Myrtle Beach chamber ‘pleased' with CAN-AM Days attendance despite ongoing trade war
MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. (WBTW) — Myrtle Beach's 64th Annual CAN-AM Days is now over and some Canadians say they are still refusing to travel to the states. They say it's because of the Trump Administration's tariffs on Canada.
The event welcomes Canadian visitors every year to Myrtle Beach. The week-long event just wrapped up on Sunday. But with looming 25% tariffs on Canada, some say it's made them question their visits to South Carolina.
'We're a good neighbor,' Don MacVicar, a Canadian citizen said. 'We try to be a good neighbor, and we get treated like this.'
Don MacVicar has spent the last 25 years traveling to Myrtle Beach to escape the cold in Toronto and extend his golf season here at the beach. He typically visits with a handful of friends, but this year he says not anymore.
'I'm gonna miss Myrtle Beach, but we're not coming this year,' he said. 'Whether we come next year, I guess, will depend.'
MacVicar says many Canadians plan to spend their money elsewhere. Not only because of the tariffs, but also because of comments President Donald Trump made calling Canada the 51st state of the United States and calling their prime minister, governor.
He thinks Americans are acting like bullies.
'He's [President Trump] trying to weaken us economically as a country,' he said. 'He's trying to hurt us economically. He's trying to shut down industries that will cause unemployment and cause economic pain to Canadians.'
News13 first asked the Myrtle Beach Chamber in January about the tariffs ahead of CAN-AM Days but never received a response.
When News13 asked again Monday afternoon, it referred us to a recent statement made Feb. 24 which did not specifically refer to tariffs but does address 'travel trends and Canadian tourism.'
The chamber released a separate statement about event turnout:
'The 64th Annual CAN-AM Days, held from March 8-16, 2025, once again welcomed our Canadian friends to The Beach for this beloved tradition. Throughout the week, visitors enjoyed a range of well-attended events, including a kickoff ceremony at the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber and the Ripley's Can-Am Plaza Party, among others. While we don't have official attendance numbers, we were very pleased with the turnout and the positive feedback from Canadian visitors who expressed their appreciation for the warm welcome. We remain committed to ensuring their experiences are memorable.'
News13 also asked the chamber why media was never invited to the event kickoff party as it was last year, but it did not address that in their statement.
* * *
Adrianna Lawrence is a multimedia journalist at News13. Adrianna is originally from Virginia Beach, Virginia, and joined the News13 team in June 2023 after graduating from Virginia Commonwealth University in May 2023. Keep up with Adrianna on Instagram, Facebook, and X, formerly Twitter. You can also read more of her work, here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who's responsible for online harms? Responsibility for troubled file floats between ministers
OTTAWA — As ministers settle into their new roles, discussions are underway about who is best suited to steer the government's efforts to legislate against online harms, cabinet minister Steven Guilbeault said on Tuesday. Questions have arisen about which minister and department would be best suited to handle the complicated issue after the Liberals' proposed Online Harms Act died in Parliament when Prime Minister Mark Carney triggered a federal election in March. 'It's a good question,' said Guilbeault, who oversees the Canadian Heritage department, told reporters on his way into the Liberals' weekly cabinet meeting. 'We're having conversations to see what would be the most appropriate department to bring this forward.' Canadian Heritage had been the first department to develop and later introduce the Liberals' initial plan to combat the harms Canadian users experience online. That proposal, which was released in 2021, was met with widespread backlash over concerns about the requirement for social media companies to remove content within 24 hours after receiving a complaint. Experts had warned the provision was overly broad and risked infringing on free expression, given that companies could remove legal content. The Liberals then struck an advisory group and got to work on figuring out a Plan B. Responsibility for the bill also shifted from Canadian Heritage to the Justice Department. In early 2024, former justice minister Arif Vriani introduced Bill C-63, which proposed to create a new digital safety regulator that would be tasked with ensuring social media giants took steps to reduce users' access to content, such as child sex abuse images and incite extremism and violence. That bill was also met with backlash over its proposal to introduce stiffer sentences for hate-related offences and reintroduce a controversial section to the Canadian Human Rights Act to allow people to bring forward complaints of hate speech, which civil liberties advocates and Parliamentarians said risked violating free speech. Virani spent months defending the need for the tougher Criminal Code measures to be included in the online safety bill, but last December announced the government was prepared to split the bill to help get it passed. In January, former prime minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation and that Parliament would be suspended until March. Emily Laidlaw, a Canada Research Chair in cybersecurity law at the University of Calgary, who sat on the government's expert advisory group, said it was a mistake for the government to have combined different provisions into the same legislation and that by the time it announced the legislation would be split, 'it was too late.' 