Competition Act

Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Competition Act.

Senator Klyne clearly explained the various technical aspects of this bill. I will not go back over all those details, but I think it is important to reiterate the broader aspects of the bill.

The Commissioner of Competition’s independent role consists mainly of leading the Competition Bureau in the areas of law enforcement and international cooperation. However, it is the bureau’s promotional function that Bill S-239 seeks to expand. To that end, the bill enables the commissioner to make recommendations regarding federal or provincial trade barriers that have an undue impact on competition. Such barriers may include existing rules, laws or regulations that create administrative burdens and thus hinder open and competitive domestic trade.

Honourable senators, I want to point out that Senator Klyne’s bill is based on recommendations that have already been made and work that has already been done in this regard. In 2022, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada published a report entitled The Future of Competition Policy in Canada, which indicates that the lack of significant input from affected entities was a shortcoming in Canada’s competition policy.

The bill addresses this issue by requiring the government to respond within 120 days of the commissioner issuing a recommendation.

Of extra relevance for us here, much of the groundwork for this bill was laid by a 2021 report of the Senate Prosperity Action Group. This report, on which a number of our current colleagues worked, noted how “. . . major economic policy initiatives such as addressing interprovincial trade barriers . . . led to economic and social costs.” They recommended interprovincial trade barriers be removed “. . . to boost economic growth, improve productivity and competitiveness.”

The action group also recommended that:

. . . regulatory reform be a top priority of all governments across Canada in order to alleviate business uncertainty, improve transparency . . . .

Colleagues, this bill has also been endorsed by two former Commissioners of Competition. Lawson Hunter, commissioner from 1981 to 1985, said:

As the global trading system becomes more protectionist, it will be critical that domestic competition remains or becomes vigorously competitive. . . . The Competition Bureau should play a larger, more visible role in ensuring that both governments and the private sector do not artificially restrict competition.

Additionally, Sheridan Scott, commissioner from 2004 to 2009, said:

This bill will provide the Competition Bureau with important new tools for encouraging competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses. . . . Removing unnecessary impediments to a robust Canadian economy is essential at this critical time.

Colleagues, each of us knows the profound and unprecedented challenges our country is facing. While typical trade relations seem almost upside down, the government has been working to diversify our international trade and global positioning.

According to the Library of Parliament, as of March 2026, Canada had so far initiated, signed or materially advanced 39 distinct international trade and security agreements under Prime Minister Carney. Eliminating internal regulatory burdens is not a partisan issue but represents common ground for all.

For the government, this approach aligns with their core mandate. Last year’s Speech from the Throne stated:

The Government’s overarching goal — its core mission — is to build the strongest economy in the G7. That starts with creating one Canadian economy out of thirteen. Internal barriers to trade and labour mobility cost Canada as much as $200 billion each year. . . .

By tackling this issue and tearing down those walls — to borrow the words from our Prime Minister — we can give ourselves more than any foreign nation can ever take away.

This goal is also championed by the Leader of the Official Opposition. A press release covering MP Pierre Poilievre’s “Canada First” Plan reads:

Trade barriers between Canadian provinces are more costly than trade barriers between Canada and other nations. The result is that we now trade more with the rest of the world than we do with ourselves . . . .

Free trade in Canada . . . will help start bringing home more business, and make Canada less dependent on forces and countries outside of our control. . . .

Honourable senators, in his speech, Senator Klyne clearly illustrated how this bill can improve domestic trade and competition when he bemoaned, with some frustration, the barriers to interprovincial trade surrounding the sale of alcohol. This is an excellent example of a sector where the commissioner could make recommendations aimed at better harmonizing interprovincial rules regarding direct cross-border sales to consumers.

Examples abound in other sectors, such as agriculture and food, where regulations vary greatly from one province to another, particularly regarding packaging, labelling and health and safety requirements. These variations hinder the movement of goods and result in additional compliance costs for producers and manufacturers. This reduces overall competitiveness. These are sectors where the bill would allow the commissioner to make recommendations to better harmonize regulations and, in so doing, alleviate this burden.

While Bill S-239 requires the federal government to respond within 120 days of the commissioner issuing a recommendation, the rules of federalism mean we cannot compel provinces and territories to do the same. However, the simple act of publicly issuing a recommendation will shine a light on problem areas, driving greater accountability into the process of breaking down these interprovincial trade barriers.

