Toronto, ON – Prime Minister Mark Carney has unveiled his plan to impose dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs on $27.6 billion of U.S. goods entering the Canadian market in light of the collapse of trade negotiations between Canada and the United States and President Donald Trump’s decision to impose sweeping new tariffs on Canada.
Jay Goldberg, the Consumer Choice Center’s North American Affairs Manager, commented on the collapse of trade negotiations and Carney’s retaliatory tariff plans.
“If reports are correct that the United States was asking for a veto on Canada’s other free trade deals, Prime Minister Mark Carney did the right thing by walking away from the negotiating table. Any language that would have also given the U.S. the ability to change the terms of the deal at a moment’s notice also justifies Carney’s decision. However, the collapse of negotiations and President Donald Trump’s new tariffs should not automatically mean that Canada imposes retaliatory tariffs. Canada’s politicians have been all over U.S. airwaves arguing that tariffs are taxes paid for by domestic consumers. They’re right in making that argument, which is precisely why it would be wrong to impose them here,” said Goldberg.
While many Canadians might be looking for a strong response to Trump’s tariffs by the federal government, the answer should not be a raft of new taxes imposed on Canadian consumers.
“It’s important for Canadians to remember that retaliatory tariffs are taxes paid by us, not Americans. Canadians are struggling right now with high food inflation and nearly 50 per cent of Canadians say they’re $200 away from not being able to pay their bills. Making goods more expensive for consumers isn’t the right response to Trump imposing additional taxes on American consumers,” Goldberg added.
David Clement, the CCC’s Policy Director, noted that Carney also has some explaining to do over exactly how trade negotiations collapsed.
“Carney has claimed that one of the reasons trade negotiations collapsed was because the Trump administration was trying to erode protections for the French language in Canada. Yet the Trump administration, and Trump himself, has said that this is not true. Carney should be crystal clear about exactly what these supposed attacks on the French language were. If they were simply regarding content rules for streamers, that’s something that should have been on the negotiating table and Carney shouldn’t be hiding behind the need to protect the French language as an excuse for refusing to negotiate on a legitimate issue,” said Clement.