Canada scraps digital tax on US tech giants to revive Trump trade talks
OTTAWA, June 30 — Canada will rescind taxes impacting US tech firms that had prompted President Donald Trump to retaliate by calling off trade talks, Ottawa said Sunday, adding that negotiations with Washington would resume.
The digital services tax, enacted last year, would have seen US service providers such as Alphabet and Amazon on the hook for a multi-billion-dollar payment in Canada by Monday, analysts have said.
Washington has previously requested dispute settlement talks over the tax — but on Friday Trump, who has weaponised US financial power in the form of tariffs, said he was ending trade talks with Ottawa in retaliation for the levy.
He also warned that Canada would learn its new tariff rate within the week.
But on Sunday, Ottawa binned the tax, which had been forecast to bring in Can$5.9 billion (RM18.2 billion) over five years.
Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne 'announced today that Canada would rescind the Digital Services Tax (DST) in anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement with the United States,' a government statement said.
It added that Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney 'have agreed that parties will resume negotiations with a view towards agreeing on a deal by July 21, 2025.'
There was no immediate comment from the White House or Trump.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC on Friday that Washington had hoped Carney's government would halt the tax 'as a sign of goodwill.'
Canada has been spared some of the sweeping duties Trump has imposed on other countries, but it faces a separate tariff regime.
Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has also imposed steep levies on imports of steel, aluminum and autos.
Canada is the largest supplier of foreign steel and aluminum to the United States.
Last week, Carney said Ottawa will adjust its 25 percent counter tariffs on US steel and aluminum — in response to a doubling of US levies on the metals to 50 per cent — if a bilateral trade deal was not reached in 30 days.
'We will continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interest of Canadians,' Carney said Friday.
He had previously said a good outcome in the talks would be to 'stabilize the trading relationship with the United States' and 'ready access to US markets for Canadian companies' while 'not having our hands tied in terms of our dealings with the rest of the world.'
Carney and Trump met on the sidelines of the Group of Seven summit in Canada earlier this month. Leaders at the summit pushed Trump to back away from his punishing trade war.
Dozens of countries face a July 9 deadline for steeper US duties to kick in — rising from a current 10 per cent.
It remains to be seen if they will successfully reach agreements before the deadline.
Bessent has said Washington could wrap up its agenda for trade deals by September, indicating more agreements could be concluded, although talks were likely to extend past July. — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Trump's ‘emergency' playbook
TO hear Donald Trump tell it – America is under siege – from within, from without and from all directions in between. According to the president, the country is gripped by rebellion, facing invasion from a Venezuelan gang and under economic assault from foreign actors. Armed with this self-declared crisis narrative, Trump has invoked sweeping emergency powers embedded in US law, dating back centuries. He deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles over the objections of California's governor, deported migrants to El Salvador with little to no due process and triggered trade wars through tariffs he justified as national security measures. Legal scholars argue these moves aren't grounded in the statutes Trump cites, but are instead part of a broader effort to expand his power – and erode constitutional limits. 'He is declaring utterly bogus emergencies for the sake of trying to expand his power, undermine the Constitution and destroy civil liberties,' said Ilya Somin, a libertarian law professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School. Somin represents several businesses, including a wine importer, challenging Trump's tariffs in court. Crisis has always been Trump's calling card. His first inauguration speech painted a bleak picture of 'American carnage', while his latest presidential campaign promised to reverse 'staggering American decline'. The message is consistent: America is broken, and only he can fix it. Now back in office, Trump appears determined to codify that rhetoric into governance – transforming everyday political challenges into full-blown emergencies that grant him exceptional authority. Rewriting the rulebook Trump's justification often rests on laws created long ago to give presidents flexibility during genuine emergencies – such as wars or natural disasters – when Congress might be too slow to act. 'These statutes were passed with the expectation that future presidents would act in good faith,' said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri. 'Genuine emergencies do occur and Congress knows it's slow. It wants presidents acting in good faith to move with rapidity.' But Trump, Bowman warned, is testing that assumption to its breaking point. 'Declaring everything an emergency begins to move us in the direction of allowing the use of government force and violence against people you don't like.' The White House, for its part, blames Democrats for failing to protect Americans from national and economic threats. 'President Trump is rightfully using his executive authority – as evidenced by many victories in court – to deliver resolve and relief for the American people,' said spokesperson Taylor Rogers. In truth, the victories have been limited. Lower courts have mostly rejected Trump's emergency-based legal arguments – most notably, his recent attempt to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify deporting migrants linked to a violent Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua (TdA). The Act, which grants the president the power to deport citizens of nations engaged in war, invasion or 'predatory incursion', has been used only three times before – during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II. In March, Trump argued that the gang's presence on American soil constituted such an incursion. But judges weren't convinced. 'There is nothing in the 1798 law that justifies a finding that refugees migrating from Venezuela, or TdA gangsters who infiltrate the migrants, are engaged in an 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion,'' ruled Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the US District Court in New York City. Hellerstein, a Clinton appointee, dismissed Trump's framing of a criminal gang as a national invasion. 