Connect with us

Business

Trump’s trade war and what it means for Canada

Published

9 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

We didn’t want it but it has crashed onto our shores anyway. U.S. President Donald Trump has unleashed his long-mooted assault on Canada, deploying tariffs as his chosen weapon of “economic coercion.” The Executive Order justifying 25 per cent across-the-board tariffs on southbound Canadian exports (10 per cent on exports of energy and critical minerals) cites American concerns over cross-border drug shipments. Yet that can hardly be the real reason for Trump’s unprecedented action. Canada is at most a tiny part of America’s festering problem of widespread illegal drug use. The notion that these punitive tariffs are mainly about compelling Canada to clamp down on fentanyl production is far-fetched.

It is obvious that this most unconventional of American presidents has other aims in mind. One may be to impose steep tariffs on all or most imports entering his country as a means to raise money for the cash-strapped U.S. treasury. A second may be to suck industrial production and capital out of Canada and other trading partners, to support the MAGA movement’s objective of rebuilding American manufacturing. In his remarks delivered (virtually) to the good and the great assembled at the World Economic Forum’s shindig in Davos in January, President Trump put much emphasis on this latter point. Or perhaps what the new U.S. administration most wants is to convince Canada (and other trading partners) to align with American policies to de-couple from and slow the economic and military ascent of China.

If some or all of these are indeed Mr. Trump’s most important goals, it will be difficult for Canada to negotiate our way out of the bilateral trade war. As hard as it may be to imagine, Trump’s tariffs–with the possibility of even higher levies and various other trade restrictions still to come–could be the new “normal” for Canada, at least for the duration of his presidency. For the moment, the trilateral Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement is either dead or at best barely clinging to life.

As the tariff war gets underway, it is useful to look at the composition of Canada-U.S. trade. Most of it involves cross-border trade in “intermediate inputs,” not finished goods or final products (see the accompanying table). More than three-fifths of Canada’s U.S.-bound exports consist of energy, building materials, agri-food products, other raw materials, and other items used to produce final goods. Similarly, over half of all U.S. goods shipped to Canada are also made up of intermediate inputs. Capital goods (e.g., machinery and equipment) represent 16 to 23 per cent of bilateral merchandise trade. Final goods constitute between a fifth and a quarter of the total. This underscores the highly integrated nature of North American supply chains–and the significant disruptions that two-way tariffs will cause for many industries operating on both sides of the border.

Composition of Canada-U.S. Merchandise Trade, 2023 (% of total exports)
Canadian exports to the U.S. U.S. exports to Canada
Final goods 21% 25%
Capital goods* 16% 23%
Intermediate inputs 63% 52%

*e.g., machinery and equipment
Source: Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Data Lab.

Looking ahead, it’s clear our economy is about to suffer, as Canadian industries, workers and communities absorb the biggest external shock in a century (apart from during the initial phases of the COVID pandemic). To see why, recall that the U.S. buys more than three-quarters of Canada’s international exports, with the value of our U.S.-destined shipments amounting to about one-fifth of Canada’s GDP.

According to projections published by the Bank of Canada, 25 per cent U.S. tariffs coupled with Canadian retaliatory tariffs will reduce the level of Canadian real GDP by at least 3 per cent over 2025-26–this represents a permanent output loss, meaning it is national income we will never recoup. Business fixed non-residential investment falls by 12 per cent, with exports dropping by nine per cent. Unemployment rises significantly and job creation downshifts. Consumer spending also weakens–in part because retaliatory Canadian tariffs raise the cost of many consumer goods, thus leading to a temporary bump in Canadian inflation. All of these estimates are measured relative to a counterfactual baseline scenario of no U.S. and Canadian tariffs. The U.S. economy will also take a hit from President Trump’s tariffs, notably through higher inflation, increased business uncertainty, and the costs of rejigging the supply chains of American companies that rely significantly on raw materials, other inputs and consumer goods supplied by Canada and Mexico.

