NextFin News - Canadian Industry Minister Melanie Joly has issued a warning that cuts against the comforting assumption many investors have made about the US-Canada trade war: the tariffs hitting Canadian manufacturers are not a Trump-only phenomenon, and they may still be in place long after Donald Trump leaves the White House. Speaking after meetings with US state governors, Joly said there is bipartisan political support in Washington for keeping barriers on North American trade - a structural shift that would leave Canada's export-dependent economy facing a permanently higher cost of access to its largest market.
The exposure is concentrated enough to make the warning more than rhetoric. In 2025, Canada exported $556 billion worth of goods, and 72 percent of that went to the United States, according to Statistics Canada data. The share of Canadian exports headed south has been drifting down - from 75.9 percent as recently as 2024 - but the relationship still dominates the Canadian economy. If protectionism survives the administration that launched it, Ottawa cannot simply wait out the clock. The warning lands as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement enters a six-year review that Washington is widely expected not to extend, setting a decade-long countdown that could end the pact on July 1, 2036.
The Situation: A Warning Aimed at Ottawa's Core Assumption
Joly's message reframes the trade conflict as a durable political realignment rather than a single president's disruption. She is among a group of Canadian officials who have traveled to the United States repeatedly over the past year and a half to encourage American opposition to the tariffs. Her recent itinerary - a meeting with Illinois Governor JB Pritzker last week, and one with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro in June - underscores the strategy: build pressure through state-level allies and business constituencies in states where auto, steel, and manufacturing jobs are politically sensitive.
The timing is not incidental. The USMCA review began on July 1, 2026, and the Trump administration is expected to formally declare that it will not extend the agreement for another 16 years. That declaration triggers annual review sessions for the next decade, with the pact expiring in 2036 if no renewal is reached. In practice, that means the trade framework governing close to $1 trillion in annual two-way goods commerce is now in indefinite limbo - exactly the uncertainty that businesses say freezes investment decisions.
The tariff architecture itself has already moved well beyond emergency measures. The United States has imposed 25 percent levies on Canadian and Mexican autos and parts and 50 percent on steel and aluminum from both countries, unilaterally ending the duty-free status that USMCA was supposed to guarantee. Canada has retaliated in kind: counter-tariffs covering more than 700 American products took effect on September 8 at rates of 15 percent, 25 percent, and 50 percent, with the largest share hitting steel and aluminum. On the US side, tariffs on Canadian cars, trucks, automotive parts, and steel are scheduled to double to 50 percent on January 1, 2027.
Even before the latest escalation, the effective burden was already measurable. As of February 2026, an analysis by the Royal Bank of Canada found that 89 percent of Canadian exports still entered the United States tariff-free - meaning the pain is concentrated in specific sectors rather than spread across the whole economy. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has estimated the effective tariff rate at 5.5 percent, while other calculations place it as low as 3.1 percent. The concentration is the point: a broad, shallow tax is politically survivable; a narrow, deep one reorganizes where production happens.
The currency market has already priced a portion of the strain. The Canadian dollar traded near 1.39 per US dollar through September 2026, inside a forecast range of 1.37 to 1.41, after touching a multi-decade high of 1.4793 in February 2025 during an earlier wave of tariff threats. But exchange-rate weakness is the easy part of the adjustment. The harder question Joly is raising is whether the weakness is cyclical - a discount that reverses when the political cycle turns - or structural, a permanent repricing of the risk premium on Canadian assets.
Why This Is Structural, Not Cyclical
The cyclical reading is seductive. Tariffs were imposed by executive action; a different administration could remove them by executive action. Under that view, Canada's task is defensive endurance - survive the Trump years, preserve industrial capacity, and normalize in 2029 or 2033. Joly's bipartisan-support claim is a direct attack on that thesis. It says the transmission mechanism is not the Oval Office; it is the congressional and state-level coalition that now treats protectionism as a default tool, not an emergency one.
