Carney disappointed after Trump hits Canada with 35 per cent tariffs
'While we will continue to negotiate with the United States on our trading relationship, the Canadian government is laser focused on what we can control: building Canada strong,' Carney said in a media statement released just after midnight.
The White House has said the tariffs will not affect goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade, commonly known as CUSMA.
Earlier in the week, Carney had been tempering expectations of an agreement materializing by Friday, saying Ottawa will only agree to a deal 'if there's one on the table that is in the best interests of Canadians.'
Carney has described the trade talks as complex, comprehensive and constructive.
Trump, meanwhile, has complained repeatedly about America's northern neighbour. When asked about the holdup in Canadian negotiations on Thursday, Trump said 'they have to pay a fair rate.'
Trump signed an executive order Thursday night to hit Canada with the increased duties. A fact sheet from the White House rationalized the rate change by saying Canada 'failed to cooperate in curbing the ongoing flood of fentanyl' and citing Ottawa's implementation of retaliatory tariffs.
Carney said that 'Canada accounts for only one per cent of U.S. fentanyl imports and has been working intensively to further reduce these volumes.'
Canada is also being slammed by Trump's tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles. Carney said the government will try to minimize their impact and protect Canadian jobs.
Trump's 50 per cent tariffs on semi-finished copper also came into effect just after midnight, but the latest duty exempts the raw input material.
In a separate executive order Thursday, Trump increased his so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs on many other nations, with those duties to be implemented in seven days.
Markets were in turmoil again Friday morning due to uncertainty over the president's latest tariff moves and a report on U.S. job growth that was sharply lower than expected.
Reaction to the tariffs in Canada was swift. Canadian Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Candace Laing said in a media statement that the White House's fact sheet was 'fact-less.'
'More fact-less tariff turbulence does not advance North American economic security. Businesses — in Canada and the U.S. — urgently need certainty,' said Laing.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said his party is holding out hope for a deal that will end all U.S. tariffs on Canada, including Trump's sectoral duties on specific industries.
'That is the deal Canada had before and the Prime Minister should accept nothing short of that,' Poilievre said in a post on social media.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford said 'Canada shouldn't settle for anything less than the right deal.'
'Now is not the time to roll over,' Ford said in a social media post.
About 80 to 90 per cent of Canadian goods might be able to avoid Trump's higher tariffs because they comply with CUSMA's rules of origin, said Michael Dobner, the national leader of economics and policy practice at PricewaterhouseCoopers Canada.
That doesn't mean all of those exporters have filed the necessary paperwork to avoid the duties, he added. It's not clear exactly how much of what Canada exports to the United States now is CUSMA-compliant.
While no industry can be singled out as the one most at risk, Dobner said, any business that must use many parts sourced outside North America is in jeopardy of increased duties.
Canadian Federation of Independent Business president and CEO Dan Kelly said many small- and medium-sized businesses are worried about facing the brunt of the duties.
They may not have the financial flexibility to change their inputs to North American products easily, or have the capacity to quickly get the paperwork to show CUSMA compliance.
The federation's data shows that, so far, most small businesses are absorbing some or all of the costs associated with Trump's tariffs, under the assumption that Canada will find some sort of solution.
'Is 35 per cent going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back?' Kelly said.
Kelly said if Canada remains in 'no man's land' on Friday, Ottawa should release funds collected by retaliatory tariffs to help struggling businesses.
Both Kelly and Dobner said that while the increase in tariffs will be terrible for some businesses, the larger concern for all industries is the ongoing uncertainty that has put a chill on investment.
'Generally speaking, even without that increase, there has been a bit of a freeze in investment in Canada,' Dobner said.
