Deputy Prime Minister,

I am writing on behalf of the Business Council of Canada (BCC) to again urge you and the 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, it will undermine our economic relationship with our most important trading partner. Imposing the global minimum tax (GMT) before the U.S. would threaten our comparative tax competitiveness.

While we recognize that other jurisdictions have variously implemented elements of the OECD two pillar tax framework, the Canadian situation in relation to the U.S. is unique given the highly integrated nature of our economies as enshrined and enabled by the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement.

We therefore strongly urge you and the government to align Canada’s implementation of the OECD tax framework with the United States. This would ensure that Canadian trade and investment are in no way penalized. It would also be in keeping with the spirit of the agreement that all countries act in tandem.

Yours very truly,

Goldy Hyder

c.c.      Mr. Chris Forbes

Deputy Minister Finance Canada

The post Aligning Canada’s OECD tax framework with the United States appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Dear Minister,  

I am writing with respect to the government’s announcement that it is partially reimposing a visa requirement for Mexican citizens traveling to Canada. While the Business Council of Canada has historically opposed a travel visa requirement for Mexican citizens, we recognize the exigent circumstances which have compelled the government to reverse its policy. The purpose of this letter is to communicate the importance of implementing this policy decision in a way that does not create unintended consequences for Canadians. 

Canada must maintain a strong, constructive relationship with Mexico so our two countries can continue working together in pursuit of shared goals. This includes economic cooperation, deeper trade facilitation, and enhanced prosperity throughout North America. The Canada-Mexico bilateral trade and investment relationship is vital to our national, continental, and hemispheric prosperity within the context of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) and also the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). As a consequence of enhanced trade ties, North American infrastructure networks have become increasingly integrated making their continued resilience a matter of economic security. 

For these reasons, it is imperative that the implementation of the partial travel visa requirement does not undermine our economic security or our prosperity by unduly restricting legitimate travel between our two countries such as travel to Canada by Mexican employees of Canadian companies. While some of those employees may have existing Canadian work permits or be otherwise able to avail themselves of the electronic travel authorization (eTA) program, many others could be caught up in any processing backlogs which may exist or occur over time. 

We recognize the government’s decision to partially reinstate the travel visa requirement is intended to target a surge in ineligible travelers coming to Canada seeking asylum not business travelers coming to Canada in connection with their employment. As such, we hope government will agree to work collaboratively with the private sector to identify measures we can put in place to ensure and expedite business travelers – perhaps in the form of a ‘trusted employer’ program. We further hope circumstances evolve so that Canada may review the visa policy in the future. 

Canadian business leaders stand ready to work with government to both protect our economic security as well as to promote increased economic ties with key trading partners such as Mexico. 

Yours very truly, 

Goldy Hyder

c.c.      Dr. Harpreet S. Kochhar
Deputy Minister
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada

Mr. Graeme C. Clark
Ambassador of Canada to Mexico

The post Avoiding unintended consequences for Canada-Mexico trade and investment appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Dear Minister Champagne,

We represent Canadian businesses that compete every day with each other and with companies around the world. Together, our members employ millions of Canadians from a wide range of sectors that contribute billions to Canada’s economy. We believe in open and competitive markets that are underpinned by transparent and predictable rules. Unfortunately, your government’s recent efforts to modernize Canada’s competition laws jeopardize the foundation on which we operate.  

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.

That’s why we and more than 130 other stakeholders – including small and large businesses, labour organizations, and consumer groups – engaged in the formal process established by your government in late 2022 to comprehensively review the Act.

The result of that consultation process – a “What We Heard” report – was released in late 2023, concluding with these words: “Thanks to the broad and thoughtful participation in this public consultation, the government now feels it is appropriately equipped to develop well-calibrated proposals for Parliamentary consideration.”

We were therefore surprised and disappointed that your government opted not to develop “well-calibrated proposals for Parliamentary consideration” through a stand-alone competition bill.

