
The clock is ticking on tariff negotiations
It's T minus one.
As in, tariffs minus one. Or Trump minus one. Or maybe even TACO minus one.
Only time — precious little time — will tell.
ADRIAN WYLD / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES
Prime Minister Mark Carney
On Aug. 1, the Trump administration has said its self-imposed range of tariffs on myriad foreign countries — including Canada — will come into effect. (Unless it turns out to be TACO minus one — U.S. President Donald Trump has backtracked so many times on announced tariffs that he's earned the nickname 'TACO,' an acronym for 'Trump Always Chickens Out.')
For Canada, that would mean a 35 per cent tariff on products not detailed in the USMCA trade deal, as well as the continuation of tariffs on aluminum, steel and automobiles, and a new copper tariff that also would come into effect on Friday.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has said the negotiations between Canada and the U.S. are in an 'intense phase.' Meanwhile, the Opposition Conservatives have complained that Canada is being left behind as others reach deals with the U.S.
But at least two of those deals seem to be running into confusion and contrary claims — especially because they aren't on paper yet. Trump claimed that the government of Japan bought its way into lower tariffs — going from 25 per cent to 15 per cent — by agreeing to invest US$550 billion in the U.S., an investment that Trump says would see the U.S. government get 90 per cent of the profits. Japan says it made no such offer, that if anything, the suggestions was for 'up to' US$550 billion with no set amount, and that profits from any Japanese investment would be paid on a proportional basis, based on how much each party invested. Japanese officials have also said there is no written agreement, and that there would not be one based on Trump's terms.
Meanwhile, a widely heralded deal with the European Union is also hitting the shoals of Trump exaggeration: numbers on the purchase of energy by EU member states have been questioned by the EU and it now appears that all EU members will vote on a prospective deal, while Trump characterized it as a historic complete package. The EU and the U.S. also have conflicting impressions about tariffs on pharmaceuticals, tariffs on steel and aluminum, investment in U.S. companies by the EU, and purchases of U.S. weapons.
For example, the U.S. version is that the EU will buy U.S. weapons, while the EU says absolutely no such commitment was made — or could be made, as military procurement is determined by individual member countries.
The U.S. also claims that the EU has promised to make a range of regulatory changes to benefit U.S. exports of food and agricultural products, along with changes to financial and tax barriers on digital industries. The EU says that's a hard no — 'We're not moving on our regulations. We're not moving on our rules. We're not moving on the system that we built up over many decades that our citizens trust,' Olaf Gill, the EU Commission's spokesperson for trade said. 'That will not form part of this agreement with the U.S.'
Weekday Evenings
Today's must-read stories and a roundup of the day's headlines, delivered every evening.
So it's all clear as mud.
And what happens next for Canada? We'll find out, perhaps, on Friday.
But more than anything else, move slowly and deliberately and in a calculated way, don't get rushed into a bad deal, and keep in mind that any deal is open to President Trump's penchant for exaggeration and fabrication. And for his unmatched ability to fail to live up to a signed commitment.
And that's for the short term. The long term?
Find new global customers. Ones that can be counted on to make an honestly negotiated deal and stick to it.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Toronto Sun
27 minutes ago
- Toronto Sun
EDITORIAL: Justice system not above criticism
The exterior of the Ontario Court of Justice in downtown Windsor is shown on April 22, 2021. Photo by Dan Janisse / Windsor Star A country where the decisions of judges and prosecutors can never be criticized is a country that is not a democracy. 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 Every Canadian citizen — not just politicians and media commentators — has the right to publicly agree or disagree with decisions made by judges and prosecutors. As long as they do not threaten their safety and are critical of their decisions, as opposed to personal attacks on those delivering them, they are legitimate forms of public expression and debate. Last week, the president of the Ontario Crown Attorneys' Association said 'attacks' by 'politicians, media and members of the public' in the context of two high-profile criminal cases were 'affronts to the rule of law.' This was in reference to the Crown's submissions for sentences for Freedom Convoy organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber on mischief charges, and the fallout from the acquittal of five former junior hockey players on charges of sexual assault. 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. No doubt many agreed with Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who tweeted on X in response to the Crown's submission to sentence Lich and Barber to seven and eight years respectively: 'Let's get this straight: while rampant violent offenders are released hours after their most recent charges and antisemitic rioters vandalize businesses, terrorize daycares and block traffic without consequences, the Crown wants seven years prison time for the charge of mischief for Lich and Barber.' Poilievre's tweet failed to note the final decision on sentencing will be made by a judge. Others will argue his argument is misguided. But it was hardly an attack on the rule of law. A similar controversy erupted in the wake of the decision by Ontario Superior Court Judge Maria Carroccia to acquit five former junior hockey plays of sexual assault in the Hockey Canada trial. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Her ruling prompted public reactions from high praise to scathing criticism for the judge — much of it from lawyers — but all of it fair comment, as long as it did not stoop to threats or attacks on the judge's character. In our view, robust public debates about the decisions made in our courtrooms do not undermine the rule of law in Canada. To the contrary, they contribute to how our laws evolve over time and are a measure of our commitment to democracy. Read More Toronto Blue Jays Toronto & GTA Columnists Toronto & GTA Columnists


