To help Ukraine repair and strengthen its energy infrastructure ahead of another winter under attack from Russia, Canada has announced new support.
The announcements were made during Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s visit to Canada and his meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney
According to the website of the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada, the Canadian government will provide the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development with new loan guarantees totaling nearly 435 million Canadian dollars to support energy security, including the purchase of natural gas during the winter and backup generators for electricity production during shortages.
Canada is allocating 200 million Canadian dollars in concessional loans through Export Development Canada to support Ukraine’s reconstruction. As emphasized by the Prime Minister’s Office, this will help Ukraine repair critical infrastructure while providing Canadian companies with the opportunity to support critical projects.
The support package includes an additional 10 million Canadian dollars for the Ukraine Energy Support Fund, bringing the total to $100 million, to support Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including the procurement and delivery of critical energy equipment to enhance Ukrainians’ resilience to energy disruptions.
In addition, Canada announced a contribution of 2 million Canadian dollars to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Joint Work Program to support the development of Ukraine’s energy resources. This funding will strengthen Ukraine’s energy resilience, provide regulatory support, and promote clean energy projects.
Nova Post, part of the Nova Group, has entered the Canadian market, bringing the total number of countries where it operates to 18, according to a company statement released on Wednesday.
“Canada, like all of North America, is one of the key directions for Nova Post’s international expansion,” Oleksiy Taranenko, CBDO of the NOVA Group, is quoted as saying in the release.
According to him, the company has already processed over 3,000 shipments, most of which consisted of goods from Ukrainian manufacturers.
The next steps are expected to include further network expansion, the introduction of a franchise program, the launch of new products, and faster delivery times.
Nova Post clarified that customers can arrange international shipments from Canada online via the company’s website or mobile app, as well as drop off a package at one of 1,100 partner UPS stores or hand it over to a courier.
It is noted that delivery time between Canada and Ukraine starts at 5 days. Shipping costs from Canada to Ukraine are CAD 37 for documents and packages up to 1 kg; CAD 47 for packages up to 2 kg; CAD 99 for packages up to 10 kg; and CAD 215 for packages up to 30 kg.
Nova Post reminded customers that it is possible to ship goods from Ukraine to Canada without paying import duties. This service is made possible by the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA).
Specifically, for most shipments, only the harmonized sales tax (HST) is payable, which the sender can pay when arranging delivery; however, no tax applies to packages valued at up to 20 CAD (625 UAH).
As reported in early August, Nova Post has opened 266 new service locations since the beginning of 2026, thereby expanding its presence to 16 countries and 235 cities.
The largest number of new service points were opened in Moldova—155—followed by Poland—63—Spain—18—the Czech Republic—14—Germany—11—Slovakia—2—and one service point each in Austria, Italy, and Romania.
Vyacheslav Klimov, co-owner of Nova Poshta, noted during the “Dialogues with NV” event dedicated to European integration that Nova Post Europe, part of the NOVA Group, plans to double its network of branches in Europe by 2026 and keep its strategic focus on ensuring the fastest possible delivery times.
On August 27, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order renaming Lake Ontario “Lake America.”
However, it is important to note that this does not constitute an international renaming of the lake. Lake Ontario is located on the border between the U.S. and Canada, and Trump’s executive order applies only to federal agencies and official U.S. geographic names. Canada is under no obligation to recognize the new name and continues to use “Lake Ontario.”
According to Executive Order No. 14420, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, together with the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, must add the name “Lake America” to the federal Geographic Names Information System within 30 days. After that, the new name must be used in documents, maps, and communications by U.S. federal agencies.
Trump explained this decision by citing the lake’s economic and historical significance to the United States. The text of the executive order highlights the lake’s role in American trade, shipping, and military history, as well as Washington’s investments in protecting the Great Lakes ecosystem.
The decision was made against the backdrop of a new escalation in trade relations between the U.S. and Canada. Negotiations between the two countries on a trade agreement were suspended on August 21 after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated that the terms proposed by Washington did not serve the country’s interests. Canada subsequently announced that it was preparing corresponding trade measures.
The Canadian side did not recognize the renaming. Carney stated that in Canada, the body of water would continue to be called Lake Ontario. The name “Ontario” itself comes from the language of Indigenous peoples and was in use long before the modern United States and Canada came into existence.
While signing the executive order, Trump also floated the idea of further geographical renaming.
“We have a bay, and now we have a lake. We need an ocean,” the U.S. president said, adding that Washington could theoretically consider a new name for the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean—or both. So far, there are no executive orders or official procedures regarding the renaming of oceans.
