'War is coming': Canadian, other G7 leaders need to grapple with imminent threats, say experts
Article content
While the panelists didn't expect Canada to adopt nuclear weapons, it does have to considerably step up its investment in conventional forces.
Article content
'We naively assumed we could become consumers of other people's (military capability) but we have to take much more interest in the resilience of our national industries and defence is part of that,' said Norman.
Article content
That two per cent number for military spending isn't definitive or entirely essential, said Dave Angell, prime ministerial foreign and defence policy advisor.
Article content
'But we do need much more robust capabilities than we've had for some period of time,' said Angell.
Article content
'We do need to have a much greater and sustained investment.'
Article content
Angell said the upcoming G7 will be 'exceptionally timely' in discussing developments in Gaza, Iran, Haiti and Ukraine, adding he's heartened by strong, united wording in final communiques coming from G7 finance and foreign affairs meetings in the past few months.
Article content
Article content
'It's going to come at a cost to the rest of the Canadian economy, it's going to be incredibly costly,' said Ian Brodie, a political science professor at the Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies.
Article content
Article content
The U of C's Huebert said Canada has proven a reliable NATO member and has answered many calls for troops, noting the country is currently deploying a battle group in Latvia to deter Russian aggression in the Baltic states.
Article content
One of the targets for protesters who will gather in Calgary for the G7 is military spending, which they contend invites more conflict and detracts from investment on social needs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
9 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Maine can't enforce foreign election interference law that appeals court calls unconstitutional
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Maine can't enforce a voter-approved foreign election interference law that a federal appeals court said likely violates the Constitution by limiting political donations. Voters overwhelmingly approved a ban on foreign governments and companies with 5% or more foreign government ownership from donating to state referendum races. The law is one of a handful around the country that attempt to limit foreign influence on U.S. elections. The law has been on hold pending federal lawsuits from utilities companies and media organizations that raise constitutional challenges about it. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said in court papers in July that it affirmed a lower-court ruling that the law likely violates the First Amendment. 'The prohibition is overly broad, silencing U.S. corporations based on the mere possibility that foreign shareholders might try to influence its decisions on political speech, even where those foreign shareholders may be passive owners that exercise no influence or control over the corporation's political spending,' wrote Judge Lara Montecalvo. The matter was sent back to the lower court, where it will proceed, and there has been no substantive movement on it in recent weeks, said Danna Hayes, a spokesperson for the Maine attorney general's office, on Monday. The law is on the state's books, but the state cannot enforce it while legal challenges are still pending, Hayes said. Voters approved the law in 2023 by a margin of 86% to 14%. It followed a multimillion-dollar effort by a Canadian-owned utility to influence a project in Maine in which it's a partner. The law reflects the will of Maine residents to ensure clean elections, said Rick Bennett, chair of Protect Maine Elections, the committee formed to support the 2023 ballot initiative. He said the fight to save the law was still ongoing. 'Mainers spoke with one voice: our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own,' Bennett said in a statement.
