918kiss slot vip
No. 22 Illinois reaches 9 wins for first time in 17 years with 38-28 victory over Northwestern
Officers investigating Louise Haigh's "stolen" phone believed a photo she submitted of the handset had been taken after the alleged theft, Sky News has been told. Two sources said after looking at metadata attached to the photo - information that often details when photos were captured - officers believed it had been taken after the date at which Ms Haigh alleged the phone had been stolen. Sources close to Ms Haigh did not respond when approached about the allegation. The Sheffield MP on Friday after Sky News revealed she and was convicted in 2014 in relation to an allegedly stolen phone. The conviction is believed to relate to fraud. The now former transport secretary claims the incident was a "genuine mistake" from which she did not benefit. However, Sky News has spoken to three sources who say the stolen phone report was pursued by Ms Haigh for her own personal gain. Sky News had also spoken to one source who alleged that the handset was used to call Ms Haigh's mother soon after the reported theft, but had been unable to verify the allegation. On Thursday night, Ms Haigh said the incident arose after she was "mugged while on a night out" in 2013. She said she reported the incident to the police and gave officers a list of items she believed had been taken - including a work mobile phone. However, in her statement to Sky News, she said she discovered "some time later" that "the mobile in question had not been taken". In the interim she was issued with another work phone. When she turned on the original work device, it "triggered police attention and I was asked to come in for questioning", she said. "My solicitor advised me not to comment during that interview and I regret following that advice," she added. "Under the advice of my solicitor I pleaded guilty - despite the fact this was a genuine mistake from which I did not make any gain. "The magistrates accepted all of these arguments and gave me the lowest possible outcome (a discharge) available." It is understood Ms Haigh believes she disclosed the incident in full when she was appointed to the shadow cabinet in 2020. However, Downing Street said on Friday that Ms Haigh resigned after "new information" emerged, but declined to say officially if the prime minister knew about the conviction when he appointed his cabinet in July. On Friday, a source told Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby that the story that emerged on Thursday was "inconsistent" with what Sir Keir had been told when Ms Haigh was appointed to his shadow cabinet. It is understood the prime minister was "not able to square the circle" and as a result the cabinet minister was advised to resign. Friends of Ms Haigh insist she shared the "full facts" of the conviction and that Sir Keir "had expressed sympathy that police had taken the decision to prosecute her".Trudeau returns home after talks with Trump yield no tariff assurancesColby Rogers, Moussa Cisse lead Memphis to an 87-70 win over No. 16 Mississippi
Mereo BioPharma: Setrusumab Chugs Along With Possible Inflection PointsDiamond jubilee celebrations of National Bank of Pakistan 75 years of unwavering excellence
FRIDAY’S historic vote to legalise assisted dying should be followed up with major funding for hospices, according to former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey. The former Anglican leader hopes that end of life care will be strengthened and has warned against “dirty tricks” and any attempt to derail the legislation when it goes to the Lords. Lord Carey made headlines a decade ago when he when he abandoned his opposition to assisted dying, claiming the “old philosophical certainties have collapsed in the face of the reality of needless suffering”. He now hopes that the introduction of assisted dying for terminally ill people in their last six months of life will unlock a more caring society. The Bill cleared its first hurdle last week by 330 votes to 275 but this is just the start of its journey through the Commons and the Lords. Lord Carey cautioned against any attempt to kill it off in the Lords, saying: “People would be very disgusted if there are dirty tricks. I do know the House of Lords pretty well and my hope is that people would go into it into respecting that the Commons has spoken clearly.” He said a priority will be ensuring that strong safeguards are in place so “wicked people” cannot coerce vulnerable men and women into acting against their interests. Setting out his hopes for a strengthening of hospices and the palliative care movement, he said: “The Government must put significant amounts of money into this because we are an ageing population. Some of us may end up in these institutions and we want the best for ourselves as well as others.” A priority for many senior figures who are concerned about the consequences of changing the law is securing a commission on end of life care. Former Labour prime minister Gordon Brown – who opposes the legalisation of assisted dying – has called for a commission that would “devise a thought-through, fully funded, 10-year strategy for improved and comprehensive palliative care”. Opponents of the Bill plan to submit “dozens” of amendments highlighting what they say is a lack of safeguards and other flaws in the legislation. A source said: “There are MPs who voted for the Bill on second reading because they wanted the debate to continue, not because they have made a firm decision to support it. “There will be future votes including the third reading. The fight is far from over.” Another said: “A large number of MPs gave the Bill qualified support at second reading despite having significant misgivings with the Bill. When the major reworking of the Bill many of them are calling for is not possible we believe it’s highly likely they will withdraw their support at third reading. You only need 28 to change their vote and you have a different outcome. “The campaigners for the Bill made clear time and time again that voting for the Bill at second reading wasn’t giving it the green light but continuing the debate. We will take them at their word.” Labour MP and Mother of the House Diane Abbott told the BBC : “I am very worried that vulnerable people will get swept up in the assisted dying route, when actually what they really need is access to hospice care and proper end of life care.” Lord Carey told the Sunday Express that preventing coercion will be a “fundamental plank of the legislation”. He said fellow peers in the Lords must “go through the Bill painstakingly and get it right and then send it back to the Commons”. Praising the quality of Friday’s landmark debate, he said: “I thought it was a wonderful debate. It showed our Parliament at its best.”