This is particularly important, as many of these barriers are sticky and require serious commitment, determination and stick-to-it-iveness to eliminate. There is a reason to be optimistic that they would also act on the commissioner’s new recommendation-making power.

The First Ministers’ statement on eliminating internal trade barriers in Canada, issued by the premiers in March 2025, reads:

. . . Canada’s First Ministers recognize this is a pivotal moment for Canada to take bold and united action. We must increase our economic resilience, reduce dependence on one market, and strengthen our domestic economy for the benefit of Canadian workers and businesses now and in the future. One key step is to make it easier for Canadians to do business with each other from coast to coast to coast.

Colleagues, although there is strong support across the board for reducing our internal red tape, we must create the mechanisms that will keep this momentum going once the spotlight on this issue inevitably fades. This bill will help to ensure that focus is maintained into the future.

As such, I ask that you join me in supporting Bill S-239, which is a logical output of previous Senate work on this file. Canada is facing an unprecedented moment where business is anything but usual. As Prime Minister Carney has said, “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”

Anything we can do to make Canada more competitive and more integrated is a step we cannot afford to miss. Let’s protect Canada by unlocking it for Canadians.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Yes, absolutely.

Was the question related to the subject before us? I don’t think it was, so it is out of order. I would have liked to hear the answer, but the question in this case was out of order.

Senator Wilson, congratulations on the quality of your French. Unfortunately, I can’t congratulate you on the quality of the content of your speech, about which I have a few questions for you.

Your French was outstanding. The content was a little bit less impressive. You talked about “. . . bold and united . . .” as being what we need as a nation. Premiers declared that. That wasn’t your word. You were quoting them at first ministers’ conferences that we have had. In the heat of the moment, the Prime Minister talked about the urgency of reducing interprovincial trade barriers, with premiers signing memoranda of understanding and press conferences. We are very good at putting on a public relations show regardless of the level of government or political party.

Don’t you find that this initiative will add regulatory burden and more work to an already overworked Competition Bureau? They argue that they are under-resourced to carry out the regular mandate they have been given for a number of years. Is it reasonable to add a supplemental project — and that is what this is — without any binding authority to bring any results to the end of the table other than what I see with this bill, where it’s naming and shaming provinces that do not acquiesce to what every politician and every Canadian across the country is calling for?

Don’t you feel that the pressure on the Competition Bureau is unwarranted? Don’t you also feel it will add budgetary costs? In order for them to engage in this role, we are really stretching the elastic of their mandate. The government will have to provide fiscal resources to get all of this done.

Thank you for the question, Senator Housakos. That is precisely why I am supporting this bill at second reading in order to send it to committee for further study to understand some of those exact issues.

First of all, as I noted in my remarks, this bill is being supported by two former heads of the Competition Bureau who would be very familiar with the resourcing challenges of the Competition Bureau. Notwithstanding that, they still think this bill is a good idea and should move forward. That endorsement is enough for me to say we should send it to committee.

Things get done when you shine a light on them. It’s not that we want to shame provinces. I think the provinces are quite willing to do it. We all have our little areas that we want to protect, and there will be sensitivities between provinces. This is a healthy way of surfacing those differences. There may be other ideas that come up at committee. I look forward to hearing them. I hope the Senate will send this bill to committee, and I look forward to hearing what the committee has to say on that.

Senator Batters has a question. Senator Wilson, would you accept another question?

Yes, I would.

Would you like more time to answer the question?

I would need more than 20 seconds, yes.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Thank you, Senator Wilson. Following up on Senator Housakos’ question, if this does indeed require resources — regardless if it might be okay with the former heads of the Competition Bureau — given this is a private senator’s bill calling on the government to expend resources, is it appropriate? Is it out of order? Would a Royal Recommendation be needed for this bill to proceed?

Thank you for the question, Senator Batters. I would suggest it is a question of prioritization. It is not necessarily a question of added resources. There may be things that the Competition Bureau is focused on right now that it could step back from in order to turn its attention to this. Again, it is important for the committee to study this in order to give it due scrutiny and understand whether these impacts would occur and whether that is a consideration we need to take into account.