In the 1999 animated comedy South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, there's a catchy and humorous song titled "Blame Canada!" that takes aim at America’s northern neighbor. The satirical lyrics poke fun at the idea of blaming Canada for everything wrong with the world, claiming that the country is responsible for the moral decline in the U.S. instead of pointing fingers at domestic issues like government policies, media influence, or parenting. The song even has a memorable line: "We need to form a full assault — it’s Canada’s fault." While the song's humor is rooted in exaggeration, the idea of pinning societal problems on Canada has popped up in unexpected ways throughout history.
Fast forward to more recent times, and you might find a similar narrative playing out. Enter Donald Trump, former U.S. President, who seems to be channeling the same energy as the satirical song. Trump’s rhetoric has often included a pointed critique of Canada, particularly in the context of illegal immigration and drug trafficking, with the U.S. president-elect suggesting that much of the criminal activity crossing the northern border can be blamed on Canada.
After securing a second term in office, Trump made headlines by threatening to impose 25% tariffs on all Canadian imports, including cars and auto parts. This bombastic approach wasn’t just limited to trade policies. In typical Trump fashion, he even joked about the idea of Canada being annexed as the 51st U.S. state, a move that would shake up not only trade but political alliances as well. He also ridiculed Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who was dealing with sinking approval ratings at the time, calling him the "Governor" of the "Great State of Canada." This all raised the question: was this just another case of Trump’s usual political bombast or a genuine threat?
To understand the weight of these remarks, we need to look at how they’ve been perceived. While some analysts dismissed Trump’s comments as just more over-the-top rhetoric, Canadian politicians and economists were quick to push back. For many, the sudden focus on Canada seemed out of place. Douglas Porter, chief economist of the Bank of Montreal (BMO), described the attacks as "a bolt from the blue," expressing surprise that Canada had become a target given that, during his presidential campaign, Trump had directed his ire at other countries like China, Mexico, and even NATO.
Porter noted that Trump's narrative seemed to be evolving as he prepared to take office. Initially, the focus was on border security, which many in Canada were open to addressing. Then, Trump began to zero in on the so-called U.S.-Canada trade imbalance. In a recent press conference, he even suggested that his administration might impose "economic hardship" on Canada, a country with which the U.S. shares one of the most integrated trade relationships in the world.
Despite championing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and came into effect in 2020, Trump began to sing a different tune. He now referred to the deal he helped negotiate as the "worst deal ever" and suggested that Canada had failed to live up to key terms of the agreement. This was particularly striking, considering that the U.S. has far larger trade imbalances with other nations like China, Mexico, and Japan. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the trade imbalance with Canada stood at nearly $55 billion in 2024, but this figure pales in comparison to the U.S.-China trade imbalance, which was almost five times higher at $270.4 billion.
Trump's claim that the U.S. was essentially subsidizing Canada through this trade imbalance also raised eyebrows. He took to his Truth Social platform to assert that the U.S. could no longer "suffer the massive Trade Deficits that Canada needs to stay afloat." This statement, while provocative, ignores the deeply interconnected nature of U.S.-Canada trade. In 2024, trade between the two nations totaled a whopping $699.4 billion, with Canada being the largest market for U.S. exports — even surpassing Mexico, Europe, and China. U.S. exports to Canada include everything from trucks, cars, and auto parts to fossil fuels. In fact, a quarter of Canada's exports to the U.S. are crude oil, which the U.S. refines into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel for both domestic use and re-export — some of it even back to Canada.
The oil and automotive sectors, in particular, stand to be hit hard by any potential tariffs. Danielle Smith, the premier of Alberta, which is rich in oil resources, warned that imposing tariffs could backfire on the U.S., ultimately hurting American refiners and raising fuel prices for U.S. consumers. The auto industry is also deeply integrated between the two countries, with auto parts and vehicles often crossing the border multiple times during the manufacturing process. William Huggins, assistant professor at McMaster University’s DeGroote School of Business, warned that tariffs on auto parts would spike prices for new vehicles in both countries. "If you tariff at 25% every time it [an auto part] goes across a border, the costs become ridiculous," he pointed out.
But the potential for tariffs to harm both economies isn’t limited to just these sectors. Economists have predicted that tariffs could shrink Canada’s GDP by 2-4% and possibly push the country into a recession. While these figures are concerning, the real question is how Canada would respond. Even as the political leadership of Canada was in flux following Trudeau's resignation, the Liberal Party was preparing countermeasures to retaliate. Sources indicated that Canada might target U.S. imports of steel, ceramics, glass, and even Florida orange juice in retaliation. However, Canada was careful not to overplay its hand, strategically keeping some options off the table to maintain a strong negotiating position.
In the face of these looming threats, Canada’s leadership was caught in a balancing act. Was Trump’s rhetoric simply a negotiation tactic aimed at improving border security or advancing energy and automotive cooperation? Or was it something more sinister, like a push to force Canada to contribute more to NATO or to meet other demands? Some economists, like Huggins, saw it less as a calculated policy move and more as a form of bullying. "We’re dealing with a bully who said, 'Give me your lunch money,'" Huggins quipped, implying that Canada would likely be forced to make concessions to avoid economic disruption.
Despite the uncertainty and potential short-term pain, analysts like Huggins remain confident that Canada will ultimately play the long game. "30 years from now, Donald Trump won’t be alive, but Canada will be," he said, suggesting that the country’s long-term resilience would outlast any economic turbulence sparked by Trump’s unpredictable policies.
In conclusion, while Trump’s threats and rhetoric may be concerning, especially for industries like oil and automotive manufacturing, the broader U.S.-Canada relationship remains one of the most robust in the world. The future of this relationship may hinge on how both countries navigate these tensions, but for now, Canada’s strategy seems to be one of patience and calculated response. Whether these trade battles will lead to lasting changes in the North American economic landscape remains to be seen. However, one thing is clear: the U.S.-Canada relationship is anything but straightforward, and the stakes are high for both sides.
Login