Business
Timeline: Panama Canal Politics, Policy, and Tensions
By Greg Collard and James Rushmore
Hegseth’s visit to Panama includes strongly-worded speeches directed at China
While the trade war with China plays out, another war of political rhetoric is heating up again over the Panama Canal.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was in Panama this week, and pointed out America’s military presence and joint training exercises with Panamanians. Though he said the U.S. doesn’t seek war and that “war with China is certainly not inevitable,” he had a strong military message for the CCP:
Racket News is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Our relationship is growing in part to meet communist China’s rising challenge. China-based companies continue to control critical infrastructure in the canal area that gives China the potential to conduct surveillance activities across Panama. This makes Panama and the United States less secure, less prosperous, and less sovereign.
He said “China will not weaponize this canal,” and it will stay that way “through the deterrent power of the strongest, most effective, and most lethal fighting force in the world.”
Hegseth followed up Wednesday with a similar message to the Central American Security Conference.
The era of capitulating to coercion by the communist Chinese is over. They’re growing an adversarial control of strategic land and critical infrastructure in this hemisphere cannot and will not stand. To accomplish this, our countries cannot face these shared threats alone. We have to face them together. America will confront, will deter, and if necessary defeat these threats alongside all of you, our close and valued partners. Our mission is simple: achieve peace through strength through an America first approach. We’re doing this by restoring the warrior ethos, rebuilding our military and reestablishing deterrence.
Obviously, that didn’t go over well with China. Its embassy in Panama accuses the U.S. of hypocrisy as it “repeats ad nauseam the ‘Chinese interference and influence.’” It noted the U.S. invaded Panama in 1989 and asked: “Who represents the real threat to the Channel? People will make their own judgment.”
(In making that judgment, a reminder that the U.S. still controlled the Panama Canal in 1989, and Panama was run by dictator Manuel Noriega who had been indicted in the U.S. on drug crimes. He was also a former CIA informant, and American officials knew about his crimes — which included helping Pablo Escobar — for years before doing anything about it).
China’s influence over the Canal has grown since 2017, when Panama severed ties with Taiwan and established diplomatic relations with China. A Chinese company controls the largest port on the Atlantic side of the Canal, and a Hong Kong company, CK Hutchinson, controls ports on both ends of the Canal. Last month, BlackRock, an American investment firm, reached a deal to buy CK Hutchinson’s ports, but that deal could be in jeopardy of falling through. Chinese firms are also building a bridge across the Canal.
President Trump has said the U.S. should have never given up the canal to Panama, which occurred on Dec. 31, 1999, as agreed to in treaties that President Carter signed in 1977 and won Senate approval the following year.
While critics place a lot of blame on Carter, Presidents Nixon and Ford started the negotiations. There was bipartisan support to reach a deal (there was even a tentative deal in place in 1967, but a coup in Panama ended those negotiations) because there were tensions and sometimes violence between locals and Americans. The audio below is from a 1976 NBC story that describes life inside the barbed wire fence that surrounded the Canal Zone: “Its 40,000 American residents, both military and civilian, enjoy a suburban lifestyle.” Panamanians on the other side of the fence were resentful.
 Listen now · 6:22 |
Ronald Reagan changed the political debate over the Canal during his primary challenge to Ford in 1976. Opposition to any deal with Panama became the focus of his campaign. Reagan says in the ad below: “We bought it, we paid for it, and General Torrijos (Panama’s dictator) should be told we’re going to keep it.”
The message was effective. Reagan won 24 states, and Ford didn’t secure the GOP nomination until the Republican National Convention.
Today’s debate over the Panama Canal
The Panama Canal was not a campaign issue in 2024. Trump first complained about passage rates charged to the Navy and U.S. shipping companies in two December 21 social media posts. Trump wrote that if the situation does not improve, “we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, and without question. To the Officials of Panama, please be guided accordingly!”
