CANADA ECONOMICS

CHINA

The Globe and Mail. 26 Jun 2017. Canada, China seal corporate hacking deal 
ROBERT FIFE
STEVEN CHASE

OTTAWA - Very few people know that under the UN instrument, China can seek extradition for people under corruption or under organized crime. They have never sought a case. If they did, they would have to go through the [Canadian] court proceedings. The threshold is high and I don’t know if they would meet the threshold. Senior official with the Canadian government.
Accord, which covers only theft of private-sector secrets, seen as first step in addressing broad problem of Chinese espionage.
China has signed an agreement saying it will stop conducting state-sponsored cyberattacks aimed at stealing Canadian private-sector trade secrets and proprietary technology.
This industrial espionage accord was worked out this past Friday during high-level talks in Ottawa between senior Communist Party official Wang Yongqing and Daniel Jean, the national security and intelligence adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
“The two sides agreed that neither country’s government would conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information, with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors,” an official communiqué drawn up between China and Canada says.
The bilateral pact was concluded four days after Mr. Trudeau held a telephone discussion with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, where the two leaders focused on a coming third round of exploratory free-trade talks.
This new deal only covers economic espionage – hacking corporate secrets – and does not preclude China from conducting state-sponsored cyberattacks against the Canadian government or military as it did in 2014, when Chinese hackers broke into the main computers at the country’s National Research Council.
A senior government official, who took part in Friday’s talks, said the agreement should nevertheless be seen as a potentially important step toward addressing the broader problem of Chinese espionage. » “This is something that three or four years ago [Beijing] would not even have entertained in the conversation,” the official told The Globe and Mail, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“For us, having the commitment on paper is good because we can refer to it. The fact that we do this doesn’t mean we won’t be vigilant, but at the same time if things happen we can go back [to this commitment].”
China recently inked similar cyberagreements with the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Brazil and Russia.
For years, according to U.S. officials, Chinese hackers have stolen valuable intellectual property and other business secrets from Western high-tech firms, drug makers, financial institutions and other companies.
Since Washington and Beijing signed their accord in 2015, there has reportedly been a noticeable drop in Chinese state-sponsored hacking of U.S. companies.
Many observers, however, suspect China’s decision to sign the cyberagreement with the United States, Canada and other countries is little more than a shift in tactics. This could include embracing more advanced and secretive computer hacking.
“The Chinese may be becoming more stealthy and sophisticated in their attacks. Indeed FireEye noted that the decline in number of attacks [in the United States] may be accompanied by a rise in the sophistication of attacks,” cybersecurity expert Adam Segal wrote in a recent edition of Foreign Affairs magazine. FireEye is a cybersecurity firm that protects against advanced cyberthreats.
Other experts say China has switched to favouring using the “front door” to obtain sophisticated technology from the West. Instead of “backdoor” computer hacking, Beijing has embraced
corporate takeovers of Western companies as a means to legally transfer much-needed technology back home.
The Canadian official acknowledged this is a potential problem, but said Canada is alert to this latest tactic.
“All countries are struggling with the fact you want to attract foreign investment at the same time you want to protect your most sensitive technology and assets,” the senior official said. “I can tell you something, we have very senior colleagues around town who examine every single one of those cases.”
In the past four months, Chinese investors have purchased ITF Technologies of Montreal – the maker of military-grade laser technology – and Vancouverbased Norsat International, which sells satellite communications to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the U.S. Defence Department and Canadian Coast Guard.
The former Harper government had blocked the sale of ITF after a comprehensive national security review concluded it would undermine the technological edge of Western militaries. The Liberals, however, reversed this block and approved its sale to O-Net of Hong Kong, a firm partly owned by a Chinese stateowned enterprise.
In the case of Norsat, the Trudeau cabinet approved the sale to Chinese telecom giant Hytera Communications without conducting a formal and full-scale national security review.
Two of Canada’s former spy directors – Richard Fadden and Ward Elcock – have said they would have recommended a national security review. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives armed services committee and a congressional watchdog have publicly criticized the Norsat approval.
China’s leaders have made it clear to the Liberal government that they regard national security reviews as protectionist and want the process to be part of the free-trade talks.
The senior official said neither Norsat nor national security reviews were part of Friday’s discussions. He would not discuss Norsat but stressed there are safeguards in place even if Ottawa approves a Canadian hightech company’s takeover by a Chinese investor.
“People have tendency to just look at the foreign acquisition and the Investment Canada Act, but there may be other tools even when the acquisition is done that will omit what they can send back home, because if goods are very sensitive they may not be able to receive export permit,” the official said.
As part of the far-ranging talks, Mr. Wang, secretary-general of the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Communist Party of China, also pushed Canada to enter into fullfledged negotiations on an extradition treaty.
The official said Mr. Jean told the Chinese delegation, which included three vice-premiers, that Canada could not sign such an agreement until Bejing reforms its judicial system, which is beholden to the Communist Party.
“I can tell you we were very clear that we are not anywhere close to negotiating an extradition treaty,” the official said.
Canada needs assurances that anyone who is extradited to China would get a fair trial and would not face torture or the death penalty, he said.
However, the official said Mr. Jean did tell the Chinese that they can seek the extradition of a Chinese national in Canada through the United Nations, which allows countries to ask for the return of people involved in economic crimes.
“Very few people know that under the UN instrument, China can seek extradition for people under corruption or under organized crime. They have never sought a case. If they did, they would have to go through the [Canadian] court proceedings,” the official said. “The threshold is high and I don’t know if they would meet the threshold.”
In their discussions Friday, both sides agreed to ratify an agreement to allow for the return of stolen money from proceeds of crime and money laundering. They also talked about reviving a program killed by the former Harper government in which Canada would send experts to train judges and civil servants.
This is the second meeting between top officials from both countries since Mr. Trudeau first visited China in 2016 for highlevel talks with President Xi Jinping and Mr. Li.
The next meeting of the Canada-China High-Level National Security and Rule of Law Dialogue will be held in Beijing next year.

