National Post
· collected 2026-08-28 · by Special to National Post
analysis
Economist David Clement argues that Canada's counter-tariffs will ultimately hurt Canadian consumers rather than President Trump. He points out that tariffs on foreign products are essentially a tax paid by domestic consumers and quotes previous statements from Canadian politicians, including Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who have made similar claims about the impact of tariffs on American consumers. The Bank of Canada found that prices on tariffed goods rose six percent last year, adding 0.3 percentage points to inflation, and Clement suggests that a new round of counter-tariffs will likely pass costs on to Canadian consumers again. He also criticizes the idea that Canada's goal should be to cause pain for Americans in order to impact the midterm elections, calling this viewpoint "incredibly naive".
Written by the local model on 2026-08-28,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
Late Wednesday the federal government announced that it was removing seafood from Canada’s list of retaliatory tariffs.
asserted
it → announce → tariffs
The finance ministry justified the move stating, “Based on feedback, we have made select adjustments to protect against broader economic harms, including removing seafood and fish products from our list of counter tariffs.”
asserted
we → justify → tariffs
The invocation of economic harm here is a tell, because it should be obvious to everyone, our politicians included, that tariffs on foreign products are a tax paid for by domestic consumers.
Recommended Videos
In fact, our politicians, both federal and provincial, have accurately pointed out that economic truth several times when talking about President Donald Trump’s tariffs.
asserted
politicians → include → tariffs
Ontario Premier Doug Ford told CBS News last year that “A tariff on Canada is a tax on Americans.”
asserted
tariff → tell → Americans
When the latest potential deal fell through last weekend, Prime Minister Mark Carney echoed that same sentiment: “tariffs are taxes, taxes which are ultimately paid by U.S. consumers,” he said in a statement.
asserted
he → fall → statement
Saying this to the press should have immediately undermined the case for Canada to enact counter-tariffs, and our politicians should not have given in to the emotional response that “well, we have to do something.”
asserted
we → say → something
If Trump is going to make life more expensive for American consumers with tariffs, our response should not be to engage in his economic delusions.
asserted
response → go → delusions
Doing so makes life more expensive for Canadians.
asserted
life → do → Canadians
When Canada first imposed retaliatory tariffs last year, the Bank of Canada found that prices on tariffed goods rose six per cent and added 0.3 percentage points to headline inflation.
asserted
prices → impose → inflation
So when this new round of crop of counter-tariffs takes effect on Sept. 8, we can expect that at least some of the costs will be passed on to Canadian consumers.
asserted
some → take → consumers
But it gets worse, because Ottawa has committed $7.5 billion in support for workers and businesses affected by the tariffs, which means that Canadians are paying twice: first as consumers, and then again as taxpayers.
asserted
Canadians → get → taxpayers
Many have justified a counter-response for the purpose of getting the U.S. to change course.
asserted
U.S. → justify → course
Commentators and former federal staffers have argued that our counter-tariffs are worth the domestic cost because Canada has the opportunity to cause pain for Americans, so much so that it could impact the upcoming midterm elections.
uncertain
it → argue → elections
The thought process here is that if Canada can strategically impact those swing states, voters will vote for Democrats, who could remove tariff power from the president and get us back to something resembling normalcy.
uncertain
who → impact → normalcy
This viewpoint seems rather straightforward, but it is incredibly naive.
asserted
it → seem → ?
To pass a bill revoking Trump’s tariff powers, both the House and the Senate would need a two-thirds majority to be able to override a presidential veto.
asserted
House → pass → veto
However, there is no fathomable scenario where the Democrats sweep enough of the midterms to have two-thirds of either house.
asserted
Democrats → be → house
There are 20 toss-up congressional districts, which is simply not enough to get the Democrats anywhere close to where they would need to be.
asserted
they → be → ?
There are only six potential Senate seats the Democrats could reasonably flip if we are being generous, again nowhere near what would be needed.
uncertain
what → be → ?
This reality needs to be acknowledged because enacting a tax on ourselves to try and generate a political outcome that appears impossible is nonsensical.
asserted
that → need → outcome
Now, some may argue that a simple repeal of some of Trump’s tariffs would just require a majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster.
uncertain
repeal → argue → filibuster
While a congressional majority might be possible, getting to 60 in the Senate is not.
uncertain
getting → get → Senate
But, let’s say that by some miracle the unexpected happened and the Democrats did garner the votes needed to repeal the tariffs.
asserted
Democrats → let → tariffs
Would they do so?
asserted
they → do → ?
Democratic Governor of California Gavin Newsom, who is a potential Democratic nominee for president, was pressed by CTV’s Vassey Kapelos on that very question earlier this week.
asserted
who → press → question
He not only justified what he called “targeted tariffs policies” but also flat-out said that he could not guarantee that the U.S. under Democratic leadership would repeal the tariffs.
uncertain
U.S. → justify → tariffs
He even admitted that President Joe Biden kept many of Trump’s tariffs from his first term.
asserted
Biden → admit → term
All he could guarantee is that the disrespectful talk of Canada being a 51st state would end.
uncertain
Canada → guarantee → ?
These hard realities should call into question why we would retaliate with our own tariffs, because the reasoning for it has to stretch beyond keeping our pride.
asserted
reasoning → call → pride
We can not, and should not, enact a tax on ourselves for the pipe dream of influencing advantageous political outcomes south of the border.
asserted
We → enact → border
Strip away the bravado and the case for counter-tariffs falls apart into a chain of assumptions, each weaker than the last.
asserted
each → strip → last
Can counter-tariffs meaningfully move votes to the Democrats in American swing states enough for them to repeal the tariffs?
asserted
them → move → tariffs
And if they got that power, would they actually do it?
asserted
they → get → it
The answers to those questions don’t pan out in Canada’s favour.
asserted
answers → pan → favour
So the question remains for those cheerleading the tax increase: Should Canada copy Trump’s economic mistakes for a political payoff that only exists in theory?
asserted
that → remain → theory
I don’t think so.
asserted
I → think → ?
