Slapping a Fifty Percent US Tariff on Original Canadian Art—and Renaming Bodies of Water: That’ll Teach Those “Nasty Canadians” a Lesson

A humorous and surreal image depicting a group of geese with cartoonish hairstyles resembling Donald Trump's, standing on a grassy area near a body of water, some holding guns.

Image: Truth Social

Nova Scotia mixed media artist Chris Warburton Hulme, (whose motto is “Empowering Women Through Art”), produces prints, bookmarks, cards, stickers, notebooks etc. based on her original art. According to this CBC report, Warburton Hulme will no longer be selling to her US customers out of principle because she believes that works of creative expression should not be at the centre of a tariff war. Even if she didn’t have such scruples, her US market probably dried up in any case, as all her work just got 50 percent more expensive in the US as a result of the Trump administration’s imposition of retaliatory tariffs on a range of Canadian products. In the case of art, unless they are more than one hundred years old, the new tariff applies to paintings, drawings, collages, sculptures and statuary, original prints and lithographs and, for good measure, anything (art or otherwise) made from tortoise shell, whalebone, horns, antlers, hooves, nails, claws and beaks. That will stem the flood of deer hoof rattles flooding in from Canada! The tariff being applied is based on a legal measure that has never before been used, Section 338 of the US Tariff Act of 1930. That Act established what are commonly known as the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs that resulted in deepening the Depression and causing a severe rupture in international trade before the Second World War.

This US retaliation is in response to Canada’s retaliatory actions taken against the original imposition of US tariffs on a range of Canadian products entitled to tariff-free access under the trilateral trade pact, the USMCA (referred to as the CUSMA in Canada). The US overrode its market access commitments in the USMCA by invoking the pretext of “national security”, a self-judging loophole that is part of the agreement. As a result, the US imposed tariffs of up to 50% on Canadian steel, aluminum, and copper, 25% on cars and wood products including such key national security items as upholstered furniture, vanities and kitchen cabinets, and 10 percent on lumber on top of existing duties, bringing the total tariff on Canadian lumber to the range of 30 percent. Lumber exports to the US from Russia pay less duty. Canada had the temerity to retaliate against this treatment, leading to the present situation. The US position is that not only is it entitled to erect import barriers into its market, at the same time it is equally entitled to demand duty free access to other markets. If you don’t agree to this, the US will inflict pain on you targeting, among others, Canadian print makers and antler and bone carvers. Watch out! Worse is to come.

If that doesn’t bring those “nasty Canadians” to heel, Donald Trump has another ace up his sleeve. Renaming. For starters, he signed an executive order renaming Lake Ontario, the name by which it has been known for approximately 400 years, to Lake America. Where is Lake America? You’ll have to ask the President, but in case you are in any doubt he posted this bizarre video showing him replacing a Lake Ontario sign with one saying Lake America and then doing some sort of victory dance. It is truly distressing—and frankly sad—to see the President of the United States, enabled by the sycophantic clique surrounding him, behaving like a spoiled adolescent. Sorry, that’s unfair to spoiled adolescents who could be forgiven for not knowing any better. This puerile behaviour could be ignored if it wasn’t so dangerous and harmful for the longstanding economic and political relationship between the two countries that share the largest part of the North American landmass.

After the US began enforcing the Section 338 tariffs following the last-minute implosion of the trade talks that were taking place because of the 338 tariff threat, Canada announced yet another retaliation list. One wonders about its efficacy, although it is good domestic politics to be seen to be standing up to threats. While Canada can impose some selective pain on US exporters, it cannot really hurt the US economy. Trump’s widespread tariffs on imports, not only from Canada but from just about everywhere, are taking care of that. While designed to put some pressure on US exporters, the Canadian tariffs are also apparently intended to help Canadian producers–who now have their access to the US market impeded–by providing them with protection against directly competing US imports. Original art has in fact not been targeted by the Canadian tariffs; putting a reciprocal tariff on US deer hooves, lithographs or sculptures probably wouldn’t make much difference to Canadian artists anyway. One result of the Canadian countermeasures will be to increase the price of products imported from the US, so Canadian consumers will be the ones taking a hit. Mind you, the mood of consumers is already very much behind purchasing locally made products, but generally the retail end-user is unable to identify intermediate inputs. It is overly simplistic to slap a “Made in Canada” label on a product when in fact, there are relatively few products made exclusively in Canada. Perhaps Chris Warburton Hulme’s products qualify.

One result of the Canadian counter-action will inevitably be further US retaliation. Most Canadian provinces have in effect banned the import of US liquor and wine, not by imposing an import ban but by simply not placing orders for the product, and by not retailing it. Apparently, the US is mulling banning some Canadian products as a countermeasure. Maybe Canadian maple syrup will have to find new export markets.

