Trump and Carney to meet in the coming days, but how close is a Canada-U.S. trade deal?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
27 minutes ago
- CBC
Three Yukon First Nations lay out expectations for Gladiator Metals
The Kwanlin Dün First Nation and Ta'an Kwäch'än Council have proposed multiple conditions before Gladiator Metals is approved to expand drilling in the Whitehorse copper belt. The First Nations submitted public submissions to the Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Board (YESAB) on July 22. The public comment period for the project closed July 24. Gladiator Metals, a B.C.-based mineral exploration company, has been drilling in the Whitehorse copper belt since April 2023. The company is applying to increase its permit from class 1 to class 3, which would allow it to expand work over the next five years throughout its whole 35-kilometre Copper Belt project, most of which is within Whitehorse city limits. The First Nations are calling for specific mitigation measures against environmental damage in the area. In its submission, Kwanlin Dün First Nation recommended that Gladiator receive a "specific term of approval" restricting intensive drilling activities to the identified work areas, not the entire claim block. It made several specific recommendations for environmental mitigation, such as halting work whenever caribou pass within one kilometre of a work area. The First Nation is also asking that mineral claims be relinquished within the boundary of Chasàn Chùa, or McIntyre Creek, which was just established as a territorial park in June. It wants activities on current claims in the park to be restricted to non-ground disturbing activities. The Ta'an Kwäch'än Council said its primary concern is risk to the Chasàn Chùa corridor. It wants the distance between mining activities and headwaters in Chasàn Chùa to be doubled from 30 metres to 60 metres. Carcross/Tagish First Nation, which has some settlement land near the project, said in its submission it's opposed to the project being approved. The First Nation wants a heritage assessment in the area and a buffer established around anything with heritage value. It also says C/TFN personnel should be permitted to conduct a survey of medicinal plants in the area, and that a buffer should be established to protect those values from any mining activity. Public comment period attracts more than 100 submissions YESAB received 108 public submissions on the project proposal. Approximately 43 of them spoke in favour of Gladiator expanding its work. Six of those commenters identified themselves as being directly affiliated with Gladiator Metals. Another seven submissions represented local businesses that serve the mining and exploration industry. Some citizens in favour of the project praised mining as a pillar of Yukon's history and economy. Other comments said copper mining is important for the clean energy transition. A handful of people said they work in the industry and would like industry opportunities that allow them to work and live in the city. About 49 submissions were against the project. A handful of the negative comments came from people who live near the project, didn't want drilling so close to their home and are concerned about the potential impact on well water. Nearly all the negative submissions expressed concern about the environmental impact. Some said they didn't trust Gladiator Metals because of the company's previous infractions in the area. The remaining submissions were neutral or provided specific recommendations for environmental protection without taking a stance. YESAB has also put in a request for additional information from Gladiator Metals before the assessment process can proceed. Among other questions, it asked Gladiator to provide scientific evidence for its claims that exploration drilling doesn't typically affect residential wells beyond very short distances. It also asked Gladiator to clarify its intentions for claims in or near Chasàn Chùa Territorial Park. The deadline for Gladiator's response is Aug. 26.
Global News
28 minutes ago
- Global News
Elon Musk to get US$29B in Tesla shares. Here's why
Tesla is awarding CEO Elon Musk 96 million shares of restricted stock valued at approximately US$29 billion, just six months after a judge ordered the company to revoke his massive pay package. The electric vehicle maker said in a regulatory filing on Monday that Musk must first pay Tesla US$23.34 per share of restricted stock that vests, which is equal to the exercise price per share of the 2018 pay package that was awarded to the company's CEO. In December Delaware Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick reaffirmed her earlier ruling that Tesla must revoke Musk's multibillion-dollar pay package. She found that Musk engineered the landmark pay package in sham negotiations with directors who were not independent. At the time McCormick also rejected an equally unprecedented and massive fee request by plaintiff attorneys, who argued that they were entitled to legal fees in the form of Tesla stock valued at more than US$5 billion. The judge said the attorneys were entitled to a fee award of US$345 million. Story continues below advertisement The rulings came in a lawsuit filed by a Tesla stockholder who challenged Musk's 2018 compensation package. 0:22 Trump says it's 'ridiculous' for Musk to start a third political party That pay package carried a potential maximum value of about US$56 billion, but that sum has fluctuated over the years based on Tesla's stock price. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Musk appealed the order in March. A month later Tesla said in a regulatory filing that it was creating a special committee to look at Musk's compensation as CEO. In a letter to shareholders, Tesla's board said that Musk hasn't received 'meaningful compensation' for eight years, citing the 2012 CEO Performance Award that was last earned in 2017. The board argued that Musk deserves compensation because he's delivered 'transformative and unprecedented growth' that's 'translated into immense value generated for Tesla and all our shareholders.' Musk has been one of the richest people in the world for several years. Story continues below advertisement Wedbush analyst Dan Ives feels Musk's stock award may alleviate some Tesla shareholder concerns. 'We believe this grant will now keep Musk as CEO of Tesla at least until 2030 and removes an overhang on the stock,' Ives wrote in a client note. 'Musk remains Tesla's big asset and this comp issue has been a constant concern of shareholders once the Delaware soap opera began.' Tesla shares have plunged 25 per cent this year, largely due to blowback over Musk's affiliation with President Donald Trump. But Tesla also faces intensifying competition from both the big Detroit automakers, and from China. In its most recent quarter, Tesla reported that quarterly profits plunged from US$1.39 billion to US$409 million. Revenue also fell and the company fell short of even the lowered expectations on Wall Street. Under pressure from shareholders last month, Tesla scheduled an annual shareholders meeting for November to comply with Texas state law. A group of more than 20 Tesla shareholders, which have watched Tesla shares plummet, said in a letter to the company that it needed to at least provide public notice of the annual meeting. Investors have grown increasingly worried about the trajection of the company after Musk had spent so much time in Washington this year, becoming one of the most prominent officials in the Trump administration in its bid to slash the size of the U.S. government. Story continues below advertisement Tesla's stock rose more than 2 per cent in morning trading. Shares are down about 23 per cent in the year to date.
