Fact check: Plusieurs usines aux états unis ont perdu des contrat avec le Canada depuis le début de la prériode des tarfis.

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, the evidence for the original claim that "several factories in the United States have lost contracts with Canada since the beginning of the tariff period" is limited and indirect. The sources reveal a more complex picture of trade tensions and retaliatory measures:

• Ontario's retaliatory ban: The province of Ontario announced a ban on American companies from public contracts as a retaliatory measure against American tariffs ^{[1] [2]}. This represents a concrete action that could result in lost contracts for American businesses.
• New Brunswick's position: Contrary to some expectations, New Brunswick did not cancel any contracts with American companies ^[1], showing that Canadian responses vary by province.
• Tariff impacts documented: The analyses confirm that Donald Trump imposed 35% tariffs on Canadian products ^[3] and tariffs on steel and aluminum that primarily affect Canada, China, Mexico, the European Union, and some Asian countries ^[4].
• Trade flow disruptions: Canadian exports to the United States have declined under the weight of tariffs ^[5], and cross-border supply chains have been impacted ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement lacks several crucial pieces of context that emerge from the analyses:

• Provincial variation in responses: The statement implies a uniform Canadian response, but the evidence shows different provinces are taking different approaches - Ontario banned American companies while New Brunswick maintained existing contracts ^{[1] [2]}.
• Broader economic impacts: The analyses reveal that tariffs have affected financial markets and global trade beyond just specific contracts ^{[7] [8]}, suggesting the impact is more systemic than individual contract losses.
• Retaliatory nature of actions: The Canadian measures are specifically described as counter-measures in response to American tariffs ^[6], indicating this is part of an escalating trade dispute rather than isolated business decisions.
• Industry-specific focus: The tariffs particularly target steel and aluminum industries ^[4], suggesting certain sectors are more affected than others.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement contains several potential issues:

• Overgeneralization: The claim about "several factories" losing contracts is not directly supported by specific evidence in the analyses. Only Ontario's public contract ban is concretely documented ^[2].
• Causal relationship unclear: While tariffs and trade tensions are well-documented, the analyses do not provide direct evidence linking specific factory contract losses to the tariff period ^{[7] [8] [9]}.
• Scope ambiguity: The statement doesn't distinguish between different types of contracts (public vs. private) or different provinces, when the evidence shows significant variation in Canadian responses ^[1].
• Timeline precision: The phrase "since the beginning of the tariff period" lacks specificity, and the analyses don't provide clear timelines for when alleged contract losses occurred versus when retaliatory measures were announced.

The statement appears to conflate documented trade tensions and some retaliatory measures with widespread contract losses that are not clearly evidenced in the available sources.