Canada to adjust counter-tariffs on US steel-aluminium tariffs from July 21

Ottawa, June 20 (UNI) The Canadian federal government will adjust its counter-tariffs on US steel and aluminium products beginning July 21, aligning the measures with progress made in broader trade negotiations, the Finance Ministry said on Thursday.
"While the government negotiates a new economic and security partnership with the United States, we will ensure workers and industry are protected against the unjust and unprovoked American tariffs," the ministry said in a statement.
"We will take the time we need to negotiate the best deal for Canada," Prime Minister Mark Carney was quoted as saying in the release.
UNI/XINHUA ANV PRS

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Standard

an hour ago

• Business Standard

US F-1 visa interviews just got tougher: What Indian students can do right

The United States has resumed F-1 student visa processing after a brief suspension, but applicants now face stricter scrutiny. A new requirement announced on Thursday by the US State Department mandates foreign students to provide open access to their social media accounts—part of what officials describe as a step towards national security checks. What Indian students should keep in mind when preparing for F-1 visa interviews? Indian education consultants say students need to prepare both practically and mentally, not just for the visa application but also for the interview. 'F-1 visa interviews are a high-stakes but nuanced process, and it's understandable that students feel unsettled when outcomes vary widely. But what we've seen over the years is that success often hinges less on perfect answers and more on whether the student can clearly and confidently articulate their intent, preparation, and long-term plan,' said Akshay Chaturvedi, founder and CEO of Leverage Edu. 'Confidence helps but it's not about being bold, it's about being clear. My advice is: aim for coherence over cleverness; the ability to clearly connect your story, course, and career goal often stands out the most,' he said. Recently, an Indian student shared his experience at Delhi embassy in a Reddit post, where three people ahead of him were denied visas, but his was approved. According to his account: • The first candidate, pursuing computer science, failed to name any programming language when asked. • The second detailed family finances—'₹1 crore in savings, ₹5 crore in FDs, plus a ₹1.4 lakh loan'—which may have appeared excessive or rehearsed. • The third, a female applicant, cited the city's weather and lifestyle as her reason for choosing a university, without mentioning the course. His own interview was more straightforward: The officer, an Indian-American, asked for his passport and I-20 form. He was questioned about his BSc and MSc in mathematics and his proposed PhD. Despite a minor fumble, he described his research focus and stated that his programme was fully funded. The officer simply responded, 'Your visa has been approved. Enjoy your stay in the United States.' How to prepare for the F-1 visa interview 'Officers look for students who understand why they are going, what they are studying, and how they are funding it,' said Sanjog Anand, co-founder of Rostrum Education. 'Balance confidence by practising mock interviews and avoiding rehearsed or exaggerated answers. Speak naturally, stick to the point, and always answer truthfully; overexplaining or faking confidence often raises red flags,' he added. On visa denials despite academic excellence or scholarships, Anand said: 'In order to get an F-1 visa, one must fulfil three categories, one of which is showing that you will be returning to your home country after your studies. Other factors include concerning digital footprint, inconsistent or vague career plans, suspicious documents, and rehearsed answers.' Application authenticity matters Piyush Kumar, regional director (South Asia, Canada and Latin America) at IDP Education, pointed to the importance of authenticity. 'A key reason behind the success of applicants is the authenticity of the application and the intent that they are able to communicate to the visa officers. Therefore, students are advised to be honest and clear about their academic background, journey and goals,' Kumar said. 'Consistency and transparency help establish credibility. Applicants must ensure that the visa application forms are filled out accurately and reflect the same information shared during the interview and on their social media platforms,' he added. Kumar also noted that the ability to express ideas fluently matters more than perfect grammar. 'Having a proficient command of the language is pivotal. Being able to articulate thoughts and express goals and choices matters more than using perfect grammar. The visa officers are also gatekeepers of quality, and evaluate candidature based on language proficiency required to effectively live and study in a foreign country,' he said. Top reasons for F-1 visa denial According to Mamta Shekhawat, founder of the most common reasons Indian students face rejection are: Intention to return home: Students must show strong ties to India. Lack of family connections, property, or a clear job path may create suspicion about potential overstay. Poor interview performance: Nervousness or unclear responses about study and career plans can harm chances. Documentation issues: Incomplete or inconsistent documents can lead to denial even if the rest of the application is strong. Country of origin and risk category: Students from regions with high overstay rates may face additional scrutiny. Previous visa history: Past visa refusals or attempts to switch visa types could work against the applicant. Coping with rejection "Receiving an F-1 visa denial, particularly following careful preparation, could be demoralising and disheartening for students. It is not a reflection of your worth or potential; rather, it is a consequence of things outside your control, like increasing rejection rates, location trends, or merely the personal nature of consular interviews," said Shekhawat. She advised students to read denial letters carefully to identify areas of concern such as financial strength, ties to India, or vague career goals. 'Your next step must be to improve on these areas for your future applications. It must express your academic and professional plans in all sincerity,' she said. Anand added, 'Visa denial is not final; you can always reapply. If your visa gets denied in the first attempt, chin up and learn what mistakes led to that and improve that aspect of your application. You can always reach out to professional mentors and educators to seek professional help.'

