logo
Feds should penalize companies that move production outside of Canada: Unifor

Feds should penalize companies that move production outside of Canada: Unifor

The federal government has an even more powerful trade-war weapon than counter-tariffs at its disposal and should begin using it immediately, says Canada's biggest private sector union.
In a letter to Prime Minister
Mark Carney
being sent Tuesday and provided to the Star, Unifor national president Lana Payne urges Carney and his government to use the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act to penalize companies that shift production out of Canada to avoid
tariffs imposed by U.S. president Donald Trump
.
The act gives the attorney general — in conjunction with the foreign affairs minister — the power to issue orders barring companies and individuals from complying with foreign laws and policies which have the potential to 'adversely affect Canadian interests in relation to international trade or commerce.'
The act allows a maximum penalty of $1.5 million for companies, and $150,000 plus five years in prison for individuals.
While counter-tariffs have been a necessary and effective measure to fight the trade war, said Payne, the urgency is growing as companies shift production and shed jobs.
'As tariffs persist, and threats of layoff and plant closures mount, further aggressive and defensive action must be taken to solidify Canada's industrial economy,' Payne wrote in her letter to Carney.
'I urge your government to take immediate and decisive action using the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act (FEMA), to prevent corporations operating in Canada, from offshoring jobs in response to foreign trade policies — particularly those originating from the United States.'
Unifor is also calling for stronger penalties, including asset seizures for companies that violate orders issued under FEMA, as well as compliance with FEMA orders, to be a condition for any company seeking relief from Canada's own retaliatory tariffs.
'We need to stop rewarding companies that gut our communities and undermine our economy,' said Payne. 'This is about protecting good Canadian jobs and defending our sovereignty.'
In a legal brief prepared for Unifor, international trade lawyer Craig Logie said FEMA could be even more effective with a few legislative tweaks, including explicitly making U.S. instructions to 'off-shore' jobs from Canada an unenforceable measure. Logie also suggested raising the maximum fines, as well as giving courts the ability to order the seizure and sale of property of companies or individuals who disobey an order under FEMA.
Logie noted that the Act can also apply to everything from official court rulings and government legislation, to 'intimations of policy and other communications issued by...the foreign state or foreign tribunal.'
'This is very broad language,' Logie wrote in his analysis.
The 1985 Act has been invoked twice before, both times involving American trade and economic policies.
In 2014, the Conservative government of Stephen Harper used it to fight Buy American provisions in an Alaskan-operated ferry terminal being refurbished in Prince Rupert, B.C.
In 1992, Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government invoked the Act to make it illegal for Canadian companies and individuals to comply with the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba.
Still, using it to punish companies for trying to avoid tariffs would be novel ground, said John Boscariol, head of the international trade law group at McCarthy Tetrault.
'FEMA has never been used in the way they're proposing,' said Boscariol. 'They might have a hard time convincing the government to use it like this.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Richard Blumenthal Reveals Trump 'Martial Law' Fear
Richard Blumenthal Reveals Trump 'Martial Law' Fear

Newsweek

timean hour ago

  • Newsweek

Richard Blumenthal Reveals Trump 'Martial Law' Fear

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said he is concerned that U.S. President Donald Trump will use the unrest in Los Angeles as a "pretext" for "imposing martial law". Blumenthal is working on legislation to limit presidential powers for troop deployments inside the U.S., an issue he has raised before. He wants to overhaul the Insurrection Act of 1792, seeing it as too broad in scope. Trump has deployed 2,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, in defiance of the wishes of state and local leaders, after protests against federal immigration raids descended into riots and looting. "As Trump moves to expand military deployments, possibly using protests in L.A. as a pretext for more broadly silencing free speech or even imposing martial law, I'll be reintroducing reforms to the Insurrection Act that check potential abuse or overreach," Blumenthal posted to X, formerly Twitter, late Monday. The Democratic Senator told POLITICO separately: "The mainstream of America really believes deeply that our military should be used to defend our national interests and security, not to silence protest at home." He had previously talked of overhauling the Insurrection Act in 2024 after Trump said he would consider sending the military into American cities to deal with crime and violence. Among the Senate committees to which Blumenthal is a member are the judiciary, homeland security, and armed services. This is a developing article. Updates to follow.