The Globe and Mail. Jun. 25, 2017. Canada and China strike corporate hacking deal
ROBERT FIFE AND STEVEN CHASE

OTTAWA — China has signed an agreement saying it will stop conducting state-sponsored cyberattacks aimed at stealing Canadian private-sector trade secrets and proprietary technology.

This industrial espionage accord was worked out this past Friday during high-level talks in Ottawa between senior Communist Party official Wang Yongqing and Daniel Jean, the national security and intelligence adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“The two sides agreed that neither country’s government would conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information, with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors,” an official communiqué drawn up between China and Canada says.

The bilateral pact was concluded four days after Mr. Trudeau held a telephone discussion with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, where the two leaders focused on a coming third round of exploratory free-trade talks.

This new deal only covers economic espionage – hacking corporate secrets – and does not preclude China from conducting state-sponsored cyberattacks against the Canadian government or military as it did in 2014, when Chinese hackers broke into the main computers at the country’s National Research Council.

A senior government official, who took part in Friday’s talks, said the agreement should nevertheless be seen as a potentially important step toward addressing the broader problem of Chinese espionage.

“This is something that three or four years ago [Beijing] would not even have entertained in the conversation,” according to the official, who is not authorized to speak on the record for the government.

“For us, having the commitment on paper is good because we can refer to it. The fact that we do this doesn’t mean we won’t be vigilant, but at the same time if things happen we can go back [to this commitment].”

China recently inked similar cyberagreements with the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Brazil and Russia.

For years, according to U.S. officials, Chinese hackers have stolen valuable intellectual property and other business secrets from Western high-tech firms, drug makers, financial institutions and other companies.

Since Washington and Beijing signed their accord in 2015, there has reportedly been a noticeable drop in Chinese state-sponsored hacking of U.S. companies.

Many observers, however, suspect China’s decision to sign the cyberagreement with the United States, Canada and other countries is little more than a shift in tactics. This could include embracing more advanced and secretive computer hacking.

“The Chinese may be becoming more stealthy and sophisticated in their attacks. Indeed FireEye noted that the decline in number of attacks [in the United States] may be accompanied by a rise in the sophistication of attacks,” cybersecurity expert Adam Segal wrote in a recent edition of Foreign Affairs magazine. FireEye is a cybersecurity firm that protects against advanced cyberthreats.

