Trump would need special permission to attend next year’s G7 in Canada
As a result of Donald Trump’s criminal convictions he would require special permission, if he becomes U.S. president, to enter Canada for next year’s G7 summit.
The precedent-smashing guilty verdict against a major-party U.S. presidential candidate has prompted confusion about the potential international ripple effect, given that Canada is among dozens of countries to refuse entry to felons.
Canadian officials have already begun discussing, among themselves, how they would navigate what could be a novel scenario as early as next summer.
A federal official laid out to CBC News the Canadian government’s understanding of how the rules would apply, if Trump were elected president, without his 34-count conviction being overturned on appeal.
The bottom line: It would likely fall upon Canada’s immigration minister to grant Trump a special status to make him legally admissible for entry.
Canadian politicians were emphatically not touching this issue on the record when asked about it Friday, the day after a jury found Trump guilty of falsifying records.
Liberal MP Anthony Housefather said he wouldn’t engage in speculation about whether Trump might become president, but he did express horror at the thought.
“I’ve said before that Donald Trump would be a disaster for the United States, a disaster for Canada and a disaster for the world if he came back into office,” the Montreal member of Parliament told reporters Friday.
We answer your questions about Donald Trump’s criminal convictions and what it means for his right to vote and travel, and whether he would retain Secret Service protection if he were imprisoned.
“And I hope perhaps the results of the trial in New York would give Americans considering supporting Mr. Trump some second thoughts.”
A federal cabinet member wouldn’t even go that far: Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault told reporters near Montreal that Canada will work with whoever wins, and he noted the countries successfully renegotiated the continental free-trade pact under Trump.
Now here’s how Trump might attend any political gathering in Canada — including the summit of G7 nations it’s hosting next summer.
Under Canada’s immigration law, felons may be criminally inadmissible for both minor and serious crimes.
A Canadian border guard would have some personal discretion to let them in. However, the Canadian official explained, this case-by-case approach is reserved for minor offences, and is usually refused.
There are also ways for felons to rehabilitate themselves over time.
But the simplest way to allow a high-profile convict into Canada, according to the Canadian official, is for the federal immigration minister to issue a temporary resident permit.
The official said this is the method used most often for foreign dignitaries or famous entertainers who have criminal convictions.
First up: A sentence, an appeal, an election
In the meantime, Trump will try untangling his problems on the home front. He announced Friday that he will appeal the ruling.
Some analysts say he has a strong chance of success. His case has triggered sharp divisions in the legal community, with some arguing that New York state’s law on falsifying business records was contorted, in his case, to apply it in novel ways.
But that appeals process could take years.
Until then, Trump has to hear his sentence. He’ll learn on July 11 whether he faces jail time, or lesser restrictions on his movement, or no penalty at all.
Alex Panetta, a Washington correspondent for CBC News, was in the New York courtroom on Thursday when the jury read out the verdict convicting former U.S. president Donald Trump of 34 charges. Here’s what he saw.
Veteran New York criminal lawyer Mark Cohen told CBC News the court could limit a convict’s travel, or even demand he surrender his passport, though that’s less likely in this case.
He then contemplated the mind-boggling scenario of a U.S. president being incapable of attending a G7 or NATO summit.
“Wouldn’t it be something to watch him participate on Zoom?” Cohen said. “Maybe a cat screen saver will pop up?”
And, of course, there’s that major upcoming event that will decide whether this scenario ever becomes a real-life concern for the Canadian government or a historical what-if.
Trump would first have to get elected president again on Nov. 5. A few months later, the winner of that election gets to fly north for the 2025 G7 summit — maybe.
It’s worth noting the last G7 in Canada also experienced Trump-related turbulence.
Trump withdrew from the summit communique, threatened new tariffs on Canada, and trash-talked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a tweet as he left the 2018 summit.
Published at Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:35:06 +0000
Vermont is going to make fossil fuel companies pay for climate change damage
As It Happens6:45Vermont is going to make fossil fuel companies pay for climate change damage
It’s high time the companies most responsible for climate change pay for the damage it causes, says environmental advocate Ben Edgerly Walsh.
