U.S. tariffs have had minimal impact on Canada Goose, company says
Canada Goose Holdings Inc. said US tariffs have only made a minimal impact on the maker of high-end coats and winter gear, due to its Canada-based supply chain.
Article content
Article content
The company, known for its $1,500 parkas, manufactures about 75% of its products in Canada and nearly all of those units comply with the standards of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, thereby exempting those goods from US tariffs, executives said.
Article content
'Our made-in-Canada products, which represent the vast majority of our offering, are not currently impacted by the recently announced tariffs on imports into the United States,' Chief Executive Officer Dani Reiss told investors on a conference call.
Article content
Article content
Canada Goose posted sales and profit that surpassed Wall Street's expectations in its most recent quarter, sending shares up as much as 29.6% on Wednesday in New York — the biggest intraday rise since February 2021.
Article content
Companies across the apparel industry have struggled to cope with US President Donald Trump's trade war. Many brands are reliant on production hubs in Asia, such as China and Vietnam, that have been targeted by Trump's tariffs.
Article content
A portion of Canada Goose's goods are made in Europe, which is facing elevated tariff rates from the US, but executives said those levies would have a 'minimal financial impact.'
Article content
Yet executives remain worried about trade squabbles hurting the global economy. The company declined to provide guidance for its current fiscal year, citing concerns about the 'consumer environment' and the lack of visibility into potential future policy changes.
Article content
'There's no doubt that the trade environment is choppy,' said Chief Financial Officer Neil Bowden. 'The level of unpredictability there, at least in our view, is such that we're not prepared to provide an outlook for the year.'
Article content
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Post
19 minutes ago
- National Post
Canadians reject that they live on 'stolen' Indigenous land, although new poll reveals a generational divide
A majority of Canadians reject the idea they live on stolen Indigenous land, and the older people are, the more likely they are to say they don't, according to a new public opinion poll. Article content Among all respondents across Canada, 52 per cent said they did not live on stolen Indigenous land, with 27 per cent saying they do. The remaining 21 per cent said they didn't know or declined to answer. Article content Article content Article content Notably, there was a significant generational divide among those who answered the national opinion survey, conducted by Leger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies and provided to Postmedia. Article content Article content More respondents in the youngest cohort, 18-to-24-year-olds, agreed they did live on stolen Indigenous land (41 per cent) than rejected the idea (37 per cent). That contrasts with those in the oldest age group of 65 years or older, who overwhelmingly said they did not live on stolen land (65 per cent) with only 15 per cent agreeing they did. Article content In between them, the remaining age groups were on an unbroken sliding scale in their answers: the older they were the more likely they were to reject the statement they lived on stolen land, and, conversely, the younger they were the more likely they were to agree that they did. Article content The sentiment rejecting the idea they live on stolen Indigenous land was a low majority regardless of the respondents' region in Canada, except for in Atlantic Canada, where most people still rejected the idea, but at a nationally low rate of 44 per cent, with 29 per cent of Atlantic respondents saying yes, they do live on stolen land. Article content Article content The type of land people live on also impacted their feelings on the issue. Article content Article content Canadians living in rural areas were the least likely to agree they live on stolen Indigenous land, with urban dwellers the most likely to agree. Article content When asked to agree or disagree with the statement 'I live on stolen Indigenous land,' 56 per cent of respondents living in a rural area said they disagree, 24 per cent said they agree, and 20 per cent said they didn't know or didn't answer. For those living in a suburban area, 50 per cent said they disagree, 29 per cent said they agree, and 21 per cent didn't give an answer. For urban dwellers, 46 per cent disagreed, 34 per cent agreed and 20 per cent didn't answer. Article content Those living in Calgary were the most vociferous in rejecting that their land is 'stolen' among the cities named in the polling data. In Calgary, 69 per cent said no, 20 per cent said yes, and 11 per cent didn't answer. Article content That differs sharply from those living in Edmonton, just 300 kilometres away in the same province, where respondents were the most amenable to the idea: 41 per cent said no, 32 per cent said yes, and 27 per cent didn't answer.
