Sask. premier warns that Chinese tariffs on canola would be ruinous
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe lashed out at American and Chinese tariffs on Wednesday, saying they will have a devastating impact on Saskatchewan workers.
"Make no mistake — a 100 per cent tariff on Chinese canola and meal exports, alongside the challenge that we're seeing in the United States with the on and off again tariffs on various products, will decimate the canola industry in Saskatchewan," Moe said at the annual Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) conference in Saskatoon on Wednesday.
"Immediately. In a matter of a number of weeks, not months."
China has announced that it will impose 100 per cent retaliatory tariffs targeting canola, as well as other Canadian goods like seafood and pork.
The decision comes in response to Canada's 100 per cent tariffs on Chinese-made electric vehicles and a 25 per cent levy on Chinese aluminum and steel products imposed on Oct. 1.
The Chinese tariffs are scheduled to kick in on March 20, just a day after the Saskatchewan budget is set to be introduced in the provincial legislature.
"I'm not sure you're going to hear the budget speak specifically to this, but you're gonna hear the Saskatchewan government speak specifically to this," Moe said.
The premier said no one wants to buy Chinese electric vehicles in Canada, and moving to protect Canadian and American car industries is directly harming agriculturally-based provinces like Saskatchewan.
Moe's ire was not just focused on the incoming Canola tariffs. On Wednesday morning, 25 per cent tariffs on all imports of steel and aluminum to the United States officially came into force.
In response, the Canadian government announced a new set of 25 per cent tariffs on $29.8 billion worth of American imports. They include $12.6 billion worth of steel products, $3 billion worth of aluminum products and $14.2 billion worth of other goods. They are ti go into effect at 12:01 a.m. EDT on Thursday.
Those new tariffs are on top of the federal government's first retaliatory tariffs announced earlier this month, which applied to $30 billion worth of American goods and are to be increased to $155 billion at the end of March. The federal government said they will remain in place until all American tariffs are lifted.
Moe confirmed that Saskatchewan's retaliatory measures announced last week will also remain in place. They include blocking the Saskatchewan Liquor and Gaming Authority (SLGA) from buying and distributing U.S.-made alcohol, and pausing future government capital projects to assess how American contractors and suppliers could be minimized.
"Things are changing literally by the hour," Moe said. "And we've seen that over the course of the last number of weeks. So a calm hand is necessary."
Aleana Young, the Saskatchewan NDP's economy and jobs critic, said at a separate news conference in Regina on Wednesday that the government should prioritize Canadian steel manufacturers.
"Stop using steel from outside of Canada, stop using cheap Chinese steel, stop using U.S. companies when it comes to building projects here in Saskatchewan," Young said.
More than half of Saskatchewan's exports go to the United States, totalling about $26.7 billion in 2024. About three quarters of those were from one of four products: crude oil, potash, canola oil and uranium.
According to Statistics Canada, in 2024 Saskatchewan exported $387 million worth of iron and steel products and $26 million worth of aluminum to the United States.
Regina is home to one of 13 steel plants in Canada. It's run by Ervaz plc, a steel manufacturing and mining company based in the United Kingdom.
According to United Steelworkers Local 5890 President Mike Day, about 30 per cent of the steel produced at the facility is shipped to a sister plant in the U.S.