'TdA may well be engaged in narcotics trafficking, but that is a criminal matter, not an invasion,' he wrote. At least one judge – Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee in Pennsylvania – agreed with the president, calling the gang's presence a 'predatory incursion'. But she's so far in the minority. Emergency, everywhere Beyond immigration, Trump has applied the language of crisis to a range of issues. In April, he imposed tariffs on several countries, claiming that 'foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency'. The move drew legal challenges and two courts have since ruled against him – although a federal appeals court has paused one of the rulings. Trump departing Morristown Municipal Airport in New Jersey.— Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times California, in particular, has resisted Trump's moves. Officials there sued after he federalised a state militia unit without meeting the criteria – which, under law, include an invasion by a foreign power, a domestic rebellion or an inability to enforce federal law. 'The situation in Los Angeles didn't meet the criteria for federalisation,' state officials said at the time. Meanwhile, Trump has amplified fears of a 'migrant invasion', citing it as the basis for stepped-up Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and as justification for bypassing local authorities to exert federal control over state matters. The supreme test So far, the US Supreme Court has not weighed in on Trump's recent emergency declarations. But the justices have shown a willingness to challenge presidents' use of extraordinary powers – including President Joe Biden's Covid-19-era efforts to cancel student debt and extend eviction moratoriums. Historically, the Constitution contains only two major references to 'invasion': one limiting states from declaring war unless 'actually invaded', and another allowing suspension of habeas corpus in the event of 'rebellion or invasion'. The court's most definitive ruling on presidential emergency powers came in 1952, when it rejected President Harry Truman's attempt to nationalise the steel industry during the Korean War. It's a warning that legal scholars say rings louder today, as Trump reframes a wide array of political and legal challenges as existential threats – and reshapes the presidency in the process. 'In Trump's world,' said Bowman, 'everything is an emergency. And that's the real danger.' — ©2025 The New York Times Company This article originally appeared in The New York Times
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
A fiery fortnight
COULD one lunch in Washington cause so much dyspepsia in Delhi, or indigestion in Islamabad? On June 18, 2025, US President Donald Trump invited Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir for a private meal in the White House's Cabinet Room. He set five places: for himself, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and an aide. The field marshal sat with Lt-Gen Asim Malik, Inter-Services Intelligence head and Pakistan's national security adviser. There was no place for a representative of Pakistan's elected government. (Later, Rubio deadened Islamabad's pique by phoning Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.) Trump's working lunch, scheduled for an hour, extended to two. In July 2019, Trump received then Pakistan PM Imran Khan and spent almost four hours taking him on a tour of the White House. Trump had hoped that after the recent G7 meeting in Canada, Indian PM Narendra Modi would accompany him to Washington. Modi 'politely' declined, rejecting yet again Trump's contention that he brokered the Indo-Pakistan ceasefire in May. Returning to Washington, Trump tweeted that he had brokered peace deals between the DPR of Congo and Rwanda; Serbia and Kosovo; Egypt and Ethiopia; and the Abraham Accords (aimed at easing relations between Israel and Arab nations). But, he griped: 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan. I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran.' Within days of Trump's lunch, Pakistan indulged his whim. Pakistan, in 'obsequious bondage', formally recommended Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing his 'strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship'. The Iranians would prefer to see Trump receive a different award – for duplicity. During the past fiery fortnight, while Iran and Israel lobbed missiles and drones at each other, Trump held out that he would decide Iran's fate 'within a fortnight'. He encouraged the UK, France, and Germany plus the EU to negotiate with Iran in Geneva. No sooner had they retired for the weekend than, overnight last Sunday, Trump gave the order for a sneak attack on Iran. Seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers flew over supine Syria and impotent Iraq. They dropped more than 190,000kg of explosives on Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. This mission – planned over months – was executed within hours, with multipronged precision. It involved 14 GBU-57 'bunker buster' bombs and two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a US submarine. The attack on Fordo was not entirely successful. It had to be repeated by a second sortie of B-2s. Trump exulted at his 'spectacular military success', warning of 'far greater' attacks if Iran did not 'make peace'. Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu heaped shovels of praise, congratulating the 'awesome and righteous might ... which will change history'. He continued: ''President Trump and I often say, 'Peace through strength'. First comes strength, then comes peace.' Netanyahu's strategy is to make Israel, with US backing, the preeminent power in the region and, at a personal level, to fortify his position within Israel. Trump's intervention has made his dream a reality. The tail has finally wagged the dog. It bit. Today, Iran – a Shia state headed by an 87-year-old cleric – stands alone, surrounded by a herd of Arabian sheep. Will Iran capitulate? Unlikely. For centuries since October 680 CE, Shias every year recall the martyrdom of Imam Hussain and his companions at Karbala. Iran's leadership may well believe: 'If you are prepared to die, nobody can kill you.' On Tuesday, after an attack by Iran on the American Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar (artfully choreographed with US connivance to minimise damage), Trump claimed he had arranged a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. They obeyed his intervention by violating the ceasefire. An irate Trump has been driven to spouting expletives. Israel's actions have obviously emboldened India. Its Home Minister Amit Shah declared again that India will never restore the Indus Waters Treaty: 'We will take water that was flowing to Pakistan to Rajasthan by constructing a canal. Pakistan will be starved of water that it has been getting unjustifiably.' Pakistan seeks negotiations, but has warned India continued suspension or abrogation of the IWT constitutes a casus belli. Would a war result in a dependable supply of water? Or is PM Modi's plan to convert Pakistan into a modern Karbala? When threats replace diplomacy, nations like Pakistan and Iran are vulnerable victims of the vaunting ambition of others. Trump's maverick decisions, Netanyahu's gory genocide, Modi's aversion to negotiations, and the Dr Strangelove advice of US hawks to Trump that he should 'reluctantly blow Iran to smithereens' remind one of Friedrich Schiller's maxim: 'Against stupidity, even the gods fight in vain.' — Dawn/ANN FS Aijazuddin is an author.
