
Tariffs back in Ontario campaign spotlight with fresh threat from Trump
Tariffs were back in the spotlight on the Ontario election campaign trail Monday, as the major party leaders brace for potential U.S. levies on several key Canadian goods.
Speaking to reporters Sunday, U.S. President Donald Trump revealed he intends to slap 25 per cent tariffs on aluminum and steel, including from Canada and Mexico. That's despite agreements made by Trump with both countries just last week to delay the imposition of tariffs for 30 days.
At a campaign stop in Oakville, PC Leader Doug Ford said Canada and the provinces need to be prepared to react quickly.
"We're still learning more about [the tariffs'] scope and impact, but what we know for certain is this is the next four years ... Shifting goal posts constantly and constant chaos all designed to hurt our economy and undermine our workers," he said.
Ford was alluding to his central campaign message and supposed reason for calling a snap election: that he needs another clear four-year mandate to deal with the uncertainty of the Trump administration.
The PC leader also reiterated his pitch for the so-called "Fortress Am-Can," a renewed energy and security alliance between the U.S. and Canada aimed at out-competing China in the global race for resources and innovation. The idea is not one that appears to have gained much traction with either the federal Liberal government nor the Trump administration.
As part of the campaign stop, Ford announced a re-elected PC government would ban Chinese parts from future energy procurement and prohibit any Chinese state-owned enterprises from "buying or taking equity in any Ontario government funded energy and critical mineral projects."
CBC News has reached out the PC campaign to ask whether there any existing instances of this happening in the province.
PCs trying to distract from record, Crombie says
Ford is set to lead a delegation to Washington, D.C., later this week to meet with American lawmakers and business leaders to make against tariffs. The trip has drawn criticism from Ford's political rivals, who argue the trip is an inappropriate use of his office as premier during an election campaign that he himself triggered, and defies democratic norms.
Trump's unexpected announcement Sunday came as the other major party leaders were attempting to shift the campaign away from tariffs and on to other provincial issues like health care and housing.
At her own campaign stop in Toronto, Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie said Ford was unprepared for the threat of U.S. tariffs, pointing to the PC leader's previous statements of support for Trump.
She said Ford's focus on tariffs is an attempt to distract voters from his record on issues like affordability and health care, and that Ontario needs to be part of a "Team Canada" response to Trump.
"But the reality is [Ford's] been caught flatfooted because he hasn't insulated our economy. He hasn't diversified our trade or our trading partners or worked to reduce interprovincial barriers. He hasn't protected our jobs. The only job Doug Ford wants to protect is his own," Crombie told reporters.
"Meanwhile, people are struggling and don't have access to a family doctor," she said.
For her part, NDP Leader Marit Stiles used a morning news conference with the Ontario Nurses' Association to promise she would establish safe nurse-to-patient ratios in hospital so patients get more care and nurses don't burn out.
Stiles said the New Democrats would also hire at least 15,000 nurses over three years, at a cost of $1.5 billion, and redirect hundreds of millions of dollars from for-profit temporary health-care staffing agencies to the public system.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
How unusual is it for the National Guard to come to LA? Here's what to know about the city's history
President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests is the latest in a long history of U.S. elected officials sending troops in hopes of thwarting unrest connected to civil rights protests. National Guard troops are typically deployed for a variety of emergencies and natural disasters with the permission of governors in responding states, but Trump, a Republican, sent about 1,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles despite the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats.


Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
How unusual is it for the National Guard to come to LA? Here's what to know about the city's history
President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests is the latest in a long history of U.S. elected officials sending troops in hopes of thwarting unrest connected to civil rights protests. National Guard troops are typically deployed for a variety of emergencies and natural disasters with the permission of governors in responding states, but Trump, a Republican, sent about 1,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles despite the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. Confrontations began Friday when dozens of protesters gathered outside a federal detention center demanding the release of more than 40 people arrested by federal immigration authorities across Los Angeles, as part of Trump's mass deportation campaign. Trump said that federalizing the troops on Saturday was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California. Newsom said Trump's recent decision was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Some of the previous National Guard deployments have preserved peace amid violent crackdowns from local law enforcement or threats from vigilantes, but sometimes they have intensified tensions among people who were protesting for civil rights or racial equality. On rare occasion, presidents have invoked an 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act, which is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. Other times they relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances, which is what Trump did on Saturday. Here is a look at some of the most notable deployments: George Floyd protests in Los Angeles in 2020 Almost five years ago, Newsom deployed approximately 8,000 National Guard troops to quell protests over racial injustice inspired by the death of George Floyd in Minnesota. Well over half of the troops deployed in California were sent to Los Angeles County, where police arrested more than 3,000 people. City officials at the time, including then-Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, supported Newsom's decision. Rodney King protests in 1992 Some have compared Trump's decision on Saturday to George H.W. Bush's use of the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992, after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. In just six days the protests became one of the deadliest race riots in American history, with 63 people dying, nine of whom were killed by police. Syreeta Danley, a teacher from South Central Los Angeles, said she vividly remembers as a teen seeing black smoke from her porch during the 1992 uprisings. Danley said that at the time it seemed like law enforcement cared more about property damage affecting wealthier neighborhoods than the misconduct that precipitated the unrest. She said some people in her neighborhood were still more afraid of the police than the National Guard because once the troops left, local police 'had the green light to continue brutalizing people.' The National Guard can enforce curfews like they did in 1992, but that won't stop people from showing up to protest, Danley said. 'I have lived long enough to know that people will push back, and I'm here for it,' Danley said. Watts protests in 1965 There were deadly protests in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles in 1965 in response to pent-up anger over an abusive police force and lack of resources for the community. Over 30 people were killed — two-thirds of whom were shot by police or National Guard troops. Many say the neighborhood has never fully recovered from fires that leveled hundreds of buildings. Integration protests in the 1950-1960s In 1956, the governor of Tennessee called the state's troops to help enforce integration in Clinton, Tennessee, after white supremacists violently resisted federal orders to desegregate. President Dwight Eisenhower called the Arkansas National Guard and the 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army in 1957 to escort nine Black students as they integrated a previously white-only school. A few years later, the Maryland National Guard remained in the small town of Cambridge for two years after Maryland's Democratic Gov. J Millard Tawes in 1963 called in troops to mediate violent clashes between white mobs and Black protesters demanding desegregation. Selma, Alabama, voting rights protest in 1965 National Guard troops played a pivotal role in the march often credited with pressuring the passage of Voting Rights Act of 1965, when nonviolent protesters — including the late congressman John Lewis — calling for the right to vote were brutally assaulted by Alabama State Troopers in Selma, Alabama, in 1965. Two weeks later, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson sent National Guard troops to escort thousands of protesters along the 50-mile (81-kilometer) march to the state Capitol. Johnson's decision was at odds with then-Gov. George Wallace who staunchly supported segregation. ___ Riddle is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.


Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
Competition Bureau sues DoorDash for allegedly misleading customers over fees
Canada's competition watchdog is suing DoorDash Inc. and its Canadian subsidiary, accusing it of marketing its online delivery services at a lower price than what consumers actually wind up paying. The Competition Bureau alleged Monday that an investigation found DoorDash customers were unable to purchase food and other items at prices advertised on the food delivery company's websites and mobile apps because of mandatory fees added at checkout. The extra charges range from service and delivery fees to amounts sought for couriering things a further distance, placing smaller orders or making purchases in B.C., where DoorDash has to comply with minimum wage regulations for gig workers. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. The bureau alleged the charges were sometimes framed as if they were taxes, when in reality, they are charges imposed at DoorDash's discretion. The fees resulted in customers paying higher prices than advertised and amounted to a deceptive practice known as drip pricing, which the bureau alleges DoorDash may have used for close to a decade to make nearly from $1 billion from mandatory fees. The bureau wants the company to stop the practice, cease portraying fees as taxes, pay a penalty and issue restitution to affected consumers. DoorDash is pushing back on the requests, saying 'it does not hide fees from consumers or mislead them in any way.' 'This application is a misguided and excessive attempt to target one of Canada's leading local commerce platforms,' DoorDash spokesperson Trent Hodson said in a statement to The Canadian Press. 'It unfairly singles out DoorDash, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims.' The Competition Bureau has been more aggressive in its fight against drip pricing since the Competition Act was amended in June 2022 to more clearly distinguish the practice as harmful, giving regulators more room to pursue companies who engage in such activity. The bureau accused Cineplex Inc. of drip pricing in May 2023, eventually winning a $38.9-million fine against the movie theatre giant, which is contesting the decision from the Competition Tribunal. Other recent Competition Bureau targets for drip pricing have included SiriusXM Canada, Discount Car & Truck Rentals Ltd. and TicketNetwork. Its Door Dash court filing shows it is going after the business for making 'false or misleading representations' because 'when consumers go online to order, they expect these services to deliver not just food, but also honest pricing.' 'Consumers expect that the price they see advertised will match what they ultimately pay,' the bureau's application said. 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 .