Three rescued mine workers on their way home
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
28 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
As Trump's trade deal deadline approaches, his tariffs face legal pushback in court
WASHINGTON – Donald Trump's plan to realign global trade faces its latest legal barrier this week in a federal appeals court — and Canada is bracing for the U.S. president to follow through on his threat to impose higher tariffs. While Trump set an Aug. 1 deadline for countries to make trade deals with the United States, the president's ultimatum has so far resulted in only a handful of frameworks for trade agreements. Deals have been announced for Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines and the United Kingdom — but Trump indicated last week that an agreement with Canada is far from complete. 'We don't have a deal with Canada, we haven't been focused on it,' Trump told reporters Friday. Trump sent a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney threatening to impose 35 per cent tariffs if Canada doesn't make a trade deal by the deadline. The White House has said those duties would not apply to goods compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade. Canadian officials have also downplayed expectations of a new economic and security agreement materializing by Friday. 'We'll use all the time that's necessary,' Carney said last week. Countries around the world will also be watching as Trump's use of a national security statute to hit nations with tariffs faces scrutiny in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled in May that Trump does not have the authority to wield tariffs on nearly every country through the use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977. The act, usually referred to by the acronym IEEPA, gives the U.S. president authority to control economic transactions after declaring an emergency. No previous president had ever used it for tariffs and the U.S. Constitution gives power over taxes and tariffs to Congress. The Trump administration quickly appealed the lower court's ruling on the so-called 'Liberation Day' and fentanyl-related tariffs and arguments are set to be heard in the appeal court on Thursday. The hearing combines two different cases that were pushing against Trump's tariffs. One involves five American small businesses arguing specifically against Trump's worldwide tariffs, and the other came from 12 states pushing back on both the 'Liberation Day' duties and the fentanyl-related tariffs. George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin called Trump's tariff actions a 'massive power grab.' Somin, along with the Liberty Justice Center, is representing the American small businesses. 'We are hopeful — we can't know for sure obviously — we are hopeful that we will continue to prevail in court,' Somin said. Somin said they are arguing that IEEPA does not 'give the president the power to impose any tariff he wants, on any nation, for any reason, for as long as he wants, whenever he feels like it.' He added that 'the law also says there must be an emergency and an unusual and extraordinary threat to American security or the economy' — and neither the flow of fentanyl from Canada nor a trade deficit meet that definition. U.S. government data shows a minuscule volume of fentanyl is seized at the northern border. The White House has said the Trump administration is legally using powers granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to address America's 'national emergencies of persistent goods trade deficits and drug trafficking.' There have been 18 amicus briefs — a legal submission from a group that's not party to the action — filed in support of the small businesses and states pushing against Trump's tariffs. Two were filed in support of the Trump administration's actions. Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the Washington-based Cato Institute, said the Trump administration is taking a vague statute and claiming powers never deployed by a president before. The Cato Institute submitted a brief that argued 'the Constitution specifies that Congress has the power to set tariffs and duties.' Skorup said there are serious issues with the Trump administration's interpretation of IEEPA. 'We don't want power consolidated into a single king or president,' he said. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. It's expected the appeals court will expedite its ruling. Even if it rules against the duties, however, they may not be immediately lifted. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said the Supreme Court should 'put an end to this.' There are at least eight lawsuits challenging the tariffs. Canada is also being hit with tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles. Trump used different powers under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to enact those duties. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 27, 2025.
Winnipeg Free Press
28 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
U.S. politics threaten to complicate Canada's co-hosting of 2026 World Cup
OTTAWA – With less than a year to go until the 2026 World Cup, political tensions and U.S. policy threaten to pose problems as Canada, the United States and Mexico prepare to co-host the tournament. Next year's FIFA World Cup will be the biggest ever, with the three countries hosting a record 48 teams. Between June 11 and July 19, they will play 104 matches, most of them in the U.S. With millions of fans expected to cross borders to attend the games, U.S. President Donald Trump's harsh immigration policies — which include travel bans on some countries, immigration raids and mass deportations — are generating anxiety. 'This is all being driven by the United States. And we're entirely the guilty party here,' said Victor Matheson, a professor at College of Holy Cross in Massachusetts who specializes in sports economics. 'You could have significant immigration problems with fans and players going across borders.' The U.S. has travel bans in place for 12 countries and restrictions in place for seven, and is considering banning travellers from another 36 countries. Though there are exemptions for athletes, staff and families, the unpredictability of Trump's administration means no one knows for certain what kind of rules might be in place by the time the tournament starts. Economist Andrew Zimbalist, who wrote a book on the economics of hosting the World Cup, said Trump has the ability to make it difficult for people to travel, but it's not clear whether he will actually do so. 'I think probably Trump himself might not have the answers because … he responds very impetuously to changes in his environment,' he said. Concerns about visas or political opposition to Trump might lead some soccer fans to decide not to attend at all, while others opt to attend the games in Canada instead, Zimbalist suggested. But he also pointed out that the quarter, semifinals and final are all taking place in the U.S. A spokesperson for Canadian Heritage said Canada could see a million international visitors during the tournament. 'Given the tri-national nature of the event, it is anticipated that international and domestic travellers will move back and forth between Canada and the United States. The focus will continue to be on the flow of movement, the safety of travellers and the security of the borders,' the spokesperson said. A spokesperson for the Canada Border Services Agency said the agency is working closely with federal government departments, host cities and FIFA 'in the safety and security planning for this international event.' Matheson said fans — particularly those from countries that have found themselves in Trump's crosshairs — have good reasons to be worried. 