Instead, without notice, consultation, or meaningful debate in Parliament, you chose to rush through several major changes to the Act via an omnibus bill – Bill C-56. Weeks later, you introduced an additional round of consequential changes to the Act through a second omnibus bill – Bill C-59 – also without notice and consultation.

We are writing to express serious concerns with your decision to make important changes to the Act in such an unprecedented manner.

The Competition Act establishes one of Canada’s most important regulatory regimes. As the legal framework providing the rules by which all businesses operate in the economy, any changes to the Act can have far-reaching consequences.

Bill C-59 includes proposals to increase private rights of access to the Competition Tribunal, expand the scope of the civil competitor collaboration provisions to apply to past conduct, and allow the Tribunal to conclude that a merger is likely to prevent or lessen competition substantially, solely based on evidence of concentration or market share.

These proposed changes will have a major impact on the economy and must be thoroughly studied and debated by Parliament, along with their intended and unintended consequences. For instance, Parliament should ensure that an expanded right of private access is not used by businesses to hamstring their rivals with frivolous lawsuits rather than competing on merit. However, with Bill C-59 being an omnibus bill, such rigorous review is unlikely to occur.

By limiting notice, consultation and debate, the government’s approach to reforming the Act introduces uncertainty and instability into competitive markets. It risks undermining competition between Canadian companies here at home, while also hampering foreign investment from abroad. Few companies, foreign or domestic, will seek to make significant investments in a country that changes its laws so arbitrarily and capriciously.

We urge the government to go back to the drawing board. The government should remove the proposed Competition Act changes in Bill C-59 and recommit to its promised stakeholder consultation process to ensure a modernized Act truly benefits all Canadians. 

Sincerely,

The post Course correction needed on competition law changes appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Dear Mr. Moffet,

Last year the Business Council of Canada (BCC) wrote to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to express concerns with the government’s intention to impose a cap on the emissions produced by Canada’s oil and gas sector.  After reviewing the proposed Regulatory Framework released in December, our concerns remain, and we continue to believe that an emissions cap is unnecessary.

In our letter we wrote that imposing a cap on the oil and gas sector would represent a significant departure from the national approach to reducing emissions through a broad-based and sector-agnostic price on carbon emissions.  The proposed Regulatory Framework provides minimal evidence to suggest that the competitiveness of the oil and gas sector will be protected, and that the government is serious about preventing carbon leakage.  As written, the oil and gas emissions cap is duplicative and will destabilize existing carbon pricing regimes and credit markets. 

We understand that Environment and Climate Change Canada is focused on reducing emissions in accordance with the government’s Emissions Reductions Plan.  However, we believe it would be irresponsible for the department to disregard the current economic context and the substantial implications a proposed cap on oil and gas emissions will have on Canadians. 

Canada’s GDP outlook for this year will be a dismal 0.6 % and Canada is poised to be the worst-performing advanced economy from 2020 to 2030 and from 2030 to 2060.  Our energy sector is a stalwart of the country’s economy. It accounts for more than 10 per cent of Canada’s GDP, drives our trading relationship with the United States, and props up real wages and household and retirement incomes.

Imposing an emissions cap will likely force operators to involuntarily curtail their production.  This would effectively reduce the overall capacity of the most productive segment of Canada’s economy at a time when investment and growth is desperately needed.   It would also deprive Canada of its ability to use its low-emitting energy wealth to offset global emissions and meaningfully help its allies address their energy security challenges. 

Some of Canada’s most reputable economists believe that an emissions cap would exacerbate the country’s inflation and affordability problems by applying a broad-based economic shock that will reduce tax revenues and add pressure to the federal deficit.  A 10 per cent decline in oil and gas productivity will lower the economic output of Ontario and the Atlantic provinces by 0.6 and 0.5 per cent respectively.   At a national level, this would translate into a loss of roughly $35 billion per year, or nearly $900 per person per year.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed Regulatory Framework and offer three comments for consideration:

1. The proposed timelines are unrealistic and out of sync with other policies.

The Regulatory Framework states that the regulations are targeted to come into force in 2025 with companies obliged to begin meeting their compliance obligations in full or in part as early as 2026.  Substantive emissions reductions in the realm of 66 MMT will need to be achieved by 2030.

