Latest news with #BlocQuébécois
Hamilton Spectator
11-07-2025
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Carney to meet with cabinet, premiers following Trump's latest tariff threat
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Mark Carney will be meeting with his cabinet and Canada's premiers to discuss U.S. President Donald Trump's new threat to slap 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods next month. The Prime Minister's Office announced there will be a cabinet meeting on Tuesday to discuss ongoing Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. Carney's office said he also will meet with the premiers on July 22 as they gather for the annual Council of the Federation conference in Huntsville, Ont. Carney said Thursday his government will 'steadfastly' defend workers and businesses. In a late night post on social media, Carney said Canada will continue to work to secure a trade deal with the U.S. by a revised deadline of Aug. 1. In a letter to Carney on Thursday, Trump threatened to impose 35 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods by that date — evidently setting a new deadline for the trade talks that were supposed to wrap up by July 21. Asked about the tariff threat while leaving the White House Friday morning, Trump told reporters that 'it was sent yesterday. They called. I think it was fairly well received.' A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister's Office said Carney and Trump did not speak Thursday night. She said that while officials from both countries meet daily as trade talks continue, Thursday's meeting took place before Trump sent his tariff letter. Trump's letter said if Canada works to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States, he may consider a tariff adjustment. Fentanyl seizures are up slightly this year at the shared border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has seized about 26 kilograms of the drug at the Canada-U.S. border to date this fiscal year, up from 19.5 kilograms last fiscal year. That still pales in comparison to fentanyl seizures at the United States' southern border, where U.S. border agents have seized nearly 3,700 kilograms so far this fiscal year. A White House official said the 35 per cent tariff rate is only expected to be applied to goods already hit with a 25 per cent import tax. This would exempt goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade, plus energy and potash imports that face a 10 per cent tariff rate. The official said no final policy paper has been drafted and Trump has not yet made a final decision. Canada also faces additional U.S. tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles, as well as a U.S. plan to introduce tariffs on copper on Aug. 1. In a post on social media, Ontario Premier Doug Ford said that in the face of Trump's latest tariff threat, 'we need to come together' and develop a plan to protect Canadian workers, business and communities. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith discouraged Ottawa from imposing retaliatory tariffs, saying it would 'constitute a tax on Canadian consumers and businesses and only weaken Canada's economy further.' In a post on social media, Smith said the federal government should also drop 'Trudeau-era anti-resource development laws.' Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said on social media that his party supports increasing trade ties with the European Union. He also accused Carney of 'failing' by focusing on investments in the oil and gas sector, which he said would only affect trade 'well after Donald Trump's departure.' Lana Payne, national president of Unifor, said on social media there's only one word to describe Trump's tactics — 'extortion.' Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre called the latest tariff threat an 'unjustified attack on Canada's economy.' The tariffs would mean higher prices for Americans and continued damage to the 'most productive trade relationship two countries have ever had,' said Candace Laing, CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. 'Rather than public threats and ultimatums, the Canadian Chamber hopes to see both governments continue their ongoing talks in good faith and behind closed doors, with the aim of reaching a real and reliable economic and security relationship in the near term,' Laing said in a media statement. The 'consistent attacks' on Canada have damaged a 'vital relationship,' said United States Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, adding 'this action even undermined his own Administration's negotiations to reach a trade deal.' The Democrat from New Hampshire said she's heard many complaints about tourists not coming from Canada and lost business due to Trump's trade war. 'The American people and the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in Congress reject this short-sighted and costly trade war with Canada,' Shaheen said in a news release. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 11, 2025.
