Premiers praise Carney and one another as they wrap up meetings in Ontario
'We can be proud of the work our federal government is doing, in fairness,' Moe said.
Moe has been one of the federal Liberal government's most vocal critics in recent years — and criticism of Ottawa is usually guaranteed when provincial leaders gather.
But as the country faces down U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war, the elbows-up, Team Canada approach seems to be winning out under Carney's government.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford praised the prime minister at every opportunity Wednesday, calling him a gentleman, humble and a brilliant businessman.
The premiers joked around, slapped each others' backs and dined at Ford's cottage this week. Carney slept at the cottage on Monday before joining the Council of the Federation meetings in Huntsville, Ont., on Tuesday for a discussion about trade talks with the U.S.
Premiers revealed little of what they learned in those discussions, with Aug. 1 fast approaching. That's the deadline Trump has set to raise tariffs on some Canadian goods to 35 per cent, and the day by which Carney has said he wants to strike a deal with the U.S.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said the Americans are signalling they will not start renegotiating the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade until 2026, something she called disappointing.
But Smith said Canada is working toward deals on specific sectors Trump is targeting, like vehicles, steel and aluminum, and lumber.
'If we can come up with some kind of common arrangement on those issues, those sectoral agreements by Aug. 1, we'll look at that as a win. And if it takes a little bit longer to renegotiate the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement to make sure that we get it right, then I'm supportive of that,' Smith said.
The prime minister and the premiers downplayed the value of getting a deal done soon to avoid further U.S. tariffs, saying they want the best deal possible regardless of timing.
A number of provinces and territories have signed agreements to open up internal trade, while others have committed to building pipelines to get oil and gas to new markets.
'No other group of premiers, as long as I can ever remember, have been able to sign 11 (memorandums of understanding),' said Ford, who is this year's chair of the Council of the Federation.
The premiers did release a list of things they said they want Ottawa to address.
In a statement issued Wednesday, they called on the federal government to improve Canada's trading relationship with China.
'You know what Churchill said, our enemy of our enemy is our friend, and I don't consider Americans the enemy, but right now President Trump himself is acting like the enemy,' Ford said.
The friction dates back to last fall, when Canada imposed a 100 per cent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles — matching a move by the Biden administration in the U.S. — and levies on a range of other goods, including EV batteries and parts, critical minerals, solar panels and semiconductors.
China hit back with 100 per cent tariffs on imports of Canadian canola oil and meal, and a 25 per cent levy on some pork, fish and seafood products.
'As long as China plays fair and doesn't undercut our markets, be it the auto sector or any sector, I have no problem dealing with them because we're already dealing with them,' Ford said, pointing out that Ontario imports about $40 billion worth of Chinese goods and exports back about $3 billion.
The premiers say they want the federal government to work toward removing Chinese tariffs from Canadian canola, peas, pork and seafood.
Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew said that while the relationship with China is complicated, the two countries must talk to each other.
'We have to have engagement,' he said. 'We can't turn away from the rest of the world, especially given what's going on with Mr. Trump.'
New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt said she's happy that Canada and China are now in active talks toward a trade deal.
'Given that we're now negotiating a completely new relationship with the U.S., we can get back to the table with China to work to remove the seafood tariffs that New Brunswickers are experiencing,' she said.
Moe and Ford said they are worried about steelworkers in their respective provinces, with three major steel plants feeling the brunt of U.S. tariffs on steel and concerns about China dumping steel into the market through proxy countries.
The federal government announced protectionist and anti-dumping measures targeting Chinese-made steel last week.
The premiers are also asking the federal government for changes to the bail system and more money for health care.
B.C. Premier David Eby insisted health care and the cost of living are perennial priorities for provincial governments, even though health didn't come up at the meeting with Carney.
'We have to be able to do multiple things at once in this country,' he said.
The premiers called for more action on immigration and said they're looking at ways to exercise more authority over that file.
Ford said Smith told her fellow premiers that Section 95 of the Constitution allows provinces to pass legislation related to immigration.
He said nearly 100,000 asylum seekers came to Ontario alone last year, and while many people want to work, it can take years for them to obtain work permits.
'We will be issuing our own work permits,' Ford said.
— Written by Liam Casey in Huntsville, Ont., and Sarah Ritchie in Ottawa with files from Hina Alam in Fredericton
This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 23, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
29 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK (AP) — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.' ___
San Francisco Chronicle
31 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK (AP) — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'
Bloomberg
44 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Enbridge to Expand Pipelines to US Before Starting a New Canada Line
Enbridge Inc. will prioritize expanding its pipeline systems to the US before considering a new oil line to the Canadian west coast, the company's chief executive officer said. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is advocating for a new oil pipeline to Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and said recently that a proponent for such a project could be announced in a matter of weeks. Enbridge, which operates the largest oil export pipeline system out of Canada, previously proposed a west-coast pipeline that didn't receive government approval.