National Post
19 minutes ago
- National Post
Opinion: Mixed fleet of fighter jets not the answer for Canada's Air Force
By Alexander Lanoszka, Richard Shimooka and Balkan Devlen Article content The proverbial canary in the mine of U.S.-Canada defence co-operation is grey, flies as fast as Mach 1.6, and has a very low radar signature. Article content Article content Canada has named the F-35 — Lockheed Martin's fifth-generation multipurpose fighter jet — not once, not twice, but thrice as the CF-18s' intended replacement. Alas, the stealth fighter's procurement has come under scrutiny again in view of U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated wish to see Canada become the 51st state. Article content Hence, in his first days on the job, Prime Minister Mark Carney ordered yet another review. However, there was a ray of hope on June 10, when David McGuinty, Carney's new defence minister, issued a statement that made no mention of reviewing the contract. Instead, he said, 'this project will provide Canada with an invaluable air defence capability … well into the future.' Article content Article content Let's hope the government sticks with that plan. Given the history of this procurement, it continues to merit close scrutiny. Article content Politicians and international security analysts from across the political spectrum have supported Carney's temporizing. From their perspective, the U.S. now represents at best an unreliable ally and at worst a territorial menace. Canada would thus be better off acquiring other aircraft made by purportedly more trustworthy European allies. Recognizing that it may be too late to cancel, some propose Canada should acquire a mixed fleet — with either French-made Rafales or Swedish-made Gripens — so as not to rely exclusively on the U.S.-produced aircraft. Article content As Ottawa considers the implications of the June 10 auditor general's report, which found the estimated cost of replacing the F-18s has ballooned to $27.7 billion, it should note that a mixed fleet of fighter jets remains a terrible idea. Much of the costs are exogenous to the F-35 (like rebuilding dilapidated infrastructure), and would be borne by any fighter selected. It further underestimates the complex technologies involved, and takes too optimistic a view of what European defence contractors can provide. Tens of billions of public money could be wasted if Canada chooses a mixed fleet. Article content Article content The idea may sound reasonable. By many attributes — speed, payload, range — the Rafale and Gripen seem comparable to the F-35, thereby making them appear interchangeable. Moreover, diversity in suppliers makes sense to provide resilience over matters related to sovereignty. Article content First, despite overlapping capabilities, these aircraft have become so technologically complex that they have little interchangeability. Each aircraft has its own training program: F-35 pilots and support personnel cannot simply operate Gripens. The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) would have to offer two distinct training pipelines. Considering it already suffers from a severe pilot shortfall, a bifurcated training regime would further strain personnel capacity. Similarly, each aircraft requires its own logistical supply chain. Aircraft inevitably suffer from wear and tear, even in benign conditions, and their components are not interchangeable between fleets.
National Post
19 minutes ago
- National Post
Dr. J. Edward Les: The Canadian Medical Association's inexplicable stance on pediatric gender medicine
Late last month, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) announced that it, along with three Alberta doctors, had filed a constitutional challenge to Alberta's Bill 26 'to protect the relationship between patients, their families and doctors when it comes to making treatment decisions.' Article content Bill 26, which became law last December, prohibits doctors in the province from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapies for those under 16; it also bans doctors from performing gender-reassignment surgeries on minors (those under 18). Article content Article content Article content The unprecedented CMA action follows its strongly worded response in February 2024 to Alberta's (at the time) proposed legislation: Article content Article content 'The CMA is deeply concerned about any government proposal that restricts access to evidence-based medical care, including the Alberta government's proposed restrictions on gender-affirming treatments for pediatric transgender patients.' Article content But here's the problem with that statement, and with the CMA's position: the evidence supporting the 'gender affirmation' model of care — which propels minors onto puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and in some cases, surgery — is essentially non-existent. That's why the United Kingdom's Conservative government, in the aftermath of the exhaustive four-year-long Cass Review, which laid bare the lack of evidence for that model, and which shone a light on the deeply troubling potential for the model's irreversible harm to youth, initiated a temporary ban on puberty blockers — a ban made permanent last December by the subsequent Labour government. And that's why other European jurisdictions like Finland and Sweden, after reviews of gender affirming care practices in their countries, have similarly slammed the brakes on the administration of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones to minors. Article content Article content It's not only the Europeans who have raised concerns. The alarm bells are ringing loudly within our own borders: earlier this year, a group at McMaster University, headed by none other than Dr. Gordon Guyatt, one of the founding gurus of the 'evidence-based care' construct that rightfully underpins modern medical practice, issued a pair of exhaustive systematic reviews and meta analyses that cast grave doubts on the wisdom of prescribing these drugs to youth. Article content Article content And yet, the CMA purports to be 'deeply concerned about any government proposal that restricts access to evidence-based medical care,' which begs the obvious question: Where, exactly, is the evidence for the benefits of the 'gender affirming' model of care? The answer is that it's scant at best. Worse, the evidence that does exist, points, on balance, to infliction of harm, rather than provision of benefit.
