PM Carney expects trade talks ‘will intensify' ahead of cabinet meeting
CTV's Colton Praill on what to expect from Prime Minister Carney's cabinet meeting on the U.S. tariff threats.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Forward
an hour ago
- Japan Forward
Do Not Open Japan-US Trade Deal to Distorted Interpretation
このページを 日本語 で読む A trade deal was concluded by the Shigeru Ishiba administration and the Donald Trump administration. But, were the provisions of the agreement actually finalized? It is difficult to dispel doubts on that score. There are stark differences in how the Japanese and US sides explain provisions on new investment in the United States. This is a cause for concern in the actual implementation of the agreement. One of the main pillars of the Japan-US agreement sets reciprocal tariffs and auto tariffs the US imposes on Japanese imports at 15%. However, no written agreement has been drawn up. Isn't that the cause of the differences in perception between the two sides? Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba should have spoken directly with President Trump immediately after the agreement was reached to share his views. His failure to do so has created a major problem. If things continue as they are, it is possible that the US side will try to force its own interpretation on Japan. If that were to happen, Japan's national interest might well suffer damage. The Prime Minister and Minister for Economic Revitalization Ryosei Akazawa should clarify the reasons for these differing perceptions during the extraordinary Diet session that convened on August 1. They have a duty to explain to the satisfaction of the Japanese people that the agreement will be appropriately implemented. US President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on July 31 (©Reuters via Kyodo) Regarding Japanese investment in the United States, Trump posted on social media that Japan will invest $550 billion USD (approximately ¥80 trillion JPY) in the United States. Furthermore, he said, the US will receive 90% of the profits. In response, the Japan side has explained that the $550 billion in question is actually the upper limit for investments, loans, and loan guarantees. Of this, the "90%" of the profits the US would stand to make from the deal are from investment projects. That amounts to just 1% to 2% of the $550 billion, according to Akazawa. As for the issue of rice, the US side claims that Japan's imports of American rice will increase by 75%. However, Japan has not provided any specific details. Won't this really amount to sacrificing Japan's agricultural sector? US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also declared that he intends to review Japan's compliance with the agreement quarterly. He has further threatened that tariffs will be raised to 25% if Trump is not satisfied. That would provide leeway for Trump to unilaterally scrap the agreement. The lack of a joint document sharing a mutual understanding of what the agreement entails has left a legacy of problems. The Japanese side prioritized an early conclusion to the talks. That allowed the delay of the time-consuming task of hammering out a written agreement. Their excuse was to avoid a situation where an agreement could not be reached by the Trump-imposed deadline of August 1. On that date, Trump's reciprocal tariffs on Japan were scheduled to rise to 25%. Even if that is true, it will end up counterproductive if the agreement comes to be distorted by the US interpretation. Above all, the Ishiba government should urge the Trump administration to quickly align their respective views. We should realize that, unless both sides share a mutual understanding, economic uncertainty from Trump's tariffs will not dissipate. Author: Editorial Board, The Sankei Shimbun このページを 日本語 で読む
The Province
an hour ago
- The Province
The two ways Trump's tariffs on Canada could collapse — despite his fight to keep them
The courts are considering whether they're even legal under U.S. law, and the American economy has yet to feel the pain of higher prices Dubbing it "Liberation Day," U.S. President Donald Trump announces his plan to enact sweeping new reciprocal tariffs worldwide, on April 2, 2025. Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images/File WASHINGTON, D.C. — Time's up. On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump raised the tariff rate on Canadian goods not covered under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) from 25 to 35 per cent, saying they 'have to pay a fair rate.' The White House claims it's because of Canada's failure to curb the 'ongoing flood of fentanyl and other illicit drugs.' U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, however, show that fentanyl seizures from Canada make up less than 0.1 per cent of total U.S. seizures of the drug; most smuggling comes across the Mexican border. 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. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. 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 But the future of Trump's policy also rests on shaky ground, and the tariffs could come crashing down even if Canada can't reach a deal at some point. Imposed through a controversially declared 'national emergency' under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the tariffs come with essentially three paths for relief to Canadian exporters and their American customers: the courts and the economy. And there's always the wildcard: that the president changes his mind. Without relying on that, National Post looks at two very possible ways out of all this: The courts: There is a big question hanging over whether Trump's tariffs are even legal under the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress powers over trade. Trump has bypassed that by claiming he's using presidential IEEPA emergency powers. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. On Thursday, the Washington, D.C.-based Federal Circuit Court of Appeals convened an en banc hearing for oral arguments in challenges to Trump's use of IEEPA. The 11 judges questioned whether the law meant for sanctioning adversaries or freezing assets during emergencies grants Trump the power to impose tariffs, with one judge noting, 'IEEPA doesn't even mention the word 'tariffs.'' The White House, meanwhile, says the law grants the president 'broad and flexible' emergency powers, including the ability to regulate imports. 'Based on the tenor and questions of the arguments, it appears that the challengers have the better odds of prevailing,' Thomas Berry, the CATO Institute's director of the Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, said in a statement. 'Several judges peppered the government's attorney with skeptical questions about why a broad term in IEEPA like 'regulate importation' should be read to allow the president to unilaterally impose tariffs.' Essential reading for hockey fans who eat, sleep, Canucks, repeat. 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. Trump's lawyers claim his executive order provides the justifications for the tariffs — in Canada's case, fentanyl. But Berry said 'those justifications would not matter if IEEPA simply does not authorize tariffs in the first place. That is the cleanest and simplest way to resolve this case, and it appears that the Federal Circuit may be leaning toward that result.' A decision is expected this month, and if it's a resounding push back from the judges' panel, said Andrew Hale, a senior policy analyst at Heritage Foundation, the Supreme Court may not even take up the case. If so, he says, 'these Liberation Day tariffs and everything that's been imposed under emergency legislation, IEEPA, that all evaporates.' At that point, the White House would not be able to declare across-the-board tariffs against countries. Instead, it would have to rely on laws allowing tariffs to be imposed on specific products that are found to threaten U.S. national security, like those currently imposed on Canadian steel and lumber. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The economy: The other path to tariff relief is through economic pressure. If Americans start to see higher prices and economic uncertainty, and push back at the ballot box — or threaten to do so — it could force Trump to reverse course. The most recent figures show that U.S. inflation, based on the Consumer Price Index, hit around 2.7 per cent in July. That's a slight rise, fuelled by rising prices for food, transportation and used cars. But it's still close to the Federal Reserve target of two per cent. U.S. unemployment rose slightly to 4.2 per cent in July, while far fewer jobs were created than expected, and consumer confidence rose two points but is still several points lower than it was in January. Overall, most economists agree that risks of a U.S. recession over the next 12 months are relatively low, but skepticism over growth remains high. 'Our outlook is for slower growth in the U.S., but no recession,' said Gus Faucher, chief economist of The PNC Financial Services Group. He notes that the 'tariffs are going to be a drag' because they are a tax increase on imports. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Economists have said price inflation from tariffs is not yet being felt in the U.S. but believe it's inevitable. 'Trump's tariff madness adds a great deal to the risks of a recession,' said Steven Hanke, professor of applied economics at Johns Hopkins University who served on President Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors. 'With tariffs, Americans are going to be paying a big new beautiful sales tax on goods and services imported into the U.S., and taxes slow things down. Taxes don't stimulate.' It is surprising that higher U.S. prices haven't happened yet, said Jonathan Gruber, chairman of the economics department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But he explained that it's likely a reflection of the duration of contracts and the fact that import sellers haven't yet put up prices — 'because they were hoping it wouldn't be real, like they'd wake up from this nightmare.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'I think we start to see the effect on prices by the end of the year,' said Gruber. The trouble for Canada, however, is that the Canadian economy is starting from a much weaker position, with higher unemployment, lower consumer confidence, and a slowing GDP, on top of the trade tensions. So, trying to wait things out for the U.S. to feel the pinch will be even more painful for Canadians. And any American downturn will also reverberate north. 'As Uncle Sam goes, so goes Canada,' said Hanke. Gruber agrees with that, but with a caveat. 'It's all bad in the short run and good in the long run,' he says. He believes the U.S. is 'weak and getting weaker' and that Canada should start taking advantage of how the U.S. is making opportunities for other countries to invest in themselves. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'We're not investing in our future. We're killing our education. We're killing our research. We're not allowing in immigrants,' he said, explaining the weakening of the U.S. economy. 'We're basically setting the stage for long-run economic slower growth.' Meanwhile, China is doubling down on investment, research and other longer-term policies. 'Canada and other countries need to do the same,' Gruber said. And as for when a backlash could lead to a reversal in the U.S., Gruber points to two factors. 'It's got to be high inflation, and Trump's opponents need to make sure that the voters understand that's Trump's fault.' National Post tmoran@ Read More 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. News News Tennis Columnists Vancouver Canucks
