Strong action will be taken for planes, drones violating G7 no-fly zone, says RCMP
Sgt. Mark Basanta from RCMP Protective Operations said the no-fly zones will include both the Calgary International Airport and Kananaskis, where the leaders will be.
He said the radius at Kananaskis Village will be 30 nautical miles (56 kilometres), while it will be 20 nautical miles (37 kilometres) at the airport.
The restrictions are set to begin at 6 a.m. MT June 14 and remain in effect until 11:59 p.m. on June 17.
Basanta said unauthorized aircraft and drones will be met by RCMP or Canadian Forces aircraft and could be shot down as a last resort.
"Shooting is an extreme measure, but yeah, we have the capability to take them down," Basanta said Friday in an aircraft hangar at the Springfield airport, located on Calgary's western edge.
"Our hope is if they're heading toward it, there will be a broadcast over their frequency and basically they'll be told to change their heading," he added.
"Short of doing that, they can expect to be intercepted by the Canadian Armed Forces that are flying. They will be met. They will be intercepted. We do have F-18s flying a combat air patrol. Hopefully that's enough of a deterrent."
Canada will host leaders from the United States, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and Italy, as well as the European Union at the meeting scheduled from June 15 to 17.
Basanta said his biggest concern is the use and popularity of drones. He said there will be a counter-drone team deployed in the Kananaskis region to curb their behaviours.
"We have a lot of people in the country, a lot of drone enthusiasts that will be flying, but we do have measures where we can take them down," Basanta said.
He didn't specify what the measures could be but said drones pose a "grave risk."
"Our main concern is the hobbyists flying the drones inadvertently flying into the aircraft. A threat from a drone is one thing … it's also ensuring the safety of our own aircraft that are in the air."
In January, a California man was charged after operating a drone that crashed into a Quebec water bomber fighting the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles.
The CL-415 plane was grounded after the small remote-controlled aircraft flew into it on Jan. 9, leaving a sizable hole in its wing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Alister Adams: AI threatens the lifeblood of democracy
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Google's AI Overviews pose yet another challenge to news publishers. Government and industry must adapt quickly Photo by Josh Edelson/AFP Imagine a world without investigative journalists. Thanks to Google's AI Overviews (AIOs), that future may not be far off. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS Enjoy the latest local, national and international news. Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events. Unlimited online access to National Post. National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLES Enjoy the latest local, national and international news. Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events. Unlimited online access to National Post. National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors AIOs promise instant answers — but at a potentially devastating cost. These summaries, automatically generated by Google, increasingly appear at the top of search results. The intent is to keep users within Google's ecosystem and eliminate the need to click through to source websites. AIOs first launched in the United States in May 2024 and expanded to over 100 countries by October. AIOs are the clearest example yet of 'Google Zero' — a term coined by Nilay Patel of the Verge — describing Google's aim to keep users entirely within its ecosystem, delivering answers, education — and even purchases — with zero clicks to an external site. The fallout? A potential death spiral for journalism. This newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays) By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again As marketers, we've seen AIOs disrupt traffic patterns across the web. Analysts report AI overviews now appear on roughly 16 per cent of U.S. keyword volume — and as much as 55 per cent of all search queries, depending on how you define AIO coverage. Brands have already seen click-through rates drop — organic traffic has dropped 15–64 per cent, with an average decline of around 35 per cent, depending on the study. News organizations, with their reliance on clicks for ad revenue, are hit particularly hard. The appeal for users is obvious: quick, clean answers, often with citations. But those citations don't translate into traffic. Worse still, AIOs are prone to 'hallucinations' — confidently serving up misinformation. That might be laughable when AI suggests eating rocks for nutrients, but it's dangerous when applied to current events and news. Why does this matter? Because journalism isn't just content. It's accountability. It's Woodward and Bernstein exposing Watergate. The Boston Globe uncovering the Catholic Church's abuse scandal. The New York Times revealing Harvey Weinstein's crimes. These stories changed the world. Without clicks, the business model that supports such reporting collapses. Journalism, and especially investigative journalism, is expensive and time-consuming. As ad dollars have dried up — first in print, then digital — newsrooms have shrunk. Print ad revenue has dropped 75–80 per cent since its 2005 peak. Digital ads and subscriptions haven't filled the gap. And now AIOs are accelerating the decline. The journalism crisis isn't theoretical — it's measurable. Between 2008 and 2021, U.S. newsroom employment has dropped by roughly 26 per cent, with newspaper jobs falling more than 50 per cent. In the past two years alone, more than 21,000 media jobs have been lost, and the cuts continue: in early 2025 — according to reports — the Washington Post laid off four per cent of its staff, HuffPost slashed 22 per cent of its newsroom and the L.A. Times has cut its editorial staff by half in just three years. This advertisement has not loaded yet. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. These aren't just numbers — they're watchdogs gone missing, stories left untold and communities left in the dark. And as more local papers vanish at a rate of two per week, tens of millions of Americans and Canadians now live in 'news deserts' without reliable local coverage. This hollowing out of journalism isn't just an industry collapse — it's a democratic emergency. Google's long-term vision seems clear: a user journey entirely within its platform, from awareness to purchase. To Google, news is just another puzzle piece – scraped, summarized, and served without compensation. Social platforms aren't any better: influencers on platforms like TikTok, Instagram and YouTube monetize headlines created by reporters, while newsrooms see nothing. Some governments have attempted to intervene. Canada's Online News Act resulted in Google making a $100-million annual licensing agreement with Canadian publishers. And I must commend Google for this. And to be clear — this is not an attack on Google. My personal experience with Google as a business partner has always been excellent. But I cannot ignore and stay silent to what I see happening. Meta, meanwhile, chose to block Canadian news entirely. In the U.S., proposed legislation to allow collective bargaining for media organizations stalled before a vote. Regulation is slow. Platform disruption is fast. What can be done? Platforms must treat journalism like the way we license music, film or television content. If Reddit and Stack Overflow can negotiate licensing deals with AI providers, so can newsrooms. One challenge is that news media is so decentralized, no single entity holds enough clout. A possible solution? Establishing a cross-platform journalism licensing coalition, similar to those used in the music industry. Regardless, Google should share ad revenue based on citations, not just clicks. Social media should compensate original sources when news drives engagement. These aren't radical ideas — they're necessary lifelines. News organizations must evolve, too. They need to think like content creators, not just publishers, in order to stay relevant. But they can't survive on hustle alone. This isn't just a business problem. It's a democratic crisis. If we allow investigative journalism to die, we risk a world where corruption festers unchecked, where the powerful act with impunity and where truth becomes a casualty of convenience. Journalists shine a light in dark places. Without them, darkness spreads. A zero-click future can't become a zero-accountability one. Journalism protects democracy. It's time we protected journalism. Alister Adams is a father, husband and president of Saatchi & Saatchi Canada.
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Colby Cosh: Cyclists' rights — the latest product of judicial hubris
You'll surely read a lot in the NP 's pages about the Wednesday ruling by Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Schabas which found that the province's plans to remove exclusive bike lanes on some key Toronto arteries is contrary to the Charter of Rights. Legal conservatives will argue that this decision, if upheld on appeal, amounts to an arrogation of further new powers by a Canadian judiciary that has already been running amok for 50 years. They will characterize it as a matter of scribbling a 'right to bike lanes' into the Charter. Article content Article content The lefty/progressive retort is, well, right there in the decision itself. Pshaw, there's no question of creating a free-standing or universal 'right to bike lanes.' What happened was that cycling advocates approached a court with evidence that ripping out the Toronto bike lanes was likely to create extra risk of death or injury for people engaged in (and possibly dependent on) cycling, which is a wholly legal and approved activity. Article content Article content Article content Our Constitution recognizes that elected authorities can do this kind of thing, but it obviously engages Charter guarantees of life and personal security, so a sort of administrative due process applies. Such a decision must be founded on evidence, and cannot be 'arbitrary.' Article content And who decides what's arbitrary? Why, judges, of course. Justice Schabas is not afraid to comb over the record of internal government decision-making on the bike lanes and make himself the decider of public policy. The stated goal of the bike-lane removal was to reduce automobile traffic congestion in the relevant areas of Toronto, but the government's own evidence that 'ripping out' the lanes would have that effect is sketchy and anecdotal, in the judge's view. The cycling lobby, on the other hand, came very well prepared with data, surely seasoned with impressive-looking charts and tables gathered from the four corners of the urbanist universe. Article content Article content For all I know (or care), Justice Schabas is objectively correct: I might very well reach the same factual conclusion that he did if provided with the same PowerPoints. Who would stake their life on the proposition that the Ford government, or any government, can be blindly trusted to act on nothing but rational evidence and articulable motives? Article content The issue here is that the Charter was originally interpreted as only inhibiting the state in a 'negative' way, as forbidding certain unjust actions, rather than actively imposing 'positive' political obligations on governments (ones that might have price tags). But Canadian