Minor Updates, Major Message? The Competition Bureau Clarifies Guidance on “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” Claims | Stikeman Elliott LLP

The Competition Bureau recently updated its Enforcement Guidelines for “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” claims, clarifying its approach to non-food products and highlighting new opportunities for private enforcement beginning June 2025. The updates largely reaffirm existing standards and underscore the increased legal and reputational risks businesses face when making Canadian-origin claims. Although the guidelines (and their application to non-food products) do not legally bind private parties, we expect the Competition Tribunal to consider them when adjudicating future private actions.

There is no legal requirement for companies in Canada to disclose a product’s country of origin. Any voluntary “Made in Canada” or “Product of Canada” claims a company makes must comply with the provisions prohibiting false or misleading representations under the Competition Act, Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, and Textile Labelling Act, all of which are the responsibility of the Competition Bureau.

On March 7, 2025, minor updates were made to the Bureau’s Enforcement Guidelines for “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” claims. While these updates are mostly clarifications and restatements that align the guidelines with current law, they convey an important message: the rules governing Canadian-origin claims are now clearer, the stakes for non-compliance are higher, and the opportunity for private enforcement marks a new era of potential liability.

Navigating “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” Claims

For businesses choosing to make “Made in Canada” or “Product of Canada” claims, the Bureau will apply the approach set out in the guidelines to determine when it will investigate non-compliance or take enforcement action under the false or misleading representations provisions. Key considerations for companies making such claims in Canada include:

• “Product of Canada” claims are subject to a higher threshold than “Made in Canada” claims. “Product of Canada” claims convey a higher level of certainty about a product’s domestic content. The Bureau is unlikely to challenge a representation that states a product is a “Product of Canada” where (1) at least 98% of the total direct costs of producing or manufacturing the product have been incurred in Canada; and (2) the last substantial transformation of the product occurred in Canada. To minimize the risk of non-compliance, verify that products meet these criteria before making a “Product of Canada” claim.
• Audit “Made in Canada” claims made on products, labels, advertisements, and online for compliance. Any “Made in Canada” representation (including through the use of Canadian symbols, colours or logos) are unlikely to be challenged by the Bureau where (1) at least 51% of total direct costs for producing or manufacturing the product have been incurred in Canada; (2) the last substantial transformation of the product occurred in Canada; and (3) the claim is accompanied by a qualifying statement that indicates the product contains imported content. To minimize the risk of non-compliance, review the use of “Made in Canada” claims to confirm they are supported and that appropriate qualifying statements are included.
• The use of Canadian symbols, colours or logos in a deceptive way could raise concerns under the law. Businesses should exercise caution when using Canadian symbols, colours or logos (g., a red maple leaf) in their product packaging or marketing. Such imagery can imply a product is “Made in Canada”, potentially misleading consumers if not accurate. To minimize the risk of non-compliance, check that any qualifying statement about the product’s content is sufficiently prominent and easily understood by consumers.
• Ensure labelling and marketing claims accurately reflect the production or activity that took place in Canada. For products that do not meet the criteria for either a “Made in Canada” or “Product of Canada” claim, the Bureau’s guidelines recommend using a more specific term that accurately reflects the Canadian activities involved, such as assembly or design. These types of claims are acceptable and unlikely to draw scrutiny, provided consumers understand that they refer to a specific process or component rather than the product’s general manufacturing. To minimize the risk of non-compliance, avoid using general terms such as “manufactured” or “produced”, which consumers are likely to interpret as synonymous with “Made in Canada”, according to the guidelines.
• Contraventions of the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and the Textile Labelling Act may be pursued under the Competition Act. While all three statutes include provisions that prohibit false or misleading advertising, the Competition Act provides a broader range of court-ordered remedies, such as prohibition orders, corrective notices, administrative monetary penalties, or payments distributed to consumers who purchased the products. It also carries significantly higher monetary penalties. As a result, contraventions relating to “Made in Canada” or “Product of Canada” claims may increasingly be pursued under the Competition Act’s general prohibition against materially false or misleading representations, depending on the nature and circumstances of the claims.

The Bureau’s enforcement of Canadian-origin claims has been relatively limited and focused on non-food products. Past actions include an order in 1989 against a TV manufacturer for creating a misleading impression that its televisions were made in Canada; charges against WonderBra in 1997 for replacing labels on brassieres made in Costa Rica with “Made in Canada” labels; the 2006 seizure of sunglasses falsely labelled as “Made in Canada”; and a 2016 settlement between the Bureau and an outerwear company over concerns that coats labelled and advertised as Canadian-made were manufactured overseas, with only the finishing touches done in Canada.

Updates Regarding Non-Food Products and Private Actions

The revised guidelines clarify that the Bureau’s enforcement of “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” claims is limited to non-food products. Private parties may, however, choose to challenge such claims for food or non-food products.

• The scope and purpose of the guidelines are limited to non-food products. In its update, the Bureau cited the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) mandate to enforce food-related legislation and noted the CFIA’s publication of its own guide on the use of “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” claims that apply to the labelling and advertising of food products sold in Canada. Accordingly, the Bureau’s guidelines no longer apply to “Made in Canada” or “Product of Canada” claims about food products. “Food products” includes anything made, sold, or represented as food or drink for human consumption, including chewing gum, ingredients for food, any animal or plant that can become food, or anything else the law prescribes as a food commodity. Notably, however, the CFIA’s guidance is generally similar to the Bureau’s guidance.
• Private parties may challenge “Made in Canada” or “Product of Canada” claims for both food and non-food products under the Competition Act. Beginning June 20, 2025, private parties can initiate proceedings under the Competition Act for materially false or misleading representations, including product origin claims, whether food-related or not. This development marks a significant shift, increasing potential litigation and reputational risks for businesses. Although the guidelines confirm the Bureau’s continued approach to “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” claims for non-food products, they are not law and do not bind private parties who may choose to bring private actions. However, the Competition Tribunal may nonetheless consider the Bureau’s approach (including the CFIA’s mandate) when deciding whether to grant leave or when adjudicating a private case, and the Bureau may rely on the guidelines when deciding whether to intervene in a private case.

The absence of substantive changes to the guidelines signals the Bureau’s continued endorsement of its existing approach to “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” claims for non-food products. This continuity provides greater predictability to industry players and businesses by clarifying that compliance with the CFIA’s requirements is unlikely to raise similar concerns with the Bureau.

Conclusion

The Bureau’s updated guidelines underscore its enforcement approach and highlight new private enforcement opportunities. With “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” claims becoming increasingly influential to Canadian consumers, businesses should expect heightened scrutiny. Taking proactive compliance measures can help companies mitigate legal risks and avoid reputational damage from potential investigations or litigation.

[View source.]