'I would be very concerned about planning a vacation that has you travelling from Mexico or from Canada into the United States and back. I don't think that you can guarantee that vacation of a lifetime is actually going to be there for you to actually take,' he said. He said it's one thing to be denied entry, another to end up in jail and deported — potentially to a prison in El Salvador. 'No one wants to go to the World Cup to watch some soccer games and then end up in jail,' he said. Trump's moves to impose tariffs on much of the world, including Canada, could also affect the World Cup. Matheson offered the example of someone who makes jerseys for a country's team who would want to ship those jerseys across the border with the team. 'Tariffs make that type of inventory management pretty challenging,' he said. Tim Elcombe is a professor at Wilfrid Laurier University whose areas of expertise include sports, politics and international affairs. He said 'there was a sense that having the event in Canada, the United States and Mexico would almost be a bit of a calming of the political waters,' as the cup returned to Western countries. Instead, he said, the 2026 tournament may be even more politically charged than the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. Canada is co-hosting one of world's biggest sporting events with a country whose president has instigated a trade war and threatened annexation. Canadians have cut travel to the U.S. and stopped buying American products — and it's not clear what all of that might mean for the World Cup. While Vancouver and Toronto will host some games, 'really this is an American-centric competition,' Elcombe said. 'So how will Canadians feel about this? Will we get behind it? Will it become the event I think they were hoping it would be?' In early July, labour and human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, wrote to FIFA president Gianni Infantino to say U.S. policies under Trump pose a 'serious threat' to individuals, especially non-citizens. The letter accused FIFA of ignoring 'the clear evidence of the significant deterioration of the rights climate in the United States.' Elcombe said while the United States is likely to take the brunt of scrutiny, Canada is not immune. 'Canada is going to have to be prepared for a very critical eye in terms of focus on some of the issues in Canada from a human rights perspective, because I think they will be exposed,' he said, citing Canada's relationship with Indigenous Peoples as one example. MacIntosh Ross, a fellow at the Scott McCain and Leslie McLean Centre for Sport, Business and Health at Saint Mary's University, said Canada should put pressure on the U.S. government 'to make sure that things happen in a safe or as safe a manner as possible.' 'The Canadian organizers and the Canadian government need to be very clear about their expectations for their partners in this World Cup and reiterate them and state them over and over again,' he said. Elcombe noted Infantino, who has 'very much established himself as a friend and supporter of President Trump,' could be a key player in determining how the coming months unfold. It's difficult to predict what Trump might do, Zimbalist said. If there are political issues in the United States that he wants to distract people from, 'you can see him doing crazier and crazier things internationally to get people's minds off of what's actually happening.' But Trump also has shown that he cares about the World Cup and looking good as he hosts the tournament. 'I think he does care about image and he does care about being on the world stage,' Zimbalist said. 'So I can see that being a significant deterrent, actually.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 27, 2025.
National Post
28 minutes ago
- National Post
Michael Taube: No, Globe and Mail, Mark Carney isn't the second coming of Brian Mulroney
Mark Carney has been prime minister of Canada since March. He's been called many things by many people in this short time period. It never came to mind that he would be described as a 'progressive conservative' along the lines of Brian Mulroney. Article content This, in a nutshell, is the nonsense that the Globe and Mail's editorial board is currently peddling. Article content Article content 'That Mr. Carney was going to drag the Liberal Party back to the centre after years of an NDP-lite government under Mr. Trudeau was to be expected,' a June 28 Globe editorial noted. 'But more than mannerisms have changed. Since April, the Prime Minister has cut personal income taxes, boosted defence spending dramatically, pledged to cut the cost of the federal bureaucracy, tightened immigration rules, eliminated federal barriers to internal trade, created a framework for breaking the stasis on big national projects and signaled that he will dismiss underperforming top bureaucrats,' they wrote. Article content Article content The Globe's editorial board suggested 'that's an agenda that Brian Mulroney could have endorsed.' Article content Article content This analysis likely raised a few eyebrows, and not just in the Mulroney household. Alas, the editorial writers then flipped their collective wig with this bizarre assessment. 'In fact, it overlaps a good deal with the actual governing record of his Progressive Conservatives. Mr. Carney is a Liberal but, in the early going, he looks to be governing much like a Red Tory — a progressive kind of conservative.' Article content We shouldn't be surprised by the Globe's over-the-top analysis of Carney's leadership. It's become the raison d'être of this once-venerable publication to carry water for this particular prime minister. Article content Nevertheless, let's be serious about our national leader. Carney is certainly a progressive, but he's no 'progressive conservative' in any way, shape or form. Article content Left-leaning progressive conservatives, or Red Tories, generally combine two ideological components: classical conservative sensibilities (espoused by High Tories like philosopher Edmund Burke and former U.K. prime minister Benjamin Disraeli) and socialist-type policies such as government intrusion and developing a social safety net. Article content Article content As Gad Horowitz, a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, wrote in the May-June 1965 issue of the defunct left-wing magazine Canadian Dimension, 'socialism has more in common with Toryism than with liberalism, for liberalism is possessive individualism, while socialism and Toryism are variants of collectivism.' Article content Article content Modern conservatism has little in common with classical conservatism. The former has largely incorporated classical liberal and libertarian ideals into its main ideology, while maintaining a smattering of social conservative principles related to individuals and families. That's why modern conservatives typically champion small government, lower taxes, free markets, private enterprise, greater individual rights and freedoms and so forth. Article content Carney doesn't fit into these conservative-leaning parameters. His progressive values do fit within the context of the modern Liberal Party of Canada. While he's not exactly the same as Trudeau, I pointed out in a March 16 National Post column that they're 'remarkably similar.' How so? In my estimation, 'they're both left-wing, pro-government intervention, distrust privatization and free markets, favour wealth redistribution, champion radical environmentalist policies, support woke ideology and political correctness — and more.' That's what today's Liberals basically stand for, and Carney's personal and political record fits like a glove.