The proposed framework aspires to achieve emissions reductions through technologies and projects that have yet to be deployed.  Investments are not made on speculative legislation. It is simply unrealistic to assume that projects, technologies and decarbonization strategies will be deployed, permitted and operational in four years.

Furthermore, emissions reductions in the sector will be achieved through projects that lack the required fiscal and regulatory support to secure investment and be deployed at scale.  The government has yet to implement key policies that would help industry de-risk decarbonization investments.  Some of the most urgent elements include proposed investment tax credits to accelerate investment in CCUS and a suite of clean technologies, an offset protocol for direct air carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, and a program to create carbon contracts for difference. 

Canadians also continue to wait for the government to fulfil its overdue commitment to improve the project approval and permitting regime of clean growth projects in Canada.

• Compatibility with existing emission reduction policies and programs is unclear.

The Regulatory Framework states that the emissions cap will be designed to complement and leverage other federal and provincial regulations to minimize administrative costs.  However, it falls short in detailing how performance under a provincially regulated program will be treated under the federal emissions cap. 

We are concerned that oil and gas sector emissions will be subject to duplicative and redundant regulation under federal and provincial programs.  From a policy standpoint, a new oil and gas emissions cap would need to work in concert with the federal and provincial Output-Based Pricing Systems, potentially creating duplicative carbon pricing regimes and a high potential to destabilize carbon prices, credit markets and future compliance costs for oil and gas assets.   This level of uncertainty will be exacerbated given the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan intend to challenge the federal government’s ability to enact a constitutionally valid emissions cap under federal law.

Oil and gas operators are no different than any other major emitting operator in Canada.  They require a sufficient level of detail of all regulatory requirements to properly assess and deploy the capital required to decarbonize their operations and remain competitive.  At the time of this writing, much work remains to be done to clarify the interoperability of the proposed cap with existing and forthcoming federal and provincial programs designed to reduce oil and gas emissions.

Lastly, an oil and gas emission cap would undoubtedly ramp up the administrative burden and compliance costs for producing oil and gas in Canada, compromising the ability of producers to provide competitive products to their customers in Canada and to international markets.   

• An oil and gas emissions cap threatens to divert capital away from deep and meaningful emission reductions.

Our previous work broadly explains the investment strategies in place to decarbonize emissions in the oil and gas sector.  Deployment of these strategies requires a clear policy trajectory and a concerted effort by the government to follow through on its commitments to accelerate investments and approvals for clean technology projects.  Climate policy needs to enable long-lead compliance planning by providing companies with a visible policy pathway that aligns with their investment strategies to achieve net zero by 2050. 

Unfortunately, the proposed oil and gas framework narrowly focuses on achieving emission reductions by 2030.  Its stringent timelines could force companies to divert capital away from their decarbonization strategies and into the emissions cap’s proposed compliance pathways, the Decarbonization Fund or domestic offset credits.  At the same time, the cap-and-trade approach may make it more challenging for the sector to continue its collaborative approach to emission reductions as companies will be in competition for free allowances.

The government has yet to provide sufficient information about each pathway and if it can be leveraged to support the wide and diverse strategies companies have in place to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.   The government’s inability to clearly describe each compliance option threatens to delay final investment decisions and exacerbates the conditions for capital flight by companies and their respective investors and shareholders.

The proposed Regulatory Framework does little to instill confidence that the oil and gas emissions cap will incent the record levels of investment required to reduce emissions in accordance with Canada’s ambitious 2030 target and the industry’s commitment to be net zero by 2050.   We urge the department to take the long view and develop are regulatory and policy environment that is conducive to attracting investor confidence and unlocking the capital required to decarbonize Canada’s upstream oil and gas sector.

