Eby calls softwood lumber dispute 'canary in the coal mine' of U.S. protectionism
Aug. 1 is the deadline the United States has set for a trade deal with Canada, and Eby says he hopes his province's softwood lumber industry remains on the 'radar' of Prime Minister Mark Carney as Ottawa continues negotiations.
Eby told an unrelated news conference that the industry has been the 'canary in the coal mine' signalling American protectionism, saying Canadian softwood exports have been subject to 'unfair duties' for the 'better part of almost two generations,' well before the current trade dispute triggered by U.S. President Donald Trump.
But Eby says the dispute's long-standing nature does not mean the industry 'should be ignored,' and resolving it could actually help broker a larger deal.
The industry faces combined duties of 34.94 per cent, after the U.S. Department of Commerce hiked anti-dumping duties to 20.56 per cent.
While other industries such as Ontario's automobile sector are important, Eby says the prolonged length of the softwood lumber dispute and pre-existing duties should not lead to the assumption that the industry is not a 'priority.'
This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 30, 2025.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
11 minutes ago
- NBC News
This cookware maker is bracing for steel tariffs behind a wall of pots and pans
Checkbook Chronicles Steel and aluminum tariffs are going to cost Heritage Steel hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. But Danny Henn, who runs the family-owned stainless steel cookware company, says it may have a competitive edge. Aug. 3, 2025, 2:06 PM EDT By Emily Lorsch Heritage Steel, a small, family-owned cookware manufacturer in Clarksville, Tennessee, is expecting to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in tariffs this year. The company recently received a tariff bill of $75,000 on an order of handles, and the company's vice president of operations, Danny Henn, is anticipating another bill of closer to $200,000 for goods that will likely reach the U.S. this month. 'We're a pretty small business,' Henn said. 'Having that as an additional sort of surprise expense is not insignificant.' But even with that new cost factored in, Heritage Steel believes steel and aluminum tariffs could be good for the business. 'Just from the base economics of it, yes, we have to pay more, but others have to pay a whole lot more,' Henn added. Heritage Steel employs about 40 workers and has more than doubled its revenue since 2018. The company is up 60% in cookware sales since last year. While company leaders now have to rethink pricing and make adjustments in response to President Donald Trump's trade war, Henn said they're feeling optimistic. Business highlights Danny Henn's grandfather Donald Henn was a door-to-door cookware salesman after graduating from college. In 1983, he purchased a factory in Clarksville, Tennessee, and from there was born New Era, which later became Heritage Steel. 'My grandma and grandpa and my parents were always big people about cooking at home. The cookware was always there,' said Henn. From frying pans and skillets to stock pots, saucepans and knives, Heritage Steel sells about 50 different cookware products on its website and Amazon. The company also sells wholesale to independent gourmet retailers. 'We are happy and proud to be an American producer of goods.' Heritage Steel needs three main types of inputs to make its cookware, and about 75% of the company's materials are imported. The most important part and the largest cost is the five-ply cladded body, which includes a combination of stainless steel and aluminum. 'It's very specialized processing that it has to go through to get into this form,' Henn said. 'And so, because it is very specialized, there's not a whole lot of people that do it.' Tariff impacts Heritage Steel imports its cladded steel from South Korea, which will be facing a 15% tariff that Trump announced on Wednesday after the country made 'an offer to buy down' the 25% duty level he had previously set. The company imports its handles, made from pure stainless steel using a process called lost-wax casting, from China. Meanwhile, the company purchases the material for its stainless steel lids in the U.S. Those parts don't have to be cladded and are a more simple single layer of stainless steel that's more widely available. Heritage Steel had previously sourced cladded steel from U.S. vendors, but those providers have since exited the business, according to Henn. 'There's just not enough of a U.S. market for cookware manufacturing of this type … right now. There isn't a viable vendor for us to find.' Since the company only makes a handful of raw-material purchases each year, it typically has a large order coming in all at once, which set up the company nicely when the first 25% tariffs on steel went into effect earlier this year. 