No return to council for Brian Masse
The former Member of Parliament and city councillor, says he is not interested in the vacant Ward 2 seat.
Masse held that very seat before becoming the MP in Windsor West.
He went on to represent the riding for 23 years before being defeated in the most recent federal election by Harb Gill.
Masse said Costante served the community very well.
Costante announced his resignation for the ward on Monday, after being named the new CEO of the Windsor-Essex Community Housing Corporation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
6 minutes ago
- CTV News
New U.S. visa integrity fee to affect some travellers including from Canada
A Duty Free sign is shown at the Canada-U.S. border crossing in Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Que., on April 10, 2025. (Graham Hughes / The Canadian Press) Some people travelling to the United States from countries including Canada will have to pay a 'visa integrity fee' of US$250, but an immigration lawyer says most Canadian citizens won't be affected. 'This one won't hit Canadian citizens too hard, and they can continue to enter the United States as usual,' Rosanna Berardi, managing partner of Berardi Immigration Law, in Buffalo, N.Y., said in a video interview with on Monday, noting Canadian citizens generally just need their passport to enter the U.S. 'Ninety-nine per cent of Canadian citizens are visa exempt. ... Those individuals will not have to pay the new visa integrity fee, unless they are investors or fiancés of U.S. citizens.' The visa integrity fee will apply to Canadian permanent residents entering the U.S. both by land and air who are not American citizens or who were not born from Visa Waiver Program countries, Berardi added. People who have a valid Electronic System for Travel Authorization through the Visa Waiver Program can stay in the United States for tourism or business for up to 90 days without a visa, according to the U.S. government's website. The fee is part of the Trump administration's spending legislation called the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' which became law on July 4. The U.S. government didn't state when the fee would go into effect. The US$250 fee would be for the current federal fiscal year, the act states. It may be adjusted annually for inflation and won't be waived or reduced, according to the act. Visitors to the U.S. may be reimbursed for the fee after their non-immigrant visa expires under certain conditions, the act states. For instance, people may get their money back if they followed all conditions under the visa, such as not accepting unauthorized employment. When asked for more details about the new fee on Monday, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security wrote in an email: 'President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill provides the necessary policies and resources to restore integrity in our nation's immigration system. The visa integrity fee requires cross-agency coordination before implementation.' A U.S. State Department spokesperson wrote in an email to on Monday that the fee is part of the Trump administration's efforts to help strengthen immigration enforcement, deter visa overstays and fund border security. 'We will provide more information regarding the implementation and impact of the law for the Department of State as soon as practicable,' a spokesperson wrote. 'All updates will be posted to our visa information page at Global Affairs Canada didn't immediately respond to request for comment and more information.
CTV News
6 minutes ago
- CTV News
Canada's premiers meeting in Ontario
Vancouver Watch Canada's premiers are meeting in Muskoka, Ontario, Monday to discuss protecting the economy and breaking down interprovincial trade barriers.
National Post
6 minutes ago
- National Post
Michael Higgins: Locking Tamara Lich up for 7 years would be shameful retribution
It is to be hoped that the judge in the case of Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, key organizers of the notorious Freedom Convoy, has more common sense and respect for justice than the prosecution which seems intent on nothing more than revenge and retribution. Article content Whatever one's view of the Freedom Convoy and its actions during a three-week period in early 2022, a prison sentence of seven years for Lich and eight years for Barber would throw the administration of justice into disrepute. Article content Article content Article content That the Crown is asking for these sentences is shameful and ignores some of the other issues in this country that is making Canadians doubt that the legal system is fair, balanced, impartial and beyond reproach. Article content Article content Most of the prosecution case has been demolished. Lich was facing six charges and Barber seven for a variety of accusations including mischief, intimidation, counselling others to break the law, obstructing police and counselling others to obstruct police. Article content At the end of a 45-day trial the organizers of the convoy were both found guilty of mischief and Barber was also found guilty of counselling others to disobey a judge's order to stop honking horns. Article content They were found not guilty of the majority of the charges and yet the Crown demands a penalty that is entirely unjustified. Article content This week they will be sentenced by Ontario Court Justice Heather Perkins-McVey but at the weekend Lich tweeted that the Crown was asking for seven years imprisonment for her and eight for Barber. Article content Article content Their fate will be decided three years and five months after they were first arrested. An old adage says justice delayed is justice denied. Article content Article content But it is interesting to note that in her April 3 judgement finding the pair guilty, the judge said she accepted that Lich and Barber came to Ottawa 'with the noblest of intentions to simply protest their wish for the government and Prime Minister (at the time) Trudeau to end COVID mandate.' Article content Further, 'The Crown agrees that the accused came to Ottawa to advance a noble cause and had the right to protest against COVID mandates, but argues they crossed the line with the means used to achieve their ends.' Article content The Freedom Convoy was certainly a nuisance. It caused inconvenience and hardship for citizens for some three weeks. The honking of horns was particularly annoying until stopped by a court order. Article content The judge said in her ruling, 'Persons testified that the noise from the truck horns made it difficult for downtown residents to sleep and focus on work. Others testified that the egress from their buildings was blocked or that because of the streets being blocked that it was difficult or impossible to get to work and appointments. Generally, the central core of the city came to a standstill. Article content 'The downtown residents who testified including persons and their families who lived in the downtown core, owners and employees of small businesses and other institutions such as churches suffered significant interferences in the use and enjoyment of their property and in their daily activities because of the protest.' Article content But the Freedom Convoy was not violent. Article content The line that Lich and Barber crossed is one written in sand, shifting, defined only after the fact by the courts and only after a contest between competing rights. Article content The judge said that there is a 'delicate balance between law enforcement concerns for public safety and order and individual rights and freedoms on the other.' Article content There was 'tension' between those rights, she said. Article content Judge Perkins-McVey quoted a judge in another case who said, 'in a free and democratic society such as Canada, we welcome and encourage people to hold demonstrations if such is necessary to exercise their right of freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and their right to freedom of association as guaranteed by section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Article content Article content 'However, society also expects demonstrators to exercise these rights to do so without violating the rights of others to move about freely or to engage in activities which they have a perfect legal right to do so.' Article content Here is the nub of the case. The judge had to balance the tension between Lich's and Barber's perfect right to protest with the rights of people to go about enjoying their daily lives. Article content 'At the heart of the competing interests in this case lies the question to what extent does the exercise of the right to protest protects those from criminal liability when the rights of other citizens to enjoy their property have been impacted by their actions. Even Charter-protected rights are not absolute,' said the judge. Article content The defence argued the pair were 'engaged in and encouraged a lawful and constitutionally protected peaceful protest.' Article content The judge has found them guilty, but clearly from her ruling there has been, and will be going forward, much more debate and cases involving protests and citizens' rights. Article content Article content Since October 7, 2023, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and other Canadian cities, have seen constant anti-Israel protests (along with demonstrations in support of the terror group Hamas) that have blocked streets, traffic, led to emergency vehicles being diverted, and caused much annoyance, nuisance, fear and alarm to citizens. Article content Yet they are continuing and more are planned. Article content Who decides that the rights of citizens have been impacted to such an extent that the protests are unlawful? The protesters won't do it. As is the case with protests, they push boundaries until they cross lines they don't see. Article content As for the citizens of Toronto, Montreal, et al, they aren't being listened to. Article content Regularly blocking intersections and causing distress to citizens in downtown Toronto for 21 months doesn't appear to be a crime. And yet honking horns and, yes, causing annoyance to the citizens of Ottawa for three weeks, is deemed worthy by the Crown of sending people to jail for seven and eight years. Article content
