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

New York renters will save a ton of money on moving starting today
New York renters will save a ton of money on moving starting today

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

New York renters will save a ton of money on moving starting today

The FARE Act shifts broker fee responsibility to landlords, reducing upfront costs for renters. New York City renters have faced high upfront costs, with broker fees adding thousands to expenses. Critics argue the FARE Act may lead to higher rents, but economists see minimal impact on prices. In the summer of 2023, New Yorker Josh Magpantay was in a hurry to move. The price tag for a new spot — not including rent or a security deposit — was $7,000. That's because Magpantay's apartment came with a broker's fee. Since he moved, he's felt locked in — even though he thinks the rent is too high — because of how much it would cost to move elsewhere and pay a similar fee. Magpantay is far from alone: Fees paid to landlord-hired brokers as part of the upfront costs of signing up for a new apartment in New York can range from about one month's worth of rent to 15% of annual rent, which can add up to thousands of dollars paid out even before moving in. But that might change soon for Magpantay and renters like him. As of June 11, the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses Act — known as the FARE Act — makes landlords responsible for paying brokers' fees, unless prospective tenants hire their own broker to assist them with their search. "The law is clear. Whoever hires the broker pays the fee," Jackie Vazquez, a 29-year-old realtor in New York City, said. She added: "I think that sounds fair." In 2024, around 47% of New York City rentals had a broker's fee. Between the fee, first month's rent, and a security deposit, upfront moving costs averaged almost $13,000 in New York City between January and April of this year. Under the FARE Act, the average cost of moving into an apartment that previously charged the tenant a broker fee is expected to fall by 41.8%, per a report by the online renting platform StreetEasy. That means the average upfront lease cost, which includes the first month's rent, a security deposit, and the broker fee, would fall to $7,537, down from $12,951. "The FARE Act won't necessarily bring a monumental shift in the rental market, but it's going to be a substantial win for renters, especially for affordability," Kenny Lee, an economist at StreetEasy and the author of the report, told Business Insider. The law will also put New York City in line with most of the rest of the country, where brokers are paid by those who hire them. In the short term, the law could open up pent-up demand from renters. Some in the industry expect a wave of New Yorkers who've postponed their apartment search until after the Act goes into effect to return to the market. "Renters have been sitting on their hands, waiting for this thing to pass," Allia Mohamed, CEO of the leasing and landlord review platform openigloo, told Business Insider. "They're gonna get back in the market right when June 11 passes." Before online rental listing platforms like StreetEasy and RentHop became ubiquitous, some renters hired brokers to help them find apartments. But these days, tenants can do a lot of that work themselves simply by scrolling the listing platforms. Opponents and critics of the FARE Act argue landlords will simply raise rents to cover the brokers' fees, thus turning a one-time fee for tenants into a permanent upcharge. The Real Estate Board of New York, a major industry group, has sued to block the law, arguing it would increase costs and cause rental market chaos. A spokesperson for the group, Kay Sarlin Wright, pointed BI to talking points arguing the law would also hurt real estate agents and rob tenants of their expertise. "For future moves, I'm worried about the increase in rental prices because I can definitely see landlords lumping the brokerage fee into the rent prices to recoup this cost," Lexis Xia, a 29-year-old finance director and lifelong resident of New York, said. But economists have found that the impact on rent is minimal, and that rents are primarily determined by supply and demand rather than landlords' expenses. Lee found that properties that dropped broker fees in April of this year saw rent increases of 5.6%, compared with a 4.6% increase in rent in the rest of the market. "This small difference tells us that property managers are already absorbing much of the costs associated with bringing the leasing activity in-house or compensating the brokers themselves, and the data really tells us that they'll continue to do so," Lee said. For four years, Dante Fiallo, a 29-year-old actor in New York City, was locked into an apartment where the rent continually increased. Every year, he said, his landlords kept hiking the price, and he just had to swallow it because he couldn't afford broker fees. "We would've left sooner or we would not have renewed if we could have gone to another place," Fiallo said. "But we never had enough money upfront to do that." Landlords who significantly raise rents might have trouble competing for tenants. Mohamed suspects that landlords who choose to use brokers going forward will ultimately negotiate lower fees. Vazquez, the broker, thinks it's an overall positive shift. She said the value is clear: A landlord gets value from hiring a listing agent or broker to aid in renting out the apartment. A tenant choosing to hire a broker receives value from someone representing them and weeding through the apartment market on their behalf. "It's the power of choice, and I think that's very empowering for someone navigating the most intimidating real estate market in the world," she said. "So I think it gives so much clarity and power back to the renters." There are also landlords who say they won't post their units online and will instead rely on word of mouth to fill their apartments, in order to avoid doing the legwork brokers have traditionally done for them. Mohamed doesn't buy that. "At the end of the day, landlords want to fill their apartments," she said. "If posting and advertising the apartment online is what's going to get them a renter faster, that's what they will continue to do." Are you a renter or broker with a story to share about fees? Contact these reporters at erelman@ and jkaplan@ Read the original article on Business Insider

