Canadian govt orders Chinese firm Hikvision to cease operations over national security concerns
Ottawa [Canada], June 28 (ANI): The Canadian government has ordered Chinese video surveillance equipment maker Hikvision to cease all operations in the country and close its Canadian business over national security concerns, Canada's Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Melanie Joly, announced on Friday (local time).
Melanie Joly noted that the government has determined that Hikvision Canada Inc.'s continued operations in Canada would be detrimental to Canada's national security.
In a statement, Joly stated, 'Following a National Security Review under the Investment Canada Act, the Government of Canada has ordered Hikvision Canada Inc. to cease all operations in Canada and close its Canadian business.'
'The government has determined that Hikvision Canada Inc.'s continued operations in Canada would be injurious to Canada's national security. This determination is the result of a multi-step review that assessed information and evidence provided by Canada's security and intelligence community,' she added.
Joly stated, 'The scope of this National Security Review under the Investment Canada Act does not extend to Hikvision's affiliate operations outside of Canada.'
Melanie Joly encouraged all Canadians to take note of this decision and make their own decisions accordingly. Furthermore, the Canadian government has banned the purchase or use of Hikvision products in government departments, agencies, and crown corporations.
https://x.com/melaniejoly/status/1938771436988137969
She stated, 'The Government of Canada is further conducting a review of existing properties to ensure that legacy Hikvision products are not used going forward. The Government of Canada welcomes foreign investment - but will never compromise on Canada's national security.' (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
24 minutes ago
- CTV News
The credit card habits that are putting Canadians deep in debt
We talk five common types of debt and how to deal with each one. Christopher Liew is a CFP®, CFA Charterholder and former financial advisor. He writes personal finance tips for thousands of daily Canadian readers at Blueprint Financial. Credit cards, when used responsibly, can be useful financial tools that help you build your credit profile and can help you earn rewards and cash back for your purchases. For many Canadians, though, they've become a source of growing debt and financial stress. With inflation driving up everyday costs and interest rates still remaining high, more people are relying on credit to make ends meet. The problem? Small balances can quickly turn into long-term debt, especially if you're only making minimum payments or juggling multiple cards. Below, I'll break down some of the most common bad credit card habits so you can avoid getting trapped in a debt cycle. Canada's growing debt problem According to Equifax Canada, credit card balances have reached record highs in recent years, with younger Canadians between 25 and 45 carrying some of the fastest-growing debt loads. As everyday essentials become more expensive and wages struggle to keep up, more people are turning to credit just to get by. What makes credit card debt especially problematic is its high interest rate, often ranging from 19 per cent on the lower end to 28 per cent or more on the higher end. Unlike a car loan or personal loan, credit card interest compounds quickly, making it easy to fall behind even with small balances. Once you start carrying a balance and only make the minimum payment, it can feel like you're stuck in an endless cycle. 5 bad credit card habits to avoid Between inflation, rising borrowing costs, and poor credit habits, many are finding themselves financially vulnerable. Understanding how credit card debt builds and the habits that make it worse is the first step toward breaking the cycle and regaining control of your personal finances. 1. Only making the minimum payment One of the simplest ways credit card companies lure customers into debt cycles is by advertising a deceptively low minimum payment. Your minimum credit card payment may only be a fraction of what you'd pay if you borrowed the same amount from a bank in the form of a personal loan. If you're carrying over a large balance from one month to the next, only making your minimum payment means that you'll be forking over a lot of interest. Often, 75 per cent or more of your minimum payment will go purely to the monthly interest fee (charged for carrying a balance), meaning that you'll barely make a dent in your actual principal balance. Carrying over a high balance on your card will also increase your credit utilization rate, which can negatively affect your credit score. 2. Treating credit like free money With an extra $2,000 at your disposal, the possibilities can seem endless. The new camera you want, the vacation you've been dreaming about, and the car parts you've been eyeing are now just a simple swipe away. When combined with the allure of a low monthly payment, the temptation to treat your available credit card balance like lottery winnings can be tempting. One of the first rules of building your credit is that credit cards should only be used to cover expenses that you can already afford with the money in your bank account. Use the cards to cover planned expenses, and then make sure you pay the amount off before the next billing cycle. This is, by far, the most responsible and effective way to use your credit card. By only using your card for what you can already afford, you'll be able to easily pay the balance off, which means you'll avoid interest fees while also being able to take full advantage of any cash back or rewards offered for using your card. 3. Not paying attention to your interest rate Credit card interest rates are variable, meaning that they can change monthly depending on the economy, your changing credit score, or simply the whims of your credit card company. Many credit cards offer a low or no-interest introductory period for the first few months (or even a year) of owning your card. While this can be helpful for a balance transfer to pay down another high-interest debt within that short period, it can also trap you into a false sense of security. As soon as the introductory rate is over, your rate will jump right back up. If you haven't paid the balance off by then, you'll suddenly be faced with mounting interest fees that will leave you feeling stuck. 4. Relying on credit to cover basic expenses If you find yourself relying on credit cards to cover basic expenses like groceries, fuel, utility bills, or rent, then you have another problem — your income is too low or expenses are too high. For example, if your monthly expenses are $3,000, you're only earning $2,700, and you're relying on credit to cover the remaining $300, then you'll quickly mount up debt. If you find yourself in this situation, the best thing you can do is to increase your income by picking up a side job or asking for a raise. Simultaneously, you should also find ways to decrease your monthly living expenses so that you're not living above your means. 5. Missing your monthly payment Missing your monthly payment typically comes with a late fee, which is just money thrown down the drain. If you consistently miss your payments, you could end up throwing hundreds of dollars away over the course of a year. In addition to the wasted money, it can also hurt your credit score. If you're more than 30 days late on a payment, the credit card companies may report this to Equifax and TransUnion — the two major credit bureaus. This will negatively impact your score and will remain on your credit report for years. Breaking the cycle By avoiding these poor credit card habits, you'll be able to build a solid credit profile for yourself and keep yourself from getting into a cycle of negative revolving debt. If you're already stuck in a cycle, it's important to face your situation and be accountable. With a solid plan, consistency, and a little bit of self-sacrifice, you can get out of debt and get back on the right track. More from Christopher Liew:
