there are not enough units to house people. And there are not enough units to house people because of outdated red-tape from the federal, provincial, and municipal governments. The Ford government is falling short of its own housing targets. Ford can take ownership of the slowdown experienced at the provincial level and work with his federal and municipal colleagues to make it easier and more attractive for builders to build. Ford has announced billions of dollars in new spending on housing and other projects, but this will turn out to be meaningless if developers are stuck in red tape. 

On the alcohol front, Ford has done more than any other premier in Ontario history to liberalize alcohol sales, but there is more to be done that will benefit both Ontario consumers and small and medium-sized businesses. The LCBO remains the only retail store that can sell spirits. Ontarians looking to buy whisky, vodka, or gin from their grocery or convenience stores are out of luck. Why liberalize alcohol and get stuck on this very simple detail? If wine can be sold in grocery stores, so too should vodka. The LCBO should be given less power, not niche areas of control. 

Ford should also promise not to build any more LCBO retail spaces, and indeed close retail stores that are no longer needed due to the amount of convenience and grocery stores surrounding it, and save the Ontario consumer money on retail rent and on running an inefficient operation. If you compare the LCBO’s operations to comparable private retailers in Alberta, it costs the LCBO approximately $1,000,000 more per store in operation costs. With 669 LCBO stores being inefficiently run in Ontario, that’s a lot of wasted money the government could otherwise spend on Ontarians’ core priorities, making the problem even worse simply doesn’t make financial sense. 

Finally, Ford has, under pressure, ripped up the contract Ontario had with Starlink. While perhaps understandable given the current trade dispute, the bad news is that Starlink was supposed to provide desperately needed high-speed internet access to 15,000 homes and businesses in rural and remote communities by June 2025. Now that this contract is cancelled, and assuming the relationship between the province and Elon Musk’s company is now strained, Ford must put significant effort into finding alternative companies to take on that project. It is outrageous that rural Ontarians do not have access to reliable internet when the economy and their lives rely on being online. Businesses in rural Ontario are also struggling to succeed in a modern economy without access to the internet, and the lifeline they thought was coming is now no longer an option. Businesses that are already in rural areas are struggling, and businesses who many want to start in rural areas will be scared away. This will only depress the local economy and isolate rural communities even further from the rest of the province.

Ford would do well to keep in mind that Ontario is a complex province with many problems to be addressed, even during a trade war and in its aftermath. Ontarians elected him to guide them through this turbulent time, but also to strengthen the economy, make their lives more consumer-friendly, and support the growth of businesses in the province. While much of the present focus is on the trade war, Ontarians still have many other pressing issues that need to be dealt with.

Originally published here

Carney must change feds’ approach in dealing with trade war

Canada is set to get a new prime minister at a moment when the stakes could not be higher: the nation is in the midst of an unprecedented trade conflict with its biggest trading partner.

To date, the federal Liberal government has lacked a sense of urgency in responding to the crisis. Mark Carney, Canada’s prime minister-designate, has a chance to change that by shifting the feds’ approach to energy projects and eliminating internal trade barriers.

U.S. President Donald Trump has been talking about imposing tariffs on Canada for the past three months. Unfortunately, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spent months acting as if the tariff threat wasn’t real.

Trudeau only belatedly started taking actions to strengthen Canada’s border security as the clock ticked down the zero hour, in a desperate last-minute attempt to meet Trump’s demands.

Yet according to Trump, Trudeau failed to take enough action. Some punishing tariffs are already hammering Canada’s economy, while others are set to take effect early next month.

It’s long been evident that Trump’s decision to impose sweeping tariffs on Canada’s economy is not just about fentanyl crossing the border: less than one per cent of the fentanyl entering the United States comes through the northern border. 

His major goal is clearly to cripple Canada’s economy in an attempt to get companies to move their jobs and economic activity to the United States.

How should Canada respond?

There are at least two key areas where immediate action is needed: unleashing Canadian energy and tearing down Canada’s internal trade barriers.

Since the Liberals came to power in 2015, $670 billion worth of natural resource projects have either been cancelled or put on hold by the federal government.