How should Canada respond to the American tariffs? An initial priority is to determine if there is a pathway to a negotiated settlement–not a simple task, as the Americans have yet to specify what it would take to make peace. A second option is to hit back. Canada has already announced a schedule for retaliatory tariffs, covering some $155 billion of goods imported from the United States; all of these are slated to be in place by the end of March. While the political impulse and pressure to respond in kind is understandable, retaliation will magnify the economic damage to Canada from the U.S. tariffs. Finding a way to end the conflict–if that is possible–is far superior to a series of tit-for-tat bilateral tariffs.

Some politicians and media commentators have talked up “trade diversification” as an option for Canada. Reduced reliance on the U.S. would likely deliver benefits in the long-term, but it won’t help us in 2025/26. Despite entering into 15 trade agreements with 51 nations (other than the U.S.), Canada has seen virtually no export market diversification in the last two decades. There has been modest diversification on the import side of the trade ledger, mainly due to the growing importance of China and other Asian emerging markets as suppliers of final goods and some intermediate inputs. But the U.S. remains the source of more than half of Canada’s imports of goods and services combined. Moreover, “gravity models” of international trade confirm that Canada’s dense, extensive web of trade and other commercial ties with the United States makes perfect economic sense given the advantages of geographic proximity, a common language, and similar business practices between the two countries.

The Trump administration’s self-chosen trade war is a watershed moment for Canadian foreign and commercial policy. The shock from this U.S. action will persist, even if the tariffs are in place for only a few months. Treating an ally as an enemy is an abnormal practice in the history of Western diplomacy. But with Donald Trump at the helm, the past is no longer a reliable guide to understanding or forecasting American policy.

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

Business

Trump says tariffs on China will remain until trade imbalance is corrected

Published on

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Trump said Sunday he won’t make a tariff deal with China unless its $1 trillion trade surplus with the U.S. is balanced. Speaking aboard Air Force One, he called the deficit “not sustainable” and said tariffs are already driving a wave of investment back to America.

Key Details:

  • Trump told reporters the U.S. has “a $1 trillion trade deficit with China,” adding, “hundreds of billions of dollars a year we lose to China, and unless we solve that problem, I’m not going to make a deal.” He insisted any agreement must begin with fixing that imbalance.

  • The president said tariffs are generating “levels that we’ve never seen before” of private investment, claiming $7 trillion has already been committed in areas like auto manufacturing and chip production, with companies returning to places like North Carolina, Detroit, and Illinois.

  • On Truth Social Sunday night, Trump wrote: “The only way this problem can be cured is with TARIFFS… a beautiful thing to behold.” He accused President Biden of allowing trade surpluses to grow and pledged, “We are going to reverse it, and reverse it QUICKLY.”

Diving Deeper:

President Donald Trump reaffirmed his tough trade stance on Sunday, telling reporters that he won’t negotiate any new deal with China unless the massive trade deficit is addressed. “We have a $1 trillion trade deficit with China. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year we lose to China, and unless we solve that problem, I’m not going to make a deal,” Trump said while aboard Air Force One.

He emphasized that while some countries have deficits in the billions, China’s trade advantage over the U.S. exceeds a trillion dollars and remains the most severe. “We have a tremendous deficit problem with China… I want that solved,” he said. “A deficit is a loss. We’re going to have surpluses, or we’re, at worst, going to be breaking even.”

Trump touted the impact of tariffs already in place, pointing to an estimated $7 trillion in committed investments flowing into the U.S. economy. He highlighted growth in the automotive and semiconductor sectors in particular, and said companies are now bringing operations back to American soil—citing North Carolina, Detroit, and Illinois as examples.

He also claimed world leaders in Europe and Asia are eager to strike deals with the U.S., but he’s holding firm. “They’re dying to make a deal,” he said, “but as long as there are deficits, I’m not going to do that.”

Trump projected that tariffs would add another $1 trillion to federal revenues by next year and help re-establish the U.S. as the world’s top economic power. “Our country has gotten a lot stronger,” Trump said. “Eventually it’ll be a country like no other… the most dominant country, economically, in the world, which is what it should be.”