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe
There is a growing backlash after the RCMP announced this month it is investigating whether Canadian citizens involved with clashes in or around Israel were in contravention of this country's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Amid outcry from Jewish groups, the force said it wasn't a criminal probe, but to 'collect, preserve and assess information' for potential future prosecutions. Foreign governments, such as Belgium and Brazil, have also opened investigations into their own citizens who served with the Israel Defense Forces. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Lt.-Col. (ret.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, suggests these are politically motivated probes. He has been retained by IDF soldiers who have been questioned by foreign government representatives. Hirsch has previously served as senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices in New York, lawyer for the Israel Defense Forces, director of the legal department for Palestinian Media Watch, senior military consultant for NGO Monitor, and adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Dave Gordon interviewed Hirsch for the National Post. What do you think motivates foreign governments who seek these investigations? I can't tell you exactly as to what their motivation is, but I believe that it's somewhere in the realms of political expediency, and internal demographic politics. It requires these governments to almost change what they've been doing traditionally, even to the point of potentially abandoning allies. Their voter base has changed. And so now you have a situation where you need to almost pander, to cater, to a more fringe population. In May, U.K. government lawyers told the High Court that there was no evidence Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, and that evidence exists of Israel making efforts to limit harm to civilians. If the government doesn't believe that war crimes are being committed, then obviously they won't then take that forward, and actively engage in an investigation of something that they don't believe is happening. But if the government is so prejudiced, and predisposed, that war crimes are being committed, then obviously you launch an investigation. What evidence would a foreign investigation need, to theoretically try a soldier in court? Video footage, forensic analysis, operational logs — all impartially examined. What they have is so weak and poor, it's impossible to say it's 'evidence.' I think it's just so circumstantial and flimsy, even imagined. Organizations are gathering information from social media, when IDF soldiers put up videos of their activities in the Gaza Strip, and those videos are predominantly taken out of context and given a criminal shade. They'll destroy a civilian building, which is a war crime, but clearly not if it's a military target. For example, a place where weapons were stored, where terrorists were encamped, that had tunnels going underneath it. All of these possible scenarios. And so the video itself shows absolutely nothing. Governments are looking at reports and statements from people who have left Gaza, and can say anything they want. This whole effort, really, is a huge waste of time, resources and energy. It's entirely impotent, because without knowing exactly what the military goal was in any given circumstance, there's no way you can actually assess the actions of the soldier. There's a legal mechanism that already exists in Israel, to prosecute soldiers who have broken laws? Without question. There is an entire investigative process. Everyone knows they exist. And yet this almost sanctimonious drive, seems to be to ignore that reality, and pushes for these ad hoc courts to somehow take charge. In media interviews, you contend that there is no formal support from the Israeli government for IDF (soldiers), to defend them against foreign investigations. Is that still the case? That still appears to be the case. There are certain ministries that are involved in a risk assessment, and are there to help, I think, the higher ranking officers. But my experience till now has been that the lower ranking soldiers find it very, very difficult to get any support whatsoever from these ministries, and that I fear is very dangerous. Of these Israeli departments which you criticize, are they aware of the shortcomings you speak of? So the difficulty is, that they don't know even the extent of the exposure that the soldiers are facing, and wouldn't know necessarily to be able to provide assistance to everyone in need. You're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of people. This is just a question of personnel and manpower. It's overwhelming right now, especially where we're busy fighting a war. On a government-to-government level, how is this issue being dealt with? There are discussions on all different types of levels, and without again getting into too much detail, I think in many cases, a lot of the work is being done diplomatically. The opening of an investigation is dependent on a government decision, rather than anyone presenting to a court with alleged evidence. That's already a very big step forward than what used to be the case in England, where any organization could claim that X had committed war crimes, submit any type of evidence they had to a local magistrate, and that magistrate could then issue an arrest warrant. With predominantly friendly governments, the hope is that they can be diplomatically persuaded, or dissuaded, from going down a certain path. Which steps should the Israeli government take to address these investigations? I think it needs to be a conglomerate of different actors, because the problem requires different solutions and different involvement. I would suggest a joint task force of the Justice Ministry, the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, each one contributing in their own unique way to providing the best support possible. And sometimes the support needed is relatively simple, just to say that that X person was not in active duty in any type of a position, that could be considered relevant, when the alleged war crimes happen. This interview has been edited for brevity. (National Post contacted the IDF spokesperson's unit and the spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and received no response.) Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our newsletters here .
