Sask. Opposition's attempt to condemn Donald Trump, wear Team Canada jerseys goes sideways
Social Sharing
A day that began with the Saskatchewan NDP caucus clothed in red hockey gear and singing O Canada on the steps of the provincial legislature did not end the way the Official Opposition planned.
The party members swapped out their orange for Team Canada hockey jerseys on Thursday as they sought to introduce an emergency motion to condemn President Donald Trump's administration, his tariffs and the threat of making Canada the 51st state.
It also asserted the federal government should not impose export taxes or impose limits on exports of natural resources in Saskatchewan.
"This was not, should not have been, a partisan motion. It should have been something that all people in that assembly, all leaders in that assembly could agree to," NDP Leader Carla Beck said.
The NDP's joy didn't last long, as their MLAs were forced to take off the Team Canada jerseys to enter the legislative chamber.
The party has since confirmed the decision was made by Speaker Todd Goudy.
In a statement, Goudy said he was upholding decorum in the House and enforcing a rule requiring business attire.
"There have been instances where concessions have been made, but I was not informed ahead of time," Goudy said.
The NDP's dissatisfaction did not end there, as its motion was swiftly amended by the Sask. Party government.
The amendment confirmed that Canada would never be the 51st state and endorsed the province's tariff response plan — including the need to take counter action against "unjustified tariffs" and increase procurement from Saskatchewan-based employers — but removed Trump's name.
WATCH| Sask. NDP brings elbows up to the legislature:
Sask. NDP brings their elbows up to the legislature
4 hours ago
Duration 0:30
Beck said the switch didn't make sense.
"I think the bigger concern we saw today, again from this government, was their inability to actually name Donald Trump as the person who is threatening this country," said Beck.
"I, in fact, find that even more troubling than being asked to take off the jersey before we went into the assembly."
After a period of debate, the NDP ultimately voted in support of the government's amendment. It passed unanimously.
Premier Scott Moe defended the decision to remove Trump's name. He said it was about toning down the political rhetoric.
"Words are words. We need a plan, we need action. That's what Canadian families in Saskatchewan, families I think are asking politicians of all levels to dial back the rhetoric and to come forward with what is your actual plan on how we're going to react to what is really an unprecedented time," said Moe.
It's still not clear what the province's response to the tariffs will be.
The government didn't provide any contingency funds to deal with tariff repercussions in Wednesday's budget. China's 100 per cent tariff on Canola kicked in Thursday, while more U.S. tariffs are expected next month.
Moe confirmed he'll be joining a call with Prime Minister Mark Carney and other premiers on Friday.
Moe said he intends to ask Carney to make contact with Chinese officials to end the canola tariff as soon as possible.
With a federal election call likely in the coming days
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
12 minutes ago
- CBC
UN treaty aims to protect international waters and their inhabitants
World leaders, scientists gather in France for UN Ocean Conference 12 hours ago Duration 1:57 Social Sharing UN Secretary General António Guterres on Monday urged world leaders to ratify a treaty that would allow nations to establish protected marine areas in international waters, warning that human activity was destroying ocean ecosystems. Speaking at the opening of the third UN Ocean Conference in Nice, Guterres cautioned that illegal fishing, plastic pollution and rising sea temperatures threatened delicate ecosystems and the people who depend on them. "The ocean is the ultimate shared resource. But we are failing it," Guterres said, citing collapsing fish stocks, rising sea levels and ocean acidification. Oceans also provide a vital buffer against climate change, by absorbing around 30 per cent of planet-heating CO2 emissions. But as the oceans heat up, hotter waters are destroying marine ecosystems and threatening the oceans' ability to absorb CO2. WATCH | The last time the Earth was this hot, here's what the ocean did: The last time the Earth was this hot — here's what the ocean did 18 days ago Duration 1:24 Sea levels will rise — by metres, not centimetres — and the time to prepare is now. Drawing on ancient clues and the latest science, Johanna Wagstaffe explains what Earth's past reveals about our coastal future — and why smart planning today could protect millions in the decades and centuries to come. "These are symptoms of a system in crisis — and they are feeding off each other. Unravelling food chains. Destroying livelihoods. Deepening insecurity," said Guterres. The High Seas Treaty, adopted in 2023, would permit countries