Connect with us

World

As U.S. Tariffs Become Reality, Canadians Prepare for Economic Pain

Published

on

As U.S. Tariffs Become Reality, Canadians Prepare for Economic Pain

The trucks that carry about $300 million worth of auto parts each day over the bridge from Windsor, Ontario, to Detroit are still rolling as usual. But in the aftermath of President Trump’s decision to impose 25 percent tariffs on most categories of Canadian exports, the mood in Windsor, like all of Canada, was transformed.

Mr. Trump’s move has ignited a sense of economic anxiety and anger among Canadians about how they are being treated by their neighbor, ally and best customer. Most are still puzzling over Mr. Trump’s motivations and objectives for the tariffs, as well as his comments about annexing Canada as the 51st state.

And as they turned their attention to getting the potentially crippling tariffs, and a 10 percent levy on Canadian oil and gas and some minerals, lifted, politicians, business people and ordinary Canadians say that the relationship between the two countries will never return to what it once was.

Flavio Volpe, the head of a Canadian auto-parts maker trade group, said that his members could start shutting down factories in days, and that he feels betrayed by the United States.

“We’ve built two societies on the same values,” said Mr. Volpe, who is also a member of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Council on Canada-U.S. Relations. “The man in the White House did a U-turn and drove right over us.”

Advertisement

Mr. Trudeau and anxious business leaders throughout Canada said that their country’s focus must be on ending the tariffs as quickly as possible.

Most forecasts project that Canada’s export-dependent economy will be sent into a recession, although they differ on timing and its initial severity.

“We have a limited experience for this magnitude of a trade shock,” the Royal Bank of Canada, the country’s largest financial institution, said this week. Some Canadians reached back for comparison to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930, which raised the average U.S. import duty to a staggering 59.1 percent. Many economists believe that they worsened the Great Depression, but the two countries’ economies were far less integrated at that time.

Aside from oil and gas, Canada’s largest export sector is the auto industry. On Tuesday, Mr. Trump suggested that the only way out of tariffs for the sector is to move all of its production to the United States. Aside from abandoning a skilled work force, that would require billions of dollars in new investments.

Historically, automotive trade has been largely balanced between the United States and Canada. Parts often swirl around between Canada, the United States and Mexico, sometimes crossing borders repeatedly before winding up in vehicles in a dealer’s showroom.

Advertisement

Mr. Volpe, of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’​ Association in Canada, said that, aside from the tariffs, trade remained unchanged on Tuesday, an assessment backed up by the usual migration of trucks to the Ambassador Bridge.

The 25 percent tariffs are being paid by the importers, either other parts makers or automakers. Most contracts allow an automaker to deduct tariffs it pays when settling a parts company’s bill.

Mr. Volpe said that those deductions will make parts suppliers, which have generally have single-digit profit margins, instantly and deeply unprofitable.

He expects that most of his members can cover those losses from their cash reserves for about a week. After that, they will be forced to stop shipments.

“No one is going to burn up their cash reserve for the president of the United States,” he said.

Advertisement

For more parts, automakers usually have no alternative suppliers, let alone ones in the United States. Setting up new suppliers would take time and substantial investment. The result, experts say, will be a parts shortage that rapidly cascades into assembly-line shutdowns. Thousands of workers in Canada, the United States and Mexico would be left idle.

Some industries began idling small numbers of workers before the tariffs came into effect.

Bill Slater, the president of a United Steelworkers local in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, said that Algoma Steel laid off about 20 of his members who are salaried employees, citing the tariffs. He said that a number of probationary hourly workers were also let go by the mill.

Truck drivers had a mixed experience. Stephen Laskowski, the president of the Ontario Trucking Association, said that some had a surge in business as companies moved to get products into the United States before the tariffs came into effect, while others were laying off drivers because customers were canceling shipments.

Canada’s forestry industry knows tariffs all too well. Special U.S. duties on softwood lumber go back decades and were a factor in Canada seeking the 1989 free trade agreement with the United States, which was later expanded to include Mexico. (Canada has repeatedly failed to get an exemption from the U.S. trade complaints system that imposes the softwood lumber tariffs.)

Advertisement

But Kurt Niquidet, the president of the British Columbia Council of Forest Industries, said that adding the 25 percent tariff “really puts us into unprecedented territory.”

Lumber mills in the western province are facing a dizzying array of tariffs. This week’s 25 percent tariff is on top of a 14.4 percent tariff that the U.S. government expects to raise this summer, to more than 27 percent. Then Mr. Trump announced last weekend that he’s opened an investigation into lumber imports that could result in even more tariffs.

