Dear Ministers,  

On behalf of Canada’s leading employers, I am writing to express our deep concern with the labour disruptions occurring at ports in British Columbia and Montreal.  Unfortunately, these disruptions are not isolated events.  Rather, they are a continuation of a series of highly damaging recent labour disputes that continue to weaken Canada’s economy and tarnish its reputation as a reliable trading partner. 

Earlier today the Business Council of Canada joined more than 100 organizations in calling on the government to use every tool at its disposal to resolve the dispute at ports in British Columbia.  I am now writing you separately to urgently call for a specific solution. The federal government should immediately use its authority under Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to direct the Canada Industrial Labour Relations Board to assist the parties in reaching a settlement by imposing binding arbitration and requiring workers to return to work and resume port operations. 

The national interest is clear. More than 60 per cent of Canada’s GDP is driven by trade.  Work stoppages paralyze our trade-dependent economy at a time when the country desperately needs revenue.  The disruptions in western Canada alone jeopardize the flow of $800 million of goods daily in addition to creating economic harm caused by the near-term possibility of plant shutdowns, reduced inventories and fewer working hours for Canadians.   

Implications for the rail-based supply chain are also severe – each day of stoppage creates network congestion that requires roughly a week to clear up, compromising thousands of Canadian jobs and businesses.  Further, Canada’s ports will continue to lose market share if the country’s reputation for labour instability isn’t corrected soon.  

Business leaders are deeply concerned about how labour disruptions are weakening our relationship with our most important trading partner, the United States.  Yesterday the Prime Minister revived the cabinet committee dedicated to Canada-U.S. relations following President Donald Trump’s re-election, while earlier this year the government announced a “Team Canada” approach to strengthen Canada’s negotiation position in advance of the renewal of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) in 2026.  Prolonged labour disputes at our ports undermine the government’s efforts to work more effectively with the U.S. and weaken Canada’s credibility as a signatory to CUSMA.  

Canadian business leaders support the collective bargaining process and recognize that the best agreements happen at the negotiating table. However, we remain concerned that the processes underway at Canadian ports are failing and that the parties could be several days away from negotiating an agreement.  Time is not our friend when jobs, the economy and our valued trading relationships are on the line. 

Yours very truly, 

Goldy Hyder

The post Labour disruption could weaken Canada-U.S. trade relationship appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Dear Ministers:

We are writing to express our urgent concern with the shutdown of British Columbia ports for a second consecutive year. This is yet another blow to Canadian workers and businesses who are counting on reliable supply chains to enable the trade that drives our economy.

Our West Coast ports handle $800 million worth of cargo every single day, accounting for approximately 25 percent of the goods flowing through the country. These ports support more than 45,000 direct jobs within the province alone, not to mention the thousands of jobs downstream that depend on the goods that flow through them.

This would substantially impact exports for Canada’s biggest producers in sectors like agriculture, forestry, mining, and manufacturing, while also affecting imports of consumer goods used by Canadian families in their everyday lives. Last year’s 13-day strike resulted in exports from British Columbia ports falling 23% in July, hitting their lowest point since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Canadians cannot afford another labour disruption involving our critical infrastructure. Over the past year and a half, they have contended with the impacts of stoppages at both major rail networks, Vancouver grain terminals, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Port of Montreal, and British Columbia ports the first time. Adding to the impact on business is the lack of predictability also created by disputes we saw over the summer at the Canada Border Services Agency and Air Canada’s cargo network, as well as the currently evolving situation at Canada Post.

Now, the combined impacts of labour disruptions on both coasts are rippling throughout the economy, affecting Canadian consumers, employees, and businesses. These further tarnish Canada’s global reputation as a reliable trading partner and stable place to do business.

Additionally, as our relationship with the United States continues to evolve with the conclusion of the 2024 presidential election and the upcoming review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, we cannot repeatedly jeopardize our most important bilateral economic partnership; we must strengthen resilient cross-border supply chains that enhance our shared economic security.

