US President Donald Trump terminates trade talks with Canada
Washington DC [US], June 28 (ANI): US President Donald Trump announced on Friday (US local time) that the United States will be terminating all discussions on trade with Canada, effective immediately.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump called Canada a 'very difficult' country to trade with. He pointed out that the Digital Services Tax announced by the Canadian government is a blatant attack on America and its businesses.
'We have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult Country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400 per cent Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products, has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country. They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us,' US President said.
The Government of Canada has introduced the digital services tax (DST). The DST requires foreign and domestic large businesses to pay tax on certain revenue earned from engaging with online users in Canada if they meet certain conditions, as per a statement issued by the Canadian Revenue Agency.
Trump further said that Canada will be informed about the tariffs they will have to pay to do business with the US within the next seven days.
'Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven-day period. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' he wrote.
According to CNN, DST allows countries to collect revenue from large companies that operate online, even if their business is unprofitable.
Citing a report published by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, CNN noted that American firms, particularly big tech companies like Meta, Apple, Google, Amazon and Microsoft, are disproportionately affected by DSTs.
CNN reported that the US President had taken up the issue of DSTs in the trade negotiations with other countries and had referred to them as 'non-tariff trade barriers.' It further reported that Canada has a new DST, which is set to come into effect from Monday and would be retroactive to 2022.
As per the New York Times, Canada's 3 per cent digital services tax has been in place since last year, but the first payments are only due beginning on Monday. Since the tax is retroactive in nature, American companies were preparing to turn over roughly USD 2.7 billion to the Canadian government, the NYT noted, citing a trade group for large tech companies. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
21 minutes ago
- Vancouver Sun
'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe
There is a growing backlash after the RCMP announced this month it is investigating whether Canadian citizens involved with clashes in or around Israel were in contravention of this country's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Amid outcry from Jewish groups, the force said it wasn't a criminal probe, but to 'collect, preserve and assess information' for potential future prosecutions. Foreign governments, such as Belgium and Brazil, have also opened investigations into their own citizens who served with the Israel Defense Forces. 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. Lt.-Col. (ret.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, suggests these are politically motivated probes. He has been retained by IDF soldiers who have been questioned by foreign government representatives. Hirsch has previously served as senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices in New York, lawyer for the Israel Defense Forces, director of the legal department for Palestinian Media Watch, senior military consultant for NGO Monitor, and adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Dave Gordon interviewed Hirsch for the National Post. What do you think motivates foreign governments who seek these investigations? I can't tell you exactly as to what their motivation is, but I believe that it's somewhere in the realms of political expediency, and internal demographic politics. It requires these governments to almost change what they've been doing traditionally, even to the point of potentially abandoning allies. Their voter base has changed. And so now you have a situation where you need to almost pander, to cater, to a more fringe population. In May, U.K. government lawyers told the High Court that there was no evidence Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, and that evidence exists of Israel making efforts to limit harm to civilians. If the government doesn't believe that war crimes are being committed, then obviously they won't then take that forward, and actively engage in an investigation of something that they don't believe is happening. But if the government is so prejudiced, and predisposed, that war crimes are being committed, then obviously you launch an investigation. What evidence would a foreign investigation need, to theoretically try a soldier in court? Video footage, forensic analysis, operational logs — all impartially examined. What they have is so weak and poor, it's impossible to say it's 'evidence.' I think it's just so circumstantial and flimsy, even imagined. Organizations are gathering information from social media, when IDF soldiers put up videos of their activities in the Gaza Strip, and those videos are predominantly taken out of context and given a criminal shade. They'll destroy a civilian building, which is a war crime, but clearly not if it's a military target. For example, a place where weapons were stored, where terrorists were encamped, that had tunnels going underneath it. All of these possible scenarios. And so the video itself shows absolutely nothing. Governments are looking at reports and statements from people who have left Gaza, and can say anything they want. This whole effort, really, is a huge waste of time, resources and energy. It's