President Donald Trump’s decision to impose 25 percent tariffs on most Canadian and Mexican goods and 10 percent on energy exports is a pivotal moment in North American history. This is not a routine trade dispute over softwood lumber or aluminum as we have seen in the past.
Putting tariffs on $600 billion worth of Canadian exports is not a proportionate response to 20 kilograms of fentanyl seized at the United States’ northern border. This is the “economic force” Trump threatened in order to force Canada to become a 51st state—a threat he alluded to again on Sunday. This is an economic war, and it demands a wartime response.
( @realDonaldTrump - Truth Social Post )
— Donald J. Trump 🇺🇸 TRUTH POSTS (@TruthTrumpPosts) February 2, 2025
( Donald J. Trump - Feb 02, 2025, 8:26 AM ET )
We pay hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada. Why? There is no reason. We don’t need anything they have. We have unlimited Energy, should make our own Cars, and have more Lumber… pic.twitter.com/ckzrbbS4ub
Trump’s tariffs are designed to cripple the Canadian economy. The U.S. government justifies these measures under the guise of combating drug trafficking and illegal migration but it is clear that the real motive is economic. The impact will be felt by auto workers in Ontario, roughnecks in Alberta, farmers in the Prairies, and fishermen in Atlantic Canada. Economists warn of a potential 3 percent contraction of Canada’s gross output and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, while the Bank of Canada warns that Canada’s GDP could fall by 2.5 percent.
When the tariffs were merely threatened and Trump’s more extreme comments could be dismissed as bad jokes or “mean tweets,” there was division as to how to deal with them. Some like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith argued for more diplomacy and more accommodation to U.S. concerns about the border (beyond the $1.3 billion for helicopters, drones, and border agents the federal government pre-emptively promised). She suggested that counter-responses be limited and energy taken off the table completely.
Others like Doug Ford argued for a more pugilistic response with harsh retaliatory measures including energy restrictions. But now that the tariffs are here and enshrined in executive orders, Canadians are united: our response must be firm and forceful. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and Liberal leadership frontrunner Mark Carney, despite ideological differences, agreed that Canada must respond with dollar-for-dollar tariffs and strategic economic countermeasures. This rare consensus underscores the existential threat Trump’s policies pose to Canada’s economic sovereignty.
History offers a blueprint for such moments. During both World Wars, political rivals in the U.K. and Canada set aside differences to form unity governments. Canada formed a coalition government of Conservatives and Liberals during the First World War. In 1940, the U.K. formed a coalition government of Conservatives, Labour, and Liberals to guide the country through the war.
Canada faces a similar inflection point. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose credibility has been eroded, has already announced his resignation. His decision to prorogue Parliament until March 24 will delay any legislative response during this crisis. While prorogation allows the Liberal Party to reset its agenda under a new leader, it leaves Canada rudderless as Trump’s tariffs take effect.
Trudeau’s speech to Canadians and Americans on Saturday night may have been his finest hour, but he is no Winston Churchill. He more closely resembles Neville Chamberlain whose lack of preparation and inability to dissuade German aggression forced his resignation. Only with Chamberlain out of the picture would the opposition agree to join a unity cabinet. To navigate this crisis, Canada needs a government that transcends partisan divides.
Luckily Trudeau has a serviceable lieutenant who is respected by the provinces and the opposition in the form of Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc. LeBlanc could serve as an interim prime minister, with Poilievre and Carney (or Chrystia Freeland, should she win the Liberal leadership) serving as ministers of finance or foreign affairs and both leaders being named as deputy prime ministers. Other Cabinet roles would be shared equally between Liberals and Conservatives, prioritizing expertise over party allegiance.
This model mirrors the unity governments under Borden and Churchill during the wars of the last century. For Canada, the threat is economic, not military, but the stakes are no less dire. A unity government would allow for coordinated retaliation that implements counter-tariffs while minimizing consumer harm and keeping all regions of the country united. It would allow emergency support measures for workers and businesses to be passed, while Conservative presence in cabinet would prevent them from becoming politicized boondoggles as CERB became in response to COVID-19.
Most importantly, it would send a diplomatic message to Americans and our friends and allies around the world that Canada is united in its response. The U.S. could not seek to divide Canadians along regional or ideological lines or bully a lame-duck government.
Critics will argue that unity governments are anathema to Canada’s political culture. Yet the alternative—a fractured response during a recession with a powerful enemy seeking to harm and divide us—risks irreversible damage. Poilievre and Carney, despite their ambitions, have shown a willingness to collaborate on a firm and unified response. Both should recognize that partisan brinkmanship now would embolden Trump.
Parliament must reconvene immediately. All parties should suspend confidence votes until October’s scheduled election and focus instead on passing emergency measures and working together across party and federal-provincial lines to respond to this unprecedented economic threat. In October, Poilievre and Carney or Freeland can present their different visions of how we can build for Canada’s future, but today we need all of our leaders working together to respond to a clear and present danger.
By forming a unity government our leaders can demonstrate that national interest outweighs political gain. This is not a surrender of ideology or principle but a recognition that survival sometimes requires uneasy alliances.
When Churchill addressed Parliament for the first time as prime minister in May of 1940, he vowed to offer his “blood, toil, tears and sweat” and committed to a policy for fighting “with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us.” Canada’s leaders must now channel that resolve. The tariffs are more than a policy dispute—they are a test of Canada’s ability to unite in the face of existential threat. The time for political gamesmanship is over. The time for unity is now.