The letter landed with a thud on desks across Ottawa last week. Signed by 31 of Canada’s most prominent trade lawyers, it carried a stark message: Canada’s trade enforcement system is broken, and the economic consequences could be severe if nothing changes.
As manufacturers struggle with competition from low-cost imports and complex global supply chains, this coalition of legal experts has called on the federal government to strengthen the units responsible for enforcing trade remedies and investigating unfair practices.
“We see this as a red flag moment,” explains Cyndee Todgham Cherniak, a trade lawyer at LexSage who spearheaded the initiative. “When a diverse group of lawyers who typically oppose each other in trade disputes come together like this, it signals a systemic problem that transcends individual cases.”
The urgency behind the letter stems from what practitioners describe as chronic underfunding and understaffing at key federal agencies, particularly the Canada Border Services Agency’s Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate. This unit investigates claims of foreign companies dumping products into the Canadian market at artificially low prices or benefiting from unfair government subsidies.
“Think of it as a referee with no whistle,” explains Brenda Swick, a trade remedies specialist at Cassels Brock & Blackwell. “We have the rules on paper, but without proper enforcement capacity, they’re largely symbolic.”
The economic stakes extend far beyond legal technicalities. For Canadian manufacturers competing against foreign producers, especially those from countries with state-supported industries, effective trade enforcement represents an existential issue.
“When foreign steel or aluminum gets dumped into our market below production cost, that’s not fair competition – it’s market distortion,” notes a senior executive at a Canadian steel producer who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “It costs Canadian jobs and undermines our industrial capacity.”
The backdrop to this push is a shifting global trade landscape. The World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement system remains partially paralyzed, while major economies like the United States have significantly bolstered their trade enforcement mechanisms. The U.S. Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission operate with substantially larger budgets and staff compared to their Canadian counterparts.
“The Americans have invested heavily in their trade remedy system,” observes Lawrence Herman, a veteran trade lawyer with Cassidy Levy Kent. “Meanwhile, Canada’s capacity has effectively diminished through attrition and budget constraints.”
The lawyers’ letter specifically recommends increasing resources for the CBSA’s Trade and Anti-dumping Programs Directorate and expanding the Trade Remedy Investigation Branch at Global Affairs Canada. But the recommendations go beyond mere staffing increases.
The signatories advocate for establishing a dedicated trade prosecution service modeled after similar units in the U.S. and European Union. Such a service would provide specialized legal expertise to support complex anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations.
International competition isn’t the only challenge. The letter highlights how increasingly sophisticated foreign exporters have learned to circumvent Canada’s trade remedy orders through minor product modifications or transshipment through third countries.
“We’re seeing cases where goods subject to anti-dumping duties suddenly start arriving from countries with no prior manufacturing capacity in that sector,” explains Jesse Goldman, a trade remedies lawyer with Borden Ladner Gervais. “It’s not coincidental – it’s circumvention, and we need better tools to address it.”
What makes this collective action noteworthy is the breadth of signatories. The letter brings together lawyers who typically represent opposing interests – from those who defend Canadian industries seeking protection to those representing importers and foreign producers.
“I’ve spent my career fighting against trade barriers,” says one lawyer who signed the letter but requested anonymity. “But even I recognize that a functioning, fair system requires effective enforcement. Without it, the entire framework loses credibility.”
The federal government’s response remains uncertain. Canada’s International Trade Minister, Mary Ng, acknowledged receiving the letter but has not committed to specific actions. Privately, government officials point to budgetary constraints and competing priorities.
For Canadian manufacturers, particularly in sectors like steel, aluminum, and industrial goods, the stakes couldn’t be higher. These industries employ thousands across the country and form the backbone of many regional economies.
“This isn’t about protectionism,” insists Catherine Cobden, president of the Canadian Steel Producers Association. “It’s about ensuring that the rules everyone agreed to are actually enforced. When they aren’t, it’s our workers and communities that pay the price.”
The debate touches on broader questions about Canada’s industrial policy and economic sovereignty. As geopolitical tensions reshape global trade patterns, countries worldwide are reassessing how they protect strategic industries.
“There’s a growing recognition that pure free trade theory doesn’t account for state capitalism and strategic trade policies employed by some of our major trading partners,” notes Dan Ciuriak, a former deputy chief economist at Global Affairs Canada.
Whether the lawyers’ unusual alliance will prompt action remains to be seen. But their initiative highlights a growing consensus that Canada’s approach to trade enforcement requires modernization if the country hopes to maintain its industrial base in an increasingly complex global economy.
As one manufacturer put it: “The rules are only as good as our willingness to enforce them. Right now, Canada is bringing a rulebook to a game where others are bringing referees, video replay, and enforcement mechanisms. That’s not a fair contest.”