The feds have blockaded projects like Energy EastNorthern Gateway, and Énergie Saguenay that would have sent tens of billions of dollars’ worth of Canadian oil and natural gas to Asia and Europe, and allowed eastern Canada to be powered by Canadian energy rather than importing oil from dictatorships like Saudi Arabia.

No less than 77 per cent of Canada’s exports go to the United States, including $150 billion per year in oil, natural gas, and petroleum products. Canada needs to diversify. Trump’s tariff threats should have led to a sense of urgency, with the federal government reversing course and greenlighting some of the 31 energy projects it has stymied since coming to power in 2015.

Sadly, no action has been taken on the energy front. Just talk that the Liberals might have to reconsider their position on pipelines.

Carney is a well-known climate hawk. He’s talked about the need for 80 per cent of Canada’s natural resources to stay in the ground to fight climate change. 

But the moment demands a different approach. Unleashing Canadian energy is the key to diversifying our economy. Carney should shift the feds’ approach and approve energy projects that have been blocked over the past decade. If he doesn’t, Canadians will look to elect a new government that will.

Then there’s internal trade. Canada does have domestic free trade, but with a major caveat. There are more than 400 carve-outs to Canada’s internal free trade deal. The impact of those carve-outs is dramatic.

Because of the provinces’ non-tariff barriers on each other’s goods, Canada has a de facto 21 per cent domestic tariff when provinces want to trade with each other, according to the International Monetary Fund.

That means it’s easier to trade with a couple dozen countries Canada has free trade agreements with than it is for provinces to trade with each other.

Studies have shown that ending interprovincial trade barriers should be a bigger boost to the national economy than the cost of the tariffs the Trump administration has imposed on Canada.

Canada’s internal trade minister, Anita Anand, says progress has been made on eliminating int.erprovincial trade barriers, but the proof will be in the pudding.

Carney should convene a meeting of Canada’s first ministers immediately and demand that all internal trade barriers be torn down within 30 days.

Canada can’t afford to wait a moment longer.

Make no mistake: the Trudeau government has been behind the curve in responding to the Trump administration’s tariffs threats since day one. Carney has a chance to take a new approach by changing the feds’ approach to energy projects and finally pushing for a comprehensive deal on internal free trade.

If he fails to get this done, or lets ideology get in the way, Canadians will quickly be searching for a new prime minister who will.

Originally published here

Up and about Trump’s tariffs: Cheaper foods for Malaysia?

BAKER Nuradilla Hamdan is concerned about the ripple effects of the United States’ recent and impending tariffs on imports from several countries.

The 28-year-old single mother from Cheras worries that the rising costs of imported ingredients, such as butter, may eventually force her to raise the prices of her cakes.

“In my five years as a baker, I’ve learned that price increases can be unpredictable. I’m already paying more for butter and wheat flour, which means my cakes are becoming more expensive. But I can’t keep passing the cost onto my customers,” she says.

The US recently imposed a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada, along with a 10% increase in duties on Chinese goods, which came into effect on March 4. US President Donald Trump has also announced reciprocal tariffs on the rest of the world, to come into effect on April 2.

This has raised concerns about the potential impact on Malaysian food security and affordability, particularly as Malaysia imports over 60% of its food needs.

Beyond price hikes, experts warn that escalating trade wars could fuel global protectionism. Adding to the uncertainty is the unpredictable nature of US tariff policies – just last week, Trump signed orders significantly expanding exemptions for goods from Canada and Mexico, leaving policymakers scrambling to adapt to shifting trade conditions. (Then at press time Trump threatened other new tariffs, including a 250% tax on Canada’s dairy products.)

Nevertheless, some Malaysian economic and geopolitical experts believe the new tariffs could indirectly benefit Malaysia if affected countries shift their trade focus to this region.

Read the full text here

Tariffs on Imports From Canada and Mexico Are Still a Terrible Idea

During a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, President Donald Trump acknowledged that Americans don’t like high prices.

“We have to get the prices down,” Trump told reporters. “The prices of eggs and various other things. Eggs are a disaster.”

Part of his administration’s solution to the high price of eggs? More imports. As part of a $1 billion plan to combat the bird flu, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced this week that it would seek to expand imports of eggs, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The U.S. is a major global supplier of eggs, so reversing those supply chains is not easy (and eggs are perishable goods, which makes it more difficult), but the maneuver is evidence that at least some members of the Trump administration grasp that prices are the result of supply and demand. A sudden constraint on supply—in this case, the bird flu—has pushed prices higher, and finding alternative suppliers might help ease the pain.