'What I'm hoping is, when they reintroduce it, they have very firmly the platform regulation law,' she says. Should the Liberals want to propose changes to the Criminal Code or the Canadian Human Rights Act, that should be separate, she said. Justice Minister Sean Fraser told reporters on Tuesday that the government was going to look at different measures when it comes to protecting children online, but would have more to say in the months ahead. One new factor in how the Liberals may decide to proceed is the fact that Carney named to his cabinet the country's first minister responsible for artificial intelligence and digital innovation, a position currently held by former broadcaster Evan Solomon, who was elected in late April's general election. The Liberals in their last bill listed AI-generated sexualized 'deepfakes' as one of the harms companies would have to take steps to tackle. Asked whether online harms would fall under his mandate, Solomon told reporters on Tuesday that it was 'up for debate.' 'But probably yeah.' Laidlaw said while she does not believe the government needs to start a new round of consultations, it ought to take a second look at the scope of harms it is seeking to tackle. For example, she suggested there was room to include the issue of identity fraud. 'I actually think it should be broadened to include some of the ways that AI can be used to facilitate harm, so it might not just be the typical social media on Instagram.' National Post staylor@ Hate crime laws to be split from Liberals' online harms bill after blowback PBO: Creating proposed online harms regulators estimated to cost $200M Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what's really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Fox News
31 minutes ago
- Fox News
Republican attorneys general accuse California of excusing 'lawlessness'
FIRST ON FOX: Nearly all Republican attorneys general blasted California's Democratic leaders on Tuesday in a joint statement, accusing them of condoning criminal behavior and saying they left President Donald Trump with no choice but to activate thousands of National Guard soldiers. "In California, we're seeing the results of leadership that excuses lawlessness and undermines law enforcement," 26 attorneys general wrote in the statement, first provided to Fox News Digital. "When local and state officials won't act, the federal government must." The attorneys general said Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard to address anti-immigration enforcement riots and protests that broke out in parts of Los Angeles County over the weekend was the "right response." Their remarks stand in direct contrast to those of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats across the country, who widely condemned Trump's decision to send the military into California as an unnecessary escalation. Newsom sued Trump over the move and accused the president of stripping California of its sovereignty. Presidents federalizing the National Guard, which is a state-based military force that falls under the dual control of governors and presidents, is rarely carried out without the consent of a governor. Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, who led the attorneys general in issuing the statement, told Fox News Digital in a brief interview he felt Newsom was "gaslighting" the public by saying California's local and state law enforcement had the unrest under control and did not need Trump to intervene. "We all saw what was happening," Carr said. "There were federal law enforcement officers that were being attacked by mobs. And in fact, I read articles where local law enforcement were saying they were overwhelmed and they needed help. My question is, why in the world would he not accept the help of the federal government at a time where there was mob rule, where there was arson that was taking place, where assaults were occurring, instead of coddling the criminals that are doing this again?" Carr said those opposed to the Trump administration's immigration raids could "peacefully disagree with what the federal government is doing." Newsom, for his part, alleged that Trump exacerbated the riots, echoing a position some criminal justice advocates take that an immediate show of force in response to intensifying protests is an ineffective approach. In Newsom's lawsuit, attorneys wrote that Trump's decision was not only unwise but also an unlawful and "unprecedented usurpation of state authority and resources." Fox News Digital reached out to the California Attorney General's Office for comment.
