By Jerry Zhang
United States (U.S.) President Donald Trump has sparked controversy with plans to impose a new 25 per cent tariff on Canadian imports and his suggestion that Canada join the U.S. as its 51st state. These proposals have triggered widespread debate in the Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) community, raising questions about its feasibility and potential impact.
On Nov. 25, 2024, Trump announced on social media platform Truth Social his plans to implement the tariffs on all imports from Canada. A month later on Dec. 18, 2024, he claimed many Canadians would support the annexation of Canada, calling it “a great idea.”
Christopher Sands, director of the Canada Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., acknowledged that the proposal is technically feasible under U.S. law but pointed out its improbability due to political and logistical challenges.
“The U.S. has expanded through the purchase of territory several times. So in terms of U.S. law, it is feasible,” Sands said, referencing historical acquisitions such as Louisiana and Alaska.
Sands pointed out significant differences in Canada’s case, noting, “Canada doesn’t belong to anybody else except Canadians…although Canada’s population density is small compared to the U.S., it still has a substantial population of 40 million so you would have a serious…negotiating challenge.”
Assistant professor in the Ted Rogers School of Management’s global management department Mark Viminitz assessed that these potential tariffs are unlikely to cause significant damage to the Canadian economy.
“It is a balance of trade issue. Canada has a trade surplus with the U.S., meaning that we export more of our goods and services than we buy from the U.S.,” Viminitz said.
He explained that the U.S.’ heavy reliance on Canadian resources makes it difficult for tariffs to have the intended impact of strengthening domestic U.S. industries.
“Companies are still going to buy our steel and aluminum and our softwood lumber and our agricultural products [and] base minerals that we have in abundance up here…because they don’t have full capacity to be able to protect any domestic industry,” he said.
Viminitz suggested that the new tariffs serve more as a strategic bargaining tool than as a serious policy. “It is the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) potential renegotiation,” he said. “It means that the U.S. is going to squeeze Canada to get a better deal.”
He also highlighted how such tariffs could harm the U.S. itself as they would increase raw material costs for industries dependent on Canadian resources, ultimately raising prices for finished goods.
“The consumer, at the end of the day, will be funding this tariff,” Viminitz said.
Claire Stang, a master’s student in public policy and administration at TMU, believes that tariffs on construction materials could reduce housing availability, driving up prices and rent in Canada.
“Less homes being built means that the prices of existing homes—like homes being sold but also rent—will likely go up because there will be more of a demand,” she noted, adding that this would create long-term affordability challenges for students.
Jordan Le Roux, a fourth-year TMU history student, expressed concerns that trade wars could lead to higher grocery prices.
“I just recently moved out downtown for the first time, and I’m really noticing groceries…even with the tax break we just got is very difficult,” said Le Roux. “Imported products from the U.S., they’re already expensive, so a 25 per cent hike would drive that through the roof.”
Viminitz pointed out that a price hike will only occur if Canada imposes counter-tariffs in response to the 25 per cent U.S. tariffs on American imports. “If we react and put duties on American goods, it’s going to cost more,” he explained. “Anything we import from the U.S.…depending on the categories the Canadian government selects…will negatively impact us.”
If these tariffs were to be implemented, any companies requiring products from the U.S. could exploit the situation to justify significant price hikes—ultimately impacting Canadian consumers, including students, said Viminitz.
“Are companies going to use the issues around tariffs to try to go profit hunting? That is, I got a 25 per cent tariff, but could I charge 45 per cent for my new product and blame it on the tariffs? And I could get away with it,” he said.
Viminitz predicts that tariffs are unlikely to impose significantly impact inflation in Canada unless they affect products imported from outside the country.
“Inflation is 1.9 per cent to 2 per cent. It’s well within the established target,” he said, adding that price increases could affect any imports from countries outside Canada, including the U.S. or even China.
Le Roux also raised concerns about rising tuition costs, citing existing financial pressures on universities. She highlighted that the freezing of government funding for universities is limiting institutions’ financial flexibility. “There’s also been a cap on international students, which is also contributing to raising tuition,” she said, adding that tariffs could intensify these cost increases.
Additionally, Sands warned that the annexation of Canada could disrupt the affordability of Canadian universities’ tuition for domestic students. “A lot of students from the U.S. would come north because [Canadian] universities are such a bargain, even at international student rates,” he said.
Sands added that this could force Canadian universities to either offer discounts—flooding classrooms—or raise tuition, leaving Canadian students to face higher costs.
However, Sands also acknowledged the potential for increased opportunities, which could open doors to more cross-border internship programs and new career pathways with new accreditation systems.
Stang fears tuition would likely skyrocket under U.S. policies as Canadian government subsidies that help keep tuition costs low would no longer apply. She added that the shift could also reduce publicly funded scholarships, further limiting accessibility for students.
Le Roux expressed personal reservations about the societal implications of the annexation. “The prospect of actually living in a country where there’s loose gun laws and privatized health care and all these certain things that make the U.S., even though it’s so developed, a hard place to live, is something that I would really hate,” she expressed.
Stang emphasized the challenges of merging two countries with vastly different systems, citing that “it’s a physical border, but there’s also a cultural, political, sort of governmental border. There’s a clear distinction between the countries.”
TMU President Mohamed Lachemi addressed concerns about potential tariffs, stating, “We are monitoring the developing situation around possible economic impacts of any possible tariffs.” He emphasized the institution’s proactive efforts, noting that while no immediate action has been taken, the university is engaging with sector partners and will keep the community informed of any changes.
Stang firmly rejected the idea of U.S. annexation, stating that many of her peers share strong opposition to the notion of Canada bowing to U.S. demands.
“We’re not going to roll over… Canada is a country that deserves some respect…it’s going to make everything worse for everyone.”
Leave a Reply