Carney says he wants Canada to join major European defence plan
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said he wants his country to join a major European plan to bolster defences by 1 July.
Speaking to CBC on Tuesday, Carney said he hoped Canada would sign on to ReArm Europe - a plan to dramatically increase defence spending on the continent to in the next five years - in a bid to reduce reliance on the US.
"Seventy-five cents of every (Canadian) dollar of capital spending for defence goes to the United States. That's not smart," Carney told the public broadcaster.
His remarks come amid tension with the US after threats from President Donald Trump - though Carney has also previously said he is open to joining a missile defence project proposed by Trump.
A day after Carney's remarks, Canada's defence minister told a military trade show that his country wanted to quickly boost defence capacity in the face of growing global threats.
"The global security environment is today volatile and uncertain," said defence minister David McGuinty on Wednesday, citing Russia's war in Ukraine, as well as a more assertive China.
McGuinty said there would be a future focus on the Arctic, where competing nations were challenging Canada's sovereignty.
Defence also featured on Tuesday in the Speech from the Throne - an event that opened the new parliament and outlined the sitting government's agenda.
The address was read in person by King Charles III, Canada's monarch, as part of a royal visit that was designed to highlight Canada's identity and sovereignty.
The speech - which was written by both the King with his advisers and the Canadian government - contained commitments to "rebuilding, rearming, and reinvesting" in Canada's military.
It also outlined the government's goal of strengthening defence relationships with European allies, and made mention of joining the ReArm Europe plan.
Canada 'strong and free' and other takeaways from King's throne speech
King's Canadian speech doesn't mention you-know-who
The remarks by Canadian officials come after Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte said he expected members of his Western defence alliance - including Canada - to grow their annual defence spending to a level equivalent to 5% of each nation's GDP.
The Nato target was previously 2% of GDP, but Rutte said members must prepare to defend themselves from increasingly powerful adversaries like Russia and China.
"Russia has teamed up with China, North Korea and Iran," Rutte told a Nato forum in the US on Monday. "They are expanding their militaries and their capabilities. They are preparing for long-term confrontation."
The plan to increase Nato's spending target still has to be approved by member-country leaders, who are set to meet in the Netherlands in late June.
Canada has long faced pressure for failing to meet Nato targets, and was accused last year by US House Speaker Mike Johnson of "riding on America's coattails".
Canadian business leaders have also called on their government to majorly boost spending in the defence industry, touting this as a way to boost the economy.
In Wednesday's remarks, McGuinty told defence industry representatives that Carney's government would prioritise procuring military technology and equipment from Canadian companies.
Last week, Carney said that "high-level" talks were also taking place with the US about joining Trump's Golden Dome missile defence system. The King's throne speech noted that Canada wanted to continue talks with the US on security on trade.
The US president posted on his Truth Social network later on Tuesday evening that the Golden Dome project would cost Canada US$61bn "if they remain a separate, but unequal, Nation."
"But will cost ZERO DOLLARS if they become our cherished 51st State," he added, repeating his often-repeated view that Canada should be absorbed by the US. "They are considering the offer!" he claimed.
In response, Carney's office said in a statement that the prime minister "has been clear at every opportunity, including in his conversations with President Trump, that Canada is an independent, sovereign nation, and it will remain one".
