Liberals poised to table bill to knock down internal trade barriers
OTTAWA - The Liberal government is poised to table landmark legislation to break down internal trade barriers and increase labour mobility within Canada.
The government has put a bill on the House of Commons notice paper that could potentially be tabled as early as today.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has pledged to break down internal trade barriers by Canada Day to create one economy — although the time left on the parliamentary calendar suggests the legislation will not gain Royal Assent by the time the House rises for the summer.
It also comes just days after Carney met with the country's premiers to discuss the need to build major projects across Canada and fast-track their approval.
Several other provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, have also tabled such legislation to remove interprovincial barriers to the trade of goods across the country.
It comes against a backdrop of U.S. President Donald Trump roiling the country's economy with stop-and-go tariffs in an escalating trade war — and as Carney has been engaged in behind-the-scenes talks with Trump on trade.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 6, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Dominion Post
an hour ago
- Dominion Post
COLUMN: Here's the blueprint to how college athletes will one day become trade bait
MORGANTOWN — We are just mere weeks away from the beginning of a new landscape in college athletics. As of July 1, the revenue sharing program stemming from the House settlement will allow universities to begin paying their athletes directly out of a capped pool of roughly $20.5 million for their services. Now, this is not to be confused with Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) money, which college athletes have already been earning. Basically, the House settlement was a decision that saw just how much conferences and their individual schools were earning through ever-growing TV deals, ticket sales and the likes and the courts ruled that college athletes deserved a cut. Much like the NFL salary cap, that $20.5 million pool will continually grow over time, as TV deals continue to get larger, as do ticket sales, radio broadcasting rights and such. And it basically opens up a new era of college athletes being official employees of their school. Some will fight against that statement, but the bottom line is college athletes will be handed a paycheck. On that paycheck will likely be the school's logo and official name. It will be signed by the school's athletic director or president or someone in the finance office or some other higher-up from that school. If that's not being considered an employee of the school, well, we all know what it looks like. The bigger question to be asked is whether or not college athletes are now professionals? True, they're not earning anything close to NFL or NBA salaries, but they are earning a salary nonetheless. We are here to tell you today there is but one threshold to cross before we can truly refer to college athletes as professionals. And that day is likely coming. Let's take the example of an NFL player. He's paid a salary, so, too, are college athletes beginning July 1. That player has the right to free agency, so do college athletes with the transfer portal. He has the option to hold out for more money. Well, we all remember the story of former Tennessee quarterback Nico Iamaleava, who held himself out of spring drills earlier this year, because he was dissatisfied with his NIL money that was reportedly worth $2.4 million. He ended up transferring to UCLA after Tennessee basically told him not to let the door hit him on the way out. Ladies and gentlemen, the only experience remaining that a pro athlete can undergo that a college athlete can't is being traded. And if that sounds corny, too far-fetched or simply impossible, I want to see a show of hands of how many of us would have thought 20 years ago that college athletes would be earning actual paychecks from their schools. My hand isn't raised. I'm guessing your hand isn't raised, either. You may fire back that there are contracts involved between a player and the school. Beyond that, there are ethics. Let's talk about the contract, which used to be the National Letter of Intent (NLI), which binded an athlete to the school and the school to the athlete for one year. The NLI was eliminated in 2024, in part because officials saw what was coming down the road with NIL and revenue sharing. It's basically a grant-in-aid agreement now that serves as that binding contract, which still comes in the form of a scholarship. The guess from here is that future grant-in-aids will also spell out in more detail the percentages said athlete will earn from revenue sharing and the expectations that will follow in order for the athlete to earn the money. All it would take to officially allow the trading of college athletes is the approval from the NCAA or the NCAA's Division I Council to reword those grant-in-aids. That's it. No congressional hearings. No emergency summits where all the conferences meet at some discreet location to debate the topic. Just the NCAA's approval and some lawyer writing a trade clause into the grant-in-aid agreement. It's more difficult to pay your personal property taxes online than it would be to allow the trading of college athletes from one school to another. Which brings us to the ethical stance. As of right now, public sentiment is rather neutral on paying college athletes. Most fan bases would agree that athletes deserve their cut. The biggest worry right now is how their favorite school is going to afford the payments and compete with everyone else. Trust me, that's going to change over time. As those caps continue to grow and the prices of tickets, hot dogs and beers grow right along with it, public sentiment is going to change. As NIL deals continue to grow to the point where more than just a handful of college athletes earn more money than their coaches or college presidents, public sentiment is going to change. As more and more stories like Iamaleava's become more common in college sports, public sentiment will change. Right now, everyone knows college sports is a big business, but the general feeling is sort of like, 'Well, it's not that big of a business.' That's going to change, believe me. And when that five-star quarterback who made more money as a freshman in college than most of us will earn in our lifetimes suddenly turns into a bust, ethics be damned. If your school could get a starting safety and right tackle for that bum, you pull that trigger in a heartbeat. Because these are no longer just college kids. That may have been the proper thing to call them since the 1950s up until about two or three years ago. But a handful of them are no more just college kids any more than the wishbone offense is innovative. Texas Tech softball pitcher NiJaree Canady will earn $1.2 million next season in NIL money. That's on top of whatever the school will pay her in revenue sharing. Come on, is she just a college kid now? They are paid professionals now. Sure, in some cases, they are still 19- and 20-year olds, but some will become 19- and 20-year olds who can afford things at 21 that most of us could never dream of affording in our lives. That's not the proper definition of a college kid. It may not only be unethical, but also against the rules, to even consider trading a college athlete right now, but it may not always be that way. The view from here is that day is coming sooner than you think.