Donald Trump could also up the ante on his renaming offensive, passing more executive orders to eliminate all those annoying references to Canada. Let’s get rid of “Canadian bacon”. (As a footnote to my US readers, no-one calls it Canadian bacon in Canada. It is simply just “back bacon”). Let’s rename the Canada goose. Trump seems to have a hate on for this noisy and annoying bird that tends to foul golf courses and playgrounds, judging by another inane post from the White House. Goose poo flown in from Canada. Almost as bad as wildfire smoke. Some have suggested renaming the Canada goose as the Donald Duck. Maybe the Daffy Duck would be more appropriate. Or, how about “Lame Duck”.

When will this madness end, and artists like Chris Warburton Hulme can get back to creating art without getting caught in a political crossfire? Probably about the time that Lake America fades into history. Lake America is impossible to find on Google maps in Canada, although its name recognition surged briefly when some official Canadian websites found, to their embarrassment, that the underlying settings for Google maps in Canada were set to a US API (Application Programming Interface), making Lake America the default setting. That was hastily changed. To stir the embers, Canada’s own resident clown, Ontario Premier Doug Ford (who has an unfortunate and canny ability to get under Trump’s skin), unveiled a large sign proclaiming, bilingually, “Lake Ontario: Now and Always”, as if anyone really needed to do this. Don’t take the bait. About the time the moniker Lake America disappears, the true name of the Gulf of Mexico will also make a comeback, although this US website suggests that Trump is having a tough time making Gulf of America stick. Perhaps the lyrics of Johnny Horton’s song (“We fired once more and they began to runnin’, On down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico”) will not need to be rewritten after all.

The most recent infantile outburst is this post on Truth Social showing Trump (who probably can’t even skate—those darn bone spurs again) knocking down Carney (who played on the Harvard hockey squad, admittedly as back up goalie) in a supposed ice-rink confrontation. Doesn’t he have better things to do? The sad spectacle of the most senior elected official, and many non-elected cabinet-level officials of the United States, making complete fools of themselves through childish, meaningless social media posts and comments makes one wonder who is really in charge. Have the inmates now finally taken over the asylum?

© Hugh Stephens 2026. All Rights Reserved.

The Economics of Copyright: Incentives and Rewards (It’s Important to Get them Right)

Image: Shutterstock

Two years ago, in April 2022, the US Copyright Office (USCO) appointed its first Chief Economist, Dr. Brent Lutes. Many national Intellectual Property Offices have such a position, e.g, UK IPO, IP Australia, EUIPO, and WIPO. (Notably, Canada’s Intellectual Property Office–CIPO–does not). All these positions have broad responsibility for assessing the economics of IP generally, covering patent, trademark, industrial designs as well as copyright. In the US, the Patent and Trademark Office has its own Chief Economist. However, Lutes’ USCO position appears to be the only one related exclusively to assessing the economic impact of copyright. The position sits within the Office of Policy and International Affairs and is composed of a small team of economists, providing the Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, with policy-relevant research on economic issues related to copyright.

In an interview conducted last month, Lutes talked about the economic goals of copyright in terms of enhancing social welfare. He noted the goal of copyright is to contribute to the welfare of society by promoting access to creative works, now and in the future, through market based behavioural incentives. The goal of the Office of Chief Economist is to gather more information to inform policy making, such as the geographic distribution of copyright activity or the demographic characteristics of creators. As but one example, is racial or ethnic diversity related to creativity? The economic issues surrounding AI and copyright, both pro and con, is another field of research the USCO will be exploring.

In addition to finding the right economic levers to stimulate production of creative works, economic studies of copyright also demonstrate the enormous impact copyright-based industries have on national economic welfare. While the impact can depend on what economic multipliers are used and how direct versus indirect benefits are calculated, there is no question that copyright industries in most economies are very significant as job creators and multipliers. For example, IP Australia in its most recent annual report estimates that cultural and creative activity contributes about 6% of Australian GDP annually, with design, fashion, publishing, broadcasting, electronic and digital media and film being the primary industries involved. In the US the figures are even more impressive. According to the International Intellectual Property Alliance, in 2021 (the last year for which statistics are apparently available), core copyright industries in the US, defined as those industries “whose primary purpose is to create, produce, distribute or exhibit copyright materials”, added $1.8 trillion to US GDP, accounting for 7.76% of the economy. Total copyright industries, a definition that includes industries partially dependent on copyright, such as fabric, jewellery or toys and games, account for another trillion USD, even when only a portion of their total value is included in the copyright calculation.  

The UK Intellectual Property Office published its IP survey in 2022, comparing the role of patents, trademark, registered industrial designs and copyright. While copyright industries were on the low side for exports (£4.7 billion as opposed to patents at £120.6 billion, copyright’s “non-financial value-added output” (IP data is not available for the financial industries, thus the description of “non-financial”) trounced that of patent industries by almost 2:1. As with the US IIPA study, the UK report accounted for the degree to which certain industries depend on copyright, categorizing them as core, interdependent, partial or non-dedicated support industries, adjusting the amount of copyright contribution accordingly. Book publishing, for example, is considered a 100% copyright industry and its value is calculated as such, whereas for an industry such as paper manufacturing, only 25% of the value was included in the calculation of copyright benefits. This methodology followed that of the World Intellectual Property Organization, aka WIPO, which also conducts economic studies as well as assists national authorities with their own. Economists are careful people, not prone to exaggeration, and consistent methodology is important to ensure accurate measurement and reporting.

