Connect with us

Business

List of items Canadians will pay 25% tariffs on includes US made orange juice, wine, beer, and clothing

Published

7 minute read

From the Department of Finance Canada

Canada Announces $155B Tariff Package in Response to U.S. Tariffs

Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Finance and Intergovernmental Affairs, and Mélanie Joly, Minister of Foreign Affairs, announced that the Government of Canada is moving forward with 25 per cent tariffs on $155 billion worth of goods in response to the unjustified and unreasonable tariffs imposed by the United States (U.S.) on Canadian goods.

These countermeasures have one goal: to protect and defend Canada’s interests, consumers, workers, and businesses.

The first phase of our response will include tariffs on $30 billion in goods imported from the U.S., effective February 4, 2025, when the U.S tariffs are applied. The list includes products such as orange juice, peanut butter, wine, spirits, beer, coffee, appliances, apparel, footwear, motorcycles, cosmetics, and pulp and paper. A detailed list of these goods will be made available shortly.

Minister LeBlanc also announced that the government intends to impose tariffs on an additional list of imported U.S. goods worth $125 billion. A full list of these goods will be made available for a 21-day public comment period prior to implementation, and will include products such as passenger vehicles and trucks, including electric vehicles, steel and aluminum products, certain fruits and vegetables, aerospace products, beef, pork, dairy, trucks and buses, recreational vehicles, and recreational boats.

In addition to this initial response, Ministers LeBlanc and Joly reiterated that all options remain on the table as the government considers additional measures, including non-tariff options, should the U.S. continue to apply unjustified tariffs on Canada.

Less than 1 per cent of the fentanyl and illegal crossings into the United States come from Canada. We will not stand idly by when our nation is being needlessly and unfairly targeted. The government will defend Canadian interests and jobs. We stand ready to support affected workers and businesses.

The U.S. administration’s decision to impose tariffs will have devastating consequences for the American economy and people. Tariffs will upend production at U.S. auto assembly plants and oil refineries, raise costs for American consumers—at gas pumps and grocery stores—and put American prosperity at risk.

The government is also taking steps to mitigate the impact of its tariff countermeasures on Canadian workers and businesses by establishing a remission process to consider requests for exceptional relief from the tariffs imposed as part of Canada’s immediate response, as well as any future tariff actions. More details about the framework and process will be announced in the coming days.

The government continues to work closely with provincial and territorial governments, as well as business, labour, and other leaders to advance a robust Team Canada response, and to advocate with U.S. decision-makers on behalf of all Canadians to safeguard and strengthen Canada’s economy.

“This first set of countermeasures is about protecting—and supporting—Canada’s interests, workers, and industries. These U.S. tariffs are plainly unjustified. They are detrimental to both American and Canadian families and businesses. Working with provincial, territorial and industry partners, our singular focus is to get them removed as quickly as possible. Until then, our response will be balanced and resolute.”

– The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc,
Minister of Finance and Intergovernmental Affairs

“Canada will not stand by as the U.S., our closest and most important trading partner, applies harmful and unjustified tariffs against us. With these countermeasures, we are defending Canada’s interests and are doing what is best for Canadians and our economy.”

– The Honourable Mélanie Joly,
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Quick facts

  • Canada is the top customer for U.S. goods and services exports and a critical supplier of goods and services integral to the U.S. economy, with Canada buying more U.S. goods than China, Japan, France and the United Kingdom combined.
  • Millions of jobs on both sides of the border depend on this relationship, and every day over US$2.5 billion worth of goods and services crosses the border.
  • Canada is the largest export market for 36 states and is among the top three for 46 states, with 43 states exporting over US$1 billion to Canada every year.
  • Of the U.S.’s top five trading partners, Canada is the only country with whom the U.S. has a trade surplus in manufacturing (US$33 billion in 2023).
  • The tariffs announced today by the Government of Canada will not apply to U.S. goods that are in transit to Canada on the day on which these countermeasures come into force.
  • As a first line of defence, Canada’s robust system of economic support programs is available to help businesses and workers directly impacted by U.S. tariffs. This includes financing and advisory supports for businesses through financial Crown corporations and supports for workers through the Employment Insurance program. As we redouble our efforts to improve Canada’s investment, productivity and competitiveness in collaboration with provinces, territories and the business community, the government will proactively monitor impacts across sectors and the economy, and will bring forward additional measures to support workers and businesses as needed.
  • On December 17, 2024, the Government of Canada announced Canada’s Border Plan, which aims to bolster border security, strengthen our immigration system, and keep Canadians safe.
  • The Plan is backed by an investment of $1.3 billion and built around five pillars: 1) Detecting and disrupting fentanyl trade; 2) Introducing significant new tools for law enforcement; 3) Enhancing operational coordination; 4) Increasing information sharing; and 5) Minimizing unnecessary border volumes.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Trump says tariffs on China will remain until trade imbalance is corrected

Published on

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

President Trump said Sunday he won’t make a tariff deal with China unless its $1 trillion trade surplus with the U.S. is balanced. Speaking aboard Air Force One, he called the deficit “not sustainable” and said tariffs are already driving a wave of investment back to America.

Key Details:

  • Trump told reporters the U.S. has “a $1 trillion trade deficit with China,” adding, “hundreds of billions of dollars a year we lose to China, and unless we solve that problem, I’m not going to make a deal.” He insisted any agreement must begin with fixing that imbalance.

  • The president said tariffs are generating “levels that we’ve never seen before” of private investment, claiming $7 trillion has already been committed in areas like auto manufacturing and chip production, with companies returning to places like North Carolina, Detroit, and Illinois.

