Carney to Fast-Track ‘Nation-Building' Projects Through Bill
Prime Minister Mark Carney announced legislation on Friday to fast-track 'nation-building' projects in Canada and remove internal barriers to trade in an effort to shore up the country's economy from the US tariff barrage.
The bill that aims to build 'one Canadian economy' targets projects that may include ports, railways, highways, critical-mineral mines, oil pipelines and electricity transmission systems. The government's overall goal is to speed up approvals to two years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
26 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump's New Steel Tariffs Look Vulnerable to a Courtroom Challenge
U.S. steelmaker shares soared on news of President Trump's new tariffs. But are these tariffs as bulletproof as investors seem to believe? The steel tariffs, like those on autos and auto parts, are sector-based. They differ in that respect from the 'Liberation Day' tariffs Trump unveiled in April. The U.S. Court of International Trade in May blocked Trump's tariffs on U.S. trading partners, rejecting the argument that he could invoke emergency powers to set the country-by-country tariffs. An appeals court stayed that ruling, pending its own review. The conventional wisdom in the markets has been that Trump's recent sector-based tariffs are on firmer legal footing. That might not be the case, though. In fact, there is reason to believe his new 50% tariff on imported steel could be vulnerable to a legal challenge. To speed up the process, Trump piggybacked on the findings of a national-security investigation by the Commerce Department in 2018, during his first term. The question now is whether the findings were too stale to be the basis for a new tariff hike, and thus whether Trump should have sought a new national-security investigation first. Going that route would have delayed his CLF 7.04%increase; green up pointing triangle is up 30% since Trump announced his new tariff plans May 30. Nucor NUE 2.37%increase; green up pointing triangle and Steel Dynamics STLD 1.11%increase; green up pointing triangle are up 11% and 9%, respectively. The tariff increase took effect June 4. Trump also relied on Commerce Department findings from his first term in office when raising sector-based tariffs this year on aluminum, autos and auto parts. His directive raising aluminum tariffs to 50% from 25% took effect June 4, as well. While it is too soon to know whether the sectoral tariffs will draw serious court challenges, a look at the legal underpinnings shows potential soft spots. Trump in his June 3 proclamation said he exercised his authority under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to raise steel tariffs to 50% from 25%. In doing so, he cited the Commerce Department's 2018 investigative report that concluded the quantities of steel being imported into the U.S. threatened to harm national security. The trade statute says the president, within 90 days of such a report, shall determine whether he concurs with the findings and decide what action to take in response. After that, he has 15 days to implement the action. A 2021 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the deadlines aren't strict and some flexibility is allowed. In that case, Trump waited five months after his initial 2018 action to boost tariffs on imported Turkish steel to 50% from 25%. An importer, Transpacific Steel, sued, and the Court of International Trade ruled against the higher tariffs on Turkish imports, saying Trump had gone past the statutory time limit. (By then, Trump had already returned the tariff on Turkish steel to 25%.) The appellate court reversed that ruling in a 2-1 decision. That decision might have opened the door for Trump to rely on the same 2018 investigative report yet again—seven years later—for his latest tariff boost. However, the appeals court said its ruling applied 'in the circumstances presented here.' A decision could turn out differently in other circumstances, such as where the investigative findings are 'simply too stale to be a basis' for new presidential actions, the court said. Tim Meyer, an international-trade specialist and professor at Duke Law School, said the appeals court's ruling appears to leave room for a plaintiff to challenge the new steel tariffs. 'The tricky part is how to apply the standards the court identifies,' he said. 'For example, what does it mean for a report to be 'stale'? The court seems to suggest that the passage of time might be enough. But how much time is too much time?' Much has happened in the past seven years, including a pandemic. U.S. steel imports were 26.2 million metric tons in 2024, according to the Commerce Department, down 24% since 2017. That point alone could underscore the need for new investigative findings as a predicate for presidential action. Trump in his June 3 proclamation said he also considered 'current information newly provided' by the Commerce Department, but didn't say what it was. Investors will be watching to see if any well-heeled plaintiffs surface to contest the tariffs. Gordon Johnson, chief executive at GLJ Research, in a June 2 note to clients said he believed the surge in steel stocks was premature and that the new 50% tariffs 'could be overturned due to a lack of a new investigation.' He also noted that no one had sought an injunction yet to block them. That said, he wrote, 'we believe there are procedural problems that make these new tariffs vulnerable to a lawsuit.' Steelmaker shares could take a hit if a court invalidated the sectoral tariffs. U.S. automaker stocks, on the other hand, could rally. Of course, the Trump administration could simply initiate new Commerce Department investigations and reinstitute the tariffs later. The net result for investors and the economy ultimately might be just more prolonged uncertainty about Trump's favorite negotiating tool. Write to Jonathan Weil at
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How a multibillion dollar defence bank could help Canada increase its military spending
