CTV National News: How will Isreal respond to statement against fighting in Gaza?
Watch
Former Canadian ambassador to Israel Jon Allen speaks on the statement made by Canada and other allies pledging to act if attacks on Gaza don't stop.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
44 minutes ago
Carney and Trump are holding private talks to drop tariffs
Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. President Donald Trump are having discussions out of the spotlight to reach a trade deal and lift tariffs. Sources with knowledge of the conversations first confirmed the calls with CBC/Radio-Canada and Industry Minister Mélanie Joly later told reporters that Carney and Trump are talking to each other. A source, who spoke on the condition they not be named, said the two leaders have had a few phone calls in the evenings and exchanged text messages about trade since Carney's visit to the White House last month (new window) . There have been no public readouts of the talks between Carney and Trump. Sources said the conversations are aimed at reaching an agreement on the trade war launched by the U.S. against Canada. Carney and Trump have talked openly about a desire to chart a new economic and security deal, but the Canada-U.S. relationship appeared to hit a snag earlier this week when Trump doubled tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports. The tariffs, now at 50 per cent, are a further blow to the Canadian industries that are the U.S.'s biggest supplier of the metals. WATCH | Canadian exports to U.S. are dropping: Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? Canadian exports to U.S. fell more than 15% in April as Trump tariffs hit Canada posted a $7.1 billion merchandise trade deficit in April — the largest on record — as exports fell sharply in the face of U.S. tariffs. As well, exports to the U.S. fell 15.7 per cent, and imports from the U.S. dropped 10.8 per cent. On Wednesday, Carney only said intensive discussions were ongoing and that his government was readying reprisals if negotiations with the United States failed. Sources told CBC/Radio-Canada they are hoping for some sort of Canada-U.S. trade deal by the time Trump and Carney meet at the G7 summit — just 10 days from now in Alberta. Asked Thursday how close the two sides are to a deal, Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc said he's not talking about it publicly. Speaking in French, Joly confirmed there have been talks and said it's normal during a trade war to have diplomatic discussions. We won't negotiate in public, she added in English. We'll let the prime minister do his work. An official with the U.S. embassy said both the president and prime minister, or members of their teams, have publicly acknowledged that there are ongoing conversations. But this is not something that will be negotiated in public. WATCH | Joly confirms Carney and Trump are talking: Début du widget Widget. Passer le widget ? Fin du widget Widget. Retourner au début du widget ? 'We won't negotiate in public,' Joly says of tariff talks When asked if the federal government is close to reaching a trade deal with the United States, Industry Minister Mélanie Joly said: 'We'll let the prime minister do his work.' Earlier this week, Trump's envoy to Canada, Ambassador Pete Hoekstra, told a crowd in Toronto the deal is being settled at the highest levels of the U.S. government with the involvement of the highest elected officials. The direct conversations between Carney and Trump were first reported by the Globe and Mail. Carney, who campaigned on the promise he'd take on Trump, has been under pressure to respond to the president's latest tariff salvo. The Canadian Steel Producers Association called the doubled tariffs a crushing blow to the industry and said the move effectively blocks Canadian steel from entering the U.S. market. The association wants to see immediate counter-tariffs on U.S. metals. Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who said he's in daily talks with the prime minister, called for retaliation if an agreement can't be reached in the next few days. Let's hope they get a deal. But if they don't, let's come out guns ablazing, he told reporters Thursday at Queen's Park. Catharine Tunney (new window) · CBC News
Canada Standard
an hour ago
- Canada Standard
The proposed Strong Borders Act gives police new invasive search powers that may breach Charter rights
The new Liberal government has tabled its first bill in Parliament, the Strong Borders Act, or Bill C-2. Buried within it are several new powers that give police easier access to our private information. The bill responds to recent calls to beef up the enforcement of our border with the United States. It gives customs and immigration officials new powers: to search items being exported, like potentially stolen vehicles, and to deport migrants believed to be abusing Canada's refugee protections. But while facing pressure from the U.S. to act, the Canadian government is using the apparent urgency of the moment to give police and intelligence agents a host of new powers to search our private data - powers that have nothing to do with the border. Some of them are already controversial and will no doubt be tested in the Supreme Court of Canada, if and when they're passed. But many have also been on the wish list of previous governments, as part of "lawful access" bills that would make it easier for police to obtain details about a person's online activity in cases involving child pornography, financial or gang-related crime. Why now? Why make another attempt to lower the barriers to police access to private data? And what is the controversy over these new powers? The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the right to privacy of anyone in Canada. Police need authority - explicit permission set out somewhere in the law - to carry out a search or seizure of our private data for an investigative purpose. A law that allows police to do this must itself be reasonable, in the sense of striking the right balance between law enforcement and individual privacy. For the first 20 years of the web, it wasn't clear what the police could or couldn't do to gather information about us online. The Supreme Court held in 2014 that when police ask Shaw or Telus to give them a name attaching to an online account, this amounts to a search. While a person's name and address may not reveal much on its own, the court held, it opens a door to something very private: a person's entire search history. But the court in that case did not decide what kind of power police needed to make this demand, only that police need permission in law to make it. In 2024, the Supreme Court held that when police ask for an internet protocol (IP) address linked to a person's online activity, even that is private because it can open a window onto a lot more personal information. Police have been using warrant provisions in the Criminal Code to make a demand for an IP address, or the name and address linked to an online account. To get a warrant, in most cases, they need to show a judge they have reason to believe a crime has been committed that is linked to the account - in other words, they must show probable cause. Police have complained about how difficult this can be in some cases. They've long been calling for more tools. The Strong Borders Act makes it easier for police and other state agents in a few ways. It will be easier to get a warrant because the new bill allows police to ask service providers like Shaw or Telus - without a warrant - whether they have information about an IP address or a person's account. To then obtain that information, police need a warrant - but on the lower standard of reasonable suspicion of a crime, instead of probable cause. This can also apply to foreign entities like Google or Meta. Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents can ask a provider like Shaw or Google whether they have information about an account holder on no grounds at all. But in this case, the person of interest can't be a citizen or a permanent resident. More concerning are powers in the bill compelling companies like Google or Apple, along with Shaw and Telus, to assist police in obtaining access to private data. Any company that provides Canadians with a service that stores or transmits information in digital form - pretty much anything we do on a phone or computer - can be ordered to help police gain immediate access to our data. The bill does this by stipulating that a company can be told to install "any device, equipment or other thing that may enable an authorized person to access information." There are important limits on this. Police can only gain access if they have a warrant or other lawful permission. And a service provider need not comply with any order that would "introduce a systemic vulnerability," like compelling them to install a backdoor to encryption. But the point is that these new powers compel companies to implement "capabilities" for "extracting... information that is authorized to be accessed." They turn the brands we have an intimate relationship with - gmail, iCloud, Instagram and many others - into tools of the state. For some of us, the thought that Apple or Google can now be conscripted to serve as a state agent to facilitate ready access to private data is unsettling. Even if there are safeguards. Courts will have to decide at some point whether searches conducted under these new powers strike a reasonable balance between law enforcement and personal privacy. Courts have held that our privacy interest in personal data is high. Whether police interest in quicker and easier access to that data in certain cases is equally high is an open question. But one thing is clear: it doesn't seem to have much to do with the border.
Global News
an hour ago
- Global News
Nisga'a-owned LNG pipeline wins key approval as BC Greens, other First Nations push back
The British Columbia government says a decade-old environmental assessment certificate remains valid for the construction of a natural gas pipeline in northern B.C., in a decision opposed by the province's Green Party and environmental groups. The Environmental Assessment Office says it has determined the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline has 'substantially started,' fulfilling a requirement of the 2014 certificate and allowing the project to proceed without a new assessment. The original approval was for a roughly 900-kilometre pipeline between Hudson's Hope in northeastern B.C. and Lelu Island near Prince Rupert, the site of a liquefied natural gas processing facility that has since been cancelled. The pipeline was purchased by the Nisga'a Nation and Texas-based Western LNG last year to supply natural gas to the proposed Ksi Lisims LNG facility, a project the province says is still undergoing environmental assessment. Story continues below advertisement 2:11 Business Matters: Energy sector CEOs call on Canadian lawmakers to use emergency powers to speed key projects The province says the office is also reviewing requests by the proponent to change the pipeline route, including shifting its endpoint to the Ksi Lisims facility and rerouting the eastern portion of the pipeline. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy The BC Greens say in a statement that upholding the original certificate is 'reckless,' prioritizing the project's American financial backers over Indigenous rights, environmental protection and community well-being. 'It's outrageous that the government is allowing construction to proceed with no approved terminus, using an outdated plan, and threatening one of the province's most sensitive salmon habitats, all to serve the interests of foreign-owned fossil fuel companies,' the Greens' interim leader, Jeremy Valeriote, says in the statement. 'This is a betrayal of environmental stewardship, Indigenous rights, and a threat to sustained climate action in this province,' Valeriote says. Story continues below advertisement The pipeline is partly financed by the U.S. private equity firm Blackstone, which the Greens described as a major Republican donor with ties to U.S. President Donald Trump. The Greens' statement also noted that the U.S. engineering and construction company Bechtel had been selected to construct the pipeline. Western LNG called the substantially started ruling 'a significant milestone in the path toward delivering responsible, Indigenous-led energy infrastructure' in B.C. 1:53 TC Energy signs $1B deal to sell minority stake in pipeline to Indigenous groups Eva Clayton, president of the Nisga'a Lisims Government, says in a statement released by Western LNG that the ruling was 'an important step — not just for (the pipeline), but for the Nisga'a Nation's vision of self-determination and long-term prosperity.' The project is opposed by the nearby Lax Kw'alaams Band and Ts'msyen hereditary chiefs, who the Greens say claim jurisdiction over Pearse Island, the site of the proposed Ksi Lisims terminal. Gitanyow hereditary chiefs have also opposed the project based on concerns over Nass River salmon, the Greens add. Story continues below advertisement Thursday's statement from the province says the Environmental Assessment Office began its review last November in order to make a determination of whether the project had been 'substantially started' within the 10-year deadline. It says the office looked at construction and other activities by the proponent up to the deadline of Nov. 25, 2024, and found the condition was met. The review included a field assessment of the project, documentation from the pipeline proponent and 'information from First Nations, Gitanyow hereditary chiefs, Gitxsan Wilps and members of the public,' the statement says. The Greens' statement says construction activities moved ahead last summer on a portion of the pipeline's right-of-way in order to avoid expiry of the original permit. The environmental group also issued a statement calling the decision to uphold the decade-old certificate as a 'slap in the face' of B.C.'s climate plan. The decision follows the release of B.C.'s climate accountability report, which showed the province is already set to miss its climate targets, the group says.
