Competition Act

Honourable senators, I rise today to offer a critical assessment of Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Competition Act, also known as “Canadian Prosperity Act.”

I want to begin by acknowledging our colleague the Honourable Senator Marty Klyne for sponsoring this legislation and for his commitment to strengthening economic opportunities across our federation.

My purpose today is to examine whether this bill promotes freer internal trade, reduces unnecessary costs for families and businesses, and delivers real results in a balanced and effective way. Although Bill S-239 is a focused measure, it addresses a long-standing challenge: the hidden barriers that divide our country economically across various sectors and regions. These barriers are not always visible to the public, yet they shape the prices families pay, the opportunities available to workers and the competitiveness of Canadian businesses.

Honourable senators, let me first outline what the bill proposes. It amends section 10.1 of the Competition Act to allow the Commissioner of Competition to include recommendations in market or industry inquiry reports.

These recommendations would identify barriers to internal trade, including any act, regulation, rule, order or bylaw that unduly affects competition. For federal institutions, the government must respond within 120 days and publish that response. Provinces and territories may respond if they choose. The short title, the Canadian prosperity act, reflects the goal clearly: to identify obstacles so that goods, services and people can move more freely across our country.

This objective matters. Internal trade barriers impose significant costs on Canadian families and businesses. Estimates suggest these barriers act as a substantial drag on our economy, raising prices and limiting choices for consumers while making it more difficult for companies to grow and compete. Studies have indicated that meaningful progress on removing these barriers could add tens of billions of dollars to our gross domestic product over time.

The effects are felt in everyday life. Higher costs for goods that cross provincial and territorial borders, restrictions that limit where workers can take their skills and regulatory differences that complicate business operations all contribute to a less efficient economy. In a period when many households are managing tight budgets and global economic conditions remain uncertain, reducing these domestic frictions represents a practical way to ease pressure on families and support broader economic resilience.

In principle, I support the intent of Bill S-239. The bill starts from a sound foundation in its intent. It seeks to use an existing expert body, the Commissioner of Competition, to highlight problems that drive up the cost of living and slow economic growth. However, this bill raises questions about whether a Royal Recommendation may ultimately be needed. It gives the Commissioner of Competition the new function of adding recommendations about internal trade barriers inside market study reports. This creates new work for the bureau that goes beyond its current mandate.

The bill also requires certain federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations to reply to the commissioner’s recommendations within a strict 120-day deadline. Creating new required work and timelines across government will impact time and resources. In addition, the bill requires the commissioner to send report copies and then post all federal responses on a public website. This adds ongoing administrative and website work for the Competition Bureau.

While these costs may well prove modest, they are the kinds of practical implications that deserve closer examination. Committee study would allow us to assess the resource impact more precisely and determine whether any amendments to the bill are warranted.

Honourable senators, we must also consider other practical shortcomings. The bill relies primarily on recommendations and this 120-day federal response period. While transparency is welcome, we know from experience that reports and responses do not always lead to action. Recommendations can be useful, but without clear follow-through, there is a risk that important findings will sit on shelves rather than translate into meaningful change. Accountability matters. When governments identify problems, Canadians deserve to see whether those problems are being addressed over time.

Most internal trade barriers exist at the provincial and territorial levels. The voluntary nature of provincial and territorial responses respects our federal system, which is important. However, it also limits the bill’s reach. Past agreements, including the 1995 Agreement on Internal Trade and the 2017 Canadian Free Trade Agreement, or CFTA, sought to reduce barriers but left hundreds of exceptions in place, particularly in skilled trades and regulated professions. A more effective approach would actively encourage mutual recognition of standards. If a product or service meets safety and quality requirements in one province or territory, it should generally be accepted in others without repeated approvals. This principle reduces duplication, lowers compliance costs for businesses and supports a more integrated national economy. Encouraging provinces and territories to take practical steps forward while respecting their authority offers a disciplined way to make progress without imposing one-size-fits-all solutions.

We must also avoid creating new layers to the process. Asking the commissioner to produce additional analysis is useful, but the focus should remain on direct relief rather than expanded studies.

The bill would benefit from a clear emphasis on high-impact sectors where barriers create the greatest harm, such as agriculture, energy, transportation and resource development. These sectors are vital to our economy, particularly in regions like British Columbia. When regulatory differences complicate the movement of agricultural products, energy resources or transportation services, the costs are ultimately borne by consumers and by workers whose livelihoods depend on these industries.

Farmers in one province or territory should not face extra hurdles when selling to markets in another. Energy producers should not lose opportunities because of differing provincial and territorial rules. By directing attention to these practical areas, the bill can deliver faster relief to families who feel the impact at the grocery store, the gas pump and the job site. A focused approach would help ensure that the bill’s efforts are directed where they can produce the most tangible benefits.

The bill rightly focuses on competition, but it could connect more clearly to the principles of fiscal responsibility and long‑term economic strength. Reducing barriers is not only about efficiency. It is about lowering the cost of living so that families can keep more of what they earn, and businesses can create stable jobs. When internal barriers raise costs and limit opportunity, they place additional pressure on household budgets and on public finances over time. A more integrated domestic economy supports fiscal responsibility by helping to grow the revenue base without requiring higher taxes or increased spending.

Committee study of this bill should consider how these changes could complement other efforts to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and strengthen Canada’s economic foundation. In this way, the bill can contribute to a broader agenda of prudent governance that prioritizes sustainable growth and value for taxpayers.

Honourable senators, we have seen this challenge before. Successive governments have recognized that internal trade barriers impose real costs on Canadian businesses, workers and consumers. Yet well-intentioned efforts have often produced agreements that appear meaningful on paper but deliver only modest results in practice.

The transition from the 1995 Agreement on Internal Trade to the CFTA in 2017 offers a clear example. Both initiatives sought to reduce barriers to the movement of goods, services and labour across provincial and territorial lines. The CFTA introduced a more ambitious approach and stronger dispute resolution provisions.

More than eight years later, however, hundreds of exceptions remain, and regulatory differences continue to fragment our economic space. In sectors such as skilled trades and regulated professions, workers who are fully certified in one province or territory can still face lengthy and inconsistent processes when seeking work in another. These frictions raise project costs for employers, contribute to labour shortages in key industries and limit economic opportunity for individuals and families. The lesson is clear: Good intentions and reporting mechanisms are not enough on their own. What matters is whether recommendations lead to timely and concrete action that improves the daily lives of Canadians.

Honourable senators, I have raised these points not to slow progress but to help ensure Bill S-239 receives the careful scrutiny it deserves. Therefore, it should advance to committee for study.

Senator Klyne, thank you for advancing this because your focus on wanting to break down the barriers for better provincial-territorial cooperation across our one nation is really important, and I do support that. Thank you for that.

Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Klyne, do you wish to ask a question?

Your Honour, he has already spoken on this debate, so I don’t think he can intervene again.

You can ask a question about —

I want to make sure I understand. Are you raising a point of order, Senator Klyne?

You can ask a question.

Excuse me, Senator Klyne, just a moment, please. Are you asking for the question?

Are honourable senators ready for the question?

You want to ask a question to Senator Martin? Is that it, Senator Klyne? Is that what you want?

Just to be clear, Senator Klyne, are you asking a question to Senator Martin, or are you asking for the question to be asked?

Okay. Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read second time.)