U.S. tariff hike a blow for Kitimat's smelter, Lower Mainland aluminum manufacturers
Anxiety is building in the steel and aluminum sector as U.S. President Donald Trump's administration doubles its tariffs on the metals.
Anxiety is building in the steel and aluminum sector as U.S. President Donald Trump's administration doubles its tariffs on the metals.
British Columbia's only aluminum smelter is in Kitimat, where the Rio Tinto facility known as BC Works employs 1,100 workers, indirectly employing many more.
It's unclear what the tariff increase will mean for the smelter, but the local business community is hopeful Rio Tinto takes a long-term view.
'This is a huge hit for the aluminum industry,' said Laurel D'Andrea, executive director of the Kitimat Chamber of Commerce, in an interview with CTV News Wednesday.
'But again, I know that they will take care of their company and take care of their employees and really try to do what is best overall for the community.'
D'Andrea suggested the company take a 'strategic' approach.
Meanwhile, in the Lower Mainland, the local aluminum manufacturing sector is watching.
'Uncertainty' is the word on everyone's lips.
'It's concerning,' Pacific Bolt Manufacturing president Trevor Borland told CTV News on Wednesday.
'To be honest, we're not 100 per cent sure exactly what it means as of yet, because the dust is still settling. But an increase of 25 to 50 (per cent) obviously makes it that much less affordable for us to operate.'
Prime Minister Mark Carney is pledging to respond if needed, but not before giving trade talks with the U.S. a chance.
'The new tariffs on steel and aluminum are unlawful, unjustified and illogical,' Carney said, while Liberal members of Parliament applauded in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
'We are in intensive negotiations with the Americans, and in parallel preparing reprisals if those negotiations do not succeed.'
Meanwhile, there's a plea from some in the industry to mandate the use of Canadian steel in government projects as a way of providing support.
'Bridges, highway projects, transit projects, just the requirement saying, 'Hey, look, we want to see Canadian made products in those projects,' would go a long ways to helping us and other fabricators or other steel companies,' Borland said.
While tariffs have led to layoffs in other sectors, there are no immediate indications of that locally after this latest development, with many companies taking a wait-and-see approach to this increased levy.
CTV News has contacted Rio Tinto for comment and will update this story if the company responds.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
6 hours ago
- CTV News
As his trade war faces legal pushback, Trump has other tariff tools he could deploy
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during an event to announce new tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House on Wednesday, April 2, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein) WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs are facing legal headwinds for the first time — but he has other tools he could deploy in his quest to realign global trade. A federal appeals court is still deciding whether there will be a stay on Trump's universal tariffs enacted through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the duties were unlawful last month. IEEPA is a national security statute that gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. It had never previously been used for tariffs. Trump declared emergencies at the United States' northern and southern borders linked to the flow of fentanyl and migrants in order to hit Canada and Mexico with economywide tariffs. He later declared an emergency over trade deficits to impose his retaliatory 'Liberation Day' duties on most nations. The trade court found Trump exceeded presidential powers by using IEEPA to broadly implement the duties. The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision and the White House said it would take the case to the Supreme Court. Following the ruling, White House Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said he was confident the court ultimately would decide in Trump's favour. Hassett said that if it doesn't, 'we'll have other alternatives that we can pursue as well to make sure that we make American trade fair again.' While the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress, Greta Peisch, the former general counsel for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said it passed laws over the last century that allow the president some control in certain situations. Trump is now looking to use those laws — some of them for the first time. The president may be considering Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. It allows a president to hit countries with tariffs of up to 50 per cent if the country 'is treating products of the United States disfavourably, compared to products of another foreign country,' said Peisch, a partner at Wiley Rein in Washington, D.C. Section 338 has never been used by a president before and Peisch said it might be difficult for the administration to make a case for it. Trump also might look to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows a president to take trade actions if an investigation finds a trading partner's policies are unreasonable and discriminatory. Trump used this law during his first administration to impose tariffs on some Chinese imports and European Union goods. But Section 301 requires country-by-country investigations of trade policy before a tariff can be imposed — investigations that could take weeks or months and would include a period for public comment. That certainly would slow down Trump's efforts to target the world with tariffs. If the president is looking for speed, Peisch said, he might try to use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — another law that has never before been used. Section 122 allows a president to implement tariffs of up to 15 per cent to address large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits. But those duties can only stay in place for a maximum of 150 days before they need Congressional approval to continue. That reduces Trump's leverage if his goal is to pressure countries to sign trade deals — those countries could simply decide to wait the president out. Trump also has said tariffs will help pay down the deficit; the short-term Section 122 power is unlikely to work as a long-term revenue strategy. Ultimately, Peisch said, none of the replacement statutes could easily build Trump's universal tariff wall around the United States. 'Nothing is a great fit without a lot of work,' she said. 'So I think it's potentially going to be a challenge.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2025. Kelly Geraldine Malone, The Canadian Press
