Latest news with #MacdonaldLaurierInstitute
CBC
4 days ago
- Politics
- CBC
What to expect following U.S. envoy, Putin ceasefire talks in Moscow
Marcus Kolga, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, says 'it's only with significant pressure' that the U.S. and Russia will 'arrive at a meaningful ceasefire.' This comes after U.S. special envoy Steve Wtikoff met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow to discuss a ceasefire agreement with Ukraine.
Globe and Mail
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Globe and Mail
Canada must sanction the Chinese tech companies fuelling the horrors in Ukraine
Marcus Kolga is the founder of DisinfoWatch and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Almost every night since May, Russian missiles and drones – powered by Iranian designs and packed with Chinese components – have torn through Ukrainian schools, hospitals and homes, killing or maiming thousands in a ruthless campaign of terror. Those drones are now reaching further into Ukraine, striking apartment buildings in Lviv over the weekend. In June alone, 5,429 Russian drones and ballistic missiles struck Ukrainian targets. According to the UN, they have caused more than 3,000 civilian casualties since the start of the war, with 232 civilians killed in June. Analysts warn that Russia could soon develop the capacity to launch up to 1,000 drones in a single night against Ukrainian civilian targets. Analysis: Trump tariff threat piles pressure on Canada to expand trade with Asia Russia's weapon of choice in its war of terror is the Iranian-designed Shahed drone – now mass-produced in Russia and rebranded as the 'Geran.' Day after day, waves of these drones hover over Ukrainian cities, with their operators safe inside Russia, actively targeting civilian infrastructure and hunting civilians. Just last week, a one-year-old child was reportedly tracked and killed by a Russian drone operator. The purpose of these drones is clear: to terrorize and demoralize Ukrainian society, destroy critical infrastructure and deprive millions of electricity, water, heat and hope. What is less known, but deeply disturbing, is the extent to which China is supplying components and technology to enable Russia's growing ability to build these drones. The collaboration of Chinese companies and the Chinese regime in building these weapons makes them directly complicit in facilitating and enabling the war crimes being committed against the Ukrainian people. The evidence of Chinese involvement is clear. Ukrainian security services have identified Chinese-origin components in Russian drones recovered after attacks on Kyiv. A recent Bloomberg investigation revealed a direct partnership between Russian firm Aero-HIT and Chinese suppliers and engineers to help Russia mass-produce drones. A growing list of Chinese companies have been exposed for supplying critical components: engines, carbon fibre airframes, electronics, navigation systems and antennas – all essential parts integrated into drones now rolling off Russian assembly lines. Earlier this month, Ukraine's National Security and Defence Council formally sanctioned five Chinese companies for supplying components used in Russia's terror drones. The United States has sanctioned more than 200 Chinese and Hong Kong entities for enabling Russia's war machine, while the European Union has listed over 50. In comparison, Canada has fallen behind. While Canada was among the first to sanction Iranian drone manufacturers in 2022, Ottawa added just 20 Chinese entities to our sanctions list last February, far fewer than our allies and nowhere near sufficient given the growing scale of China's support for Russia's drone program. Even here in Canada, there is disturbing evidence of complicity. In June, the RCMP charged Anton Trofimov – a Russian national living in Canada – for allegedly exporting restricted technologies to Russia via Hong Kong for the purpose of manufacturing weapons, underscoring how Canada itself has been exploited as a platform for Russian sanctions evasion. Opinion: Ukraine showed that drones are the new bullets. Why doesn't Canada get this? Recent reports indicate that Russia's drone production has tripled in 2025, underscoring the urgent need to disrupt the Kremlin's supply chains and expand and rigorously enforce sanctions against the Chinese entities fuelling it. Canada's sanctions are meant to deny aggressor states like Russia the means to wage war and to hold their enablers, such as Iran and China, to account. Canada has clear legal authority to sanction those who enable war crimes. All of the Chinese firms sanctioned by Ukraine this month – and earlier by our allies – meet that standard and should be added to Canada's sanctions list, along with any others contributing to Russia's arsenal. Beyond this, Canada should amend its sanctions legislation to allow for the rapid imposition of secondary sanctions on any entity doing business with sanctioned Chinese firms. This would make it significantly harder for any company to collaborate with Chinese suppliers. Finally, Canada should designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism under the State Immunity Act – an action that would allow victims to pursue civil cases in Canadian courts, including against Chinese entities that enable Russia's war. The need to act is dire and undeniable: thousands of lives are at stake. As innocent Ukrainian civilians endure relentless nightly bombardments from Russian drones powered by Chinese-made components, we cannot afford to hesitate. Disrupting the supply lines that fuel Russia's campaign of terror and holding the Chinese private and government entities enabling this deadly collaboration to account will help save innocent Ukrainian lives.