The expanded Big Ten is poised to be a major player in this season's College Football Playoff. The 18-team conference had three of the top-four teams in the AP poll this week — No. 1 Oregon, No. 2 Ohio State and No. 4 Penn State. A one-loss Indiana team is ranked 10th but is still very much a contender to make the playoff, given how many Southeastern Conference teams have three defeats or more. Indiana's rise has been perhaps the Big Ten's biggest story this season. Much of the spotlight was on newcomers Oregon, Southern California, UCLA and Washington, but aside from the top-ranked Ducks, that foursome has struggled to impress. Meanwhile, the Hoosiers won their first 10 games under new coach Curt Cignetti before losing at Ohio State last weekend. Oregon beat Ohio State 32-31 back in October, and if the Buckeyes beat rival Michigan this weekend, they'll earn a rematch with the Ducks for the Big Ten title. And it's entirely possible another matchup between those two teams awaits in the CFP. Dillon Gabriel has quarterbacked Oregon to an unbeaten record, throwing for 3,066 yards and 22 touchdowns in 11 games. But don't overlook Iowa's Kaleb Johnson and his 21 rushing TDs, and quarterback Kurtis Rourke has been a big part of Indiana's improvement. Penn State's Abdul Carter has eight sacks and two forced fumbles and could be one of the top edge rushers drafted this year. Oregon (11-0, 8-0), Ohio State (10-1, 7-1), Penn State (10-1, 7-1), Indiana (10-1, 7-1), Illinois (8-3, 5-3), Iowa (7-4, 5-3), Michigan (6-5, 4-4), Minnesota (6-5, 4-4), Washington (6-5, 4-4), Southern California (6-5, 4-5), Nebraska (6-5, 3-5) and Rutgers (6-5, 3-5) have already reached the six-win mark for bowl eligibility. Michigan State (5-6, 3-5) and Wisconsin (5-6, 3-5) can join them. There may not be many firings in general at the top level of college football. The prospect of sharing revenue with athletes in the future might lead schools to be more judicious about shedding one coach and hiring a new one. Who should be most worried in the Big Ten? Well, Lincoln Riley is struggling to stay above .500 in his third season at USC. Purdue is 1-10, but coach Ryan Walters is only in his second season. Maryland's Mike Locksley has been there six years and his Terrapins are 4-7, but this was his first real step backward after guiding the team to three straight bowl wins. Cignetti has shown it is possible for a coaching change to push a previously moribund program to some impressive heights in a short amount of time — but the improvement has been more incremental at Michigan State following Jonathan Smith's arrival. Sherrone Moore wasn't a completely unknown commodity at Michigan after he won some massive games in place of a suspended Jim Harbaugh last year. But in his first season completely at the helm, the Wolverines have declined significantly following their national title a season ago. The Big Ten is home to one of the most dynamic freshmen in the country in Ohio State receiver Jeremiah Smith. He has 52 catches for 899 yards and nine touchdowns. Highly touted quarterback Dylan Raiola has teamed up with fellow freshman Jacory Barney (49 catches) to lead Nebraska to bowl eligibility. Ohio State is on track to land the Big Ten's top class, according to 247 Sports, but the big news recently was quarterback Bryce Underwood flipping from LSU to Michigan. If the Wolverines do in fact keep Underwood in his home state, that would be a big development for Moore. Be the first to know Get local news delivered to your inbox!With about two minutes remaining, the Houston Texans appeared set to tie the Tennessee Titans at 30. But kicker Ka'imi Fairbairn sent a 28-yard field goal try wide left — and crumpled to the ground in disbelief. That disbelief likely extended to the Titans' sideline, where it soon set in that Will Levis had outdueled 2023 Offensive Rookie of the Year C.J. Stroud , leading his team to a 32-27 upset win over the AFC South-leading Texans in Week 12. PFF's dedicated team of graders was hard at work, analyzing every player on every play in real time. The grades and data will be available after a thorough review tomorrow at 12 p.m. EST. In the meantime, we’ve gathered some high-level data and snap counts from the game to give you an early look. Our expert graders have also nominated the standout player of the game, highlighting exceptional performance on the field. Sign up for PFF+ for in-depth analysis, PFF grades, Premium Stats, fantasy football tools, betting dashboards and much more! HIGHEST-GRADED PLAYERS LB Kenneth Murray Jr. , Tennessee Titans (90.2) EDGE Will Anderson Jr. , Houston Texans (89.9) EDGE Derek Barnett , Houston Texans (82.7) Note: Follow along with PFF's in-game grading as our analysts evaluate