
Trump vows tariffs for ‘the rest of the world.' Where does Canada stand?
'We're going to be setting a tariff essentially for the rest of the world, and that's what they're going to pay if they want to do business in the United States, because you can't sit down and make 200 deals,' Trump said during a joint media event with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Trump's remark comes a day after he announced a trade deal with the European Union, which will see a 15 per cent tariff imposed on most European goods being exported to the U.S.
The deal with the EU looks very similar to the one Trump announced with Japan, which would have a 15 per cent tariff on most Japanese exports to the U.S.
Story continues below advertisement
While Trump has said negotiations with other nations and trading blocs were progressing towards a deal before Aug. 1, he has singled out Canada as a country with which he was not making progress.
Last week, Trump said his administration hasn't 'had a lot of luck with Canada' in its trade negotiations.
He added that there may not be a deal with Canada.
'I think Canada could be one where there's just a tariff, not really a negotiation,' he told reporters.
'We don't have a deal with Canada; we haven't been focused on them,' he said.
Prime Minister Mark Carney on Monday said he would only sign a deal that was 'a good deal for Canada.'
'The negotiations are at an intense phase,' Carney told reporters in Prince Edward Island.
Tweet This
Click to share quote on Twitter: "The negotiations are at an intense phase," Carney told reporters in Prince Edward Island.
Canada and the EU have both similarities and differences when it came to their respective commercial relationships with the U.S., Carney said.
'We have some similarities with the European Union in terms of our commercial relationships with the United States. We're one of their most important trade partners,' he said.
4:59
Canada – U.S. trade negotiations ahead of deadline
'He does not like Canada'
These deals don't portend well for Canada, said Concordia University economist Moshe Lander, especially considering some recent threats Trump made against Canada's economy.
Story continues below advertisement
'Trump's getting his way. He's menacing countries, big and small, and putting the world economy back to the 1930s,' Lander said.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
Trump's statement on Monday seems to indicate that he would rather settle on a flat tariff rate for his trading partners, said Sal Guatieri, director and senior economist at BMO Capital Markets.
'For countries that run a trade surplus with the U.S. goods, they most likely will need to settle for something in that 15 per cent range,' he said.
Earlier this month, Carney said it was 'unlikely' that a zero-tariff trade deal could be reached in August.
Carney told reporters there was 'not a lot of evidence' for any country to have a tariff-free agreement and it was unlikely Trump would agree to one with Canada.
Where does Canada's trade stand with U.S.?
Canada's balance of trade with the U.S. is not like that of the EU.
Story continues below advertisement
Excluding oil, gas and energy, Canada runs a trade deficit with its neighbour. However, Guatieri said Trump was likely to only look at the overall balance of trade.
'Unfortunately, I don't think the White House is making much of a distinction with respect to Canada's trade with the U.S.,' he said.
'It's just saying basically in total, Canada is running a surplus with the U.S. and needs to pay a higher tariff. The main message from these six trade deals (that Trump has signed recently) is that basically no country will be unscathed. Everyone will end up with higher tariffs than was the case a year ago under the new White House,' he said.
Trump has been ratcheting up his threats against Canada as the trade talks intensify. Last month, he said Canada was a 'a very difficult country to trade with' and threatened to scrap the talks altogether if Canada did not withdraw its Digital Services Tax.
Last month, he raised the stakes of his trade war. In a letter to Carney posted to Truth Social, Trump threatened a 35 per cent tariff on 'Canadian products sent into the United States, separate from all Sectoral Tariffs.'
'If for any reason you decide to raise your Tariffs, then, whatever the number you choose to raise them by, will be added onto the 35 per cent that we charge,' the letter adds.
Story continues below advertisement
'He does not like Canada,' Lander said.
'Canada is not going to get any sort of favourable treatment in whatever deal comes out,' he added.
2:04
What Trump's EU trade deal reveals about talks with Canada
Autos, steel, aluminum hardest hit
Those threats come as the steel and aluminum sectors continue to face steep U.S. tariffs.
Story continues below advertisement
'Unfortunately, it doesn't look like any country so far is able to get their 50 per cent duty on steel and aluminum down to a smaller number,' Guatieri said.
He added, 'One partial save for Quebec is that the U.S. really does need Canadian aluminum. They have limited capacity to increase their aluminum production or buy foreign-made aluminum from countries other than Canada.'
Both Japan and the EU managed to get their tariff rate on automobiles reduced from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. Guatieri said Canada is likely to get a similar deal on autos.
'We would still be somewhat competitive in selling our vehicles to the U.S., especially when you consider that there is an exemption for U.S. content in Canadian-made vehicles. That would help (but) not fully shield Canada's auto industry,' he said.
According to BMO, Canada's effective tariff rate for trade with the U.S. is currently around six per cent. This is because Trump's tariffs on Canada do not include goods that are CUSMA-complaint.
This would be 'manageable' for the broader economy, Guatieri said, but added that the auto, steel and aluminum industries could see some serious pain, including potential layoffs.