While we acknowledge efforts to continue with mediation, parties have not been able to come to a negotiated agreement so the federal government must take decisive action, using every tool at its disposal to resolve this dispute and limit the damage caused by this disruption. We simply cannot afford to once again put Canadian businesses at risk, which in turn puts Canadian livelihoods at risk.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

Sincerely,

The post Business groups concerned over shutdown of British Columbia ports appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Dear Minister Ng:

Re: Global Affairs Canada’s economic security consultation

I am pleased to share with you the Business Council of Canada’s (“BCC”) views on your department’s economic security consultation.

The BCC appreciates the opportunity to participate in this important consultation. We have long advocated for the Government of Canada to work collaboratively with Canada’s business leaders to safeguard Canadians’ economic security, which is increasingly threatened by mercantilism, economic coercion, and other unfair trade practices.

As we asserted in our 2023 report, Economic Security is National Security:

Canada and its allies adhere to a common set of market values – such as the rule of law – that ensure that economic competition takes place on a level playing field.

Strategic threat actors reject these globally recognized rules. They are increasingly adopting mercantilist practices aimed at giving their state champions the advantages necessary to replace imports with domestic production, climb global value chains, and seize dominant global market share in strategic sectors.

The catalogue of predatory practices is lengthy. It extends well beyond generally accepted support for home-grown industries, to include manipulating local currencies to give their state champions an unfair price advantage in foreign markets, requirements for foreign firms to transfer advanced technology to state champions as a prerequisite to access their markets, and the showering of massive industrial subsidies on state champions that allow them to engage in unprofitable activity that wipes out foreign competition.

These mercantilist interventions mean that Canadian firms are not competing with a typical commercial company. Instead, they are operating on a skewed playing field, competing with the full strength and resources of a foreign state…

This, in turn, destroys domestic industries and gives Canada no choice but to rely on state champions for critical economic inputs.

That reliance is especially problematic. The blurred lines between state policy and private pursuits means that even ostensibly private firms often have no choice but to support their government’s national security objectives. This includes providing support, assistance, and cooperation to intelligence agencies.

In addition, we warned:

Our reliance on international trade makes also us vulnerable. Strategic threat actors seek to expand their global influence by weaponizing Canada’s dependence on trade to pressure, induce, or influence the Government of Canada into taking actions that conform with their national priorities.

Strategic threat actors use diverse tactics to coerce the Government of Canada. They can restrict the movement of critical goods for which there are no substitutes, withhold reciprocal access to domestic markets, and subject Canadian goods to onerous import inspections and conditions.

With Canadian exports supporting more than one out of every six jobs in the country, weaponized trade can directly threaten the livelihoods of Canadians…

Weaponized trade may also have broader societal costs. As Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has highlighted for our European allies, overreliance on a strategic threat actor for critical economic inputs, especially one with systemically divergent values and interests, can prove both costly and deadly for society during a crisis.

Canada is dependent on strategic threat actors for a broad range of commodities vital to Canadians’ safety, security, and prosperity…

To mitigate these and other serious economic security threats identified in our 2023 report, the BCC urged the Government to adopt a new national security strategy, one that for the first time puts economic security considerations at its core. To flesh out this strategy, we further offered the Government nearly 40 detailed policy proposals.

We are pleased to see the Government has followed our advice by announcing that it will soon publish its first national security strategy in over two decades. We are also pleased to see that the Government has adopted many of our detailed policy proposals, including amending the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to authorize CSIS to proactively share threat intelligence with Canada’s private sector, and modernizing the national security provisions of the Investment Canada Act to better target and screen out malicious foreign investments.

However, several key recommendations from our 2023 report – which have direct relevance to your department’s current consultation – have not yet been addressed. We urge that you reconsider these proposals.

Specifically, we recommend that:

• To blunt the impacts of mercantilist practices, the Government should create new legal mechanisms to block the import of foreign goods and services that have benefitted materially from unfair economic practices. The Government’s initial focus should be on blocking strategic threat actors’ market access to critical industries where they are using illegal means to catch up and surpass Canada.

