Businesses concerned as steel, aluminum tariffs double
Ottawa Watch
U.S. President Donald Trump says he will double tariffs on steel and aluminum stirring up concern for some Ottawa businesses. CTV's Natalie Van Rooy reports.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
7 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
The eye of the storm isn't the end of Trump's chaos
It is comforting, in times of chaos, to believe that things will return to normal. People tend to seize on hints that the worst is over. This is why stock markets surge every time U.S. President Donald Trump does something marginally reasonable. Reality check: while moments of peace offer welcome breathing space, they are no reason to ignore the bigger picture. Canada sustained a series of body-blows in March and April, as Mr. Trump repeatedly raised annexation and levied punitive tariffs. Although the current situation may seem calmer, that is only by comparison to chaos. The country still faces serious economic threats from south of the border. Letting down the national guard now would be to fall victim to 'normalcy bias.' This theory holds that people believe during abnormal times that normality will reassert itself, removing the urgency to act. A common internet meme illustrates this with a picture of a dog surrounded by flames and saying, 'this is fine.' Last week offers strong evidence all is not fine. On Tuesday, Mr. Trump made another attempt to strong-arm Canada into joining his dream of a continental missile defence system. On Wednesday, a court ruled the U.S. president had acted beyond his authority to levy many of his tariffs. Then, one day later, another court paused the effect of that ruling, pending an appeal. Then on Friday, Mr. Trump announced that he would double tariffs on steel and aluminum. These head-spinning twists are now a feature of U.S. politics and are another reminder of the need for Canada to pivot away from the United States. On an individual level, Canadians realize this. They are boycotting American travel and making a point to buy local products. They applauded as provincial liquor retailers removed U.S. wine and spirits. They fly the Maple Leaf everywhere and dream, even more than most years, about the Stanley Cup coming home to Canada. Politicians seem to grasp it as well. The recent election campaign was consumed with the question of how best to protect Canadian independence. Prime Minister Mark Carney told the House of Commons last week that it is 'the top priority of Canada's new government to establish a new economic and security relationship with the United States and to strengthen our collaboration with reliable trading partners and allies around the world.' Mr. Carney is also pledging quick action to break down internal trade barriers, promising 'free trade across the nation' by July 1, and is seeking to join a European rearmament plan. These are positive developments. However, big decisions remain. Where to find the money to meet NATO's coming goal of defence spending equal to 5 per cent of GDP, and how best to allocate it so the country can face new threats. How to help the economy reorient more globally, instead of relying on proximity to the U.S. How to manage regional tensions that hurt Canada's ability to project a united front. None of this will be easy. It will require the country to make the hard choices to chart a new course, one that will take years or decades to emerge fully. Sacrifices will be necessary to ensure Canada remains strong and free. It will be harder to find the will to make those sacrifices if Mr. Trump's threats fade into background noise. Normalcy bias could lead Canadians to ignore his erratic behaviour. To be clear, it is not normal for a modern U.S. President to threaten to seize land from other countries. Pete Hoekstra, the U.S. ambassador to Ottawa, believes Canadians should just get over it, that the idea of annexation is dead. The diplomat clearly does not speak for his boss and is being massively disingenuous when he says that Americans are insulted by Canada's reaction to Mr. Trump's threats. And those threats continue. The President said again last week that Canada could avoid paying to join a continental missile defence program by becoming a U.S. state. Ludicrously, he claimed on social media that Ottawa is 'considering the offer.' Canadian ambassador to the United Nations Bob Rae rightly pointed out that, 'in another context this would be called a 'protection racket.'' Mr. Trump's threats will ebb and flow. Some days they will feel like a klaxon-blaring emergency while other days it will almost be possible to tune them out. But normalcy won't return on its own. Canadians have to make that happen, by keeping their elbows up and building a stronger country.