Read the full text here

Houston charts path forward on interprovincial trade

Leaders across Canada have talked a good game about eliminating interprovincial trade barriers. Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston is putting his money where his mouth is.

There can be no doubt about it: Interprovincial trade barriers are holding Canada’s economy back. The rules and regulations preventing the free flow of goods, services and workers across provincial borders is costing our economy more than $200 billion a year.

With U.S. President Donald Trump promising to bring in sweeping tariffs as soon as next week that would devastate the Canadian economy, it’s never been clearer that we need to trade more at home and boost economic activity within our borders.

Enter Houston.

At a campaign stop in support of Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s re-election bid, Houston announced plans to table a bill called the Free Trade and Mobility Within Canada Act in the Nova Scotia Legislature.

The legislation would take a reciprocal approach to trade barriers: According to Houston, Nova Scotia will eliminate any barriers standing in the way of trade with another province so long as that other province responds in kind.

In other words, so long as any other province is willing to drop its trade barriers and allow Nova Scotia’s goods, services, and workers to flow freely across its borders, Nova Scotia will do the same.

Canada’s internal trade barriers now represent the equivalent of a 21% tariff. Eliminating those barriers is critical.

Houston’s new legislation could be a game changer for the Canadian economy. Once Nova Scotia passes this bill into law, the onus will be on other provinces to reciprocate: if they want more access to the Nova Scotia market, all they have to do is remove trade barriers of their own.

In the past, provinces have been reluctant to remove trade barriers for a number of reasons. One is that even if a province removes a trade barrier, there’s no guarantee that other provinces that benefit from the elimination of that barrier will respond in kind.

Houston’s legislation would require Nova Scotia to reciprocate action taken by any other province, offering a guarantee that a gesture of goodwill won’t go unmatched.

The proposed legislation could lead to a domino effect. Ontario, for example, might see the benefits of reciprocal trade with Nova Scotia and could choose to introduce similar legislation to facilitate more reciprocal trade with other provinces.

By having politicians commit to matching each other’s moves toward freer trade, they don’t have to take a leap of faith when they stand up to special interest groups and tear down trade barriers.

Houston’s move comes at a critical time. Trump is threatening to introduce punishing across-the-board tariffs as soon as next week. Canada needs to be doing everything possible to strengthen the domestic economy to head off the impact of those tariffs.

Exports represent more than one-third of Canada’s GDP and 77% of Canada’s exports go to the United States. It’s hard to overstate just how devastating U.S. tariffs would be on Canada’s economy.

That’s why strengthening internal trade, in concert with growing Canada’s exports to markets other than the United States, will be crucial in the months ahead.

But unlike trading with other countries, where complex bilateral agreements must be negotiated, internal trade barriers in Canada could be eliminated tomorrow. All that’s been missing is the will to make it happen.

Houston is showing that eliminating internal trade barriers can be done swiftly. With a single piece of legislation, Houston is laying the groundwork for eliminating Nova Scotia’s trade barriers with other provinces, so long as they do the same.

Provincial governments across the country should follow Houston’s lead, introduce reciprocal domestic trade legislation, and unleash the true potential of Canada’s domestic economy.

Interprovincial trade barriers are holding Canada back at a time when we can least afford it. Canada’s premiers should embrace Houston’s plan to fix it.

Originally published here

Congress set to neuter its authority to counter Trump tariffs

As Congress debates yet another Continuing Resolution to hastily fund the federal government for a few months, the House yesterday passed a resolution that mixes together several bills.

Tucked within these provisions was a legalistic quirk that would end Congress’ ability to end President Trump’s “State of Emergency” that has so far given him some legal latitude to impose swaths of new tariffs and duties that affect consumers.

The resolution passed by the House of Representatives contained four sections for consideration:

1.) Repeal of the IRS rule related to DeFi brokers and registration (also known as the broker role), affecting cryptocurrency platforms.

2.) Opening the state of limitations related to pandemic relief era as provided in the CARES Act.