• To safeguard our continued access to critical economic inputs while strengthening the Government’s capability to act independently on the global stage, the Government should work with sectors vulnerable to economic coercion to strengthen the depth and resilience of critical supply chains. This should include conducting vulnerability reviews, sharing threat information, developing robust mitigation strategies, curbing excessive dependence on strategic threat actors, and increasing availability of free-market alternatives.

• To help Canadian companies compete on a level playing field with strategic threat actors in developing and commercializing emerging and disruptive technologies, the Government should complement the economic and innovative capacity of Canadian companies with a modern industrial strategy. More specifically, the Government must identify and support advanced technologies that are foundational to spurring economic growth, strategic from a national security perspective, and where companies on their own are not yet able to make the investments needed to develop and commercialize such technologies. 

• To reinforce the rules-based economic order, the Government, in partnership with other like-minded allies, should:
  
  • Strengthen the multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organization at its core;
    
    
  • Strengthen or join international frameworks promoting free and fair trade and investment among market-oriented countries, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework; and
    
    
  • Create and enhance plurilateral measures to collectively deter, withstand, and counter economic coercion and other unfair trade practices, such as through a “NATO for trade” whereby allied nations agree to come to the aid of each other when they are economically threatened. As a part of this initiative, Canada should leverage its economic advantages, such as in the production of energy, food, and minerals, to help reduce our allies’ trade dependencies on strategic threat actors.
    

• To ensure that any new economic security measures are implemented in an effective and timely manner, the Government should create a dedicated planning, decision-making, and coordination unit within the Privy Council Office to engage Canadian businesses and to organize, coordinate, and direct the Government’s responses across the numerous government departments and agencies with competing economic security mandates and responsibilities.

In addition to these recommendations, we note the consultation materials asked stakeholders to comment on potential new measures to improve the competitive standing of Canadian critical minerals projects and related supply chains. Specifically, the materials suggested that the Government may be contemplating additional incentives for the critical minerals sector as well as financing measures to address price volatility and supply chain diversification. The BCC generally agrees that additional attention is needed in this area.

That said, the BCC believes that the competitiveness of Canada’s critical minerals sector could best be enhanced through project approval and permitting reform. The unpredictability and uncertainty of Canada’s regulatory approval and permitting processes is the single greatest disincentive to invest in new critical minerals mining projects. This extends to both the approvals for mines and the critical infrastructure needed to support their operations and access to foreign markets.  

While this consultation asks important questions about Canada’s critical mineral supply, we strongly urge the department to take a broader view to ensure that the country’s diverse energy interests, inclusive of oil and gas, are factored into its work. The strategic importance of our oil and gas sector should not be overlooked, especially at a time when our allies and trading partners are looking to Canada to provide a safe and stable supply of energy in the decades to come.

Lastly, the consultation materials underscore the importance of compliance with international obligations, including those set out in Canada’s various trade and investment agreements. The BCC agrees that this must be a priority – especially for Canada.

As we stressed in our 2023 report:

[The Government’s approach to addressing economic security threats] must be balanced. While it must be capable of tackling the threats facing Canadians at home and abroad, it must also remain consistent with Canada’s democratic values as well as ensure that the domestic and international environment remains conducive to beneficial cross-border activities, such as trade and economic immigration, which are central to our national interests.

In other words, protecting Canada’s economic security should not be used as a veiled excuse for the Government of Canada to undermine Canadians’ rights, adopt protectionist trade and investment rules, or decouple its relations with certain foreign states altogether.

Indeed, if the Government expects foreign states to adhere to the rules-based international economic order, then it is incumbent upon Canada to honour the commitments it has made to its trading partners.

Unfortunately, the Government has taken measures which our closest trading partners believe violate the letter and spirit of our international economic agreements. This includes, most recently, the Government’s decision to unilaterally impose a digital services tax on foreign technology companies which very likely violates Canada’s critically important trade agreement with the United States and Mexico.

