Fact check: L'économie canadienne s'en tire bien malgré la guerre commercial avec Trump

1. How Canada Appears to Have “Dodged” a Recession — Growth Holds But Not Unscathed

Recent reporting indicates Canada recorded modest GDP growth over the summer, supporting the claim that the economy has so far avoided a recession despite tariff-driven disruption. Multiple sources point to summer growth and a resilient headline performance, with CBC and repeat reporting noting GDP gains and the possibility that exemptions on many Canadian exports blunt immediate damage ^[2]. This resilience aligns with stock market strength and sector rotation described elsewhere, but growth masks underlying frictions—employment remains elevated at 7.1 percent and headline GDP can conceal regional or sector-specific weakness ^[2].

2. Markets Tell One Story, Workers Another — Stocks Up, Unemployment Sticky

Equity markets have benefited from investor flows and commodity dynamics, with the S&P/TSX outperforming some U.S. indices as investors seek perceived Canadian safety and exposure to rising commodity and gold prices. The Globe and Mail frames this as an inadvertent boon from policy uncertainty, highlighting market outperformance even while trade tensions persist ^[1]. At the same time, labor-market indicators diverge: unemployment is elevated at 7.1%, pointing to uneven distribution of gains and suggesting that market strength has not fully translated into broad-based job recovery ^[2].

3. Tariffs Have Real, Concentrated Costs — Lumber as a Case Study

The lumber sector, valued at roughly $63 billion, is a concrete example of where tariffs have exacted a toll: producers and regions dependent on wood exports face significant revenue and employment pressure. Financial Times reporting emphasizes concentrated industry harm and supply-chain disruption, underscoring how sector-specific tariffs can cascade into local economies even when national aggregates look steady ^[3]. These losses matter for provincial economies, municipal budgets, and communities where alternative employment is limited, revealing important blind spots in headline GDP narratives.

4. Policymakers and Former Officials Sound Alarm Bells — Potential for Large Global Income Losses

Prominent economists, including former Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz, describe U.S. tariff policies as potentially extremely damaging, estimating trillions in lost global income over the next decade. Poloz characterizes the tariffs as “the greatest intentional destruction of income ever,” warning that the long-run costs to trade-dependent economies like Canada could far exceed short-term resilience ^[4]. This perspective frames current outcomes as partial and possibly temporary, stressing that durable damage may unfold over a longer horizon if barriers persist.

5. Canada’s Strategic Response — Diversification, Defense, and Diplomatic Realignment

Analysts report that Canada has been pursuing diversification of markets and investments in defense and bilateral ties as hedges against U.S. unpredictability, reflecting a broader strategic reorientation. Sources note efforts to deepen trade relations elsewhere and adjust policy mixes to reduce singular dependence on the United States ^{[5] [6]}. These moves can buffer future shocks, but they also require time, capital, and political consensus; strategic shifts mitigate risk but do not erase short-term exposure from active tariffs.

6. Competing Narratives: “Resilience” Versus “Warning Signs” — Read Both Together

The media and expert accounts present two complementary narratives: one emphasizing headline resilience in GDP and market performance, the other highlighting sector damage and macro risks. Both are valid and together offer a fuller picture: short-term indicators show adaptation and selective gains, while policy experts and affected industries document material harm and escalating downside scenarios ^{[2] [1] [4] [3]}. Interpreting the economy requires reconciling these views rather than choosing one; the economy can perform adequately in aggregate while suffering important localized shocks.

7. What’s Missing From the Coverage — Long-Term Structural and Distributional Effects

Current reporting focuses on near-term GDP, markets, and a handful of sectors, but omits granular analysis of long-term supply-chain shifts, investment reallocation, and distributional impacts on households and regions. Absent are detailed federal-provincial breakdowns, investment flow data, and forecasts of persistent productivity losses, which would clarify whether observed resilience is temporary buffering or durable adaptation ^[7]. Without those details, the claim that “the Canadian economy is doing well” is only partially substantiated.

8. Bottom Line: A Qualified “Doing Well” — With Important Caveats

Canada’s economy is showing resilience in headline growth and markets, but the reality is qualified: specific industries like lumber are demonstrably harmed, unemployment remains above pre-conflict levels, and leading economists warn of far larger, long-term income losses if tariffs persist ^{[1] [3] [2] [4]}. Policymakers’ steps toward diversification and strategic realignment are prudent but slow; therefore, the statement that “Canada’s economy is doing well despite Trump’s trade war” is accurate in broad strokes but misses significant sectoral pain and future risks.