Federal, provincial tariff relief should include municipalities, Ontario big city mayors say
Mayors of Ontario's big cities are calling on the federal and provincial governments to include them in any stimulus packages they launch to offset the impacts of U.S. tariffs, saying the money could be used for infrastructure projects.
Speaking at a news conference on Friday, Burlington Mayor Marianne Meed Ward said the group unanimously passed a resolution at its meeting on Friday, asking to be included in any federal or provincial tariff relief funds.
As the chair of Ontario's Big City Mayors, Meed Ward said the group believes municipal infrastructure projects could help put people to work at a time when many are facing job losses due to the tariffs.
"We believe that infrastructure funding not only provides sustainability for projects into the future, but it gets our people to work at a time that there is great uncertainty," Meed Ward said.
"In terms of how much, we will take whatever the federal and provincial governments want to give us."
Meed Ward said changes to the global trading system will affect businesses, communities, workers and municipalities. If people are laid off, stimulus packages could get them working again, she said.
"We will have an active and ready labour force. And so, if we can get them working on infrastructure projects like roads, bridges, schools, community centres, all of the things that we need in community, that's what we want to do."
Toronto to convene meeting on procurement in June
Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow, who has indicated that she would like to work with other municipalities to reduce reliance on U.S.-based suppliers, told reporters that she is convening a discussion on June 6 in Toronto to work out the "fine details" of such a partnership that will look at procurement.
Chow said the federal and provincial governments can also help to lower municipal costs of building affordable housing.
"We need partnership with the federal and provincial government. We welcome their partnerships," Chow said.
Markham Mayor Frank Scarpitti said municipalities are trying to make sense of the tariffs.
"I'll just say I don't think we've ever seen such a consistent level of inconsistency. And so that really, I think, says it all in terms of how we're trying to react," he said.
"That being said, there are very strong bonds between communities, first and foremost in Canada and the United States. And we want to make sure that we continue to foster an environment that not only says you're welcome, but we want you to stay and continue to be part of our economic success."
Last week, Canada was spared when U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled his widespread so-called "reciprocal" tariffs, but Canada continues to be subject to a 25 per cent tariff on Canadian-made automobiles. On March 12, the U.S. imposed tariffs of 25 per cent on Canadian steel and aluminum products.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
27 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Inviting Narenda Modi to the G7 summit was the right move for Mark Carney
Stephen Harper was right about India. And Mark Carney was right to invite India's Narendra Modi to next week's G7 summit in Canada. As a former Canadian prime minister offering advice to the current PM, Harper argued persuasively this month that Canada needs to move on from the latest impasse with India. Carney did precisely that because the time was right. Many Sikh Canadians bristled over the decision. Human rights critics argued that Carney moved too fast. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW But the world of law and order is changing in the new world order. As a middle power caught between the big players, Canada doesn't have as many choices — or as many choice friends and allies — as it might have once imagined. Justin Trudeau liked to say, upon defeating Harper as prime minister a decade ago, that the world needs more Canada. But Canada has moved on from Trudeau — and the world has moved on, too. The world doesn't much need Canada anymore. Today, it wants India more than ever. Canada, too, needs India, the world's largest democracy and most populous nation. As this year's host for the summit of industrialized nations, Canada plays a special role convening all seven member countries — and inviting guest leaders, like Modi, to join them in Alberta next week. It's an exclusive club that operates by consensus, which means we can't just pick and choose who's invited, who's disinvited and who displeases us. In truth, we're in the club and it's our turn to convene, but it's not our club to reconfigure. Federal Politics Analysis Mark Carney prepares for G7 summit littered with potential landmines Tonda MacCharles As G7 host, we don't just invite who we like. We invite who matters. That's diplomacy. That's the compromise of politics and the reality of realpolitik. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW That's not to say Canada was wrong to call out allegations of Indian misconduct at the bilateral level in late 2023. But at the multilateral level in 2025, we need to pick our fights and choose our timing. It has been nearly two years since Canada publicized and protested 'credible allegations' linking agents of India to the killing of Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar near Vancouver. India dismissed the allegations and bilateral ties plummeted. Of course, when the United States made related allegations of Indian misconduct on American soil, India's government had a more measured and co-operative response. But at the end of the day, the U.S. and India moved on — not because the indictment didn't matter, but because national interests also matter. America needs and wants India as a counterweight to China. Canada, too, needs counterweights — not just against China but America. In today's beggar-thy-neighbour world, beggars can't be choosy. Middle powers can't be fussy. Canada is still reeling from the rupture in relations with China, when Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were held hostage over the Huawei affair pitting U.S. commercial and criminal interests against those of China. Today, Canada is once again talking to China and trying to rebuild relations despite the bad blood. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Canada has barely recovered from the disruption of relations with Saudi Arabia in 2018, when criticism of its human rights record led to commercial retaliation and the sudden withdrawal of its medical students from Canadian universities. Against that backdrop, Canada can't stay mad at so many countries for so long. Bilateral irritants are real and human rights matter, but international relations and commercial ruptures can have enormous fallout — as our farmers in Saskatchewan can attest after bearing the brunt of Chinese retaliation over exports from the prairies. Canada cannot hold out forever against two of the most populous countries on the planet (China and India) and one of its richest nations (Saudi Arabia). We cannot fight everyone else at once. That explains why Carney has belatedly reached out to Saudi Arabia's Prince Mohammed bin Salman to attend the summit. The crown prince was an outlaw and an outlier amid allegations that his intelligence services killed dissident Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul, but even America's then-president Joe Biden set aside his harsh rebukes to meet bin Salman in Saudi Arabia when the time came. India is a consequential country that matters in any global discussion about trade, climate change and health. It cannot be wished away or put on hold. Two decades ago, ahead of another such summit for the G8 (as it was then called, before a warmongering Russia was disinvited), I was assigned to write about India's challenges because its then-prime minister, Manmohan Singh, was invited to attend. Then as now, India was at the table with industrialized nations as a rising global power. Canada, like the G7, can't afford to exclude India — or Saudi Arabia or China or America. No truck or trade for their transgressions? That's a dead end given the obstacles facing Canada today. Politics Headlines Newsletter Get the latest news and unmatched insights in your inbox every evening Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. Please enter a valid email address. Sign Up Yes, I'd also like to receive customized content suggestions and promotional messages from the Star. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Politics Headlines Newsletter You're signed up! You'll start getting Politics Headlines in your inbox soon. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page.