Economic coercion, mercantilism, and other unfair trade practices represent a clear and present danger to the economic prosperity of all Canadians. While urgent government action is required, the Government must ensure the measures it takes do not jeopardize Canada’s relations with its closest trading partners. As a trading nation, these partners have, and will remain, essential to protecting Canadians’ economic resiliency and prosperity.

Yours very truly,

Goldy Hyder

c.c.:

The post Protecting Canadians from unfair trade practices appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

I am writing with regards to your joint statement in response to the U.S. Trade Representative’s request for dispute settlement consultations on Canada’s unilateral digital services tax (DST) pursuant to the provisions of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

For more than two years, the Business Council of Canada has warned that the unilateral imposition of a DST outside of the OECD framework would trigger a retaliatory response from our most important trading partner. This has now happened. It was clear from the outset that the Biden-Harris Administration, and a rare bipartisan consensus in the U.S. Congress, viewed the DST as discriminatory and in direct contravention of the CUSMA.

As harmful as retaliatory measures by the U.S. would be to Canadian families, businesses, and our domestic economy – while also negating any projected tax revenues – the government’s unilateral DST risks having an even more destructive impact. In successive meetings with senior U.S. officials, we have been repeatedly told that if Canada’s unilateral DST remains in place it will imperil the upcoming mandatory review of the CUSMA.

Your joint statement in response to the U.S. request for dispute settlement consultations said the “new NAFTA” – meaning CUSMA – was the appropriate forum in which to discuss the DST. That strategy will neither address nor assuage U.S. concern and, in fact, risks undermining CUSMA and our most important trade and investment partnership. The government’s unilateral DST must be rescinded immediately, before the CUSMA review starts.

The DST is one of many bilateral irritants where the U.S. believes Canada has gone back on its word and failed to honour its commitments. To avoid serious economic consequences for Canadians, the government must reverse its decision, revoke its unilateral DST, and recommit Canada to the multilateral OECD negotiations alongside the United States.

Yours very truly,
Goldy Hyder

The post Canada’s DST imperils CUSMA mandatory review appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Re: Potential Labour Disruption in Class I railways

Dear Prime Minister and Ministers:

We are writing to urge you to immediately intervene and do everything necessary to avert a disruption in Canada’s Class I railways.

A concurrent or sequential work stoppage at both major railways will leave Canadians with access to fewer goods and products, driving up prices and exacerbating affordability challenges.  A failure to act swiftly will also put the livelihoods of millions of workers in jeopardy.

A disruption to our railway system will have an immediate impact on thousands of businesses from coast to coast and to commuters in several major urban centres. All of Canada’s ports, logistics and warehouse operators, and suppliers will be affected, while a prolonged stoppage will quickly lead to shortages of supplies for numerous industries, forcing businesses to suspend their operations and furlough their employees. Factoring in the millions of Canadian jobs that would be impacted, the magnitude of the disruption is daunting.

Our international reputation and relationship with our trading partners is also at stake. Canada’s railways transport $380 billion worth of goods annually – that’s over $1 billion each day – and account for half of the country’s exports. A prolonged railway strike will also surely weaken Canada’s negotiating position in advance of the renewal of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement in 2026. A loss of confidence from our most important trading partner would take years to repair.

The uncertainty around the potential of a nationwide rail strike has already forced businesses across the country to adjust their operations (see Appendix).

We are respectfully asking that you safeguard the well-being of Canadians and the country’s reputation as a reliable trading partner by ensuring that a disruption to our national railway system does not occur.

To support this effort, we would like to propose a meeting with you and a select group of association leaders as soon as possible. This meeting would provide an opportunity to discuss our concerns in detail and to explore how we, Canada’s business community, can support the government in preventing any potential disruption.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

Sincerely,

The post Preventing a rail labour disruption appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Dear Premier Ford,

At a time of economic uncertainty, when families across the country are struggling with the high cost of living, there is something you can do to inject billions of dollars into your economy – join the New West Partnership Agreement. This step will unlock unprecedented opportunities for both Ontario and Canada as a whole, while improving the conditions for investment.  