WIPO worked with the Department of Canadian Heritage to produce a report in 2020 on “The Economic Impact of Canada’s Copyright-Based Industries”. As with other deep dives on the economic benefits of copyright, this study produced similar notable statistics. For example, while many copyright opponents in Canada were deploring the extension of the copyright term of protection in Canada, arguing that the result would be an outflow of royalties to foreign rights-holders because Canada was a net importer of copyrighted materials, the Heritage report established that “Canada has exported more copyright-related services than it has imported, maintaining a trade balance surplus from 2009 ($2.5 billion) to 2019 ($5.6 billion)”. In actual fact, extending the copyright term in Canada brought with it the additional benefit of a reciprocal extended term in many foreign countries for Canadian works, clearly benefiting Canadian rights-holders. The Heritage study went on to document a range of other important outcomes such as employment (over 600,000), contribution to GDP ($95.6 billion) and percentage of GDP (4.9%). All figures are based on 2019 data. No update has been published since. It is just as well that Heritage Canada took the lead in preparing this report since the government department holding lead statutory responsible for copyright in Canada, the mammoth Department of Industry, Science and Economic Development (ISED), unfortunately seems to treat copyright as but a tiny pimple on its elephantine rump.

While the studies cited above highlight the economic contribution that copyright industries make to national economies in terms of jobs and wealth generation, let us not forget the key point that Dr. Lutes underlined regarding the social welfare contribution of copyright through using market-based incentives to promote and encourage creativity and investment in creative outputs. It is hard, if not impossible, to put a dollar amount on the social welfare benefits of creative expression and cultural sovereignty, but they are immense if incalculable. Without copyright, not only would existing content-based industries be unable to thrive and expand, but the formula to encourage new, original content would be missing.

Notwithstanding the importance of a robust copyright framework for both economic and social welfare, creators and content-based copyright industries are facing major challenges today. Some are technological, like the emergence of generative AI; some behavioural, such as a wide tolerance, even acceptance, of piracy and free riding. The struggle against piracy is ongoing and protracted, a cat and mouse game. Free riding is what AI developers are doing on the backs of content creators through unauthorized training of AI models on copyrighted content, with resultant legal challenges. There is also the question of whether wholly AI generated works should be accorded copyright protection. As the Copyright Alliance has observed, the Copyright Clause in the US Constitution is premised on the promotion of the “progress of science and useful arts” by protecting for a limited period of time the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors. Given that premise, it should be self-evident that creator incentivization is not applicable to machines, which do not need nor comprehend economic incentives to create.

Free riding is also what the education sector has been doing in Canada under the specious umbrella of “education fair dealing”, introduced through copyright amendments in 2012 that broadened the scope of fair dealing. Since then, the “education industry” at the public, secondary and post-secondary level has been siphoning off economic value from writers and other creators to the tune to date of over CAD$200 million. Their legalized renunciation of collective reprographic licensing is ostensibly to benefit students but is in fact a transfer of wealth from creators to the bottom line of educational institutions. If a key objective of copyright is to incentivize creation of new content, such as materials used by educational institutions to teach students, then the current interpretation of education fair dealing in Canada upends a key rationale for granting copyright protection in the first place. (As a footnote, I should add that not all arguments in favour of copyright are based solely on economic incentives. There is also the question of natural justice and equity, providing authors with a degree of control over works they have created).

Since court challenges have unfortunately proven ineffective, the remedy for Canada’s education fair dealing fiasco is for the Government of Canada to amend the Copyright Act so that rightsholders are properly compensated when their works are used in Canada. Both the copyright collective in English Canada, Access Copyright and its Québec counterpart, Copibec, recently called for legal clarification of the nature and extent of educational fair dealing.

Thorough documentation of the contribution that copyright makes to economic and social welfare helps substantiate the case for adequate legal frameworks, including combatting piracy and ending copyright free riding. Sound economic data are essential to sound policy making. The initiative of the US Copyright Office to appoint a Chief Economist helps to meet these goals and is to be commended.  Should the Canadian Intellectual Property Office ever create such a position, its first task should be to evaluate the full economic and social costs of the current short-sighted interpretation of fair dealing in Canada’s education sector in terms of its negative long-term impact on creativity and cultural sovereignty in the country.

The Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle may have described economics as the “dismal science”, an oft-quoted remark, but rather than being dismal it is in fact just the opposite; it sheds light on the importance of copyright to maintaining a well-functioning, equitable and culturally rich modern society.

© Hugh Stephens, 2024. All Rights Reserved.