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
US strikes set up 'cat-and-mouse' hunt for missing uranium
The United States and Israeli bombing of Iranian nuclear sites creates a conundrum for United Nations (UN) inspectors in Iran: how can you tell if enriched uranium stocks, some of them near weapons grade, were buried beneath the rubble or had been secretly hidden away? Following last weekend's attacks on three of Iran's top nuclear sites — at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — President Donald Trump said the facilities had been "obliterated" by US munitions, including bunker-busting bombs. But the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which monitors Teheran's nuclear programme, has said it's unclear exactly what damage was sustained at Fordow, a plant buried deep inside a mountain that produced the bulk of Iran's most highly enriched uranium. IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said yesterday it was highly likely the sensitive centrifuges used to enrich uranium inside Fordow were badly damaged. It's far less clear whether Iran's nine tonnes of enriched uranium — more than 400kg of it enriched to close to weapons grade — were destroyed. Western governments are scrambling to determine what's become of it. Olli Heinonen, previously the IAEA's top inspector from 2005 to 2010, said the search would probably involve complicated recovery of materials from damaged buildings, as well as forensics and environmental sampling. This will take a long time. "There could be materials which are inaccessible, distributed under the rubble or lost during the bombing," said Heinonen, who dealt extensively with Iran while at the IAEA and now works at the Stimson Centre think-tank in Washington. Iran's more than 400kg of uranium enriched to up to 60 per cent purity — a short step from the roughly 90 per cent of weapons grade — are enough, if enriched further, for nine nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick. There are indications Iran may have moved some of its enriched uranium before it could be struck. IAEA chief Grossi said Iran informed him on June 13, the day of Israel's first attacks, that it was taking measures to protect its nuclear equipment and materials. While it did not elaborate, he said that suggested it was moved. A Western diplomat said most of the enriched uranium at Fordow would appear to have been moved days in advance of the attacks, "almost as if they knew it was coming". US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth was unaware of any intelligence suggesting Iran had moved it. Trump has also dismissed such concerns. A second Western diplomat said it would be a major challenge to verify the condition of the uranium stockpile, citing a long list of past disputes between the IAEA and Teheran, including Iran's failure to credibly explain uranium traces found at undeclared sites. "It'll be a game of cat and mouse." Before Israel launched its 12-day military campaign, the IAEA had regular access to Iran's enrichment sites and monitored what was inside them around the clock as part of the 191-nation Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, to which Iran is a party. Now, rubble and ash blur the picture. What's more, Iran has threatened to stop working with the IAEA. Last Wednesday, Iran's parliament voted to suspend cooperation. Teheran says a resolution last month passed by the IAEA's 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations paved the way for Israel's attacks, which began the next day, by providing an element of diplomatic cover. The IAEA denies that. Iran has repeatedly denied that it has an active programme to develop a nuclear bomb. And US intelligence had said there was no evidence Teheran was taking steps towards developing one. However, experts say there is no reason for enriching uranium to 60 per cent for a civilian nuclear programme, which can run on less than five per cent enrichment. As a party to the NPT, Iran must account for its stock of enriched uranium. The IAEA can and does receive intelligence from member states, which include the US and Israel, but says it takes nothing at face value and independently verifies tip-offs. "If the Iranians come clean with the 400kg of HEU (highly enriched uranium) then the problem is manageable, but if they don't then nobody will ever be sure what happened to it," said a third Western diplomat.