CBC
30-06-2025
- Business
- CBC
Is Canada now free of internal trade barriers? Not yet, says expert
Federal and provincial leaders are working to dismantle internal trade barriers that push up the cost of goods and make it harder to do business within Canada. But anyone expecting all of them to be gone by tomorrow should read the fine print, experts say. Throughout the spring federal election campaign, Mark Carney as Liberal leader repeatedly vowed to "eliminate" interprovincial trade barriers and create "free trade by Canada Day." The rhetoric has been at times confusing and the political scorecard on this one is hard to track. With July 1 just a day away, Carney's government has passed its planned changes into law — but it's more like the start of a conversation than the final word, says internal trade expert Ryan Manucha. "It's a starting gun and it's starting a lot more activity and work, which is honestly the really exciting part," said Manucha. "If any of this was easy, it would have been done." Manucha writes on the topic for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think-tank and authored the book Booze, Cigarettes, and Constitutional Dust-Ups: Canada's Quest for Interprovincial Trade. "When I'm advising governments, I say, 'Don't think of this as a light switch,"' he said. "We are changing the way that everyone approaches the concept of regulation and risk here, and so it's going to take some time." The rush to break down internal barriers to trade comes in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff war with Canada. One study estimates that existing internal trade hurdles cost the economy some $200 billion a year. Manucha said Canada has talked about this problem for decades but is only addressing it seriously now — and it would "never have happened had we not had Trump." He said the introduction of the Carney government's bill on internal trade was "incredible to see" because the idea was just "an academic theory maybe even as little as eight months ago." Bill C-5, the omnibus bill that reduces federal restrictions on interprovincial trade and also speeds up permitting for large infrastructure projects, became law on June 26. An analysis of the law by McMillan Vantage says that "this legislation would not achieve" the elimination of all internal trade barriers. Provinces hold power When Carney made his campaign promise, he was talking about cutting red tape put up by the federal government — not the rules set by the provinces, which have the most authority in this area. The prime minister described this effort as a sort of quid pro quo with the provinces. "We're getting rid of a bunch of duplicative federal regulations. We're going to have a principle of one project, one review — and in exchange, they're going to agree to eliminate all the barriers to trade and labour mobility," Carney said at a rally in Kitchener, Ont., on March 26. "The federal government committed that we will sweep away all of our impediments by Canada Day. Free trade by Canada Day." WATCH | Why are provincial trade barriers still a thing? Why are provincial trade barriers still a thing? 5 months ago Duration 7:10 More interprovincial trade is being touted as one potential countermeasure to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff threats, but complicated barriers stand in the way. CBC's Ellen Mauro breaks down why free trade within Canada is so difficult and what needs to happen to get more goods flowing across the country. But Canada's internal trade barriers won't all be eliminated by then — not even all the federal ones. Canada's supply management system for dairy products, which sets provincial production quotas, will remain in place. Quebec also retains language requirements that will stay in place. Credit unions have complained that the new law does not break down barriers to their expansion into multiple provinces. But just how many federal barriers does the bill eliminate? That's hard to sort out. A lot of the details will have to wait until regulations are drafted — a process that will involve consultations with affected industries. "I don't really know what this legislation could end up doing because a lot of veto power, a lot of discretion still rests with the regulatory authorities," Manucha said. "According to the text of that legislation, it would seem like meat inspection would come off. Is [the Canadian Food Inspection Agency] really going to allow for interprovincial trade and inspection of meat coming from non-federally licensed abattoirs? I don't know." Lack of consensus There is no comprehensive list of existing internal trade barriers. Even some lobby groups have told parliamentarians they don't know how many barriers their own industries face. There isn't even consensus on what all counts as a trade barrier. "In the provincial legislation in Ontario, they're talking, for many occupations, [of] having a 30-day service standard for how long it'll take for credentials to be recognized," Manucha said. "Nova Scotia, meanwhile, is on the 10-day turnaround time. That's less than a third. Can you call the 30-day versus 10-day a trade barrier?" Internal Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland, who has repeatedly stated that most of the barriers are at the provincial level, testified to the Senate that she will meet with her provincial counterparts on July 8 to discuss next steps. One major obstacle is in Freeland's crosshairs: Canada's patchwork of interprovincial trucking regulations. "One of three areas that I will be putting on the agenda at that meeting is trucking," she said on June 16. "It should be a lot easier than it is to drive a truck from Halifax to Vancouver. We need to get rid of conflicting requirements."