— With files from The Associated Press
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 1, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump's cynical bait-and-switch on IVF
Donald Trump Prescription drugs Health care policyFacebookTweetLink Follow To hear President Donald Trump tell it, he wields an almost magical ability to lower Americans' health care costs. Yet that doesn't seem to extend to one area where he made explicit 2024 campaign promises: in vitro fertilization. Just this weekend, Trump claimed he had lowered prescription drug costs as much as 1,500%. 'I don't mean 50%,' Trump clarified. 'I mean 14, 1,500%.' This is obviously false and innumerate. You can't cut something more than 100%. It would mean drug companies were not only giving their drugs away for free, but actually paying people exorbitant sums to take them. But the self-proclaimed 'father of IVF' appears to be an absentee dad. His past vows to make the expensive and arduous IVF process 'free,' or at least require insurers to cover it, would fall under that seemingly magical umbrella as well, of course. But contrasting with his repeated pressure on drugmakers to lower costs — regardless of whether it's in his power to do so — Trump and his administration haven't done much of anything to make his IVF promises a reality. And it sounds like they've given up trying, to the extent they meant to pursue this policy in the first place. Indeed, this looked a whole lot like a cynical pander during the 2024 campaign. And the administration's actions since then only seem to confirm it. The Washington Post reported this weekend that the Trump administration has no actual plan to get insurers to cover IVF, more than six months into the new administration. The only concrete action Trump has taken on this front was back in February, when Trump instructed his domestic policy council to submit 'recommendations' on 'aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' He gave it 90 days. Those recommendations were due in mid-May. But there is still no word on what, if any, recommendations were produced, and the administration last week reportedly declined to comment on the situation. Fast forward to today, and the White House is apparently waving the white flag on Trump's biggest IVF promise. White House officials reportedly blamed inaction on the fact that Trump can't legally do this on his own and would need Congress to pass a law. But that's not exactly the kind of impediment that Trump usually respects. His first six-plus months back in the presidency are rife with attempts to take bold and legally dubious executive actions that challenge the courts to stop him and companies to defy him. That's even applied to health care specifically. Just last week, Trump sent letters to 17 major pharmaceutical company CEOs giving them 60 days to comply with an executive order that sought to lower prescription drug prices — even as experts say he has no such authority. Trump has also sought to squeeze drugmakers in other ways, including threatening tariffs on pharmaceutical imports. But the White House hasn't engaged in those hardball tactics to make insurers cover IVF. Administration officials aren't putting any public pressure on Congress to pass the law it says it needs, either, and they don't even seem to want to talk about the situation. And if that's the new reality, it was entirely predictable — and predicted. It was almost exactly a year ago when Trump debuted this promise. 'The government is going to pay for [IVF], or we're going to get — we'll mandate your insurance company to pay for it, which is going to be great. We're going to do that,' Trump said in August 2024. 'We want to produce babies in this country, right?' That's not a 'we'll try to make this happen' promise. That's a 'we're going to make this happen' promise. By October, Trump had declared himself the 'father of IVF' (something his campaign later labeled a joke). And Vice President JD Vance at his 2024 debate declared that making IVF more 'accessible' was core to the GOP's health agenda. Even at the time, though, many dismissed the promises as hot air. Trump and his campaign were dealing with political fallout from strict red-state abortion bans, some of which had imperiled IVF access and coverage. Rhetorically bear-hugging IVF, a practice that's widely popular with voters, made sense. But free IVF or ubiquitous insurance coverage never seemed an especially serious idea. Not only are IVF costs very expensive, stretching into tens of thousands of dollars per treatment, but many anti-abortion conservatives are starkly opposed to it. The process involves producing embryos that are never used and are often destroyed, creating a moral quandary for anti-abortion blocs that believe life begins at conception. The idea that a Republican administration would spearhead making that cheaper — or even making the government pay for the creation of later-discarded embryos — was always far-fetched. Because of all of this, many Republican lawmakers strongly rejected Trump's proposal when he debuted it. Some even acknowledged that it appeared to be a rather transparent bit of pandering that was not to be taken seriously. 'People get emotional about an issue, so they decide to completely pander and go way over a position they never really supported because they're afraid people accuse them,' Conservative Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said at the time. It appears that's precisely what happened here. That's bad news for anybody who might have been counting on this proposal. These issues, after all, deal with one of the most heart-wrenching circumstances that many families will ever confront: problems conceiving children. The cost is prohibitive for many people. An October Ipsos poll also showed many Americans supported the idea. They said by a 55-26% margin that Congress should pass a law requiring insurers to cover IVF. The Washington Post back in February profiled a young woman who had heard Trump deliver the promise and reluctantly voted for him. When the White House in February announced its limited IVF recommendations, saying it was delivering on Trump's promises, she called it 'bullsh*t.' It's getting more and more difficult to quibble with that summary.
