logo
Canada's Elections Will Be The First Verdict On Trump's Tariffs

Canada's Elections Will Be The First Verdict On Trump's Tariffs

Forbes23-04-2025

EDMONTON, CANADA - JANUARY 30: A person prepares to fill up a fuel tank at a pay-at-the-pump ... More gasoline station in Edmonton, on January 30, 2025, in Edmonton, AB, Canada. U.S. President Donald Trump announced today that he would proceed with his plan to impose a 25% tariff on imports from Canada, a decision that could significantly disrupt Canada's economy, given the close economic ties between the two nations, with daily exports to the U.S. totaling $1.9 billion in goods and services. (Photo by Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Canada will elect a national leader on April 28, 2025, an election heavily influenced by Donald Trump's decision to impose a 25% tariff on all Canadian imports and his remarks about making it the 51st state. Now, Canada is examining the relationship.
Trump will ostensibly implement his tariffs on Canada to curb illegal immigration and the flow of fentanyl into this country, although the numbers on both counts are nominal. While the neo-colonial comments have enraged our northern neighbors, the tariffs threaten the livelihoods of both Americans and Canadians and, specifically, those tied to the energy sector.
The election's outcome will have profound implications for both countries. If the current prime minister, Mark Carney, wins, he has promised severe economic retaliations—effectively restructuring their domestic economy and international trade partnerships to minimize American ties. Conversely, if the conservative candidate Pierre Poilievre wins, we can expect a more conciliatory approach.
'Economists almost universally support free trade,' which means 'no tariffs, quotas, or any other restrictions on the domestic or international flow of goods and services," says Kevin Brancato, an economist and senior vice president for TechnoMile, which serves industry and provides cloud platforms. He adds that the tariffs may be a negotiating tactic, not a substitute for the roughly $2.14 trillion collected from income taxes.
His comments came during a virtual press event held by the United States Energy Association, where I participated as a panelist.
The tariffs would adversely affect both Canada and the United States. According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, a 25% tariff could reduce Canada's gross domestic product by 2.6% and cost Canadians $2,000 annually. Inflation could rise to 7.2%, and unemployment rates might reach 7.9%.
The same measures will hurt this country, too, including price hikes, lost jobs, and potentially higher interest rates to dampen inflation—now expected to rise by at least 0.8% and 2.2% over time. Meanwhile, investors are now demanding higher interest rates on Treasury notes, which have long been viewed as safe investments but are now considered risky. All of this could lead to a recession later this year.
Mark Carney, Canada's prime minister, speaks during a news conference in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on ... More Thursday, March 27, 2025. Carney says Canada will fight back against President Donald Trump's trade war and his tariffs on the auto sector, but he did not outline any new retaliatory measures against the US on Thursday. Photographer: David Kawai/Bloomberg
Trump wants to deal with this mess by pressuring the U.S. Federal Reserve—the central bank—to lower interest rates. He's previously questioned whether Chairman Jerome Powell or Chinese Premier Xi is the 'bigger enemy' of the United States, and now says he has the right to fire to Powell. However, tariffs mean higher prices, so the central bank would be hard-pressed to lower interest rates.
Rather than blaming the fed chair for our economic issues, Trump should consider canceling the tariffs. That would require the president to swallow his pride; he can't ever admit defeat because it is not befitting of his brand. However, The Atlantic points out, Trump loses either way. If he appoints a crony to run the Federal Reserve, investors will flock to the Euro, raising borrowing costs and creating financial chaos in this country.
"The only thing worse than tariffs is uncertainty. Canada's mood is clear: This is a different era," and we can't trust the American government, says Marcum Hislop, CEO of Energi Media, Canada, during the virtual press event. "There's a sense that this is a rupture. Our products have natural markets in Asia and Europe.'
Manitoba's Premier Wab Kinew recently announced the utility, Manitoba Hydro, will not renew two contracts with Minnesota for the export of 500 megawatts of electricity. This decision is part of a larger strategy to decrease Canada's reliance on the United States and to enhance its energy infrastructure.
Furthermore, Canadian leaders are emphasizing the need to build an east-west energy transition system—not one that goes north-south, which is into the United States. Prime Minister Carney has said that the traditional relationship between the United States and Canada is "over," noting that the east-west integration of his nation's grid is vital and will allow hydroelectricity, wind, and solar power to flow more easily across Canada.
The tariff regime leaves this country worse off. Beyond those levies, Trump threatens to cut funding for clean-tech research—a move that will hinder American leadership, slow domestic innovation, and reduce export potential. Moreover, Europe and China will step in and fill the void. Major clean-tech producers in Europe, such as Siemens, Gamesa, Northvolt, and Vestas, are scaling up and preparing to meet global demand.
Welder making boilers for a ship, Combustion Engineering Co., Chattanooga, Tenn. Artist Alfred T ... More Palmer. (Photo by Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images)
Economies evolve, and we're currently in a green revolution, with digital technologies facilitating this transition. The old factory jobs are gone. The 21st-century economy is here—and it's not going away, creating jobs in renewable energy, data centers, and artificial intelligence. Fanning the flames of resentment is shortsighted, as is trying to dodge change.
"We're not talking about enough about this question—where we're losing the economic innovation we have had in clean-tech for the last 10 years. If that happens, it will shift to Europe," says Jason Rodriguez, CEO and Co-Founder of Zpryme and Froliq.
'And, the pain in Europe is way higher than in the U.S. to come up with new solutions because of their dependency on Russian natural gas—even the potential dependency on U.S. LNG,' adds Jan Vrins, partner Partner, Clarum Advisors.
The threat of tariffs has already done significant damage to the U.S. economy: The S&P 500 has lost more than 12% in value since Trump first introduced them, while the Dow Jones has fallen by 10%, and the Nasdaq has declined by 19%. That equates to nearly $6 trillion in lost market value. A Bank of America survey of fund managers shows record pessimism toward U.S. assets at 30-year lows.
This begs the question of whether trade surpluses and deficits are a matter of national security or whether Trump should be able to unilaterally enact tariffs because we buy more from other countries than they buy from us. Most economists, not to mention our allies, call this a smokescreen for protectionism.
Economists also say a trade deficit is not inherently harmful and certainly not a threat to national security. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and, thus, has more money to buy things. It also suggests a strong dollar and more purchasing power. In any case, it generates prosperity wherever the money is spent—dollars that return to the United States when they purchase our goods. However, the language of the statutes is vague, which compels the courts to defer to the executive branch. As a result, Trump can bypass Congress.
But the president can't ignore the reality—that his policies are creating pain both at home and worldwide. Canada's national election is a test case, and the outcome will speak volumes.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Inflation expected to have ticked higher in May amid Trump tariffs