'We think most of the rest of the country is somewhat insulated from this trade war, but unfortunately Ontario and Quebec are not,' Guatieri said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Global News
29 minutes ago
- Global News
Canada, allies warn Iran working to ‘kill, kidnap and harass' people abroad
Canada joined the United States and 12 European allies Thursday in condemning what they said is a 'growing number of state threats' by Iran's intelligence services against people abroad, including dissidents, journalists and Jewish citizens of their countries. The joint statement issued by the U.S. State Department called attempts by Iran to 'kill, kidnap, and harass people in Europe and North America' a 'clear violation' of those nations' sovereignty. 'These services are increasingly collaborating with international criminal organizations to target journalists, dissidents, Jewish citizens, and current and former officials in Europe and North America,' the statement said. 'This is unacceptable.' The countries said they are committed to working together to prevent such attacks and called on Iran to 'immediately put an end to such illegal activities in our respective territories.' Story continues below advertisement 2:07 'The world would be a better place': Iranian-Canadians hope for end to Islamic Republic rule Iran has long been accused by the U.S., Canada and European nations of conducting transnational repression operations against Iranian dissidents abroad, as well as critics of the regime in Tehran. Former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler, a vocal critic of the Iranian regime, told Global News last year his security detail was temporarily increased to its 'highest level' due to an imminent assassination threat. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Cotler said he was first told Iran was behind an 'imminent and lethal threat on my life' in November 2023 — shortly after the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Iran-backed Hamas — and has been under RCMP protection ever since. 'I see this as a phenomenon not related to me personally, but to the larger threatening concern of transnational repression and assassination,' he said. Story continues below advertisement 'This has to be seen as a wake-up call for the community of democracies because this is a direct threat to our security, to our democracy and to our human rights.' Iran has been accused of hiring Hells Angels members in Canada to carry out killings, and immigration officials have found over a dozen senior Iranian regime members illegally living in Canada to date. Documents released by the public inquiry into foreign interference in Canada revealed Iranian Canadians are increasingly concerned about former officials from the Iranian regime targeting diaspora members and community organizations. Canada 'is known as a safe haven for Islamic regime officials and their families,' Tehran-born human rights activist Nazanin Afshin-Jam MacKay said in her presentation to the Hogue Commission during public consultations last year, according to the documents. 11:12 Canada is 'a haven for Islamic Republic agents' warns Iranian human rights activist Canada listed Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization last year, and declared senior Iranian government and security agency officials inadmissible to Canada due to involvement in terrorism and human rights violations. Story continues below advertisement Yet the government has also had difficulty removing former regime officials from the country, with deportation orders issued to just three individuals out of 12 ongoing cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board, officials said in June. The FBI and U.S. prosecutors last year revealed multiple alleged Iranian plots to assassinate U.S. President Donald Trump in the run-up to November's U.S. presidential election. A threat on Trump's life from Iran prompted additional security in the days before a July campaign rally in Pennsylvania where Trump was shot in the ear, according to U.S. officials. But officials at the time said they did not believe Iran was connected to that assassination attempt. The U.S. Justice Department announced in November that an Iranian plot to kill Trump in the weeks before the presidential election had been thwarted. 1:35 FBI thwarts alleged Iranian plot to assassinate Trump Trump ordered a U.S. military strike on Iran during his first term that killed Qassem Soleimani, who led the IRGC's Quds Force. Iran vowed revenge against Trump and members of his first administration, including his former national security advisor John Bolton and former secretary of state Mike Pompeo. Story continues below advertisement The criminal complaint that revealed the alleged plot against Trump also said two people were arrested and charged for their alleged involvement in a plot to murder an American-Iranian journalist and critic of the Iranian regime in New York. The FBI also said during the U.S. election that Iranian hackers sought to interest then-president Joe Biden's campaign in information allegedly stolen from Trump's campaign last summer. There's no evidence that any of the recipients responded, officials said at the time. —With files from Global's Stewart Bell and the Associated Press


Global News
29 minutes ago
- Global News
Can Trump impose tariffs without Congress? U.S. appeals court skeptical
Appellate court judges expressed broad skepticism Thursday over President Donald Trump's legal rationale for his most expansive round of tariffs. Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration's insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval, and it hammered its invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so. 'IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs' anywhere,' Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said, in a sign of the panel's incredulity to a government attorney's arguments. Brett Schumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing 'no president has ever read IEEPA this way' but contended it was nonetheless lawful. The 1977 law, signed by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war. Story continues below advertisement Trump says the country's trade deficit is so serious that it likewise qualifies for the law's protection. 4:17 New poll sheds light on how Canadians feel about tariff negotiations with the United States In sharp exchanges with Schumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness,' Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, 'and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily deal with (it).' Schumate said Congress' passage of IEEPA gave the president 'broad and flexible' power to respond to an emergency, but that 'the president is not asking for unbounded authority.' But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump's maneuver as a 'breathtaking' power grab that amounted to saying 'the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.' Story continues below advertisement No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges' deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that 'a national emergency exists' necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, was unconvinced however, ruling in May that Trump exceeded his powers. The issue now rests with the appeals judges. 2:37 Trump frustrated with India trade talks, thinks 25% tariffs will help: Haslett The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday. The case centers on Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn't cover other tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, nor ones imposed on China during Trump's first term, and continued by President Joe Biden. Story continues below advertisement The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 U.S. states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear. The U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but lawmakers have gradually ceded power over trade policy to the White House. Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University.


