Canada’s response to the latest round of U.S. tariffs feels less like strategy and more like muscle memory. When the United States imposed 25 percent duties earlier this year, part of a broad crackdown, ostensibly to address fentanyl supply chains, Ottawa defaulted to its 2018 playbook: retaliate in kind.

But this isn’t 2018, and the context has changed. U.S. tariffs that remain in place continue to hit Canadian exports of steel, aluminum, autos, and lumber. Yet Canada’s countermeasures include a scattered list of U.S. goods, many of which have little to do with leverage and everything to do with adding costs here at home.

Consumer health products, household items, and food essentials remain on Canada’s tariff list, despite their critical role in everyday life and the lack of viable domestic alternatives. These are not symbolic luxuries. They are the products Canadians use every day to stay well and take care of their families. For companies in the food, health, and consumer products sector, these tariffs introduce supply chain instability and cost volatility with no clear upside.

FHCP has consistently called for the removal of tariffs that are doing more harm than good. These measures have not moved U.S. policy. They have not produced exemptions. And they have not delivered any measurable gains for Canadian exporters. Instead, they are driving up costs for manufacturers, straining already tight margins, and inflating prices for Canadian consumers.

At the same time, we recognize this issue is not black and white. Some FHCP members support the use of targeted retaliatory tariffs, particularly where they help level the playing field and support domestic capacity. There is a case to be made for defensive measures in certain sectors. But that case should be rooted in strategy, not habit.

What’s missing now is a balanced, sector-sensitive approach, one that protects Canadian interests without blindly replicating a failed formula. We cannot afford to treat all industries the same, especially when the impacts of these measures are so unevenly distributed.

There is also the geopolitical risk to consider. President Trump has repeatedly pointed to Canada’s retaliatory tariffs as justification for escalating his own. This isn’t posturing, it’s politics. Trump’s approach to trade has always been rooted in transactional leverage. He measures success by disruption and visibility, and he responds most forcefully when he feels challenged or ignored. Retaliatory tariffs, especially when they appear more symbolic than strategic, are the kind of provocation that plays directly into his narrative.

If our goal is to re-engage the current administration in meaningful dialogue, we need to be thoughtful about the signals we are sending. Holding firm on outdated measures is not strength. It’s rigidity. And it may be costing us more leverage than it creates.

Canada cannot afford to fight a modern trade war with outdated tools. We need policy that reflects how integrated, competitive, and consumer dependent our supply chains have become.

This op-ed was originally published on LinkedIn.