Other experts say China has switched to favouring using the “front door” to obtain sophisticated technology from the West. Instead of “backdoor” computer hacking, Beijing has embraced corporate takeovers of Western companies as a means to legally transfer much-needed technology back home.

The Canadian official acknowledged this is a potential problem, but said Canada is alert to this latest tactic.

“All countries are struggling with the fact you want to attract foreign investment at the same time you want to protect your most sensitive technology and assets,” the senior official said. “I can tell you something, we have very senior colleagues around town who examine every single one of those cases.”

In the past four months, Chinese investors have purchased ITF Technologies of Montreal – the maker of military-grade laser technology – and Vancouver-based Norsat International, which sells satellite communications to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the U.S. Defence Department and Canadian Coast Guard.

The former Harper government had blocked the sale of ITF after a comprehensive national security review concluded it would undermine the technological edge of Western militaries. The Liberals, however, reversed this block and approved its sale to O-Net of Hong Kong, a firm partly owned by a Chinese state-owned enterprise.

In the case of Norsat, the Trudeau cabinet approved the sale to Chinese telecom giant Hytera Communications without conducting a formal and full-scale national security review.

Two of Canada’s former spy directors – Richard Fadden and Ward Elcock – have said they would have recommended a national security review. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives armed services committee and a congressional watchdog have publicly criticized the Norsat approval.

China’s leaders have made it clear to the Liberal government that they regard national security reviews as protectionist and want the process to be part of the free-trade talks.

The senior official said neither Norsat nor national security reviews were part of Friday’s discussions. He would not discuss Norsat but stressed there are safeguards in place even if Ottawa approves a Canadian high-tech company’s takeover by a Chinese investor.

“People have tendency to just look at the foreign acquisition and the Investment Canada Act, but there may be other tools even when the acquisition is done that will omit what they can send back home, because if goods are very sensitive they may not be able to receive export permit,” the official said.

As part of the far-ranging talks, Mr. Wang, secretary-general of the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Communist Party of China, also pushed Canada to enter into full-fledged negotiations on an extradition treaty.

The official said Mr. Jean told the Chinese delegation, which included three vice-premiers, that Canada could not sign such an agreement until Bejing reforms its judicial system, which is beholden to the Communist Party.

“I can tell you we were very clear that we are not anywhere close to negotiating an extradition treaty,” the official said.

Canada needs assurances that anyone who is extradited to China would get a fair trial and would not face torture or the death penalty, he said.

However, the official said Mr. Jean did tell the Chinese that they can seek the extradition of a Chinese national in Canada through the United Nations, which allows countries to ask for the return of people involved in economic crimes.

“Very few people know that under the UN instrument, China can seek extradition for people under corruption or under organized crime. They have never sought a case. If they did, they would have to go through the [Canadian] court proceedings,” the official said. “The threshold is high and I don’t know if they would meet the threshold.”

In their discussions Friday, both sides agreed to ratify an agreement to allow for the return of stolen money from proceeds of crime and money laundering. They also talked about reviving a program killed by the former Harper government in which Canada would send experts to train judges and civil servants.

This is the second meeting between top officials from both countries since Mr. Trudeau first visited China in 2016 for high-level talks with President Xi Jinping and Mr. Li.

The next meeting of the Canada-China High-Level National Security and Rule of Law Dialogue will be held in Beijing next year.

The Globe and Mail. Jun. 26, 2017. Special. OPINION. Canada has a chance to monopolize the artificial intelligence industry
JOHN KELLEHER, partner at McKinsey & Co. and the co-chair of Next Canada; AND LAURA MCGEE, engagement manager at McKinsey & Co. and co-founder of #GoSponsorHer

There’s no doubt that Canada could lead the planet in artificial intelligence (AI). Canadian academics such as Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio essentially created the field of deep learning and put Canada on the map; today, Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal are globally important centres of AI research. The best AI talent in the world is also increasingly coming to Canada to launch AI businesses such as integrate.ai and others.

All these companies and researchers are convinced of the technology’s enormous commercial potential. If AI develops like other technologies, most of these benefits will flow to the country that builds the first good ecosystem. This is a huge opportunity for Canada.