Sincerely,

Michael Gullo
Vice President, Policy
Business Council of Canada

cc:       Chris Forbes
Deputy Minister
Finance Canada

Paul Halucha
Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Clean Growth)
Privy Council Office

Jean Francois Tremblay
Deputy Minister
Environment and Climate Change Canada       

Michael Vandergrift
Deputy Minister
Natural Resource Canada

The post Re-evaluating the proposed oil and gas regulatory framework appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

From:  Michael Gullo and Heather Exner-Pirot
To: Ministerial Working Group on Regulatory Efficiency for Clean Growth Projects
Date: January 25, 2024 
Re: Improving Canada’s competitiveness

Canadian workers, industry and the federal government share a common goal of a strong economy and a healthy environment. This includes building infrastructure to support a low carbon energy system, as well as increasing Canada’s responsibly produced energy and mineral exports to global markets.

To achieve our goals we will need to attract far greater private investment in major projects. By some estimates, Canada needs to invest roughly $2 trillion to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Today’s level of investments is well off the mark. As the federal government itself has articulated, we are currently seeing annual investment of about $15-$25 billion, when we need to achieve upwards of $125-$140 billion.

The key to unlocking much higher levels of investment in Canada is a more nimble and efficient system for approving and regulating major projects. As we, and others like Grant Bishop and Grant Sprague in a recent C.D. Howe Institute paper, have noted previously, Canada’s permitting system is slow and burdensome. It is holding back the country’s potential.

According to Natural Resources Canada’s annual inventory of major projects (those planned and being constructed), between 2015-2023 the real value of major projects in constant 2015 dollars fell 33.52 percent (-$231.3 billion); the number of projects decreased by 10.04 percent, the average project value dropped 6.1 percent, and the total number of completed projects declined by of 36.36 percent.

Far from building for a cleaner, more prosperous future, we are falling behind.

In Budget 2023, the government made the commitment to “by the end of 2023 … outline a concrete plan to improve the efficiency of the impact assessment and permitting processes for major projects, which will include clarifying and reducing timelines, mitigating inefficiencies, and improving engagement and partnerships;” a plan that has yet to be introduced.  
We acknowledge the complexity introduced by the Supreme Court’s Impact Assessment Act ruling that found aspects of the legislation unconstitutional.

Even so, action is needed now. A lack of policy predictability is discouraging new investment and hurting Canada’s competitiveness. An unpredictable regulatory environment effectively delays final investment decisions and compromises Canada’s ability to transition to a low carbon economy.

In September the Prime Minister appointed you to a special cabinet working group to ensure “an efficient regulatory framework to support the development of clean growth projects.”

As you carry out this urgent task, we offer some recommendations based on what Canada’s leading companies and pre-eminent entrepreneurs have told us would spur them to invest in Canada at scale again.

1. Publicly support, rather than discourage, investment. Investors need clear, positive signals that countries and regions want their business.

To convince investors and proponents that their regulator shares a common interest in moving projects forward in a timely manner, the federal government should issue a policy statement to clearly convey that there is a “bias to yes;” a commitment that it will become the practice in Canada to review, approve and build projects that are in the national interest (e.g. those advancing energy security, the energy transition or Indigenous reconciliation) in a timely manner.

2. Deliver on the principle of “one project and one assessment.” The Supreme Court decision makes a clear case for recognizing provincial jurisdiction for most natural resource and infrastructure projects. Canada should clearly articulate, as soon as possible, what projects and decision-making authorities it will now defer to the provinces, and how it will work collaboratively with provincial governments to address requirements driven by federal statute. This should include a “Clerk-to-Clerk Table” between the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Executive Council of provinces and territories to instill disciplined coordination.  

The government should make permanent its interim guidance following the Supreme Court decision that paused the minister’s ability to designate projects for federal review.

3. Take politics out of the project review and approval process. One of the greatest sources of risk to building in Canada is the threat of a major project meeting all legal and regulatory requirements, but still getting vetoed at the end of the day by politicians. This happened most recently on December 4, 2023, when the federal and Nova Scotia governments vetoed an oil and gas exploration licence to Inceptio Limited that had been granted by the regulator.