CBC
2 hours ago
- CBC
Push for regional train system in B.C.'s Lower Mainland gaining traction
Support for a regional train system in B.C.'s Lower Mainland is increasing a month after CN Rail announced it would be pulling out of its operations in the Sea-to-Sky region. CN Rail's decision to move out of the corridor between Squamish and Exeter, B.C., just northwest of 100 Mile House, led local MP Patrick Weiler to call for a return of passenger rail service, and the region's MLA Jeremy Valeriote is joining those calls. In addition, Mountain Valley Express (MVX), a local advocacy organization, said it's time for Metro Vancouver and the rest of the Lower Mainland to be connected via regional trains, bringing back a commuter service that was delivered through interurban trams in the 1950s. "We estimate that between Abbotsford and downtown Vancouver, that regional rail will take only about 45 minutes," said Lee Haber, MVX's director of strategy and partnerships. "And, of course, this is going to be much more reliable than driving on Highway 1," he added. "If you want people to use transit, you have got to make sure that it's competitive with driving, and if you can do that, people will use it." WATCH | Advocates say regional rail is viable in Lower Mainland: B.C. group proposes railway to connect most of the South Coast 8 months ago MVX, which is funded by private and public donations, calculated in a 2023 report that it would cost around $10 billion to build a 350-km regional rail network that would connect the South Coast from Whistler to Chilliwack and most places in between. Metro Vancouver is lagging behind comparable regions like Brisbane, Australia, when it comes to regional rail, Haber said, adding he's already spoken to provincial and local officials about the proposal. WATCH | The feasibility of regional trains on the South Coast: How plausible is a Sea-to-Sky or Lower Mainland rail system? 2 days ago CN Rail says it intends to discontinue operations between Squamish and 100 Mile House. And that's renewed talks of re-establishing a commuter train along that stretch. Early Edition story producer Caroline Chan looks into how plausible it is to run a regional railway, not only in the Sea-to-Sky region but also around the Lower Mainland. "Regional rail trains go up to 160 km/h, whereas the SkyTrain is limited to only about 80 km/h," he said. "So it's really serving those longer-distance trips, which existing forms of transit aren't really designed to serve." Haber said a regional train system would be viable, whether it is provincially-run, privately-backed or through a First Nations joint venture, and that local leaders and the public at large support the initiative. Region used to have interurban trams In the early 1900s, the Lower Mainland used to be connected by five interurban tram lines — a fully electric service, run by the B.C. Electric Railway Company, that carted passengers to and from downtown Vancouver all the way to Chilliwack. "It was this really incredible time of transportation, that didn't happen just here in the Vancouver region, it happened right across North America," said Gabrielle Sharp, the museum co-ordinator at the Steveston Tram in Richmond, B.C. "But it seemed to last particularly long here because it really suited our our lifestyle and the geography." The Steveston Tram preserves one of the cars used in the heyday of interurban transit in the Lower Mainland, complete with era-appropriate decor and lighting. But Sharp said the system was dismantled after the Second World War in the 1950s due to a number of factors, including expensive tram maintenance and newly-affluent people moving to the suburbs and buying cars. "Oil companies and motor car companies came together, and they pressured governments to say, basically: 'Rails were the way ... of the past and roads and buses and cars, they were the way of the future,'" she said. "So governments were convinced to to do away with rails." Haber said that it was important to preserve some of the disused train lines and corridors in B.C., and undo the mistakes made in the post-Second World War era when it came to transportation and land development. "I think we have a long ways to go until we're competing with the most livable cities in the world, such as Copenhagen, Amsterdam ... and I think part of that is going to involve realizing some of these corridors, that we used to use and abandoned," he said. MLA wants more public transit Jeremy Valeriote, the MLA for West Vancouver-Sea to Sky and interim leader of the B.C. Green Party, said a new rail line specifically in the Sea-to-Sky region would be taken up very favourably by residents. He said there was a dire need for commuter service between Squamish and Pemberton, especially to alleviate congestion along the Sea-to-Sky Highway. But he cautioned that it would be a year before CN Rail advertises the line and offers it for lease, and it could take a minimum of three to five years for a proponent to bring forward a passenger rail proposal there. "This train opportunity is a great thing and I'm excited about it, and many other people are, but it is really medium- to long-term," he said. WATCH | CN Rail to pull out of Sea-to-Sky region: CN Rail to end operations from Squamish to 100 Mile House, B.C. 11 days ago Valeriote said adding more transit to the Sea-to-Sky corridor was part of a list of priorities when the governing B.C. NDP and the B.C. Greens signed a co-operation agreement last December. He is pushing the province for a commuter bus service in the area and said he hoped ferries and trains would eventually create more commuting options in the region. "Rail is kind of a separate and nice to have," he said. "It would have a huge impact on tourists and some commuters, but it's kind of a separate thing that should really come ... after getting buses on the road."
