Maine governor tells N.B. that drop in Canadian tourism hurting small businesses
FREDERICTON – On a visit to New Brunswick, the governor of Maine issued renewed pleas for Canadian tourists to return to the United States, despite their apparent anger over the political climate.
Janet Mills says the words of Donald Trump are not those of the American people, and that many of them were 'appalled' when the president called for Canada to become the '51st state.'
Trump has said several times that he wants to make Canada the '51st state' and that he would use economic force to achieve it, and has imposed sweeping tariffs on Canadian goods, including on steel and aluminum.
Mills is on a three-day charm offensive to Canada where she is scheduled to meet with premiers of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
She told a group at Fredericton's Cyber Centre she understands how insulted Canadians must feel but says there are small businesses across the border in Maine whose families come from parts of Canada, including New Brunswick and Quebec, who are being hit hard.
Wednesdays
Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture.
Numbers released by the U.S. federal border crossing on Friday, showed 85,000 fewer Canadians entered Maine in May than in the same month a year ago, a drop of about 27 per cent.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 24, 2025.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe
There is a growing backlash after the RCMP announced this month it is investigating whether Canadian citizens involved with clashes in or around Israel were in contravention of this country's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Amid outcry from Jewish groups, the force said it wasn't a criminal probe, but to 'collect, preserve and assess information' for potential future prosecutions. Foreign governments, such as Belgium and Brazil, have also opened investigations into their own citizens who served with the Israel Defense Forces. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Lt.-Col. (ret.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, suggests these are politically motivated probes. He has been retained by IDF soldiers who have been questioned by foreign government representatives. Hirsch has previously served as senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices in New York, lawyer for the Israel Defense Forces, director of the legal department for Palestinian Media Watch, senior military consultant for NGO Monitor, and adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Dave Gordon interviewed Hirsch for the National Post. What do you think motivates foreign governments who seek these investigations? I can't tell you exactly as to what their motivation is, but I believe that it's somewhere in the realms of political expediency, and internal demographic politics. It requires these governments to almost change what they've been doing traditionally, even to the point of potentially abandoning allies. Their voter base has changed. And so now you have a situation where you need to almost pander, to cater, to a more fringe population. In May, U.K. government lawyers told the High Court that there was no evidence Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, and that evidence exists of Israel making efforts to limit harm to civilians. If the government doesn't believe that war crimes are being committed, then obviously they won't then take that forward, and actively engage in an investigation of something that they don't believe is happening. But if the government is so prejudiced, and predisposed, that war crimes are being committed, then obviously you launch an investigation. What evidence would a foreign investigation need, to theoretically try a soldier in court? Video footage, forensic analysis, operational logs — all impartially examined. What they have is so weak and poor, it's impossible to say it's 'evidence.' I think it's just so circumstantial and flimsy, even imagined. Organizations are gathering information from social media, when IDF soldiers put up videos of their activities in the Gaza Strip, and those videos are predominantly taken out of context and given a criminal shade. They'll destroy a civilian building, which is a war crime, but clearly not if it's a military target. For example, a place where weapons were stored, where terrorists were encamped, that had tunnels going underneath it. All of these possible scenarios. And so the video itself shows absolutely nothing. Governments are looking at reports and statements from people who have left Gaza, and can say anything they want. This whole effort, really, is a huge waste of time, resources and energy. It's entirely impotent, because without knowing exactly what the military goal was in any given circumstance, there's no way you can actually assess the actions of the soldier. There's a legal mechanism that already exists in Israel, to prosecute soldiers who have broken laws? Without question. There is an entire investigative process. Everyone knows they exist. And yet this almost sanctimonious drive, seems to be to ignore that reality, and pushes for these ad hoc courts to somehow take charge. In media interviews, you contend that there is no formal support from the Israeli government for IDF (soldiers), to defend them against foreign investigations. Is that still the case? That still appears to be the case. There are certain ministries that are involved in a risk assessment, and are there to help, I think, the higher ranking officers. But my experience till now has been that the lower ranking soldiers find it very, very difficult to get any support whatsoever from these ministries, and that I fear is very dangerous. Of these Israeli departments which you criticize, are they aware of the shortcomings you speak of? So the difficulty is, that they don't know even the extent of the exposure that the soldiers are facing, and wouldn't know necessarily to be able to provide assistance to everyone in need. You're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of people. This is just a question of personnel and manpower. It's overwhelming right now, especially where we're busy fighting a war. On a government-to-government level, how is this issue being dealt with? There are discussions on all different types of levels, and without again getting into too much detail, I think in many cases, a lot of the work is being done diplomatically. The opening of an investigation is dependent on a government decision, rather than anyone presenting to a court with alleged evidence. That's already a very big step forward than what used to be the case in England, where any organization could claim that X had committed war crimes, submit any type of evidence they had to a local magistrate, and that magistrate could then issue an arrest warrant. With predominantly friendly governments, the hope is that they can be diplomatically persuaded, or dissuaded, from going down a certain path. Which steps should the Israeli government take to address these investigations? I think it needs to be a conglomerate of different actors, because the problem requires different solutions and different involvement. I would suggest a joint task force of the Justice Ministry, the Foreign Ministry, the Defense Ministry, each one contributing in their own unique way to providing the best support possible. And sometimes the support needed is relatively simple, just to say that that X person was not in active duty in any type of a position, that could be considered relevant, when the alleged war crimes happen. This interview has been edited for brevity. (National Post contacted the IDF spokesperson's unit and the spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and received no response.) Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our newsletters here .