While the United States supplies about 70 percent of its own lumber, Mr. Niquidet, an economist, said that American forests and mills cannot replace all the lumber from Canada, nor can it be sourced from other countries.

“There will still be imports from Canada,” he said. “Prices in the U.S. will rise.” Some Canadian lumber mills, however, may not survive the trade assault, he added.

While Mr. Trudeau speculated that Mr. Trump was seeking a “total collapse of the Canadian economy, because that’ll make it easier to annex us,” Mr. Volpe said he was not sure it’s that complicated. “If it looks like he is dismantling the structure of the postwar economy, then he is,” Mr. Volpe said. “What are you going to do about it?” Some Canadians believe that their country is simply being used as part of Mr. Trump’s plan to fund substantial U.S. tax cuts with tariffs.

Advertisement

Jean Simard, the president of the Aluminum Association of Canada, fought a successful battle over the 10 percent tariff on Canadian exports of the metal Mr. Trump enacted in during his first administration. Now Mr. Simard is attempting to fend off additional tariffs that Mr. Trump has promised to put on top of Tuesday’s 25 percent. He said that he believes the president is telling the world: “This is what I’m able to do to my closest allies — think about what’s awaiting you.”

Mr. Simard added: “It’s an old barbarian approach to war.”

As the tariffs were rolled out, actions against American goods quickly came into play. Government-owned liquor stores, including in Ontario, pulled U.S. beer, wine and spirits from off their shelves, and that province canceled a 100 million Canadian dollar ($69 million) contract with Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite service to provide internet in rural areas.

Some Canadians are also vowing not to travel south, a decision perhaps also informed by the decline of the Canadian dollar brought on by the tariffs.

Most winters, Lee Miller, a retired electrician from Saint John, New Brunswick, would be traveling in his motor home through sunny warm states, including Florida.

Advertisement

“As soon as Trump started talking tariffs, I said, ‘Nope, not going,’” Mr. Miller said. After canceling this year’s trip, he plans not to enter the United States as long as Mr. Trump is president. That will, however, mean missed visits with friends and family who live across the border.

“This is one of those things that tears families apart,” he said.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

World

More than 5,000 ISIL detainees transferred from Syria, says Iraqi ministry

Published

on

More than 5,000 ISIL detainees transferred from Syria, says Iraqi ministry

Iraq says more than 3,000 Syrians are among the ISIL-linked detainees transferred to one of its prisons by US military.

More than 5,000 ISIL-linked (ISIS) detainees have been transferred from Syrian jails to a prison in neighbouring Iraq so far, according to Iraq’s Ministry of Justice.

In comments to the Iraqi News Agency on Friday, ministry spokesperson Ahmed Laibi said the transfers and ongoing detention of the prisoners had been carried out at the request of an international coalition led by the United States to combat ISIL, of which Iraq is a key member.

Advertisement

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

In separate comments on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein gave a lower figure, telling Reuters that about 3,000 ISIL-linked detainees had been transferred.

He told the news agency that the process was ongoing and that Baghdad was in discussions with various countries about repatriating their nationals who had been transferred.

Iraq would need more ⁠financial assistance to ⁠deal with the intake, he said, adding that there had been a recent ⁠uptick in ISIL activity in Syria.

The US military has been transporting thousands of ISIL-linked prisoners from jails and detention centres previously run by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in northeast Syria.

The transfers have come as control of the prisons has been handed over to the Syrian government, amid a push by Damascus to assert its authority over the full extent of a country still fragmented in the wake of a brutal war.

Advertisement

Deadly clashes with SDF forces broke out amid the Syrian army’s advance in recent weeks, including in and around key prison sites, resulting in some ISIL detainees escaping and raising fears the armed group could exploit any security vacuum to regroup.

A ceasefire has since been struck between the government and the SDF.

Detainees mostly Syrian nationals

Laibi, the Iraqi Justice Ministry spokesperson, said that of the 5,064 ISIL detainees transferred so far, more than 3,000 were Syrian, while at least 270 were Iraqi.

He said the detainees were being held in a single prison, in a section separated from other prisoners.

The detainees would all be investigated and prosecuted under Iraqi law, he said, while the responsibility for feeding the thousands of detainees was being handled by the international coalition, rather than Iraq.

Advertisement

Last month, lawyers for a group of French ISIL suspects who had been transported by the US military from Syria to Iraqi prisons in an earlier series of transfers claimed the inmates had been subjected to “torture and inhumane treatment” there.

Damascus becomes US’s main anti-ISIL partner

The US military has previously said up to 7,000 people with alleged ISIL links could be transferred to Iraqi-controlled facilities.