39 minutes ago
Airline required to compensate families of Flight PS752 victims, Ontario court rules
Headlines Latest News Podcasts (new window) Home Courts and Crime Trials & Proceedings The plane was shot down by 2 Iranian missiles on Jan. 8, 2020 On Jan. 8, 2020, the plane was shot down by 2 Iranian missiles just minutes after taking off from Tehran, killing all 176 people on board. Photo: Reuters / Social Media Ontario's highest court has upheld a ruling that found Ukraine International Airlines legally responsible to pay full compensation to families of victims who died in the downing of Flight PS752. On Jan. 8, 2020, the plane was shot down by two Iranian missiles just minutes after taking off from Tehran, killing all 176 people on board. Most of the passengers were bound for Canada, including 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents, while many others had connections to Canada. Last year, an Ontario court found that Ukraine International Airlines was negligent because it failed to conduct a proper risk assessment for the flight out of Tehran. The court found that decision meant the airline could not limit the amount of compensation it provided to families. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the airline's appeal in a decision released Monday. Joe Fiorante, a lawyer representing some of the families in the case, called the ruling an important result for those who lost loved ones in the incident. The ruling of the Court of Appeal brings a small measure of justice for the families, Fiorante said in a news release. Should Canada come clean and admit it won't meet its climate goals? Noorullah Hakemi's mother is 1 of about 3,000 Afghan refugees in Tajikistan with Canadian refugee sponsorship More than 10,000 flight attendants could walk off job as early as Saturday 2 hours ago Working Relationships Age is still considered an important risk for women, but now scientists are looking at other factors Pierre Poilievre's path back to the House of Commons runs through vast region 5 hours ago Federal Elections
CTV News
39 minutes ago
- CTV News
Sask. court rules that legal challenge of province's pronoun policy can move forward
People hold signs while attending a rally against the Saskatchewan government's proposed legislation on pronoun policy in front of Saskatchewan legislature in Regina, on Tuesday, October 10, 2023. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Heywood Yu) Saskatchewan's Court of Appeal has ruled that invoking the notwithstanding clause cannot stop a court from ruling whether a law violates the Charter. In a Monday decision on an appeal that saw a host of groups join as intervenors, the province's highest court determined a judge can hear the Charter case against Saskatchewan's controversial pronoun law — even if a King's Bench judge is barred from striking it down. Known as Bill 137 or the Parents' Bill of Rights, the legislation requires students under the age of 16 to have parental permission before they can change their pronouns or names in school. The court's decision will allow the UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity to pursue whether the amendments to the province's education act violates two sections of the Charter, mainly the right to life, liberty, security of the person (Section 7) and equality rights (Section 15). The Government of Saskatchewan first introduced a pronoun policy in August of 2023 – which was legally challenged by UR Pride. The University of Regina-based centre requested and was granted a court injunction which halted the use of the policy. In response, the Government of Saskatchewan recalled the legislature in October of 2023 to enshrine the policy into law and stop the court challenge. In response, the Government of Saskatchewan recalled the legislature to enshrine the policy into law and stop the court challenge. Utilizing Section 33 of the Charter, otherwise known as the 'notwithstanding clause,' the government passed Bill 137 amid heavy criticism from advocacy groups and the Opposition NDP. UR Pride amended its legal challenge to say the law violated Section 12 of the Charter, which protects Canadians from cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. In February of 2024, a Court of King's Bench judge ruled that UR Pride's amended challenge should be heard. The province appealed that decision, arguing that since the original policy was no longer in place, and the law was protected by the notwithstanding clause, the question of whether the law violates the Charter rights of children was essentially irrelevant. Since the provincial government's constitutional maneuver to sidestep the ability of a court to strike the pronoun law down, the government's lawyers have argued it would be an abuse of process for a court to even hear the case or make a judgment on the potential Charter issues. During the two days of arguments, the Court of Appeal panel heard from nine interveners that supported a decision to continue the legal challenge against the bill – ranging from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to the John Howard Society. The Governments of Alberta and New Brunswick served as intervenors on behalf of the provincial government. Monday's verdict will allow UR Pride's challenge to be heard at the Court of King's Bench at a later date — even though the law will remain in place regardless of what the court rules due to the protections of the notwithstanding clause. Reaction Egale Canada, which launched the legal challenge alongside UR Pride, shared its enthusiasm over the court's decision Monday. 'At the base of this case is a government policy that the Court of King's Bench found – on the basis of expert evidence – would cause irreparable harm to vulnerable young people in Saskatchewan," the organization shared. 'Rather than reverse course, the Government of Saskatchewan has doubled down at every turn, using the notwithstanding clause to intentionally limit the constitutional rights of youth, and implement a law that will cause them harm.' Egale ended off by urging the government to end its defence of 'harmful legislation' and to prioritize creating safe and welcome school environments. Organizations from across the province shared similar sentiments following the decision. 'Today sends a clear message: rights matter, children matter, and the Sask. Party government cannot simply legislate away accountability,' CUPE Sask. president Kent Peterson said in a statement. 'Instead of a serious response to tariffs, wildfires, or understaffed hospitals, the Sask. Party keeps fighting students and educators in court. Wasting hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of taxpayer dollars on this fight is bizarre,' SLF president Lori Johb said in her own news release.