Carney says Canada in talks to join Trump's Golden Dome defence system
Canada faces pressure at Nato summit for riding on 'coattails'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
7 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Cameroonian sues France over denied Schengen visa, wins €1,200 in compensation
Jean Mboulè, a Cameroonian won a landmark legal case against France after his Schengen visa application was rejected on questionable grounds. Jean Mboulè, a Cameroonian, won a legal case against France after his Schengen visa application was unjustly rejected. Despite his rejection, Mboulè successfully contested the decision in French courts, receiving compensation and his visa. In 2024, African applicants collectively lost €60 million in non-refundable Schengen visa fees, with prices recently increased further. Jean Mboulè, a Cameroonian won a landmark legal case against France after his Schengen visa application was rejected on questionable grounds. Mboulè's experience has brought renewed attention to long-standing frustrations among African travellers over what many view as discriminatory and opaque visa policies enforced by European countries. Visa rejection despite stronger credentials Mboulè, who was born in France, had applied for the visa alongside his wife, a South African citizen, according to a report by CNN. Though she was unemployed at the time and had no personal income, she received a visa based on Mboulè's financial documents. His application, however, was rejected. 'The embassy said they refused my application because my documents were fake, and they weren't sure I would come back to South Africa, where I am a permanent resident," Mboulè said. The 39-year-old regional executive took legal action in French courts and won, forcing the French embassy in Johannesburg to grant his visa and pay him a fine of 1,200 euros. After he got the visa, he chose to go to Mauritius instead as he didn't want to spend his money in France. But even after he got the visa, he chose to go to Mauritius instead as he didn't want to spend his money in France. Millions lost to Schengen Visa rejections. The Cameroonian's case is unique as many Africans denied Schengen visas rarely appeal or contest the decisions in court. Instead, applicants often reapply, incurring additional costs in the process. In 2024 alone, African applicants lost nearly €60 million ($67.5 million) in non-refundable Schengen visa fees, according to data from the LAGO Collective, a London-based research group tracking global mobility. 'The financial cost of rejected visas is just staggering; you can think of them as 'reverse remittances,' money flowing from poor to rich countries, which we never hear about,' the LAGO Collective's Foresti says.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
America might finally make childbirth free
As politicians grapple with declining birth rates, the financial burden of giving birth in America — where privately insured families face out-of-pocket costs of nearly $3,000 on average — has captured widespread attention. Last month, when news broke that the Trump administration was considering $5,000 baby bonuses for new parents, comedian Taylor Tomlinson captured the national frustration: 'That's like spritzing a volcano with a water gun.' A recent viral TikTok showing one mother's $44,000 hospital bill shocked viewers worldwide, underscoring the uniquely brutal pressures facing American families. Now, a rare bipartisan solution could directly address at least the problem of expensive childbirth. The Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, introduced in the Senate last week, would require private insurance companies to fully cover all childbirth-related expenses — from prenatal care and ultrasounds to delivery, postpartum care, and mental health treatment — without any co-pays or deductibles. (Medicaid, which insures roughly 41 percent of American births, already covers these costs.) The bill was introduced by Republican Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS) and Josh Hawley (MO), and Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine (VA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY). A companion bipartisan version is expected in the House soon, with Democratic Rep. Jared Golden (ME) among the forthcoming cosponsors. Perhaps most striking are the bill's endorsees: organizations that typically find themselves on opposite sides of reproductive health debates. Supporters include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, alongside prominent anti-abortion groups including Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Students for Life, and Live Action. While the White House has not yet weighed in, Vice President JD Vance championed the idea during his Senate tenure. He publicly called the free childbirth proposal 'interesting' in January 2023, and his office had been preparing bipartisan legislation on the issue last year before being tapped to join the Trump campaign. Notably, Vance's former Senate staffer Robert Orr, who led the childbirth bill initiative, now works for Hawley. Some abortion rights advocacy groups, too, have expressed approval. Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director at Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, told me her organization 'proudly supports' the bill. Dorianne Mason, the director of health equity at the National Women's Law Center, said they are 'encouraged' to see the bipartisan effort. A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Action Fund said the group is still reviewing the bill but 'generally supports legislation to make the cost of maternal health care and parenting more affordable.' Reproductive Freedom For All declined to comment. While questions remain about whether eliminating childbirth costs would actually boost birth rates or reduce abortions — as various supporters hope — there's little doubt it would provide crucial relief to families who have already chosen to have children. The unlikely alliance behind the bill traces back to an unexpected source: a journalist's challenge to the anti-abortion movement. The Affordable Care Act already requires insurers to cover essential health benefits, like birth control and cancer screenings, at no