Canada polices country-of-origin labels for boots and berries. But we don’t do the same for the perspectives that shape our laws.
Ottawa is flush with stakeholders and interest groups whose advocacy and efforts to catch the ear of government is an important part of the democratic process.
However, some of these groups engage in a type of “maple-washing” when they claim Canadian-ness despite representing Silicon Valley Big Tech firms and the interests of other foreign businesses.
Policymakers and the public may think they are “buying” Canadian advice, but the reality is more murky.
Scholar Jennifer Robson recently pointed out that “Buy Canadian” consumer practices only work if the labelling rules are clearly spelled out. A “Made in Canada” label must be earned through definitions and disclosures, and not allowed to be slapped on like stolen valour.
The same bar should apply to lobby groups: if they want maple-leaf authority, they should disclose whether their members are truly headquartered here.
Activist and author Maude Barlow warned Canada about this risk twenty years ago in her book Too Close for Comfort. She cautioned that “deep integration” between the United States and Canada was being driven not by Parliament but by business councils — especially the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (now the Business Council of Canada) and its U.S./Mexican counterparts. She warned this “secret marriage of government and big business” would harmonize Canadian rules downward and sideline democratic oversight.
The fact is, when the government wants to listen to “Canadian” businesses, foreign multinationals too often squeeze into that mix. The often do this by simply adding the word 'Canada' after their company name.
Consider the country’s biggest umbrella groups: the Business Council of Canada is a CEO club whose public roster includes major tech players like Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and IBM; the Canadian Chamber of Commerce doesn’t publish a single, comprehensive corporate member list, but Big Tech is clearly embedded in its committees and programming (think Amazon and Google); TECHNATION’s membership directory reveals heavyweights such as Amazon Web Services, Google Canada and Meta with a seat at the influence table.
Sector-specific bodies matter too. In emerging tech and aerospace, the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada (AIAC) membership spans both Canadian firms and the Canadian arms of major global contractors, reflecting the industry’s deeply integrated North American and transatlantic supply chains; in defence, CADSI similarly organizes domestic and foreign contractors alike.
Taken together, these aren’t neutral “Canadian voices” but coalitions blending Canadian subsidiaries with global parent companies, who may have positions that diverge from our country’s domestic priorities.
Representation sets the agenda and defines who can veto change. When business groups rely on foreign giants, those giants can monopolize the entire effort.
Alternatives exist, like the Council of Canadian Innovators, the business council for Canadian-headquartered scale-up technology companies. The group is comparatively young — just ten years old — a reminder of how the country has been slow to privilege the voices of truly Canadian firms. (Full disclosure: the Canadian SHIELD Institute was initially incubated by CCI, though we operate independently). And Build Canada supports technology CEOs as policy change champions. These are more sovereign alternatives to the usual suspects, but they’re younger, smaller and too often engaged last.
In a trade war, advice from Big Tech and other foreign multinationals serves their shareholders, not the national interest.
In the crunchy moments that actually determine national capability, these so-called Canadian coalitions show their hand — they’re often lobbying fronts for foreign firms, not champions of Canadian interests. It’s time to stop playing along. We can’t afford to stay cozy anymore.
Which brings us to trust. In a trade war, you need advice that is credible under stress. Would you rely on a coalition brief drafted by firms whose revenue and retaliation exposure are primarily outside Canada’s borders? As the United States continues to escalate tariff threats or deploys digital leverage on our country, whose lawyers, whose data centres, whose export permits, and whose IP are actually on the line, and under whose laws?
Looking ahead to the CUSMA review, Canada needs consultation architecture that earns trust. The old SAGIT model brought academics, labour and business into sectoral talks. We should revive it for an era where algorithms and cloud sovereignty matter as much as autos and agriculture. When Ottawa hears what “Canadian industry” needs, the advice should be anchored at home and resilient to external pressures.
We should also consider reviving a version of the Economic Council of Canada, an independent economic advisory body that was established as a federal Crown Corporation by the Government of Canada in 1963 and dissolved in 1993 after it published a report that the Prime Minister’s Office didn’t like (estimating that Quebec’s potential separation would be “low cost”). Below is a story from The Globe and Mail on November 1st, 1991 on how the report was received.