'We had a good amount of it,' Henn said, referring to the raw materials, 'so that gave us more time of being able to know we're going to be able to manufacture and sell a bunch of stuff without the tariff cost on it.' Henn said that wasn't a tariff strategy, but instead a benefit of his company's workflow. However, they knew that leeway wasn't going to last forever. Eventually it became time for Heritage Steel to order more materials. That first tariff bill was about $75,000, and Henn is expecting the next to be more than twice as much. Who pays? For Heritage Steel, there was never a doubt it would have to raise prices because of the tariff expenses. The question was how high would they have to go? 'We're happy and proud to be a provider of really high-quality cookware, but one that's more affordably priced than some of the others on the market,' Henn said. 'We want to continue to offer the best price we can, given our constraints.' As of Friday, the company had raised prices by about 15% on all of its products. Heritage Steel explained the increase in an announcement on its website, calling the adjustment 'fairly modest' considering the price of the company's input materials spiked at least 50%. 'Obviously, we can't bear the full impact of these cost increases,' Henn said, 'but we also don't want our customers to bear the full cost.' He expects these changes to negatively impact the company's profit margins, but as of now the extent is unclear. Henn believes the company has more flexibility than a lot of its competitors because Heritage Steel is only importing raw materials, not the full product, and manufactures in the U.S. That's why he expects the overall market disruption could be good for the company. 'They might have to do something closer to a 50% price increase,' he said of his competitors, 'because their entire cost of goods is going up by 50%.' For Heritage Steel, on the other hand, only the price of parts is up 50%, not the full product. Henn said it's all about finding the sweet spot: a fair amount to charge customers to compensate for the new costs while still being a price leader in the market. 'We're just doing our best to do good by our customer, not raise prices too much, do well by our employees, keep paying them well and try to stay competitive within the market.' Even though Henn is optimistic about this potential competitive edge, that doesn't mean he believes the Trump administration's tariffs are the right approach. What makes more sense to him, he said, is a change over a longer period of time. 'If there is something that would have a similar effect of giving incentives to bring more more industry back to the U.S., I think that would likely be a positive,' he said, adding that he believes the intent of the tariffs policy is good. 'The implementation is a little bit rocky,' he said. Henn declined to comment on his political views and whom he voted for in the presidential election. As for other options that could bring down Heritage Steel's tariff bill, that's something being discussed as well. While stainless clad cookware is the company's bread and butter, Henn and his co-owners are exploring a range of possibilities. 'If we had our full wish,' Henn said, 'we would be able to have a fully U.S.-based supply chain for our entire manufacturing process.' Emily Lorsch Emily Lorsch is a producer at NBC News covering business and the economy.
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
What It Will Take to Get U.S. Citizens to Work the Farm — According to Dolores Huerta
And the 95-year-old Huerta has seen a lot. She first began lobbying the California legislature on farm labor issues when she was just 25, and she founded an agriculture workers union soon after. In her early 30s, she partnered with civil rights leader Cesar Chavez to create the National Farm Workers Association, now the United Farm Workers. For years, she and Chavez worked in tandem, delivering major victories to protect farm workers from exploitation and exposure to dangerous pesticides. President Barack Obama awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012. The Trump administration is now struggling to reconcile its mass deportation efforts with the need to keep farm production going. Huerta is not optimistic about how it will all play out, though she was able to poke at Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins' recent suggestion that automation will soon replace human laborers. 'I guess I could just wait until they get enough robots to do the farm work,' Huerta joked. