G7 fails to issue joint statement on Ukraine, Canada commits more aid
Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and French President Emmanuel Macron arrive for the family photo of world leaders and invited guests at the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, June 17, 2025. /VCG
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will leave the G7 Summit on Tuesday with new aid from host Canada but without a joint statement of support from members or a chance to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump.
The G7 nations struggled to find unity over the conflict in Ukraine after Trump expressed support for Russian President Vladimir Putin and left a day early to address the Israel-Iran conflict from Washington.
Canada dropped plans for the G7 to issue a strong statement on the war in Ukraine after resistance from the United States, a Canadian official told reporters.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Ottawa would provide C$2 billion ($1.47 billion) in new military assistance for Kyiv as well as impose new financial sanctions.
Although Canada is one of Ukraine's most vocal defenders, its ability to help Kyiv is far outweighed by the United States, the largest arms supplier.
Zelenskyy had said he hoped to talk to Trump about acquiring more weapons.
When the summit ends later on Tuesday, Carney plans to issue a chair statement calling for more pressure on Russia through sanctions and saying the G7 backs U.S.-led peace efforts, two G7 sources said.
The Kremlin said on Tuesday that Trump was right and said the G7 was no longer significant for Russia and looked "rather useless."
G7 leaders agreed on six statements, about migrant smuggling, artificial intelligence, critical minerals, wildfires, transnational repression and quantum computing.
(With input from Reuters)
Source: CGTN
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
A ceasefire — is it fact or fiction?
Opinion Israel, Iran, the United States. Ceasefire, no ceasefire. Confused? We don't blame you. This isn't the fog of war. This is an epic constellation of deliberate confusion. U.S. President Donald Trump And it's hard to keep up. Israel attacked Iran on June 13, saying its pre-emptive strike was needed to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated. Missiles flew — people died. The Americans then supported Israel in its attack on Iran by attacking Iranian uranium enrichment sites, using B2 bombers that had flown for hours and dropped huge bunker-buster bombs. But there has apparently been no release of radioactive materials, U.S. President Donald Trump's social media claims that the enrichment sites were completely destroyed has been called into question, and there are reports that the Iranian government had moved its stock of enriched uranium to a new location before the attacks even occurred. There were even suggestions that back-channel American communications had warned the Iranians the attack was coming, giving them time to prepare. The Iranian government then launched a relatively feeble and ultimately unsuccessful missile attack on an American base in Qatar, while there were reports that back-channel communications from Iran had given the Americans their own warning about when and where the attack would land. (Trump, once again on social media, said he 'wanted to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured.') Confused yet? Just wait. Monday night, Donald Trump announced a 'complete and total ceasefire', which was at first denied, then partially confirmed, and then promptly ignored by both Iran and Israel launching attacks on each other, while Trump launched all-caps screeds on his Truth Social app like 'ISRAEL DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS. IF YOU DO IT IS A MAJOR VIOLATION. BRING YOUR PLANES HOME, NOW. DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.' Meanwhile, the White House X account retweeted Trump as saying 'CONGRATULATIONS WORLD, IT'S TIME FOR PEACE'. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. The next morning, Trump's analysis of the failure of the 'cease' part of the ceasefire? 'We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don't know what the f—k they're doing. Do you understand that?' The Associated Press was reporting that 'ceasefire status is unclear', Israel was warning its citizens about an incoming Iranian missile attack, and the timeline before the 'complete and total ceasefire' was broken was reported to have been a mere 31 minutes. It may well be that there is no way whatsoever to establish what is happening in the Middle East. President Trump has demonstrated that he's willing to tell baldfaced lies about something as simple as the actual price of eggs and gasoline. The Iranian government makes up whatever narrative it wants to, and force-feeds that information to its population through thoroughly-controlled state media. And there's no accounting for Israel: it will keep its own counsel and act in its own interests, and its statements about its actions will be no more complete and truthful than anyone else's. So what should Canada and Canadians be doing in all this mess? Maybe what Prime Minister Mark Carney appears to be trying to do. Keep a low profile, and stay out of the Trumpian spotlights by neither rushing in to be a fawning supporter nor putting up principled opposition. Keep making new deals with countries other than the United States, broaden our global economic footprint, and let history be the one to sort out what's happening now. This will almost certainly all be outdated by the time you read it. But the critical thesis won't be: keep your head down, your antennae up, and your skepticism front-and-centre.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Climate education — too often absent