an hour ago
Rhode Island lawmakers pass bill to ban sales of assault weapons
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacturing of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons. The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Dan McKee, who has said he supports assault weapons bans. If the bill is signed into law, Rhode Island will join 10 states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's devastating mass shootings. Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. However, despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country's smallest state have long quibbled over the necessity and legality of such proposals. The bill only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities like New York and Los Angeles. Hawaii bans assault pistols. Democratic Rep. Rebecca Kislak described the bill during floor debates Friday as an incremental move that brings Rhode Island in line with neighboring states. 'I am gravely disappointed we are not doing more, and we should do more," she said. "And given the opportunity to do this or nothing, I am voting to do something.' Critics of Rhode Island's proposed law argued that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles. 'This bill doesn't go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens,' said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino. Republican Rep. Michael Chippendale, House minority leader, predicted that if the legislation were to become law, the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually deem it unconstitutional. 'We are throwing away money on this," he said. It wasn't just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the 'weakest assault weapons ban in the country.' 'I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety,' Hogg said in a statement. Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected claims that the proposed law is weak. 'The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now, no ban on assault weapons,' Ryan said. 'This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all.' Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the Second Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the best-selling rifles in the country. The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth, Brett Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case 'in the next term or two.'
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Rhode Island lawmakers pass bill to ban sales of assault weapons
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Rhode Island's Democratic-controlled state House on Friday approved legislation that would ban the sale and manufacture of many semiautomatic rifles commonly referred to as assault weapons. The proposal now heads to the desk of Democratic Gov. Daniel McKee, who has said he supports assault weapons bans. If the bill is signed into law, Rhode Island will join 10 other states that have some sort of prohibition on high-powered firearms that were once banned nationwide and are now largely the weapon of choice among those responsible for most of the country's mass shootings. Gun control advocates have been pushing for an assault weapons ban in Rhode Island for more than a decade. But despite being a Democratic stronghold, lawmakers throughout the country's smallest state have long argued over the necessity and legality of such proposals. The bill applies only to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession. Only Washington state has a similar law. Residents looking to purchase an assault weapon from nearby New Hampshire or elsewhere will also be blocked. Federal law prohibits people from traveling to a different state to purchase a gun and returning it to a state where that particular of weapon is banned. Nine states and the District of Columbia have bans on the possession of assault weapons, covering major cities including Los Angeles and New York. Hawaii bans assault pistols. Critics of Rhode Island's proposed law argued Friday during floor debates that assault weapons bans do little to curb mass shootings and only punish people with such rifles. 'This bill doesn't go after criminals, it just puts the burden on law-abiding citizens,' said Republican Sen. Thomas Paolino. It wasn't just Republicans who opposed the legislation. David Hogg — a gun control advocate who survived the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Fla. — and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence described the proposed ban as the 'weakest assault weapons ban in the country.' 'I know that Rhode Islanders deserve a strong bill that not only bans the sale, but also the possession of assault weapons. It is this combination that equals public safety,' Hogg said in a statement. Elisabeth Ryan, policy counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety, rejected assertions that the proposed law is weak. 'The weakest law is what Rhode Island has now — no ban on assault weapons,' Ryan said. 'This would create a real, enforceable ban on the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, just like the law already working in Washington state, getting them off the shelves of Rhode Island gun stores once and for all.' Nationally, assault weapons bans have been challenged in court by gun rights groups that argue the bans violate the 2nd Amendment. AR-15-style firearms are among the bestselling rifles in the country. The conservative-majority Supreme Court may soon take up the issue. The justices declined to hear a challenge to Maryland's assault weapons ban in early June, but three conservative justices — Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — publicly noted their disagreement. A fourth justice, Brett M. Kavanaugh, indicated he was skeptical that the bans are constitutional and predicted the court would hear a case 'in the next term or two.' Kruesi writes for the Associated Press. AP writers David Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