  • On Truth Social Sunday night, Trump wrote: “The only way this problem can be cured is with TARIFFS… a beautiful thing to behold.” He accused President Biden of allowing trade surpluses to grow and pledged, “We are going to reverse it, and reverse it QUICKLY.”

Diving Deeper:

President Donald Trump reaffirmed his tough trade stance on Sunday, telling reporters that he won’t negotiate any new deal with China unless the massive trade deficit is addressed. “We have a $1 trillion trade deficit with China. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year we lose to China, and unless we solve that problem, I’m not going to make a deal,” Trump said while aboard Air Force One.

He emphasized that while some countries have deficits in the billions, China’s trade advantage over the U.S. exceeds a trillion dollars and remains the most severe. “We have a tremendous deficit problem with China… I want that solved,” he said. “A deficit is a loss. We’re going to have surpluses, or we’re, at worst, going to be breaking even.”

Trump touted the impact of tariffs already in place, pointing to an estimated $7 trillion in committed investments flowing into the U.S. economy. He highlighted growth in the automotive and semiconductor sectors in particular, and said companies are now bringing operations back to American soil—citing North Carolina, Detroit, and Illinois as examples.

He also claimed world leaders in Europe and Asia are eager to strike deals with the U.S., but he’s holding firm. “They’re dying to make a deal,” he said, “but as long as there are deficits, I’m not going to do that.”

Trump projected that tariffs would add another $1 trillion to federal revenues by next year and help re-establish the U.S. as the world’s top economic power. “Our country has gotten a lot stronger,” Trump said. “Eventually it’ll be a country like no other… the most dominant country, economically, in the world, which is what it should be.”

Later Sunday night, Trump doubled down in a Truth Social post, writing, “We have massive Financial Deficits with China, the European Union, and many others. The only way this problem can be cured is with TARIFFS, which are now bringing Tens of Billions of Dollars into the U.S.A.” He added that trade surpluses have grown under Joe Biden and vowed to reverse them “QUICKLY.”

Continue Reading

Business

Jury verdict against oil industry worries critics, could drive up energy costs

Published on

Offshore drilling rig Development Driller III at the Deepwater Horizon site May, 2010. 

From The Center Square

By 

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

A $744 million jury verdict in Louisiana is at the center of a coordinated legal effort to force oil companies to pay billions of dollars to ameliorate the erosion of land in Louisiana, offset climate change and more.

Proponents say the payments are overdue, but critics say the lawsuits will hike energy costs for all Americans and are wrongly supplanting the state and federal regulatory framework already in place.

In the Louisiana case in question, Plaquemines Parish sued Chevron alleging that oil exploration off the coast decades ago led to the erosion of Louisiana’s coastline.

A jury ruled Friday that Chevron must pay $744 million in damages.

The Louisiana case is just one of dozens of environmental cases around the country that could have a dramatic – and costly – impact on American energy consumers.

While each environmental case has its own legal nuances and differing arguments, the lawsuits are usually backed by one of a handful of the same law firms that have partnered with local and state governments. In Louisiana, attorney John Carmouche has led the charge.

“If somebody causes harm, fix it,” Carmouche said to open his arguments.

Environmental arguments of this nature have struggled to succeed in federal courts, but they hope for better luck in state courts, as the Louisiana case was.

Those damages for exploration come as President Donald Trump is urging greater domestic oil production in the U.S. to help lower energy costs for Americans.

Daniel Erspamer, CEO of the Pelican Institute, told The Center Square that the Louisiana case could go to the U.S. Supreme Court, as Chevron is expected to appeal.

“So the issue at play here is a question about coastal erosion, about legal liability and about the proper role of the courts versus state government or federal government in enforcing regulation and statute,” Erspamer said.

Another question in the case is whether companies can be held accountable for actions they carried out before regulations were passed restricting them.

“There are now well more than 40 different lawsuits targeting over 200 different companies,” Erspamer said.

The funds would purportedly be used for coastal restoration and a kind of environmental credit system, though critics say safeguards are not in place to make sure the money would actually be used as stated.

While coastal erosion cases appear restricted to Louisiana, similar cases have popped up around the U.S. in the last 10 to 15 years.

Following a similar pattern, local and state governments have partnered with law firms to sue oil producers for large sums to help offset what they say are the effects of climate change, as The Center Square previously reported.

For instance, in Pennsylvania, Bucks County sued a handful of energy companies, calling for large abatement payments to offset the effects of climate change.

“There are all kinds of problems with traceability, causation and allocability,” George Mason University Professor Donald Kochan told The Center Square, pointing out the difficulty of proving specific companies are to blame when emissions occur all over the globe, with China emitting far more than the U.S.

“Did fossil fuels actually cause this impact?” Kochan said. “Then how much of these particular defendants’ fossil fuels caused this impact? These are the things that should be in a typical trial, because due process means you can’t be responsible for someone else’s actions. Then you have to decide, and can you trace the particular pollution that affected this community to the defendant’s actions?”

Those cases are in earlier stages and face more significant legal hurdles because of questions about whether plaintiffs can justify the cases on federal common law because it is difficult to prove than any one individual has been substantively and directly harmed by climate change.

On top of that, plaintiffs must also prove that emissions released by the particular oil companies are responsible for the damage done, which is complicated by the fact that emissions all over the world affect the environment, the majority of which originate outside the U.S.

“It’s not that far afield from the same kinds of lawsuits we’ve seen in California and New York and other places that more are on the emissions and global warming side rather than the sort of dredging and exploration side,” Erspamer said.

But environmental companies argue that oil companies must fork out huge settlements to pay for environmental repairs.

For now, the Louisiana ruling is a shot across the bow in the legal war against energy companies in the U.S.

Whether the appeal is successful or other lawsuits have the same impact remains to be seen.

Continue Reading

Trending

X