courts have wobbled occasionally, gradually making ever-wider exceptions to the old distinction between positive and negative liberty, and Schabas has voraciously corralled all of these exceptions (Chaoulli! Burns! PHS!) to justify his own ruling. He has, inescapably, created a Charter right to a small set of particular, existing bike lanes: that's just the literal effect of the judgment, subject to further appeals to other courts. Article content Now, if you're one of those trendy 'abundance agenda' liberals, or a 'techno-optimist' retro-libertarian, or perhaps even just a prime minister who got elected on a promise to build lots of infrastructure in an old-school heroic-age-of-engineering way, the Schabas ruling is bound to make you queasy. It is not only a Magna Carta for the endless legal delays to construction which already torment the English-speaking world; it creates the possibility that anything a government does succeed in building or providing may become effectively immovable, protected indefinitely like some endangered vole. If you are tempted to seek reassurance, Justice Schabas tries to provide it in paragraph 19 of his decision. Article content 'This decision does not open the floodgates to Charter challenges of traffic decisions. Most road and traffic decisions are well-grounded in data and safety concerns, as one would expect, and are unlikely to be challenged as arbitrary. In any event, fear of opening the floodgates to such challenges is not in law a basis for denying individuals their Charter rights. Rights claims are not denied because others may make a similar claim or because it is administratively inconvenient to comply with the Charter.' Article content Readers will immediately recognize a troublingly familiar form of liberal argumentation: 'Don't worry, X won't happen, unless it does, which would actually be a fine thing.' And there is surely an added dollop of toothsome irony in that second sentence. Article content The judge has just ruled in favour of a lobby group for cyclists — i.e., people who couldn't hold a café conversation for 11 minutes without mentioning how our civilization is irrationally consecrated to the automobile as a consequence of a century-plus of totally daft urban-planning decisions. 'Most road and traffic decisions are well-grounded in data and safety concerns' is a sentence you would expect to find in a defence of the car-centric concrete-covered world that so disgusts bike advocates (the more radical ones, anyway). Article content The essentially ideological character of this paragraph isn't very well disguised, and if a judge wishes to make forecasts about the effects of an obviously novel application of the law, well, who can stop him? When some elected politician implements a bad idea confidently, and it goes wrong, he is at risk of un-election. When a judge makes one, he is not likely to even be criticized by name. (Just ask the Longest Ballot Committee!) This is a fundamental reason our Constitution still incorporates a principle of parliamentary supremacy: it is not even about democracy, well-liked though democracy is, so much as it is about having ultimate decision power loosely yoked to accountability. Article content
National Post
an hour ago
- National Post
Avi Benlolo: Carney's message to Hamas — terrorism pays
Article content And what of Israel — the only democracy in the Middle East, a nation that faces existential threats on multiple fronts, including from Iran and its terror proxies in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen? Instead of support, Israel receives lectures. Instead of security assistance, it gets condemnation. Article content While Israel intercepts rockets from Yemen and navigates daily threats to its very survival, Canada is choosing this moment — this volatile, dangerous moment — to side with the forces that seek Israel's destruction. Article content If we are to have a winning mindset as a nation, we need to show strength and independence. This isn't leadership. Canada is merely following the crowd again like a 'me too' country, afraid to stick to its longstanding position of a negotiated solution. Article content The irony is that Carney's announcement comes while countries like France and the U.K. engage in similar posturing — none of them willing or able to answer basic questions, such as: Where are the borders? Who will lead this Palestinian state? Will it be democratic? Will it end terrorism? Will it recognize Israel's right to exist? Article content These questions remain unanswered because the reality is as inconvenient as it is undeniable: after October 7, a Palestinian State is less viable. Article content Canada's announcement is also detriment of all Canadians at a time when we are trying to negotiate a trade deal with the United States. On Thursday, U.S. President Donald Trump posted to Truth Social: 'Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine. That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them. Oh' Canada!!!' Article content Why are we provoking America by announcing a declaration of a Palestinian state? How does this help Canadian workers and taxpayers? Article content If Canada were serious about peace, it would be investing in Israeli security and demanding transparency from the Palestinian Authority. It would be calling out the glorification of terrorism, not enabling it. It would be standing firm on the principle that peace cannot be achieved through bloodshed and coercion. Article content Instead, Carney has chosen appeasement over peace. He has adopted a position of political theatrics rather than moral clarity. I am terribly disappointed. History will remember who stood on the right side in the aftermath of October 7 — and who chose to reward those who lit the match. Article content Article content Article content
