Canada: This Means (Trade) War

Perustin pyöräilyvää teitä valmistavan ornotin vuonna 2013. Mielestäni parasta Shopify saan se, että voimme harjoittaa liiketoimintaa ilman teknistä osaamista. Voimme hallinnoida yrityksen taustajaristeelle mien ja front-endia sekä myydä verkossa, vaivattaa. Jos Shopify olisi pyöräilyvaruste, sollisi mielestäni itse polkupyörä. Sillä asiat hoidetaan ja meidän liiketoiminta me hoituu Shopify-sa. Aloita ilmainen kokeilu, Shopify piste.com sivustolla. Itse Monday, August 24, Last Year was a trade battle. Now Canada is declaring trade war. It's a start year. Prime Minister Mark Karnie walks away from White House negotiators, triggering sky-high tariffs. Year war when you get attacked, we got attacked. So what will this mean for consumers on either side of the border? The U.S. Postal Service tell states, send us information about your voters, or have them send ballots another way. A list of each voter's name and address. A controversial rule change is now a penflik away from taking effect. And those bulldozers didn't doze for long. It's kind of like a timeout in the legal dispute. And effectively here, that's a win for Trump. White Chief Justice John Roberts gave the president the go ahead to keep building a new White House ballroom. From ABC News, this is Start Here. I'm Brad Milke. For decades, the United States' closest trading ally has been the country directly to our north, Canada. For the last year, though, that relationship has been fundamentally altered. We don't have to sign deals. They have to sign deals with us. They want a piece of our market. We don't want a piece of their market. We don't care about their market. There were tariffs last year that prompted Canadians to unite in opposition. Remember, this many vowed to stop traveling to the U.S. to stop patronizing American businesses. An entire catchphrase cropped up north of the border. There will always be a Canada. All right, elbows up, elbows up. In fact, you could argue Prime Minister Mark Carney came to power because of this newfound toughness around Canadian trade talk. Well, last month, President Trump had called for even more tariffs against the Canadians. At the last minute, he halted them from going into effect, saying progress was being made. We feel confident that we've reached an agreement. And by all accounts, these two sides were talking until this weekend when these negotiations collapsed. As of this morning, there are huge new taxes, like 50% on many Canadian goods coming into the U.S. and Carney is now using words like "war" to describe this relationship. ABC's Elizabeth Solsey is with us. She covers economics. Elizabeth, I've seen hockey brawls less antagonistic than this. Can you just explain how this unfolded? This is a full-on trade war now, Brad, with one of our closest, arguably our closest, trading partner. What we are talking about is an 11th-hour collapse in these talks that have been back and forth between the U.S. and Canada. And really, what it looked like up until Friday night, like there was going to be some sort of deal to limit the tariffs that were in place between these two trading giants. We had a very good conversation with the Prime Minister last night, and we've come to a deal with Canada. Earlier last week, President Trump said there was going to be a deal with Canada. Even on Friday, earlier in the day, he said he was confident that the deal could be reached. And then, late Friday night, there wasn't a deal. And both sides very quickly started blaming each other. President Trump was out on social media saying that American farmers had been hurt by Canadian tariffs. The U.S. was blaming Canada for imposing conditions. We cannot accept what they've offered, and we will not give what they've asked. But then you had Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney pointing the finger right back at the U.S. saying that they were the ones who had put conditions in place at the last minute that were basically a non-starter for them in these trade negotiations. And Mark Carney said they were okay to walk away. You're aware when you get attacked. We got attacked. U.S. put 50 percent. We waited until the United States decided to actually implement these so-called 3-3-8 tariffs. That's fine. We've got the reserves. We've got the resilience. We've got the plan. We've got the focus. He had some very harsh words this weekend, Brad, for the U.S. saying that these tariffs were designed to hurt and divide the country. And that at the end of the day, this was a miscalculation that Canada is willing to fight this and that they will be stronger together. Can imagine those comments didn't make President Trump too happy who has already had some pretty harsh criticism from Mark Carney. But this really escalated to a whole new level. Our relationship with the United States will never again be the same as it was. We had seen earlier this year, Mark Carney take a pretty outward stance in opposing the U.S. but in kind of more veiled terms, Brad, talking about how the U.S. was imposing a new world order and it was time for other countries to fight back. Now he went straight at President Trump and the U.S. saying this is an attack and we're going to fight back. And here we are with a full-on trade war on our hands. When we see trade war, I mean, what does that end up looking like for Americans? Clearly, we're willing to tax Canadian goods. I guess the