Politico
31 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump reverses Army base names in latest DEI purge
President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he plans to revert the names of seven major Army bases back to the Confederate generals for which they were originally named. 'We are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Hood, Fort Gordon, Fort Rucker, Fort Polk, Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Robert E. Lee,' Trump said. 'We won a lot of battles out of those forts, it's no time to change.' Trump's announcement, during a speech to soldiers at Fort Bragg, follows Biden-administration era alterations in 2023 that changed the installation names to honor new, non-Confederate individuals. Those included changing Fort Hood to Fort Cavazos, for the Army's first four-star Hispanic general. The Army previously redesignated Fort Liberty, previously known as Fort Bragg, to its original name, but honoring Private First Class Roland L. Bragg, a World War II hero instead of the Confederate general Braxton Bragg. The service also redesignated Fort Moore, after Gen. Hal Moore and his wife Julia Compton Moore, for Fred G. Benning, who won the Distinguished Service Cross during World War I. The Army is taking the same approach for the bases tapped for renaming on Tuesday, finding award-winning soldiers with the same last names as the Confederate generals to name the bases after, according to a statement released by the service after the president's speech. The president gave no timeline for the name changes and it was not immediately clear whether the Army's bases would be renamed after Confederate generals or soldiers from different eras. One army official, granted anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak, said they were caught off guard by the rapid-fire developments, which could take months to Army did not immediately respond to POLITICO's request for comment. Though the Trump administration insisted the redesignations were in-line with laws that prevent the Pentagon from naming bases after Confederate leaders or battles, Ty Seidule, a retired Army brigadier general who was the vice chair of the Congressional Naming Commission, which is tasked with relabeling bases and U.S. military assets, said that Trump's decision went against the spirit of the new rule enacted after the George Floyd protests. 'The bottom line is he's choosing surname over service,' said Seidule, who's now a visiting professor at Hamilton College. 'It is breaking the spirit of a law that was created by the will of the American people through their elected representatives.' Seidule said that the commission, which was made up of three Republicans, one Democrat and four retired flag officers, spent 20 months seeking input from the public and got 33,000 responses to change the names of Army bases and other installations and assets named after Confederates, including several U.S. Navy ships. But he said the decision still reflected that the Trump administration 'realizes that Confederates chose treason to preserve slavery, and they are unworthy of having bases named for them in America in 2025.' On Tuesday, Trump criticized Biden at several points during his speech, which was full of asides about immigration, transgender Americans and the spending bill currently being debated in Congress. His political comments in front of hundreds of soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division led to a smattering of boos from the mostly uniformed audience when he criticized former President Joe Biden. Audience members also jeered when Trump mentioned California Gov. Gavin Newsom, whom the president clashed with over protests in California that were sparked by the Trump administration's immigration raids. Presidents normally avoid giving political speeches to military personnel. 'Do you think this crowd would have showed up for Biden,' Trump said at one point in his remarks. 'I don't think so.' 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again,' Trump said, claiming parts of the city are under the control of international criminal gangs. The president has ordered 4,000 California National Guard soldiers and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, though so far only about 300 guardsmen have entered the city. The Marines are positioned outside Los Angeles, where they're undergoing training on crowd control, said one defense official who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. The move to rename Army bases comes just days after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth moved to relabel a Navy vessel named after gay rights activist Harvey Milk as well as other ships named after civil rights leaders and women. Seidule, the retired Army brigadier general who served on the Biden-era naming commission, said that Trump's decision creates the risk that future administrations could take turns renaming the Army's bases. 'What happens if some other administration would name something after someone that one party thinks is just absolutely beyond the pale,' said Seidule. 'I think that this could absolutely be a tennis match.' Sam Skove contributed to this report.