Three pieces of evidence support the structural call. First, the policy is institutionalized through the USMCA's own sunset clause - a mechanism Donald Trump negotiated in his first term and is now activating in his second. The six-year review and the 2036 expiration date are not Trump-era improvisations; they are baked into the treaty text. Second, the tariff rates themselves have been escalated through formal processes with scheduled future increases, which creates a ratchet effect: each round becomes the new baseline for the next negotiation. Third, the political geography is wider than one party. Manufacturing states on both sides of the aisle - from Illinois to Pennsylvania - are now arenas where defending domestic industry against North American partners is a viable, even rewarded, position.
The historical anchor matters here. The 25 percent steel and 10 percent aluminum tariffs imposed under Section 232 in Trump's first term were not removed by the Biden administration; they were mostly maintained, with only negotiated rate adjustments for a few countries. That eight-year continuity across two administrations of opposite parties is the strongest single data point that this is a regime shift, not a cycle. Protectionism has survived its author.
There is also a second-order channel that most market commentary misses. Tariffs do not just raise the price of Canadian goods in the US; they reorganize supply chains. When parts cross the border multiple times before final assembly - as they do in autos - each crossing accumulates duty. The result is not a one-time cost shock but a compounding incentive to relocate production south of the border. Once a plant moves, it does not move back when tariffs fall. That is why the structural call matters: the damage compounds even if the policy eventually reverses.
"We may get mandatory annual reviews, but that also means that uncertainty prevails, and that's a negative for decision-making for businesses," said Tony Stillo, director of Canada Economics at Oxford Economics.
Uncertainty is the tax that does not show up in the tariff schedule. A firm deciding whether to invest in an Ontario plant cannot underwrite that decision against a trade regime that is reviewed annually and expires in 2036. The investment either does not happen, or it happens in the United States. Either way, Canada's industrial base shrinks relative to its neighbor - and that is a structural loss, not a cyclical one.
The Second-Order Question: Who Actually Bears the Cost
The conventional narrative is asymmetric: the United States is an economy more than ten times the size of Canada's, so Canada loses more. That is true at the headline level - Canada sends roughly three-quarters of its goods exports to the US, while the US sends about 14 percent of its total exports to Canada. But the second-order transmission runs through specific sectors and specific voters, and that is where the asymmetry narrows.
Consider autos. The American Automotive Policy Council, representing Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, has urged a swift and durable resolution, arguing that North American integration gives the region "enormous competitive benefits." Its president, Matt Blunt, noted that US automakers "currently face a disadvantage versus imports from countries whose exports face a flat 15 percent tariff and are not subject to comparable rules of origin." The point is that the tariff war is not just Canada versus the US; it is integrated North American producers versus the rest of the world, and the integrated producers are losing ground to Asian and European competitors who face lower effective barriers.
The US negotiating position itself reveals the strain. In talks with Mexico, US officials have demanded that all North American-built vehicles contain 50 percent US-specific content, which would push regional content requirements up to 82 percent. US and Mexican officials have also discussed a universal global auto tariff of 15 percent, with a lower rate for Mexico and Canada if they accept stricter rules of origin. These are not the terms of a country confident that tariffs alone solve its problems; they are the terms of a country trying to manage the collateral damage tariffs create.
Canada's retaliation is calibrated to hit political pressure points rather than to match dollar-for-dollar. US steel imports from Canada have already fallen 30 percent since Ottawa imposed its 25 percent counter-tariff, according to Canadian officials. The new measures double many rates to 50 percent and cover appliances, dairy, fish and seafood, furniture, and clothing - goods chosen to be felt in specific congressional districts. The strategy is to make the cost of protectionism visible to the coalition that supports it.
There is a deeper divergence beneath the numbers. Carney has framed the conflict as existential for Canadian sovereignty. "An attitude at the negotiation table that Canada is a subsidiary of the United States," he said, "is not something we're going to accept." In French, he was more blunt: "We learned during the negotiations that the Americans want to destroy our major industries, including autos, steel and aluminum. That was one of the main reasons we said no. It was a bad deal." That framing - a negotiation over national industrial survival rather than a commercial dispute - explains why Ottawa has chosen retaliation over concession, and why de-escalation is politically difficult on both sides.