A recent study found that if Ontario joined the New West Partnership, its economy could grow by as much as $4.1 billion annually. This would boost household income by approximately $1,000 per family and create new revenues of roughly $420 million for the province.  Economic gains would also expand beyond Ontario, with the economies of western provinces expected to grow by roughly $3.5 billion per year.      

Interprovincial trade barriers in areas such as procurement, trucking, agriculture and agrifood continue to drive up costs for Canadians and hold back businesses from fulfilling their potential. In 2017, Statistics Canada estimated that the amount of economic activity restricted by non-tariff trade barriers was equal to having a seven per cent tariff on interprovincial trade. This means goods across the country cost seven per cent more than they should.

These barriers also impact skilled workers by preventing them from operating in other provinces. We recognize your government’s efforts to improve labour mobility conditions, notably by removing barriers for healthcare professionals, but more must be done across Canada. There is no reason a skilled tradesperson or professional with relevant experience should face an administrative barrier when seeking employment outside their province.   

Governments across Canada are under economic pressure, facing higher deficits and increased borrowing costs, while spending demands on everything from infrastructure to social programs are mounting. Increasing economic activity within and between provinces will help to ease those economic pressures and lower deficits. As Ontario advances its industrial strategy, interprovincial trade is a key part of the province’s economic success.

Joining the New West Partnership demands bold action and commitment. As the Premier of Ontario, you have a choice.  While previous administrations chose to maintain these trade barriers that hold back Ontario’s economic potential, you can demonstrate national leadership by working with western provinces to expand your economies to benefit your consumers, workers and businesses. Canada’s business community stands ready to work with you to remove trade barriers and usher in a new era of opportunity for millions of Canadians.

The post Business leaders urge Ontario to join the New West Partnership appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Prime Minister –

As you travel home from the emotional ceremonies commemorating the 80^th Anniversary of the D-Day landings, it is our hope you are returning to Canada with a renewed appreciation for the vital role the Canadian Armed Forces play in safeguarding both our national sovereignty and the collective security of our international allies.

While there were aspects of your governments recent defence policy update which we supported, its major failing was that it did not set out a plan for Canada to honour our longstanding commitment to increase our defence spending to the equivalent of two per cent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Moreover, contrary to what we have consistently advocated, the investment plans outlined in the defence policy update were not shown to be sustainable. Specifically, there was no indication made that new investments in defence would be offset by a strategic program review which reallocates funds from other areas of government.

You may ask why an organization comprised of the chief executives of the leading and largest companies in Canada would have a position on defence spending. First and foremost, we are proud citizens who believe our country must have the sovereign capacity to protect Canadians in a far more turbulent world, one marked by growing geopolitical confrontation.

The second reason is we, like all Canadians, believe our country must keep its word once it has been given. Our standing on the global stage is undermined when we shirk our responsibilities and fail to share the burdens of upholding the open and free global order, that has provided Canadians with unprecedented levels of safety, security and prosperity.

To be clear, the world is watching. Just last month you received a letter from 23 U.S. Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, calling Canadians out for our shortfall in defence spending. The reality is that Canadian business leaders are met with similar calls and questions as we travel internationally and visit the capitals of our main allies.

Next month you will be in Washington, D.C. for another important event commemorating the 75^th Anniversary of NATO. There is a growing concern that Canada – one of the 12 founding members – will be singled out at that summit as the only member of the 32-nation alliance who has not committed to invest at least two per cent of GDP on defence by the end of this decade.

The consequences that would result from this diplomatic isolation, in terms of both our security and economic partnerships, will have broad ramifications for all Canadians. Fortunately, it is not too late. Your government could still make a public statement prior to the summit that it will review and revise its defence spending plans to achieve the full two per cent by 2029-30.