He repeated those criticisms and threats in a speech the following day:
It was not given for the benefit of others by a token of cooperation, but it was given to Panama and to the people of Panama, but it has provisions. You gotta treat us fairly, and they haven’t treated us fairly. If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we demand that the Panama Canal be returned to the United States of America in full, quickly and without question.
Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called that “preposterous.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also dismissed the idea of regaining control of the Panama Canal.
But Democratic Congressman Jared Moskowitz said Trump has a point. He dismissed the idea of taking the Canal by force, but said “the United States reasserting its history in the Panama Canal is actually a good, important, strategic issue.”
At a hearing in January, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz voiced concern about the bridge that Chinese firms are building across the Canal.
The partially-completed bridge gives China the ability to block the Canal without warning, and the ports give China ready observation posts to time that action. This situation poses acute risks to U.S. national security.
A witness at that hearing, George Mason international law professor Eugene Kontorovich, testified that the presence of a Chinese company essentially means the Chinese military has a presence in the Canal.
In a communist regime, distinctions between private and government-owned firms are not as absolute or clear-cut as in a Western liberal society. This is particularly the case for the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which has an official doctrine known as “Military-Civilian Fusion,” a top-level strategy of the CCP Central Committee since 2019.
Here’s a timeline of key events in the history of the Panama Canal leading up to this week’s speeches from Hegseth.
January 22, 1903
The U.S. and Colombia, which controlled what is now Panama, agree to a treaty that gives the U.S. rights to the land to build the Canal in return for $10 million and $250,000 annually. However, Colombia’s congress rejects the deal.
November 3, 1903
With the backing of the U.S., Panama declares its independence from Colombia.
November 18, 1903
The U.S. and Panama sign the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, which establishes the Panama Canal Zone and “grants to the United States all the rights, power and authority within the zone.” The treaty has the same financial terms that Colombia’s Congress rejected. It’s ratified by the Senate and approved by President Theodore Roosevelt in February 1904.
August 15, 1914
The Panama Canal opens to shipping.
January 9, 1964
Panamanian rioters invade the Canal Zone and attempt to substitute the U.S. flag with a Panamanian one. The riots last three days, killing 22 Panamanians and four U.S. troops.
September 7, 1977
President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian dictator Omar Torrijos sign the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. Panama will take control of the Canal on Dec. 31, 1999. President Carter says:
This agreement thus forms a new partnership to ensure that this vital waterway, so important to all of us, will continue to be well-operated, safe, and open to shipping by all nations now and in the future. Under these accords, Panama will play an increasingly important role in the operation and defense of the Canal during the next 23 years, and after that, the United States will still be able to counter any threat to the Canal’s neutrality and openness for use.
Panama gains control of the Canal. Army Secretary Louis Caldera, the head of the U.S. delegation at the handover ceremony, says:
The United States could not aspire to be a good neighbor to Latin America and continue occupying and dividing the territory of a country considered a friend.
December 21, 2024
On Truth Social, President-elect Trump slams Panama for charging the United States “exorbitant prices and rates of passage” to use the Canal. He claims that China is influencing the canal’s management, before adding, “This complete ‘rip-off’ of our Country will immediately stop.”
In a follow-up post, Trump adds:
 |
December 22, 2024
While delivering a speech in Phoenix, Trump asks, “Has anyone ever heard of the Panama Canal? Because we’re being ripped off at the Panama Canal like we’re being ripped off everywhere else.”
When an audience member suggests taking back the Canal, Trump responds, “That’s a good idea.”
Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino responds to Trump in a video he posts on X:
Mulino also issues a written statement, citing the Torrijos-Carter Treaties: “Every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjacent area belong to PANAMA, and will continue to be. The sovereignty and independence of our country are not negotiable.”
He adds that passage rates are determined by “market conditions, international competition, operating costs and the maintenance and modernization needs of the interoceanic waterway,” and insists upon the Canal’s “permanent neutrality” and “open and safe operation for all nations.” He also rejects the notion that China wields any special influence over the Canal: “The Canal has no direct or indirect control from China, nor the European Union, nor the United States or any other power.”