Edmonton Journal
an hour ago
- Edmonton Journal
'Political expediency': Lawyer for IDF soldiers critical of war-crimes probe
Article content There is a growing backlash after the RCMP announced this month it is investigating whether Canadian citizens involved with clashes in or around Israel were in contravention of this country's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Amid outcry from Jewish groups, the force said it wasn't a criminal probe, but to 'collect, preserve and assess information' for potential future prosecutions. Article content Foreign governments, such as Belgium and Brazil, have also opened investigations into their own citizens who served with the Israel Defense Forces. Lt.-Col. (ret.) Maurice Hirsch, director of the Initiative for Palestinian Authority Accountability and Reform, at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, suggests these are politically motivated probes. He has been retained by IDF soldiers who have been questioned by foreign government representatives. Hirsch has previously served as senior legal analyst for Human Rights Voices in New York, lawyer for the Israel Defense Forces, director of the legal department for Palestinian Media Watch, senior military consultant for NGO Monitor, and adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. Dave Gordon interviewed Hirsch for the National Post. Article content I can't tell you exactly as to what their motivation is, but I believe that it's somewhere in the realms of political expediency, and internal demographic politics. It requires these governments to almost change what they've been doing traditionally, even to the point of potentially abandoning allies. Their voter base has changed. And so now you have a situation where you need to almost pander, to cater, to a more fringe population. In May, U.K. government lawyers told the High Court that there was no evidence Israel was deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza, and that evidence exists of Israel making efforts to limit harm to civilians. If the government doesn't believe that war crimes are being committed, then obviously they won't then take that forward, and actively engage in an investigation of something that they don't believe is happening. Article content But if the government is so prejudiced, and predisposed, that war crimes are being committed, then obviously you launch an investigation. What evidence would a foreign investigation need, to theoretically try a soldier in court? Video footage, forensic analysis, operational logs — all impartially examined. What they have is so weak and poor, it's impossible to say it's 'evidence.' I think it's just so circumstantial and flimsy, even imagined. Organizations are gathering information from social media, when IDF soldiers put up videos of their activities in the Gaza Strip, and those videos are predominantly taken out of context and given a criminal shade. They'll destroy a civilian building, which is a war crime, but clearly not if it's a military target. For example, a place where weapons were stored, where terrorists were encamped, that had tunnels going underneath it. All of these possible scenarios. Article content And so the video itself shows absolutely nothing. Governments are looking at reports and statements from people who have left Gaza, and can say anything they want. This whole effort, really, is a huge waste of time, resources and energy. It's entirely impotent, because without knowing exactly what the military goal was in any given circumstance, there's no way you can actually assess the actions of the soldier. There's a legal mechanism that already exists in Israel, to prosecute soldiers who have broken laws? Without question. There is an entire investigative process. Everyone knows they exist. And yet this almost sanctimonious drive, seems to be to ignore that reality, and pushes for these ad hoc courts to somehow take charge. In media interviews, you contend that there is no formal support from the Israeli government for IDF (soldiers), to defend them against foreign investigations. Is that still the case? Article content That still appears to be the case. There are certain ministries that are involved in a risk assessment, and are there to help, I think, the higher ranking officers. But my experience till now has been that the lower ranking soldiers find it very, very difficult to get any support whatsoever from these ministries, and that I fear is very dangerous. Of these Israeli departments which you criticize, are they aware of the shortcomings you speak of? So the difficulty is, that they don't know even the extent of the exposure that the soldiers are facing, and wouldn't know necessarily to be able to provide assistance to everyone in need. You're talking about potentially hundreds of thousands of people. This is just a question of personnel and manpower. It's overwhelming right now, especially where we're busy fighting a war. On a government-to-government level, how is this issue being dealt with? Article content There are discussions on all different types of levels, and without again getting into too much detail, I think in many cases, a lot of the work is