3.) A Continuing Resolution to fund the government on a temporary basis

4.) Declaring the rest of the year as a single calendar day for the purposes of the National Emergencies Act

While each of these sections should elicit some debate or praise, the last section is purposefully written so as to freeze time on the Congressional calendar.

Why is this important?

The section reads: “Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.”

As reported by the New York Times, this is a procedural move that would neuter Congress’ ability to pass any vote or resolution to gain back their power to issue tariffs and other trade sanctions, because 15 calendar days will not pass (at least legally) for the remainder of the year:

House Democrats had planned to force a vote on resolutions to end the tariffs on Mexico and Canada, a move allowed under the National Emergencies Act, which provides a mechanism for Congress to terminate an emergency like the one Mr. Trump declared when he imposed the tariffs on Feb. 1.

That would have forced Republicans — many of whom are opposed to tariffs as a matter of principle — to go on the record on the issue at a time when Mr. Trump’s commitment to tariffs has spooked the financial markets and spiked concerns of reigniting inflation.

The national emergency law lays out a fast-track process for Congress to consider a resolution ending a presidential emergency, requiring committee consideration within 15 calendar days after one is introduced and a floor vote within three days after that.

By passing the resolution, the House Majority has effectively neutered its own authority to set trade policies and to hold the Executive Branch accountable, allowing it to keep the State of Emergency in place so President Trump can issue tariffs on Canada, Mexico, China, the European Union, or any other country without much opposition.

Though the President has some authority to issue tariffs in an emergency situation, according to the National Emergencies Act, removing Congress’ ability to end or even reverse the State of Emergency for the rest of 2025 means Congress has abrogated its responsibility to even have a say on trade policies.

By allowing President Trump to prolong his State of Emergency, there will be no constitutional way for Congress to curb the excesses of the multi-theater trade wars being waged across the world, harming consumers who would otherwise profit from freer trade.

Tariffs are taxes on consumers, and trade wars only make consumers poorer, as Consumer Choice Center describes in detail on FreeTrade4Us.org.

Knowing this was a possibility, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul introduced a bill last year to reaffirm the ability of Congress – and Congress alone – to set trade policy and avoid costly tariffs that raise prices for consumers. He called it the “No Taxation Without Representation Act“.

“Our Constitution was designed to prevent any branch from overstepping its bounds. Unchecked executive actions enacting tariffs tax our citizens, threaten our economy, raise prices for everyday goods, and erode the system of checks and balances that our founders so carefully crafted,” wrote Sen. Paul.

If Congress neuters its ability to counter tariffs, then American consumers will have to continue to bear the brunt of protectionist policies that are currently making them worse off.

President Trump Is Headed Toward a Tariff Backlash

FEB 28, 2025 | President Donald Trump’s pledge to enact sweeping 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico begins this Tuesday, March 4. While Trump’s team has used the threat of tariffs to extract concessions from foreign adversaries and allies alike, the notion of open trade war with America’s neighbors remains an unpopular one with most Americans, according to a new poll from Public First.  

“This has a lot of potential to backfire on President Trump as his favorability gap shrinks” said Stephen Kent of the Consumer Choice Center, an international consumer advocacy group.  “Americans certainly elected Donald Trump to reassert US strength around the world and to be extra pushy, but when only 28% of Americans express support for tariffs on Canadian imports it goes to show that American voters don’t see Canada as being an opponent of any kind.” 

Asked why support for tariffs on Mexico is slightly more popular, with 35% of adults supportive, roughly ten percent above views about tariffs on Canada, Kent said,

It’s pretty clear 2024 was an immigration election and Americans wanted to see Mexico brought to the table on restricting northbound migration and fentanyl trafficking. When Mexican President Sheinbaum put 10,000 more troops on the border in exchange for a delay of tariffs, that was the point.

But Americans still know that tariffs are ultimately a tax on their lifestyle and shopping lists.” 

President Trump’s tariff threats have already injected uncertainty into markets and supply chains. After pausing the tariffs in February, the administration’s indecisiveness created confusion for businesses that rely on predictable trade policies. Imposing the 25% tariffs will only escalate tensions, raise consumer prices and distract from Americans’ top concern of trade imbalance with China. 