time32 minutes ago

Inflation expected to have ticked higher in May amid Trump tariffs

A fresh inflation report to be released on Wednesday will provide the latest test for President Donald Trump's tariffs as some retailers and economists warn the policy will raise prices. So far, the economy has defied fears of price hikes, instead giving way to a cooldown of inflation over the months since Trump took office. Economists expect inflation to have jumped slightly in May, registering year-over-year price increases of 2.4%. That would mark an increase from an inflation rate of 2.3% over the year ending in April, which amounted to the lowest inflation level since 2021. The small increase in inflation anticipated by economists would keep price levels near the Federal Reserve's target rate of 2%, putting them well below a recent peak of 9% in 2022. In recent weeks, Trump has dialed back some of his steepest tariffs, easing the costs imposed upon importers. Such companies typically pass along a share of the higher tax burden in the form of price hikes. A trade agreement between the U.S. and China in May slashed tit-for-tat tariffs between the world's two largest economies and triggered a surge in the stock market. Within days, Wall Street firms softened their forecasts of a downturn. The U.S.-China accord came weeks after the White House paused a large swath of Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs targeting dozens of countries. Trump also eased sector-specific tariffs targeting autos and rolled back duties on some goods from Mexico and Canada. Still, an across-the-board 10% tariff applies to nearly all imports, except for semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and some other items. Those tariffs stand in legal limbo, however, after a pair of federal court rulings late last month. Tariffs remain in place for steel, aluminum and autos, as well as some goods from Canada and Mexico. Warning signs point to the possibility of elevated prices over the coming months. Nationwide retailers like Walmart and Best Buy have voiced alarm about the possibility they may raise prices as a result of the levies. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, said this month it expects U.S. inflation to reach 4% by the end of 2025, which would mark a sharp increase from current levels. Federal Chair Jerome Powell, in recent months, has warned about the possibility that tariffs may cause what economists call "stagflation," which is when inflation rises and the economy slows. Stagflation could put the central bank in a difficult position. If the Fed were to raise interest rates, it could help ease inflation, but it may risk an economic downturn. If the Fed were to cut rates in an effort to spur economic growth, the move could unleash faster price increases. For now, the Fed appears willing to take a wait-and-see approach. At its last meeting, in May, the Fed opted to hold interest rates steady for the second consecutive time. "For now, it does seem like a fairly clear decision for us to wait and see," Powell said at a press conference in Washington, D.C., last month. The Fed will announce its next rate decision on June 18. Investors peg the chances of a decision to leave rates unchanged at 99.9%, according to the CME FedWatch Tool, a measure of market sentiment.