The Scofflaw Strongman
The Scofflaw Strongman

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The Scofflaw Strongman

DONALD TRUMP SAYS HIS LATEST VENTURE into dictatorship—deploying the National Guard and Marines against American citizens, over the opposition of state and local officials—is about safeguarding the rule of law. 'If we see danger to our country and to our citizens, we'll be very, very strong in terms of law and order,' Trump told reporters on Sunday, as protests escalated in Los Angeles against his deportations. 'It's about law and order.' Don't believe it. Trump is using the Guard and the military to enforce his will, not the law. The evidence of his insincerity is what he did four years ago: When rioters were on his side, he didn't call in the Guard. He embraced the criminals, pardoned them, and purged the law enforcement officials who prosecuted them. He's a despot and a scofflaw. In the Los Angeles uprising, Trump—like every authoritarian before him—claims to be saving his country from chaos. 'Violent, insurrectionist mobs are swarming and attacking our Federal Agents,' he declared on Sunday afternoon. 'These lawless riots only strengthen our resolve.' A few hours later, he called for 'bringing in the troops . . . RIGHT NOW!!! Don't let these thugs get away with this.' And on Monday afternoon, he ridiculed any suggestion that the protesters were peaceful. 'Just one look at the pictures and videos of the Violence and Destruction,' he wrote, 'tells you all you have to know.' Insurrectionist mobs. Lawless riots. Videos of violence. We've heard such alarming descriptions before. And on January 6, 2021, we saw how little Trump cared about them. Share AT 1:21 P.M. THAT DAY, AS TRUMP returned to the White House after instructing his supporters to march on the Capitol, he was told twice by a member of his staff, 'They're rioting down at the Capitol.' The exact moment of this encounter was captured in a photograph. Trump replied, 'All right, let's go see.' He went to his dining room and watched on TV as the riot proceeded. For the next hour, TV networks aired videos of the violence and destruction. Like this week's videos from Los Angeles, they told the president all he needed to know. But Trump did nothing. Toward the end of that hour—somewhere between 2:13 and 2:24 pm, according to the final report of the House January 6th Committee—Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, informed White House Counsel Pat Cipollone that Trump 'doesn't want to do anything' about the ongoing assault. A few minutes later, Cipollone was heard to tell Meadows, 'They're literally calling for the Vice President to be F'ing hung.' And Meadows was heard to reply, 'You heard him, Pat. He thinks Mike [Pence] deserves it. He doesn't think they're doing anything wrong.' Meanwhile, in a phone call, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy warned Trump that the rioters 'literally just came through my office windows, and my staff are running for cover. I mean, they're running for their lives. You need to call them [the assailants] off.' Trump responded by rebuking McCarthy: 'Well, Kevin, I guess they're just more upset about the election theft than you are.' These conversations took place as Fox News, which Trump was watching, reported that police had been injured and that rioters inside the Capitol were 'feet from the House chamber.' On the screen, according to the House committee report, Fox 'was showing video of the chaos and attack, with tear gas filling the air in the Capitol Rotunda.' Throughout the afternoon, Trump's aides, family, and friends implored him to tell the rioters to go home. He refused. Not until 4:17 p.m., nearly three hours after being informed about the riot, did he comply. Join now TRUMP NOW CLAIMS that he told the rioters to be peaceful and that he offered ten thousand National Guard troops to protect the Capitol. The first claim is misleading. The second is a lie. The House report shows that before and during the assault, Trump resisted entreaties to call for peace. On January 6th, a text message to one of his top aides, Hope Hicks, said Trump 'should tweet something about Being NON-violent.' Hicks wrote back: 'I suggested it several times Monday and Tuesday and he refused.' At one point in his incendiary speech that morning, Trump did ask his followers to march to the Capitol 'peacefully.' But that phrase, according to the House report, was 'scripted for him by his White House speechwriters.' The main theme of the speech was to 'fight like hell.' Another Trump aide, Sarah Matthews, told the committee that once the riot was underway, Trump resisted pleas to call for peace. He did use the term 'peaceful' in a tweet at 2:38 p.m., but only grudgingly. Trump's press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, told Matthews that Trump 'did not want to include any sort of mention of peace in that tweet.' Trump's other January 6th story, about the National Guard, is also a sham. His acting defense secretary, his Army secretary, and his chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all testified that he never ordered the Guard to deploy that day. He never even spoke to these officials. Instead, during the riot, he used his phone to press members of Congress to do what the mob wanted: overturn the election. It's true that before the attack, Trump talked about the possibility of needing guardsmen. But it was never about protecting the Capitol. It was, in Meadows's words, to 'protect pro Trump people' from anti-Trump protesters. In short, everything Trump decries in Los Angeles happened on January 6th, and more. A violent, insurrectionist mob swarmed and attacked police. And instead of bringing in the Guard 'RIGHT NOW,' Trump watched the assault, encouraged the mob, and waited to see whether it would keep him in power. In fact, when he returned to office this year, Trump pardoned nearly everyone who had pleaded guilty to or had been convicted of assaulting police on January 6th. He said the insurrectionists were right: 'They were protesting a crooked election.' He purged the prosecutors who had handled those cases. And in a speech at the Department of Justice, he boasted that he had 'removed the senior FBI officials' who, in his words, had persecuted the 'J6 hostages.' Share NOW, AS HE DEPLOYS THE MILITARY against protesters in an American city, Trump invokes 'law and order' as a bogus excuse. And he vows to go further. On Monday, he announced a policy of escalation against protesters. 'If they spit, we will hit,' he wrote on Truth Social. 'This is a statement from the President of the United States. . . . The Insurrectionists have a tendency to spit in the face of the National Guardsmen/women, and others. . . . IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before.' On Tuesday, speaking to troops at Fort Bragg, Trump said he was seizing control of the National Guard and ending the tradition of consulting governors. 'We will use every asset at our disposal to quell the violence and restore law and order right away,' he declared. 'We're not going to wait . . . for a governor that's never going to call.' And in remarks in the Oval Office, Trump said his policy of escalating state violence would apply to anyone who protests the military parade on June 14, his birthday. 'If there's any protester [who] wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,' he warned. 'For those people that want to protest. . . . They will be met with very heavy force.' This is not a man defending the rule of law. This is a man continuing the project he began in his first term and tried to complete on January 6th: replacing the rule of law with himself. Share The Bulwark

