An auto part can cross the Detroit River several times before it becomes part of a finished vehicle. Pierre Poilievre is now crossing that same border with a proposal to stop treating Canadian and American cars as trade adversaries.
The federal Conservative leader headed to Detroit on October 13, 2026, to promote a tariff-free North American auto pact, arguing that Donald Trump’s tariffs are hurting workers and businesses on both sides of the border.
His visit comes as Canadian-made vehicles face a 25% U.S. tariff, Trump threatens to double that rate in January, and Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government remains at odds with Washington over trade. With Michigan’s Senate election approaching, the dispute is also becoming a campaign issue. The stakes extend well beyond politics, reaching assembly plants, parts suppliers, dealerships and thousands of families whose livelihoods depend on the automotive industry.
Poilievre Takes His Auto Pact Campaign Across the Border
Poilievre began Tuesday, October 13, with a news conference in Windsor, Ontario, before heading across the border to Michigan. He outlined plans to meet representatives of a General Motors plant in Detroit, Ford officials in nearby Dearborn and members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Conservative MPs from the Windsor area were also joining the visit. His message was that the two countries should be cooperating to strengthen North American manufacturing rather than imposing tariffs that increase costs and create uncertainty.
The trip represents an unusual form of cross-border advocacy by Canada’s opposition leader. Poilievre cannot negotiate a binding trade agreement on Ottawa’s behalf, but he can speak directly with American industry representatives and make his case to U.S. audiences. He previously visited Michigan in March before unveiling his automotive proposal in Windsor. The latest visit comes during Parliament’s Thanksgiving recess, giving him an opportunity to focus attention on the issue. Whether the meetings influence Washington’s tariff policy remains an open question, especially because the Trump administration has not agreed to the proposed pact.
Trump’s 25% Auto Tariff Could Double in January
The immediate problem is the 25% tariff Washington imposed on imported automobiles in April 2025. Vehicles that qualify under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement receive special treatment: the tariff can be calculated on their non-U.S. content rather than the entire vehicle’s value. Qualifying automotive parts also receive exemptions under the current framework. Those provisions reduce the burden for some manufacturers, but they do not restore the tariff-free conditions under which the industry operated before Trump’s measures.
The threat of another increase is making production planning even harder. Trump has warned that tariffs on Canadian automobiles could rise to 50% on January 1, 2027, in response to Canada’s retaliatory measures. That higher rate has not taken effect. Reuters reported in August that automakers had previously expected a possible agreement lowering the tariff to 15%, only to see negotiations deteriorate. For an automaker deciding where to assemble its next vehicle model, the difference between those rates can influence investment decisions years before the vehicles reach showrooms. Uncertainty itself becomes a cost when factories depend on long-term commitments.
His Proposal Links Duty-Free Imports to Canadian Production
Poilievre’s proposal is based on a straightforward exchange: automakers that manufacture vehicles in Canada would gain the ability to sell vehicles assembled in other CUSMA countries in the Canadian market without countertariffs. His plan describes a production-linked, dollar-for-dollar arrangement under which manufacturing in Canada earns corresponding duty-free market access. In return, he wants the United States to eliminate tariffs on Canadian-made vehicles. The Conservatives compare the concept to the 1965 Canada-U.S. Auto Pact, which helped integrate automobile production across the border.
The party formally introduced the proposal in Windsor on March 15, setting a goal of increasing annual Canadian vehicle production to two million within a decade. Canada produced approximately 1.2 million vehicles in 2025, leaving a substantial gap between current output and the Conservatives’ target. The proposed agreement would retain CUSMA’s minimum 75% North American automotive content requirement while seeking closer regulatory cooperation. Supporters argue that linking market access to domestic production would encourage manufacturers to retain Canadian assembly operations. But the two-million-vehicle figure remains a political objective, not a verified production forecast or a commitment from automakers.
Windsor and Detroit Share More Than a Border
The automotive relationship between Windsor and Detroit stretches far beyond finished cars entering dealerships. Canadian parts suppliers manufacture components that are shipped to American assembly plants, while U.S.-made components return to Canadian factories. A vehicle assembled in Ontario can contain substantial American content, making tariffs a challenge for businesses on both sides of the border. Canadian government figures show that more than 90% of vehicles assembled in Canada and approximately 60% of Canadian-made automotive parts are exported to the United States.
The economic scale explains why the dispute matters so much. Canada exported C$44.4 billion in finished vehicles to the United States in 2024 while importing C$35.6 billion. The industry supports more than 125,000 direct jobs and approximately 425,000 indirect positions across Canada. The Windsor-Detroit corridor alone handles about 30% of Canada-U.S. trade transported by truck, with more than C$274 million in goods moving through the gateway daily. The Gordie Howe International Bridge, which opened in July 2026, adds another route for this traffic. For a toolmaker in Windsor or a parts supplier in Michigan, fewer vehicle orders can mean fewer shifts, smaller contracts and difficult decisions about staffing.
Michigan’s Senate Race Is Turning Tariffs Into an Election Issue
Poilievre’s visit comes as automotive tariffs become an issue in Michigan’s November 3 midterm election. Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers, who had previously supported much of Trump’s tariff agenda, called for an end to the dispute with Canada in an October 7 campaign video. He argued that Michigan businesses and consumers were paying a price for the confrontation. During a subsequent debate, Rogers acknowledged that tariffs were too high and said the United States needed a deal with Canada.
His Democratic opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, criticized the change in position, accusing Rogers of reversing course for political reasons. The debate reflects Michigan’s dependence on trade with its northern neighbour. U.S. trade data identifies Canada as Michigan’s largest goods export market, making cross-border commerce important to businesses far beyond the automotive sector. Poilievre has rejected suggestions that his visit constitutes interference in the American election, despite warnings from Trump adviser Peter Navarro about foreign involvement. His stated purpose is to promote lower trade barriers, not endorse a candidate. Nevertheless, the election creates a politically sensitive backdrop for meetings with American workers and manufacturers.