being done diplomatically. The opening of an investigation is dependent on a government decision, rather than anyone presenting to a court with alleged evidence. That's already a very big step forward than what used to be the case in England, where any organization could claim that X had committed war crimes, submit any type of evidence they had to a local magistrate, and that magistrate could then issue an arrest warrant. With predominantly friendly governments, the hope is that they can be diplomatically persuaded, or dissuaded, from going down a certain path. Which steps should the Israeli government take to address these investigations? I think it needs to be a conglomerate of different actors, because the problem requires different solutions and different involvement. Latest National Stories
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
New laws against blocking access to places of worship, schools coming, Fraser says
OTTAWA – Justice Minister Sean Fraser says the Liberal government will press ahead with plans for new criminal provisions against blocking access to places or worship, schools and community centres. The measures, promised during the recent federal election campaign, would also create a criminal offence of wilfully intimidating or threatening people attending events at these venues. The minister's statement comes as civil libertarians point to existing provisions intended to curb such behaviour and push back against the idea of new measures that could infringe on freedom of expression and assembly. Tensions have risen in Canadian communities over public protests, many prompted by the ongoing hostilities in the Middle East. Several Canadian municipalities have taken steps recently to mandate 'bubble zones' that restrict protest activity near such places as religious institutions, schools and child care centres. 'It's not lost on me that there will be different levels of government that try to address this challenge in different ways,' Fraser said, adding that the federal government has an opportunity — where behaviour crosses a criminal threshold — to legislate in that space. 'We clearly have seen challenges when it comes to certain religious communities in Canada who are facing extraordinary discrimination — antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate,' Fraser said in a recent interview. 'People need to know that in Canada they are free to pray to the God of their choice and to, at the same time, freely express themselves, but not to the point where you threaten the protected Charter rights of a religious minority.' James Turk, director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, said he questions the need for new provisions and suggests politicians are proposing penalties simply to appear to be doing something. He said existing laws against mischief, nuisance and interfering with religious celebrations can be used to deal with the kinds of behaviour the federal government wants to address. 'I haven't heard a single thing that isn't already illegal, so it's a waste of time. It adds confusion to the Criminal Code and it suggests that they're only engaged in performative activity,' Turk said. 'They want to be seen to be doing something about this pressure they're under.' Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director of the fundamental freedoms program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, also said she wonders about the scope of the proposed new federal provisions 'and if they are necessary or simply duplicative of existing criminal offences.' Bussières McNicoll said it's important to remember that a protest might be disruptive but also protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms' guarantee of peaceful assembly. 'As a parent myself, I know that any protest can be sometimes scary for a child. We're talking about loud voices, huge crowds, emotions are running high,' she said. 'So I believe it's part of my role as a parent to teach my child about what living in a democracy means, why we need protests, why we need space in our society for strong language — including language that we disagree with — and to teach my child about what we can do if we personally disagree with speech that we hear.' Sundays Kevin Rollason's Sunday newsletter honouring and remembering lives well-lived in Manitoba. Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy at B'nai Brith Canada, said that while the organization welcomes the planned new federal provisions, additional federal measures are needed. B'nai Brith wants national 'vulnerable infrastructure legislation' that would prohibit protests within a certain distance of a place of worship or school, or perhaps during specific time periods, if they interfere with someone's ability to attend the institutions, Robertson said. 'That would remove the need for municipalities and provinces to adopt legislation, and it would send a clear message that across Canada, individuals do not have the right to prevent others from accessing their houses of worship and their community centres and cultural institutions.' — With files from Anja Karadeglia This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 28, 2025.