Globe and Mail
7 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
Why Apple can make iPhones only in China, and what Canada can learn from that
John Turley-Ewart is a contributing columnist for The Globe and Mail, a regulatory compliance consultant and a Canadian banking historian. Why can't Apple AAPL-Q make iPhones in the United States, or Canada for that matter? It's a relevant question following the recent demand from U.S. President Donald Trump that Apple iPhones sold in the U.S. be made in U.S., or face a 25-per-cent tariff. The answer, that Apple can only produce its iPhones in China, and why, is a guiding truth that should inform the federal government's Throne Speech promise to 'embark on the largest transformation of its economy since the Second World War.' That truth is made plain in the remarkable book Apple in China, written by Canadian-born business journalist Patrick McGee. It reveals in disturbing detail the 'Chinafication' of high-tech manufacturing founded on Apple know-how, billions in direct investment from Apple over the last quarter-century and Beijing's belief that 'Without a strong manufacturing industry, there will be no country and no nation.' The result is a low-cost manufacturing sector underwritten by the power of an authoritarian state that delivers a sophisticated and expanding managerial and engineering class atop a scalable, just-in-time, low-wage, low-skilled, low-rights, 300 million-plus floating work force that moves as needed from factory to factory that could not (and should not) be reproduced anywhere else in the world. Trump threatens 50% tariff on EU, 25% levy on Apple for iPhones not made in U.S. Apple has few incentives to start making iPhones in U.S., despite Trump's trade war with China As Mr. McGee observed in a U.S. podcast on his book, not only do Americans not want these factory jobs, neither do the Chinese people. These jobs are sustained by the policies of Beijing's Communist leadership that lets Apple exploit the desperation of millions of people from rural China as a means of exploiting Apple itself. In 1999 Apple didn't produce its products in China. A decade later it was making almost everything there. Since 2008 Apple has trained 28 million people in China. 'This rapid consolidation,' said Mr. McGee, 'reflects a transfer of technology and know-how so consequential as to constitute a geopolitical event, like the fall of the Berlin Wall.' Apple seeded China's production capacity through astonishing investments – reaching US$55-billion annually by 2015. This supplied the capital and expertise needed to train managers and engineers to establish and run factories and complex tooling companies while encouraging raw material extraction and refining essential to feeding the just-in-time high-tech supply chain Apple products rely on to generate $US90 billion-plus in annual profits. By Mr. McGee's calculations, that US$55-billion a year is double what was invested through the U.S. Marshall Plan in today's dollars after the Second World War to rebuild 16 European countries. What we learn from Mr. McGee's research is that Apple's iPhone and other products are possible because of a unique mix of management expertise delivered across multiple industries wedded to the availability of millions of low-skill, exploitable workers. What we also learn, which is pertinent to Canada, is how management education can play a key role in transforming an economy. One reason we can't get things done in Canada – improve productivity, take full advantage of the intellectual property we create, retain our promising start-ups, attract foreign direct investment, build infrastructure on time and near budget – is that Canadians are not great managers, especially in the small and medium-sized business sectors. It is a hard truth. Perhaps Canadians know this subconsciously and it is why many in the last federal election took comfort electing a prime minister with a reputation as an outstanding manager. The 'quality of management at Canada's manufacturing firms is … well behind the United States,' according to the OECD. The OECD goes on to say that 'managers in Canada tend to have comparatively lower levels of formal education than in other countries, which may mean shortfalls in competencies, such as strategic planning, financial management, and human resources management.' Canada produces large swaths of university and college graduates in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) and the arts. Most graduate without ever taking a course in financial or business management. If Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberal government truly wants to transform the Canadian economy, part of that long-term process must include working with businesses to invest heavily in management training while requiring the inclusion of business training in STEM and arts programs offered by colleges and universities. The U.S., through Apple, could teach engineers and managers in China how to create and lead the businesses needed to make an iPhone even if they couldn't produce it in the United States. If Apple was a Canadian company, it would have been sold or insolvent long ago.
