‘Not going back’: Ford will cancel Starlink-Ontario deal even if tariffs are lifted | Globalnews.ca
globalnews.ca
On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump slapped 25 per cent tariffs on the vast majority of Canadian imports, sparking a growing trade war between the two neighbouring countries.

Summary

Ontario Premier Doug Ford says the province will permanently cancel its $100 million contract with Elon Musk’s Starlink, even if U.S. tariffs are lifted.

The decision follows Trump’s 25% tariffs on Canadian imports, which prompted Ontario to ban U.S. firms from contracts.

Ford cited Musk’s ties to Trump as a factor and said he is willing to fight potential legal fallout.

Musk previously responded to cancellation threats with a dismissive “Oh well.”

  • Daelsky@lemmy.caEnglish
    542·
    12 hours ago

    Good. We Canadians should stop relying on the US. Time to focus on local industries.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.mlEnglish
      132·
      10 hours ago

      Cross country trade scales the economy way better than doing things locally though

      • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.worldEnglish
        271·
        10 hours ago

        With a stable partner, I’d say you are correct.

        However if your partner is willing to weaponize that interdependency then the calculation changes.

        China weaponized trade and used wolf warrior diplomacy during Covid in an attempt to gain influence. Russia weaponized energy with Europe. Now Trump is having the US do the same for “reasons” with Canada.

        You’d think we would learn there is more up side to cooperation than conflict but here we are again.

        • commander@lemmings.worldEnglish
          2·
          2 hours ago

          How did China weaponize trade?

          Seems to me like they just provide better deals because they’re willing to do the same or better quality work for less than their Western counterparts.

          • JustAnotherKay@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            32 minutes ago

            The same way anything can be considered a weapon. They “harmed” other economies by undercutting them.

            I don’t necessarily agree that that behavior is harmful, but that is the reasoning behind calling it a weapon

            • commander@lemmings.worldEnglish
              1·
              21 minutes ago

              They “harmed” other economies by undercutting them.

              Isn’t that just competition? It’s providing a better deal for customers. That should be seen as a good thing.

              The opposite would be colluding on prices like a cartel.

              If the “other economies” want to compete, the business owners should have to lower their prices and take less profit as a result. Again, this is a win for customers because we’re not on the same side as the businesses selling us things.

              It really is a backwards world, lol. I genuinely believe it’s because so many people have gotten raw deals but don’t want to acknowledge they’ve been taken for a ride.

              It’s easier to fool them than to convince them they’ve been fooled.