Polling data from Public First, shared with POLITICO, underscores that tariffs are vastly more popular when it comes to China, with 45 percent of respondents supporting them versus 30 percent opposed. 

“Americans aren’t going to like the result of tariffs on Chinese imports any more than they like the cost increases for basic car repairs in the US after 25% tariffs hit Canada, but the difference is that Donald Trump’s entire political career was based on renegotiating relations with China, not Canada,” added Stephen Kent of the Consumer Choice Center. “If these tariffs go into effect on March 4, I’d expect them to be short-lived. Trump likes to do popular things, and trade war in North America is already unpopular. Americans want to poke fun and enjoy some nationalistic fun when watching hockey games between Canada and the US, not when they’re shopping or trying to fill up their car.”

The Consumer Choice Center’s staff in Canada, Europe, and the US call on the Trump Administration to help make America and its allies prosperous by rejecting trade barriers which limit consumer freedom and purchasing power. Tariffs are not the way. 

FOR MEDIA QUERIES OR INTERVIEWS PLEASE CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva. Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org.


Tomorrow’s Tariffs Will Hurt Everyone

By Sabine El-Chidiac and Elizabeth Hicks

While tariff threats have been a roller coaster ride of will he or won’t he, reports indicate that President Donald Trump’s plan to tack on a 25% tariff on Canada is on track to becoming a reality on February 1. Given the harm tariffs have on Canadians and Americans alike, the best course of action would be to eliminate tariffs as a policy option and focus on working out the issues the United States has with Canada diplomatically. Not only would tariffs from the United States be devastating to both American and Canadian economies, but the proposed retaliations by Canada would further hurt the pocketbooks of the citizens of both countries.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has been very clear when it comes to Trump’s proposed tariffs: impose tariffs on Ontario, and Ontario could cut off electricity to 1.5 million homes in New York, Michigan, and Minnesota. The federal government also said they would respond with the “single largest trade blow the U.S. economy has ever endured” if Trump follows through with his plan for tariffs, and a future government will likely feel compelled to do the same due to the harsh economic implications tariffs will have on Canada. Rather than allow tariffs to be imposed at any point, the U.S. and Canada must find an off-ramp to protect consumers on both sides of the border. Canada needs a new approach based on political reality and the unique economic interests of both parties in this dispute.   

Tariffs are simply another word for taxes, and imposing such taxes on Canada will affect Canadians’ day-to-day lives even more than the cost-of-living crisis already has. Canadian economist Trevor Tombe predicts that if the U.S. follows through on tariffs and Canada retaliates, the Canadian household cost would be $1,900 CAD per person annually. In the U.S., that impact would be nearly $1,700 CAD per person. This is one of the more conservative estimates.

Tariff showdowns tend to be more about a battle of wills and less about positive economic outcomes. 

The 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act resulted in world trade falling by 66% and U.S. exports and imports crashing by about two-thirds, prolonging the Great Depression. More recently, the 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by Donald Trump resulted in skyrocketing manufacturing costs for U.S. industries. The ongoing softwood lumber tariffs imposed on and off by the United States have significantly raised American housing prices.

In response to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, Canada retaliated and imposed harsh tariffs on the United States under Prime Minister R.B. Bennett, sending Canada’s export markets into a spiral and sparking a Canadian economic depression. A very similar story has predictably played out over the 2018 steel and aluminum tariffs and again with Canadian retaliatory tariffs in the softwood lumber feud. 

Canada is the United States’ second largest trading partner, with imports from Canada to the U.S. totaling almost $344 billion in 2024 through October. Canada and the U.S. are neighbours and long–time allies, and the integration of our supply chains has resulted in lower prices for consumers in both the US and Canada while increasing the global competitiveness of both countries.

Premier Ford has been promoting a “Fortress Am-Can” program that would have the US and Canada working as a team on various energy-related policy issues, and there has been rhetoric from the Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre about striking a “great deal” with Donald Trump by increasing Canada’s energy exports to the U.S. This direction can be workable answers to the tariff standoff, and could extend this pause to a permanent reversal on tariff policy.

Many Canadian consumers can barely afford the necessities of life such as groceries, clothing, and housing. Adding tariffs and retaliations to the mix may be the last straw that leads to Canada’s next great depression. 