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. The Trump administration has launched farm raids targeting undocumented immigrants, which has sent a chill through the labor force and industry. You've advocated for farm workers for decades. Does the current climate feel familiar, or are we in a really different place? Oh, it's a very, very different place. Because in the past, in the '50s, when we had this 'Operation Wetback,' they were not putting people in jail. They would repatriate people. They would deport them, take them to the border. Somewhere along the way, I think during Newt Gingrich's time, they started putting people in jail, but then they would let them go. It was not putting people in prisons, like we're seeing right now. The kind of brutality, the horror, the kidnapping, endangering people's lives, separating the families — the way that Trump did in the last administration, and they're doing now, leaving all of these missing children — it's an atrocity, what they've been doing to the immigrant community. Many of those people that they have been picking up and arresting are farm workers. Here in Bakersfield, California, we were the first city to be hit. When Border Patrol came in, they arrested [78] people, and only one person had any kind of criminal record. And when they talk about a criminal record, it could be a traffic stop. It could be just that they came in, and they were deported, and came back in again. These are not violent crimes that we're talking about. They are, you might say, civil infractions, and yet they're being treated like they were criminals. This administration says it wants to get to a '100 percent American workforce.' It also has discussed rapidly expanding migrant visa programs, like H-2A. Do you see those two goals in conflict? How might that play out? Well, I think it would be really great to have American workers to work on farms. Farm work has been denigrated for so many years by the growers themselves, and they did this because they never wanted to pay farm workers the kind of wages that they deserve. Farm workers were essential workers during the pandemic. They were out there in the fields. So many of them died because they never got the proper protections that they needed. But they were out there every single day, picking the food that we needed to eat. Farm workers don't get the same kind of benefits or salaries that others get. We just recently did a study with the University of California Merced. Their average wage is $30,000 a year, $35,000 a year. And on that, they have to feed their families. A lot of them, unless they have a union contract, they're paid minimum wage. They're not respected. The whole visa program, the H-2A program, it's always been there. Cesar Chavez and I, when we started the United Farm Workers, one of the first things that we did was end the 'Bracero Program,' which was a similar [guest worker] program. Now they've increased these H-2A workers in agriculture. This is a step above slavery. They can't unionize. They don't get Social Security. They don't get unemployment insurance. Farmers save money by having these H-2A workers. They cannot become citizens. There is no way for them to even get a green card. If you were trying to get to a 100 percent American workforce, what's the solution here? Does it start with paying more competitive wages for workers? Or is it something else? Well, right now, we're trying to stop a detention center here in California City, which is up here in the Mojave Desert. They are offering the people to work in that center $50 an hour. In California, our minimum wage is $16. That's what a lot of workers get. Let's offer farmworkers $50 an hour, the same kind of a salary that you offer the prison guards, and you'll get a lot of American workers. We have very high unemployment in the Central Valley. We have the prison industrial complex, where a lot of our young people are going to prison. So many of these young people don't have to go to prison if they were paid adequately. I'm sure a lot of them would go and do the farm work, especially if they had good wages to do it. And we still have a lot of young people here in the valley that go out during the summers and they do farm work to help their families. I'm sure a lot of people that we now see that are homeless on the streets and that are able to work would go to work if they were paid $50 an hour. So it's just a matter of improving wages? And training, too. Because farm work is hard work. I mean, you've got to be in good physical shape to be able to do farm work. Why are undocumented workers such a large part of the agricultural workforce? Is it just that these are low-paying, hard jobs that Americans don't want to do, or is there more going on? Well, like I said earlier, the growers have denigrated the work so much that people don't realize that this work is dignified. Farm workers are proud of the work that they do. They don't feel that somehow they're a lower class of people because they do farm work. They have pride in their work. If you were to go out there with farm workers, you would be surprised to see that they have dignity, and they care about the work. They care about the plants. When we started the farm workers union way back in the late '50s and early '60s, you would be surprised how many American citizens were out there. Veterans were out there. The Grapes of Wrath was filmed here. All of those workers in that camp were white. It was the 'Okies' and 'Arkies,' the people that came from Oklahoma and Arkansas and those places to work in the fields. They were all white workers. There were some Latino workers, and then over the years, you