I recently looked up the difference between “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada.” According to the Competition Bureau, a product of Canada requires it to be 98 percent Canadian, while one made in Canada has a threshold of only 51 percent. So in the latter case, it could be an American company with a Canadian presence making the product.
Now that shopping has become a scavenger hunt, that distinction, once eye-rollingly dull, is suddenly urgent. In the wake of the economic tensions triggered by US president Donald Trump’s ever-changing threats about imposing a 25 percent tariff on Canadian imports into the US—except for oil, which gets a 10 percent increase—Canadians have rallied in a rare display of blatant nationalism by organizing boycotts of American-made goods and focusing on buying Canadian.
On the surface, this seems simple. As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in his speech on February 1, we can forgo Florida orange juice and Kentucky bourbon, spending our vacation dollars here instead of south of the border. But how realistic and sustainable is a boycott in a globalized economy, where American products and services are deeply ingrained in Canadians’ daily lives after decades of free trade?
Research has shown that boycotts are usually driven by people’s desire to make a difference and to see themselves as moral. But they’re also held back by economic realities. The May 2024 boycott of Loblaw-owned stores—remember that?—over alleged price gouging was generally easier for urban residents, who typically have access to a greater choice of competitors. And as a CBC report noted at the time, the very act of boycotting was a privilege when, for some, shopping at No Frills, a Loblaw company, was the only way to keep their bills affordable.
There’s time and convenience. If a boycott is targeting a company that has a location near you, are you going to spend time trying to find a similar competitor when you’re tired after a long day and just want to pick up groceries and eat dinner? Probably not.
Sometimes, the choice just isn’t there. As a friend pointed out to me, when her MacBook charger recently needed replacing, she likely had to buy a new one from Apple, a US company. Then there are issues of accessibility. Some companies have better delivery options than others. If a person with a disability, such as mobility restrictions, relies on Amazon for their daily items, they may not be able to make a change even if they wanted to.
And ultimately, do boycotts actually achieve consistent, long-term change? There are iconic examples from history: the bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955 and 1956 lasted 381 days and succeeded in desegregating the bus system. Sustained and coordinated efforts can also lead to corporate policy changes, particularly when companies fear reputational damage. Take the BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement, which in part urges a boycott of certain Israeli goods and companies as well as that of any brands that may play a role in Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands. Despite controversy, the movement—which was inspired by South Africa’s anti-apartheid campaign—has successfully pressured some cities, schools, trade unions, and establishments to divest from companies doing business in the occupied territories, and from institutions such as Scotiabank, which may have cut its investments in Elbit Systems, an Israeli weapons firm, in half as a result. The Giller Foundation, which awards Canada’s biggest fiction prize every year, recently announced it was parting ways with Scotiabank as its main sponsor after a year of pressure from Canada’s literary community.
Sometimes, boycotts lose momentum. On Loblaw’s second-quarter earnings call last July, both president and CEO Per Bank and CFO Richard Dufresne reportedly said that food retail sales had come in a little soft, without mentioning the word “boycott.” Yet four months later, Loblaw’s quarterly earnings rose to $777 million year over year, like nothing had happened. Why is that?
One challenge is the media cycle’s rapid pace and the competition for our attention. Just think about January: in the span of a month, Trump became US president and began his campaign of shock and awe; Elon Musk did not one but two Nazi salutes; Trudeau resigned; Ontario premier Doug Ford called an early election; and the US’s trade war with Canada and Mexico took off. Outrage is often diluted by new headlines, and as attention shifts, so does public vigilance. A case in point is Scotiabank’s decision to divest from Elbit. While this made headlines at the time, what’s to stop the bank from quietly reinvesting once public focus drifts elsewhere? Without sustained consumer engagement and accountability, companies can often weather the storm, dust off their crisis communications plan (or hire a crisis communications firm), toss out some considered messaging, and then return to business as usual.
Yet in some cases, even the threat of a boycott can be powerful. As I was writing this, senior leaders from Kentucky, including congressman Morgan McGarvey, announced that the boycott of Kentucky bourbon, after British Columbia premier David Eby threatened to pull red-state liquor from shelves, would cost the state millions of dollars and threaten over 20,000 jobs. McGarvey has written to Trump urging him to rescind the tariffs.
As consumers and Canadians, we need to ask ourselves tough questions: What sacrifices are we willing to make to support our values? How can we maintain long-term pressure without burning out or reverting to old shopping habits and items? How do we do this without blaming those who can’t participate?
Perhaps most importantly, how can we collectively build a more self-reliant and resilient economy that aligns with our principles and stands strong against external threats? There are no concrete answers yet, but we have to decide what we’re doing and how to maintain it as Trump flips and flops. It might be tempting to breathe easier in the moments when he backs off, but with a chaotic neighbour, this period of time is best spent making plans instead. At least we’re talking about our consumer habits now and learning exactly what it means to buy Canadian. That’s always a good start; now it’s up to us to keep up the momentum. Americans are noticing.