A new multilateral defence bank aims to help Canada and its allies build their militaries to meet looming threats in an increasingly hostile world while also giving Canadian industry a leg up when it comes to producing weaponry and military kit to tackle those threats head on. And its Canadian president is hoping it will have a major presence in Toronto. Announced this past spring, the new Defence, Security and Resilience Bank could solve financial problems for countries, including Canada, that are under pressure to increase military spending beyond two per cent of their gross domestic product (GDP). Some estimates peg the more likely target as five per cent of GDP as Russia and China grow increasingly belligerent on the world stage. 'We have to use our capital markets of allied nations for overwhelming force against our foes,' Kevin D. Reed, the new bank's president and chief operating officer, said in a recent interview. The theory is the bank would allow Canada and other countries to re-arm, said Reed, who has helped start nine companies including Equity Transfer & Trust. 'Hopefully that acts as a form of deterrent against big conflicts.' The United Kingdom 'has emerged as the lead candidate to take this on,' according to Reed. 'That being said, we've … advocated to our Canadian government that there's a window here for Canada to take a co-leadership role with the U.K.' Reed would like to see a branch of the bank located in Toronto. If Canada chose to be the bank's host nation, or to co-host with London, 'you're probably looking at 2,500-3,500' banking jobs in Toronto, he said. The bank would be owned by member nations, including NATO and Indo-Pacific countries. 'They would capitalize the bank, we would get a triple-A rating, and we would take it to the bond market to raise money,' Reed said. 'If we have all 40 nations in, we would expect about $60 billion of equity into the bank over time, and then subject to the bond markets we would seek to raise $100 billion at first, taking that up to about $400-500 billion over time.' For countries that don't have a triple-A credit rating, it would mean a lower cost to capital, he said. It would also allow nations in immediate need of more defence dollars to tap the bank for money, rather than waiting for annual budget cycles. 'The real driver in this is that it would provide credit guarantees to commercial banks to lend into the defence sector,' Reed said. 'Most commercial banks … unless you're a big prime (like Boeing), if you're a number two or three or four in the supply chain, you're almost unbankable, historically, because of ESG (an investing principle that prioritizes environmental and social issues, as well as corporate governance) and just a view of defence.' The Defence, Security and Resilience Bank would be similar to Export Development Canada, a Crown corporation that provides financial and risk management services to Canadian exporters and investors, 'but way bigger,' Reed said. It would offer large banks such as RBC and BMO credit guarantees 'that would loosen up capital so they could offer lines of credit, trade finance, you name it, but we can grow the industrial base a lot faster,' Reed said. That would, in turn, speed up military procurement, he said. 'It takes nine years to get a jet or seven years to get a shoulder-fired rocket launcher,' Reed said. 'It's because the industrial base just isn't big enough. It's been constrained. So, this would push liquidity into the commercial banks.' Sovereign countries could also 'enhance procurement' by borrowing from the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank on the promise that they 'have to execute within two years,' Reed said. 'We want to foster that rapid-fire procurement that we know has been a problem for all member nations.' Right now, it takes 16 years for startups to go from selling the Department of National Defence on their products to procurement, he said. 'Companies just can't live in that — they call that the Valley of Death,' Reed said. 'That is a problem. If you want to invent a new bullet … in your garage, you're going to wait a long time.' Rob Murray, NATO's inaugural head of innovation and a former U.K. army officer, started writing the blueprint for the bank about five years ago. But, at the time, interest rates were flat, Russia hadn't launched its full-scale war in Ukraine, and U.S. President Donald Trump was not in power. You do not attract first rate people with third rate infrastructure. And right now, you go to any garrison, any base, any wing across Canada and the infrastructure is crumbling When the Ukraine war began, interest rates started climbing and people started recognizing 'threat levels are changing around the world,' Reed said. Then Trump came to power in his second term and started 'forcing the hand of many NATO nations' to increase their defence spending, Reed said. Murray published his blueprint last December. 'On the back of that he was invited down to brief the president elect down at Mar-a-Lago,' Reed said, 'and Rob's world just started to expand rapidly with proposed member nations seeking him out, asking how would this work? How can we get involved?' Murray asked Reed to step in as the bank's president in early February 'to help stitch together the coalition of governments' needed to bring the idea to fruition. 'Every European nation has been briefed,' Reed said. 'And we did the briefing for Canada right after the election' with senior people in Prime Minister Mark Carney's office, the Privy Council Office, and departments including National Defence, Finance, Global Affairs and Treasury Board. Reed also briefed officials in Singapore last week and plans to do the same in Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand this week. 'We're trying to drive this around a consensus of a dozen anchor nations,' he said. NATO figures from last June suggest Canada spent just 1.37 per cent of its GDP on defence in 2024. The Liberals have said they expect it to reach two per cent by 2030 'at the latest.' But that's not fast enough for Trump, who has complained repeatedly about Canada piggybacking on the U.S. for military protection. 'While I don't like what he's saying, I see this as an opportunity to get ourselves going,' Reed said. 'We have not done our job in a long time. We've not fulfilled our commitments, and this a kick in the pants to say who are we, and what do we stand for?' Later this month, Reed expects NATO countries to accept a new spending minimum of 3.5 per cent of GDP for defence and 1.5 per cent for border security. 'To go from our base today … it's another $100-110 billion a year to ramp up to that,' he said of Canada. 'And that's not in future dollars. That's in last year's dollars. So, any available mechanism that can help grow the industrial base and get them towards those NATO soon-to-be targets is going to be well received.' Founding members of the bank will start meeting in the fall to hammer out details. Reed anticipates standing up the bank next year. 