This decision continues the trend of geographical renaming during Trump’s second presidential term. In January 2025, he ordered U.S. federal agencies to use the name “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico” and restored the name “Mount McKinley” to Denali in Alaska.
U.S. President Donald Trump has sharply stepped up pressure on Canada amid an escalating trade conflict between the two countries, calling Canadian leaders “clowns” and warning of significantly harsher economic consequences if Ottawa does not change its position.
Trump published the statement on Truth Social on August 24, 2026, following a new exchange of accusations with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Ontario Premier Doug Ford.
“America has carried Canada on its back for decades, but that will no longer happen,” the U.S. president wrote. At the end of his message, he called for the Canadian leadership to be made to “fall in line,” otherwise the consequences for the country would be “much worse.”
Trump spoke particularly harshly about Doug Ford, who had previously threatened to use electricity and critical mineral supplies to the United States as a retaliatory measure against U.S. tariffs.
The U.S. president also said that Canada was economically dependent on the United States and noted that a significant share of the electricity, oil and gas received by the country was transported through U.S. territory.
Official statistics, however, show a more complex picture. The two countries’ energy systems are indeed extremely closely interconnected, but Canada remains a major net exporter of energy resources to the United States.
According to the Canada Energy Regulator, in 2025 Canada exported CAD157.5 billion worth of oil, petroleum products, natural gas and gas condensate to the United States, while importing only CAD34.4 billion worth of similar products from the United States.
About 90.8% of Canadian hydrocarbon exports were sent specifically to the United States. In particular, Canada exported 4.3 million barrels of oil per day, of which about 3.9 million barrels went to the U.S. market.
In the opposite direction, Canada imported about 0.5 million barrels of oil per day, with approximately 76% of these supplies coming from the United States. Canada is also a major net exporter of natural gas: in 2025, it supplied about 8.6 billion cubic feet of gas per day, almost entirely to the United States, while simultaneously importing 2.5 billion cubic feet per day, predominantly from the United States.
The two countries’ electricity systems are also integrated. In 2025, Canada exported 32.7 TWh of electricity to the United States and imported 22.1 TWh. At the same time, all of Canada’s international electricity trade is conducted with the United States.
Thus, Trump’s statements have some basis in terms of the Canadian economy’s high dependence on U.S. transportation and energy infrastructure. At the same time, however, Canada is one of the most important suppliers of energy resources to the United States itself. In 2025, it accounted for 63.4% of U.S. crude oil imports, almost 100% of natural gas imports and 81.3% of electricity imported by the United States.
Trump’s statements followed the collapse of U.S.-Canadian trade negotiations.
The United States has already imposed 50% tariffs on approximately $20 billion worth of Canadian goods, while on August 24 Trump additionally threatened to raise tariffs on all cars, trucks and automotive components imported from Canada to 50% beginning January 1, 2027.
Washington had previously proposed reducing duties on Canadian passenger cars and light trucks from 25% to 15% and on steel and aluminum from 50% to 25% as part of an agreement. The negotiations collapsed, however, because of several disagreements.
Canada is preparing retaliatory measures. Ottawa announced that it would impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods beginning September 8, while provincial authorities have not ruled out using energy and critical minerals as additional instruments of pressure.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford said that, in the event of further escalation, “everything is on the table,” including restrictions on supplies of electricity and strategic raw materials. According to him, electricity from Ontario supplies about 1.5 million homes and businesses in the United States.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, in turn, said that Ottawa was prepared to return to negotiations only if Canada was treated as a sovereign partner rather than as a territory dependent on the United States.
Trade relations between the two countries remain among the largest in the world. In 2025, trade in goods and services between the United States and Canada amounted to approximately $872.3 billion, with about three-quarters of Canadian merchandise exports going to the U.S. market.
Another claim made in Trump’s message is not supported by official statistics. The U.S. president said that unemployment in Canada had reached 10%, while the latest data from Statistics Canada showed that it stood at 6.4% in July 2026 — its lowest level in two years.
According to Experts.news, on July 20, U.S. President Donald Trump signed three executive orders imposing additional 50% tariffs on certain goods from Canada. The new rates are set to take effect on August 19, 2026, and will cover Canadian imports worth approximately $20 billion, or about 5.2% of all goods shipped from Canada to the U.S. in 2025.
Washington justifies this decision by citing discrimination against American automobiles, alcoholic beverages, and dairy products in the Canadian market. However, the U.S. tariffs are not limited to these specific goods. The White House has compiled three broad lists of Canadian products intended to exert economic pressure on various sectors of the country.