Hindustan Times

2 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

Trump's trade school idea is a $3 billion winner

The president recently expressed his support for a great idea: investing an additional $3 billion in trade schools. That he suggested taking the money from scientific and medical research grants allocated to Harvard University — a counterproductive move unlikely to survive a court challenge — should not detract from the idea's merit. Nor should it obscure the issue's strong bipartisan appeal. To be clear, the administration's fight with Harvard and its Ivy League peers is a bad idea. One can criticize those schools for many things — in particular, their thoroughgoing failure to combat anti-Semitism in recent years — without obliterating research budgets at some of America's most important academic institutions. One hopes the provocation was the point. That said: If ever the president had an opportunity to unite Republicans and Democrats, greater support for career and technical education should be it. More young Americans have been choosing such training in recent years — program enrollment is up about 20% since 2020 — and for good reason. High-quality programs can lead directly to well-paying jobs while allowing students to escape much of the debt that can come with attending a four-year college. As artificial intelligence intrudes on more areas of knowledge work, the appeal of these programs may quickly grow. Yet too many programs are stuck in the past or otherwise not aligned to today's job market, leading to wasted money for taxpayers and lost opportunities for students. That has been true at both community colleges and high schools. The country continues to need more mechanics, plumbers and welders, but increasingly, large numbers of vacancies are showing up in industries that technical schools haven't traditionally emphasised, including health care, advanced manufacturing, renewable energy, information technology and other STEM fields. Aligning education and training with job market trends could produce significant benefits for both companies and consumers, as well as for the American workforce, which could enjoy higher pay and greater mobility. Creating that alignment requires reform in four key areas. As a start, curriculums and programs need to be more closely tied to employers and their needs. This requires leadership and collaboration from both education and business leaders, with support from philanthropic organizations. (Disclaimer: Bloomberg Philanthropies has helped establish specialized high schools in partnership with businesses.) The goal should be to equip students with skills that qualify them for jobs immediately out of high school. Next, the federal government can do more to encourage state and local investment in such programs. A number of states and cities are leading the way, under both Democratic and Republican leadership. More federal funds should be available to support the creation and spread of programs that, based on data-driven studies, achieve the best outcomes for employment and earnings. Congress can also incentivise employers to develop more apprenticeship programs. That can be done through modest employer tax credits — as some states now offer, and as bipartisan bills in both the House and Senate would do — or through wage subsidies. Finally, a crucial challenge facing technical education is a shortage of qualified teachers, given that such professionals can earn much more outside the classroom. Governments can help increase the talent pool by loosening certificate requirements for teaching, allowing more experienced professionals (including older workers attracted to teaching) to enter the field; making it easier to teach part time, so that skilled professionals can maintain outside employment; and offering bonuses or higher wages to the best-performing teachers. As for the administration, Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who voiced support for vocational schools in her confirmation hearing, should insist that studies funded by her department — which can help identify the most effective program designs and avoid taxpayer waste — be spared from the chopping block. The more that governments support technical schools, the more crucial it is that they be guided by reliable data and evidence. Career and technical education offers a great opportunity to show that Republicans and Democrats — even now — can work together on a major domestic-policy issue. The administration shouldn't let its fight with Harvard get in the way of seizing it.

