For decades, Canadian manufacturers built their businesses around a straightforward assumption: the United States would remain their most dependable customer. Ontario Premier Doug Ford now says that assumption may no longer be safe.
Speaking in Toronto on October 14, 2026, Ford warned that American tariffs could survive Donald Trump’s presidency and remain a defining feature of Canada–U.S. trade for years to come. Rather than waiting for Washington to reverse course, he urged Canada to prepare for a permanently changed economic relationship.
The warning arrives as Ontario’s automotive and steel industries struggle with trade restrictions, manufacturers reconsider investment plans, and workers face growing uncertainty about their livelihoods.
For Canada’s most populous province, the challenge is no longer simply surviving the latest round of tariffs. It is figuring out how to remain competitive if the barriers never fully disappear.
Ford’s Warning Is About More Than Trump’s Next Election
Doug Ford delivered his warning at Toronto’s Empire Club on October 14, arguing that Canada’s relationship with its largest trading partner has changed in ways that cannot be dismissed as a temporary political quarrel. The Ontario premier said governments should “plan as if tariffs are here for good.” He was addressing business and political leaders at an event focused on protecting Ontario’s economy, with former Newfoundland and Labrador premier Andrew Furey taking part in the discussion. The message marked a tougher emphasis on preparation, not an announcement that Washington had made every existing duty permanent.
Ford’s argument is practical as well as political. A manufacturer deciding whether to invest in a new factory cannot simply wait for the next American election before ordering equipment or training workers. Steel mills, auto plants and lumber producers need long-term demand and predictable border costs. Planning for tariffs to persist does not mean welcoming them or giving up on negotiations. It means making decisions that remain viable even if the expected relief never arrives.
Why a Different U.S. President Might Keep Trade Barriers
Ford is not alone in doubting that a change of administration would restore the old trading relationship. Canadian Industry Minister Mélanie Joly has warned that protectionist policies attract support across America’s political divide, although lawmakers disagree about which industries and trading partners should face restrictions. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a prominent Democrat, said in an August interview that he could not promise his party would remove all Canadian tariffs if it regained the White House. He argued that Democratic diplomacy would look very different from Trump’s confrontational approach.
There are reasons those two positions can coexist. Politicians may object to Trump’s insults or the breadth of his tariffs while still favouring measures intended to support domestic factories. Once businesses adjust their investments to trade barriers, removing them can become politically complicated. At the same time, American legislators from both parties have urged Trump to ease pressure on Canada and pay greater attention to competition from China. Ford’s warning therefore describes a risk, not a certainty about what a future president will do.
Canada Now Faces a Patchwork of Tariffs
The current trade dispute cannot be reduced to a single percentage. Under U.S. national-security provisions known as Section 232, Canadian-made passenger vehicles and trucks face a 25% duty, with the American-content portion exempt for qualifying CUSMA vehicles. Compliant auto parts currently avoid that sectoral duty. Covered steel, aluminum and copper products face rates that vary by product, reaching 50%, while softwood lumber is subject to a separate 10% national-security tariff alongside possible trade-remedy duties. These rules produce very different costs for different exporters.
Another set of measures makes the landscape even harder to navigate. Washington imposed 50% tariffs under Section 338 on a range of specified Canadian products in August, subsequently broadening and modifying those restrictions. Some of these duties can now apply on top of Section 232 tariffs. Canada has answered with targeted countertariffs. Certain CUSMA-origin goods avoid other U.S. duties, including a 10% Section 301 measure, but the trade agreement does not erase every sector-specific or retaliatory charge. For companies, the fine print can determine whether an order remains profitable.
Ontario’s Auto Plants Are Exposed at Every Border Crossing
For Ontario’s automotive communities, the U.S. is not simply one attractive export market among many. Federal figures show that more than 90% of vehicles made in Canada, and about 60% of Canadian-produced auto parts, are exported to the United States. Canada assembled more than 1.2 million passenger vehicles in 2025, while the industry directly supports approximately 125,000 manufacturing jobs nationwide. Much of that activity is concentrated in southern Ontario, where suppliers and assembly plants on opposite sides of the border depend on one another.
Consider a parts manufacturer receiving a contract tied to an American vehicle program. Its decision to purchase machinery depends on anticipated orders over several model years, not just next month’s selling price. Tariffs that change without much warning create an additional risk even when a manufacturer qualifies for partial exemptions. Ford’s long-term warning speaks to that uncertainty. New buyers abroad may help over time, but shipping specialized components to distant markets is not an instant substitute for established production lines in Michigan and neighbouring states.
Stelco’s Layoffs Show the Human Cost of the Dispute
In Hamilton, the prospect of prolonged tariffs has already become painfully concrete. Stelco, owned by U.S.-based Cleveland-Cliffs, announced plans to idle cold-rolled and coated steel operations at its Hamilton Works site. The company said the decision could affect up to 500 employees; the union initially estimated roughly 350 unionized workers would be laid off. Notices began arriving in October. Stelco has linked the decision to severe market disruption, including U.S. steel tariffs and pressure from imports into Canada.