had the Chinese, you had the Japanese, and different waves of immigrants that came in to do farm work. When did it change? Well, the growers always fought unionization, as they still do to this day. I'll give an example. There's a company called the Wonder Company. When you watch television, you see all of their ads for pistachios. They're billionaires. The United Farm Workers just won a recognition election, and they refused to recognize the union. When you have a union out there, you have a steward out there in every single crew, and their job is to make sure that there's a bathroom out there in the fields, which farm workers never had before. We had a big movement to get farmers just having toilets in the field and hand washing facilities, cold drinking water, risk periods, unemployment insurance, et cetera. This is the thing that we fought for, and the growers fought against it, right to the end. The Farm Bureau Federation fought against all of these improvements for farm workers, and they continue to fight. You supported the 1986 Reagan amnesty, when 1 million farm workers received legal status. The Trump administration has been adamant, for political purposes, that there will be 'no amnesty.' Do you think the administration could get to some sort of mass legalization for farm workers? If not, what happens next? The problem with this administration is, they're so racist. Racism rules, fascism rules with this administration. I don't know, I guess I could just wait until they get enough robots to do the farm work. What about pesticides? You've long fought against pesticide use in agriculture because of the effect of exposure on farm workers. Now, there's this 'Make America Healthy Again' push to get rid of pesticides. What do you make of that? Well, I think maybe that's one good thing that Robert Kennedy Jr. might do. His father was a champion for the farm workers. The pesticides — we should have gotten rid of those a long time ago. We didn't have pesticides until after World War II. There's a pesticide called paraquat. Paraquat is banned in Europe. It's banned in almost every country except the United States of America, and it is used right here in Kern County in California. It causes cancer. It causes leukemia. It causes Parkinson's disease, and we cannot get it banned in California. We know that when plants are planted, when food is planted, the pesticide is already in the seeds. We were trying to stop that in Washington, D.C., and were unable to. We were even just trying to get them to put information on it, so when you go in to buy your fruit, it would have a sticker on it that said, 'This particular fruit or vegetable has been treated with this pesticide.' It's in the fruit when you eat it. Just recently, we had about four or five young people in their late 40s, early 50s, all have died of cancer, and they're from Delano, California. Are these farm workers? No, but when they spray this stuff, it also goes into the towns. So nobody's really safe from it. Is this pesticide issue something you could collaborate or find some common ground with the Trump administration? Yeah, we would love to. But you know what? It's not going to happen, because pesticides really come from the petroleum industry. Have you discussed this with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., or would you be open to meeting with him? I know his father was a friend of yours and a great champion of your cause. I imagine, maybe, when we talk about this issue. I wouldn't agree with Robert Jr. on the issue of vaccinations, or fluoride in our drinking water, et cetera, and some of the issues that he espouses. I know him. I've known him for many, many years. I haven't spoken to him. He did try to contact me when he was running, and I didn't respond. I knew that the family, that Kerry and Ethel and the rest of them, were not happy about his supporting Trump. But you haven't spoken to him since he became HHS secretary? No. I know people that have spoken to him. The labor movement as a whole has an unusual relationship to Donald Trump, who claims to champion the working class. Do you think union leaders have more to gain by working with Trump, or by opposing him? What explains his appeal to many union members? Well, I can't speak for the Teamsters. I think there was a kind of a betrayal of the working people, because I know the majority of the labor unions went against Trump and endorsed Biden [in 2024]. I think that was very damaging. I think a good comparison is if you look at what they've done in Mexico with Claudia Sheinbaum and the president before her. They've done incredible work in Mexico right now because it has been very labor-focused, very working people-focused, in contrast with what's happening here in the United States, where we are very billionaire- and millionaire-focused. And so you can see in Mexico they've been able to increase pensions, increase the minimum wage, increase benefits for the working people. I'm a vegetarian, and I just stay busy. I think you just have to stay busy.