every player on every play in real time! Grades will then be relocked 90 minutes after the final whistle as our first-run analysis is reviewed. Click here to see PFF's initial grades from this game! PLAYER OF THE GAME Kenneth Murray Jr. has been much maligned throughout his NFL career, and the former first-round pick is having another rough season in his first year with the Titans. This game, however, was perhaps the start of a turnaround. Murray picked off C.J. Stroud and allowed only one catch into his coverage — a facet he has often struggled in. He also didn't miss any tackles. If Murray's PFF overall grade holds after reviews, it will be a career-high mark for the fifth-year linebacker. ADVANCED BOX SCORE Read More PFF NFL News & Analysis Share SponsorAustralia news LIVE: Climate projections put Australia almost on target; Netanyahu backs ceasefire deal with Hezbollah
Authored by Justin Hart via 'Rational ground' substack, So here's the deal - remember when "experts" kept telling us what to do during COVID? Turns out they got pretty much everything wrong. Like, spectacularly wrong . We're talking 19 major things they completely screwed up, from how the virus spreads to whether masks actually work ( spoiler alert: those cloth masks were basically fashion accessories). Dr. Fauci is the patron saint of TERRIBLE COVID policies. He was wrong on SO MANY POINTS. It's time to set the record straight... Did he get anything right? Origin of the disease—wrong Transmission—wrong Asymptomatic spread—wrong PCR testing—wrong Fatality rate—wrong Lockdowns—wrong Community triggers—wrong Business closures—wrong School closures—wrong Quarantining the healthy—wrong Impact on youth—wrong Hospital overload—wrong Plexiglass barriers—wrong Social distancing—wrong Outdoor spread—wrong Masks—wrong Variant impact—wrong Natural immunity—wrong Vaccine efficacy—wrong Vaccine injury—wrong Last year the Norfolk Group just dropped a bomb of a document laying out all these failures. And it's not just Monday morning quarterbacking - they've got the receipts. Real studies showing how natural immunity was actually legit (while Fauci pretended it didn't exist), data proving schools could've stayed open (looking at you, Sweden), and evidence that maybe, just maybe, locking healthy people in their homes wasn't the brilliant strategy they claimed. Listen, I'm not here to say "I told you so" (okay, maybe a little), but we need to talk about this. Because if we don't learn from how badly our "experts" messed up, we're just asking for a repeat performance next time around. And honestly? I don't think any of us can handle another round of plexiglass theater and double masking. Let's break down exactly how they got it wrong, and more importantly, why they kept doubling down even when the evidence said otherwise. Buckle up - this is gonna be a wild ride through the greatest public health face-plant in modern history. These are the questions WE want answered! TRANSMISSION Why did officials insist on surface transmission protocols when evidence showed primarily respiratory spread? Why weren't hospitals evaluating transmission patterns early to inform policy? Why did the CDC not conduct studies on actual transmission patterns in schools and workplaces? Why was outdoor transmission overemphasized despite minimal evidence? Why weren't transmission studies prioritized to guide evidence-based policies? ASYMPTOMATIC SPREAD What evidence supported the claim that asymptomatic spread was a major driver? Why did health officials emphasize asymptomatic spread without solid data? Why were resources wasted testing asymptomatic people when they could have focused on symptomatic cases? How did the emphasis on asymptomatic spread affect public trust when evidence didn't support it? What data actually existed on true asymptomatic (vs presymptomatic) transmission rates? PCR TESTING Why did the CDC insist on developing its own test rather than using WHO's? Why weren't cycle threshold values standardized or reported? Why did labs use cycle thresholds up to 40 when this led to false positives? Why wasn't PCR testing prioritized for high-risk populations early on? How did high cycle thresholds affect case counts and policy decisions? FATALITY RATE Why were infection fatality rates not properly stratified by age from the beginning? Why were deaths "with COVID" vs "from COVID" not distinguished? How did inflated fatality rates affect public perception and policy? Why weren't accurate age-stratified fatality rates clearly communicated? How did misrepresenting fatality rates affect public trust? LOCKDOWNS Why were lockdowns implemented without cost-benefit analysis? Why were lockdown harms (mental health, delayed medical care, etc.) ignored? What evidence