Globe and Mail
7 minutes ago
- Globe and Mail
With U.S. science in crisis, G7 researchers mount a candid defence
For academic researchers in Canada and elsewhere, one feature of this particular moment in history is that things that are fundamental enough in a free society to go without saying are now being said in earnest. How else to explain the Ottawa Declaration? The one-page document was released on Monday by the national science academies of the G7, the Group of Seven democracies whose leaders are set to meet in Kananaskis, Alta., later this month. For the first time, the academies – which are researcher-led organizations independent of the governments they advise – have found it necessary to remind the public and G7 political leaders in a statement that science is an important and beneficial activity for them to pursue. 'Together, we have established a system of science based on transparency, meritocracy and openness that has provided the normative framework for science around the globe,' the statement says. While recognizing that 'national circumstances' play a role in shaping science policy and international co-operation, the declaration calls on countries to maintain their commitment to academic freedom, research integrity and related values associated with scientific inquiry. While the declaration makes no mention of the United States, it follows a series of moves by President Donald Trump's administration that take direct aim at science. They include historic cuts to research funding in universities, shuttering of programs in public agencies and a removal of data from publicly accessible web sites. The measures have often been blatantly ideological; climate and vaccine research are recurring targets. On May 23, Mr. Trump signed an executive order that calls for the implementation of what it calls 'Gold Standard Science." Critics have said the order is a thinly disguised effort to assert partisan control over U.S. research. As of Sunday, an open letter condemning the administration's actions had drawn more than 6,300 signatures, including Nobel laureates and faculty members at universities across the U.S. Because the U.S. invests more in science than any other G7 country, the turmoil has implications for collaborators and projects around the world. 'We need to be taking this very seriously,' said Dr. Alain-G. Gagnon, president of the Royal Society of Canada. 'We need to stand up for science. We need to stand up for democracy. We need to stand up for the public good.' It was Dr. Gagnon, a professor in the department of political science at the University of Quebec at Montreal, who initiated the effort to put out a joint statement ahead of this year's G7 Leaders' Summit. 'I feel that something has snapped,' he said. 'We need to make sure that democracy and scientific advancement are working together.' With Canada as the G7 host country this year, it fell to the Royal Society of Canada, which includes some 2,000 academic researchers, to set the agenda for what representatives from the seven countries' research academies should discuss during a meeting in Ottawa last month. In previous years, such gatherings have been held ahead of the G7 Leaders' Summit to independently identify key issues the world faces and to offer perspectives on how best to tackle them. This year's communique from the academies includes a set of policy-specific documents focused on technologies and data security, climate action and health resilience and sustainable migration. Different this year is the additional overarching declaration delivered to the G7 calling on the countries to stand by the research community that has given them so much. G7 countries in particular, the declaration points out, have benefited immensely from the fruits of the global scientific enterprise. 'Yet, there is so much that we take for granted in our daily lives and in our quality of life that would not exist if it were not for these scientific advances,' it says. The declaration is signed by Dr. Gagnon and each of his counterparts from the other G7 countries, including Marcia McNutt, president of U.S. National Academy of Sciences in the U.S. and a former director of the U.S. Geological Survey during the Obama administration. 'It is important for us, as Academies charged with providing unbiased advice, to articulate the basic underpinnings of the scientific method,' Dr. McNutt said in an e-mail in to The Globe and Mail. 'The declaration lays out these principles and the commitment that we all share to ensure that the science advice that we are giving as individual academies and as international colleagues is based on our rigorous, proven practices.' Bettina Rockenbach, president of Leopoldina, Germany's National Academy of Sciences, was another signatory to the declaration. She said that the academies have a responsibility to highlight the importance of science and to advocate for it. Measures taken by the U.S. administration both restrict academic freedom and impair the capacity of the country to innovate, Dr. Rockenbach added. 'Given the global nature of many of the challenges that we are facing, these actions undermine scientific progress for the benefit of all,' she said. Molly Shoichet, a professor of regenerative medicine at the University of Toronto and Ontario's former chief scientist, said she welcomed the Ottawa Declaration. 'The statement is needed,' Dr. Shoichet said. 'The assault on higher education makes it challenging for the present and future.' While the immediate problem is that the U.S. and its G7 partners risk losing the 'innovation edge' if the world's largest economy pulls back from science, she said the future worry 'is far greater because innovation is felt in every sector – defense, health, agriculture, energy, environment. 'While we may be able to weather the storm, so much momentum will be lost.'