Trump’s response:
 |
Trump also shares an AI-generated image with the following caption:
 |
December 23, 2024
Panamanian protesters gather outside the U.S. embassy to protest Trump.
Among the chants: “Get out invading gringo” and “Trump, animal, leave the Canal alone.”
They burn an American flag and set fire to an image of Trump.
“Donald Trump and his imperial delusion cannot claim even a single centimeter of land in Panama,” says one protester.
December 25, 2024
Trump posts the following Christmas message:
 |
Minutes later, he announces that Miami-Dade County Commissioner Kevin Marino Cabrera will serve as the next U.S. ambassador to Panama, “a Country that is ripping us off on the Panama Canal, far beyond their wildest dreams.”
December 26, 2024
Panamian President Murino holds a press conference to send a message to Trump that the Canal is not for sale.
The Canal is Panamanian and belongs to Panamanians. There’s no possibility of opening any kind of conversation around this reality, which has cost the country blood, sweat and tears.
He also denies Trump’s claim that the Chinese military has any presence in the Canal, saying, “There are no Chinese soldiers in the Canal, for the love of God.”
January 7, 2025
During a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, Trump refuses to rule out using military force to acquire the Panama Canal. He claims that it was “built for our military” and “is vital to our country.” He once again argues that the Canal is “being operated by China.”
January 9, 2025
Republican Congressman Dusty Johnson of South Dakota introduces the Panama Canal Repurchase Act of 2025, which authorizes the President and the Secretary of State to “initiate and conduct negotiations with appropriate counterparts of the Government of the Republic of Panama to reacquire the Panama Canal.”
Panama Canal Administrator Ricaurte Vásquez tells the Associated Press that the Canal cannot charge lower rates to U.S. ships. He speaks of his desire to “maintain the established rules,” insists that the Canal is a neutral economic zone, and says that the Chinese companies operating in its ports have no special influence over how the Canal is run.
January 20, 2025
During his inauguration address, President Trump describes how “American ships [that use the Panama Canal] are being severely overcharged and not treated fairly in any way, shape, or form.” He repeats his assertion that China controls the Canal and closes with the following: “We gave it to Panama, and we’re taking it back.”
Trump’s comments prompt another statement from Mulino in which he says, “The Canal was not a concession from anyone.”
Panama also sends the statement to the U.N. Security Council.
February 2, 2025
Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrives in Panama City to meet with Mulino.
Mulino attempts to assuage Rubio’s concerns about Chinese influence by announcing that Panama would allow its membership in China’s Belt and Road Initiative to expire. He also vows to allow more U.S. investments in Panama.
Later that day, Trump reiterates his interest in obtaining the Canal. He tells reporters that “something very powerful is going to happen” if Panama does not cede control over the waterway.
Secretary of State Rubio is in Panama right now, and we’re talking about the Panama Canal. What they’ve done is terrible. They violated the agreement. They’re not allowed to violate the agreement.
China is running the Panama Canal. That was not given to China; that was given to Panama, foolishly. But they violated the agreement, and we’re going to take it back, or something very powerful is going to happen.
March 4, 2025
A consortium led by BlackRock announces that it will purchase CK Hutchison’s holdings in the Panama Ports Company, which owns and operates two ports on each side of the canal. CK Hutchison is owned by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, and it reportedly felt “political pressure to exit the ports business.” The deal is worth over $19 billion.
Trump references the deal during his address to the joint session of Congress that evening (1:19:50 of the video below).
March 5, 2025
In an X post, Mulino denies Trump’s implication that the BlackRock deal lays the groundwork for a U.S. takeover of the Canal. He accuses Trump of lying.
 |
March 13, 2025
NBC News reports that the Trump administration plans to bolster the U.S. military presence in Panama. Military officials tell NBC that, while the goal is to eventually reclaim control over the Canal, a U.S. invasion remains unlikely.
March 20, 2025
The Chinese government threatens to block CK Hutchison from selling its controlling interest in the two Panama Canal ports to BlackRock.