supported the effectiveness of lockdowns? Why weren't less restrictive focused protection measures tried first? How many excess deaths were caused by lockdown policies? Why weren't regional/seasonal factors considered in lockdown decisions? COMMUNITY TRIGGERS Why were arbitrary case numbers used to trigger restrictions? Why weren't hospital capacity metrics prioritized over case counts? How were community trigger thresholds determined? Why weren't triggers adjusted based on actual risk levels? Why weren't clear exit criteria established for restrictions? BUSINESS CLOSURES What evidence supported closing small businesses while keeping large retailers open? Why weren't occupancy limits tried before full closures? How many businesses were unnecessarily destroyed? Why weren't economic impacts weighed against minimal health benefits? What data supported effectiveness of business closures? SCHOOL CLOSURES Why were schools closed despite early evidence of low risk to children? Why did the US ignore data from European schools that stayed open? Why weren't the developmental/educational harms to children considered? How did school closures affect mental health and suicide rates in youth? Why weren't teachers unions' influence on closure decisions examined? What evidence supported claims that schools were major transmission vectors? QUARANTINING THE HEALTHY Why was mass quarantine implemented without precedent or evidence? Why weren't focused protection measures tried instead? What was the cost-benefit analysis of quarantining low-risk groups? How did mass quarantine affect mental health? Why weren't vulnerable populations prioritized instead? IMPACT ON YOUTH Why weren't developmental impacts on children considered? How did isolation affect mental health and suicide rates? What were the educational losses from remote learning? Why weren't sports/activities preserved for youth wellbeing? How did masks/distancing affect social development? What were the impacts on college students' mental health and development? HOSPITAL OVERLOAD Why weren't early treatment protocols developed to prevent hospitalizations? Why were field hospitals built but never used? How did "flattening the curve" messaging affect hospital preparations? Why weren't at-risk populations protected to prevent hospitalizations? What was the actual vs projected hospital capacity usage? PLEXIGLASS BARRIERS What evidence supported effectiveness of barriers? Why weren't airflow patterns considered? How did barriers affect ventilation? What was the cost-benefit of barrier installation? Why weren't barrier recommendations updated when shown ineffective? SOCIAL DISTANCING What evidence supported 6-foot distancing? Why wasn't distancing adjusted based on ventilation/masks/context? How did arbitrary distance rules affect businesses/schools? Why wasn't 3-foot distancing considered adequate earlier? What research supported outdoor distancing requirements? OUTDOOR SPREAD Why were outdoor gatherings restricted despite minimal transmission risk? Why were beaches/parks closed? Why weren't outdoor activities encouraged as safer alternatives? How did outdoor restrictions affect mental/physical health? What evidence supported masks outdoors? MASKS Why were mask mandates implemented without RCT evidence? Why weren't potential harms of masking children considered? Why were cloth masks promoted despite ineffectiveness? How did masks affect learning/development in children? Why weren't mask policies updated when studies showed limited benefit? Why was natural immunity discounted in mask policies? VARIANT IMPACT Why were variants used to justify continued restrictions? How did variant fears affect vaccine confidence? Why weren't policies adjusted for milder variants? How did variant messaging affect public trust? Why weren't seasonal patterns considered in variant projections? NATURAL IMMUNITY Why was natural immunity ignored in policy decisions? Why were recovered people required to vaccinate? Why wasn't natural immunity studied more thoroughly? How did dismissing natural immunity affect public trust? Why were natural immunity studies from other countries ignored? VACCINE EFFICACY Why were initial efficacy claims not properly qualified? Why wasn't waning efficacy communicated earlier? How did overselling efficacy affect public trust? Why weren't breakthrough cases tracked properly? Why were boosters promoted without clear evidence of benefit? VACCINE INJURY Why weren't adverse events properly tracked/investigated? Why were vaccine injuries downplayed or dismissed? How did VAERS data interpretation affect public trust? Why weren't age-stratified risk-benefit analyses conducted? Why weren't early warning signals investigated more thoroughly? How did dismissing injuries affect vaccine confidence? We have a LOT of work to do and THANKFULLY we may have people in charge who are willing to ask these questions! * * * Rational Ground by Justin Hart is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Book review: Quran and Modernity written by Ishrat Aziz