It has happened enough times that investors and proponents are concerned about the possibility of delays or vetoes for any given project. The risk and cost of this has deterred many would-be proponents from advancing projects. The government needs to set clear requirements and then allow projects that meet all of them to move forward.

In recent years, Canada has not enjoyed a political environment that is conducive to attracting the level of investment we need to achieve our goals.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments need to work more collaboratively, and urgently, to create the conditions required for Canadians to prosper. The business community wants to be a partner in achieving those common objectives.

Your leadership is required to set the tone and get on a pathway for this to be achieved. It is in that spirit that we offer this advice.

The post Improving Canada’s Competitiveness appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Dear Prime Minister, 

In advance of your cabinet retreat this past summer we wrote a letter urging you to focus on delivering policy solutions in three priority areas. Specifically, we advised your government to strengthen the Canadian economy by adopting a meaningful fiscal anchor, delivering on your promised permitting reform plan, and seizing the energy transition opportunity.  

Unfortunately, sufficient progress has not been made in any of these priority areas. The government’s failure to act with urgency has weakened and worsened our domestic economic growth. Consequently, Canadians continue to struggle with affordability challenges driven by high interest rates, persistent inflation, and low productivity.  

When you meet with your cabinet next week, we are once again respectfully asking you to address these issues as a matter of priority. 

Adopting a Meaningful Fiscal Anchor 

A year ago, the Business Council of Canada and former Bank of Canada Governor David Dodge released Assessing the Potential Risks to the Sustainability of the Government of Canada’s Current Fiscal Plan. Among its recommendations, the report called for government to adopt a new fiscal anchor based on a debt-servicing cost-to-revenue ratio. 

Instead, your government unveiled a new fiscal anchor in its 2023 Fall Economic Statement (FES) – one that would keep deficits below 1 per cent of GDP in fiscal years 2026-2027 and future years. Yet it was not clear in the FES how this new target would be achieved. Using the government’s own figures, with GDP forecast to be $3,202 billion in 2026, the deficit would be capped at $32 billion. 

Today the deficit is 1.4 per cent of GDP. Assuming no new taxes and lower economic growth as estimated by the Bank of Canada, a 0.4 per cent reduction implies spending cuts of at least $12 billion per year or $50 billion over four years. Given your government has increased expenses annually, on average, by well over 5 per cent each year since 2016, the proposed anchor is just not credible. 

Delivering a Plan to Improve Impact Assessment and Permitting

Unfortunately, the government’s track record on implementing its budget commitments is no better than its spending projections. Budget 2023 contained a clear promise that “by the end of 2023, the government will outline a concrete plan to improve the efficiency of the impact assessment and permitting processes for major projects.” This promise was unfulfilled. 

As of this writing, the government has yet to produce even a draft plan for consultation let alone the promised ‘concrete plan’ to clarify and reduce timelines, mitigate inefficiencies, and improve engagements and partnerships with businesses, communities, and stakeholders. Moreover, no public explanation has been given by government officials as to why this critical budget commitment was not honoured. 

To the extent that any excuses have been offered unofficially, the blame for delay has been directed towards the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling in Reference Re: Impact Assessment Act (2023 SCC 23). This, notwithstanding, the government was fully aware the matter was before the Court when it made the Budget 2023 commitment. 

Delays in correcting the federal project approval process create uncertainty, discourage investment, and push Canada farther away from achieving its goal to transition to a low carbon economy. As a result, Canada and Canadians are falling behind. 

Seizing the Energy Transition Opportunity 

Perhaps nowhere has the government’s inability to deliver on its commitments been more frustrating than the promises it has made to accelerate investment in the energy transition and level the playing field with the United States.     