Yahoo
30-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Is Canada now free of internal trade barriers? Read the fine print
OTTAWA — Federal and provincial leaders are working to dismantle internal trade barriers that push up the cost of goods and make it harder to do business within Canada. But anyone expecting all of them to be gone by tomorrow should read the fine print. Throughout the spring federal election campaign, Liberal Leader Mark Carney repeatedly vowed to "eliminate" interprovincial trade barriers and create "free trade by Canada Day." The rhetoric has been at times confusing and the political scorecard on this one is hard to track. With July 1 just a day away, Carney's government has passed its planned changes into law — but it's more like the start of a conversation than the final word. "It's a starting gun and it's starting a lot more activity and work, which is honestly the really exciting part," said internal trade expert Ryan Manucha. "If any of this was easy, it would have been done." Manucha writes on the topic for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute think tank and authored the book, "Booze, Cigarettes, and Constitutional Dust-Ups: Canada's Quest for Interprovincial Trade." "When I'm advising governments, I say, 'Don't think of this as a light switch,'" he said. "We are changing the way that everyone approaches the concept of regulation and risk here, and so it's going to take some time." The rush to break down internal barriers to trade comes in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff war with Canada. One study estimates that existing internal trade hurdles cost the economy some $200 billion a year. Manucha said Canada has talked about this problem for decades but is only addressing it seriously now — and it would "never have happened had we not had Trump." He said the introduction of the Carney government's bill on internal trade was "incredible to see" because the idea was just "an academic theory maybe even as little as eight months ago." Bill C-5, the omnibus bill that reduces federal restrictions on interprovincial trade and also speeds up permitting for large infrastructure projects, became law on June 26. An analysis of the law by McMillan Vantage says that "this legislation would not achieve" the elimination of all internal trade barriers. When Carney made his campaign promise, he was talking about cutting red tape put up by the federal government — not the rules set by the provinces, which have the most authority in this area. The prime minister described this effort as a sort of quid pro quo with the provinces. "We're getting rid of a bunch of duplicative federal regulations. We're going to have a principle of one project, one review — and in exchange, they're going to agree to eliminate all the barriers to trade and labour mobility," Carney said at a rally in Kitchener, Ont., on March 26. "The federal government committed that we will sweep away all of our impediments by Canada Day. Free trade by Canada Day." But Canada's internal trade barriers won't all be eliminated by then — not even all the federal ones. Canada's supply management system for dairy products, which sets provincial production quotas, will remain in place. Quebec also retains language requirements that will stay in place. Credit unions have complained that the new law does not break down barriers to their expansion into multiple provinces. Bill C-5 aligns federal requirements for goods and services with provincial ones if they cross provincial or territorial borders. It allows the provincial requirement to replace a federal one if the rules are "comparable." Ottawa likes to point to energy efficiency standards. A washing machine made in B.C. that meets the provincial standard still needs to meet additional federal standards before it can be sold in Alberta or Ontario. But this new law means the B.C. standard would replace the federal one. The law also eliminates redundant licensing requirements for labourers. Federal regulators would have to recognize provincial occupational certifications. So just how many federal barriers does the bill eliminate? That's hard to sort out. A lot of the details will have to wait until regulations are drafted — a process that will involve consultations with affected industries. "I don't really know what this legislation could end up doing because a lot of veto power, a lot a discretion still rests with the regulatory authorities," Manucha said. "According to the text of that legislation, it would seem like meat inspection would come off. Is (the Canadian Food Inspection Agency) really going to allow for interprovincial trade and inspection of meat coming from non-federally licensed abattoirs? I don't know." There is no comprehensive list of existing internal trade barriers. Even some lobby groups have told parliamentarians they don't know how many barriers their own industries face. There isn't even consensus on what all counts as a trade barrier. "In the provincial legislation in Ontario, they're talking for many occupations having a 30-day service standard for how long it'll take for credentials to be recognized," Manucha said. "Nova Scotia, meanwhile, is on the 10-day turnaround time. That's less than a third. Can you call the 30-day versus 10-day a trade barrier?" Internal Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland, who has repeatedly stated that most of the barriers are at the provincial level, testified to the Senate that she will meet with her provincial counterparts on July 8 to discuss next steps. One major obstacle is in Freeland's crosshairs: Canada's patchwork of interprovincial trucking regulations. "One of three areas that I will be putting on the agenda at that meeting is trucking," she said on June 16. "It should be a lot easier than it is to drive a truck from Halifax to Vancouver. We need to get rid of conflicting requirements." This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 30, 2025. Kyle Duggan, The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Globe and Mail