question is whether we're willing to have them tax ours? Right, so what we're talking about here from the U.S. are 50% 50% tariffs on hundreds of products. The list ranges from Canadian alcohol to building materials. You've got dog leashes in this list, hockey sticks. It is a pretty carved out list of products that will be affected here. And we're talking about $20 billion of goods that come from Canada into the U.S. Just for context, that's only about 5% of imports. Usually we have closer to $400 billion of Canadian products coming into the U.S. So this isn't an all-encompassing and it is a carved out list. For example, oil and gas products not included in these tariffs at a time when we've already got high gas prices, clearly there. But this is an escalation. President Trump is using an authority to impose these tariffs that has very rarely been used before. It dates back to the Great Depression. And almost right away, we saw Canada say they will impose their own dollar for dollar tariffs that will take effect next month, September 8th. Canada will match Washington's new tariffs dollar for dollar in order to protect Canadian workers, farmers, families, and businesses. So instead of the hope and the expectation that there would be kind of a ratcheting down of some of the steep tariffs that are already in place between these two trading partners and step where we're seeing is new tariffs going into effect, new taxes. So bottom line what this means is that American companies importing any of the products on this list of tariffs that have gone into place, they're going to be paying 50 percent more. And as we have seen over the past year and a half, often the companies that are paying more importers paying more, they pass those higher costs down in the form of higher prices to American households. If they're getting up there, we spend a lot of money but even with smaller bags. The Yale Budget Lab says that the typical household is already paying about $1,100 extra per year because of the current tariff regime that's in place. So this has meant higher prices for shoppers. And I think that there is an interesting added dynamic going on here that we are now 10 weeks out from the midterm elections. We know that prices inflation, the economy, are atop if not the top concern for so many voters. A lot of the states that have the biggest trade with Canada think Michigan, Wisconsin. Those are critical states in the midterm election and those are very well places where you could see now consumers paying higher prices for some of these goods. Yeah, and that's the new world order that Karnie's talking about. It's like, maybe we all do more business with China, which clearly is not with this White House wants to hear. All right, Elizabeth Scholze, thank you so much. Thank you, Brad. Next up on start here, Sign Seal Delivered as long as the state supplies the voter data. We're back in a bit. This show is sponsored by Trust in Will. Let's talk about something that no one really wants to talk about. What happens when you pass? Unfortunately, it happens to all of us. And as you get older, as your family and assets become more complex, it can be stressful to think about organizing your wishes to keep your family protected after you're gone. But Trust in Will is here for you. Trust in Will offers affordable attorney-design to state plans that you can create online in as little as 30 minutes on their easy-to-use website. You can document your wishes for guardianship of children and pets, distribution of assets, and health care planning. When you're ready, you can share access with trusted contacts to ensure your will gets carried out. That's my issue. I have something all in a draft of an email somewhere that nobody has the password to. All documents are state-specific and tailored to your needs and their bank-level encryption and secure sharing features. Ensure your documents stay protected and accessible. Trust in Will, affordable estate plans, priceless peace of mind. Go to trustinwill.com/start and get 20% off that's trustinwill.com/start to get your 20% off trustinwill.com/start. Today, I want to tell you about an exciting new deal from our friends at Cozy Earth. Take a moment and think back to the best night of sleep you ever had. Did it feel like you might never sleep that well again? Well, good news. You can give yourself an amazing night of sleep every night by upgrading your bedding to Cozy Earth. Cozy Earth offers luxury bedding at an incredible price. Their ultra-soft temperature-regulating sheets, coverlets, and duvet covers are the perfect companion for a night of uninterrupted relaxation. The sheets come in all different colors and stripes, so they're something for everyone, whether you're doing a big fall refresh for your master bedroom or updating a guest room in time for the holidays. ja se on kumpi, että se on tullut tullut. actually only get better from there because they are designed to get softer with every wash. Best of all, with our limited time deal, the already great prices are even better. You can get 50% off a wide assortment of betting options by going to our unique link. That's right, 50% off, but hurry, this deal is only for a very limited time. Get yourself the betting of your dreams. Right now go to abcsecretsavings.com/starthere for 50% off the best betting you will ever sleep on, that's abcsecretsavings.com/starthere. When it comes to elections, it's kind