Trump expects institutions like ABC to play by the rules he refuses to follow
Trump expects institutions like ABC to play by the rules he refuses to follow

USA Today

timean hour ago

  • USA Today

Trump expects institutions like ABC to play by the rules he refuses to follow

Trump expects institutions like ABC to play by the rules he refuses to follow | Opinion Should Moran have popped off about Miller? By the old ways, he should've held his tongue. But he zeroed in accurately on the mindset of a presidential aide whose policies open up major rifts for US. Show Caption Hide Caption ABC to pay $15 million to and settle lawsuit, court documents show ABC News has agreed to give $15 million to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's presidential library to settle a lawsuit. Donald Trump's second term as president is built on a simple tactic that has provided him with a devious advantage – expect and demand that major American institutions follow established norms and standards, even as he refuses to follow any rules himself. ABC News offers us the latest example, which figures, since ABC News refuses to learn this lesson. The network on June 8 suspended Terry Moran, a senior national correspondent, after he posted a sharply worded but knowingly nuanced analysis on social media about Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy and the architect of an immigration policy deeply rooted in the enjoyment of suffering and strife. The Trump administration was quick to play the victim, a response as predictable as the sunrise. Vice President JD Vance, whom you may recall from his maliciously bogus claims about immigrants eating dogs and cats in Ohio during the 2024 election, whined on social media that Moran has posted a "vile smear" about Miller, "dripping with hatred." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted that she found Moran's "rampage" to be "unhinged and unacceptable" and had reached out to ABC News "to inquire about how they plan to hold Terry accountable." Yes, this is the same Karoline Leavitt who routinely talks about "freedom of speech" while trying to reshape the White House press corps into a supportive choir of Trump sycophants. Accountability in Trump's world is compulsory for others but never acknowledged for themselves. Rules don't apply: Trump tears down norms he expects us to follow How did Moran offend? His early-morning tweet, which he later deleted, said "the most interesting thing" about Miller was not his influence and impact on Trump's policies but that he is "richly endowed with the capacity for hatred." Moran went further, suggesting hatred is "spiritual nourishment" for Miller. That's tough stuff. But have you caught Miller's act on television? It's plain to anyone watching that Miller comes in hot for White House law television hits, looking for provocation and conflict, always seething and searching for any opening to spew disdain on anyone who does not think exactly as he thinks. It comes off – in a word – as hateful. Opinion: The most 'beautiful' part of Trump's bill is it helps him defy federal courts Moran concluded that Trump also uses hate as a tactic – something we've all seen – but that Trump's endgame is "glorification" for himself, not just hate for the sake of hate. ABC News moved fast here, suspending Moran and issuing this statement: "ABC News stands for objectivity and impartiality in its news coverage and does not condone subjective personal attacks on others." And there it is: the old rulebook, the traditional norms and standards that have served as guardrails for ages about how the news media and the executive branch interact with each other. Just one problem for ABC News here – Trump and his team will hold the network to those rules, but they're oh so eager to demolish norms and standards for his own behavior. I miss the days when accountability mattered to our government This all makes me sort of nostalgic for the old ways, when television correspondents who cover the White House were less inclined to offer in public psychoanalysis for prominent policymakers, and government staffers squawked about news coverage they didn't like but didn't employ every federal tool at their disposal to damage the free speech of critics. But Trump's second term is unlike anything America has seen before, a 24-7-365 crusade of grievance to abuse and punish anyone seen as an opponent. Should Moran have popped off about Miller? By the old ways, he should have held his tongue. But did he zero in accurately on the mindset of a presidential aide authoring policies that are opening up major rifts in American society? Here, Moran was spot-on, capturing Miller so precisely that I suspect his post shook the White House a bit and helped drive the demand for retaliation. ABC News now has to decide where to go from here. Recent history suggests the network will attempt to appease Trump, and then look foolish for doing so. Trump, who in 2024 vowed to punish ABC News because he didn't perform well in a debate the network hosted, also sued ABC for comments made by network anchor George Stephanopoulos. The network settled that lawsuit in December, making a $15 million donation to Trump's future presidential library, prompting a backlash from critics who said it had a strong argument for free speech to make in court. Think that appeased Trump? Of course not. Give in to a bully, expect more bullying. Opinion: Trump lied about LA protests to deploy the National Guard. He wants violence. Trump's appointee to chair the Federal Communications Commission, who always seems open and eager to use that agency's power to punish Trump critics, opened an investigation into ABC and its parent company in March. Here's a simple partisan test: Would Trump have flown into a dramatic rage if Joe Biden or Barack Obama did anything like that to the right-wing media fever swamp that constantly tells us he can do no wrong? Again, accountability only goes one way here. You may, like me, feel a sentimental draw to the old ways, the following of norms and standards by both journalists and the politicians they report on. And maybe, hopefully, we'll return to that someday. But that day is not today. And it is not likely to arrive during the three and a half years still left in Trump's second term. So here's a modest proposal: If Trump wants to upend norms and standards, give him a taste of his own medicine. He'll pretend to be the victim of a situation he created. And we'll all see and know the truth of it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here.