National Post
8 hours ago
- National Post
Carson Jerema: Carney ignores his own constitutional power to approve pipelines
Mark Carney isn't interested in being prime minister of Canada. Sure, he may like the title, the presumed prestige that comes with it, as well as meetings with Donald Trump, but when it comes down to the authority the federal government possesses, he'd rather defer to the provinces. He doesn't want to be the leader of the sovereign nation of Canada, he wants to be a project manager for B.C., Quebec and Ontario. Article content Article content At a news conference Friday to discuss his One Canadian Economy legislation, Carney claimed it would streamline the approval of projects deemed in the 'national interest,' and said it was a 'bill that meets this hinge moment' with 'urgency' and 'determination.' The prime minister spoke of how 'it's become much too difficult to build in this country' and that the 'federal government' will 'identify and expedite nation building projects.' Article content Article content Except by 'urgency' and 'determination' Carney means not a streamlined process, but another regulatory regime on top of all the others. And, crucially, when Carney talks about 'nation building' and the 'national interest,' he doesn't mean anything that would be in Canada's interests but would, instead, cede power to the provinces, giving them a veto over infrastructure projects. Article content When asked by a reporter about whether pipelines would be approved over objections from B.C. or Quebec, Carney responded as if Ottawa didn't have the clear authority to do so. 'No. Simply no, we must have a consensus of all the provinces and the Indigenous people,' he said. If that wasn't clear, Carney added, 'if a province doesn't want it, it's impossible.' Article content Article content To drive home an apparent ignorance of Canada's constitution, Carney also said, 'It is not the choice of the federal government.' Article content Article content However, this is incorrect. While the Liberals may choose to not exercise their constitutional powers, it is most definitely Ottawa's 'choice.' Section 92 (10) of the Constitution explicitly grants the federal government power over 'Works and Undertakings connecting' a province 'with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province.' Ottawa also has authority over any projects 'declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces,' even if such projects exist entirely within a single province. Article content What this means is that if Ottawa wants a pipeline that crosses provincial borders, it is entirely within its rights to approve it, even over the objection of provincial obstructionists, be they in B.C. or Quebec. It is a power that could not be more clear and it is one that has been backed up by the courts. In 2019, for example, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled against the provincial government, which was seeking a reference on whether it had the power to put conditions on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which exports heavy oil from Alberta, through, B.C. and to the West coast. The ruling stated that this was 'not within the authority of the Legislature.'
National Post
10 hours ago
- National Post
'They're worried': Liberal MP plans to raise concerns about Modi visit to Carney
OTTAWA — A Liberal MP says he intends to raise concerns to Prime Minister Mark Carney about the decision to invite India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Canada as part of a meeting of G7 leaders later this month. Article content Sukh Dhaliwal represents the Surrey, B.C., riding that was home to Sikh activist and Canadian citizen Hardeep Singh Nijjar, whom Canada said in 2023 was killed by agents acting on behalf of the Indian government. Nijjar was gunned down outside a temple in June 2023. Article content Article content Article content India has denied the accusation but had considered Nijjar to be a terrorist. Nijjar was a prominent activist in the Khalistan movement, which has pushed to establish a separate Sikh state in India's Punjab province. Article content Article content The accusation from former prime minister Justin Trudeau in September 2023 sparked a wave of tension in the Canada-India relationship, including last fall when the RCMP said it believed Modi's government was linked to violence unfolding in Canada, including organized crime and murders. Article content 'They're worried. They're worried about their safety, they're concerned about the justice in Mr. Nijjar's case, as well,' he told National Post in an interview late Friday. Article content Dhaliwal said he has heard from other Liberal MPs also expressing concern, but said he would not divulge details to protect their privacy. Article content Article content He said he intends to raise the concerns he has been hearing from constituents with Carney or members of his team, and will be in Ottawa next week for the ongoing sitting of Parliament. Article content Article content 'He's willing to talk,' Dhaliwal said of the prime minister. Article content 'He's willing to listen to his MPs, that's what he has promised because he has always said that he's interested in the voice from the grassroots, not the message coming from the top to the grassroots.'