'Unprecedented pressure:' Businesses want infrastructure projects expedited, says KMPG survey
'Unprecedented pressure:' Businesses want infrastructure projects expedited, says KMPG survey

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

'Unprecedented pressure:' Businesses want infrastructure projects expedited, says KMPG survey

Businesses want all levels of government to 'quickly align' to expedite and streamline the review process for infrastructure projects, according to a survey by KPMG Canada. The survey itemizes what Canadian businesses say needs to be done as the federal and provincial governments work to finalize a list of large nation-building projects. These range from improving existing ports and transportation networks to building an energy-agnostic utility and digital infrastructure corridor. 'We're seeing unprecedented pressure on our infrastructure and construction industries to deliver projects quickly and urgently,' Zach Parston, KPMG Canada's partner and national leader for infrastructure, said in a press release. KPMG notes financing these projects will be key. Nine out of 10 business leaders said Canada will need to 'unlock' public-private investment in infrastructure to incentivize institutional investors and private capital to participate, the survey said. Ninety-two per cent of respondents said that investment in infrastructure improvements, such as transportation networks, ports, pipelines, etc., would help their company grow or expand their business nationally and overseas. 'Canada is already in a megaproject era that's about to intensify in a big way,' said Parston, adding productivity will need to increase exponentially. The survey said 90 per cent want Canada to invest in a policy and infrastructure agenda that will unlock the country's economic potential, including a national utility corridor and digital infrastructure. Meanwhile, 89 per cent said Canada's ports are 'woefully unproductive' and need major investments to make good on the promise of wider global trade. The same percentage also said that governments must collaborate and create pre-approved industrial zones across the country. They say this would cut red tape and speed up approval times to 'build refineries, mines or factories that would allow for expansion within Canada and open up access to coastal ports and put a stamp on Arctic sovereignty.' 'The success of these projects will hinge on how they are structured and financed,' said John Cho, KMPG's national private capital leader in Canada. 'If they can be structured in such a way to attract institutional investor and private capital ownership, it will allow the federal government to continue to invest in other areas critical for maintaining and improving the lives of Canadians.' KMPG Canada surveyed 250 business leaders in all industry sectors across Canada between May 9 and 20 using Methodify's online research platform. 87% of energy executives think it's time to build a west-to-east pipeline, KPMG survey says Rising interest rates pushing EVs out of reach for Canadians: KPMG poll Janet Rieksts Alderman, chair of KMPG Canada's board leadership centre, said megaprojects are notorious for running late and overbudget. 'The primary reason megaprojects fail is poorly designed governance,' she said. • Email: dpaglinawan@

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