of a weird relationship between states and the federal government. The main rule is states run their own elections. It's how you're able to have primaries taking place all over the calendar. It's how you can have different rules and run off formats. However, there are federal election rules, like no state is allowed to raise this voting age higher than 18 years old. That's federal. You have to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Most of those federal rules were created to make sure more people could vote, not fewer. As the Trump administration has tried to impose national standards on voter ID and absentee ballots, or the rapid rise of voting by mail, states, particularly blue states, have said, "Sorry White House, you don't get to tell us when we accept ballots, or whether someone should have a government ID on them, you don't control state election offices." But you know what the federal government does control? In recent days, the U.S. Postal Service said it will release a new rule that would effectively force states to verify voter information if they want ballots to travel in the mail. This is to comply with an executive order from the White House, ABC's National Correspondent Stephen Portinois in Washington, Stephen. What would this new rule mean? The rule was published on Friday, and the Postal Service says it's implementing an executive order that was signed by the President in March that would require states to submit lists of each voter's name and address in order to receive a mail in ballot. The Postal Service also in its new rule would require new barcodes that would go on every mail in ballot. States would be required to input their information into what's being called a federal ballot mail portal before that ballot will be accepted for mail. The Postal Service argues in its rule, which was published late last week in the federal register, that the barcodes are necessary to enhance the visibility of mail in ballots within the system, and it compares the new standards for mail in ballots to other kinds of regulations that the Postal Service has governing postage, for example. You may see those business reply envelopes that all seemed to look very similar. Well, the Postal Service is basically arguing in its rule that this is sort of the same. Why? What is the problem that is being solved through the ICE of the Trump administration and are, you know, what are the criticisms of that? The President has tried multiple times by executive order to force changes. And remember, it's about voter integrity. We want to have honest voting in our country because if you don't have honest voting, you can't have really a nation to try to force voter ID to try to force the states to turn over lists of their voter roles. And in repeated cases, federal judges have stepped in and said, "Sir, you can't." The Constitution is clear, as you said at Brad, that states run elections. I should point out that this particular rule is hung up in the courts. A panel of the Boston-based First Circuit Appeals Court ruled two to one in July that the administration couldn't move forward with this particular plan because of the idea that elections are controlled by the states. That ruling said the President's executive order, in this regard, imposes unprecedented levels of involvement by federal officials and how states administer elections. Now, the administration has appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, hoping that the justices will allow it to move forward, based mainly on the idea that the Postal Service had not yet issued its rule, and that the lawsuit challenging all of this was premature. Well, late last week, the Postal Service did issue the rule, so I guess we'll see what happens next. Right, so now it's kind of like you're on pause from implementing new rules, but if that pause gets taken off, would this go right into effect, basically? Well, that's an open question. One of the things that the Postal Service said in their rule submission on Friday was that whether it will be implemented in time for this election, this midterm election, this fall, is very much up in the air, pointed to the fact that this is hung up in court, and it said this, "Given injunctions currently in place, the Postal Service will not take actions to implement the rule specifically for the 2026 election, unless and until the government obtains relief from those injunctions." But then it goes on to say that if there is relief granted that perhaps they could immediately implement it thereafter, so I would say it's sort of still an open question as to whether this could actually happen by this November. One other thing to point out, Brad, and that is this, the Postal Service is arguing that states don't need to run their elections by mail. This is kind of interesting, I felt. The idea here being that states have chosen to rely on the U.S. Postal Service, and if they're going to rely on the U.S. Postal Service to collect ballots, well, then, therefore, the Postal Service can impose regulations. Our house are rules. You don't have to come to our house here, like have everyone drop them off at a ballot box or something. I guess. Look, you can look at the history and the history of absentee ballots and weigh the equities as courts are want to do. One of the other arguments the Postal Service is making is that it won't second-guess the list of voters provided by states that