Big Ideas to Build a Resilient Economy

 

Building Canada’s economy means tabling big, bold ideas.

 

There is so much we can do to create a more resilient economy and protect Canadian sovereignty.

Here’s where we start.

  • 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.

    Canada already has laws that 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 disincentivizing the “offshoring” of Canadian production, imposing heavy penalties on firms that comply with illegal and unjust U.S. orders, and prohibiting goods previously made in Canada from re-entering the country from the United States or elsewhere.

  • Surcharges on energy exports to the U.S. are not enough.

    Canada must expand our 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: There have been numerous reports that the government of Canada and the European Union are exploring a potential EU-Canada security and defence partnership.

    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,

    • 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 a key part of the Trump administration’s geopolitical strategy. This is likely behind his aggressive language about Canada, Greenland and Ukraine. Trump might be feeling desperate partially because China banned the export of key rare earth minerals to the U.S. last December and expanded these restrictions in response to Trump’s  tariffs on China.

    Critical minerals are important for Canada too. Our country is home to large storehouses of these resources. Critical minerals are necessary to build domestic industries, advance reconciliation efforts with indigenous people, and grow our net zero economy – but only if we manage these resources properly.

    The challenge is this: 30.3% of the Canadian mining and quarrying industry assets were foreign-owned in 2022, up from 27.1% in 2018. U.S.-owned assets in Canadian mining and quarrying accounted for 6.7%, up from 5.5% in 2017.

    We have the tools in place to both guard and develop our critical resource industries, maximizing the benefit to Canada. 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. One additional project received approval under the federal environmental impact assessment process and seven other proposals were being reviewed.

    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.

  • Counter-tariffs on lumber are not enough.  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. 

    Such a strategy opens durable employment pathways badly needed in a sector that has seen thousands of job losses over the past decades. These high value-added products also make the most of a fibre supply which faces significant challenges, and they are a low-emission building option key to enabling long-term carbon sequestering. Most important, they help Canada build houses at a crucial time.

    Canada’s Housing Plan identifies three goals, the first of which is ‘Building More Homes.’ As the Plan says, “We need to build more homes, faster. From concept to construction, we need to increase the pace of homebuilding to get Canadians into homes that meet their needs at prices they can afford.”

    Within that goal, the Plan prioritizes “Changing the Way Industry Builds Homes,” including:

    • Implementing an industrial strategy for homebuilding
    • Introducing a Standardized Housing Design Catalogue
    • Scaling up new tech to build new homes
    • Investing in new approaches to homebuilding
    • Providing low-cost loans to prefabricated housing projects
    • Simplifying the way that Canada builds homes

    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.

    This proposal will not have to be built from scratch. British Columbia already has a modular housing initiative, called Modular BC. A number of companies have already moved into the modular housing field, involving ‘made in Canada’ engineered 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 finally, residents.

Recommendations

National President Lana Payne is bringing these demands to the Prime Minister:

  • Targeted and strategic tariff retaliation 
  • Enhanced income supports for workers 
  • Manage exports and build up processing of our national resources 
  • ‘Buy Canadian’ public procurement policies  
  • Emergency relief to prevent layoffs and sustain operations 

Take these demands to your MP and local federal candidates to ensure that this government and the next understand how important it is to listen to workers.

  • If U.S. tariffs are imposed on Canadian exports, the federal government must issue retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports immediately. 

    Canada must match the total value of U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods with Canadian tariffs on U.S. goods, but shouldn’t be bound to impose like-for-like tariffs on individual products . The dollar-for-dollar approach will give Canada greater flexibility to apply tariffs to targeted goods at levels deemed appropriate.

  • The federal government should deploy resources to mitigate job losses resulting from U.S. tariffs, including an expanded Canadian Work-Share program, bridge subsidies for early retirement, and income supplements for training, among others.

    Canada must prepare for a potential rise in unemployment and provide additional income supports to workers affected by the tariffs, like measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    These supports should include improved access to Employment Insurance benefits or other special income assistance programs, with more accessible qualifying rules and enhanced income support to offset a greater share of lost income — particularly for workers in high-wage, trade-exposed workplaces. Additionally, benefits should be extended in duration, with allowances for workers to earn supplementary income or undertake education while receiving support.

  • 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.  

    Unifor has long called on federal and provincial governments to exercise greater public discretion over the export of natural resources, manage foreign ownership over resources, and elevate Canada’s position in the value chain.  
     
    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.

  • 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. 
     
    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.  
     
    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.

  • U.S. import tariffs will have varying effects on Canadian employers depending on their U.S. export dependence, financial positions, customer profiles, and more. For those most at risk, a key government objective should be to sustain Canadian operations where possible and mitigate the risk of layoffs caused by workplace closures or production slowdowns.

    Export-dependent firms demonstrating financial distress should have access to preferential loan guarantees to maintain operations.

    Additionally, the federal government should consider deploying a program similar to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy program (CEWS) for eligible firms in trade-dependent sectors and communities to keep Canadians working. This would temporarily subsidize wages and help keep workers on payroll. Revenue generated through retaliatory tariffs could partially fund these and other support measures.