Retaliatory tariffs are not enough. Canada must penalize any firm that moves jobs or operations from Canada because of U.S. tariff policies.

Here’s why:

Relocating productive assets from Canada to the United States, in response to illegal tariffs, imperils the Canadian economy and infringes on Canadian sovereignty.

The federal government has already established a tariff remission plan designed to discourage automakers in Canada from relocating production. But Canada also has other laws it can use prohibit firms from complying with foreign rules that adversely affect Canada’s interests.

The federal government must consider all statutory powers to protect jobs, including those that disincentivize the “offshoring” of Canadian production, impose tariffs or other heavy penalties on firms that comply with unjust U.S. trade orders, and prohibit goods previously made in Canada from re-entering the country from the United States or elsewhere.

Canada must expand its capacity for west-east shipment of Canadian oil, gas and chemical products by rail and build Canadian-made tanker cars immediately.

Here’s why:

Canada must be able to move raw materials using west-east rail to supply Canadian refineries and secure the supply chains of our value added chemical and plastic industries, support diesel and petrol production, and provide internal markets for biofuel production.

There is limited  capacity to move oil, gas, and chemical product via pipeline between provinces in Canada so we must depend on rail. Unlike current pipelines, oil by rail does not go through the U.S.

Canada controls the process from start to finish. Unifor members inspect and maintain rail cars in Canada for both CN and CPKC. Rail cars can be made in Canada and are made by the rail companies themselves.

Rail transport of oil, of course, must be safe. That is a precondition of any work Canada undertakes.  We know oil transportation by rail presents a lower risk of leaks when there are incidents (e.g. derailment), as compared to pipeline incidents over time. 

Alongside this immediate need, Canada must still develop new energy infrastructure and west-east electricity systems.

Status quo defence spending is not enough. Canada must negotiate a defence pact with the EU that develops shared  procurement agreements to support, build and diversify Canada’s aerospace and defence sectors.

Here’s why:

Canada must diversify its security relationships in the face of American hostility. This is already in the works: in June 2025, Canada and the EU signed a joint defence cooperation pact, covering a range of security matters.

Stronger collaboration between Canada and Europe can focus on key areas including research, information sharing, industrial policy, defence production, workers’ rights, market access, and much more.

Canada and the European Union already have agreements that show collaboration and partnership are possible. For example,

In 2015, Canada partnered with the EU in an ongoing Security and Defence Dialogue, that convenes annually.

The 2017 Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) already secures Canada-EU cooperation on issues including international peace and security, counterterrorism, human rights and nuclear non-proliferation, clean energy and climate change, migration and peaceful pluralism, sustainable development, and innovation.

NATO: Canada’s share of NATO's common funding is now approximately 6.68%, and our country has pledged to reach its own 2% of GDP defense spending by 2030-32. Canada leads a multinational NATO battlegroup in Latvia as part of Operation Reassurance comprising 3,400 soldiers from 13 allied nations.

Canada has signed General Security of Information Agreements (GSOIA) with France (1988), the EU (2018), Ukraine (2024) and Poland (2025). A GSOIA allows security screened suppliers from both countries to access classified information or assets necessary to bid on sensitive procurements in the other country and to facilitate business opportunities for companies in industries such as defense, security, aerospace, marine, nuclear and space.

Many European defence companies are already involved in Canada.

Critical mineral development is not enough. Canada must ban or restrict all foreign ownership and control of Canadian critical minerals to defend national and economic security.

Here’s why:

Critical minerals are important for Canada and our country is home to large storehouses of resources. Critical minerals are necessary to build the net zero economy of the future, drive domestic industries, create good, union jobs and advance reconciliation efforts with indigenous people – but only if we manage these resources properly. Critical minerals are highly sought after by the United States as well, with the Trump Administration actively securing preferential access deals for critical minerals around the world.

The challenge for Canada is that an increasing share of domestic mining and quarrying assets are foreign-owned. U.S.-owned assets of Canadian mining are rising too.  

Canada has the tools in place to both guard and develop our critical resource industries, maximizing the benefit of these minerals here at home. In July 2024, the federal government announced restrictions on investments by foreign capital subject to a net benefit review.  As part of Canada’s 2022 Critical Mineral Strategy, the federal government announced increased scrutiny of foreign state-owned or state-influenced investments in the critical minerals sector under a new policy enacted through the Investment Canada Act (ICA).

The time is now. While the most recent Critical Minerals Strategy Annual Report 2024 touts that there are over 150 active critical minerals projects across the country, between January 2023 and June 2024, just one critical mineral mine began commercial operations in Canada. As of November 2025, three projects have been referred to the Major Projects Office, with various others under review. It is imperative that Canada continue to oversee these strategic investments, to ensure Canadian control and ownership.  