states will retain full control over who's permitted to receive a ballot because they'll control the list. All they have to do is submit them, but Democratic officials across the country are concerned. Voting by mail has never been a partisan issue until Donald Trump decided to pedal conspiracy theories related to his own failures to win back in 2020. This administration will collect this information, cross-reference it, perhaps, with citizenship data and seek to scrutinize voters and armed with their specific names and addresses could take action against individuals. And interestingly, this does not include all the things President Trump wanted. This does not include your social security number or even your immigration status, and yet you've had activists saying, throughout the weekend, if the administration gets to determine who's American enough to vote in their state's election, then the White House administration can then start to shape the electorate the way it wants. That's the concern from these groups. All right. Stephen Portnoy, thank you. You bet, Brad. Now, we've talked about the role that the court system has already played in some of these key issues, elections, tariffs. Well, for weeks now, it's also been the court system telling the White House it can't move forward with this huge construction project in the East Wing of the White House. When you have this president who is overreaching well beyond the authority, the executive. We have expressed our view that there's a legally required process. The judge has also expressed, look, there's a process. Go through the process. The president's expressed frustration, saying, "Why don't you rather have a ballroom there than some big hole in the ground?" To which judges so far have said, "Well, you might have consulted Congress or judges before you dug the big hole in the first place." "It's a drone proof. It's bulletproof glass. We need the ballroom. That's why secret service. That's why the military are demanding it." The White House had appealed to the Supreme Court, and even though the justices are off for the summer. On Friday, the White House got a legal victory, or the legal equivalent of a building permit, at least. ABC Senior Washington reporter Devin Dwyer is with us, Devin, I guess walk us through this order. What happened here? So as Brad to be clear, a temporary brief stay of this lower court order that would have halted construction effective Friday afternoon. So yes, it's status quo. They are, as President Trump has said, building 24/7 on the East Wing project, 250 workers around the clock, racing to get this thing done. By the way, they say they're 65% on the way, notwithstanding this legal battle, but with Chief Justice John Roberts by himself, he did not refer this to the full Supreme Court. It was not voted on. There was no decision. He simply issued what's called an administrative stay. It's kind of like a time out in the legal dispute. And effectively here, that's a win for Trump, because he can continue. It's like a time out on the time out that the lower court's wanted. Exactly. So, win for him, but important for everybody to keep in mind, it's not the final word. The court hasn't actually said anything. They haven't decided anything. There was no vote yet to be sure the expectation is they'll allow this project to continue anyways. We could find out this week the formal final answer on that injunction that they can continue moving forward. But for the time being, the Chief Justice said, construct the way. Yeah, but I guess my question is usually if you're a judge, the reason you issue an injunction or like a time out is because you're like, well, we don't want to do anything, like do no harm. Right. If this is essentially saying, we're not positive what's going to happen, but in the mean time, go ahead and keep building, like does that just mean that if courts find against him later that you have to tear this all down, because I don't know what good that would do anyone. So, what's the rationale from Roberts, I guess? You know, set aside this latest development with the Supreme Court, that has been the nut of this whole case, right, is that the president is racing as fast as he can to both demolish the East Wing unilaterally and construct this new 90,000 square foot structure on his own accord with no approval, no, you know, historical review, no public comment period, no congressional input on who's going to pay for this, how it's going to work. He is trying to do that as fast as he can to outrun the courts. And the courts don't really know what to do, the two lower courts that have addressed this case so far. have said this is a very tricky position to be in because we recognize that it's now it's almost impossible for us to say that this shouldn't have happened, can't happen because it's already happened. And so you did see the two Democratic appointees on this three judge appeals court panel that ruled in favor of the injunctions say, you know, we can't allow presidents to simply break it first and suffer no consequences if in fact, it violates the law. So, you know, that's going to be the challenge here. All of that aside, Brad, the heart of the dispute is whether the group that even sued to block the construction even has the right to bring the case. It's called the national trust for historic preservation. And there is a real question about whether they've been, quote, unquote, injured