entirely impotent, because without knowing exactly what the military goal was in any given circumstance, there's no way you can actually assess the actions of the soldier. There's a legal mechanism that already exists in Israel, to prosecute soldiers who have broken laws? Without question. There is an entire investigative process. Everyone knows they exist. And yet this almost sanctimonious drive, seems to be to ignore that reality, and pushes for these ad hoc courts to somehow take charge. In media interviews, you contend that there is no formal support from the Israeli government for IDF (soldiers), to defend them against foreign investigations. Is that still the case? That still appears to be the case. There are certain ministries that are involved in a risk assessment, and are there to help, I think, the higher ranking officers. But my experience till now has been that the lower ranking soldiers find it very, very difficult to get any support whatsoever from these ministries, and that I fear is very dangerous. Of these Israeli departments which you criticize, are they aware of the shortcomings you speak of? So the difficulty is, that they don't know even the extent of the exposure that the soldiers are facing, and wouldn't know necessarily to be able to provide assistance to everyone in need. You're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of people. This is just a question of personnel and manpower. It's overwhelming right now, especially where we're busy fighting a war. On a government-to-government level, how is this issue being dealt with? There are discussions on all different types of levels, and without again getting into too much detail, I think in many cases, a lot of the work is being done diplomatically. The opening of an investigation is dependent on a government decision, rather than anyone presenting to a court with alleged evidence. That's already a very big step forward than what used to be the case in England, where any organization could claim that X had committed war crimes, submit any type of evidence they had to a local magistrate, and that magistrate could then issue an arrest warrant. With predominantly friendly governments, the hope is that they can be diplomatically persuaded, or dissuaded, from going down a certain path. Which steps should the Israeli government take to address these investigations? I think it needs to be a conglomerate of different actors, because the problem requires different solutions and different involvement. I would suggest a joint task force of the Justice Ministry, the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, each one contributing in their own unique way to providing the best support possible. And sometimes the support needed is relatively simple, just to say that that X person was not in active duty in any type of a position, that could be considered relevant, when the alleged war crimes happen. This interview has been edited for brevity. (National Post contacted the IDF spokesperson's unit and the spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and received no response.) 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 .
Edmonton Journal
22 minutes ago
- Edmonton Journal
'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe
Article content There is a growing backlash after the RCMP announced this month it is investigating whether Canadian citizens involved with clashes in or around Israel were in contravention of this country's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Amid outcry from Jewish groups, the force said it wasn't a criminal probe, but to 'collect, preserve and assess information' for potential future prosecutions. Article content Foreign governments, such as Belgium and Brazil, have also opened investigations into their own citizens who served with the Israel Defense Forces. Lt.-Col. (ret.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, suggests these are politically motivated probes. He has been retained by IDF soldiers who have been questioned by foreign government representatives. Hirsch has previously served as senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices in New York, lawyer for the Israel Defense Forces, director of the legal department for Palestinian Media Watch, senior military consultant for NGO Monitor, and adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Dave Gordon interviewed Hirsch for the National Post. Article content I can't tell you exactly as to what their motivation is, but I believe that it's somewhere in the realms of political expediency, and internal demographic politics. It requires these governments to almost change what they've been doing traditionally, even to the point of potentially abandoning allies. Their voter base has changed. And so now you have a situation where you need to almost pander, to cater, to a more fringe population. In May, U.K. government lawyers told the High Court that there was no evidence Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, and that evidence exists of Israel making efforts to limit harm to civilians. If the government doesn't believe that war crimes are being committed, then obviously they won't then take that forward, and actively engage in an investigation of something that they don't believe is happening. Article content But if the government is so prejudiced, and predisposed, that war crimes are being committed, then obviously you launch an investigation. What evidence would a foreign investigation need, to theoretically try a soldier in court? Video footage, forensic analysis, operational logs — all impartially examined. What they have is so weak and poor, it's impossible to say it's 'evidence.' I think it's just so circumstantial and flimsy, even imagined. Organizations are gathering information from social media, when IDF soldiers put up videos of