Appeals court to take up Trump's challenge to his criminal hush money conviction

time32 minutes ago

Appeals court to take up Trump's challenge to his criminal hush money conviction

Just over a year after Donald Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, an appeals court is set to hear the president's bid to move his case to federal court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has scheduled oral arguments Wednesday to consider whether to move the president's criminal hush money case from state to federal court. Trump was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts after Manhattan prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a "scheme" to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct. Trump's lawyers have argued that the conduct at issue during his criminal trial included "official acts" undertaken while he was president, giving the president broad immunity for his actions and the right to remove the case to federal court. They say that the Supreme Court's landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts -- which was decided after Trump was convicted in May -- would have prevented prosecutors from securing their conviction. "The fact that it was not until after the conclusion of his state criminal trial that the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision defining the contours of presidential immunity -- including a broad evidentiary immunity prohibiting prosecutors from inviting a jury to probe a President's official acts, as President Trump's removal notice alleges occurred here -- supplies good cause for post-trial removal," Department of Justice lawyers argued in an amicus brief filed with the court. Trump decried the prosecution as politically motivated and successfully delayed his sentencing multiple times before New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump's inauguration, sentenced the former president to an unconditional discharge -- the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law -- saying it was the "only lawful sentence" to prevent "encroaching upon the highest office in the land." "I did my job, and we did our job," Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case, said following Trump's conviction. "There are many voices out there, but the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury, and the jury has spoken." Bragg has pushed back on Trump's attempt to remove the case from state court, arguing that a case cannot be moved to federal court after sentencing. "These arguments ignore statutory indicia that Congress intended for removal of criminal cases to happen before sentencing by anticipating that essential federal proceedings will take place prior to a final criminal judgment," prosecutors have argued. Trump's appeal will be heard by a panel of three federal judges, each of whom was nominated to the bench by Democratic presidents. With Trump's former defense attorneys now serving top roles at the Department of Justice, the president will now be represented by former Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall of the elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. In an usual step, lawyers with the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Trump's request. "The United States has a strong and direct interest in the issues presented in this appeal," they argued. If the appeals court grants Trump's request, his conviction would still remain. The only change is that his appeal will play out in a federal, rather than state, courtroom. In either scenario, Trump could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Moving the case into federal court could also open up the possibility that Trump could potentially pardon himself.

DoorDash Hit With Major Lawsuit Over 'Deceptive' Pricing
DoorDash Hit With Major Lawsuit Over 'Deceptive' Pricing

Newsweek

time37 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

DoorDash Hit With Major Lawsuit Over 'Deceptive' Pricing

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. DoorDash, America's premier food delivery platform, has been sued by Canada's competition authority for "allegedly advertising misleading prices and discounts." Newsweek reached out to DoorDash via email outside of regular hours for comment. Why It Matters This marks the second major lawsuit to face DoorDash this year, following a $17-million settlement over the misuse of driver tips in February. As well as potentially forcing the delivery firm to significantly alter its pricing practices, the latest action could force the company to pay a significantly higher penalty, as well as restitution to affected customers. What To Know On Monday, the Canadian Competition Bureau announced it would be taking legal action against the San Francisco-based company, as well as its Canadian subsidiary DoorDash Technologies Canada. The antitrust watchdog said that the company had consistently promoted its services at lower prices than customers were eventually forced to pay, in violation of the Canadian Competition Act, while also misrepresenting certain fees as taxes rather than discretionary charges. The lawsuit stems from DoorDash allegedly advertising food and other items at prices far lower than those customers eventually paid, and engaging in what the bureau refers to as "drip pricing": a sales tactic in which customers are shown an initial lower price, with additional fees added later in the purchasing process. These included delivery costs, as well as obligatory "regulatory response" and "expanded range" fees. "A bureau investigation found that consumers were unable to purchase food and other items at the advertised price on DoorDash's websites and mobile applications due to the addition of mandatory fees at checkout," the announcement read, describing the practice as "deceptive," as "consumers are not presented with an attainable price up front." The Bureau alleged that DoorDash has been engaged in this alleged conduct for "close to a decade," and has acquired nearly $1 billion in customer fees from doing so. Stock image of the DoorDash logo on a smartphone screen. Stock image of the DoorDash logo on a smartphone screen. Photo illustration byIn addition, the investigation found that the company had combined service fees and taxes into a single item on a user's bill, which it said was "false or misleading as it requires an extra click for the consumer to actually see that the 'fees and estimated taxes' are two separate charges, only one of which is imposed by the government on the purchaser and not the other." In its application with the Canadian Competition Tribunal, the bureau requested that DoorDash and its subsidiary stop engaging in the practices, pay a monetary penalty "as the tribunal deems appropriate," and to pay restitution to affected customers. The latter amount, it said, could reach "the total amounts paid to DoorDash for the products in respect of which the reviewable conduct was engaged in." What People Are Saying Canada's competition commissioner Matthew Boswell said: "Parliament has made it clear that businesses must not engage in drip pricing by advertising unattainable prices and then adding mandatory fees. The Competition Bureau has been fighting against this misleading practice for years. "Our litigation against DoorDash is another example of our efforts to ensure consumers are not misled and can trust the prices they see online. We urge all businesses to review their pricing practices and make sure they comply with the law." DoorDash denied hiding fees from or misleading customers, saying it believes the lawsuit "is an overly punitive attempt to make an example of an industry leader in local commerce," in a statement quoted by Reuters. What Happens Next? According to the application, DoorDash has 45 days to issue a response to the Competition Tribunal.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store