Drop in Canadian tourists hurting U.S., say northeast governors
FREDERICTON — New England governors say tariffs and rhetoric by the United States government toward Canada is taking a bite out of tourism.
The governors made the comments in Boston, following a meeting with a group of Canadian premiers.
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey says tourism numbers for her state and others such as Maine, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont are down between 20 and 60 per cent.
She also says that there are real concerns about safety or disruptions for travellers who cross into the United States.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford says he is asking Canadians to avoid travel to the U.S. even though he loves America and Americans.
Ford and other leaders from Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador attended the meeting after getting invitations from Healey.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 16, 2025.
The Canadian Press
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Jean Chatzky sends strong message on 401(k), Social Security
As many Americans are aware, planning for retirement inevitably involves assessing several critical financial checkpoints regarding one's age to ensure long-term financial stability and to uphold one's desired lifestyle. Daily living expenses - including essentials such as food, utilities, phones and transportation - shape U.S. workers' budgets and influence how much they can save and invest. Evaluating Social Security benefits and reliance on personal savings, such as 401(k) plans, is equally crucial. Key challenges also include managing rising health care costs, countering inflation's impact on fixed income, and ensuring that one's assets are set to last throughout retirement. Jean Chatzky, former NBC "Today Show" financial editor and current AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) understands these concerns - and steps in to help Americans make some sense out of ways to maximize monthly Social Security paychecks and employee-sponsored 401(k) plans. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Chatzky advises people to carefully consider when to claim Social Security, cautioning that early withdrawals lead to reduced monthly benefits. For those expecting a long retirement, she emphasizes the advantages of waiting until age 70 to maximize Social Security payments. In the case of couples, she recommends that the higher-earning spouse delay distributions if one partner anticipates a longer lifespan, ensuring greater financial security. She also points to the benefits of working while receiving Social Security, noting that some people do so out of financial necessity, while others value the engagement and sense of purpose employment provides in retirement. Related: Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary warns Americans on 401(k)s In addition to Social Security, Chatzky warns about the risks and rewards associated with retirement savings accounts such as 401(k) plans. She stresses the fact that Americans face a significant possibility of exhausting their funds during retirement. To address this concern, she offers strategies designed to improve financial longevity and reduce the likelihood of running out of money. Because Social Security monthly paychecks alone are not enough to provide retired people with enough income on which to live, it is of vital importance that, during their working years, Americans put money away in retirement savings accounts. Employer-sponsored 401(k) plans are a great place to start, especially if one's company matches employee contributions - as those funds are essentially free money. More on retirement: Jean Chatzky shares major statement about Social SecurityShark Tank's Kevin O'Leary has blunt words on 401(k) plansDave Ramsey strongly cautions U.S. workers on Social Security Chatzky emphasizes the benefits of automated 401(k) contributions and of gradually increasing the percentage with each pay raise to accelerate retirement savings. She advises that those new to saving and facing financial constraints start with 3% of their income, while individuals in a better financial position begin at a higher rate. Chatzky suggests raising contributions by 2% annually until reaching the maximum limit. Her goal is for people to save 10% yearly if they begin before their mid-thirties, including employer matches, or 15% if they start later. Chatzky explains her view that simply enrolling in a workplace retirement plan reduces the likelihood of depleting funds in retirement to 20%. Related: Jean Chatzky sends strong message to Americans on Social Security Chatzky emphasizes the point that saving money consistently is the key to freeing up more of one's income to contribute to a 401(k) plan. "When I hear people suggest that you 'live on what you make,' I always shake my head," Chatzky wrote in "Money Rules," her book on personal finance tips. "If you're living on what you make, you're spending every dime. The key is to live on less than you make," she added. "This is non-negotiable. Why? Because if you do it consistently, you're automatically saving consistently." Chatzky advises Americans to be proud of their step-by-step achievements in planning financially for their future. "With the same enthusiasm you brought to watching your lima bean plant take root in grade school - watch that stash start to grow," Chatzky wrote. "Take pride in it. You're accomplishing something very few people can. And that will inspire you to set aside more." The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Fort St. John entrepreneur announces plan for new home ownership benefit company
FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. — A Fort St. John entrepreneur would like to do more for the community – specifically help residents buy a new home and establish roots. Jordan Soggie, who is also the executive director of the Fort St. John Association for Community Living (FSJACL), announced plans for a new, separate endeavour named Homeway Benefits earlier this month not linked to the FSJACL. He spoke to about the venture, saying a Kickstarter to raise $100,000 to make the platform scalable is soon to launch. Prior to working for FSJACL, Soggie worked with the housing authority in Moose Jaw, Sask. 'Over the last five years, I've had a personal project of trying to find a solution to help working Canadians become homeowners and overcome the barrier of a down payment,' said Soggie. 'I always saw people would get into social housing [or] subsidized housing, and then they would never be able to get [enough for a down payment]. 'I think the ability to save up that five per cent plus the taxes and everything else that they have to come up with on the wage that they live off of, [with] the expenses that people have today, makes it difficult for them to save up that down payment.' Data from Statistics Canada show in 2020 the median income of residents in Fort St. John was $91,000 after taxes. Further information from the BC Northern Real Estate Board shows the average price of a home in Fort St. John is over $400,000. Despite the high median household income, Soggie says the cost of living and other barriers prevent home ownership. 