Did Trump issue tariffs against Canada today?

Newly inaugurated U.S. President Donald Trump stopped short of implementing 25 per cent tariffs against all Canadian imports on day one but hinted the measure might be just around the corner during his inaugural address on Monday (Jan. 20).

Speaking at an indoor ceremony at the Capitol Rotunda in Washington D.C., Trump didn’t address Canada by name, but focused on the southern border with Mexico, taking aim at perceived threats surrounding illegal immigration and crime.

Addressing a slew of executive orders, Trump confirmed his plans to establish the “External Revenue Service” he said will collect tariffs, duties and revenues from foreign sources.

“Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens,” Trump announced.

Make other nations pay?

Trump doubled down on his claims that he will make foreign nations pay heavy tariffs, despite warnings from economists that tariffs will lead to higher prices for Americans.

According to Export Development Canada, buyers are usually responsible for paying tariffs and many importers pass these costs down to consumers by charging higher prices.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier on Monday that Trump planned to issue a broad memorandum to direct federal agencies to study trade policies and evaluate the U.S. trade relationships with China, Mexico and Canada. But the directive stopped short of imposing new tariffs on Trump’s first day in office.

Read the full text here

Biaya Tarif Impor Tinggi dan Proteksionisme

Kebijakan yang mendukung globalisasi dan ekonomi terbuka saat ini seakan mengalami penurunan popularitas. Di berbagai negara, kelompok populis mendapatkan peningkatan suara, dan tidak sedikit yang berhasil memenangkan pemilu.

Globalisasi dan perdagangan bebas dianggap oleh sebagian pihak sebagai akar dari segala masalah ekonomi yang menimpa para pekerja dan pelaku usaha di berbagai negara. 

Untuk itu, kebijakan ekonomi terbuka harus dibatasi melalui berbagai kebijakan proteksionis, seperti tarif dan juga kuota, dengan dalih untuk melindungi kepentingan dalam negeri.

Tidak hanya di Amerika Serikat, Indonesia sendiri juga mengalami gelombang peningkatan skeptisisme hingga penolakan terhadap kebijakan ekonomi terbuka dan perdagangan bebas. 

Dengan mudah kita bisa menemukan berbagai politisi dan para pembuat kebijakan yang menolak keras kebijakan tersebut, dan mendukung adanya pembatasan perdagangan bebas.

Beberapa waktu lalu misalnya, muncul wacana mengenai kebijakan untuk menerapkan biaya tarif yang tinggi terhadap barang-barang impor, khususnya dari China. Tidak tanggung-tanggung, tarif yang dikenakan cukup tinggi, hingga mencapai 200 persen, untuk menyikapi banjirnya barang-barang dari China di tanah air (cnnindonesia, 5/7/2024).

Barang-barang yang berasal dari China tersebut sangat beragam, dan kebanyakan merupakan barang-barang konsumsi sehari-hari seperti pakaian dan produk-produk tekstil. Tidak hanya itu, barang-barang yang menjadi bahan industri seperti baja misalnya, juga berpotensi akan terkena biaya tarif sebesar 200 dari pemerintah (cnnindonesia, 5/7/2024).

Wacana mengenai kebijakan tersebut sendiri pada awalnya memang digaungkan pada saat pemerintahan Presiden Joko Widodo, di beberapa bulan terakhir pemerintahan Beliau. Pada bulan Oktober lalu, Indonesia melantik presiden baru, yakni Prabowo Subianto. Namun, belum ada pernyataan eksplisit dari pemerintahan yang baru untuk menganulir atau membatalkan kebijakan tersebut.

Selain itu, penting untuk dicatat bahwa banyak pejabat tinggi seperti menteri yang sebelumnya menjabat di bawah Presiden Joko Widodo yang sekarang juga kembali menjabat. Oleh karena itu, wacana kebijakan tarif tersebut merupakan hal yang masih memiliki kemungkinan untuk diterapkan.

Adanya wacana mengenai kebijakan penerapan tarif 200% tersebut tentu merupakan hal yang sangat patut untuk kita perhatikan, karena dampaknya akan terasa langsung bagi banyak lapisan masyarakat. Kebijakan ini tidak hanya berdampak kepada jutaan konsumen, tetapi juga ke berbagai pelaku usaha di Indonesia.

