Several recent polls suggest that a majority of Canadians support retaliatory tariffs against the United States, but that the support drops sharply when the potential consequences include personal job losses and greater economic costs.
A survey released Sept. 8 by the non-profit group Build Canada indicated that 75 percent of respondents supported Canada maintaining a firm position in the trade dispute with the United States, even if it resulted in economic costs lasting longer. However, 68 percent said they would not support a tough stance if it increased the risk of someone in their household facing a noticeably higher chance of losing their job.
The poll also indicated that between 56 and 60 percent of respondents would not support Canada taking a tough stance if it resulted in annual household tax increases of $500, $1,000, or $2,500. Similarly, between 58 and 68 percent said they would change their position if the approach resulted in losses of 5, 10, or 20 percent in retirement savings or investments.
The survey also suggested a substantial partisan divide: 96 percent of respondents who said they voted Liberal in the April 2025 federal election supported maintaining a tough stance toward Washington, compared with 41 percent of those who said they voted Conservative.
Build Canada said the findings highlight a tension between support for a firm negotiating position and willingness to accept its potential impact on household finances.
“‘Elbows up’ is not a blank cheque,” said Lucy Hargreaves, co-founder and CEO of Build Canada, in a release on the findings. “Political leaders should not confuse broad support for holding firm with consent to endure personal losses. These results show that Canadians favour a firm negotiating position while rejecting what it could mean for their jobs, taxes and savings.”
An Angus Reid poll published Sept. 8 found a similar trend, with 73 percent of respondents saying Ottawa should refuse difficult concessions even if doing so worsened trade relations with the United States. However, support for that position fell sharply when respondents were asked about the prospect of someone in their household losing their job.
The poll indicated that 60 percent of respondents would stay the course and oppose major concessions to the United States even if it led to household expenses rising by 20 percent. When asked the same question for other hypothetical scenarios, 52 percent said Canada should stay the course even if it led to a recession, 50 percent said the same even if it resulted in small businesses in their community shutting down, and 46 percent said yes even if it led to major factories leaving Canada or moving production to the United States.
However, support for Canada maintaining a tough position fell to 42 percent if it would lead to the respondent personally losing their job.
Meanwhile, an Abacus Data poll published Aug. 17 indicated that 74 percent of respondents said the trade dispute has already affected their household finances, including 30 percent who said the impact has been major, and 44 percent who said the impact has been minor.
Dalhousie University professor Sylvain Charlebois said Canadian attitudes are likely to shift as the personal impact of U.S. counter-tariffs and import restrictions becomes more apparent.
“The issue of economic pain for most Canadians is abstract,” he previously told The Epoch Times. “I suspect that at some point, when people are going to start feeling personal pain, they’re probably going to call the PMO [Prime Minister’s Office] and say, ‘enough is enough.’”
Commenting on the Build Canada survey, political strategist Ginny Roth said it shows that “the role of leaders is not simply to interpret what the public wants in a given snapshot in time.”
“We entrust them to make decisions that will prove beneficial over the medium and long term – even if that means taking a popularity hit in the short term,” she said on X.
Defending the counter-tariffs, University of Calgary assistant professor of economics G. Kent Fellow said, “as in a shooting war, the act of retaliation shouldn’t be taken because it makes our lives more comfortable.”
“Retaliation has one goal and only one goal: to make the other guy re-think his actions,” he wrote in The Line.
Ottawa has said its retaliatory measures are targeted to protect Canadian businesses that now have to face higher U.S. tariffs, as well as to put political pressure on the White House to remove its tariffs.
The Conservatives have denounced the U.S. tariffs while asking Ottawa to provide a breakdown of what the counter-tariffs cost Canadians.
The White House, meanwhile, says its trade measures are meant to “level the playing field” when it comes to trade with Canada. And it has denounced such terms as “trade war” used by Ottawa.
Trade Dispute
The recent polling comes in the wake of Ottawa imposing counter-tariffs of 15 to 50 percent on roughly $27.6 billion of U.S. imports effective Sept. 8, matching U.S. tariffs of 50 percent imposed on the same value of Canadian goods that took effect Aug. 22.
U.S. President Donald Trump originally announced the tariffs in late July, citing what his administration described as “discriminatory” trade practices by Canada involving U.S. alcohol, dairy, and automotive products.
Trade talks broke down on Aug. 21, with Prime Minister Mark Carney saying the United States had introduced last-minute changes to its proposed terms that were unfair and uneconomic. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, meanwhile, said Canada had made last-minute changes to a near-final agreement that Washington found unacceptable.
Carney has warned that the new Canadian measures would “raise costs and reduce choice for Canadians,” while saying they were necessary to protect Canadian jobs and industries and to help Canadian producers compete with U.S. products in the Canadian market. Greer said the U.S. measures were intended to address what Washington described as discriminatory treatment of American exports.
Following the collapse of the trade talks, Trump announced on Sept. 7 that Montreal-based Bombardier would be barred from selling aircraft in the United States unless it moved production to the United States. On Sept. 8, he also directed the U.S. General Services Administration to begin removing Canadian-made products from lists of goods eligible for U.S. government contracts, citing what he described as a lack of equal access for U.S. companies to Canadian government contracts.
In addition, the United States has imposed tariffs on Canadian vehicles and automotive products, with the scope of those measures modified in a Sept. 8 presidential proclamation.
Trump has also threatened to raise tariffs on Canadian cars, trucks, and automotive parts from 25 percent to 50 percent starting Jan. 1, 2027.