We live in increasingly perilous and uncertain times. It is vital that Canadians work cooperatively with our NATO allies to defend our borders, our interests, and our values. If we, as a country, fail to make this benchmark level of investment in defence, as successive Canadian governments including yours have promised, we will put lives and livelihoods at risk.

Yours very truly,

Goldy Hyder

The post Meeting Canada’s NATO commitments appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Dear Deputy Prime Minister Freeland and Minister Champagne,

The Business Council of Canada (BCC) was among the more than 130 stakeholders who participated in the government’s consultation on modernizing the Competition Act, launched in late 2022. When the government unveiled its proposed changes, however, they included many which were not part of the consultation process, raising concerns about the transparency and fairness of the process.

As we wrote in February, we were surprised and disappointed with the government’s decision to amend one of the most important regulatory regimes in Canada through an omnibus bill (i.e. C-59) without adequate notice or additional consultation.  We continue to believe that the proposed changes will have a long-term negative impact on the economy and must be thoroughly studied and debated by Parliament, with a clear understanding of the bill’s intended and unintended consequences.

To date our concerns have been ignored. Worse, a number of late-stage amendments have been brought forward at committee stage without stakeholder consultation, expert testimony, appropriate debate, or comprehensive analysis. 

For example, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance made significant amendments to Canada’s merger regime in haste, without any notice or consultation, adopting new “bright line” structural presumptions. By advancing these amendments, Canada will abandon its decades-long adherence to a principled, effects-based approach to competition policy without any meaningful consideration, including of its unintended consequences. It will do so by presuming – often incorrectly – that the structure of a market determines competitive outcomes, as well as by inappropriately shifting the burden of proving otherwise to the party that is least capable of demonstrating the point. 

We are equally concerned with the introduction of paragraph 74.01(1)(b.2), which will significantly affect companies making climate-related, net zero, environmental impact or similar claims.  The BCC and its members discourage corporate greenwashing and are committed to meeting targets set by your government. We don’t disagree that the government should have strong mechanisms in place to prevent Canadians from receiving false or inaccurate information.  However, the new requirements in our view are overly broad and reflect a substantial, substantive departure from the generally accepted jurisdiction of competition law.

Our diverse membership is rightly concerned with the uncertainty created by the new inherently vague standard, which could apply to every company that makes public representations and warranties with respect to the environment and/or climate change.  We urge you to consider thoughtfully the Commissioner of Competition’s advice and study the best approach to prevent misleading claims concerning a company’s environmental or climate-related performance.

Canada’s business community recognizes the need to modernize our country’s decades-old Competition Act to ensure it remains relevant in a rapidly evolving economy. Strong and robust competition laws are critical to providing consumers with competitive prices and product choices, ensuring that small and medium-sized businesses have an equitable opportunity to participate in the economy, and expanding opportunities for Canadian participation in world markets.

We urge the government to remove all of the proposed Competition Act changes in Bill C-59 and put them before Parliament as a separate bill so that the full legal effects can be properly assessed and debated. Doing so would ensure that important elements of C-59, such as the long-awaited investment tax credits for clean technology and carbon capture sequestration, come into force while minimizing the unintended consequences created by the Standing Committee’s last-minute amendments to the Competition Act.

Sincerely,

Goldy Hyder

The post Unintended consequences of Competition Act amendments appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Prime Minister, 

I am writing on behalf of the Business Council of Canada (BCC) further to a letter we had sent to Deputy Prime Minister Freeland urging your government to hold off implementing the proposed Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) two pillar global tax framework until such time as the United States has done so. 

The BCC has long taken the position that if Canada unilaterally imposes a digital services tax (DST), it will undermine our economic relationship with the U.S. – our most important trading partner. In addition, we have argued that unilaterally imposing the global minimum tax (GMT) before the U.S. would threaten our comparative tax competitiveness. 

For these reasons, we have repeatedly appealed to your government to align Canada’s implementation of the OECD tax framework with that of the United States. This would ensure Canadian trade and investment are not penalized. It would also be in keeping with the spirit of the OECD negotiations calling for all countries to act in tandem.  