CTV News
03-07-2025
- Business
- CTV News
New supply management law won't save the system from Trump, experts say
OTTAWA — A new law meant to protect supply management might not be enough to shield the system in trade talks with a Trump administration bent on eliminating it, trade experts say. 'It's certainly more difficult to strike a deal with the United States now with the passage of this bill that basically forces Canada to negotiate with one hand tied behind its back,' said William Pellerin, a trade lawyer and partner at the firm McMillan LLP. 'Now that we've removed the digital service tax, dairy and supply management is probably the number 1 trade irritant that we have with the United States. That remains very much unresolved.' When Trump briefly paused trade talks with Canada on June 27 over the digital services tax — shortly before Ottawa capitulated by dropping the tax — he zeroed in on Canada's system of supply management. In a social media post, Trump called Canada a 'very difficult country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products.' Canada can charge about 250 per cent tariffs on U.S. dairy imports over a set quota established by the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement. The International Dairy Foods Association, which represents the U.S. dairy industry, said in March the U.S. has never come close to reaching those quotas, though the association also said that's because of other barriers Canada has erected. When Bill C-202 passed through Parliament last month, Bloc Québécois MPs hailed it as a clear win protecting Quebec farmers from American trade demands. The Bloc's bill, which received royal assent on June 26, prevents the foreign affairs minister from making commitments in trade negotiations to either increase the tariff rate quota or reduce tariffs for imports over a set threshold. On its face, that rule would prevent Canadian trade negotiators from offering to drop the import barriers that shield dairy and egg producers in Canada from price shocks. But while the law appears to rule out using supply management as a bargaining chip in trade talks with the U.S., it doesn't completely constrain the government. Pellerin said that if Prime Minister Mark Carney is seeking a way around C-202, he might start by looking into conducting the trade talks personally, instead of leaving them to Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand. Carney dismissed the need for the new law during the recent election but vowed to keep supply management off the table in negotiations with the U.S. Pellerin said the government could also address the trade irritant by expanding the number of players who can access dairy quotas beyond 'processors.' '(C-202) doesn't expressly talk about changing or modifying who would be able to access the quota,' he said. Expanding access to quota, he said, would likely 'lead to companies like grocery stores being able to import U.S. cheeses, and that would probably please the United States to a significant degree.' Carleton University associate professor Philippe Lagassé, an expert on Parliament and the Crown, said the new law doesn't extend past something called the 'royal prerogative' — the ability of the executive branch of government to carry out certain actions in, for example, the conduct of foreign affairs. That suggests the government isn't constrained by the law, he said. 'I have doubts that the royal prerogative has been displaced by the law. There is no specific language binding the Crown and it would appear to run contrary to the wider intent of the (law that it modifies),' he said by email. 'That said, if the government believes that the law is binding, then it effectively is. As defenders of the bill insisted, it gives the government leverage in negotiation by giving the impression that Parliament has bound it on this issue.' He said a trade treaty requires enabling legislation, so a new bill could remove the supply management constraints. 'The bill adds an extra step and some constraints, but doesn't prevent supply management from eventually being removed or weakened,' he said. Trade lawyer Mark Warner, principal at MAAW Law, said Canada could simply dispense with the law through Parliament if it decides it needs to make concessions to, for example, preserve the auto industry. 'The argument for me that the government of Canada sits down with another country, particularly the United States, and says we can't negotiate that because Parliament has passed a bill — I have to tell you, I've never met an American trade official or lawyer who would take that seriously,' Warner said. 'My sense of this is it would just go through Parliament, unless you think other opposition parties would bring down the government over it.' While supply management has long been a target for U.S. trade negotiators, the idea of killing it has been a non-starter in Canadian politics for at least as long. Warner said any attempt to do away with it would be swiftly met with litigation, Charter challenges and provinces stepping up to fill a federal void. 'The real cost of that sort of thing is political, so if you try to take it away, people are screaming and they're blocking the highways and they are calling you names and the Bloc is blocking anything through Parliament — you pay a cost that way,' he said. But a compromise on supply management might not be that far-fetched. 