Which Products Will Be Affected by the Tariffs
The first group includes virtually all major types of Canadian-produced alcoholic beverages: beer, wine, vermouth, cider, other fermented beverages, ethyl alcohol, whiskey, rum, gin, vodka, liqueurs, and other spirits. The tariff will be levied in addition to standard customs duties.
The alcohol proclamation is a response to the decision by most Canadian provinces to halt the purchase and sale of American alcohol. According to the White House, imports of alcoholic beverages from the U.S. to Canada fell by 81% between March 2025 and February 2026—from $718 million to $137 million.
The second group covers dairy products and ingredients for the food industry. The list includes dry and concentrated milk, cream, whey, lactose, milk proteins, casein, and certain mixtures based on dairy components. These products are used not only in retail but also in the production of confectionery, baby food, sports nutrition, baked goods, and ready-to-eat food mixes.
Washington cites Canada’s tariff quota system for cheese as the reason for this decision. The U.S. argues that the terms of access for American suppliers to the Canadian market are less favorable than those granted to European Union producers under the CETA agreement.
The third and broadest list includes products not directly related to the automotive sector. Among them are cement, seeds and planting material, flowers, honey, certain food ingredients, essential oils, cosmetics, plastic products, packaging, paper products, wood panels, and furniture.
The list also includes clothing, textiles, footwear, leather goods, headwear, wigs, tools, fishing rods, swimming pools, and some sports equipment, including hockey sticks and other hockey gear.
Thus, the U.S. measures could affect both large industrial enterprises and small manufacturers of wine, furniture, clothing, cosmetics, sporting goods, and gardening products.
Which goods will not be subject to the new measures
The White House has excluded Canadian energy products, potash fertilizers, fish, and critical minerals from the new regime. Goods already subject to U.S. Section 232 sector-specific tariffs—including many types of steel, aluminum, copper, wood, cars, trucks, and pharmaceutical products—will not be subject to additional tariffs.
This limits the immediate scope of the decision. The U.S. is not imposing a 50% tariff on all Canadian imports, as a sharp rise in the prices of oil, gas, electricity, fertilizers, and industrial metals would cause serious harm to U.S. companies themselves.
At the same time, the new tariffs even apply to goods that meet the rules of origin under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Previously, such goods could move between the three countries duty-free.
What Will Change for American Consumers
Formally, the tariff is paid by the American company importing the goods. It may require the Canadian supplier to lower the price, partially reduce its own margin, or pass the additional costs on to the buyer.
A 50% tariff does not necessarily mean an automatic 50% increase in the retail price, since the import cost is only part of the final price. However, for goods with a small markup, shipments from Canada may become economically unviable.
The most noticeable price increases may occur in the northern U.S. states, which have close ties to Canadian suppliers. This primarily applies to cement, building materials, furniture, beverages, and certain food products.
Higher tariffs on cement could increase costs for residential and infrastructure construction. Cement is difficult and expensive to transport over long distances, so not all regions will be able to quickly replace Canadian supplies with products from other parts of the world.
In the alcohol sector, some Canadian brands may disappear from U.S. stores and restaurants or move into a higher price category. A similar situation is possible in the hockey equipment market, where Canada is not only a major consumer but also an important manufacturer of specialized products.
What Lies Ahead for Canadian Manufacturers
For Canadian exporters, the U.S. is the primary and closest market. A 50% tariff could lead to a decline in orders, reduced capacity utilization, and pressure on manufacturers’ profits—especially if they are unable to quickly find buyers in other countries.
The most vulnerable will be companies located near the U.S. border and focused primarily on the U.S. market. Small wineries, furniture factories, and manufacturers of clothing and sports equipment will find it more difficult to redirect their products than large international corporations.
Canada will likely try to accelerate the reorientation of its exports toward the European Union, the United Kingdom, Asian countries, and other markets. However, transportation costs, differences in standards, and the need to rebuild distribution networks will limit the speed of this transition.
Who stands to gain from the trade realignment
The market share vacated by Canadian suppliers in the U.S. market could be filled by manufacturers from Mexico, the European Union, Latin America, and Asia.
European, Chilean, Argentine, and Australian companies may gain additional opportunities in the wine market. Manufacturers of clothing, furniture, and consumer goods from Mexico and Asian countries will also be able to increase their shipments to the U.S.
