Should Canada's participation in ‘Golden Dome' be part of negotiations?
Radio-Canada and CBC News have learned that Ottawa and Washington are exchanging a document outlining details of a potential deal and a source says one inclusion is a willingness from Canada to participate in U.S. President Donald Trump's 'Golden Dome' missile defence system. The Power Panel weighs in.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
an hour ago
- Toronto Sun
Trump says he will move aggressively to undo nationwide blocks on his agenda
Published Jun 28, 2025 • 5 minute read President Donald Trump exits the Oval Office for an event in the Rose Garden of the White House. MUST CREDIT: Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post Photo by Demetrius Freeman / The Washington Post An emboldened Trump administration plans to aggressively challenge blocks on the president's top priorities, a White House official said, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. 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 Don't have an account? Create Account Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president's agenda 'as soon as possible,' said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Priorities for the administration include injunctions related to the Education Department and the U.S. DOGE Service, as well as an order halting the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the official said. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' President Donald Trump said Friday at a news conference in which he thanked by name members of the conservative high court majority he helped build. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Trump on Friday cast the narrowing of judicial power as a consequential, needed correction in his battle with a court system that has restrained his authority. Scholars and plaintiffs in the lawsuits over Trump's orders agreed that the high court ruling could profoundly reshape legal battles over executive power that have defined Trump's second term – even as other legal experts said the effects would be more muted. Some predicted it would embolden Trump to push his expansive view of presidential power. 'The Supreme Court has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch,' Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, who has studied nationwide injunctions, said in a statement. 'Since the Obama administration, almost every major presidential initiative has been frozen by federal district courts issuing 'universal injunctions.'' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Nationwide injunctions put a freeze on an action until a court can make a decision on its legality. They have became a go-to tool for critics of presidential actions in recent times, sometimes delaying for years the implementation of an executive order the court ultimately approves. Experts said the Supreme Court's ruling could make it more difficult and cumbersome to challenge executive actions. It could result in courts issuing a patchwork of rulings on presidential orders in different parts of the country. In the short term, the ruling is a setback for liberals who have gone to court to thwart Trump. But the decision could also ultimately constrain conservatives seeking broad rulings to rein in a future Democratic president. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Trump undertook a flurry of executive actions in the opening month of his term that ranged from dismantling government agencies to seeking the end of birthright citizenship. There have been more than 300 lawsuits seeking to block his executive actions. Federal district judges have issued roughly 50 rulings to date, temporarily holding up the administration's moves to cut foreign aid, conduct mass layoffs and fire probationary employees, terminate legal representation for young migrants, ban birthright citizenship, and more nationwide. Some of those rulings have been stayed by higher courts. The Supreme Court found Friday that federal district courts must limit their injunctions to the parties bringing the case, which could be individuals, organizations or states. They had previously been able to issue injunctions that applied to people not directly involved in cases. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The ruling came as part of a case challenging Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that executive order. The justices left it to lower courts to determine whether a nationwide injunction might be a proper form of relief for states in some cases, like the ban on birthright citizenship, where the harm could be widespread. The court also did not forestall plaintiffs from seeking nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits. Smita Ghosh, a senior appellate counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive public interest law firm, said the ruling could be a blow to plaintiffs seeking to stymie Trump's executive orders. The CAC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the birthright citizenship ban. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'This approach will make it more difficult and more time-consuming to challenge unconstitutional executive practices, limiting courts' abilities to constrain unlawful presidential action at a time when many believe that they need it most,' Ghosh said. Many groups will pivot to filing class-action lawsuits to sidestep the ruling, she predicted, as some plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship lawsuit sought to do Friday. Such lawsuits allow individuals or groups to sue on behalf of a larger class of individuals who have suffered a similar harm from a government policy. It's likely courts will see more and more class- or mass-action lawsuits from cities, counties and states that realize they can no longer rely on litigation brought by others to advocate for their interests, said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer for the Public Rights Project, which is challenging several Trump policies. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'I think this decision will be perceived by this administration as a green light to more aggressively pursue its agenda, be bolder when it comes to compliance with injunction and its willingness to test the limits of the judiciary,' Miller said. Not everyone expected the ruling to have broad impacts. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which has filed numerous challenges against Trump's agenda, called it a 'limited ruling' and said the court left open a number of routes for challenges against executive actions that could result in broad blocks on Trump's policies. Ed Whelan, a conservative attorney, was likewise skeptical. He wrote in a newsletter that 'the ruling is probably going to accomplish much less than many people celebrating it realize,' in part because plaintiffs would instead pursue more class-action lawsuits that would ultimately produce similar results as nationwide injunctions. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The administration on Friday trumpeted the decision at the White House as a victory in its broader fight against the judiciary. Officials frequently deride judges who rule against the administration as activists and obstructionists. Dozens of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have temporarily paused many of Trump's efforts, and data shows threats against the judiciary have risen since he took office. 'Americans are getting what they voted for, no longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said, standing beside Trump at the news conference. She added, 'These lawless injunctions … turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about the blocks, said Jesse Panuccio, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and a Justice Department official in the first Trump administration. 'I think the ruling is seismic for how the federal district courts have been doing business in the last 20 years or so because the universal injunction has become a fairly standard and – in my view – unlawful remedy in cases,' Panuccio said. NHL Columnists Columnists Toronto Raptors Toronto Maple Leafs
CTV News
2 hours ago
- CTV News
Should Canada scrap digital service tax amid U.S. negotiation break down?