The Counter-Thesis: Why the Bipartisan Case Could Be Wrong
The strongest argument against Joly's reading is that bipartisan support for tariffs is real but shallow. Tariffs are, in the end, taxes on domestic consumers and input users, and the political coalition for them fragments when prices rise. Democratic lawmakers have already broken with the administration, arguing that Canada is an ally rather than a threat and that the economic emergency is one the tariffs themselves created. If inflation re-accelerates because of import costs, or if manufacturing employment fails to respond, the bipartisan veneer cracks quickly.
There is also a deal-making precedent. Trade conflicts of this scale have historically ended in negotiated settlements, not permanent stalemates. The US-Mexico technical talks show movement - on auto content, on tiered tariff rates - and Canada's chief trade negotiator has held regular discussions with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer's office even without formal negotiating rounds. A new agreement that lowers some sectoral rates in exchange for stricter rules of origin would look like de-escalation even if the treaty framework remains strained.
The counter-thesis has force, but it rests on a specific assumption: that the pain is concentrated enough and visible enough to change votes. So far, the evidence points the other way. The steel tariffs from Trump's first term survived eight years and two administrations. The current escalation has been met with matching retaliation, not retreat, on both sides. And the institutional machinery - the annual USMCA reviews, the scheduled tariff increases into 2027 - is designed to persist regardless of who occupies the White House.
The falsifying signal is concrete: if a post-2026 US administration or a congressional majority moves to repeal the Section 232-based tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum within 12 months of taking office, the structural thesis is wrong. Absent that, the burden of proof sits with the cyclical view. Watch the 2028 US election platforms: if neither party campaigns on removing the tariffs, the regime has become permanent.
What Comes Next: Scenarios and What to Watch
The base case is continued managed conflict. The USMCA review produces annual sessions without a renewal decision; tariffs remain in place through 2027 with the scheduled auto and steel increases; Canada maintains matching counter-tariffs. Under this scenario, the Canadian dollar stays soft - the 1.37 to 1.41 range against the US dollar is consistent with a persistent risk premium - and Canadian manufacturers serving the US market face a permanent cost disadvantage. Exporters with US production footprints benefit; purely Canadian producers are exposed.
The upside case for Canada requires a sectoral breakthrough. If technical talks on steel, aluminum, autos, and softwood lumber produce quota or rate arrangements similar to those discussed with Mexico, some tariff rates could fall before 2027. That would narrow the risk premium and support the loonie toward the low 1.30s. The trigger to watch is a formal US-Canada negotiating round - none has been scheduled, which is itself the tell.
The downside case is escalation beyond autos and steel. If the US extends higher tariffs to energy - Canada supplied 63 percent of US crude oil imports in 2025 - or to a broader basket of goods, the shock would move from sectoral to macro. That scenario would push USD/CAD through the 1.42 resistance level and force the Bank of Canada into a difficult choice between defending the currency and supporting a tariff-hit economy.
Across time horizons, the picture splits. In the short term, sentiment and headline risk dominate - every tariff announcement moves the loonie and Canadian equity indices. In the medium term, fundamentals take over: earnings revisions for Canadian exporters, capex relocation announcements, and the actual trade-flow data. In the long term, this is structural - the question is whether North American trade is governed by rules or by leverage, and the answer so far is leverage.
The specific signals to watch: the USMCA annual review outcomes in 2027 and 2028; whether the January 1, 2027 auto and steel tariff increases take effect as scheduled; US-Canada bilateral negotiating rounds (currently none scheduled); and Canadian export-share data, which has already been drifting away from the US toward non-US destinations. If export share to the US keeps falling while GDP holds, Canada is successfully diversifying. If it falls and GDP weakens, the adjustment is happening through contraction instead.
The uncomfortable conclusion for Canadian investors is that patience is not a strategy when the regime itself has changed. Joly's warning is that the tariffs were never the point - they are the instrument of a broader renegotiation of the North American economic order, and that renegotiation will outlast any single presidency. The market has priced a Trump discount on Canada. It has not priced a Washington consensus.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