Time Business News
40 minutes ago
- Time Business News
India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination: MEA Bold Response to White House Peace Claims
Source – LegalPress New Delhi – The official India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination response emerged on Friday when the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) diplomatically sidestepped questions regarding the White House's aggressive campaign for President Donald Trump to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This measured diplomatic response reflects India's careful approach to addressing American claims about conflict resolution. During a press briefing, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal was directly questioned about the India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination issue, specifically regarding White House assertions that Trump had ended several global conflicts, including the dispute between India and Pakistan. The spokesperson's response demonstrated India's preference for avoiding direct engagement with controversial American political narratives. Diplomatic Deflection Strategy The India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination query received a characteristically diplomatic response from Jaiswal, who stated, 'It is better to take this question to the White House.' This carefully crafted deflection avoids both endorsement and criticism of American claims while maintaining India's traditional non-interference stance in foreign political processes. This approach to the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination reflects New Delhi's broader strategy of avoiding entanglement in American domestic political debates, particularly those involving disputed claims about international diplomatic achievements. The MEA's response maintains diplomatic neutrality while neither validating nor challenging White House assertions. White House Claims and International Conflict Resolution The context surrounding the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination stems from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's comprehensive advocacy for Trump's Nobel Peace Prize candidacy. Leavitt claimed that Trump had 'ended conflicts between Thailand and Cambodia, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo and Egypt and Ethiopia.' The India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign specifically highlights alleged American mediation in the India-Pakistan conflict as evidence of Trump's peace-making credentials. According to White House calculations, Trump brokered approximately one peace deal monthly during his six months in office, making him deserving of international recognition. Leavitt's statement that 'It's well past time that President Trump was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize' directly incorporates the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination narrative as supporting evidence for this assertion. This claim positions the alleged India-Pakistan ceasefire as a significant diplomatic achievement worthy of Nobel recognition. India's Historical Position on Bilateral Negotiations The India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination issue highlights a fundamental disagreement between New Delhi and Washington regarding the nature of India-Pakistan conflict resolution. India has consistently maintained that the cessation of hostilities between the two nations was achieved through bilateral negotiations rather than external mediation. New Delhi's rejection of Trump's mediation claims creates complications for the India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination narrative promoted by the White House. This disagreement represents a significant diplomatic challenge, as India's official position directly contradicts the foundation of American Nobel Prize advocacy. Despite repeated assertions from Trump linking trade deals to conflict resolution, India's stance on the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination remains unchanged. The government continues to emphasize bilateral diplomatic processes rather than acknowledging American intervention in regional peace initiatives. Pakistan's Contrasting Position While India maintains diplomatic distance from the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign, Pakistan has embraced and actively supported Trump's candidacy. Islamabad has publicly thanked Trump for allegedly brokering the India-Pakistan deal, creating a stark contrast with India's position. In June, Pakistan formally nominated Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, specifically citing his 'diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' during the India-Pakistan crisis. This Pakistani endorsement adds complexity to the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination debate by providing official support from one of the alleged beneficiaries. The Pakistani government's statement declared: 'Government of Pakistan Recommends President Donald J. Trump for 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. The Government of Pakistan has decided to formally recommend President Donald J. Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis.' International Recognition and Norwegian Nobel Committee The India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign faces the ultimate test of international legitimacy through the Norwegian Nobel Committee's evaluation process. Despite various endorsements and advocacy efforts, the Committee has maintained its traditional silence regarding Trump's candidacy. The Norwegian Nobel Committee's approach to the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination reflects their standard practice of avoiding public commentary on potential candidates. This institutional discretion means that public advocacy campaigns, regardless of their intensity or political backing, do not necessarily influence final selection decisions. Geopolitical Implications and Diplomatic Complexities The India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination issue illustrates broader challenges in contemporary international diplomacy, where domestic political narratives intersect with complex international relationships. India's careful response demonstrates the delicate balance required when addressing claims that involve multiple stakeholders with differing perspectives. The ongoing debate surrounding the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination reflects deeper questions about conflict resolution attribution, the role of external mediation in bilateral disputes, and the intersection of international recognition with domestic political objectives. Future Diplomatic Considerations As the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign continues, India's diplomatic strategy will likely maintain its current trajectory of non-engagement with American political narratives while preserving bilateral relationship stability. This approach allows India to protect its sovereignty over conflict resolution narratives while avoiding unnecessary diplomatic friction with the United States. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