US Admiral Brad Cooper, the head of US forces in the Middle East, said last month that facilitating the secure transfer of detainees was critical to preventing mass breakouts that could pose a direct threat to the US and regional security.

The statement came shortly after the US special envoy to Syria said that Washington’s main partner against ISIL in Syria would be the Syrian government, rather than the SDF, which had held that position for years.

The shift followed Syria – under new President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the former leader of the armed group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, who was once deemed a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist” by the US – joining the anti-ISIL coalition in November.

Advertisement

US departs Syrian base

The ongoing transfers of the detainees from Syria have come as the US military reduces its presence in the country, where it has conducted operations against ISIL for years.

On Thursday, Syrian ⁠forces ⁠announced they had taken control of the al-Tanf military base, a strategic garrison near the border with Iraq and Jordan, following the withdrawal of US forces.

Cooper, the commander of US forces in the Middle East, said the departure was “part of a deliberate and conditions-based transition”, and that US forces remained “poised to respond to any [ISIL] threats that arise in the region as we support partner-led efforts” to prevent the group’s resurgence.

While ISIL was largely defeated in 2017 in Iraq and in Syria two years later, sleeper cells still carry out attacks in both countries.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

A look at false claims made by the Trump administration as it revokes a key scientific finding

Published

on

A look at false claims made by the Trump administration as it revokes a key scientific finding

President Donald Trump on Thursday revoked the 2009 endangerment finding, which has long been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.

But in making the announcement, Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin made false claims regarding the government declaration, climate change, and energy.

Here’s a closer look at the facts.

___

TRUMP: “Known as the endangerment finding, this determination had no basis in fact, had none whatsoever, and it had no basis in law.”

Advertisement

THE FACTS: This is false. The endangerment finding was adopted in 2009 by the EPA after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases are air pollutants that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

“The idea that the endangerment finding has no basis in law is ludicrous,” said Ann Carlson, a professor of environmental law at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA specifically directed the Environmental Protection Agency to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The endangerment finding is the result.”

Scientific evidence to support the endangerment finding was provided by the EPA at the time of its inception and is still available on the agency’s website today.

Multiple federal courts have upheld the endangerment finding since it was adopted 16 years ago. ___

TRUMP: “We’ve basically stopped all windmills in this country. It’s the most expensive energy you can get.”

Advertisement

THE FACTS: Onshore wind is one of the cheapest sources of electricity generation, with new wind farms expected to produce around $30 per megawatt hour, according to July estimates from the Energy Information Administration.

This compares to a new natural gas plant, around $65 per megawatt hour, or a new advanced nuclear reactor, which runs over $80. Offshore wind is among the sources of new power generation that will cost the most to build and operate, at $88 per megawatt hour, the EIA said in July.

___ TRUMP, asked about the cost to health and the environment: “It has nothing to do with public health. This is all a scam, a giant scam. This was a rip off of the country by Obama and Biden, and let’s say Obama started it and got it rolling and a terrible rip off.”

THE FACTS: Thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies connect health harms to climate change. They find increasing deaths from heat waves, extreme weather such as hurricanes and floods and air pollution from worsening wildfires. A 2021 study in Nature Climate Change calculated that globally about 9,700 people die a year from heat-related deaths attributable to human-caused climate change, based on data from 732 cities, including more than 200 in the United States.

A separate study last year listed dozens of climate change health harms and concluded, using the EPA’s own calculation method, that the health costs are at least $10 billion a year, probably much more.

Advertisement

The science of climate change dates back nearly 170 years to studies done by American Eunice Foote showing that carbon dioxide heated cylinders with thermometers inside more than ambient air. The first national climate assessment, done in 2000, before Obama and Biden, “concluded that climate variability and change are likely to increase morbidity and mortality risks.”

___

ZELDIN: “The Obama and Biden administrations used the endangerment finding to steamroll into existence a left-wing wish, including electric vehicle mandates.”

THE FACTS: Trump has made this claim before. There was no federal mandate to force the purchase of EVs.

“If you looked at some of the tables that were in the Biden rules, you could see that there were a variety of different ways that companies could comply with the standards,” said Carrie Jenks, the executive director of Harvard Law School’s environmental and energy law program. “The endangerment finding nor the regulations mandated a shift from one type of vehicle to another.”

Advertisement

Former President Joe Biden did set up a non-binding goal that EVs make up half of new cars sold by 2030. Trump issued an executive order on his first day in office revoking that goal.

Biden’s policies tightened restrictions on pollution from gas-powered cars and trucks in an effort to encourage Americans to buy EVs and car companies to shift from gas-powered vehicles to electric cars. ___

Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein and Matthew Daly in Washington contributed to this report.