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the market value of critical minerals – including those vital to the energy transition such as lithium, cobalt, graphite, copper, nickel and rare earth elements – is set to explode in the coming decade, despite recent price declines.

Canada must think big on forestry and use our vast lumber resources to facilitate a national affordable home building strategy.

Here’s why:

Developing a national homebuilding strategy, building on the existing Canada’s Housing Plan, will require federal, provincial and municipal governments to coordinate with forestry and housing stakeholders, and will connect Canada’s forests with the housing crisis.

We grow it here. Let’s process it and build here, too.

Canada can transform current trade headwinds into an opportunity by scaling up the production of innovative wood products and working to sustain a thriving domestic homebuilding market. It’s time to reduce our historic dependence on exporting commodities and focus on what will become the next phase of Canada’s forestry industry.

Canada already excels at manufacturing engineered wood products, mass timber and prefabricated building systems but it could do so much more. To craft a strong, Made-in-Canada homebuilding strategy, Canada must be ready to overhaul its building and permitting approach, better recognize the value of wood product utilization and deploy an ambitious and patient investment strategy.

The Build Canada Homes strategy, announced by the federal government in 2025, starts us down a path to accelerated affordable homebuilding, which is more crucial than ever. As it develops, the BCH plan must be bound by a clear, stringent Buy Canadian policy that opens durable employment pathways for forestry industry workers badly needed in a sector that has seen thousands of job losses over the past decades. Utilizing Canadian-made, value-added wood products not only support long term greenhouse gas emission reductions and carbon sequestration but bolsters Canada’s fibre supply industry which faces significant challenges. Canada’s housing strategy must also integrate a plan for modular homebuilding, inspired by work undertaken by the B.C. government.

Ongoing trade disputes with the U.S. over lumber and wood products has underlined the need to transform Canada’s forestry industry, including adding value, and growing good jobs, by investing in processing and R&D to develop new wood products.

The proposal will require government investment, support, and coordination, but the result will connect Canadian loggers, mill workers, engineered wood product manufacturers, transport and logistics workers, designers, homebuilders, and residents.

Canadians are realizing the importance of buying what we build. Unifor has, for years, called on all levels of government to use public dollars to buy Canadian goods and Canadian services. By announcing a federal Buy Canadian Policy, the Carney government is listening but needs to think bigger and bolder.

In responding to unprecedented attacks on Canadian industries, the federal government has charted a path toward a national Buy Canadian Policy. And all governments should follow that lead.

However, the policy presented by government is limited. It requires federal building projects to use Canadian steel and lumber. It’s a good start. But a meaningful Buy Canadian policy must go further, covering as many goods and services as possible.

Additionally, U.S.-based suppliers should be subject to the same restrictions here that Canada faces in the States. When it comes to public purchasing, Canadian companies should come first. Access to U.S. federal and state procurement is heavily restricted. “Buy America” and “Buy American” rules effectively exclude Canadian suppliers from bidding on contracts. Over time, these rules have become more onerous, directly contributing to job losses in Canada, including among Unifor members. By contrast, Canada maintains a mostly open and unfettered procurement market for U.S. suppliers.

Public purchasing across all levels of government in Canada generates significant economic activity, totaling an estimated $300 billion per year. This represents a major opportunity to reinvest strategically in the domestic economy, supporting sector-specific industrial strategies that foster Canadian innovation and develop necessary skills and production capacities.

Building a stronger, more resilient economy cannot be left up to chance. There are few patriots on Bay Street. A stronger Canada requires an intentional, forward- looking approach to economic development – one that involves extensive planning, aggressive public investment and public ownership.   

Guided by real dialogue with workers and public stakeholders, Canada must invest in industrial self-sufficiency, build up strategic sectors and production capacity, and anchor jobs in communities.

The federal government has committed, in Budget 2025, to launching up to five new multi-party Workforce Alliances charged with crafting workforce development strategies. This is the right step but needs to deliver much more than addressing labour shortages and training.

Unifor will aggressively pursue the launch of formal, sector-wide strategy tables across major sectors, tasked with designing and delivering ambitious, national industrial development programs – not just in manufacturing but also in natural resources.

The federal government, in consultation with provinces, must consider ways to manage the outflow of rare earth metals, critical minerals, wood products, oil and gas, aluminum, uranium and potash, among others. We can also process these resources before exporting them. 

Bolstering Canada’s capacity to process, refine, and transform these inputs into higher-value goods (like paper instead of logs) will not only rebuild production capacity but also create good jobs, diversify exports, and reduce dependence on foreign nations like the United States.