'If you're a parent and you're paying for childcare, and you're paying for everything else you have to pay for to have a quality of life,' said Soggie. 'It's hard to be able to save that five per cent plus the property transfer tax.' Soggie's new model is structured as a joint contribution plan. An employee would sign a three-year retention contract with their employer, a company registered with Homeway Benefits. The employee would then contribute eight per cent per pay cheque into a savings pot, which their employer would match. After three years, the price of a home and all applicable taxes could be saved. In structuring the plan, Soggie looked at the National Popular Housing Fund program in Mexico. Established in 1981, lower-income families seeking mortgages could apply. With just a four per cent investment required for a down payment, the program provided 23 per cent of all new housing by public funds between 1982 and 1998. 'I've basically taken that model and re-targeted it towards the workplace,' said Soggie. 'We have a housing crisis, but we also have a workforce crisis. So, putting those two problems together, we're able to come up with a solution that helps with both.' Soggie said the Homeway Benefits model is the subject of a case study with the University of Toronto, and he is seeking a group of 'champion employers' who will be the first in northeast B.C. to offer this benefit. For further information on Homeway Benefits, visit the company's website Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Experts decry new language in tax-cut bill, say only billionaires could challenge U.S. government
Senate Republicans have shelved, at least for now, a provision of President Donald Trump's tax-cut bill that would prevent enforcement of some past court orders against Trump. It has been replaced by a provision that could make it virtually impossible for average Americans to seek injunctions against the government for violating their rights. The new language would require anyone seeking a court order requiring, or prohibiting, actions by the federal government to post a bond that would fully cover the government's potential damages and other costs of complying with the order. Opponents say the costs could amount to at least millions of dollars. Injunctions are judicial orders prohibiting the government, an organization or an individual from taking actions that a judge has found are likely illegal. The bill approved by the House on a 215-214 vote last month, which would cut taxes for the rich and health care for the poor, would also have allowed a judge to find a violator of an injunction in contempt of court, and impose fines or imprisonment, only if the judge had required the other party to post a bond of any amount. Judges commonly issue injunctions without ordering a bond. Because the House bill would have applied, retroactively, to past as well as future injunctions, it could have allowed Trump to ignore existing court orders like those prohibiting him from sending immigrants to prisons in El Salvador without facing penalties. That provision was quietly removed from the bill by Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans last week. In its place is a mandate that would apply to all future injunctions against the federal government and require a bond that would pay for the government's 'costs and damages' in complying with the injunction. If the injunction was upheld on appeal, the individual or group that sought it could recover the costs of the bond. If not, the funds would be transferred to the government. 'Finally, the Senate Judiciary Committee is advancing solutions in the One Big Beautiful Bill to restore the constitutional role of the federal judiciary,' Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee chairman, said in a statement, using Trump's label for his tax-cut bill. Grassley said the new provision would 'enforce the existing, lawful requirement that courts impose a bond upfront when attempting to hit the government with a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order that results in costs and damages ultimately sustained by American taxpayers.' A different perspective came from Alicia Bannon, judiciary program director at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. If this language becomes law, Bannon said, 'it will be financially impossible for ordinary Americans to go to court to protect their rights,' like trying to make sure they receive Social Security payments or are protected against unlawful deportation. Bonds for those orders could cost many millions of dollars, she said. Or much more, said attorneys at the National Women's Law Center, if Trump's deep budget cuts to agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs were challenged by a group of military veterans. 'If this measure stays in the bill, only a billionaire would be able to get prompt relief from the courts when this administration breaks the law,' said Emily Martin, chief program officer at the Washington, D.C.-based law center. And Erwin Chemerinsky, the law school dean at UC Berkeley, said the new provision would also prohibit judges from considering the ability of an individual or group to pay the bond. That would prevent many whose rights have been violated from seeking help from the courts 'at a time when the President is violating the Constitution as never before seen in American history,' he said. Trump has denied violating constitutional rights in his deportation orders, shutdowns of federal agencies and attempts to deny U.S. citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants, disputes that are before the federal courts. But a more immediate legal battle could decide the fate of the injunction bond requirement in the tax bill. Because it is a budget-related measure, the legislation can win Senate approval by a majority vote in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats, rather than requiring 60 votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster. The newly added bond requirement, however, would not directly affect the federal budget, although it could lower the government's costs by discouraging lawsuits and limiting injunctions. Democrats could ask the Senate's parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, to advise Senate leaders that the bond limits are not budget-related and should be removed from the bill. The Senate normally follows the parliamentarian's conclusions unless 60 senators disagree, but opponents of the bond requirements say they can't take anything for granted. 'Senate Republicans have overruled the parliamentarian before,' said attorney Alison Gill of the National Women's Law Center. 'It is possible that they may do so to include this dangerous provision.'