Canadian companies and global investors are still waiting for the long-promised tax credits to become law so that they can de-risk their investments in clean technologies. The government has also failed to deliver on its promise to create a carbon contract for difference program, while the recent decision to pause the Canada Innovation Corporation compromises the ability to advance emerging technologies in Canada. 

Any discussion about the energy transition must include measures to ensure that projects create opportunities for Indigenous Peoples. While the fall economic statement committed the government to developing an Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program, it said no further steps would be announced until Budget 2024. Here again, delays are causing disruptions, in this case especially to the detriment of Indigenous Peoples. 

As we wrote to you on the eve of your last cabinet retreat, addressing these priorities would have an immediate, positive impact on the Canadian economy and would enhance prosperity for all Canadians. Failing to address the above priorities, however, invites greater uncertainty and exposes Canadians to a further erosion of their living standards. 

Yours very truly, 

Goldy Hyder

cc:         The Honourable Chrystia Freeland 
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance 

The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson 
Minister of Energy and Natural Resources 

The Honourable Seamus O’Regan Jr. 
Minister of Labour and Seniors 

The post Implementation to enhance prosperity for Canadians appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Re: Enabling enhanced threat intelligence sharing with Canadian businesses

Dear Minister Leblanc:

On behalf of Canada’s most innovative and successful businesses, I am pleased to share with you the Business Council of Canada’s (BCC) views on your department’s Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (CSIS Act) consultation.

The BCC continues to believe that the CSIS Act should be comprehensively reviewed and amended to align the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s (CSIS) legislative mandate and authorities with expanding expectations for the agency to identify, analyze and disrupt threats to Canada’s economic security.

However, our present submission is limited to the issue within the scope of the consultation that has the most direct relevance to BCC members: whether to authorize CSIS to disclose information to those outside the Government of Canada for the purpose of increasing awareness and resiliency against foreign interference.

BCC members increasingly find themselves in the crosshairs of malicious actors seeking to undermine Canadians’ lives and livelihoods — be it by sabotaging critical infrastructure, disrupting vital supply chains or stealing invaluable proprietary information.

The nefarious methods employed by these actors are wide-ranging, from the use of foreign intelligence officers and corporate insiders to state-affiliated hackers and seemingly benign joint ventures.

Yet, the consequences are the same: diminished economic growth and competitiveness, leading to the loss of good, well-paying jobs; foregone tax revenues to pay for essential public services; as well as lost competitive advantage in advanced industries vital to the country’s national strength.

Government-produced threat intelligence is of increasing value to companies combating malicious actors. The domestic security agencies of Canada’s Five Eyes partners, such as the United States’ Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), each possess modern legislative authorities allowing them to proactively share relevant, timely and actionable threat intelligence with their respective business communities. This arms the business community with the intelligence they need to protect their customers, employees and communities from new and emerging economic security threats.

The CSIS Act does not provide CSIS with those same legislative authorities. On the contrary, the CSIS Act presently prohibits CSIS from sharing all but the most generalized information with the private sector.

The only exception is once a national security threat materializes into a security event. At that point, if CSIS can satisfy stringent legal requirements, the agency may rely on its threat reduction mandate to alert a targeted company about the event.

This means of communication — a legislative workaround not designed for sharing threat intelligence with the private sector — is deeply flawed. The restrictive nature of the regime means that these authorities are rarely used. Further, the regime’s reactive nature severely limits the disclosure’s usefulness since the alert is directed towards an individual business and arrives only after such a threat has materialized.

CSIS’ outdated governing legislation therefore represents a considerable gap in Canada’s defences. Despite CSIS possessing the knowledge and expertise to help Canadian companies withstand growing security threats, Canadian businesses are left fending for themselves, putting Canadians’ safety, security and prosperity at risk.

For this reason, the BCC was encouraged when the Government of Canada launched consultations late last year that contemplate the granting of new threat intelligence sharing authorities to CSIS.   

The BCC has repeatedly argued that the Government of Canada should amend the CSIS Act to authorize CSIS to proactively share relevant, timely and actionable threat intelligence with Canadian companies where it is in the public interest and subject to all necessary safeguards and oversight.