cost to patients. This new bill would expand the list of essential health benefits to include prenatal, birth, and postpartum care, and require these services also to be free. The costs would be paid by insurance companies and modest increases in premiums for the 178 million people primarily covered by private plans. On average, premiums would go up by approximately $30 annually, according to an analysis from the Niskanen Center think tank. Lawson Mansell, the Niskanen policy analyst who ran the cost modeling, told me he thinks this proposal is the simplest way, on an administrative level, to make birth free. The trade-off, though, is instability: employer-sponsored coverage can disappear just when families need it most, since people often lose their jobs during pregnancy. The bill to cover childbirth costs under private health insurance has an unusual origin story compared to most pieces of legislation in Washington, DC, and reflects evolving factions within the anti-abortion movement. In early July 2022, shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Elizabeth Bruenig, a staff writer at the Atlantic, published a piece urging the anti-abortion movement to take up the cause of making birth free. 'It's time the pro-life movement chose life,' Bruenig, who identifies as pro-life but opposes criminal bans on abortion, wrote. She recommended expanding Medicare to cover the costs, just as Medicare was expanded to cover dialysis and kidney transplants in the early 1970s. Her article cited examples of staggering medical bills, such as one couple charged $10,000 for delivering in Texas and another $24,000 in Indiana. The piece made waves within an anti-abortion movement that was grasping for its next move after the Supreme Court struck down Roe. 'She was really challenging the pro-lifers on this issue, and we found the idea super interesting,' said Kristen Day, the executive director of Democrats for Life of America. Catherine Glenn Foster, then the president and CEO of Americans United for Life, responded a week after publication, praising Bruenig's piece and adding, 'Making birth free should be table stakes as a political matter. I'll work to advance this.' Democrats for Life and Americans United for Life teamed up, and in January 2023 the two organizations released a white paper, fleshing out the 'Make Birth Free' policy in more detail. The authors thanked Bruenig in the acknowledgements for pushing them to take on the idea, and it was this white paper that caught the eye of Vance in the Senate. John Mize, who succeeded Glenn Foster as CEO of Americans United for Life in January 2024, said the Bruenig article arrived at exactly the right moment. He acknowledges his movement 'missed the mark' by being so singularly focused on banning abortion for so many years. 'I think there's been a little bit of paradigm shift in some of the movement — not by all, by any means — but certainly by some parts' to better support women and families. He pointed to the Blueprint for Life coalition which launched in June 2024 to promote more holistic family policies, and he noted that some anti-abortion groups are newly advocating for policies like expanding the Child Tax Credit and paid family leave. Still, many leading anti-abortion advocates and lawmakers have been leading the push to cut federal spending on programs like child care, food assistance, and maternal health care. The Heritage Foundation called the original proposal to make childbirth costs free an 'unjust wealth transfer' and others protested the risk of more 'socialism' in health care as too great. When Bruenig's piece was originally published, she faced fierce pushback from the left. Critics felt the article was insensitive, implicitly endorsing the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe, and offering 'fanfic' for a right-wing movement historically opposed to a robust welfare state. Political science professor Scott Lemieux called the piece 'cringe' and 'embarrassing' and 'deluded.' Others said she was pitching 'forced birth but make it free.' The left-wing backlash ultimately prompted Bruenig to quit Twitter. Bruenig says she never expected much uptake on the idea, but is encouraged by recent changes. 'For the last 10 years or more I have contended that the best way to deal with abortion is on the demand side, by creating a welfare system that gives people an honest choice,' she told me. 'There's been, for better or worse, a shift in the way Republicans are thinking about these kinds of things…and in the center, and I'm very impressed to see some uptake on the idea.' She says she's not surprised there was criticism, but was writing for 'people who are persuadable when it comes to what the pro-life movement should be about.' She added that she embraces the 'pro-life' label despite opposing abortion bans because 'I don't think the pro-ban people should get to decide what counts as pro-life policy or philosophy.' Bill supporters are cautiously hopeful about the road ahead for the legislation. The timing reflects converging forces that have created an unusual window for bipartisan family policy. President Donald Trump's election, combined with growing concerns about declining birth rates, has coincided with a shift among some conservatives toward more proactive family policies. Meanwhile, Democrats see an opportunity to advance maternal health goals. The legislation also benefits from political cover on both sides. Republicans can champion it as pro-family policy that potentially reduces abortions, while Democrats can support it as expanding health care access. Crucially, because it doesn't require new government spending but instead redistributes costs through the existing private insurance system, it sidesteps typical fights over federal budget increases. But challenges remain. The upcoming reconciliation process will test whether Republicans prioritize fiscal restraint or family policy when forced to choose. And while Vance previously supported the free birth idea, the administration faces pressure from fiscal conservatives who view any insurance mandates as market interference. Not all conservatives will be thrilled at the idea of tinkering with the Affordable Care Act or facing accusations of supporting socialized medicine. Bill supporters hope the momentum for pronatalist policies might help to combat those kinds of criticisms, though other conservatives have pointed to falling birth rates in places with single-payer health care, too. Still, the legislation has attracted support from heavyweight conservative intellectuals. Yuval Levin, the director of social, cultural, and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a policy brief earlier this year urging Congress to embrace making childbirth free, even if it doesn't affect birth rates. 