April 7, 2025
A Panamanian government investigation finds that CK Hutchison owes the country’s government over $300 million in fees because it did not properly renew its contract to operate its two ports along the Canal. This development has the potential to delay or even jeopardize the company’s deal with BlackRock.
Later that night, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth arrives in Panama. He will speak at the reopening of an American port and address the Central American Security Conference. He is the first secretary of defense to visit Panama in two decades.
April 8, 2025
 |
Hegseth meets with Mulino and Panama Canal Authority Administrator Ricaurte Vazquez.
They release a joint statement that says they agree to “strengthen bilateral Canal security cooperation,” guarantee “the expedited transit of warships and auxiliary vessels of the Republic of Panama and the United States, improve bilateral cyber cooperation,” and allocate Army Corps of Engineers resources towards ensuring the Canal’s sustainability. They also announce that they will move toward adopting a new mechanism for U.S. payment of Canal tolls and charges. The Defense Secretary praises Mulino for withdrawing Panama from the Belt and Road Initiative.
Panama’s version of their joint statement includes an additional detail: It says that Hegseth “recognized Panama’s leadership and inalienable sovereignty over the Panama Canal and its adjacent areas.”
Racket News is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This article supplied by Troy Media.
A fourth Liberal term means higher carbon taxes and trade risks. Could Canada’s farmers and food security be on the line?
The Liberal Party, now led by Mark Carney, has secured a fourth consecutive term, albeit once again with a minority mandate. This time, however, the Liberals have a stronger hand, as they can rely not only on the NDP but also the Bloc Québécois to maintain power.
This broader base of parliamentary support could provide much-needed political stability at a crucial time, particularly as Canada prepares for a new round of trade negotiations with the United States and Mexico.
For the agri-food sector, the implications are significant. From carbon taxes to trade rules, federal decisions play a decisive role in shaping the costs and risks Canadian farmers face.
First and foremost, carbon pricing will remain a central issue. Carney has made it clear that the industrial carbon tax will stay—a policy that continues to erode the competitiveness of Canada’s agri-food sector, where fuel, fertilizer and transportation costs are especially sensitive to carbon pricing. The tax, currently set at $95 per metric tonne, is scheduled to climb to $170 by 2030.
While consumers may not see this tax directly, businesses certainly do. More concerning is the Liberals’ intention to introduce a border carbon adjustment for imports from countries without equivalent carbon pricing regimes. While this could theoretically protect Canadian industry, it also risks making food even more expensive for Canadian consumers, particularly if the U.S., our largest trading partner, remains uninterested in adopting similar carbon measures. Acting alone risks undermining both our food security and our global competitiveness.
Another looming issue is supply management. Although all parties pledged during the campaign not to alter Canada’s system for dairy, poultry and eggs, this framework—built on quotas and high import tariffs—is increasingly outdated. It is almost certain to come under pressure during trade negotiations. The American dairy lobby, in particular, will continue to demand greater access to Canadian markets. The Liberals have a chance to chart a more forward-looking path. Modernizing supply management could lead to a more competitive, resilient industry while providing consumers with greater choice and better prices.
The previous Parliament’s passage of Bill C-282, which sought to shield supply managed sectors from all future trade negotiations, was a deeply flawed move.
Fortunately, the new parliamentary makeup should make it far less likely that such protectionist legislation will survive. A more pragmatic approach to trade policy appears possible.
On the domestic front, there are reasons for cautious optimism. The Liberals have promised to eliminate remaining federal barriers to interprovincial trade and to improve labour mobility, longstanding obstacles to the efficient movement of agri-food products across Canada. For example, differing provincial rules often prevent products like cheese, meat or wine from being sold freely across provinces, frustrating farmers and limiting consumer choice. Momentum was building before the election, and it must continue if we are serious about building a stronger domestic food economy.
Infrastructure investment is another bright spot. The Liberals pledged more than $5 billion through a Trade Diversification Corridor Fund to upgrade Canada’s severely undercapitalized export infrastructure. Strategic investment in trade gateways is overdue and critical for agri-food exporters looking to reduce reliance on the United States and expand into global markets.
