Parliamentary Committee Submissions on Internal Trade Barriers

Tomorrow, I will be appearing as a witness at a meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Here is the Notice of Meeting.

And here are my opening remarks:

My name is Paul Daly, I am a professor at the University of Ottawa and I appear in a personal capacity. Chair, members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to appear.

I will make a simple claim.

Canada is not, in any meaningful sense, a single economic market. And that is a problem we now have the tools, and the responsibility, to fix.

Across this country, goods, services, workers, and capital still encounter barriers at provincial borders. A product lawfully sold in one province may not be sold in another. A qualified professional may not be able to practise across a provincial line without re-certification. Firms that can compete globally are often tripped up domestically.

These are not marginal frictions. They are structural constraints on productivity, growth, and resilience. At a time when Canada faces external economic uncertainty, we are still leaving enormous gains unrealized within our own borders.

The question, then, is not whether internal trade matters. It is how to achieve it.

Our paper makes a legal point that is sometimes overlooked in public debate: there is no simple, unilateral solution. Parliament cannot legislate a national economic union into existence. The Constitution does not permit it. Nor have the courts interpreted the Charter as a vehicle for economic integration.

But this is not a counsel of despair. It is a clarification of where the real opportunity lies.

The Constitution does allow for something more powerful than unilateralism: cooperation. Parliament and the provinces, acting together, can build institutions capable of delivering genuine economic integration: through shared administrative bodies, mutual recognition regimes, and coordinated standard-setting.

And that brings me to the broader point I want to emphasize this morning.

This is not a project that belongs to one party, one ideology, or one region. Properly understood, it speaks to the deepest commitments of all of them.

For those on the government side: this is a nation-building project. Confederation was not only a political union; it was meant to be an economic one. Completing the internal market is, in a very real sense, completing the work of building Canada.

For Conservatives: this is a project of economic liberty. Internal trade barriers are government-imposed restrictions on the ability of Canadians to work, to trade, and to compete. Removing them is not deregulation for its own sake; it is the restoration of freedom within the constitutional order.

For New Democrats: this is about fairness and opportunity. Internal barriers do not fall evenly. They burden workers who cannot move, small businesses that cannot scale, and consumers who pay higher prices. A more open internal market is not only more efficient; it is more equitable.

And for members of the Bloc Québécois: there is a long and principled tradition of support for free trade, both internationally and within Canada. Ensuring that Quebec’s producers, workers, and entrepreneurs can access markets across the country on fair terms is entirely consistent with that tradition.

So there is, I think, a genuine possibility of common ground.

Our proposal is deliberately pragmatic. We suggest the creation of a joint federal-provincial framework — an administrative body empowered, within clear limits, to do three things: require mutual recognition where possible, develop harmonized standards where necessary, and identify and remove unjustified barriers.

This would not eliminate provincial autonomy. It would coordinate it. It would ensure that the exercise of regulatory authority in one province does not unnecessarily impede the economic life of another.

Of course, such a body would have to be carefully designed, subject to legislative oversight, judicial review, and clear statutory constraints. There are real questions of accountability and institutional design. But those are questions of implementation, not of principle.

And the principle, I suggest, is compelling.

Let me close on this.

Parliamentary committees do important work. Much of it is necessarily incremental. But from time to time, there are moments when something more ambitious is possible—when structural reform is within reach.

Internal economic integration is one of those moments.

If progress is made here—if meaningful steps are taken toward a genuinely open Canadian market—this will not be remembered as a technical adjustment. It will be remembered as a significant act of national renewal: one that strengthened unity, expanded liberty, and improved the everyday economic lives of Canadians.

That is an opportunity. And it is one that lies, in no small part, with you.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

For more, see The Single Market Myth.

This content has been updated on April 23, 2026 at 02:20.