Carney and Poilievre Want Tariff Relief but Offer Different Plans
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government also wants relief from U.S. automotive tariffs, but its strategy places greater emphasis on industrial investment and diversification. In February, Ottawa announced an automotive package that included up to C$3 billion from its Strategic Response Fund and as much as C$100 million in regional tariff-related assistance. The government is also supporting electric-vehicle purchases, battery supply chains and investments designed to strengthen Canadian manufacturing. Its stated goal is to preserve existing automotive employment while reducing the industry’s vulnerability to decisions made in Washington.
Formal trade negotiations with the United States were suspended on August 21 after Carney described proposed American terms as unfair and economically unacceptable. That did not end communication between the countries. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer confirmed on October 8 that senior-level discussions were continuing, although Washington had not softened its trade position. Poilievre argues that a reciprocal tariff-free pact provides a clearer path toward rebuilding Canada’s traditional North American automotive relationship. Carney’s approach puts additional weight on developing new investment opportunities and maintaining bargaining leverage. Both strategies ultimately depend on American cooperation to secure meaningful tariff relief.
Canada’s Countertariffs Have Become Part of the Standoff
Ottawa’s retaliatory measures add another layer to the dispute. Canada imposed a 25% countertariff in April 2025 on American vehicles that fail to meet CUSMA requirements. For qualifying U.S.-built vehicles, the levy applies to the portion of the vehicle’s value not attributable to Canadian or Mexican components. Although Canada removed several broader retaliatory tariffs in September 2025, measures covering automobiles, steel and aluminum remained. The federal government argues that maintaining these duties helps defend Canadian manufacturing interests and provides leverage in negotiations.
The rules also contain exceptions intended to protect companies with factories on both sides of the border. Under Canada’s automotive tariff remission program, eligible automakers can import specified quantities of qualifying American vehicles without paying the countertariff, provided they maintain Canadian manufacturing activity and investment commitments. That program was extended through April 8, 2027. Carney’s government has also proposed exploring tradeable import credits tied to domestic production. Poilievre’s plan would introduce a more explicit production-linked exchange. The competing approaches highlight a difficult policy choice: how to keep imports affordable without removing incentives for companies to manufacture vehicles in Canada.
Unifor Supports Tariff-Free Trade but Questions the Proposed Formula
Poilievre’s plan has received a substantial challenge from Unifor, Canada’s largest private-sector union. In a March 17 letter, national president Lana Payne welcomed the attention being given to the automotive crisis and supported the objective of restoring tariff-free trade between Canada and the United States. However, she questioned whether the proposed production-to-import formula would generate enough additional manufacturing to restart idled plants in Brampton and Ingersoll. Unifor represents more than 40,000 automotive workers employed in vehicle assembly, parts manufacturing and dealerships.
The union’s concern centres on how Canada’s vehicle market is structured. Approximately 500,000 new vehicles sold in Canada come from outside North America. Unifor estimated that Canadians purchased about 1.3 million North American-built vehicles in 2025, while Canadian factories produced roughly 1.1 million vehicles for sale within the continent. That ratio is already close to the proposed production-to-sales benchmark. Payne argued that the arrangement might therefore provide insufficient room for the additional 800,000 vehicles needed to reach Poilievre’s target. Her criticism does not reject free trade; it questions whether the proposal would genuinely bring investment back to underused Canadian assembly plants.
Canadian Car Buyers Could See Tax Changes Under the Plan
Poilievre’s automotive strategy also includes a proposal aimed at Canadian households: eliminating the federal goods and services tax on new Canadian-made vehicles while American tariffs remain in place. On a qualifying vehicle priced at C$50,000, the Conservatives estimate that removing the 5% GST would save a buyer C$2,500 before provincial sales taxes. The policy is intended to make locally manufactured vehicles more attractive, potentially increasing demand for products built by Canadian workers. Its effectiveness would depend on prices, availability and whether shoppers can find models that suit their needs.
The Conservatives also propose ending federal electric-vehicle purchase subsidies and harmonizing tailpipe emissions regulations more closely with those of North American trading partners. That differs from Carney’s 2026 electric-vehicle affordability program, which offers up to C$5,000 for eligible battery-electric and fuel-cell vehicles manufactured in Canada or free-trade partner countries. Poilievre’s wider proposal includes stricter safeguards involving Chinese vehicle imports and software connected to China or Russia. These policies could affect competition, consumer choice and investment. Lower taxes may appeal to vehicle buyers, but critics argue that demand incentives alone cannot guarantee new factory jobs.
The Next Tariff Deadline Could Determine Canada’s Auto Future
Poilievre’s Detroit visit comes after another important development in continental trade negotiations. During the July 1, 2026, review of CUSMA, the United States declined to renew the agreement for an additional 16-year term. That decision did not terminate the trade pact. CUSMA remains in force, and its current framework provides for annual joint reviews until the countries agree on an extension or the existing term expires. On October 2, the U.S. Trade Representative launched public consultations ahead of the 2027 review, with submissions due January 12.
The nearer deadline is Trump’s threatened increase to a 50% automotive tariff on January 1, 2027. Automakers will be watching for clear signals about tariff rates, regional-content requirements and how future rules might affect investment decisions. Workers have more immediate concerns: whether factories receive new vehicle programs, whether laid-off employees return and whether their communities can continue relying on manufacturing jobs. Poilievre’s Detroit meetings may help build support for a compromise, but they cannot secure one on their own. The outcome will depend on whether Ottawa and Washington can turn competing political demands into a workable trade agreement.