'The system itself won't be dismantled. I don't think that's anywhere near happening in the coming years and even decades,' said Pellerin. 'But I think that there are changes that could be made, particularly through the trade agreements, including by way of kind of further quotas. Further reduction in the tariffs for outside quota amounts and also in terms of who can actually bring in product.' The United States trade representative raised specific concerns about supply management in the spring, citing quota rules established under the CUSMA trade pact that are not being applied as the U.S. expected and ongoing frustration with the pricing of certain types of milk products. Former Canadian diplomat Louise Blais said that if Canada were to 'respect the spirit' of CUSMA as the Americans understand it, the problem might actually solve itself. 'We jump to the conclusion that it's dismantlement or nothing else, but in fact there's a middle ground,' she said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 3, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
New supply management law won't save the system from Trump, experts say
OTTAWA — A new law meant to protect supply management might not be enough to shield the system in trade talks with a Trump administration bent on eliminating it, trade experts say. "It's certainly more difficult to strike a deal with the United States now with the passage of this bill that basically forces Canada to negotiate with one hand tied behind its back," said William Pellerin, a trade lawyer and partner at the firm McMillan LLP. "Now that we've removed the digital service tax, dairy and supply management is probably the number 1 trade irritant that we have with the United States. That remains very much unresolved." When Trump briefly paused trade talks with Canada on June 27 over the digital services tax — shortly before Ottawa capitulated by dropping the tax — he zeroed in on Canada's system of supply management. In a social media post, Trump called Canada a "very difficult country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products." Canada can charge about 250 per cent tariffs on U.S. dairy imports over a set quota established by the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement. The International Dairy Foods Association, which represents the U.S. dairy industry, said in March the U.S. has never come close to reaching those quotas, though the association also said that's because of other barriers Canada has erected. When Bill C-202 passed through Parliament last month, Bloc Québécois MPs hailed it as a clear win protecting Quebec farmers from American trade demands. The Bloc's bill, which received royal assent on June 26, prevents the foreign affairs minister from making commitments in trade negotiations to either increase the tariff rate quota or reduce tariffs for imports over a set threshold. On its face, that rule would prevent Canadian trade negotiators from offering to drop the import barriers that shield dairy and egg producers in Canada from price shocks. But while the law appears to rule out using supply management as a bargaining chip in trade talks with the U.S., it doesn't completely constrain the government. Pellerin said that if Prime Minister Mark Carney is seeking a way around C-202, he might start by looking into conducting the trade talks personally, instead of leaving them to Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand. Carney dismissed the need for the new law during the recent election but vowed to keep supply management off the table in negotiations with the U.S. Pellerin said the government could also address the trade irritant by expanding the number of players who can access dairy quotas beyond "processors." "(C-202) doesn't expressly talk about changing or modifying who would be able to access the quota," he said. Expanding access to quota, he said, would likely "lead to companies like grocery stores being able to import U.S. cheeses, and that would probably please the United States to a significant degree." Carleton University associate professor Philippe Lagassé, an expert on Parliament and the Crown, said the new law doesn't extend past something called the "royal prerogative" — the ability of the executive branch of government to carry out certain actions in, for example, the conduct of foreign affairs. That suggests the government isn't constrained by the law, he said. "I have doubts that the royal prerogative has been displaced by the law. There is no specific language binding the Crown and it would appear to run contrary to the wider intent of the (law that it modifies)," he said by email. "That said, if the government believes that the law is binding, then it effectively is. As defenders of the bill insisted, it gives the government leverage in negotiation by giving the impression that Parliament has bound it on this issue." He said a trade treaty requires enabling legislation, so a new bill could remove the supply management constraints. "The bill adds an extra step and some constraints, but doesn't prevent supply management from eventually being removed or weakened," he said. Trade lawyer Mark Warner, principal at MAAW Law, said Canada could simply dispense with the law through Parliament if it decides it needs to make concessions to, for example, preserve the auto industry. "The argument for me that the government of Canada sits down with another country, particularly the United States, and