___

Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

World

Uproar after Iran named vice-chair of UN body promoting democracy, women’s rights

Published

on

Uproar after Iran named vice-chair of UN body promoting democracy, women’s rights

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

UNITED NATIONS: Iran’s election as vice-chair of the United Nations Commission for Social Development is being slammed by human rights advocates and policy analysts, who have condemned the U.N.’s hypocrisy when it comes to its treatment of undemocratic regimes. 

The leadership role was approved without objection during a meeting of the commission, where delegates adopted agenda items and organizational decisions by consensus.

The United Nations has faced continued criticism over its inaction towards the regime’s violent crackdown against protesters in December and January. On Wednesday, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres faced criticism for congratulating Iran on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution.

UN CHIEF BLASTED AS ‘ABJECTLY TONE-DEAF’ OVER MESSAGE TO IRAN MARKING REVOLUTION ANNIVERSARY

Advertisement

Pezeshkian accused the U.S. of a “grave betrayal” at the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2025, in New York City.  (Jeenah Moon/Reuters)

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz criticized the development, writing on X: “Yet another reason why we are not a member of, nor do we participate in, this ridiculous ‘Commission for Social Development.’”

Alireza Jafarzadeh, author of The Iran Threat and deputy director of the U.S. office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, also criticized the decision. “Having the Iranian regime in the leadership of a U.N. body tasked with promoting democracy, gender equality, tolerance and non-violence is appalling and like fox guarding the hen house,” Jafarzadeh said. “The vast majority of the Iranian people are calling for regime change because the mullahs are the world’s leading human rights violators, misogynist to the core, and they slaughter the voices of dissent by thousands.”

He argued that Iran should face scrutiny rather than institutional advancement. “Instead, the Iranian regime must be a subject of intense investigation and accountability by all U.N. bodies for crimes against humanity and genocide, from the 1980s to January 2026 uprisings,” Jafarzadeh said. “Decades of inaction by Western governments have emboldened the regime. This must stop now.”

G7 THREATENS IRAN WITH NEW SANCTIONS OVER NATIONWIDE PROTEST CRACKDOWN KILLING THOUSANDS

Advertisement

People gather in Dag Hammerskjold Park across the street from the U.N. headquarters to protest Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, who addressed the General Assembly on Wednesday.  (Peter Aitken for Fox News Digital)

“By electing Iran to help lead a commission devoted to democracy, women’s rights and non-violence, the U.N. makes itself into a mockery,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch. “This is a regime that brutalizes women for not covering their hair, and that just massacred tens of thousands of its own civilians in two days.”

Neuer argued that governments had the ability to block the appointment but chose not to act. “The EU states know how to stop abusive regimes from winning these seats — they’ve done so in the recent past with Russia — but this time on Iran, they chose silence and complicity,” he said. “By rewarding the Mullahs right after their slaughter of innocents, the U.N. has now sent a very dangerous message to Tehran.”

Lisa Daftari, an Iran analyst, said the optics of Iran holding a leadership role in a commission centered on social development and rights were deeply troubling.

US AMBASSADOR WARNS IRAN AT EMERGENCY UN MEETING THAT TRUMP IS ‘MAN OF ACTION,’ ‘ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE’

Advertisement

Iranians gather while blocking a street during a protest in Tehran, Iran on Jan. 9, 2026.   (MAHSA / Middle East Images / AFP via Getty Images)

“For Iranian women who risk prison or worse just for taking off a headscarf, watching Tehran get a vice-chair on a U.N. social-development commission feels like a slap in the face.”

She added that broader patterns in U.N. voting and resolutions contribute to perceptions of bias.

“When the same U.N. system has spent the last decade passing roughly 170-plus resolutions against Israel and only around 80 on all other countries combined, you don’t need a PhD to see there’s a bias problem,” Daftari said. “When the U.N. has churned out well over a hundred anti-Israel resolutions in recent years while managing a fraction of that number on the world’s worst dictatorships, it looks less like moral leadership and more like political theater.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

Protesters burn images of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during a rally held in Solidarity with Iran’s Uprising, organized by The national Council of Resistance of Iran, on Whitehall in central London Jan. 11, 2026, to protest against the Iranian regime’s crackdown on internet access and “recognise their right to self-defense against the regime’s forces”.  (Carlos Jasso/AFP via Getty Images)

Daftari rejected that procedural nature of United Nations committees and committees.

“Some diplomats will wave this away as a procedural formality, but at the U.N. nothing is ever purely symbolic,” she said. “The bottom line is that handing Iran’s regime a gavel on ‘social development’ confirms yet again that the place is biased and deeply hypocritical.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending