Trump’s new tariffs put Canada’s food economy on the menu
The United States has announced a sweeping 50% tariff on Canadian goods, citing discriminatory treatment of American alcohol, automobiles and dairy products. The duties are expected to take effect August 19 and, unusually, will reach some products that would ordinarily receive preferential treatment under CUSMA. Energy, potash, fish and critical minerals are among the reported exemptions.
For Canada’s food and beverage economy, the stakes are significant. Canada exports approximately $1.4 billion in alcoholic beverages to the United States annually, representing roughly 90% of our alcohol exports. Spirits are particularly exposed. Canadian dairy exports to the United States, while much smaller, are worth approximately $360 million annually.
But the immediate trade flows are only part of the story. The larger issue is how badly Canada has misread Washington—and how little influence Ottawa now appears to have over events.
The tariffs rely on Section 338 of the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930, a rarely used presidential authority allowing Washington to retaliate when another country is deemed to discriminate against American commerce. It is an obscure and potentially contestable instrument, but the warning signs were visible. Canada’s removal of American alcohol from provincial shelves and its administration of dairy tariff-rate quotas have featured prominently among Washington’s complaints.
READ: New supply management law won't save the system from Trump, experts say
This was only a matter of time. Last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney was asked about the future of CUSMA. His answer to Canadians was: “I’ll keep you posted.”
Well, consider us posted.
New tariffs are coming, negotiations appear stalled, and Canadian exporters are again being asked to absorb the consequences. Canadians deserve more than cryptic reassurances and strategic ambiguity. They deserve to know who is negotiating, what Canada is prepared to concede and how Ottawa intends to protect market access without inflicting even more damage on Canadian businesses and consumers.
President Trump has given himself a 30-day off-ramp. The delay may be legally required, but it also creates negotiating space. It gives Canada an opportunity to offer a limited, face-saving concession before the tariffs take effect.
That could involve restoring some access for American alcohol, addressing specific concerns surrounding dairy quotas or finding another politically manageable gesture. The objective would not be capitulation. It would be to remove the justification for a measure capable of causing far more economic damage than the concessions required to prevent it.
Ottawa could, of course, escalate. Canada could impose export taxes or restrictions on energy, critical minerals or potash. These are among the few areas in which Canada possesses genuine leverage.
But leverage is not the same as immunity.
READ: ‘Status quo would be a victory:’ FHCP’s Michael Graydon on CUSMA’s future
Restricting strategic exports would disrupt American supply chains, but it would also damage Canadian producers, weaken investment and raise costs throughout our own economy. Energy infrastructure cannot simply be redirected overnight. Potash customers are not infinitely interchangeable. Once buyers invest in alternative suppliers, some business may never return.
Canada would pay a steep price for the satisfaction of appearing tough.
This is why the “elbows up” approach was always more slogan than strategy. There is no trade war Canada can win by attempting to outmuscle a country representing roughly one-quarter of the global economy. The United States is not simply another customer. It is the destination for approximately three-quarters of Canadian merchandise exports and an essential market for our farmers, processors and manufacturers.
Diversifying trade is necessary, but it is a generational project—not an emergency response. A new trade mission to Asia or Europe cannot replace continental supply chains built over decades.
Mexico understood this earlier. Its government chose sustained engagement with Washington, even when doing so was politically uncomfortable. Mexico has reportedly held detailed discussions with the United States and has more meetings planned. Canada, by contrast, has leaned heavily on public defiance while appearing increasingly absent from the negotiating table.
Mexico chose engagement. Canada chose theatre—and now pain.
Some in Ottawa continue to advocate playing the “long game,” apparently assuming that conditions will improve after the U.S. midterm elections or once Trump leaves office. That is speculation, not strategy. Nothing guarantees that Congress will become more sympathetic to Canada after November. Nothing guarantees that the next administration will abandon protectionism after 2028.
American trade policy has changed structurally. Economic nationalism now extends well beyond Donald Trump. Waiting for the old relationship to return is not a plan.
For Prime Minister Carney, the time for distance, ambiguity and political posturing is over. Canada needs direct engagement with the White House, a clear list of negotiating priorities and a willingness to make targeted concessions where the economic cost of refusing is vastly greater than the cost of compromise.
Working with the United States does not require admiring its president. It requires understanding power, geography and economic reality.
Canada cannot choose its neighbour. But it can choose whether to manage that relationship intelligently.
So far, we have not.