'I like the idea of another mechanism, and a very powerful and large one, and I think a very influential one, that can help us do more in the defence and security domain in Western democracies,' said retired general Rick Hillier, Canada's former top soldier, who has joined the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank's board of directors. He predicts Canada is going to need 'a revolution in defence and security procurement' to solve the Canadian Forces' equipment woes. More money could accelerate the acquisition of new aircraft, warships and submarines, he said. 'The component I'm most worried about is the army,' Hillier said. 'The army is broken. We're down people. Our bases and our infrastructure are in very sad condition. And we lack every kind of capability that a force needs in the kind of areas where we would find ourselves fighting right now. If things go south in Eastern Europe and (Vladimir) Putin and Russia get into some kind of thing they can't extract themselves from and start heading into Lithuania and Latvia, where there are several thousand Canadians, our sons and daughters, we are ill-prepared to insure that they're ready to look after themselves.' The army lacks self-propelled artillery pieces, air defence systems, technology that can detect, track, and neutralize drones, and equipment to remove minefields, Hillier said. 'We need to focus a huge amount of that defence spend on the army.' Canada has also been lagging in spending to defend our north, he said. 'We've got to know what's going on in the Arctic, to be able to see what's going on specifically, to be able to communicate what's going on and then to be able to respond to what's going, whether its air, land, or depending on the time of year, sea forces. Right now, we can only do a very small part of that.' The country needs satellites and ultra-long endurance drones to cover the north, Hillier said. Bases should be built in Inuvik, Rankin Inlet, and Iqaluit, he said. 'Then you have to connect … those spots by upgrading the airfields across the north.' The military also needs billions of dollars to repair and replace old buildings, Hillier said. Canada's military has a shortfall of about 15,000 people right now, Hillier said. 'You do not attract first rate people with third rate infrastructure. And right now, you go to any garrison, any base, any wing across Canada and the infrastructure is crumbling.' At CFB Trenton, the military's hub for air transport operations in Canada and abroad, people can't even drink the water on the base 'because it's contaminated,' Hillier said. At CFB Petawawa, 'the fire hall they've been trying to replace for years floods in any kind of a rainstorm,' he said. 'As soon as it shuts down, you shut down operations in that training area, in that garrison, for the brigade, for the helicopter squadron and for the special forces training centre.' Hillier believes the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank could help alleviate all of these problems. 'There's an enormous amount of momentum because the inherent good in it is evident to most people as soon as they sit and think about what it could achieve,' he Two ways to boost Canadian defence spending and minimize Trump's tariff threats Canada's boutique military: 'Should we not be able to defend ourselves?' Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
British holidaymakers to miss out on compensation after EU rule change
Britons will miss out on compensation for delayed flights after Brussels adopted a rule change following complaints from airlines. Payouts that were previously triggered by delays exceeding three hours will now only be made after four hours of holdups, European transport ministers agreed. The new regulation, hammered out following a decade of discussions and bargaining over passenger compensation, will apply to all services from EU countries to the UK. For the time being, travellers headed from Britain to the Continent will still qualify for a refund when flight delays hit the three-hour mark, unless they are flying with an EU-registered airline. While raising the compensation threshold, ministers also agreed to increase the minimum level of payment from €250 (£210) to €300 for shorter journeys and to €500 for those above 3,500km (2,175 miles). The original regulation, known as EU261, was passed in 2004 with the aim of ensuring that passengers received money and assistance in the event of flights being cancelled at short notice. Following Brexit, the UK adopted it into law so that the rights of travellers remained unchanged. However, the Government will now have to decide whether to adopt the amendments for outbound flights or stick with the original version. Taking no action might be welcomed by consumer groups but would have consequences for UK airlines, which would be at a disadvantage to their European rivals. It could also affect fares, with Ryanair having claimed that EU261 costs passengers £7 per ticket. Airlines for Europe, an industry group, had pressed for a higher compensation threshold, arguing that extending it to five hours – as originally proposed by the European Commission – would allow 70pc of flights that are cancelled to be rescued. It argued said that airlines inevitably scrapped flights once compensation was triggered, especially since the payouts involved were often higher than the ticket prices charged. It said a five-hour threshold would have made it more practical for carriers to fly in replacement aircraft so that more flights would get away, potentially benefiting 10m passengers a year. A spokesman said: 'Getting to their destination is the primary concern of passengers, even if it means getting to bed or arriving at their holiday resort late. But with a low cancellation threshold it makes more sense to call off the flight and take that hit.' Airlines have also railed against the fact that the compensation applies whether delays are caused by a crew shortage or technical issue that might be laid at their door, or by severe weather or air traffic control issues beyond their control. A number of extraordinary circumstances are expected to be added as part of revisions to 31 different air passenger rights. The revisions must still clear the European Parliament but are expected to become law in the bloc by the end of the year. The Department for Transport said the UK did not have to amend its legislation in line with any changes from the EU, and that any potential future reforms would require careful consideration on their merits, and be subject to public consultation.
