By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This website is best viewed with a modern, up-to-date browser. Using an outdated browser exposes users to potential security vulnerabilities. For optimal performance and security, please upgrade to a supported browser such as Chrome, Firefox, Edge, or Safari. Failure to update may result in a diminished user experience. Switching browsers is simple and significantly improves online safety.
Read the original article here
Seventy percent of Canadians supporting retaliatory tariffs against the United States in response to US trade policies isn’t surprising given the current climate. This significant majority reflects a widespread sentiment that Canada deserves a strong and decisive response to what many perceive as unfair and aggressive trade practices from the US. The feeling is that Canada shouldn’t passively accept actions that harm its economy and its citizens.
The high level of support suggests a strong desire for reciprocal action, a feeling of being pushed around, and a belief that a firm response is necessary to protect Canadian interests. This isn’t about initiating a trade war, but rather about defending against one, a vital point often overlooked in the heated discussions surrounding tariffs.
Some suggest that a more potent response is needed, perhaps even going beyond retaliatory tariffs. The idea of a complete trade standstill with the US or focusing on alternative trading partners is frequently raised, demonstrating the depth of frustration and the desire to lessen dependence on the US market. This feeling is echoed in proposals to diversify trade relationships and reduce reliance on the US dollar as the primary reserve currency.
There is a widespread feeling that the US is acting in a bullying manner, using trade as a weapon against its closest allies. The belief is that only a firm response will deter further aggressive trade actions. The significant support for retaliatory tariffs is seen as a necessary countermeasure, a way to ensure Canada’s voice is heard and its interests protected on the world stage. The belief that the US only understands strength, and that retaliation is the only language it comprehends, is a recurring theme.
The argument that retaliatory tariffs will harm Canadian businesses and consumers is countered by the idea that the long-term consequences of inaction would be even more damaging. Many believe that the potential short-term economic pain is a price worth paying to send a clear message and protect the Canadian economy from further exploitation. Others propose alternative strategies, such as prioritizing sales to other countries, to minimize the negative effects on Canada’s economy.
The debate around retaliatory tariffs touches on the broader issue of Canada’s sovereignty and economic independence. There’s a strong sense that Canada needs to assert itself more forcefully in its relationship with the US, demonstrating its ability to stand up for its interests and defend against unfair trade practices.
The support isn’t monolithic; the remaining 30% likely encompasses a variety of opinions, ranging from concerns about the economic impact of retaliatory tariffs to a belief in pursuing alternative strategies, like prioritizing other markets, or even advocating for unilateral free trade. The various perspectives demonstrate the complexity of the issue and the lack of easy solutions.
There are even suggestions that the current economic situation requires drastic measures, including the complete cessation of trade with the US. This highlights the intensity of the frustration and the search for solutions beyond the traditional realm of trade negotiations. The underlying concern is that failure to act decisively will lead to long-term economic harm and damage to Canada’s international standing. This strong and vocal support for retaliatory tariffs is, in essence, a demonstration of Canadian resolve in the face of perceived unfair trade practices. It’s a signal to the US and the rest of the world that Canada will not be pushed around.