Finally, the Liberal platform was alone in explicitly committing to support food processing in Canada, a crucial pillar of domestic food security. An increased focus on manufacturing will not only create jobs but also reduce reliance on imported food products, making Canada more resilient in the face of global disruptions.
Farmers have long felt sidelined by urban-centric Liberal governments. The past four years were marked by regulatory and trade clashes that deepened that divide. The hope now is that with greater political stability and a clearer focus on competitiveness, the next four years will bring a more constructive relationship between Ottawa and Canada’s agri-food sector.
If the Liberals are serious about food security and economic growth, now is the time to reset the relationship with Canada’s farmers, not ignore them yet again.
Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
Business
Trump’s bizarre 51st state comments and implied support for Carney were simply a ploy to blow up trilateral trade pact
From LifeSiteNews
Trump’s position on the Canadian election outcome had nothing to do with geopolitical friendships and everything to do with America First economics.
Note from LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac: This article, disturbing as it is, appears to explain Trump’s bizarre threats to Canada and irrational support for Carney. We present it as a possible explanation for why Trump’s interference in the Canadian election seems to have played a large role in the Liberals’ exploitation of the Trump threat and their ultimate, unexpected success.
To understand President Trump’s position on Canada, you have to go back to the 2016 election and President Trump’s position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiation. If you did not follow the subsequent USMCA process, this might be the ah-ha moment you need to understand Trump’s strategy.
During the 2016 election President Trump repeatedly said he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. Both Canada and Mexico were reluctant to open the trade agreement to revision, but ultimately President Trump had the authority and support from an election victory to do exactly that.
In order to understand the issue, you must remember President Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer each agreed that NAFTA was fraught with problems and was best addressed by scrapping it and creating two separate bilateral trade agreements. One between the U.S. and Mexico, and one between the U.S. and Canada.
In the decades that preceded the 2017 push to redo the trade pact, Canada had restructured their economy to: (1) align with progressive climate change; and (2) take advantage of the NAFTA loophole. The Canadian government did not want to reengage in a new trade agreement.
Canada has deindustrialized much of their manufacturing base to support the “environmental” aspirations of their progressive politicians. Instead, Canada became an importer of component goods where companies then assembled those imports into finished products to enter the U.S. market without tariffs. Working with Chinese manufacturing companies, Canada exploited the NAFTA loophole.
Justin Trudeau was strongly against renegotiating NAFTA, and stated he and Chrystia Freeland would not support reopening the trade agreement. President Trump didn’t care about the position of Canada and was going forward. Trudeau said he would not support it. Trump focused on the first bilateral trade agreement with Mexico.
When the U.S. and Mexico had agreed to terms of the new trade deal and 80 percent of the agreement was finished, representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce informed Trudeau that his position was weak and if the U.S. and Mexico inked their deal, Canada would be shut out.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was upset because they were kept out of all the details of the agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. In actuality, the U.S. CoC was effectively blocked from any participation.
When they went to talk to the Canadians the CoC was warning them about what was likely to happen. NAFTA would end, the U.S. and Mexico would have a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA), and then Trump was likely to turn to Trudeau and say NAFTA is dead, now we need to negotiate a separate deal for U.S.-Canada.
Trudeau was told a direct bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada was the worst possible scenario for the Canadian government. Canada would lose access to the NAFTA loophole and Canada’s entire economy was no longer in a position to negotiate against the size of the U.S. Trump would win every demand.
Following the warning, Trudeau went to visit Nancy Pelosi to find out if Congress was likely to ratify a new bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. Pelosi warned Trudeau there was enough political support for the NAFTA elimination from both parties. Yes, the bilateral trade agreement was likely to find support.
Realizing what was about to happen, Prime Minister Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland quickly changed approach and began to request discussions and meetings with USTR Robert Lighthizer. Keep in mind more than 80 to 90 percent of the agreement was already done by the U.S. and Mexico teams. Both President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and President Trump were now openly talking about when it would be finalized and signed.