The federal government is challenging the company’s response. Industry Minister Mélanie Joly said on October 14 that penalties or even a court-ordered sale of Canadian assets could be considered if Cleveland-Cliffs breached employment commitments attached to its 2024 takeover. Stelco disputes that it violated those obligations, and the legal question has not been resolved. For affected households, a potential lawsuit offers little immediate certainty about next week’s shift or mortgage payment. The case illustrates how trade restrictions, commercial choices and government promises can converge at a single factory gate.
September’s Employment Numbers Offer a Broader Warning
September’s labour figures add urgency to Ford’s message without proving that tariffs caused every lost job. Statistics Canada reported a nationwide employment decline of about 68,000 that month, including a reduction of roughly 13,000 manufacturing positions. Ontario’s total employment fell by around 20,000, and its unemployment rate stood at 7.0%. Still, the province employed approximately 86,000 more people than a year earlier. The monthly figures are a warning sign, not a complete picture of an economy in collapse.
Education and health-related services accounted for significant national job losses in September, underscoring why it would be misleading to blame the entire decline on American trade policy. Nevertheless, uncertainty around factory orders can affect overtime, apprenticeships, supplier contracts and workers deciding whether to stay in manufacturing. For an employee in a community with only a few major industrial employers, even a temporary shutdown can be disruptive. Ford’s longer-term argument is that worker support must anticipate repeated shocks rather than assume the next trade announcement will end them.
Ontario’s C$30 Billion Defence Faces a Test of Delivery
Ford’s government says it has announced nearly C$30 billion in measures to help businesses and workers weather U.S. trade pressure. That headline figure combines different forms of support, including tax-payment deferrals, financing and investment initiatives; it is not C$30 billion already handed to affected companies. Among the programs are a C$1 billion Protect Ontario Financing Program offering loans, a wider Protect Ontario Account of up to C$5 billion and a C$150 million Ontario Together Trade Fund designed to strengthen supply chains and develop new markets.
The province expanded eligibility for financing after Washington introduced additional tariffs and product restrictions in 2026. But opposition politicians have questioned whether assistance is reaching the businesses most at risk quickly enough. Liberal MPP Rob Cerjanec has criticized the government’s response and raised concerns about underused trade-war relief. The distinction matters to a small manufacturer coping with payroll while orders are delayed: an announced fund may be reassuring, but access requirements, approval times and the type of support offered determine whether it can prevent layoffs. Long-term resilience begins with short-term survival.
Finding Customers Beyond America Takes Time
Diversification is central to Ford’s proposed answer. He has said roughly three-quarters of Ontario’s exports head to the United States, leaving manufacturers vulnerable when American trade rules change. The Ontario government reports that exports to non-U.S. destinations have increased by nearly 75% since 2018, including growth of almost 28% in 2025. It also organized more than 60 targeted trade missions last year to help local firms meet overseas buyers. Those figures show movement, although faster growth from a smaller market does not eliminate American dependence.
Other opportunities lie inside Canada. Federal and provincial governments have moved to reduce barriers that complicate selling goods or providing services across provincial borders. Economic assessments suggest fully eliminating internal trade obstacles could produce substantial gains over time, but those gains are estimates rather than money already earned. A Windsor parts supplier cannot necessarily redirect a shipment meant for Detroit to a customer in Europe or Alberta. Different technical standards, logistics and sales relationships demand investment. Diversification is therefore a gradual insurance policy, not an overnight replacement.
Energy and Infrastructure Are Part of Ford’s Trade Strategy
Ford is linking economic resilience to projects Canada could build and control itself. Ontario and Alberta have proposed the Northern Shield Energy Corridor, a roughly 3,300-kilometre oil pipeline route from Hardisty, Alberta, to Sarnia, Ontario. Provincial plans contemplate initial capacity of around 500,000 barrels a day, potentially rising to 800,000. Ontario has set aside additional funding for feasibility work. The pipeline remains a proposal, not an operating route or a guaranteed source of construction jobs.
The premier also points to electricity infrastructure and nuclear expansion as ways to attract future manufacturing. Ontario projects that electricity demand could rise by as much as 90% by 2050, and the government is exploring major new generation and transmission investments. Supporters argue reliable domestic energy could make industry less exposed to American policy decisions. These projects, however, involve substantial costs, environmental considerations, approvals and years of construction. They may strengthen Canada’s bargaining position over decades, but they cannot immediately reverse a tariff bill arriving at the border today.
The Next CUSMA Review Will Test the Long-Haul Plan
Ford’s warning arrives as the North American trade agreement itself enters a more uncertain phase. At its July 2026 joint review, the United States declined to extend CUSMA for another full term. The decision did not cancel the pact, which remains in force while further reviews and discussions continue. Washington opened public consultations for the 2027 review on October 2, with comments due January 12. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Mark Carney suspended formal trade negotiations in August, although U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in October that high-level communication continued.
The coming months could still bring a negotiated reduction in barriers. Ford has repeatedly called for fair trade with the United States and supported Carney’s decision to reject terms he considered damaging to Ontario. His new emphasis is that provinces and businesses cannot make their entire future depend on such a breakthrough. The most durable response would combine efforts to restore market access with practical protection for workers, new customers and productive investment at home. That is preparation for uncertainty, not proof tariffs will last forever.
