Reactions to Canada's election results
April 29 (Reuters) - Canada's ruling Liberals held on to power in elections on Monday, but fell short of the majority government Prime Minister Mark Carney wanted to help him negotiate over tariffs with U.S. President Donald Trump.
Here are some reactions to the results:
PRIME MINISTER MARK CARNEY
"Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over," Carney said in a victory speech in Ottawa. "The system of open global trade anchored by the United States, a system that Canada has relied on since the Second World War, a system that, while not perfect, has helped deliver prosperity for our country for decades, is over."
CONSERVATIVE LEADER PIERRE POILIEVRE
"Canadians have opted for a razor-thin minority government, a virtual tie in the vote, so I would like to congratulate Prime Minister Carney on leading this minority government."
LIBERAL TRANSPORT MINISTER CHRYSTIA FREELAND
"I think it's important for us to have a little bit of perspective when we look at this result. And for me, I look back to as recently as December, when everyone was writing the Liberal Party off. People were even talking about whether we would retain official party status in the next election. And so tonight, when it is clear that we are going to form the government, from my perspective, that is an outstanding result."
JAGMEET SINGH, LEADER OF CANADA'S NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
"This night is a disappointing night for New Democrats," Singh said in a speech in which he announced he was stepping down as leader of his left-leaning party.
FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN
"I congratulate Prime Minister Mark Carney and the Liberal Party on their success in Canada's election. I'm confident Mark will be a strong leader for the fundamental values and interests Canadians and Americans share."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Canada and India to share terrorism intelligence despite 2023 murder plot, says report
Canada and India plan to share intelligence in a bid to combat the rising threat of international crime and extremism, according to a new report from Bloomberg, days before a meeting between the two countries' leaders. Canadian officials declined to comment on the report, which, if confirmed, would represent a dramatic shift in relations between the two nations which for nearly two years have been locked in a bitter diplomatic spat after Canada's federal police agency concluded that India planned and ordered the murder a prominent Sikh activist on Canadian soil. Under the intelligence-sharing deal , which is expected to be announced during the G7 summit in Canada later this week, police from both countries will increase cooperation on transnational crime, terrorism and extremist activities. Canada has reportedly pushed for more work on investigations into extrajudicial killings. Earlier this month, Canada's prime minister, Mark Carney, was forced to defend his decision to invite the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, to the G7 summit in Alberta after Canada's federal police's said the shooting death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar was orchestrated by the 'highest levels' of the Indian government. Carney said there was a 'legal process that is literally under way and quite advanced in Canada', following questions over his decision to invite Modi. Four Indian nationals living in Canada have been charged with Nijjar's murder. Carney also cited India's status as the 'fifth largest economy in the world, the most populous country in the world and central to supply chains'. But the decision did not sit well with lawmakers from British Columbia. A member of Carney's Liberal caucus, Sukh Dhaliwal, met with the prime minister earlier this the week to express concern over the invitation. 'We as Canadians take pride to be a champion on human rights. We are the country of law and justice,' Dhaliwal, who represents the electoral district where Nijjar was killed, told the Canadian Press. 'When it comes to protecting fundamental rights and serving justice for the victim, it is non-negotiable.' Dhaliwal said that the prime minister was 'alarmed about the issue' and would be 'very strong in dealing' with the issue when speaking to his Indian counterpart. Ever since former prime minister Justin Trudeau accused India of orchestrating the high-profile assassination of Nijjar, Ottawa and New Delhi have been locked in an worsening feud over the issue. India temporarily stopped issuing in visas in Canada and, soon after, Canada expelled six senior diplomats, including the high commissioner, Sanjay Verma. India retaliated by ordering the expulsion of six high-ranking Canadian diplomats, including the acting high commissioner. 'The Indian government made a horrific mistake in thinking that they could interfere as aggressively as they did in the safety and sovereignty of Canada,' Trudeau told a public inquiry into foreign interference, adding that Canada had not wanted to 'blow up' its valuable relationship with India. But he said after Nijjar was killed, 'we had clear and certainly now ever clearer indications that India had violated Canada's sovereignty'. The Bloomberg report, which underscores Carney's attempts to mend relations with powerful nations, follows revelations that a suspected Indian government agent was surveilling former New Democratic party leader Jagmeet Singh as part of its network of coercion and intimidation. According to Global News, the person, with suspected ties to both the Indian government and the Lawrence Bishnoi gang implicated in Nijjar's death, knew Singh's daily routines, travel plans and family. When the RCMP realized there was a credible thread to this life, they placed the federal party leader under police protection. 'India targeted a Canadian politician on Canadian soil. That's absolutely unprecedented. 'As far as we're concerned, that's an act of war,' Balpreet Singh, a spokesperson for the World Sikh Organization, said after of the Global News report. 'If Jagmeet Singh isn't safe … what does it mean for the rest of us?'