says we can't negotiate that because Parliament has passed a bill — I have to tell you, I've never met an American trade official or lawyer who would take that seriously," Warner said. "My sense of this is it would just go through Parliament, unless you think other opposition parties would bring down the government over it." While supply management has long been a target for U.S. trade negotiators, the idea of killing it has been a non-starter in Canadian politics for at least as long. Warner said any attempt to do away with it would be swiftly met with litigation, Charter challenges and provinces stepping up to fill a federal void. "The real cost of that sort of thing is political, so if you try to take it away, people are screaming and they're blocking the highways and they are calling you names and the Bloc is blocking anything through Parliament — you pay a cost that way," he said. But a compromise on supply management might not be that far-fetched. "The system itself won't be dismantled. I don't think that's anywhere near happening in the coming years and even decades," said Pellerin. "But I think that there are changes that could be made, particularly through the trade agreements, including by way of kind of further quotas. Further reduction in the tariffs for outside quota amounts and also in terms of who can actually bring in product." The United States trade representative raised specific concerns about supply management in the spring, citing quota rules established under the CUSMA trade pact that are not being applied as the U.S. expected and ongoing frustration with the pricing of certain types of milk products. Former Canadian diplomat Louise Blais said that if Canada were to 'respect the spirit' of CUSMA as the Americans understand it, the problem might actually solve itself. 'We jump to the conclusion that it's dismantlement or nothing else, but in fact there's a middle ground," she said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 3, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
National Observer
25-06-2025
- Business
- National Observer
Senate prepares to pass controversial Bill C-5
Prime Minister Mark Carney's controversial Bill C-5 is all but guaranteed to become law, but politicians have one last opportunity to make changes to the bill. Over the next three days, senators will make speeches about the bill — which removes barriers to internal trade and grants cabinet the ability to override most environmental laws to approve major projects — and propose amendments. Barring any unusual happenings, Canadians can expect the bill to become law by Friday at the latest. Carney's decision to rush the bill through the House of Commons drew the ire of the Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green Party, but the Conservatives' support allowed Carney to force it through the House before summer vacation. Some senators are unhappy with the speed, too. 'If you're gonna have a chamber of sober second thought, … it probably makes more sense to let us actually do our job of sober second thought rather than paint us into a corner this way, where we have really been denied the opportunity to carry out our parliamentary obligations,' Sen. Paula Simons told Canada's National Observer in a phone interview. Sen. Paul Prosper previously told Canada's National Observer the expedited process 'doesn't seem to align with the seriousness of this piece of legislation.' Due to the truncated timeline, the Senate won't get to study the bill in committee. Instead, an unusual 'committee of the whole' took place last week where all senators sat in the chamber and questioned federal ministers and other witnesses. But the bill has changed since that session. Late Wednesday night, opposition MPs introduced a series of changes to place some limits on the extraordinary powers Bill C-5 would give cabinet. In a marathon committee meeting, the Bloc Québécois and Conservatives worked together to increase transparency and reporting requirements in the bill and prevent the government from overriding more than a dozen laws, including the Indian Act, Criminal Code and Canada Labour Code, to name a few. 'If you're gonna have a chamber of sober second thought, … it probably makes more sense to let us actually do our job of sober second thought rather than paint us into a corner this way," Sen. Paula Simons told @ However, cabinet can still override important environmental statutes, including the Fisheries Act, Species at Risk Act, Canadian Navigable Waters Act, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Migratory Birds Convention Act and Impact Assessment Act. The same goes for regulations, including wildlife area regulations, marine mammal regulations, two migratory birds regulations as well as port and mining effluent regulations. But senators won't be able to question witnesses about the changes or study them in any depth. On Wednesday at 2 p.m., the Senate will read Bill C-5 for a second time, start debate and begin to deal with any proposed amendments. If an amendment is made, the bill must go back to the House, which ended its session for the summer and won't resume until fall. The Senate is holding unusual hours this week in order to dispense with Bill C-5 before it rises for the summer recess on June 27. Senators will resume debate Thursday morning at 9 a.m., instead of the usual 1:30 p.m. start. Simons said the amendments made last week have made the bill 'more palatable' and the Conservatives' support suggests, generally speaking, the Senate is unlikely to delay the legislation. 