Later Sunday night, Trump doubled down in a Truth Social post, writing, “We have massive Financial Deficits with China, the European Union, and many others. The only way this problem can be cured is with TARIFFS, which are now bringing Tens of Billions of Dollars into the U.S.A.” He added that trade surpluses have grown under Joe Biden and vowed to reverse them “QUICKLY.”

Continue Reading

Business

Jury verdict against oil industry worries critics, could drive up energy costs

Published on

Offshore drilling rig Development Driller III at the Deepwater Horizon site May, 2010. 

From The Center Square

By 

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

A $744 million jury verdict in Louisiana is at the center of a coordinated legal effort to force oil companies to pay billions of dollars to ameliorate the erosion of land in Louisiana, offset climate change and more.

Proponents say the payments are overdue, but critics say the lawsuits will hike energy costs for all Americans and are wrongly supplanting the state and federal regulatory framework already in place.

In the Louisiana case in question, Plaquemines Parish sued Chevron alleging that oil exploration off the coast decades ago led to the erosion of Louisiana’s coastline.

A jury ruled Friday that Chevron must pay $744 million in damages.

The Louisiana case is just one of dozens of environmental cases around the country that could have a dramatic – and costly – impact on American energy consumers.

While each environmental case has its own legal nuances and differing arguments, the lawsuits are usually backed by one of a handful of the same law firms that have partnered with local and state governments. In Louisiana, attorney John Carmouche has led the charge.

“If somebody causes harm, fix it,” Carmouche said to open his arguments.

Environmental arguments of this nature have struggled to succeed in federal courts, but they hope for better luck in state courts, as the Louisiana case was.

Those damages for exploration come as President Donald Trump is urging greater domestic oil production in the U.S. to help lower energy costs for Americans.

Daniel Erspamer, CEO of the Pelican Institute, told The Center Square that the Louisiana case could go to the U.S. Supreme Court, as Chevron is expected to appeal.

“So the issue at play here is a question about coastal erosion, about legal liability and about the proper role of the courts versus state government or federal government in enforcing regulation and statute,” Erspamer said.

Another question in the case is whether companies can be held accountable for actions they carried out before regulations were passed restricting them.

“There are now well more than 40 different lawsuits targeting over 200 different companies,” Erspamer said.

The funds would purportedly be used for coastal restoration and a kind of environmental credit system, though critics say safeguards are not in place to make sure the money would actually be used as stated.

While coastal erosion cases appear restricted to Louisiana, similar cases have popped up around the U.S. in the last 10 to 15 years.

Following a similar pattern, local and state governments have partnered with law firms to sue oil producers for large sums to help offset what they say are the effects of climate change, as The Center Square previously reported.

For instance, in Pennsylvania, Bucks County sued a handful of energy companies, calling for large abatement payments to offset the effects of climate change.

“There are all kinds of problems with traceability, causation and allocability,” George Mason University Professor Donald Kochan told The Center Square, pointing out the difficulty of proving specific companies are to blame when emissions occur all over the globe, with China emitting far more than the U.S.

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

Those cases are in earlier stages and face more significant legal hurdles because of questions about whether plaintiffs can justify the cases on federal common law because it is difficult to prove than any one individual has been substantively and directly harmed by climate change.

On top of that, plaintiffs must also prove that emissions released by the particular oil companies are responsible for the damage done, which is complicated by the fact that emissions all over the world affect the environment, the majority of which originate outside the U.S.

“It’s not that far afield from the same kinds of lawsuits we’ve seen in California and New York and other places that more are on the emissions and global warming side rather than the sort of dredging and exploration side,” Erspamer said.

But environmental companies argue that oil companies must fork out huge settlements to pay for environmental repairs.

For now, the Louisiana ruling is a shot across the bow in the legal war against energy companies in the U.S.

Whether the appeal is successful or other lawsuits have the same impact remains to be seen.

Continue Reading

Trending

X