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Ban on advertising and safeguard for child patients added to Assisted Dying Bill
The new parts to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill were voted in on Friday as a second day of debate on various amendments came to a close. It is expected the next major vote on the overall Bill could take place next Friday, which could see it either fall or pass through to the Lords. Impassioned debate heard the Bill described by Conservative MP Kieran Mullan as a 'deeply consequential and highly contentious piece of legislation for our society'. He argued not enough time has been allocated for debate on such a divisive issue, but health minister Stephen Kinnock said there had been more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent so far, and more than 500 amendments had been considered at committee stage earlier this year. On Friday a majority of MPs approve a new clause, tabled by Labour MP Dame Meg Hillier, to ensure medics cannot raise the topic of assisted dying with under-18s. Her separate amendment to prevent health workers from bringing up the issue with adults patients before they have raised it was voted down. The amendment on child patients was hailed as a 'first major Commons defeat' by opposition campaigners Care Not Killing which welcomed 'MPs removing the ability of doctors to raise unprompted assisted suicide with children'. A group of Labour MPs opposed to the proposed legislation called it an '11th hour rejection of the claims made about the safety of this Bill' which 'proves that confidence is slipping away from it'. They also cautioned that MPs might not have a copy of the final Bill by the time they vote 'on this life and death issue' next week, as some outstanding amendments will still be being considered on Friday morning. A ban on advertising assisted dying should the Bill pass into law has also been approved. An amendment, by fellow Labour MP Paul Waugh, to limit exceptions on that ban did not pass. He said the ban as it stands has 'unspecified exceptions, which could make the ban itself worthless', warning online harms from ads about assisted dying on TikTok 'could be a reality without the tighter safeguards in my amendment'. A number of other amendments were passed, including a provision for assisted dying deaths to not automatically be referred to a coroner and around the regulation of substances for use in assisted dying. Other issues debated included an amendment requiring the Health Secretary to publish an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of palliative and end-of-life care one year after the Bill passing into law. Pledging her support for the amendment, which was tabled by Liberal Democrat Munira Wilson, Kim Leadbeater said MPs should not have to choose between supporting assisted dying or palliative care as it is not an 'either/or' conversation for dying people. She said palliative care and assisted dying 'can and do work side by side to give terminally-ill patients the care and choice they deserve in their final days', and urged MPs to support 'all options available to terminally ill people'. Ms Wilson's amendment is supported by Marie Curie, which said it is 'desperately needed as the end-of-life care system is in crisis, with huge gaps in services and a lack of NHS leadership on this vital part of our health and care system'. It is expected that amendment could be voted on next Friday. One MP, who became emotional as she recalled the death of her husband who she said had been 'in extreme pain' with terminal cancer, urged her colleagues to 'mind our language' after words like 'murder' were used. Liberal Democrat MP Caroline Voaden, whose husband died of oesophageal cancer, said it is 'so wrong' to use such language. She said: 'This is about helping people die in a civilised way and helping their families not go through a horrendous experience of watching a loved one die in agony.' The beginning of Friday's session saw MPs add a new opt-out clause to the Bill. The amendment, meaning no person including all health and social care professionals, can be obliged to take part in assisted dying had been debated and approved last month, but has now been formally added to the Bill. The Bill passed second reading stage by a majority of 55 during a historic vote in November which saw MPs support the principle of assisted dying. Demonstrators both for and against a change in the law once again gathered outside Parliament to make their views known on the Bill. Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying which is in favour of a change in the law, said: 'Our country is closer than ever before to the safe, compassionate, and tightly regulated assisted dying law that so many people want, from all walks of life and every part of the country.' But former MP Caroline Ansell, from Christian Action Research and Education (Care), which opposes assisted dying, urged parliamentarians to vote against the Bill. She said: 'It is irredeemably flawed in principle and in detail. Parliament should close the door to assisted suicide and focus on truly compassionate and life-affirming forms of support.' As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally-ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Corbyn says police ‘picked on him to silence democratic rights' as case dropped
The former Labour leader and John McDonnell were called for interview after a pro-Palestine protest in London earlier this year. Mr McDonnell revealed in the Commons that police had dropped their investigation into the pair, but said the Metropolitan Police had originally tried to charge them because MPs were held to have 'a greater culpability'. Nine people face no further action after a demonstration on January 18, according to the Met, which has told the PA news agency it will not confirm whether either politician was involved. Raising a point of order, Mr McDonnell told the Commons: 'You may be aware that (Mr Corbyn) and I were called for interview by the Metropolitan Police following our participation in a demonstration in January calling for peace and justice for the Palestinian people and an end to the genocide in Gaza. 'It was alleged that we failed to follow police restrictions on the protest. This is untrue, and at all times we followed police instructions. 'We can now report that the police have dropped the case against us and there will be no charges.' Mr McDonnell alleged that 'the Metropolitan Police informed us that our case was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) because as MPs we were to be held to have, and I quote, 'a greater culpability'.' The independent MP for Hayes and Harlington, who was once Mr Corbyn's shadow chancellor, added: 'This is an unacceptable practice which flies in the face of the principle that we are all equal before the law.' Mr Corbyn, now the independent MP for Islington North, said: 'I don't intend to let it rest just there.' He told MPs: 'If there are elements in the police and possibly in the Crown Prosecution Service who want Members of Parliament to be held to a different standard of account than the general public, that removes us from the normality of law in this country. 'And I think that would be a very, very bad step indeed.' He later added: 'We have to all – all of us – have the right to take part in public protest about human rights abuse, about war, about peace, about anything else. That is what democracy is about. 'And I saw this whole effort as being a means to try and silence the democratic rights of everybody in our society by picking on us two as Members of Parliament, and I'm grateful for the decision that's been made today.' Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh said he had 'not often taken part in demos in central London' but spoke to 'show that opinion in this House of Commons is absolutely united'. 'We've always proclaimed what is very much the British way that Members of Parliament are no different from any other member of the public,' the Conservative MP for Gainsborough said. 'If they do wrong, they will be held to account, but they should not be subject to some greater test of culpability just because they're Members of Parliament.' A Met Police spokesperson said: 'No further action will be taken against nine people who were interviewed as part of an investigation into alleged breaches of Public Order Act conditions during a protest on Saturday January 18. 'The decision in two cases was taken following a review of the evidence by the Crown Prosecution Service, while the remaining seven cases were decided on by police officers. 'While we are aware of names being attributed to those who were the subject of our investigation, we will not be confirming their identities given that matters did not result in any charges.' Two individuals have been charged with breaching the same conditions as well as inciting others to do so, according to the force, with a further two individuals still under investigation.