'When the government and opposition agree to something, it develops more momentum,' Simons said. 'I think there are a lot of senators who are unhappy but I think there's also a feeling that this is a new government with a mandate, with very wide support in the House — and that at the end of the day, it is not the Senate's job to oppose legislation just because we don't care for it.' The Senate has a right and responsibility to call out and defeat legislation that is 'prima facie unconstitutional' and Simons isn't convinced Bill C-5 meets that bar. But Indigenous leaders have raised countless concerns about how the proposed legislation will trample on Section 35 constitutional rights and treaty rights. The Assembly of First Nations, Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, Chiefs of Ontario and other Indigenous groups all objected to the bill and the lack of consultation when the government was drafting it. On June 16, Sen. Prosper said he plans to put forward a Senate amendment to slow down C-5 in 'hopes that more rational minds prevail in terms of consulting with Indigenous groups.' That amendment has not yet been introduced and it's not clear if he still intends to introduce it. The proposed legislation would have consultation with Indigenous Peoples occur before a project is designated for fast-tracking. Then, with that conditional approval, the necessary environmental or impact assessments would take place to figure out how to minimize the impact and impose conditions on the project. 'At the end of the day, we state our concerns, those concerns become part of the public and legal record,' Simons said. 'Testimony at committee of the whole can be used in court to bolster an argument. So, we still have a function.' She said there's nothing senators hate more than being called 'a rubber stamp.' 'So, when you narrow our capacity to do that work, it makes us feel like we're not giving Canadians value, value for money, I guess.' Nine environmental organizations are calling on the Senate to pass amendments that curtail cabinet's ability to override laws and regulations. 'We support responsible national interest projects,' Theresa McClenaghan, executive director and counsel at the Canadian Environmental Law Association, said in a press release. 'But those projects must be carried out under a legal framework that is environmentally sound, democratically legitimate, and constitutionally robust. Bill C-5, as currently written, fails on all three counts.' If the Senate doesn't do a fulsome study and amend the proposed legislation, projects will 'face more opposition and legal challenges, rather than finding an expedited route to approval.'
Calgary Herald
21-06-2025
- Business
- Calgary Herald
Opinion: How Mark Carney is offering CEOs a chance to rebuild trust with Canadians
After last month's throne speech, Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet lamented that he feels Prime Minister Mark Carney 'sees himself culturally as the CEO of Canada.' With his background in corporate finance, it's no surprise Carney has been likened to a stereotypical finance boss. Article content But is bringing CEO-type leadership to the federal government a bad thing, particularly at such a precarious moment for our country economically? Article content Article content Article content Canada has been starved of this style of leadership. But this goes beyond a culture change in Ottawa. Carney is also opening the door for CEOs to take on critical leadership roles in the execution of his agenda. With his aggressive economic development platform and the charge to 'build, baby, build,' our prime minister has turned on the CEO bat signal. Article content Article content Not since the depths of the pandemic has business had such an extraordinary opportunity to contribute to the greater good, and for CEOs to offer leadership that offers impact well beyond their workforce. Article content However, the unfortunate reality is that Canadians don't trust their business leaders. The latest Edelman Canada Trust Barometer results, released in March, revealed that only 37 per cent of Canadians trust business leaders — 16 points lower than the average of the 28 countries the firm studies, ranking them near the bottom of that list. Article content Article content How have our business leaders run so afoul of Canadians? Rationalizing food inflation in front of a parliamentary committee doesn't help, nor does the massive gap between CEO compensation and that of the average worker. It also doesn't help that two-thirds of Canadians feel business leaders are actively trying to mislead them, according to the recent Edelman study. Article content This crisis of trust is made worse by the fact that most Canadians feel the system is failing them — that no matter how hard they work, the next generation will not be better off. Business leaders have become a lightning rod for that grievance. Article content It is in this context that CEOs are trying to make sense of the role they should play in a country that needs more from them. And they should play a role. While there have been some well-documented missteps that have led to this extraordinary level of distrust, for years the data has pointed to a growing expectation that they step up and step into the current void.