Opinion Last week two significant reports were released detailing the Canadian public's perception of climate change and climate action. The first, from Carleton University based 'Re:Climate' (What do Canadians really think about climate change in 2025?) found that, despite political instability from the United States and concerns over affordability, over two-thirds of Canadians remain concerned or very concerned about climate change and see it as a serious or very serious threat. The second report came from Learning for Sustainable Futures (LSF), an environmental education organization based out of Toronto. The findings from their survey (From Awareness to Action: Canadians on Climate Change and Education) echo the 'Re:Climate' report, finding a majority of Canadians believe that climate action should be a priority, including 62 per cent who support climate change education being a high priority in the Canadian Kindergarten to Grade 12 (K-12) education system. What becomes evident from these reports is the disjuncture between the beliefs from the public on what public institutions should be doing, and what public institutions are actually doing. A key finding from the 'Re:Climate' report is that taking a future-oriented approach to talking about climate change that values a healthy and clean environment for future generations is one of the greatest motivators for climate action. A belief that education should play a role in responding to wider societal challenges by providing a 'responsive, equitable and high quality environment which supports all children and youth to reach their full potential' is a well-trodden path — indeed, these are words lifted from the mission statement for Manitoba Education and Early Childhood Learning. So what do we know about the current state of climate change education in the Manitoba K-12 school system? Students in the K-12 education system are unsurprisingly the most concerned about climate change of any demographic, but feel increasingly disempowered to take action, in part because of the absence of climate change knowledge and skill development. In the 2025 LSF survey, 47 per cent of youth in Manitoba reported that climate change is rarely or never discussed in schools. An increasing number of Canadian teachers feel prepared to teach climate change in their classrooms, but more than half feel they need much more support to do this work well. In Manitoba, the findings were more stark: teachers here report the lowest provincial average for teaching climate change content across each of seven categories including climate change science, climate change solutions, coping with climate emotions and grappling with disinformation in the media. As the 'Re:Climate' report states, the public is calling for increased climate action of which climate change education is a key pillar. Manitoba teachers are in turn asking for support to teach this content, and the young people in the Manitoba K-12 system are telling us that without increased attention to climate change, they are feeling increasingly frustrated and anxious about their future. In a time of decreased resources and chronic burnout in the K-12 education system, it is no surprise that leaving classroom teachers to 'figure it out' has led to gaps between the education system that we want and the education system we have. Both the 'Re:Climate' and LSF reports conclude that Canadians want more, but schools are falling short. And nowhere in Canada is this more pronounced than in Manitoba. Manitoba teachers are keen to engage with this content and know what they need from educational leaders to increase their confidence and competency: verbal and financial support, flexibility in facilitating curriculum and professional development. Fortunately, there is mounting scholarship on ways to effectively integrate climate change education into K-12 classrooms in ways that are both age-appropriate and contextualized to the needs of diverse communities across Manitoba. What is needed now is leadership across the K-12 education system to match the wants of the public, educators and youth and reality in classrooms. The time is long overdue for the province of Manitoba, school divisions, pre-service education programs and community experts on climate in Manitoba to meet, plan and direct resources towards a comprehensive approach to climate change education. Doing so would align with not just what Manitobans want, but what our young people need in order to reach their full potential. Will Burton is a former K-12 teacher and principal-teacher and currently works in the Faculty of Education at the University of Winnipeg.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Northern pipeline the wrong nation-building plan
