B.C. Premier David Eby announces cabinet shuffle
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Canada still working toward Aug. 1 trade deal deadline, LeBlanc says, as U.S. senator casts doubt
President of the King's Privy Council for Canada Dominic LeBlanc speaks at a press conference while Prime Minister Mark Carney listens, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Thursday, June 19, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Patrick Doyle WASHINGTON — Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc said Thursday he's feeling "encouraged" after meeting with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and American lawmakers in Washington, D.C., ahead of next week's tariff deadline. LeBlanc, however, indicated a new economic and security arrangement may not materialize by U.S. President Donald Trump's latest deadline. "Canadians expect us to take the time necessary to get the best deal we can in the interest of Canadian workers," LeBlanc said outside the Dirksen Senate Office Building. "So we are only going to be in a position to accept a deal when the prime minister decides that it is the best deal we can get in the interest of Canadian workers and the Canadian economy." U.S. President Donald Trump has sent letters to multiple nations, including Canada, saying that if no deal is made by Aug. 1, he will impose high tariffs on imports to the United States. Trump's letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney threatened Canada with 35 per cent tariffs but the White House has said the levies will not be applied to imports compliant with the Canada-U.S-Mexico Agreement on trade. Canada is also being hit with Trump's tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles, and will be impacted by copper duties that are also expected to kick in on Aug. 1. Only a handful of frameworks of trade deals have been announced since Trump first threatened his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs in April. The president this week said his administration made deals with Japan and the Philippines, adding to previous agreements with Indonesia, Vietnam and the United Kingdom. Many details within the agreements remain vague but all include some level of a tariff, and it's unclear whether the deals would shield countries from Trump's plan to implement further sectoral duties on things like semiconductors and lumber. LeBlanc said "complex negotiations" are continuing between Canada and the United States and he will be returning to Washington next week. LeBlanc described his meeting with Lutnick as productive and cordial. The minister, who was joined by Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman, also had meetings with Republican senators Kevin Cramer, Roger Marshall, Shelley Moore Capito, Todd Young and Tim Scott. LeBlanc said they discussed border security and defence issues and the American lawmakers shared a "desire to see more stability and predictability in the relationship with the United States." "My conversations have focused on how we share so many priorities of President Trump's administration that we should be able to figure out together a deal that's in the best interest of Canadian workers, and obviously they are going to do their side of the table in terms of the American economy and American workers," LeBlanc said. Federal officials have remained tightlipped about what Trump's team has said it wants from Canada. After this week's trade deals were announced, Trump boasted on social media, saying he will only consider lowering tariff rates if countries open their markets to the United States. The president also said Japan would invest $550 billion in the U.S. 'at my direction." When Trump first browbeat Canada over tariffs, saying it was linked to the flow of deadly fentanyl, Ottawa responded with a boosted border plan and named a "Fentanyl Czar." Last month, Ottawa walked back its digital services tax after Trump threatened to halt all trade talks. Carney last week announced measures to stop Chinese steel dumping in Canada. Hillman said those efforts help Canada in its ongoing negotiations. "In our discussion with the American senators this week, the American administration, the measures that Canada has taken on steel in particular... are some of the strongest in the world," she said. "And that has been recognized and very much appreciated. So we are making some positive progress." Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski joined a bipartisan group of American lawmakers in Ottawa last week. The Republican said on Thursday that "we would all like to get to a better place with our trade relationship with Canada" but remained skeptical it would happen ahead of Aug. 1. Canada cannot be treated "as yet one more country that we need to reconcile tariffs on" because of shared economic and national security issues, she said. "I wish that I could say, 'It feels good,' that this is all going to be taken care of before the first of August, but I'm not sensing that," she said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 24, 2025. Kelly Geraldine Malone, The Canadian Press
Toronto Sun
an hour ago
- Toronto Sun
DE LUCA-BARATTA: Canada's other supply management problem
Dairy cows being checked out by a farmer and vet during feeding. Photo by Getty Images While Canada-U.S. trade negotiations reignite debates over supply management for dairy and poultry, Canadians overlook a far costlier system — the unofficial supply management of housing through restrictive land-use regulations . This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Most Canadians support weakening or abolishing the current agricultural supply management program , a long overdue realization. Under this program, a national marketing agency sets provincial production quotas for eggs, poultry, and dairy. Farmers then receive permission to produce and sell a set amount of each good at a guaranteed minimum price. A University of Manitoba study found that families pay over $900 million more per year for supply-managed goods than they would in a free market. But the effects of Canada's second, unofficial supply management system are much worse. Through a web of urban planning rules , municipalities prevent housing construction from keeping up with growing demand, causing home prices and rents to balloon. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The two systems differ in their details, but not in their effects, because the underlying economics are the same. When the government artificially constrains supply, consumers foot the bill through higher prices. Under supply management, the federal government directly sets production ceilings to stabilize prices and guarantee farmers' incomes. This system protects farmers at the expense of consumers, who pay more for groceries than they otherwise would. Under land-use regulations, local governments limit building heights, set aesthetic standards, ban certain types of construction in designated areas, and impose other rules, such as parking requirements and minimum lot sizes. These rules have various goals, from environmental protection to the preservation of historic neighbourhoods. However, by making housing harder and more costly to build, they also constrain supply and radically inflate prices. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Individually, these rules may seem reasonable, but cumulatively, they stifle development by outright banning projects or layering costs that render new housing unprofitable. The result is a shortage of housing, most of which becomes too costly for the average homebuyer or renter. When more people bid for goods, the price of those goods rises. In a free market , producers respond by producing more of them, lured by the prospect of higher profits. Over time, as more producers enter the market and existing firms compete with one another to attract buyers, prices decrease to attract new customers. Firms that overcharge lose revenue, since customers can simply move to a seller offering a better deal. In Canada, construction of new housing has not kept up with demand for decades, because developers cannot respond to higher prices by simply building more units. When they do manage to build, the process is usually extremely costly. Those costs are ultimately passed on to homebuyers and renters. Excessive land-use regulations thus make luxury-tier housing the only kind of housing worth building. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. A study by the C.D. Howe Institute found that in eight urban areas — Vancouver, Abbotsford, Victoria, Kelowna, Calgary, Toronto, and Ottawa-Gatineau — homebuyers paid an extra average of $230,000 for a new house due to land-use regulations that prevent new construction. In Vancouver — where the average home costs $2 million — regulatory costs account for nearly half the price. In Toronto ($1.2 million average), it's 20%. This system is especially unfair to young people, who often find themselves priced out of the housing market altogether. To understand just how unaffordable housing in Canada has become, consider a family earning $183,000 per year, nearly $100,000 above the median Canadian household income. That family would have to set aside 10% of its income for 15 to 25 years (depending on the income split between the spouses) to afford a down payment on a house in Toronto. The average young family simply does not stand a chance. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Those who blame greed instead of overregulation for Canada's housing crisis should look at cities with few land-use regulations, like Houston, Texas . For the most part, builders are free to build in response to demand. The median home price in Houston is about $350,000. Houston's developers are no less 'greedy' than Toronto's; they're simply constrained by competition in a freer market. A relatively free housing market incentivizes them to compete for customers through lower prices and an almost non-existent regulatory burden allows those prices to remain quite low indeed. The same can be true in Canadian cities if governments get out of the way. It's about time for Canadians — young Canadians in particular — to start demanding that local officials get rid of regulations that price them out of the housing market. Federal and provincial governments must penalize those who cling to obstructionist rules. Canadians are tired of overpaying for a carton of milk — and rightfully so. It is time we lost patience with paying too much for housing, too. Anthony De Luca-Baratta is a contributor to the Center for North American Prosperity and Security, a project of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute Sports World Ontario Canada Toronto & GTA
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
Opinion: B.C.'s North Coast tanker ban is a line we should never cross
The people of B.C. live in a place where the ocean feeds us, where coastal jobs sustain entire communities, and where the laws we fought for reflect the values we share. The oil tanker moratorium on B.C.'s North Coast — which prohibits oil tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude from stopping, loading or unloading at ports or marine installations — isn't just a policy, it's a promise. A promise to protect what we love, to honour Indigenous leadership, and to choose a thriving future over reckless risk. This week, alarm bells are ringing in B.C. as Prime Minister Mark Carney spent the first half of the week meeting privately with provincial premiers. The fear is that these talks will pave the way for a new oil pipeline and with it, the repeal of the hard-won moratorium that keeps oil tankers out of some of the most treacherous waters in the world. A daily roundup of Opinion pieces from the Sun and beyond. 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 Informed Opinion will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has said a new project could be announced 'any day now.' Ontario Premier Doug Ford has called the tanker ban the craziest idea he's ever heard. But here's the thing: When politicians in other provinces talk about our coast, they forget something important. It's not theirs to give away. Premier David Eby might be outnumbered at the table — but he's not alone. He speaks for the people of B.C., and we've already made ourselves clear: no oil tankers here, not ever. The movement that made the tanker ban law didn't disappear after the ink dried. We're still here. And we're still ready to defend the North Coast. The coast hasn't changed. Hecate Strait remains one of the most dangerous waterways on Earth, where waves reach 20 meters high. An oil spill there wouldn't just poison marine life — it would shatter economies, wipe out jobs, and destroy a way of life. We don't need to imagine the cost. We've seen it play out in other places, like when the oil tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling 11 million gallons of oil. We refuse to let that happen here. The Great Bear Sea — ten million hectares of thriving cold-water ecosystems — is not a sacrifice zone. It's a lifeline. It sustains all five species of Pacific salmon, provides food security for the region, and supports thousands of jobs. It is sacred to the many First Nations who've stewarded this coast since time immemorial. That doesn't change because a couple of premiers want to score political points. Let's be honest: fossil fuel executives want to make a buck at our expense. But British Columbians know better. We chose a different path when we pressured Ottawa to pass the North Coast Tanker Ban in 2019 — a future powered by clean energy, not oil spills. And that future is arriving fast. Renewable power is now the cheapest energy source on Earth. It creates jobs, lowers bills, and gives us control over our economic destiny. Why would we throw that away? We only get one shot at building what comes next. If we squander our skilled workers and public investment on another oil pipeline, we don't just risk the coast — we risk the best opportunity we've had in a generation to be leaders when it comes to clean energy and building real economic security. Our ability to withstand President Donald Trump's economic shocks depends on developing new industries like solar, wind, and a cross-country grid so that we can, as Carney so often likes to say, 'stand on our own two feet.' We must not trade a prosperous future with clean, cheap energy and a healthy coastal economy for pollution and profit for oil company shareholders. This is the moment to say it plainly: We won't trade our coast, our jobs, or our children's future for more profits for oil companies. Not now. Not ever. We drew the line for a reason. Let's hold it — and build what comes next. Shelley Luce is the associate director and campaigns director at Sierra Club B.C. She is based in North Vancouver.