Nancy Pelosi stepped in to help Canada get back into the agreement by leveraging her Democrats. Trump agreed to let Canada engage, and Lighthizer agreed to hold discussions with Chrystia Freeland on a tri-lateral trade agreement that ultimately became the USMCA.
The key points to remember are: (1) Trump, Ross, and Lighthizer would prefer two separate bilateral trade agreements because the U.S. import/export dynamic was entirely different between Mexico and Canada. And because of the loophole issue, (2) a five-year review was put into the finished USMCA trade agreement. The USMCA was signed on November 30, 2018, and came into effect on July 1, 2020.
TIMELINE: The USMCA is now up for review (2025) and renegotiation in 2026!
This timeline is the key to understanding where President Donald Trump stands today. The review and renegotiation is his goal.
President Trump said openly he was going to renegotiate the USMCA, leveraging border security (Mexico) and reciprocity (Canada) within it.
Following the 2024 presidential election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to Mar-a-Lago and said if President Trump was to make the Canadian government face reciprocal tariffs, open the USMCA trade agreements to force reciprocity, and/or balance economic relations on non-tariff issues, then Canada would collapse upon itself economically and cease to exist.
In essence, Canada cannot survive as a free and independent north American nation, without receiving all the one-way benefits from the U.S. economy.
To wit, President Trump then said that if Canada cannot survive in a balanced rules environment, including putting together their own military and defenses (which it cannot), then Canada should become the 51st U.S. state. It was following this meeting that President Trump started emphasizing this point and shocking everyone in the process.
However, what everyone missed was the strategy Trump began outlining when contrast against the USMCA review and renegotiation window.
Again, Trump doesn’t like the tri-lateral trade agreement. President Trump would rather have two separate bilateral agreements; one for Mexico and one for Canada. Multilateral trade agreements are difficult to manage and police.
How was President Trump going to get Canada to (a) willingly exit the USMCA; and (b) enter a bilateral trade agreement?
The answer was through trade and tariff provocations, while simultaneously hitting Canada with the shock and awe aspect of the 51st state.
The Canadian government and the Canadian people fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Trump’s position on the Canadian election outcome had nothing to do with geopolitical friendships and everything to do with America First economics. When asked about the election in Canada, President Trump said, “I don’t care. I think it’s easier to deal, actually, with a liberal and maybe they’re going to win, but I don’t really care.”
By voting emotionally, the Canadian electorate have fallen into President Trump’s USMCA exit trap. Prime Minister Mark Carney will make the exit much easier. Carney now becomes the target of increased punitive coercion until such a time as the USMCA review is begun, and Canada is forced to a position of renegotiation.
Trump never wanted Canada as a 51st state.
Trump always wanted a U.S.-Canada bilateral trade agreement.
Mark Carney said the era of U.S.-Canadian economic ties “are officially declared severed.”
Canada has willingly exited the USMCA trade agreement at the perfect time for President Trump.
CBC retracts false claims about residential schools after accusing Rebel News of ‘misinformation’
Mark Carney Wants You to Forget He Clearly Opposes the Development and Export of Canada’s Natural Resources
Net zero’s cost-benefit ratio is CRAZY high
Carney’s Hidden Climate Finance Agenda
-
espionage1 day agoLongtime Liberal MP Warns of Existential Threat to Canada, Suggests Trump’s ’51st State’ Jibes Boosted Carney
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoNDP Floor Crossers May Give Carney A Majority
-
Alberta2 days agoPremier Danielle Smith hints Alberta may begin ‘path’ toward greater autonomy after Mark Carney’s win
-
COVID-192 days agoCanada’s health department warns COVID vaccine injury payouts to exceed $75 million budget
-
Business1 day agoLosses Could Reach Nearly One Billion: When Genius Failed…..Again
-
Bjorn Lomborg1 day agoHow Canada Can Respond to Climate Change Smartly
-
Alberta1 day agoPreston Manning: Canada is in a unity crisis
-
Business1 day agoScott Bessent says U.S., Ukraine “ready to sign” rare earths deal