Since our earlier letter to Deputy Prime Minister Freeland, departmental officials at Finance Canada have been briefed on the unintended consequences that would result from the unilateral implementation of the two pillar OECD framework. We understand that they are actively canvassing potential solutions with your office.

We hope that you will give these solutions your full and fair consideration. 

Yours very truly, 

Goldy Hyder

The post Potential consequences of two pillar OECD framework appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Dear Ministers,

On behalf of Canada’s leading employers, I am writing to express our deep concern over a potential rail strike affecting both of Canada’s Class I railways. 

Canadian business leaders support the collective bargaining process and recognize that the best agreements happen at the negotiating table. However, any breakdown in negotiations and a resulting country-wide railway strike would cause devastating economic disruption by stopping the flow of essential goods, raising prices for consumers and businesses, putting jobs at risk, and threatening Canada’s reputation as a reliable trading partner.

Railways are the lifeblood of the economy, providing Canadians and our closest allies with the products they need to sustain a high quality of life. Businesses of all sizes and in all sectors also rely on railways to deliver goods that sustain their operations and employ millions of Canadians. Concurrent strikes affecting both of Canada’s Class 1 railways would be disastrous.

Last month, your government tabled a budget focused on helping Canadians navigate the significant affordability challenges they are facing.  A national work stoppage would mean Canadians have access to fewer goods and essential products, driving up prices and exacerbating their affordability challenges.  A failure to act swiftly would also jeopardize the jobs of millions of workers.

Moreover, more than 60 per cent of Canada’s GDP is driven by trade.  Roughly $380 billion dollars worth of goods travel across our national railway system, with more than half of the country’s exports moved by rail each year[1].  A work stoppage would paralyze our trade-dependent economy at a time when the country desperately needs revenue. 

Critical imports and exports through major ports across the country will effectively freeze while the impact to shippers and their operations will be profound and long lasting.  We remind you that real GDP per capita in Canada has declined in five of the past six quarters and is currently near 2017 levels.

Canada’s reputation as a reliable trading partner is also at stake, especially with our principal trading partner, the United States.  Earlier this year your government announced a “Team Canada” approach to prepare for the U.S. presidential election and to strengthen Canada’s negotiation position in advance of the renewal of the Canada-United States- Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) in 2026. A prolonged rail strike would undermine those efforts, perhaps irreparably.

In the last three years our trading relationship, and the resilience of our supply chains, has been tested due to labour disputes at the ports of Montreal, Vancouver, and the St. Lawerence Seaway.  A shut down of our continentally integrated railway system threatens to tarnish Canada’s reputation with the United States and weaken its credibility as a signatory to CUSMA. 

The Minister of Labour’s recent referral to the Canada Industrial Relations Board to assess the impacts of a potential railway strike to the health and/or safety of the public has introduced significant uncertainty with respect to the expected timing of a potential work stoppage. This additional uncertainty is causing further damage to the reliability, stability, and confidence of Canada’s supply chains. Railway networks are designed to move all commodities without priority of one over the other. We urge you to do everything in your power to act in the public interest by restoring clarity rapidly and ensuring that the Canadian economy is not held captive to another labour disruption. 

In 2022 in the United States, the Biden administration worked across parties to intervene with legislation and prevent a railway strike that could have devastated the American economy.  In his remarks, President Biden said he was compelled to act because a work stoppage “without a doubt would have been an economic catastrophe” and that legislation “was the right thing to do at the moment to save jobs, to protect millions of families from harm and disruption and to keep supply chains stable.” 

The President’s words underscore the severity of what could be at stake in Canada. We ask you to act with similar resolve to work across party lines and explore all measures to prevent a work stoppage from occurring.

Regards,

Goldy Hyder

[1] Railway Association of Canda, 2023.  Rail Trends 2023.

The post A rail strike would threaten Canada’s economy and trade relations appeared first on Business Council of Canada.