Toronto Sun
28 minutes ago
- Toronto Sun
CHARLEBOIS: CUSMA-Exempt — the 93% Mirage
President Donald Trump holds a chart as he announces a plan for tariffs on imported goods during an event April 2 in the Rose Garden at the White House. MUST CREDIT: Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post Photo by Demetrius Freeman / The Washington Post Since Aug. 1, many Canadian commentators have downplayed the impact of the 35% tariffs the United States has imposed on select Canadian goods, citing the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) and its oft-repeated claim that 90% to 93% of Canadian exports remain exempt. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account While technically true, this statistic masks the much more complicated — and far less reassuring —reality for Canada's agri-food sector. A prominent December 2024 study from the University of Sherbrooke concluded that 93% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are tariff-exempt. On paper, that number may seem comforting. But it tells only part of the story — especially when it comes to food. Tariff exemptions are not automatic. To qualify for duty-free access under CUSMA, Canadian agri-food products must meet strict rules of origin and complex documentation standards. For many small and mid-sized food processors, these bureaucratic hurdles are burdensome and costly. Products with mixed or processed ingredients — such as snack bars, frozen meals, or nut butters —often fall into grey zones that create uncertainty at the border. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The result? Products deemed 'exempt' in theory may still be delayed, penalized, or rejected in practice. Recommended video Most analyses, including the Sherbrooke study, fail to account for this nuance. As a result, the 93% figure is not only misleading — it's largely irrelevant for food companies navigating real-world trade. Worse still, these studies often overlook the geopolitical dynamics shaping food trade. Under President Donald Trump, tariffs have become less about technical qualifications and more about political leverage. The real risk today isn't simply tariffs themselves — it's the mere threat of tariffs. Many Canadian food exporters have already lost long-standing American customers spooked by the unpredictability of trade with Canada. Even in the absence of formal tariffs, the perception of risk is enough to drive U.S. buyers toward domestic suppliers. That's the real game Trump is playing — and winning. Whether a product qualifies for exemption no longer matters if market confidence is eroded. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. And make no mistake: for the food industry, where net margins are often razor-thin — typically in the range of 2% to 10% — a 35% tariff is not just inconvenient; it's existential. It can erase profitability overnight, making entire product lines unviable and undermining long-term investment. There is no country in the world currently protected by trade agreements in any meaningful way. If you provoke Washington, tariffs — or their threat — will follow. Since Trump's return, no countries have drawn more retaliatory attention than China and Canada. Both have responded with countermeasures, unlike Japan, South Korea, the U.K., or the European Union — all of which have successfully negotiated more stable trade terms and now face significantly lower tariff exposure than Canada. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Since Mark Carney became Prime Minister in March, Canada has faced more tariffs from the U.S., not fewer. His strategy — if it can be called that — appears to be waiting for the U.S. economy to falter under the weight of its own tariffs. But that's a dangerous gamble. The American economy, for all its recent job market volatility, remains remarkably resilient. Betting against it has never been a winning strategy — just ask Warren Buffett. Some Canadians might believe that reduced access to U.S. markets will lead to food surpluses here at home, pushing prices down. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how food economics work. Canadian food exporters rely on scale. Export markets allow companies to spread fixed costs and keep domestic prices affordable. If demand from U.S. buyers dries up, Canadian processors will have no choice but to raise prices domestically to stay afloat. The result? Higher—not lower—food prices for Canadian consumers. In short, the 93% tariff exemption statistic may provide political cover or academic reassurance, but it is a mirage. For those of us who work with food companies, study supply chains, and understand export-driven pricing models, the message is clear: Canada's food economy is far more exposed — and vulnerable — than many realize. — Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is Director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, co-host of The Food Professor Podcast and Visiting Scholar at McGill University. Columnists World Wrestling Sunshine Girls Sex Files