"Right now everything is up in the air and we don't know what the next move is," said Patrick Veinot, a staff representative for United Steelworkers. "It's important that we get together and we discuss it. All parties, all stakeholders. That includes finance, that includes business, that includes the unions, you know, as organized labour.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
8 minutes ago
Flight attendant union asks jobs minister not to intervene in Air Canada negotiations
The Canadian Union of Public Employees released a statement on Friday afternoon urging Federal Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu not to intervene in negotiations by invoking Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, thereby permitting collective bargaining to continue and allowing the parties to negotiate a resolution. Air Canada had previously asked CUPE to consider binding interest arbitration, which would bring an arbitrator into the negotiations to make decisions on key agenda items that the two sides haven't been able to agree on. After CUPE declined that request earlier this week, Air Canada then asked Hajdu to make a referral under Section 107 that the negotiation be sent to arbitration. Hajdu gave CUPE until noon on Friday to respond. We thank the union for their response. We strongly urge the parties to work with federal mediators and get a deal done. Time's precious and Canadians are counting on you, Hajdu's press secretary said in a statement to CBC News. Air Canada warned Friday it is cancelling around 500 flights previously scheduled to take off today in anticipation of the work stoppage, with a full stoppage looming Saturday. The airline said on X that as of noon on Friday, 294 flights had been cancelled and more than 55,000 passengers had been impacted. It said it would notify customers of cancellations through email and text message, adding it recommends against going to the airport unless they have a confirmed booking and their flight still shows as operating. An Angus Reid Institute poll released on Friday suggested that four in five Canadians — about 84 per cent — believe it's unfair that Air Canada flight attendants are only paid for work when the plane is in the air. This is a key sticking point in negotiations that led to the impasse. The weighted survey came from a randomized sample of 1,507 Canadian adults, with a margin of error of +/- 2.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. With files from CBC's Jenna Benchetrit
Vancouver Sun
8 minutes ago
- Vancouver Sun
Proposed national class action filed against Amazon for breaching privacy of Alexa users
A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed in the B.C. Supreme Court against Amazon over its Alexa technology. The lawsuit, submitted by B.C. law firm Charney Lawyers , alleges that Alexa products have collected more personal data from Canadian users than Amazon has disclosed. It also alleges that the tech giant retained the information, even when users tried to delete it, using it for business purposes such as training artificial intelligence and developing targeted advertising. The class action was filed in B.C., on behalf of representative plaintiff, Joseph Stoney, but its aim is to be national in scope. If the class action is certified by the court, it would cover all Canadian residents who had an Amazon Alexa account between 2014 and July 19, 2023. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'Had they learned about this after signing up for Alexa, users would have discontinued their accounts,' the statement of claim asserts. The essence of the lawsuit is the allegation that Amazon failed to obtain meaningful, informed consent for retention and use of this data. As a result, the alleged data collection and use breached both privacy and consumer protection laws in Canada. 'In its terms of service Amazon made explicit commitments to Alexa users regarding their privacy. However, rather than protecting users privacy, Amazon: (1) kept the data it took from Alexa indefinitely; (2) used that data to train its algorithms, machine learning programs and AI; and (3) failed to fully delete the data when customers asked it to.' The suit sets out that since 2014, Amazon has been developing and selling Amazon 'Echo' devices, which are controlled by its cloud-based voice assistant, Alexa. Alexa can activate intentionally or accidentally, the claim says. Once Alexa begins streaming audio to the cloud, the audio interaction is transcribed to text, the lawsuit states. Then it is processed by an algorithm that instructs the Alexa how to respond to the user. If a request has been processed, a copy of the audio file, the transcription, the resulting instructions to Alexa, and any associated metadata is stored in an Amazon database, the claim alleges. Prior to 2020, users had no way to delete Alexa interaction-related data, and it was stored indefinitely, says the claim. And even though Amazon introduced a deletion function in 2020, it adds, Amazon only deleted the audio file, while retaining a transcription, the instructions, and associated metadata. 'When a user chose to delete the data on one or more of their interactions with Alexa, Amazon changed what was visible to the user so that it appeared that the interactions had been completely deleted even though Amazon was actually retaining everything except the audio file,' the claim says. Charney Lawyers also argues that some of this data may have been collected accidentally when Alexa mistook regular sounds for its 'wake word.' This means conversations users never intended for the device might have been picked up, transcribed and saved. The claim notes that in May 2023, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against Amazon, alleging the company falsely represented that Alexa app users could delete voice recordings, transcripts and metadata. And instead, Amazon allegedly only deleted voice recordings, keeping transcripts and associated metadata. In July 2023, Amazon agreed to pay a US$25-million fine and 'effectively admitted to a number of instances of unlawful data misuse.' The suit seeks damages, repayment of any profits Amazon gained from the use of the data, as well as repayment of the amount users paid for Alexa products and services. For potential participants in the suit, there is a registration page set up by Charney Lawyers for people who want updates or to potentially take part in the action. 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 .
Vancouver Sun
8 minutes ago
- Vancouver Sun
Wife's ADHD cited by Federal Court in reasons for delaying deportation of man from India
A Federal Court judge has temporarily stopped the deportation of a man from India over Ottawa's handling of health concerns by his Canadian wife who has ADHD, and financial problems his departure would cause his sister. Jagjit Singh, a citizen of India, came to Canada in 2021 on a temporary resident visa and made a refugee claim for asylum. While that claim was being processed, he met a Canadian woman, in November 2024, and married her the following January. The woman, identified only by the initials L.B., in the court decision, submitted a spousal sponsorship for her new husband to become a permanent resident of Canada a couple of weeks later, after which he withdrew his refugee claim. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. While one arm of the immigration system was processing the spousal sponsorship, another arm was dealing with a man who was no longer seeking refugee protection and so had overstayed his original visa. In May his wife was notified she met the eligibility requirements to sponsor Singh and, in July, Singh was given a removal date for August. He asked Canada Border Services Agency officials to delay his deportation until after his wife's application was adjudicated. CBSA refused his request. Singh then sought intervention from the Federal Court to delay his removal. His case was heard by Federal Court Justice Avvy Yao-Yao Go on Tuesday and her decision was released the same day. Lawyers for Singh claimed five grounds for a delay, including various ways that the CBSA mishandled and misapplied evidence in the case to a degree suggesting they had not reviewed the submission Singh had made. The judge said not all of Singh's grounds were persuasive, but only one serious issue was needed for a stay to be granted, and she saw one. 'There is at least one serious issue with respect to the Officer's assessment of the evidence the Applicant submitted in support of his deferral request, and the Officer's interpretation of the scope of their discretion,' Go wrote in her decision. She found the border officer did not properly consider the issue of irreparable harm. 'Irreparable harm refers to harm which cannot be compensated in money; it is the nature rather than the magnitude of the harm,' her judgment says. It doesn't have to be the person being deported that is harmed, it can be 'specific harm that is demonstrated in regard to any persons directly affected by the removal, and who will be remaining in Canada.' In this case, Go found that there was evidence of harm to Singh's wife, who has ADHD, and to Singh's sister, who will suffer financially because the couple pay to live in her house. The CBSA officer's dismissal of the concerns was not based on evidence before the court, Go said. 'In the case before me, there is evidence that L.B. suffers from ADHD which impairs her ability to manage time, stress, focus and everyday responsibilities and that the Applicant provides her with support by, among other things, helping her maintain daily structure and reminders for medications and appointments, and providing her with emotional stability and mental health support. The evidence before the Court also indicates L.B. cannot rely on other family members to support her. 'The evidence before the Court further indicates that the Applicant's sister has put her house on sale in light of the Decision denying the Applicant's request to defer his removal.' In court, the government argued the couple's spousal sponsorship application faces further investigation due to 'possible bona fide concerns,' suggesting CBSA wants to see whether their marriage is a sham for immigration purposes. Singh's lawyers responded that the couple has not been asked for any information in that probe, so the delay is the government's fault, not Singh's. 'In the end,' Go wrote, 'taking into consideration the irreparable harm to the Applicant's spouse on the one hand, and the inconvenience to the Respondent caused by delay in removal on the other, I find that granting the stay until the underlying (application for judicial review) is determined would be just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case.' Go said Singh could stay in Canada until that review happens. • Email: ahumphreys@ | X: AD_Humphreys Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our newsletters here .
