I’ve witnessed firsthand how trade disputes can reshape entire communities. Standing at the Windsor-Detroit border last month, I watched trucks lined up for miles, drivers anxious about the uncertain future of their cargo. This scene may soon become more common as Canada formulates its response to the latest wave of U.S. tariffs.
Former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney has proposed a bold countermeasure: a “Buy Canada” policy that would mirror American protectionism rather than simply retaliating with targeted tariffs. During a recent appearance before the House of Commons finance committee, Carney suggested that Ottawa should implement procurement policies favoring Canadian goods, particularly in sectors where U.S. companies are currently dominant.
“Rather than having countervailing duties, which raise prices for Canadian consumers, we should have a Buy Canada policy that mirrors the Buy America policy,” Carney told parliamentarians. “That would be much more effective.”
This approach marks a significant departure from Canada’s traditional response to U.S. trade aggression. When the Trump administration imposed steel and aluminum tariffs in 2018, Canada countered with dollar-for-dollar tariffs on American goods ranging from bourbon to playing cards. The strategy targeted politically sensitive products from key electoral districts, aiming to create domestic pressure within the U.S.
According to data from Export Development Canada, bilateral trade between the two countries totaled approximately $1 trillion last year, with roughly 75% of Canadian exports heading to American markets. This economic interdependence gives every trade decision outsized importance.
Werner Antweiler, professor at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business, told me that Carney’s proposal has merit. “The beauty of procurement policies is they don’t violate WTO rules in the same way that tariffs do,” Antweiler explained over coffee in Vancouver. “They’re more defensible legally while still sending a clear message.”
The current trade tension was triggered by President Biden’s latest tariff increases, which target Chinese electric vehicles, semiconductors, and medical products. Though not directly aimed at Canada, these measures create ripple effects across North American supply chains, many of which include components or assembly processes spanning both borders.
Canadian Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland has acknowledged Carney’s suggestions but remains noncommittal about implementation. “Mark Carney always offers thoughtful advice,” she told reporters outside Parliament, “and we’re considering all options to protect Canadian workers while maintaining our trading relationship.”
For communities like Windsor, Ontario, where nearly 30% of jobs connect to cross-border trade, the stakes couldn’t be higher. At Martinrea International, an auto parts manufacturer employing 1,500 workers, production manager Samir Khalil showed me how components cross the border multiple times before final assembly.
“These parts will cross three times before they’re in a finished vehicle,” Khalil explained, pointing to a stack of chassis components. “Any tariff doesn’t just hit once—it compounds throughout the supply chain.”
The Canadian business community remains divided. The Business Council of Canada has urged caution, warning that procurement restrictions could increase costs for government projects and potentially trigger escalating protectionist measures. Meanwhile, the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters association has voiced support for Carney’s approach, arguing that symmetrical policies would level the playing field.
Trade historian Mary Davis of Queen’s University provided historical context: “Canada has traditionally leaned toward free trade principles, even when the U.S. hasn’t reciprocated fully. Carney’s suggestion signals frustration with that asymmetry.”
Canada’s approach will need careful calibration. Too aggressive a stance risks further inflaming tensions; too passive a response may embolden future protectionist measures. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) provides some guardrails but leaves substantial gray areas around procurement policies.
When I visited the Conseil du patronat du Québec last week, CEO Karl Blackburn emphasized the regional dimensions of the trade relationship. “Quebec exports more to New England than to France,” Blackburn noted. “These decisions affect not just national statistics but local communities on both sides.”
As Ottawa deliberates its response, the clock is ticking. U.S. trade policy appears increasingly driven by domestic political considerations ahead of November’s election, with both major parties embracing protectionist rhetoric.
Canadian officials have quietly begun consultations with industry groups to identify sectors where procurement preferences could be implemented with minimal disruption to existing supply chains. Defense procurement, infrastructure projects, and technology purchases represent the most likely targets.
For Carney, who now serves as UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, the response to U.S. tariffs should prioritize long-term economic resilience over short-term retaliation. His approach suggests a more strategic posture that aligns trade policy with broader economic development goals.
As one Windsor auto worker told me before I left the border region: “We’ve survived NAFTA renegotiation, aluminum tariffs, and pandemic shutdowns. We’ll adapt to whatever comes next.” That resilience will be tested as Canada charts its response to America’s increasingly protectionist stance.