At the same time, AI poses clear challenges to business and government. Over the next 10 to 20 years, nearly half of Canada’s jobs are at high risk of being affected by automation. Women hold a lot of these jobs and are especially at risk – the World Economic Forum says that globally, women will face about twice the rate of job loss as men in what it calls the fourth industrial revolution.

How can Canadian companies gain the benefits of this disruptive technology while ensuring that large segments of society are not left behind? In our view, the public and private sectors should take six steps to outsmart AI and avoid its dislocations:

Commit to building the world’s best AI ecosystem: The winning AI cluster will create many high-paying jobs and create spillover effects for the middle class – but the also-rans will not. Half-measures won’t work. Canada must play to win. If there is going to be a steam engine that disrupts the status quo – and AI is shaping up that way – then Canada should develop and build the very best steam engine it can, right here at home.

Create at-scale AI training programs: Industry can form coalitions to collect data, oversee curriculum development and rapidly retrain workers in the skills needed to succeed in nascent AI applications.

Take Generation, a McKinsey-supported initiative that works with employers to quickly train and place young workers in sectors like health care and technology. Graduates have an 84 per cent employment rate within 90 days of completing the program and earn two to six times more income than before. Similarly, Prominp in Brazil trains 30,000 youth each year for positions in the oil and gas industry, with 189 skill-profile “tracks” and an 80-per-cent postgrad employment rate.

In Canada, such a program could be built in partnership with new research groups such as the Vector Institute in Toronto or with incubators such as Communitech, Next Canada and the Creative Destruction Lab.

Launch innovative new training models: The government could launch and fund a “venture capital lab” to create innovative training programs, so new training ideas can be tested, validated and scaled up (as recommended by the Advisory Council on Economic Growth). Startups such as Ryerson’s Magnet have great potential to address labour-market challenges. A so-called “FutureSkills Lab” could help scale great ideas and share learnings across provinces.

Build real links between companies and research schools: Large companies could partner with universities and vocational schools to provide equipment, facilities and expertise to prepare students for AI. In exchange, these companies could receive preferential recruiting.

For example, TAFE SA in South Australia trains approximately 500,000 students each year in high-demand areas such as aged care and nursing, trades and information technology. It partners with hundreds of businesses each year, which provide apprenticeships and traineeships. TAFE also orchestrates “reverse co-op” program where large corporations and small-to-medium-sized enterprises send workers back to campus for a term to learn critical AI skills.

Urgently reinvent curriculums for software and AI: Elementary, high-school and university programs have to develop the skills that empower students to be leaders in the coming AI tsunami – critical thinking, teamwork, coding, algorithmic understanding and math. Some jurisdictions (e.g., Chicago and Queensland, Australia) are already moving to make software-coding classes mandatory. Canada should consider doing the same.

Government may want to consider practising what it preaches and adopt AI itself: A technology-enabled, AI-smart public service could not only be more efficient and provide better services. It might also create a product that Canada could export to the world.

Canadian companies have a real opportunity to leverage AI for growth – but not without an inclusive work force. We all have a stake in getting this right.

REUTERS. Jun 26, 2017. China, Canada vow not to conduct cyber attacks on private sector

(Reuters) - China and Canada have signed an agreement vowing not to conduct state-sponsored cyber attacks against each other aimed at stealing trade secrets or other confidential business information.

The Canadian government, under pressure to show it is not being too soft on China, described the deal as a step toward dealing with Chinese espionage, the Globe and Mail reported on Monday.

"This is something that three or four years ago (Beijing) would not even have entertained in the conversation," an unnamed official told the paper, which first reported the agreement.

Some countries, including the United States, have long accused Beijing of sponsoring hacking attacks on companies in an effort to acquire sensitive foreign technology. China denies those accusations, and says it is also a victim of hacking.

The new agreement between Canada and China covers only economic cyber espionage, which includes hacking corporate secrets and proprietary technology. It does not encompass state-sponsored cyber spying for intelligence gathering.

The Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wants to boost trade with China, in part to lessen dependence on exports to the United States. In return, China is pushing Ottawa to reduce strict security-related restrictions on Canadian assets that China and other nations can buy.

Ottawa recently allowed Hytera Communications Corp Ltd (002583.SZ: Quote) to buy Canadian satellite communications firm Norsat International Inc (NII.TO: Quote).