Winnipeg Free Press
27 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Winnipeg students hope to develop Canada-EU AI literacy
A duo of local students has won a trip abroad to pitch diplomats on their made-in-Manitoba plan to bolster artificial intelligence literacy in Canada and the European Union. The University of Manitoba's Divya Sharma and Emily Katsman were named winners of the 2025 Schuman Challenge last week. 'It's a little bit surreal. I'm still taking it in,' said Katsman, noting the 20-somethings are the first Manitobans to enter the foreign policy competition put on by the EU Delegation to Canada. 'We are a province that has a lot of talent, but we sometimes get overlooked — especially when it comes to these high-level government and political competitions and policy settings.' The national contest calls on undergraduate students to brainstorm ways to strengthen the relationship between their home country and the EU. AI was the theme of this year's event, the third of its kind, which drew a total of 19 submissions from across the country. Sharma, 20, and Katsman, 21, were recognized for their proposal to create a Canada-EU roadmap for AI literacy in post-secondary education. 'By working together, Canada and the EU can create the shared infrastructure, standards, and trust needed to shape an AI-literate generation. One that will fuel future breakthroughs in health, climate, defence, and the digital economy,' they argued in a nine-page essay. 'From classrooms to NATO command centres, students in Canada and the EU must speak the same digital language.' Their recommendations to make that happen? Launch a joint AI literacy taskforce, standardized educator certification initiative and a research and student exchange program. 'AI is the future. There's no turning back,' Sharma said. Katsman echoed those comments. However, despite Canada's reputation as a world leader in AI research excellence, local universities have shied away from embracing the technology in classrooms due to plagiarism concerns, she noted. Their essay deemed this situation 'Canada's AI paradox,' and argued the lack of AI integration on post-secondary campuses is a major issue for the workforce and innovation at large. Canadian students are not being prepared to use AI tools effectively or responsibly — a stark contrast to what's happening in Estonia, they argued. Estonia's 'AI Leap' pilot aims to equip 20,000 high school students in northern Europe with lessons on how to use AI tools. A total of 3,000 teachers in that country are receiving training to leverage the technology for educational purposes this fall. Policymakers are working with Anthropic and OpenAI, alongside other partners, to create a related curriculum and workshops. Wednesdays Sent weekly from the heart of Turtle Island, an exploration of Indigenous voices, perspectives and experiences. Sharma and Katsman suggested Canada and the EU learn from Estonia and develop a roadmap accordingly. The U of M students are slated to visit Brussels in the fall to share their ideas with European leaders. Katsman said they are hopeful they will meet Kaja Kallas, who resigned as Estonia's prime minister last year to join the EU government. EU representatives visited Winnipeg in April on a 'Team Europe mission' to the Prairies. Maggie MacintoshEducation reporter Maggie Macintosh reports on education for the Free Press. Originally from Hamilton, Ont., she first reported for the Free Press in 2017. Read more about Maggie. Funding for the Free Press education reporter comes from the Government of Canada through the Local Journalism Initiative. Every piece of reporting Maggie produces is reviewed by an editing team before it is posted online or published in print — part of the Free Press's tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press's history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates. Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber. Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.


Winnipeg Free Press
27 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Smithsonian denies White House pressure to remove Trump impeachment references
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House did not pressure the Smithsonian to remove references to President Donald Trump's two impeachments from an exhibit and will include him in an updated presentation 'in the coming weeks,' the museum said Saturday. The revelation that Trump was no longer listed among impeached presidents sparked concern that history was being whitewashed to appease the president. 'We were not asked by any Administration or other government official to remove content from the exhibit,' the Smithsonian statement said. A museum spokesperson, Phillip Zimmerman, had previously pledged that 'a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments,' but it was not clear when the new exhibit would be installed. The museum on Saturday did not say when in the coming weeks the new exhibit will be ready. A label referring to Trump's impeachments had been added in 2021 to the National Museum for American History's exhibit on the American presidency, in a section called 'Limits of Presidential Power.' The section includes materials on the impeachment of Presidents Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson and the Watergate scandal that helped lead to President Richard Nixon's resignation. 'The placard, which was meant to be a temporary addition to a twenty-five year-old exhibition, did not meet the museum's standards in appearance, location, timeline, and overall presentation,' the statement said. 'It was not consistent with other sections in the exhibit and moreover blocked the view of the objects inside its case. For these reasons, we removed the placard.' Trump is the only president to have been impeached twice — in 2019, for pushing Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden, who would later defeat Trump in the 2020 presidential election; and in 2021 for 'incitement of insurrection,' a reference to the Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters attempting to halt congressional certification of Biden's victory. The Democratic majority in the House voted each time for impeachment. The Republican-led Senate each time acquitted Trump.