by the construction and demolition of operations at the East Wing, you know, legal cases 101, you can't just sue the government for any reason. You have to have been hurt by the government or hurt by a policy or an action or a person. And the group that brought this case said they have suffered a visual injury. I wasn't about to say what if somebody was like, I'm an architect student. This offends me. That's literally their argument. Yeah. They said, you know, we don't like the way it looks. We are used to this. And then that gives them an entree in their view to challenge this on other grounds saying it's illegal, you know, federal law says only Congress owns federal property and can decide what is demolished and constructed. But the White House has fired back and said on this reasoning, anyone that flies into DCA airport and sees something they don't like that's visually dissatisfactory can sue. I mean, they say that is absurd. And so, you know, I think the Supreme Court this week as they rush towards putting together some final decision on whether this project can officially move forward is weighing that. Does this group even have standing to bring the case if they say no, they may don't even need to address or get to any of the other disputes here. Again, effectively, that means Trump will win. He will, you know, be able to construct his project. It'll be done before any more litigation happens, probably. But that is the heart of the real legal matter right now is a showdown over whether this group can bring it. Right, with test for presidential power here looming in all this, which we know Chief Justice Roberts has been a major theme of his in the Trump era. Devon Dwyer, thank you. Thanks, Brad. Okay, one more quick break. When we come back holding this trophy would be one of the great honors in the sport. If anyone could find it, our last thing is next. Shopeyfai.com.com. And one last thing, there's this really cool tradition in the National Hockey League. Because the Stanley Cup is so revered, so historic, every player on the team that wins the title gets to spend a day with the Cup. Over the years, the players have taken this thing out on fishing trips, they've let their pets eat out of it, one player used it as a baptismal font and had his kid christened in it. Well, for the last few years, the US and Canada have also had the PWHL, the professional women's hockey league, and they decided to do the same kind of thing with their trophy, the Walter Cup. The thing is, though, it appears to be missing. Earlier this year, the Montreal Victoire won the Walter Cup. So this summer, every Montreal player has gotten a spend a day showing off the trophy in their hometown or taking it for a joy ride, whatever. Last week, it was forward Darryg's turn. She lives in Lethbridge, Alberta. Now, if this was the Stanley Cup, it would come in this really fancy case, first of all, but more importantly, it is presided over 24/7 by an employee of the hockey hall of fame. This guy is part museum, docent, part bodyguard. He wears white gloves when handling the trophy, and if the cup is traveling, he is with it literally every step of the way. The PWHL, though, doesn't have that. They ship the trophy in a sturdy case to its next destination. Well, the Walter Cup might be lost in the mail. In a statement, the leak confirmed it did not arrive at its expected stop last Thursday, and quote, "We are working closely with the shipping company to locate it," end quote. Now, important note here, this is not actually the real Walter Cup that the players were rewarded on ice in May. That one has spent the summer at the hockey hall of fame in Toronto. This one is a replica, even though it's got an identical sterling silver design from Tiffany & Co. It's 35 pounds, it's got a cup resting on too many hockey sticks. So while this debacle might not imperil the history of this three-year-old trophy, it does raise a question, "Can you call this a day with the cup if you're not sending the players the real cup?" And if you're trying to save money as a league by not sending a handler along with it, does all this devalue the very experience you're selling to the rest of the world? One thing is for sure, this would not be the first time a major trophy has been lost. The Stanley Cup has accidentally been left on the side of a road, kicked into a canal back in 1905, and once left behind at a bar after a night of partying, when officials came back to retrieve it, they discovered a cleaning lady had turned it into a tasteful flower pot, but at least it was found. One hopes the Walter Cup will soon be as well. Maybe this is good though, because trophies need lore, right? And now you'll have at least, I guess the replica trophy now has some. This is why the replica part of it is a bummer. You've got to risk the real trophy to make any of this mean anything. Hey, if you're enjoying the show, don't forget to leave us a five-star review. One user recently said, "Great coverage that I listened to daily, thanks Brad and staff. This new dorm decorating trend however is nauseating." See, I appreciate that. You hated the story. You still gave love to the storytellers. This is the new one we need in the 21st century. I'm Brad Nelkie. I'll see you tomorrow. [Music] [Music] All the things that have been done, as the summer sun has been shining in the dashboard. Enjoy the new shopping shopping show in the community.