With new threat intelligence sharing authorities, CSIS could communicate more specific and tangible information with Canadian companies. This would give business leaders a clearer understanding of the threat’s nature, as well as the protective measures that could be taken to better safeguard their employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate.

The use of new threat intelligence sharing authorities would also benefit the Government of Canada by helping CSIS build greater trust with the private sector. This would encourage business leaders to share more with the Government of Canada about the threats they are observing, which would better inform government policy and improve CSIS’s ability to investigate, analyze and respond to threats.

However, granting CSIS new threat intelligence sharing authorities is only the first step that must be taken to strengthen the resiliency of the Canadian economy. CSIS’s new authorities will only be effective in protecting Canadians’ economic security if they are coupled with a new body to securely receive, translate and disseminate CSIS’s threat intelligence broadly across the Canadian economy.

To facilitate enhanced threat intelligence sharing with the Canadian private sector, the BCC calls for the Government of Canada to stand up a formalized threat intelligence exchange, akin to the United States Government’s Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC).

DSAC is a partnership between 700 strategically important American corporations, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Through the timely exchange of threat intelligence, DSAC advances the United States Government’s mission of protecting national and economic security, while also assisting the American private sector in protecting their employees, customers and communities.

DSAC member companies benefit from direct engagement with senior FBI and DHS leaders; tailored threat intelligence from the FBI and DHS; and access to a members-only network where private sector and government officials collaborate, resolve problems, and exchange best practices.

CSIS, Public Safety Canada, and the Canadian private sector are well placed to build and operate a similar threat intelligence exchange to ensure that government-produced threat intelligence is securely and efficiently shared with those companies on the frontlines who are protecting Canadians from growing economic security threats.

Minister, thank you for the opportunity to share our views. I look forward to continuing dialogue with you on ways to protect Canadians, now and in the future.

Best regards,

Goldy Hyder

c.c.      David Vigneault
Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service

Shawn Tupper
Deputy Minister of Public Safety Canada

The post Modernizing to protect Canadians from economic security threats appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Dear Minister,

Earlier this year we urged your government not to introduce legislation that would prohibit employers from using replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out. Despite our concerns, Bill C-58 was tabled in Parliament on November 9.

Business leaders support the collective bargaining process and recognize a worker’s right to job action. Yet we are concerned that restricting the use of replacement workers in certain specified circumstances will have severe implications to employers who operate under federal jurisdiction and provide critical infrastructure to Canadians. Bill C-58 does not sufficiently consider security threats to the Canadian economy and, if passed as drafted, will expose critical infrastructure operators to higher levels of risk of foreign interference from both state and non-state actors.

Much of North America’s integrated infrastructure – from rail and transportation networks to electricity grids, financial services, and telecommunications – are owned and operated by private sector companies which fall under federal jurisdiction. These vital continental infrastructure networks must remain resilient to attack from hostile actors, including in the event of a labour dispute.

The limited exemption clauses contained in Bill C-58 fail to recognize that Canadian companies are exposed to strategic threat actors seeking to undermine Canada’s economic security. Geopolitically inspired cyberattacks directed at Canadian companies are increasing at an alarming rate, with two out of every five companies falling victim to these types of cyberattacks in the last two years. In 2021 alone, the Canadian economy lost $4.3 billion (U.S.) due to paid ransoms and lost productivity.

Cyberattacks against critical infrastructure – such as electrical grids, telecommunications and energy networks – are particularly troubling given their potential to wreak havoc on Canadians’ everyday lives. Moreover, they result in reputational damage. Bill C-58 must ensure that Canadian companies can continue to defend themselves and their customers from foreign interference.

Moreover, given the integrated nature of our infrastructure networks, Canada cannot ignore the obligation it owes its allies and partners: the United States and Mexico. If continental infrastructure is targeted in Canada, it is not just Canadians who are affected. We have a duty and responsibility to ensure the responsiveness and resilience of infrastructure that Americans and Mexicans rely on.