'Substantively and symbolically, bringing the out-of-pocket health care costs of childbirth to zero is an ambitious but achievable starting point for the next generation of pro-family policies,' he wrote. Patrick Brown, a family policy analyst at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center tells me he thinks it's 'the right instinct' to share the costs of parenting more broadly across society, though he hopes it does not 'distract from more broad-based efforts to help parents' such as a larger Child Tax Credit. Mize, of Americans United for Life, has been in 'the planning phases' of working with the White House on family policy. He thinks once the reconciliation bill is done, Republicans and Democrats could either retreat to their camps ahead of the midterms or decide to work together on achievable wins. 'You could see level-headed people say, 'Hey, this is one opportunity for us to put a feather in our cap and say that we're working on a bipartisan basis with our constituents,'' he said. A Senate staffer working on the bill, who requested anonymity to more candidly discuss their plans, said their intention is to move the bill through normal order and attach it to a must-pass legislative package. Both Hawley and Kaine sit on the Senate HELP committee, which holds jurisdiction over the bill. Rep. Golden, who is working on preparing the House version, said they're hoping to introduce their bill within the next week or two. 'While some debates over what [family policy] should look like can be complicated or contentious, this idea is simple and powerful: Pregnancy and childbirth are normal parts of family life,' he told Vox. 'So, insurance companies should treat it like the routine care it is and cover the cost, not stick people with huge medical bills. That's the kind of simple, commonsense reform that anyone can get behind. '
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP Senator On Fears Medicaid Cuts Will Lead To Deaths: ‘We All Are Going To Die'
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) got an earful from angry constituents about Republican legislation that includes major cuts to Medicaid and food assistance relied upon by millions of vulnerable Americans. 'People will die,' one woman is heard shouting at Ernst at a town hall in Parkersburg, Iowa, on Friday, according to a video of the event obtained by HuffPost. 'People are not ― well, we all are going to die. So, for heaven's sakes, folks,' Ernst responded, prompting more jeers from the audience. The House-passed legislation, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, combines $1 trillion in cuts to federal health and food programs as a way to offset the cost of nearly $4 trillion in tax cuts, mostly benefiting higher earners. It would result in an estimated 8 million fewer Americans having health insurance, mostly because of cuts to Medicaid, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. But Republicans argue that $880 billion in cuts to the health care program relied upon by over 70 million Americans are not really cuts since they are targeted toward nondisabled individuals. The bill would expand work requirements, limiting Medicaid benefits for unemployed adults without disabilities or dependents. 'We're not going to cut those benefits, what we are doing is making sure that those who are not Medicaid eligible are not receiving benefits,' Ernst, who is facing reelection next year, said of the GOP bill at the town hall. Experts, however, consider tightening Medicaid eligibility and thereby reducing its expenditures to be the same as cutting the program. One major study also found that Medicaid reduced the risk of death. The House GOP bill also includes significant cuts to federal food assistance programs. It would result in an estimated 3.2 million Americans losing their food assistance due to stricter eligibility requirements and an additional 1.3 million losing benefits as a result of the bill forcing states to cover a significant portion of SNAP benefit costs. 'Republicans call their SNAP cuts 'savings' and 'reducing waste,'' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said earlier this month. 'But those are euphemisms. What it really means is increasing hunger, increasing poverty, and increasing the wealth of the ultra-rich. It is morally indefensible.' The Senate is expected to take up the bill as early as next week. Republican senators have demanded changes to the House bill, including additional spending cuts to address the fact that it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit. Several moderate Republican senators have also expressed concerns with the legislation's cuts to Medicaid. Major changes to the bill in the Senate could threaten its support in the House, where it will need to be approved once more if and when Republican senators pass it under the so-called reconciliation process, which side-steps a filibuster. 'I encourage them to do their work, of course, as we all anticipate,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told CNN on Sunday. 'But to make as few modifications to this package as possible, because remembering that we've got to pass it one more time to ratify their changes in the House. And I have a very delicate balance here, very delicate equilibrium that we've reached over a long period of time. And it's best not to meddle with it too much.' GOP Congressman Falsely Claims Trump's Tax Bill Won't Cut Medicaid, Food Benefits Mike Johnson Claims 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Will Only Cut Medicaid For Undeserving People Republicans Cut 2 Words From Trump's Tax Bill Last-Minute, And The Effects Will Be Devastating GOP Congressman Caught Sleeping During Hearing On Bill To Kick Millions Off Medicaid