Barang-barang tekstil dari China yang terancam terkena tarif misalnya, bukan hanya barang-barang produksi, tetapi juga barang-barang konsumsi. Semakin meningkatnya harga barang-barang tekstil seperti pakaian yang disebabkan oleh tarif yang tinggi tentu akan semakin menambahkan beban bagi dompet konsumen di Indonesia, karena mereka harus membayar harga jauh lebih tinggi (kompas.com, 4/7/2024).

Tidak hanya dari sisi konsumen, para pelaku usaha yang bergerak di bidang penjualan pakaian misalnya, juga akan mengalami tantangan yang berat. Saat ini, tidak sedikit dari pedagang tersebut yang mendapatkan marjin keuntungan dari omset yang sangat kecil dari barang yang dijualnya. Pedagang pakaian di pasar Tanah Abang misalnya, yang merupakan salah satu pasar terbesar di Jakarta, mengalami pendapatan yang terus menurun hingga hanya mendapatkan omset sekitar 2-3 juta rupiah per hari (sindonews.com, 13/8/2024).

Dari angka omset tersebut, margin yang didapatkan rata-rata pedagang pakaian di pasar diperkirakan sekitar 20-30%, atau sekitar 400-900 ribu per hari (cekbeli.com, 8/1/2025). Adanya biaya tarif yang sangat tinggi tentu akan semakin memperkecil marjin tersebut, dan tidak mustahil akan mengancam berbagai pedagang pakaian di Indonesia untuk gulung tikar.

Wacana mengenai kebijakan untuk menerapkan tarif yang tinggi ini juga mendapat respon kritik di parlemen dari beberapa anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR). Salah satu anggota komisi 6 DPR misalnya, mengatakan bahwa kebijakan ini tidak menjamin akan menekan jumlah barang impor, dan justru akan berpotensi meningkatkan peredaran barang-barang impor ilegal (liputan6.com, 1/7/2024).

Dari aspek diplomasi, kebijakan pengenaan tarif yang tinggi untuk barang-barang impor dari China tentu menimbulkan risiko yang tidak kecil. Lembaga think tank peneliti ekonomi dan politik Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) misalnya, kebijakan ini berpotensi bisa menjadi boomerang bagi perekonomian Indonesia (tempo.co, 1/7/2024).

Indonesia misalnya, merupakan salah satu negara anggota World Trade Organization (WTO). Penerapan kebijakan untuk mengenakan tarif yang tinggi tersebut berpotensi akan membuat Indonesia digugat oleh negara-negara anggota WTO lainnya, seperti China, atau pun negara lain yang barang ekspornya ke Indonesia dikenakan tarif yang tinggi oleh pemerintah (tempo.co, 1/7/2024).

Selain itu, bukan tidak mungkin pula, kebijakan tarif ini akan menimbulkan tindakan pembalasan dari negara lain seperti China untuk menerapkan tarif yang tinggi bagi barang-barang dari Indonesia. Dengan demikian, hal ini berpotensi akan menimbulkan lanskap perang dagang baru, yang tentunya tidak akan menguntungkan siapa pun, dan justru akan merugikan para konsumen dan juga berbagai pelaku usaha (tempo.co, 1/7/2024).

Hal yang harus menjadi fokus Indonesia harusnya adalah bukan membatasi perdagangan dan menerapkan kebijakan proteksionisme yang ketat, melainkan harus beruapaya untuk memperkuat kualitas dan daya saing industri domestik. Hal ini mencakup berbagai langkah, seperti inovasi, meningkatkan teknologi, dan juga mengembangkan keterampilan.

Sebagai penutup, di era globalisasi dan interdependesi ekonomi antar negara yang semakin kuat, tentu Indonesia harus mampu berkompetisi dengan negara-negara lain untuk menyediakan produk dan jasa yang inovatif dna berkualitas. Hal tersebut tentu harus dicapai dengan memperbaiki kualitas manusia agar dapat semakin inovatif dan meningkatkan keterampilan, bukan dengan menutup dan membatasi perdagangan yang nantinya akan menimbulkan dampak yang kontraproduktif.