Opinion The Western Canadian climate-induced wildfires show the time for action on climate is now. But the premier of Manitoba pitched a fossil fuel pipeline to be built from Alberta to Hudson's Bay in response to the prime minister's call for 'energy corridors' to diversify export markets away from the United States. Climate was not mentioned once in Premier Wab Kinew's letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney on Manitoba's five nation-building projects. Instead, Canada and Manitoba must invest in renewable energy and infrastructure to help all Canadians and not greenwash fossil fuel expansion projects as responsible economic development. The prime minister and premiers are under pressure to demonstrate that they are taking action in the face of U.S. tariff threats and diversify markets. But Canadian oil products are currently exempt from tariffs, as are all products which are compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Trade Agreement. The U.S. has backed away from threats of tariffs on Canadian oil. Most of the crude oil the U.S. imports is from Canada — 62 per cent. The U.S. relies on Canadian oil, and to replace this would require increasing its production by 30 per cent, which is not feasible in the short- or mid-term. Furthermore, the global oil and gas demand is expected to peak in 2030, if not sooner, and then decline as countries transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. However, many of the nation-building projects being considered by the prime minister are fossil fuel expansion projects. In response to pressure from the oil and gas industry, Conservatives and Alberta, the prime minister has promised that the federal government will expedite federal approvals on infrastructure projects within two years, rather than five. But comprehensive reviews take time, and even with co-operation from provinces and Indigenous governments, the federal government has final approval over all projects that cross provincial boundaries. The Canadian oil industry itself does not want the Canadian government to pick projects for fast-tracking; instead, it wants to delay climate action by asking the federal government to remove the emissions cap on industrial projects and eliminate the industrial carbon tax, two measures that Prime Minister Carney has said he will not do. Pipeline development has been a boondoggle in Canada. The industry wanted the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines built, but both projects ultimately failed. The Northern Gateway project failed due to strong and ongoing opposition from First Nations communities, concerns over environmental impact and the potential for oil spills on B.C.'s coast. Energy East's failure is attributed to the high expense and emissions of fossil fuels. The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which tripled the capacity to ship Alberta oil to tidewater, was constructed by the federal government to meet the demand for a pipeline from the oil and gas industry in Alberta. The Canadian Trans Mountain pipeline cost Canadian taxpayers $34 billion and does not have a private-sector buyer. It is not working at capacity due to reduced demand. Enter Kinew's pitch for a northern pipeline from Alberta to the Port of Churchill. The premier stated that Manitoba is 'open for business' for private sector development to build a pipeline that would transport an 'energy product, hydrogen, or a potash slurry', despite committing to no new pipelines during the last provincial election. It appears Kinew is presenting himself as a nation-builder to the prime minister and the rest of Canada. The northern Manitoba pipeline is being pitched as a means to attract private capital for economic development. However, what is being ignored is the fact that the private sector has no interest in financing such a project. Experts advise that the Arctic shipping season is too short, even if the federal government funds expensive icebreakers to break up the ice. Building a pipeline on fragile northern muskeg would be challenging, particularly as permafrost in the north melts due to climate change. The threat of a spill to the northern Canadian coastline is significant. Most importantly, investing in fossil fuel infrastructure in 2025 is contrary to scientific findings, legislated federal commitments and international commitments; it will exacerbate global warming, making life on Earth hotter and worse for all. There is an alternative. Manitoba must prioritize climate mitigation and resilience in its nation-building projects. Canada and Manitoba are well-positioned to invest public resources in expanding Manitoba's clean energy advantage in nation-building projects alongside critical infrastructure for clean water, roads, schools and housing, as called for by the Assembly of First Nations. Manitoba is on the right track with initiatives to expand the publicly-owned hydroelectric grid to Nunavut, Saskatchewan and Alberta, initiatives that would also bring economic development to Manitoba's north. Much more needs to be done to grow wind, solar and geothermal energy. Federal and provincial investment is needed, alongside promising initiatives in partnership with First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities for ownership and economic reconciliation. Molly McCracken is the Manitoba director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