Edmonton Journal
an hour ago
- Edmonton Journal
'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe
Article content There is a growing backlash after the RCMP announced this month it is investigating whether Canadian citizens involved with clashes in or around Israel were in contravention of this country's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Amid outcry from Jewish groups, the force said it wasn't a criminal probe, but to 'collect, preserve and assess information' for potential future prosecutions. Article content Foreign governments, such as Belgium and Brazil, have also opened investigations into their own citizens who served with the Israel Defense Forces. Lt.-Col. (ret.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, suggests these are politically motivated probes. He has been retained by IDF soldiers who have been questioned by foreign government representatives. Hirsch has previously served as senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices in New York, lawyer for the Israel Defense Forces, director of the legal department for Palestinian Media Watch, senior military consultant for NGO Monitor, and adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Dave Gordon interviewed Hirsch for the National Post. Article content I can't tell you exactly as to what their motivation is, but I believe that it's somewhere in the realms of political expediency, and internal demographic politics. It requires these governments to almost change what they've been doing traditionally, even to the point of potentially abandoning allies. Their voter base has changed. And so now you have a situation where you need to almost pander, to cater, to a more fringe population. In May, U.K. government lawyers told the High Court that there was no evidence Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, and that evidence exists of Israel making efforts to limit harm to civilians. If the government doesn't believe that war crimes are being committed, then obviously they won't then take that forward, and actively engage in an investigation of something that they don't believe is happening. Article content But if the government is so prejudiced, and predisposed, that war crimes are being committed, then obviously you launch an investigation. What evidence would a foreign investigation need, to theoretically try a soldier in court? Video footage, forensic analysis, operational logs — all impartially examined. What they have is so weak and poor, it's impossible to say it's 'evidence.' I think it's just so circumstantial and flimsy, even imagined. Organizations are gathering information from social media, when IDF soldiers put up videos of their activities in the Gaza Strip, and those videos are predominantly taken out of context and given a criminal shade. They'll destroy a civilian building, which is a war crime, but clearly not if it's a military target. For example, a place where weapons were stored, where terrorists were encamped, that had tunnels going underneath it. All of these possible scenarios. Article content And so the video itself shows absolutely nothing. Governments are looking at reports and statements from people who have left Gaza, and can say anything they want. This whole effort, really, is a huge waste of time, resources and energy. It's entirely impotent, because without knowing exactly what the military goal was in any given circumstance, there's no way you can actually assess the actions of the soldier. There's a legal mechanism that already exists in Israel, to prosecute soldiers who have broken laws? Without question. There is an entire investigative process. Everyone knows they exist. And yet this almost sanctimonious drive, seems to be to ignore that reality, and pushes for these ad hoc courts to somehow take charge. In media interviews, you contend that there is no formal support from the Israeli government for IDF (soldiers), to defend them against foreign investigations. Is that still the case? Article content That still appears to be the case. There are certain ministries that are involved in a risk assessment, and are there to help, I think, the higher ranking officers. But my experience till now has been that the lower ranking soldiers find it very, very difficult to get any support whatsoever from these ministries, and that I fear is very dangerous. Of these Israeli departments which you criticize, are they aware of the shortcomings you speak of? So the difficulty is, that they don't know even the extent of the exposure that the soldiers are facing, and wouldn't know necessarily to be able to provide assistance to everyone in need. You're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of people. This is just a question of personnel and manpower. It's overwhelming right now, especially where we're busy fighting a war. On a government-to-government level, how is this issue being dealt with? Article content There are discussions on all different types of levels, and without again getting into too much detail, I think in many cases, a lot of the work is being done diplomatically. The opening of an investigation is dependent on a government decision, rather than anyone presenting to a court with alleged evidence. That's already a very big step forward than what used to be the case in England, where any organization could claim that X had committed war crimes, submit any type of evidence they had to a local magistrate, and that magistrate could then issue an arrest warrant. With predominantly friendly governments, the hope is that they can be diplomatically persuaded, or dissuaded, from going down a certain path. Which steps should the Israeli government take to address these investigations? I think it needs to be a conglomerate of different actors, because the problem requires different solutions and different involvement. Latest National Stories