04-06-2025
- Politics
- Globe and Mail
The tightening of Canada's asylum laws was an inevitability
Michael Barutciski is a professor at York University's Glendon School of Public and International Affairs, as well as a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. The first substantive legislative initiative from Mark Carney's government, Bill C-2, has passed through first reading in the House of Commons. Its short title, the Strong Borders Act, makes explicit the public messaging that underlies the sweeping and multifaceted legislative amendments being proposed. While the bill provides law enforcement with various powers regarding issues such as fentanyl and financial crime, it also addresses immigration-related irritants with the U.S. Concerns have been raised that it includes measures which would restrict asylum claims. But the lax practices of recent years may have left Canadians unaware of the fundamental dilemmas concerning the country's asylum situation, and of the reality that changes to the system were inevitable. The federal government is now proposing new measures that will ultimately make Canada less of an outlier compared to other Western democracies, and beyond the advocates defending the untenable status quo, it should be clear to most Canadians that the asylum system needs to be tightened. Bill C-2 signals that Ottawa is taking the issue seriously. Monthly asylum claims in Canada remain unsustainably high, with nearly 11,000 new claims in April, mostly in Quebec and Ontario; these numbers also come before the summer months, when claims tend to peak. These latest statistics reveal that many claimants are entering at official land border crossings under exceptions to the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), the responsibility-sharing treaty with the U.S. that is intended to prevent asylum shopping by obliging migrants to claim protection in the first country they enter. These exceptions will eventually need to be reconsidered. At the same time, there are many migrants unlawfully present in Canada; a CIBC report suggests the number might be around one million people. Many more visas granted to temporary residents are set to expire soon, and many, including foreign students, may seek asylum in a desperate bid to prolong their stay. The administrative tribunal that examines asylum claims, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), is already overwhelmed by historic backlogs, and current trends suggest pressure will only increase. Part 9 of Bill C-2 addresses an exception in the STCA that allowed asylum seekers to avoid being returned to the U.S. if they enter between official land border crossings and are not detected by Canadian authorities for 14 days. It was an incoherent provision that contradicted the objectives of the STCA and mainly signalled that the authorities did not want to spend a prolonged period tracking down migrants. The bill will make asylum seekers who evade authorities for two weeks ineligible to make an asylum claim, and if it is safe to do so, they should generally be sent back to their home country. Part 9 also makes migrants ineligible for asylum if these claims are made 'more than one year after the day of their entry.' This is the Carney government's initial response to the potential crisis that could emerge if even more visa overstayers try to prolong their stay through asylum. Opinion: Canada has become an immigration irritant for the U.S. Opinion: Trump's policies will send asylum seekers to Canada's border. What's our plan? This is a reasonable response that partially harmonizes the Canadian system with the U.S. system. As controversial as this may seem to some, harmonization is the only way Western countries such as Canada will be able to bring migration under control. Democratic governments are continuing to bleed support because they are unable to assuage populations that are justifiably anxious about uncontrolled migration; the Netherlands is just the latest example. Whether the asylum-related provisions in Bill C-2 become the law of the land will ultimately show how serious the new Liberal government is in correcting immigration policy mistakes made by and acknowledged by the previous prime minister and then-immigration minister. Yet it is one thing to amend laws to restore Canada's seriousness on the immigration file; it is another to actually enforce them. If Ottawa cannot incentivize the large population of overstayers to leave by themselves, it will need to enforce its own laws, potentially with large-scale removals of foreigners who are unlawfully present in Canada. The government could propose a humane yet realistic carrot-and-stick approach involving financial aid to help migrants return home combined with future eligibility for legal residence if they do return. Even assuming the government can resolve this dilemma, it will then have to propose new amendments to address the unmanageable backlogs that remain for the country's largest administrative tribunal. Indeed, the gravity of the challenge is illustrated by the fact that the IRB had already seen both its operating budget and number of employees more than double between 2015 and 2023. Deep reform of Canada's asylum law will have to come sooner rather than later. Bill C-2 is a solid start.