Ottawa Citizen
27 minutes ago
- Ottawa Citizen
U.S. warns Canada is not yet ready to handle F-35 fighter jets
Article content U.S. officials warned that the Canadian military didn't have the proper facilities to house the F-35 stealth fighter jet, forcing a redesign of the buildings and extra costs for Canadian taxpayers, according to a new report by Canada's auditor general. Article content The Americans also highlighted ongoing concerns in Canada's plans to support the arrival of the first planes in 2028. Article content Article content Article content The Liberal government announced in January 2023 it was spending $19 billion to acquire 88 F-35s from the U.S. government. Article content As part of the F-35 program, the Americans have a say on whether hangars and other facilities being built in Canada to house the aircraft are up to their standards. Such a requirement is needed to protect the U.S. technology outfitted on the stealth fighters. Article content But such standards weren't met for the infrastructure originally being built at military bases at Cold Lake, Alta and Bagotville, Que., said the auditor general's report, which was released on June 10. Article content In addition, the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter Program Office, which oversees the continued operation and sustainment of the F-35, including those in foreign service, noted that Canada wasn't ready to receive the plane because of ongoing issues. Article content 'In June 2024, the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office conducted an assessment of the interim operations plan to determine how ready National Defence was to support the first aircraft arrival in Cold Lake in December 2028,' Auditor General Karen Hogan noted in the report. 'The overall rating for this assessment was 'RED,' meaning that significant issues remained unresolved and required senior leadership action.' Article content Article content Both DND officials and staff at the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office noted additional requirements that were needed, including the redesign of the facilities to handle the jets, the auditor found. Article content Article content That, and other problems dogging Canada's F-35 program, meant that the cost of the project is now $27.7 billion, according to Hogan's report. That is nearly 50 per cent more than originally anticipated, she added. Article content Another $5.5 billion will be needed to achieve full operation capability for the planes, Hogan added. Article content The DND released a statement Tuesday that it accepted Hogan's findings and is working to follow her recommendations to improve the project. Article content Defence Minister David McGuinty blamed the cost overruns on inflation and the pandemic but told journalists Tuesday that Canada is soon to receive its first 16 F-35s. 'We'll be taking possession of those 16 F-35 fighter jets in the next several months,' he added.
Ottawa Citizen
27 minutes ago
- Ottawa Citizen
Dunrobin resident finds prior 'misconduct' by engineer on new battery project
An engineer who presented safety data about battery energy storage systems to the city's Agricultural and Rural Affairs Committee last week had his registration with a professional body yanked in February after he 'admitted that he demonstrated professional misconduct.' Article content Stephen Ramsay, an engineer with a PhD from Cambridge University, spoke to the committee on June 5. He was one of 60-plus speakers with a five-minute time slot to address a controversial proposal to build a six-hectare battery energy storage system (BESS) facility on Marchurst Road near Dunrobin. Article content Article content Article content Brookfield Renewable Power Inc., through Evolugen, a Canadian company, was seeking a Municipal Support Resolution (MSR), an instrument introduced by the provincial government to gauge a municipality's interest in building new energy projects. Article content Article content BESSes are needed as Ontario grapples with increased demand for energy, say proponents of the $650 million project. But one of the most contentious issues around BESSes, which use lithium-ion batteries to store electricity during off-peak periods in order to release it during peak demand periods, is the possibility of fire. Article content Ramsay told the committee he was speaking on the scope of the work that was done by Calvin Consulting in support of the Evolugen application. Article content 'We were responsible for modelling the consequences of potential fires from the BESS facility and the consequences in terms of the emission of hazardous gasses, particularly focusing on hydrogen fluoride,' said Ramsay. Article content Article content BESS Systems have transitioned to ones that use the LFP chemistry, which is used in the current application, he said. (LFP batteries are also known as lithium iron phosphate batteries.) Article content Article content 'This is a process which has occurred over many years during which we have been actively involved in this aspect of BESS projects,' Ramsay told the committee. 'The motivation for this, of course, was to try to improve the safety by reducing the incidences of thermal runaway and the consequences resulting from fires.' Article content In response to questions from Orléans East-Cumberland Ward Coun. Matt Luloff asking him to simplify his comments, Ramsay responded: 'Basically what we're saying is that as we've changed from the old chemistry, which seemed to be essentially inherently dangerous, to the one which is LFP, which we are beginning to see is much, much safer.'