2 Brilliant High-Yield Energy Stocks to Buy Now and Hold for the Long Term
2 Brilliant High-Yield Energy Stocks to Buy Now and Hold for the Long Term

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

2 Brilliant High-Yield Energy Stocks to Buy Now and Hold for the Long Term

The energy sector is known for being volatile, though there's one industry segment that bucks the trend. Enterprise Products Partners has a lofty 6.8% yield and decades of annual distribution increases behind it. Enbridge has a 5.9% yield and decades of annual dividend increases behind it. 10 stocks we like better than Enterprise Products Partners › There is one key feature that all investors need to know about the energy sector: The commodity-driven sector can be very volatile. Or, at least, most of it can. There's one niche that actually has a pretty consistent history of reliability, particularly with regard to dividend stocks. This is why even conservative dividend investors will likely find Enterprise Products Partners (NYSE: EPD) and Enbridge (NYSE: ENB) attractive high-yield energy stocks to buy. Here's what you need to know. The energy sector is usually broken down into three subsegments. There is the upstream, which produces oil and natural gas. There is the midstream, which transports oil, natural gas, and the products into which they get turned. And there is the downstream, which processes oil and natural gas into other products, like chemicals and gasoline. The revenues in the upstream are entirely dependent on volatile oil and natural gas commodity prices. There's a similar dynamic in the downstream, since many of the products produced are commodities. However, there's another level of complexity here on the cost side, since oil and natural gas are key inputs. The sole oddity is the midstream, which normally just charges fees for moving commodities from one place to another. The up-front costs to build midstream assets, like pipelines, is fairly large. But once built, the toll-taker model employed generally produces reliable cash flows. Demand for oil and natural gas is more important than the price of oil and natural gas. And since energy is so vital to modern society, demand tends to remain robust even when oil prices are low. Enterprise and Enbridge are both midstream businesses. Just how reliable are Enterprise and Enbridge as dividend stocks? Enterprise, which is a master limited partnership (MLP), has increased its distribution for 26 consecutive years. Enbridge, a Canadian company, has increased its dividend annually for three decades. These are market-proven histories, noting that the energy sector has gone through multiple downturns over the past quarter-century. Right now, Enterprise is offering a distribution yield of 6.8%, while Enbridge has a dividend yield of around 5.9%. Both are well above the market and the broader energy industry. However, those lofty yields will likely make up the lion's share of return here. Slow and steady growth is the norm, but dividend investors probably won't find that trade-off too upsetting. While similar, Enterprise and Enbridge are not perfectly interchangeable. As noted, Enterprise is an MLP, a type of corporate structure that comes with some tax complications (notably having to deal with a K-1 statement on April 15). Enbridge, meanwhile, is Canadian, so its dividend is paid in Canadian dollars (what U.S. investors collect will change with exchange rates), and investors will have to pay Canadian taxes on the dividend (a portion of that can be claimed back come April 15). That said, Enterprise is also more focused on oil and natural gas assets than Enbridge. In fact, Enbridge's specific goal is to adjust its business along with the world's energy needs. So it has been increasingly shifting toward natural gas, including buying natural gas utilities, and it has a small, but growing, clean energy business. Enbridge is probably the more conservative of these two midstream choices. The big theme here, however, is that Enterprise and Enbridge are high-yield investments with reliable businesses that can pay you for years into the future. They aren't the kind of stocks you buy and sell frequently; they are the kind you buy and hold for the long term. That way, you benefit from the slow and steady growth of the dividend, as these reliable income investments keep pumping out cash from what is otherwise a highly volatile industry. If you are looking to boost your investment income in June, Enterprise and Enbridge should be on your list of options. Before you buy stock in Enterprise Products Partners, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Enterprise Products Partners wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 173% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Reuben Gregg Brewer has positions in Enbridge. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Enbridge. The Motley Fool recommends Enterprise Products Partners. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 2 Brilliant High-Yield Energy Stocks to Buy Now and Hold for the Long Term was originally published by The Motley Fool

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store