CTV News
44 minutes ago
- CTV News
Trump's EPA is targeting key vehicle pollution rules. What that means for carmakers
DETROIT — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's plan this week to relax rules aimed at cleaning up auto tailpipe emissions is the latest Trump administration move to undo incentives for automakers to go electric. As part of a larger effort to undo climate-based governmental regulations, the EPA on Tuesday said it wants to revoke the 2009 finding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. That would cripple the legal basis for limiting emissions from things like power plants and motor vehicles. U.S. President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending law already targets EV incentives, including the imminent removal of a credit that saves buyers up to US$7,500 on a new electric car. The tax law approved in early July also includes another provision that will hit Tesla and other EV makers in the pocketbook — repealing fines for automakers that don't meet federal fuel economy standards. Automakers can buy credits under a trading program if they don't meet the mileage standards. EV makers like Tesla, which don't rely on gasoline, earn credits that they can sell to other carmakers. The arrangement has resulted in billions of dollars in revenue for Tesla and millions for other EV makers like Rivian. That is all set to go away under the new law. Trump has also challenged federal EV charging infrastructure money and blocked California's ban of new gas-powered vehicle sales. It adds up to less pressure on automakers to continue evolving their production away from gas-burning vehicles. And that's significant because transportation — which also includes ships, trains and planes — is the sector that contributes the most to planet-warming emissions in the U.S. Push and pull on tailpipe and mileage rules Stringent tailpipe emissions and mileage rules were part of the Biden administration's pledge to clean up the nation's vehicles and reduce use of fossil fuels by incentivizing growth in EVs. EVs do not use gasoline or emit greenhouse gases. The Trump administration and the auto industry have said both rules were unreasonable for manufacturers. Automakers could meet EPA tailpipe limits with about 56 per cent of new vehicle sales being electric by 2032 — they're currently at about eight per cent — along with at least 13 per cent plug-in hybrids or other partially electric cars, and more efficient gasoline-powered cars that get more miles to the gallon. The latest mileage targets set under the Biden administration required automakers to get to an average of about 81 kilometres per gallon for light-duty vehicles by model year 2031, and about 35 miles per gallon for pickups and vans by model year 2035. But U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy pressured the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration earlier this year to reverse the rules, and has recently said Biden's inclusion of EVs in calculating them was illegal. NHTSA will likely reset or significantly weaken them. The fines that are going away Then there are the fines that automakers will no longer face for falling short on the fuel economy rules. 'With the signing of the One Big Beautiful Bill, new penalties for automakers not complying with an illegal fuel economy standard designed to push EVs will be zero,' NHTSA spokesman Sean Rushton said in a statement. Some legacy automakers have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties for not meeting them. Just last year, Jeep-maker Stellantis paid US$190.7 million for model years 2019 and 2020, and General Motors paid US$128.2 million for the 2016 and 2017 model years. Automakers that didn't meet the standards could also instead buy credits from carmakers that did — or even surpassed them — such as Tesla. That provision earned Tesla US$2.8 billion in 2024 — revenue it will no longer see. Elon Musk sharply criticized the big tax-and-spending bill in June, saying it 'gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the law's effect on those credits. The agency wrote to carmakers earlier this month informing them the penalties wouldn't be issued from the model year 2022 onward. Some automakers confirmed receiving the letter but declined to comment further. Experts say without them, the law 'invites automakers to cheat on government fuel economy rules by setting fines to US$0, ensuring consumers will buy more gas guzzlers, pay more at the pump and enrich Big Oil,' said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Safe Climate Transport Campaign. Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a former acting NHTSA administrator under Biden, called it a 'stunning decision' for NHTSA to essentially forgive the fines from 2022 onward. She said it amounted to a windfall for companies that chose to pay penalties rather than produce more efficient cars. Carlson said backing away from future fines also 'poses a dilemma for auto manufacturers who may feel bound to comply with the law, even if there is not a financial consequence for failing to do so.' Where auto manufacturers go from here It takes a while for carmakers to shift their product lines, and experts say automakers might be locked into their technology and manufacturing decisions for the next few model years. But changes could come for model year 2027 and beyond, they said. EVs aren't as profitable as gas-engine cars, so automakers may make fewer of them if they no longer have to offset emissions from their gasoline models. Already, some automakers have pulled back on their ambitions to go all-electric with a slower pace of EV sales growth. 'Automakers also know every presidential administration eventually comes to an end, so they won't abandon their EV development efforts,' said Karl Brauer, executive analyst at 'But they will reduce their near-term efforts in this area.' ___ Alexa St. John, The Associated Press