The Government of Canada makes a donation to The King's Trust Canada in honour of the Royal Visit of Their Majesties King CharlesIII and Queen Camilla
Canada News Centre
29 May 2025, 00:50 GMT+10
OTTAWA, May 28, 2025
The Government of Canada will make a donation of $50,000 to The King's Trust Canada to commemorate the visit of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla to Canada.
During their visit on May 26 and 27, Their Majesties took part in a number of noteworthy activities. The King delivered the Speech from the Throne, opening Canada's 45th Parliament. This was His Majesty's first visit as Sovereign of Canada. The Royal Visit showcased our rich Canadian identity, our cultural diversity and the vitality of our democratic institutions.
The Government of Canada's donation is part of a longstanding tradition of recognizing visits or tours by members of the Royal Family with a meaningful gesture. This contribution will be made to The King's Trust Canada, an organization founded in 2011 by His Majesty King Charles III (formerly the Prince's Trust Canada). The organization works with community partners, employers and educational institutions to help 100,000 young people across the country integrate into the workforce.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
The world is closing its doors
Opinion Straws in the wind: recently I ran across a post by the CEO of a countrywide professional association in Canada. People like him are used to hopping across the U.S. border for various meetings several times a month, but he was remarking on what people had been talking about at the association's recent annual conference in a big Canadian city. What his post said was: 'Consensus here is that it's risky to travel to (U.S. flag emoji) but if you have to go, bring a burner phone. Have a plan in case you get detained. Watch what you say. Who you meet.' And I thought 'Yeah. Me too.' I'm a journalist so I will still go to the U.S. if I absolutely have to, but not for pleasure, not for paid lectures and things, and yes, please on the burner phone. Back when I started out in this trade half the world was off limits, especially for freelance journalists. The Cold War reached a second peak in the early '80s and you couldn't go to the Soviet Union unless you had a big media organisation negotiating for you. Even then it took months for a visa, and you were followed everywhere. The communist-ruled 'satellite' countries in Eastern Europe were a little easier, and China was letting tourists into some parts of the country (but not stray journalists). Albania, North Korea and Iran were completely closed, and most of southeast Asia and much of Central and South America were ruled by military dictators who ran death squads. Then non-violent democratic revolutions began all over the 'third world,' the communist regimes of Eastern Europe collapsed, and the old Soviet Union itself followed suit. Soon almost the whole world opened up. It was a nice ride while it lasted, but then the whole process went into reverse. You won't feel the effects much if you travel as a tourist or even do business abroad, but journalists (including foreign journalists) are the canaries in the coal mine on this and I'm certainly feeling the change. The number of countries I won't go to any more is growing every year. It started, weirdly enough, with Turkey, a place I thought I knew well. I've lived there, I speak the language (or at least I used to), and I even thought President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was a welcome change from a militantly secular government that ignored the rights of the pious half of the population. Then the editor of the newspaper that ran this column in Turkey was jailed, the publisher went into exile, and the new regime turned the paper into a government propaganda outlet. I know there's a fat file on me somewhere in Ankara and I've seen the inside of a Turkish jail (as a visitor), so I don't go there any more. Twenty years now. Next was Russia, where I had been practically commuting in the early 90s. Vladimir Putin was elected in 1999 and it was still all right for a while, but by 2005 he was killing opposition leaders and I started reporting from afar. Note, by the way, that these changes were happening after more or less free elections — although they tended to be the last fair elections. Then came a round of non-violent pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East, most of them drowned in blood. That set off a whole cluster of civil wars, and the whole region became very hard to work in. It still is. Next was China, where they arrested, tried and jailed two random Canadian businessmen in 2018, really as hostages to exchange for a Chinese citizen in Canada whom they wanted back. It wasn't aimed specifically at journalists and the victims were freed after a thousand days in prison, but I and many other people took it as a signal to do your Chinese business from afar. However, I never thought that I would be adding the United States to the list. Even during Donald Trump's first term foreign journalists were no more at risk of arbitrary imprisonment than the average American citizen, and nobody followed you around or listened to your phone calls. (Well, no more than they listen to everybody else's calls.) Now, quite suddenly, the United States has become just another great power where foreigners watch what they say, try to minimize contacts with official bodies, or just stay away. The thought even occurs that, as in so many other cases, there will still be elections but we will know the outcome in advance. It sounds almost hysterical to talk like this and many non-journalist travelers won't even notice it, but the world is closing down again. I have no idea if and when it will reopen. Gwynne Dyer's new book is Intervention Earth: Life-Saving Ideas from the World's Climate Engineers.
Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
Five things you need to know as Trump's tariffs go back to court
WASHINGTON - The world buckled up for another roller-coaster ride of uncertainty this week as U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping tariff agenda made its way through the courts. A federal appeals court on Thursday granted the Trump administration's emergency motion to temporarily stay a decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade that blocked many of the president's tariffs. The lower court on Wednesday ruled that Trump's use of an emergency powers law to impose tariffs exceeded his authority. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Here's a quick look at what it all means for Canada. — What's happening with tariffs The federal appeals court granted the Trump administration's emergency motion, essentially freezing a decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade blocking the so-called 'Liberation Day' and fentanyl-related tariffs. That means that countries will continue to be hit by those duties for now. They include 25 per cent tariffs on all Canadian imports not compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade, with a lower 10 per cent levy on energy and potash. The appeals court said the request for a stay was granted 'until further notice while this court considers the motions papers.' It said the plaintiffs have until June 5 to reply to the administration's motion for a stay, while the administration 'may file a single, consolidated reply in support' of the motion no later than June 9. George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin said in an online post that it was a 'a brief temporary stay intended to give the court time to consider whether a longer stay should be imposed.' Somin, along with the Liberty Justice Center, represents American small businesses in the case against the tariffs. — What the White House argued In its emergency motion to the appeals court, the Trump administration argued the U.S. Court of International Trade's injunction blocking the tariffs was 'unprecedented and legally indefensible.' The motion said blocking the tariffs threatens 'to unwind months of foreign policy decision-making.' It said agreements with multiple countries could 'be immediately unravelled.' ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Trump's administration argued that if a stay was not granted, it would seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court on Friday. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said earlier Thursday that the Supreme Court should 'put an end to this' and called the lower court's decision 'judicial overreach.' She maintained that Trump had the legal authority to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement tariffs. — The U.S. Court of International Trade's decision on IEEPA Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA, to implement his most sweeping tariffs. While the national security statute gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency, it had never previously been used for tariffs. The U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress. The trade court wrote that 'because of the Constitution's express allocation of the tariff power to Congress … we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President.' 'We instead read IEEPA's provisions to impose meaningful limits on any such authority it confers,' it added. Mona Paulsen, an associate international economic law professor at the London School of Economics, said the decision is significant because it shows there are limits to the main tool Trump's administration had used in its attempts to realign global trade. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW — What the lower court said about tariffs Trump declared emergencies at the United States' northern and southern borders linked to the flow of fentanyl to hit Canada and Mexico with economywide tariffs. He later declared an emergency over trade deficits to impose his retaliatory 'Liberation Day' duties on most nations. The trade court wrote that 'the Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs.' It separately found that 'the Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.' — Which tariffs aren't affected by this court ruling Trump is hitting Canada, and the world, with 25 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminum. The president has also implemented 25 per cent duties on automobiles, with a partial carveout for cars compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade. Those vehicles are being slapped with tariffs on their non-American components. Trump used the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to enact those duties. The president has launched trade investigations to use the same tool to tariff other imports, such as pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, in the future. Leavitt said Trump will also look at other tools to continue his wide-ranging tariff agenda. This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 29, 2025.