Walsh is the climate and energy program director with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. The non-profit environmental and consumer advocacy group has been pushing for legislation to force fossil fuel companies to shoulder some of the costs dealing with climate change.
On Thursday, the group achieved its goal when Vermont became the first state to enact such a law.
“The reality is they are the ones responsible for the pollution that caused the climate crisis. They’ve made an enormous amount of money on the product that caused that pollution. And they very clearly knew what they were doing,” Walsh told As It Happens host Nil Köksal.
“We think it’s only fair that they pay their fair share of the costs.”
The American Petroleum Institute, the top U.S. lobbying group for the oil and gas industry, disagrees.
“This punitive new fee represents yet another step in a co-ordinated campaign to undermine America’s energy advantage and the economic and national security benefits it provides,” spokesperson Scott Lauermann said in a statement.
How did this come to be?
Vermont has a Democrat-controlled legislature, and a Republican governor who has repeatedly vetoed climate change related bills.
But this time, Gov. Phil Scott allowed the bill, known as the Climate Superfund Act, to become law without his signature.
In a letter to lawmakers, Scott acknowledged that fossil fuel companies are likely to fight the law in court, and he’s concerned his small state can’t afford to take on “Big Oil” by itself.
“I’m also fearful that if we fail in this legal challenge, it will set precedent and hamper other states’ ability to recover damages,” he wrote.
“Having said that, I understand the desire to seek funding to mitigate the effects of climate change that has hurt our state in so many ways.”
Walsh says he believes Scott — who intends to run for re-election — allowed the bill to pass because of public pressure after last summer’s summer’s devastating torrential rains.
July 2023 saw flooding in Vermont that destroyed homes and businesses and washed out roads, costing the state and municipal government hundreds of millions of dollars.
How does it work?
The new law will allow Vermont to charge companies for their share of emissions going back nearly three decades, then use that money to fund projects and infrastructure that helps Vermont adapt to climate change and better withstand extreme weather events in the future.
Vermont’s state treasurer, in consultation with the state’s Agency of Natural Resources, will provide a report by Jan. 15, 2026, on the total cost to Vermonters and the state from the emission of greenhouse gases from Jan. 1, 1995, to Dec. 31, 2024.
It will look at the effects on public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development and housing, then use federal data to determine the amount of covered greenhouse gas emissions attributed to a fossil fuel company.
Vermont is under a state of emergency after the U.S. state was pummelled by two-months’ worth of rain in just two days. The rain has let up for now but officials warn the flood risk is far from over with more rain in the forecast.
It’s an example of what’s known as a “polluter-pay” system, and it’s modelled after the Superfund, a U.S. federal program established in 1980 that forces companies to pay for the environmental clean-up hazardous waste sites.
“The idea that polluters should pay to clean up their pollution is not new,” Walsh said.
Several other states are eyeing similar laws, including Maryland, Massachusetts and New York.
“Their residents also deserve to be compensated for the costs that they are incurring,” Walsh said.
Oil industry pushes back
But lawmakers who support this bill are in for a fight.
API said it’s extremely concerned the legislation “retroactively imposes costs and liability on prior activities that were legal, violates equal protection and due process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society at large; and is pre-empted by federal law.”
Walsh said “society at large” is already paying its share, and will continue to do so.
“What we’re saying isn’t these companies should have to shoulder the entire burden. We’re saying they should have to pay their fair share,” he said.
“Vermont taxpayers will have to make investments in climate resilience in addition to any funds that come in from this law. And, unfortunately, Vermonters are going to continue to be harmed by the climate crisis despite this law’s passage.”
State Rep. Martin LaLonde, a Democrat and an attorney, also expects the law to face legal challenges from the industry, but he believes Vermont has a solid legal case.
“Most importantly, the stakes are too high — and the costs too steep for Vermonters — to release corporations that caused the mess from their obligation to help clean it up,” he said.
Published at Fri, 31 May 2024 21:55:18 +0000