Bill C-58 is deeply flawed and would require substantive amendments to ensure Canada’s vital infrastructure is protected during a labour dispute. If the government is not prepared to make those substantial amendments, we would again urge you to abandon the legislation.

Regards,

Goldy Hyder

The post Ensuring the security and resiliency of critical infrastructure appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Re:  EDC programs supporting trade and investment in Ukraine

Dear Ms. Lavery,

On behalf of the Business Council of Canada and our more than 170 members, I’m writing to inquire as to the status of EDC’s plans to introduce programs to support investment and trade between Canada and Ukraine. As we approach the second anniversary of Russia’s brutal and baseless invasion of Ukraine, Canadian companies are actively exploring opportunities to help the Ukrainian people restore or rebuild key sectors of their economy.

I know this is an important priority for you, something which you expressed directly to Ukraine’s Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal when you met in person with him earlier this year. I was proud to be part of the delegation of Canadian business leaders who met with Prime Minister Shmyhal during his visit. We agreed completely with your assessment, made both during and following his visit, that EDC can play a pivotal role in Ukraine’s long-term reconstruction.

Specifically, EDC could provide enhanced war risk insurance to Canadian companies seeking to invest in Ukraine’s reconstruction. In addition, EDC could provide Canadian firms with access to long-term export credits covering extended periods of more than two years – far more practicable in the circumstances than a mere 90-day term. These types of programs would be comparable to those being offered by your counterpart agencies in Germany, France, and Japan.

Indeed, it is our understanding that credit agencies from Germany, France, Japan, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Poland, and the Netherlands are now all providing political and/or war risk insurance for companies from their respective countries who are investing in Ukraine. Similar programs have been established by both the United States’ International Development Finance Corporation as well as the World Bank’s Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency.

Canada is one of Ukraine’s most important strategic partners and Canadian businesses are keen to enter commercial agreements with their Ukrainian counterparts. For those agreements to be concluded, however, Canadian business leaders need a clearer sense of the types of programs which EDC can offer to help mitigate the extraordinary risks created by the ongoing armed conflict.

I would be pleased to meet with you, at your convenience, to discuss this further.

Yours very truly,

Goldy Hyder

c.c.      The Honourable Chrystia Freeland
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

The Honourable Mary Ng
Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade
and Economic Development  

The post Supporting investment and trade between Canada and Ukraine appeared first on Business Council of Canada.

Dear Prime Minister,  

In advance of your meeting tomorrow with U.S. President Joe Biden, I am writing on behalf of Canada’s business leaders with respect to your government’s plan to introduce a unilateral digital services tax as of January 2024.   

As I have warned your government on several occasions, Canada’s economic interests will be severely harmed if Canada continues to defy the overwhelming OECD consensus. Amid growing economic uncertainty around the globe, Canada cannot afford a costly trade war with our most important trading partner. 

The Biden Administration has been clear that were Canada to impose a unilateral DST – something it views as discriminatory and, as such, in violation of Canada’s commitments pursuant to the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement – the United States would impose countervailing retaliatory trade measures. 

U.S. Ambassador David Cohen again reiterated the White House’s position this week when he said, “we are either going to have to have agreement or we’re going to have a big fight.” All the U.S. is asking of Canada, he said, is that we give an “additional year or two to try and put the OECD framework in place.” 

Ambassador Cohen also expressed concern that Canada’s position in opposition to the OECD compromise aligns us with outlier countries, such as Russia and Belarus. This is inexplicable at a time when Canada is trying to strengthen ties with continental partners in the Americas and allies around the world.

Deputy Prime Minister Freeland has said officials from both countries are in discussions in the hopes of reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. We hope you and President Biden can do so based on a deferral of the DST. 

Yours very truly, 

Goldy Hyder

c.c.      The Honourable Chrystia Freeland
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

The Honourable Mary Ng
Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development

The post Working with the U.S. to reach an agreement on DST appeared first on Business Council of Canada.