Breaking Down Barriers: The Push for a Truly Unified Canadian Market

Pierre Poilievre has finally proposed a plan to address the Trump administration’s February 2025 tariffs, seemingly based on an International Monetary Fund (IMF) report. This raises the question: what progress has Canada made on internal trade barriers in response to the IMF’s findings, and what still needs to be done?

Over the past five years, Canada has tackled some of the regulatory and geographic hurdles that have long hindered economic efficiency. The 2019 IMF report highlighted these four barriers—regulatory fragmentation, restrictive provincial controls on goods like alcohol, technical inconsistencies in industry standards, and vast geographic challenges. While reforms have occurred, largely under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), major inefficiencies remain.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the fragility of Canada’s fragmented market, prompting temporary regulatory flexibility. Licensing restrictions were eased for healthcare workers, and supply chain barriers were lifted to prevent shortages. This period proved that interprovincial trade barriers could be swiftly reduced when necessary. Yet, once the crisis subsided, most provinces reinstated pre-pandemic restrictions, missing an opportunity for lasting reform.

The CFTA, in place since 2017, has encouraged regulatory alignment, particularly in vehicle weight standards, and professional certifications. However, progress has been slow, with key industries such as construction, trucking, and food processing still burdened by differing provincial rules. One of the more visible steps forward has been the relaxation of alcohol trade restrictions. In 2018, provincial premiers agreed to lift some limits on interprovincial alcohol transportation, while trying to address the mixed market of monopolistic liquor boards and private sector businesses. 

The economic potential of eliminating these barriers is staggering. A report commissioned by Alberta’s government found that mutual recognition across provinces could boost GDP by up to 7.9%, adding as much as $200 billion annually. Internal Trade Minister Anita Anand reinforced this in a January 2025 CBC interview, stating that reducing trade barriers “could lower prices by up to 15 per cent, boost productivity by up to seven per cent, and add up to $200 billion to the domestic economy.” Yet, political inertia and regional protectionism have stalled deeper reforms.

In the short to medium term, Canada must prioritize mutual recognition agreements to streamline licensing and regulatory requirements. The construction industry, for example, faces costly delays due to inconsistent building codes across provinces—an easily fixable issue. Beyond regulatory alignment, reducing paperwork and red tape, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, would remove unnecessary friction from the system. A Federal-Provincial-Territorial (FPT) taskforce focused on simplifying these processes, combined with digital infrastructure investments for e-licensing, could provide meaningful relief.

Addressing natural barriers is a longer-term challenge, but progress is possible. Expanding interprovincial transportation networks and improving digital connectivity in rural areas would allow businesses to access larger markets more efficiently.

Ultimately, Canada needs sustained political will to drive internal trade reform. While agreements like the CFTA have laid the groundwork, stronger enforcement mechanisms, and a shift away from provincial protectionism are required. If provinces remain uncooperative, federal intervention may become necessary to unlock the full economic potential of a truly open market. Canada cannot afford to let bureaucratic inertia continue to suppress its economic growth.

Why Independent Pension Management Matters

The notion that employee pensions should be managed independently of corporations originates from a fundamental need to protect workers’ financial futures. This separation is not merely a technicality—it is a safeguard against the potential misuse of pension funds by corporate leadership, especially in times of financial distress. Independent management ensures that pensions are shielded from corporate volatility, providing employees with a sense of stability and security that is often absent when companies control these vital funds.

Corporate history offers sobering lessons about the dangers of letting pensions remain under internal oversight. Nortel Networks, once a telecommunications giant in Canada, serves as a cautionary tale. In 2009, the company declared bankruptcy, leaving thousands of employees with drastically reduced retirement benefits. Nortel’s failure lay in its inability to separate pension funds from corporate finances. When the company collapsed, so did its workers’ financial safety net, illustrating how mismanagement can devastate lives.

Sears Canada provides another stark example of corporate negligence. As the company spiraled into financial ruin, it diverted money earmarked for employee pensions to pay bonuses to executives. By the time Sears liquidated in 2017, many of its workers were left with a fraction of their expected retirement savings. The betrayal of trust was profound, revealing how conflicts of interest and short-term corporate priorities can destroy decades of employee contributions.

Perhaps the most infamous case of pension mismanagement is the collapse of Enron. The energy company’s fraudulent practices led to one of the largest corporate scandals in history. Employees, encouraged to invest their retirement savings heavily in Enron stock, lost everything when the company’s value plummeted to zero in 2001. The devastation was not just financial; it shattered lives, proving how dangerous it can be for pensions to remain under corporate influence, especially when tied to a company’s performance.

In contrast, some systems demonstrate the benefits of independent pension management. The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) in Canada stands as a model of success. Completely independent of any single employer, the OTPP operates as a dedicated entity focused solely on securing the financial futures of its members. By keeping pension funds separate from corporate finances, the OTPP ensures that its members’ retirement savings remain insulated from the financial challenges of any individual employer.

Similarly, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) highlights the advantages of independent oversight. As the largest public pension fund in the United States, CalPERS serves millions of employees by ensuring their pensions are managed with transparency and accountability. Free from the influence of any specific employer, CalPERS protects its members from the risks associated with corporate insolvencies or governance failures.

These examples reveal why policymakers must act to reform pension systems worldwide. Legislation mandating the independent management of pension funds is a necessary first step. By requiring third-party fiduciaries to oversee these funds, governments can protect workers from corporate mismanagement and ensure impartial oversight. At the same time, mechanisms like the U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) must be strengthened and expanded globally to insure pension funds against insolvency.

Ethical corporate governance must also be a priority. Boards and executives should be explicitly barred from using pension funds to address short-term financial challenges or boost shareholder profits. Employees deserve to know that their retirement savings will be safeguarded, no matter the economic circumstances.

The stories of Nortel, Sears, and Enron serve as stark reminders of the consequences of inaction. Conversely, models like OTPP and CalPERS offer a glimpse of what is possible when pension funds are managed independently, transparently, and ethically. By learning from both failure and success, policymakers and corporate leaders can build a pension system that prioritizes employees over profit—a system that delivers on its promise of a secure retirement for all.