USA Today
a few seconds ago
- USA Today
Your state's FEMA disaster aid could hinge on this country
FEMA now requires states to certify they won't sever 'commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies' to qualify for some disaster funding. WASHINGTON − U.S. states and cities that boycott Israeli companies will be denied federal aid for natural disaster preparedness, President Donald Trump's administraton announced, tying routine federal funding to its political stance. The Federal Emergency Management Agency stated in grant notices posted August 1 that states must follow its "terms and conditions." Those conditions require they certify they will not sever 'commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies' to qualify for funding. The requirement applies to at least $1.9 billion that states rely on to cover search-and-rescue equipment, emergency manager salaries and backup power systems among other expenses, according to 11 agency grant notices reviewed by Reuters. The requirement is the latest effort by the Trump administration to use federal funding to promote its views on Israel. The Department of Homeland Security, the agency that oversees FEMA, in April said that boycotting Israel is prohibited for states and cities receiving its grant funds. FEMA separately said in July that U.S. states will be required to spend part of their federal terrorism prevention funds on helping the government arrest migrants, an administration priority. The Israel requirement takes aim at BDS, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement designed to put economic pressure on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories. The campaign's supporters grew more vocal in 2023, after Hamas attacked southern Israel and Israel invaded Gaza in response. 'DHS will enforce all antidiscrimination laws and policies, including as it relates to the BDS movement, which is expressly grounded in antisemitism,' a spokesperson for Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said in a statement. The requirement is largely symbolic. At least 34 states already have anti-BDS laws or policies, according to a University of Pennsylvania law journal. The BDS Movement did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The American Jewish Committee supports the Trump administration's policy, said Holly Huffnagle, the group's director of antisemitism policy. The AJC is an advocacy group that supports Israel. Under one of the grant notices posted on Friday, FEMA will require major cities to agree to the Israel policy to receive a cut of $553.5 million set aside to prevent terrorism in dense areas. New York is due to receive $92.2 million from the program, the most of all the recipients. Allocations are based on the agency's analysis of 'relative risk of terrorism,' according to the notice.
USA Today
a few seconds ago
- USA Today
A cash bond for a US visa? DHS to require some foreign travelers to pay up front
DHS says it costs more than $17,000 to detain and deport each foreign tourist who doesn't leave, so they will require some to post bond before coming. The Trump administration will require some foreign travelers to post a $15,000 bond before they can come to the United States – charging roughly what it costs to deport them if they don't go home. Fewer than 1.5% of foreign travelers who arrived by air or sea overstayed their visa in fiscal 2023, according to the Department of Homeland Security. That's about 565,000 people who overstayed versus the more than 38 million foreign travelers who departed on time. But some countries have higher rates of overstay than others. As part of the 12-month pilot program, the Trump administration plans to apply the bond rule to countries whose travelers more often ignore the conditions of their visa and stay beyond its expiration, according to a notice published in the Federal Register on Aug. 4. The notice didn't specify which countries will be targeted but said the list will be posted on the State Department website later this month. Travelers from countries including the United Kingdom, Spain and France have some of the highest total number of annual overstays – more than 40,000, 15,000 and 9,000 travelers respectively. But they are among countries that belong to the Visa Waiver Program and won't be included in the bond pilot program. The visa waiver allows tourists from these countries to travel here without pre-applying for a visa. Many of the countries with the highest rates of overstay have the fewest number of visitors to the United States, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Those include places like Burma with a 27% rate of overstay, or 543 individuals; or Liberia with a 19% rate of overstay, or 214 individuals. Others, like Colombia, have higher numbers of total overstays and a rate that outpaces the average: 40,884 travelers from Colombia, or 4%, overstayed their visa in fiscal 2023, according to DHS. The pilot program only applies to visas issued for travel by air and sea and doesn't include travel from Canada or Mexico by land. The U.S. government currently has few ways to track departures through land ports of entry. The visa bond will range from $5,000 to $15,000 per traveler and will have to be paid to the U.S. Treasury before the visa can be issued. The money will be refunded to travelers who depart on time. DHS estimates it costs more than $17,000 to arrest, detain and deport a foreign visitor who remains in the country beyond their required departure date.
