Sep 8, 2026 · 55 min
Canada weighs retaliation as trade costs threaten growth
'Shock And Awe' In September: Energy, Food ‘Going To The Moon’ | Jeff Currie
The dispute tests whether Canada can defend its sovereignty without deepening pressure on workers, exposed provinces, investment, and already-weak productivity.
- 1U.S. tariffs could put approximately 87,000 Canadian jobs at risk, with British Columbia and Quebec especially exposed.
- 2Energy retaliation might impose disproportionate costs on Canada even as the United States depends on Canadian oil and natural gas.
- 3Trevor Tombe argues that productivity reforms, including immediate capital write-offs, offer a better response than escalating trade barriers.
Don't miss
Trevor Tombe explains why using Canadian energy exports as leverage could hurt Canada more than the original tariffs.
The brief
Economist Trevor Tombe joins David Lin to examine failed Canada–U.S. negotiations, asking whether tariff retaliation reflects economic strategy, political incentives, or both.
Tombe estimates U.S. tariffs could put approximately 87,000 Canadian jobs at risk, with British Columbia and Quebec exposed through wood products, electronic components, and other exports.
The tariffed goods represent a relatively small share of total trade, but they still raise Canada’s effective export costs and intensify pressure on a slowing labor market.
Tombe supports holding interest rates steady while warning that Canada’s weak real GDP per capita performance reflects a deeper productivity and investment problem.
The sharpest tension arrives over energy retaliation: restricting exports could pressure the United States, but may damage Canadian producers and consumers even more.
Tombe rejects sovereignty and prosperity as a false choice, arguing that Canada should improve competitiveness and make it easier to build successful companies domestically.