The Province
4 hours ago
- The Province
Carney says he ‘welcomes' tariff decision by U.S. trade court but other tariffs remain
The prime minister shared his position in the House of Commons on Thursday morning President Donald Trump meets Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, May 6, 2025, in Washington. Photo by Evan Vucci/AP Photo OTTAWA — Canada was only able to breathe a sigh of relief on tariffs for a few hours, as a U.S. federal appeals court has temporarily reinstated some tariffs on Canadian goods. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by top sports columnists Patrick Johnston, Ben Kuzma, J.J. Abrams and others. Plus, Canucks Report, Sports and Headline News newsletters and events. Unlimited online access to The Province and 15 news sites with one account. The Province ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles and comics, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors On Thursday afternoon, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a request for an 'immediate administrative stay' of a ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade stating that President Donald Trump could not use emergency powers to impose tariffs. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters earlier in the day that the U.S. administration had already filed an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal to 'strike down this egregious decision' and was considering other legal avenues to impose tariffs. The federal court decision means that Trump's sweeping 10 per cent global tariffs and 'reciprocal tariffs' on dozens of trading partners, as well as 25 per cent fentanyl-related duties on Canadian and Mexican goods are now back into force for the time being. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Read More Plaintiffs have until June 5 to respond to the U.S. administration's motion for a stay, while the government 'may file a single, consolidated reply in support' no later than June 9. Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne had not immediately seen the news, as he was leaving question period Thursday afternoon. 'Listen, we're going to continue to fight. Canadians know that. We have their back and we'll continue to fight,' he told reporters. Interim NDP Leader Don Davies called this turn of events 'disappointing.' 'Canada has to develop a strong united position that's based on a rules-based international system and I think this back-and-forth, very chaotic approach to trade policies that's coming from south of the border doesn't help,' he said. Essential reading for hockey fans who eat, sleep, Canucks, repeat. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Earlier in the day, politicians in Canada were breathing a cautious sigh of relief in reaction to the decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade — calling it good news. In a speech in the House of Commons, Prime Minister Mark Carney said he welcomed the decision 'which is consistent with Canada's longstanding position' that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs were 'unlawful as well as unjustified.' He said that Canada's relationship with the U.S. was still affected by section 232 tariffs against steel, aluminum and the auto sector, as well as continuing threats of tariffs against other strategic sectors including lumber, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. While the court decision on Wednesday marked the first major legal pushback to Trump's broad use of tariffs to upend global trade, Carney hinted that Canada does not intend to rest on its laurels and must diversify its trading relations with other allies. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'It therefore remains the top priority of Canada's new government to establish a new economic and security relationship with the United States and to strengthen our collaboration with reliable trading partners and allies around the world,' he said. In a statement on X, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre urged similar caution in response to the legal proceedings. 'We need true free trade — so workers earn more, prices fall, and businesses boom on both sides of the border,' he wrote. 'But we can no longer put all our eggs in the U.S. basket. Too risky. Canada must fire up free enterprise to build pipelines, powerlines, ports, rail, roads, and tech — so we are strong, self-reliant and sovereign for a change.' Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said he was hopeful that the court decision would help Canadian negotiators ahead of the CUSMA renegotiation in 2026. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'It does give future Canadian negotiators a better position. It reminds us that when you have to negotiate something with a friend, with your closest friend and ally, you should not start by creating false reasons to impose tariffs and intimidate your partner,' he said. Blanchet wondered if the judicial setback might call for 'more reasonable, quiet and serene negotiations.' Candace Laing, President and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said she will leave this decision to work its way through the U.S. courts system. 'Ultimately, the end of this trade war with the U.S. will not come through the courts. It will come when we have negotiated a durable, new agreement on trade that is trusted and respected by all involved,' Laing said. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Trump hit Canada with economy-wide tariffs in March after he declared an emergency at the northern border related to the flow of fentanyl. He took his trade war to the rest of the world in April with 'reciprocal tariffs' on nearly every nation. While he walked back the most devastating duties a few hours later, he left a 10 per cent universal tariff in place for most countries. The decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade said the U.S. Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries that is not overridden by the president's emergency powers to safeguard the U.S. economy. 'The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President's use of tariffs as leverage,' a three-judge panel said in its decision. 'That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The judges also ordered the Trump administration to issue new orders reflecting the permanent injunction within 10 days. The Trump administration minutes later filed a notice of appeal and questioned the authority of the court. A White House spokesperson argued that U.S. trade deficits 'have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.' 'It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,' said spokesperson Kush Desai in a statement. Leavitt went even further during a press briefing on Thursday, saying 'the courts should have no role here' and slamming a 'troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision-making process.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges,' she said. One of the judges was appointed by Trump during his first administration. 'Ultimately, the Supreme Court must put an end to this, for the sake of our constitution and our country,' said Leavitt. National Post, with additional reporting by the Canadian Press and Reuters calevesque@ Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what's really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here. Vancouver Canucks News News BC Lions BC Lions