their activities in the Gaza Strip, and those videos are predominantly taken out of context and given a criminal shade. They'll destroy a civilian building, which is a war crime, but clearly not if it's a military target. For example, a place where weapons were stored, where terrorists were encamped, that had tunnels going underneath it. All of these possible scenarios. Article content And so the video itself shows absolutely nothing. Governments are looking at reports and statements from people who have left Gaza, and can say anything they want. This whole effort, really, is a huge waste of time, resources and energy. It's entirely impotent, because without knowing exactly what the military goal was in any given circumstance, there's no way you can actually assess the actions of the soldier. There's a legal mechanism that already exists in Israel, to prosecute soldiers who have broken laws? Without question. There is an entire investigative process. Everyone knows they exist. And yet this almost sanctimonious drive, seems to be to ignore that reality, and pushes for these ad hoc courts to somehow take charge. In media interviews, you contend that there is no formal support from the Israeli government for IDF (soldiers), to defend them against foreign investigations. Is that still the case? Article content That still appears to be the case. There are certain ministries that are involved in a risk assessment, and are there to help, I think, the higher ranking officers. But my experience till now has been that the lower ranking soldiers find it very, very difficult to get any support whatsoever from these ministries, and that I fear is very dangerous. Of these Israeli departments which you criticize, are they aware of the shortcomings you speak of? So the difficulty is, that they don't know even the extent of the exposure that the soldiers are facing, and wouldn't know necessarily to be able to provide assistance to everyone in need. You're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of people. This is just a question of personnel and manpower. It's overwhelming right now, especially where we're busy fighting a war. On a government-to-government level, how is this issue being dealt with? Article content There are discussions on all different types of levels, and without again getting into too much detail, I think in many cases, a lot of the work is being done diplomatically. The opening of an investigation is dependent on a government decision, rather than anyone presenting to a court with alleged evidence. That's already a very big step forward than what used to be the case in England, where any organization could claim that X had committed war crimes, submit any type of evidence they had to a local magistrate, and that magistrate could then issue an arrest warrant. With predominantly friendly governments, the hope is that they can be diplomatically persuaded, or dissuaded, from going down a certain path. Which steps should the Israeli government take to address these investigations? I think it needs to be a conglomerate of different actors, because the problem requires different solutions and different involvement. Latest National Stories
Calgary Herald
24 minutes ago
- Calgary Herald
Varcoe: Parkland's ‘incredible journey' from single gas station to $12.6B takeover
After welcoming investors and staff to the final annual meeting of Parkland Corp. this week, CEO Bob Espey reflected briefly on the company's Alberta roots, shortly after investors approved a takeover offer from a Texas-based energy giant. Article content On Tuesday, more than 93 per cent of shareholders of the Calgary-based company endorsed the $12.6-billion bid from U.S.-based Sunoco LP, an offer initially unveiled in May. Article content Article content Article content Once final regulatory approvals are in hand, the takeover will mark the end of an 'incredible journey' — in Espey's words — of a five-decade-plus run by the Canadian-operated business. Article content Article content A half-century of growth saw Parkland evolve from a small beef company based in Red Deer to a massive fuel distributor, marketer, and convenience retailer with assets in Canada, the United States and more than 20 countries. Article content Today, Parkland owns a chain of gas stations operating under the banners of Esso, Ultramar, Pioneer, Chevron, and Fas Gas Plus, and its On the Run convenience stores. Article content It has more than 4,000 retail gas and store locations and 5,500 employees, including 2,800 in Canada. More than 700 work in Calgary, where its head office is located in the downtown. Article content 'Our story began over 50 years ago when Jack and Joan Donald purchased a large position in the newly public company, Parkland Beef Industries, a cattle feedlot. Jack's entrepreneurial spirit was evident from the start when he diversified into fuel distribution,' Espey told the audience. Article content Article content 'He saw the potential of capital markets to fund growth through acquisition, a vision that still inspires us today.' Article content That vision spurred remarkable expansion, from a small junior stock listed on the Alberta Stock Exchange to Parkland becoming an income trust in 2002, converting back into a corporation several years later, and scaling up into a multibillion-dollar company on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Article content However, the acquisition strategy also helped sow the seeds of investor discontent in recent years, the prospect of a proxy battle and Parkland's eventual sale. Article content 'In my mind, it's a bit of a shame that this is no longer going to be a Canadian company because I thought it still had tremendous potential growth into the future,' former Parkland chair Jim Pantelidis, who served on the board from 1999 until mid-2023, said in an interview.