Mint

2 hours ago

• Mint

Equally at sea: The US Federal Reserve has no more clarity than we do

The most powerful institution in global finance is as completely and utterly confused as the rest of us. At its monetary policy decision on Wednesday, the US Federal Reserve's rate-setting committee held rates at 4.25%-4.5%, but Chair Jerome Powell and his colleagues essentially acknowledged that they had no idea what would come next. They couldn't precisely project where US President Donald Trump's tariff rates would end up, much less how they would impact consumer inflation and the labour market. Nor could they confidently handicap jarring changes to immigration and fiscal policies and the evolving war between Israel and Iran. The big risk, of course, is that the uncertainty and indecision will make the Fed late to arrest a potential increase in unemployment. Also Read: The US-China trade truce doesn't solve the Fed's headache In the Summary of Economic Projections, the median member of the Federal Open Market Committee pencilled in two rate cuts this year. But that 'base case' constitutes a massive oversimplification of the outlook, and some investors may be underestimating just how fat the tails are in the distribution of potential outcomes, even over just the next three or four months. Of the 19 respondents, 14 policymakers thought the risks to their inflation forecasts were weighted to the upside—the same number that thought as much about the risks to their unemployment projections. In a nutshell, they don't pretend to know what's coming, but Chair Powell thinks we may find out relatively soon. Here's Powell at his post-decision press conference (emphasis mine): 'We feel like we're going to learn a great deal more over the summer on tariffs. We hadn't expected them to show up much by now, and they haven't. And we will see the extent to which they do over the coming months. And I think that's going to inform our thinking for one thing. In addition, we'll see how the labour market progresses." Also Read: The Fed's 'Mission Impossible' is now 'Mission Accomplished' Given all of the uncertainty, Powell is right to stay in wait-and-see mode, but he can't linger there too long once the data breaks. Meanwhile, those of us on the sidelines should prepare for the policy outlook to shift quite quickly, potentially as soon as the Fed's 16-17 September meeting. Maybe we really will get two rate cuts this year, but it's also perfectly plausible that we'll get 150 basis points worth—or none. It's a great environment for high-stakes gamblers—but not so much for American households. As Powell alluded to, it's largely trade policy that has put us all in this bind. In recent months, the disinflationary trends in housing and non-housing services have the core personal consumption expenditures deflator—the Fed's preferred inflation gauge—up around 2.6% in May from a year earlier (this is based on a Bloomberg Economics estimate from the consumer and producer price data). That's not at all terrible, and it would probably be poised to converge on the Fed's 2% target if not for Trump's extremely ill-timed and pointless trade wars. Without tariffs, the Fed would probably be cutting right now, providing ballast to a wobbly labour market and a housing market that's already seeing year-over-year price drops in some parts of the country. Unfortunately, the central bank has to play the hand it's dealt. In the immediate term, we still don't know if companies will pass on higher prices to consumers, accept narrower margins or manage their way to stable prices by laying off parts of their workforce—and maybe it will be a combination of all three. Also Read: Barry Eichengreen: Is the US Federal Reserve's independence at threat? The risks to both the Fed's stable prices and maximum employment mandates are substantial, and that's causing paralysis among policymakers—a weird 'calm before the storm" effect both at the Fed and in financial markets. But at some point before autumn, we are very likely to see something shatter that calm. An alarming jump in initial jobless claims could lead to rate cuts above and beyond any policymaker's base case. A jarring CPI report or two could keep the Fed on hold for longer and prompt a selloff in bonds. And a jump in realized inflation coupled with signs of unanchored inflation expectations could even put hikes back on the table. If they're late to mitigate the damage, Fed policymakers can take cover in blaming Trump's self-sabotaging trade policy. But they must prepare to act immediately and convincingly once the signals break in a particular direction. ©Bloomberg The author is a columnist focused on US markets and economics.