Should Canada scrap digital service tax amid U.S. negotiation break down? Former New Brunswick premier Brian Gallant believes Prime Minister Carney has 'the right approach' so far in the stalled negotiations with the U.S.
CBC
3 hours ago
- CBC
Province's takeover of OCDSB, other school boards slammed as 'power grab'
Social Sharing When Education Minister Paul Calandra announced the province would be appointing supervisors to four Ontario school boards — including Ottawa's largest — on Friday, he said it was to ensure that "every decision made by the board prioritizes direct support for students in the classroom." But according to several critics in Ottawa, the appointments won't have that effect. The takeover came out of an investigation into several boards launched earlier in 2025 that projected a fifth straight year of financial deficits at the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB). The province has now appointed consultant Robert Plamondon to oversee the board. In a press conference, Calandra said supervisors like Plamondon will look closely at how the boards are run, find savings and make changes needed to restore responsible management. While an initial assessment of the OCDSB's finances predicted another deficit for 2025-26, trustees did approve $18.1 million in cuts earlier this month in order to balance their budget. "The fact that we have passed this balanced budget and the ministry is still trying to take us over, I don't know where they're expecting to find additional savings," said board trustee Lyra Evans. 'Primary problem' is funding In a press release announcing the takeover, the ministry said the four school boards had exhibited "mismanagement and poor decision-making." It said the OCDSB had "completely depleted its reserves, incurred an accumulated deficit, and plans to use unsustainable proceeds from asset sales to balance its books." Calandra also spoke Friday about frustrated parents and noted the recent resignation of two OCDSB trustees. He also said the budgets for the next school year had yet to be reviewed by staff. According to Evans, the school board's "primary problem" is the funding it gets from the province. "There are huge deltas in things that the ministry has not adequately funded us for," she said, listing a gap between government funding and OCDSB spending on special education and on statutory entitlements like employment insurance and the Canadian Pension Plan. While the province continues to boast its "record funding" for education, Ottawa West-Nepean MPP Chandra Pasma says it's actually to blame for any deficits. One recent report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives pegged the provincial funding shortfall to the OCDSB over the last seven years at $338.4 million, while noting its per-student funding has dropped by $560 from the 2018-19 school year and the 2025-26 school year. "If funding had just kept pace since 2018, the Toronto District School Board, Toronto Catholic District School Board and Ottawa-Carleton District School Board would not have [been facing] a deficit this year," said Pasma, the Ontario NDP's education critic. Pasma acknowledged previous instances of financial mismanagement from Ontario school boards, but said there are other ways to deal with misuse of funds that don't amount to an "unmitigated power grab." Need for 'clear, concise rules' on spending Calandra said the appointments were also motivated by how the ministry has "decentralized" decision-making, giving trustees more leeway with budgeting and curriculum choices. "That is where the Ministry of Education has to come back in, to refocus centralized decision making and provide clear, concise rules on how money is to be spent, on what trustees are supposed to be doing, on what boards of education are supposed to be doing," he said. Evans disagreed, saying a supervisor may not understand the needs of different communities. "We have locally elected trustees because it allows us to advocate for our communities and to bring that voice to the district. If we don't have that local voice at the table, then what works in Toronto might not work here," she said. "It's very easy to move in and break things when you have no understanding of why things are the way they are." Plamondon, an author and academic who previously as the interim chair of the National Capital Commission, started in his role as supervisor on Friday.