Originally published here

Day 1 tariffs are bad for everyone — including President Trump

Today, on the day of President-elect Trump’s second inauguration, his proposed Day One actions are beginning to take shape. Axios reportsTrump is now weighing immediate tariffs on Canada and Mexico under the guise of a “national economic emergency.” With Canada ramping up its plans for retaliatory tariffs to slam America “dollar for dollar,” cooler heads in the new Trump administration must prevail if Americans are going to be spared the blow to their household budgets. 

Trump understands the practical politics of having leverage over both allies and opponents, but he risks losing all of it in a North American trade war.  

Trump ran in 2024 on his plan to saddle Canada and Mexico with a 25 percent tariff as leverage to get their help on his immigration agenda, but the fact remains that Trump’s voters will be the ones feeling the direct impact. Day 1 tariffs would make February’s Super Bowl the most expensive for consumers in recent history.  

Trump ally and fellow TV star Kevin O’Leary of the hit show Shark Tank has been making the rounds on air, telling Trump to be “hardcore” with tariffs on China. He even suggested China could see “riots in the streets” if Trump targeted China’s consumer exports, which explains the massive influx of Chinese goods into the U.S. in December.  

North America as a trading block is uniquely positioned to thrive during the Trump administration, but instead of promoting growth and lower costs for Americans, framing a destructive trade war is all that’s being discussed. The sophisticated supply chain integration between the U.S. and Canada has resulted in lower prices for consumers, especially when it comes to automobiles. In 2022, Canada exported $12.9 billion in motor vehicle parts and accessories, with $11.4 billion of that flowing directly to the U.S.  

In Michigan, 13 percent of the state’s gross state product is reliant on Canadian automotive trade. What’s the point of expanding U.S. oil production and lowering the price of gas at the pump if cars and auto parts are just going to get more expensive nationwide? Considering that $132 billion in oil and petroleum flows from Canada into the U.S. every year, it’s highly unlikely the Trump administration could replace that oil with American product fast enough to avoid sticker shock at gas stations.

Trump and his Canadian bargaining partners don’t seem very committed to rolling back the painfully high costs of living that marked the Biden years; instead, they’re shifting the costs to new sectors.  

Everyday Canadians would face significant hardships from a 25 percent tariff on exports to the U.S. Even without the almost certain costs of retaliation, bread in Canada could climb from $3.50 to $5.00 per loaf. Spread across the grocery sector, it amounts to thousands lost annually to price hikes. Atop inflated prices, job losses due to corporate cost-saving measures could spell catastrophe for Canada.  

Trump’s hardball mindset is that this is Canada’s problem and that it can be solved simply by submission to his demands, but it’s more likely that the U.S. will then be thrown into a “shallow recession” before he’s even finished decorating the West Wing. As O’Leary warned about potential unrest in China, unhappy Americans dissolve any leverage Trump and Republicans in Congress may have in this trade standoff.  

To get a better look at the potential repercussions, we can look at the effects of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which imposed tariffs on tens of thousands of imported goods in an attempt to protect American farmers and industry during the Great Depression. The result was an international trade war that caused global trade to fall by 66 percent and U.S. exports and imports by about two-thirds, effectively worsening and prolonging the Great Depression in the U.S.  

Of course, Canada responded to Smoot-Hawley in the same way Ottawa is planning right now, sparking their own economic depression north of the border. It’s the epitome of the phrase “cutting off your nose to spite your face.”  

At the very least, President Trump should not pursue rash day-one tariffs after his inauguration is over. The market shock will be severe. At best, trade negotiations should proceed with caution and tariffs should be recognized as the tax on consumers that history has shown them to be.  

Reality must be our guide if North America is going to rebound and unlock its economic potential in the years to come. Canada and the U.S. can both thrive, and that means we must come together.  

Originally published here

en_USEN

Follow us

WASHINGTON

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

BRUSSELS

Rond Point Schuman 6, Box 5 Brussels, 1040, Belgium

LONDON

Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon Street
London, WC2N 4JF, UK

KUALA LUMPUR

Block D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Level 3 - 5 Kuala Lumpur, 50470, Malaysia

OTTAWA

718-170 Laurier Ave W Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Also from the Consumer Choice Center: ConsumerChamps.EU | FreeTrade4us.org