A similar process has already been observed in the Canadian market following restrictions on imports of U.S. alcohol. The White House notes that Canada has increased imports of beverages from the EU, Chile, Japan, Argentina, Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia.
However, such a shift does not always lower prices. Replacing a nearby Canadian supplier with a more distant producer increases transportation costs and complicates logistics.
The Risk of a New Round of the Trade War
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney expressed a willingness to continue negotiations but emphasized that the trade conflict is already increasing costs for families, particularly in the U.S. Ontario Premier Doug Ford called for retaliatory tariffs on a comparable volume of goods should the U.S. measures take effect.
If Ottawa introduces new retaliatory measures, they could target U.S. food products, alcohol, automobiles, industrial equipment, and goods from states that are politically significant to the Trump administration.
The conflict would then begin to affect not only specific product categories but also companies’ investment decisions. Businesses would be more cautious about locating new production facilities on both sides of the border, and inventories of components could increase as a safeguard against further restrictions.
Why This Decision Is Important for Global Trade
The legal basis for the tariffs is particularly significant. Trump invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows for the imposition of up to 50% in additional duties against a country that discriminates against U.S. trade. According to Reuters, this is the first known instance of this provision being invoked in nearly a century.
The precedent set allows Washington to use a similar mechanism against other trading partners if their taxes, quotas, licensing requirements, or government procurement practices are deemed discriminatory toward U.S. companies.
This increases uncertainty for global business. Even the existence of a free trade agreement no longer guarantees that goods will be protected from additional U.S. tariffs.
The immediate impact of the new measures on the global economy will be limited, as they cover about $20 billion in imports.
However, the consequences could be significantly greater if Canada responds in kind and the U.S. begins to invoke Section 338 against other countries.
In that case, companies will more actively shift production closer to their main markets, create alternative supply chains, and reduce their dependence on any single country. This could increase trade resilience but, at the same time, raise the cost of goods and fuel inflation.
The new tariffs are not scheduled to take effect until August 19, so Washington and Ottawa have about a month left to negotiate. The ultimate outcome will depend on whether the parties can reach an agreement on automobiles, U.S. alcohol, and access for U.S. dairy producers to the Canadian market.
Canada is among the group of countries that consistently enjoy a high level of positive perception within Ukrainian society. According to the survey results, 76.2% of respondents describe their attitude toward Canada as positive. Specifically, 39.4% of Ukrainians indicated a “completely positive” attitude, while another 36.8% described it as “mostly positive.” This distribution of responses indicates not only broad support but also a deeply entrenched positive image of the country.
At the same time, the level of negative perception of Canada is minimal—only 2.3% (1.4% “mostly negative” and 0.9% “completely negative”). This is one of the lowest figures among all countries included in the study. This result confirms that negative assessments are isolated and do not significantly influence overall perception.
The share of neutral responses is 20.3%, which is a moderate figure. This means that while most Ukrainians have already formed a positive attitude toward Canada, a certain portion of respondents lack sufficient personal experience or information to make a clear assessment. At the same time, only 1.2% of respondents were unable to decide on an answer, which further underscores the high level of certainty in public opinion regarding this country.
Overall, Canada demonstrates one of the most balanced and positive perception profiles: the combination of a high share of “fully positive” assessments with virtually no negativity forms a solid reputation capital. This indicates that the country’s image in Ukraine is based not only on general perceptions but also on a systematic view of Canada as a reliable partner.
“Canada is among those countries toward which Ukrainians have formed not just a positive, but a consistently positive attitude. This is the result of long-term interaction, support, and presence in the Ukrainian information space. In such cases, even neutral responses do not blur the overall picture, but only underscore its consistency,” noted Oleksandr Pozniy, director of the research company Active Group.
Thus, Canada ranks among the top countries with the highest level of trust in Ukrainian society. The combination of high positive perception and minimal negativity creates a foundation for further strengthening bilateral relations, particularly in the areas of politics, the economy, and humanitarian cooperation.
According to a study conducted by the Experts Club information and analytical center based on data from the State Customs Service, Canada ranks 41st in total trade volume of goods with Ukraine, with a figure of $416.2 million.
Imports of Canadian goods are twice as high as Ukrainian exports, resulting in a trade deficit of $139.9 million.
The study was presented at the Interfax-Ukraine press center; the video can be viewed on the agency’s YouTube channel. The full version of the study can be found at this link on the Experts Club analytical center’s website.
ACTIVE GROUP, CANADA, EXPERTS CLUB, Pozniy, SOCIOLOGY, SURVEY, UKRAINE, URAKIN