to establish marine parks in international waters, which cover nearly two-thirds of the ocean and are largely unregulated. So far, only an estimated one per cent of international waters, known as the "high seas," have been protected. The drive for nations to turn years of promises into meaningful protection for the oceans comes as President Donald Trump pulls the United States and its money out of climate projects, and as some European governments weaken green policy commitments as they seek to support anemic economies and fend off nationalists. U.S. won't ratify treaty — and isn't bound by it The United States has not yet ratified the treaty and will not do so during the conference, said Rebecca Hubbard, director of The High Seas Alliance. "If they don't ratify, they are not bound by it," she said. "The implementation will take years, but it is critical we start now and we won't let the U.S. absence stop that from happening." WATCH | Scientists want a ban on deep-sea mining. Trump wants to fast-track it: Scientists want a ban on deep-sea mining. Trump wants to fast-track it 5 days ago Duration 1:59 A group of leading ocean and climate scientists, including Canadians, is calling for a ban on deep-sea mining just as U.S. President Donald Trump moves to fast-track undersea mining approvals. French President Emmanuel Macron, the conference's co-host, told delegates that 50 countries had now ratified the treaty and that another 15 had promised to do so. The treaty will only come into force once 60 countries ratify it. Macron's foreign minister said he expected that would happen before the end of the year. The United States has not sent a high-level delegation to the conference. "It's not a surprise; we know the American administration's position on these issues," Macron told reporters late on Sunday.
National Post
14 minutes ago
- National Post
Canada's on the brink of trade peace with Trump: Full Comment podcast
Article content Don't call it a done deal until it's done, but America's ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, tells Brian this week that negotiations between Ottawa and President Donald Trump's administration are making progress. He explains why he believes things are moving quickly in the right direction to settle the trade war between our two countries. Hoekstra also talks about why he's looking forward to the next phase of the longstanding bilateral relationship, when he thinks Canada and the U.S. will work harmoniously and productively again, allied in eliminating the fentanyl scourge from both countries and building the two strongest economies in the industrialized world — although he still thinks Canada will be eating America's dust. (Recorded June 6, 2025) Article content Article content Article content
CTV News
41 minutes ago
- CTV News
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles protests
Protesters confront a line of U.S. National Guard in the metropolitan detention centre of downtown Los Angeles, Sunday, June 8, 2025, following last night's immigration raid protest. (AP Photo/Eric Thayer) U.S. President Donald Trump has deployed at least 300 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Trump initially said he was deploying 2,000 troops. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C., to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about the guard's deployment Sunday and conditions under which the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Tense moments after National Guard arrives Guard members arrived to specifically to protect federal buildings, including the downtown detention centre where protesters concentrated. They stood shoulder to shoulder, carrying long guns and riot shields as protesters shouted 'shame' and 'go home.' After some closely approached the guard members, another set of uniformed officers advanced on the group, shooting smoke-filled canisters into the street. Minutes later, the Los Angeles Police Department fired rounds of crowd-control munitions to disperse the protesters, who they said were assembled unlawfully. Much of the group then moved to block traffic on the 101 freeway until state patrol officers cleared them from the roadway by late afternoon. The laws are a bit vague Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. He federalized part of California's National Guard under what is known as Title 10 authority, which places him, not the governor, atop the chain of command, according to Newsom's office. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. The role of the National Guard troops will be limited Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. Troops have been mobilized before The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. Trump is willing to use the military on home soil On Sunday, Trump was asked if he plans to send U.S. troops to Los Angeles and he said, 'We're gonna have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden.' Trump didn't elaborate. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. Rebecca Boone, The Associated Press