Daiwa Securities Group Inc. reduced its stake in shares of Novanta Inc. ( NASDAQ:NOVT – Free Report ) by 11.4% during the 3rd quarter, according to the company in its most recent 13F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The firm owned 7,779 shares of the technology company’s stock after selling 1,000 shares during the period. Daiwa Securities Group Inc.’s holdings in Novanta were worth $1,392,000 as of its most recent SEC filing. Several other hedge funds have also modified their holdings of the stock. Diversified Trust Co boosted its holdings in shares of Novanta by 3.4% in the 2nd quarter. Diversified Trust Co now owns 4,640 shares of the technology company’s stock valued at $757,000 after purchasing an additional 152 shares during the last quarter. Yarbrough Capital LLC boosted its holdings in Novanta by 38.0% in the second quarter. Yarbrough Capital LLC now owns 7,735 shares of the technology company’s stock valued at $1,262,000 after acquiring an additional 2,130 shares during the last quarter. Raymond James & Associates grew its position in Novanta by 3.5% during the second quarter. Raymond James & Associates now owns 50,640 shares of the technology company’s stock valued at $8,260,000 after acquiring an additional 1,720 shares during the period. Nisa Investment Advisors LLC increased its stake in Novanta by 12.6% during the second quarter. Nisa Investment Advisors LLC now owns 1,180 shares of the technology company’s stock worth $192,000 after acquiring an additional 132 shares during the last quarter. Finally, Nicholas Company Inc. raised its holdings in shares of Novanta by 41.7% in the 2nd quarter. Nicholas Company Inc. now owns 19,915 shares of the technology company’s stock worth $3,248,000 after purchasing an additional 5,865 shares during the period. 98.35% of the stock is owned by institutional investors and hedge funds. Insider Buying and Selling at Novanta In related news, CEO Matthijs Glastra sold 7,500 shares of the business’s stock in a transaction dated Monday, November 11th. The stock was sold at an average price of $179.70, for a total value of $1,347,750.00. Following the transaction, the chief executive officer now owns 56,382 shares in the company, valued at approximately $10,131,845.40. The trade was a 11.74 % decrease in their ownership of the stock. The transaction was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, which can be accessed through this link . Also, CFO Robert Buckley sold 1,111 shares of the firm’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Friday, September 27th. The shares were sold at an average price of $180.45, for a total value of $200,479.95. Following the sale, the chief financial officer now owns 120,419 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $21,729,608.55. This trade represents a 0.91 % decrease in their position. The disclosure for this sale can be found here . Insiders sold 16,650 shares of company stock valued at $2,956,686 over the last 90 days. 1.20% of the stock is owned by corporate insiders. Novanta Stock Performance Novanta ( NASDAQ:NOVT – Get Free Report ) last issued its quarterly earnings data on Tuesday, November 5th. The technology company reported $0.85 EPS for the quarter, hitting analysts’ consensus estimates of $0.85. Novanta had a return on equity of 15.20% and a net margin of 6.52%. The company had revenue of $244.40 million for the quarter, compared to analysts’ expectations of $242.33 million. During the same quarter in the previous year, the firm posted $0.85 earnings per share. The firm’s quarterly revenue was up 10.3% on a year-over-year basis. As a group, equities research analysts anticipate that Novanta Inc. will post 3.03 EPS for the current year. Analyst Ratings Changes Separately, Robert W. Baird decreased their target price on Novanta from $175.00 to $169.00 and set a “neutral” rating for the company in a report on Wednesday, November 6th. Check Out Our Latest Stock Analysis on NOVT Novanta Profile ( Free Report ) Novanta Inc, together with its subsidiaries, provides precision medicine and manufacturing, medical solutions, and robotics and automation solutions in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Precision Medicine and Manufacturing, Medical Solutions, and Robotics and Automation. See Also Receive News & Ratings for Novanta Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Novanta and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .
SCV Food Pantry hosts turkey giveaway
German Chancellor Scholz Kicks Off Re-Election CampaignCommanders kicker who missed two extra points in loss to Cowboys placed on injured reserve
Salamanca punches ticket to state title game( MENAFN - Live Mint) WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau returned home Saturday after his meeting with Donald trump without assurances the president-elect will back away from threatened tariffs on all products from the major American trading partner. Trump called the talks“productive” but signaled no retreat from a pledge that Canada says unfairly lumps it in with Mexico over the flow of drugs and migrants into the United States. After the leaders' hastily arranged dinner Friday night at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, Trudeau spoke of“an excellent conversation” but offered no details. Trump said in a Truth Social post later Saturday that they discussed“many important topics that will require both Countries to work together to address.” For issues in need of such cooperation, Trump cited fentanyl and the“Drug Crisis that has decimated so many lives as a result of Illegal Immigration," fair trade deals "that do not jeopardize American Workers” and the U.S. trade deficit with its ally to the north. Trump asserted that the prime minister had made“a commitment to work with us to end this terrible devastation” of American families from fentanyl from China reaching the United States through its neighbors. The U.S., he said,“will no longer sit idly by as our Citizens become victims to the scourge of this Drug Epidemic.” The Republican president-elect has threatened to impose a 25% tax on all products entering the U.S. from Canada and Mexico as one of his first executive orders when he takes office in January. U.S. customs agents seized 43 pounds of fentanyl at the Canadian border last fiscal year, compared with 21,100 pounds at the Mexican border. On immigration, the U.S. Border Patrol made 56,530 arrests at the Mexican border in October alone and 23,721 arrests at the Canadian border between October 2023 and September 2024 - and Canadian officials say they are ready to make new investments in border security. Trudeau called Trump after the Republican's social media posts about the tariffs last Monday and they agreed to meet, according to a official familiar with the matter who was not authorized to publicly discuss detail of the private talks. The official said other countries are calling Canadian officials to hear how about how the meeting was arranged and to ask for advice. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, after speaking with Trump on the telephone, said Thursday she was confident a tariff war with Washington would be averted. At the dinner that was said to last three hours, Trump said he and Trudeau also discussed energy, trade and the Arctic. A second official cited defense, Ukraine, NATO, China, the Mideast, pipelines and the Group of Seven meeting in Canada next year as other issues that arose. Trump, during his first term as president, once called Trudeau“weak” and“dishonest,” but it was the prime minister who was the first G7 leader to visit Trump since the Nov. 5 election. "Tariffs are a crucial issue for Canada and a bold move was in order. Perhaps it was a risk, but a risk worth taking,” Daniel Béland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal. Trudeau had said before leaving from Friday that Trump was elected because he promised to bring down the cost of groceries but now was talking about adding 25% to the cost of all kinds of products, including potatoes from Prince Edward Island in Atlantic Canada. “It is important to understand that Donald Trump, when he makes statements like that, he plans on carrying them out. There's no question about it,” Trudeau said. “Our responsibility is to point out that he would not just be harming Canadians, who work so well with the United States, but he would actually be raising prices for Americans citizens as well and hurting American industry and business,” he added. The threatened tariffs could essentially blow up the North American trade pact that Trump's team negotiated during his first term. Trudeau noted they were able to successfully renegotiate the deal, which he calls a“win win” for both countries. When Trump imposed higher tariffs as president, other countries responded with retaliatory tariffs of their own. Canada, for instance, announced billions of new duties in 2018 against the U.S. in a response to new taxes on Canadian steel and aluminum. Canada is the top export destination for 36 U.S. states. Nearly $3.6 billion Canadian worth of goods and services cross the border each day. About 60% of U.S. crude oil imports are from Canada, and 85% of U.S. electricity imports are from Canada. Canada is also the largest foreign supplier of steel, aluminum and uranium to the U.S. and has 34 critical minerals and metals that the Pentagon is eager for and investing in for national security. Canada is one of the most trade-dependent countries in the world, and 77% of Canada's exports go to the U.S. ___ Gillies reported from Toronto. MENAFN30112024007365015876ID1108942014 Legal Disclaimer: MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.