Canada's main opposition Conservative Party - long suspicious about Chinese investment in sensitive sectors - says the deal should have been vetted more thoroughly.

"These are steps the Liberals are doing to appease the Chinese government," party leader Andrew Scheer told CTV television on Sunday.

The new agreement was reached during talks between Trudeau's national security and intelligence adviser and senior communist party official Wang Yongqing, the Canadian government said in a statement issued on June 22.

Representatives of Trudeau did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In 2015, China and the United States came to a similar understanding on corporate cyber espionage, after the Obama administration had mulled targeted sanctions against Chinese individuals and companies for cyber attacks against U.S. commercial targets.

U.S. cyber security executives and government advisers said breaches attributed to China-based groups had dropped around the time of that agreement.

China this month implemented a new cyber security law designed to strengthen critical infrastructure, even as many global tech companies and lobbies said the rules skewed the playing field against foreign firms.

(Reporting by Subrat Patnaik in Bengalore and Michael Martina in Beijing; Additional reporting by David Ljunggren in Ottawa and Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Editing by Amrutha Gayathri and Matthew Lewis)

CANADA - US

The Globe and Mail. Jun. 26, 2017. C-SUITE SURVEY. Nearly nine in 10 Canadian executives worried about U.S.-Canada trade under Trump
JOSH O’KANE

The quarterly C-Suite survey was conducted for Report on Business and Business News Network by the Gandalf Group, and sponsored by KPMG. The survey interviewed 151 executives between May 16 and June 12, 2017. Watch for coverage Monday on BNN, and view the full survey online at tgam.ca/csuite.

The longer Donald Trump is President, the more frustrated Canada’s executives become.

Nearly two-thirds of Canada’s corporate leaders now believe Mr. Trump has done a poor job since taking office, up from 39 per cent a quarter ago, according to the Gandalf Group’s latest C-Suite Survey. Nearly 90 per cent, meanwhile, are worried about the implications of politics on trade and trade agreements.

While there’s relative comfort at home with low interest rates and the low loonie, executives are now concerned that global political and economic factors might hurt their business. And with North American free-trade agreement talks looming as soon as August, the number of business leaders bracing for major trade changes for Canada has grown – 74 per cent now, compared with 60 per cent in the prior quarter.

Still, the survey – conducted by phone with 151 C-level executives in May and June – offered a few glimpses of smiling, or perhaps smug, Canadianness. Three-quarters of those surveyed found Canada stands to lure skilled talent away from the United States in its current political climate. As for dealing with U.S. tariffs, when forced to choose between supporting in-kind retaliations or responding diplomatically through panels or negotiations, 85 per cent of corporate leaders chose the latter, friendlier option.



As the purportedly pro-business U.S. President enters his sixth month in office, the business leadership in his country’s second-biggest trading partner isn’t sure how to navigate the course he’s setting. “When you have an unknown, you worry,” says Tim Granger, president and chief executive of Prairie Provident Resources Inc., a Calgary oil-and-gas exploration and development company.

With the President’s team at least contemplating a border adjustment tax, potentially to offset his personal and business income tax changes, the United States would become a more expensive export market for Canadian oil producers like Prairie Provident that already must deal with commodity prices that are based “less on fact and more on emotion.”



The President has spent the year’s second quarter revealing more of his vision for how America should be run – such as his tax revisions and plans to renegotiate NAFTA – but has yet to announce many details regarding how that vision will be executed or funded. In Canada, this lack of clarity has left executives frustrated across industries.

“There’s a lot of noise south of the border, but how much will get done and how much will find support is not known,” says Sandy Treagus, chief financial officer of Vancouver’s Mountain Equipment Co-op (MEC).

A renegotiated NAFTA would affect supply chains across Canada, including MEC’s, which has a wide range of global suppliers. “Even if it’s not directly our industry, slowdowns in other sectors because of trade issues will undoubtedly have an impact on our business, or our industry,” Mr. Treagus says. “It’s just a question of how much.”

Even among Canadian companies with flagship projects in the United States, such as the Nova Scotian junior exploration company Ucore Rare Metals Inc., Mr. Trump’s protectionist inclinations have yet to bear much fruit.

“We do see his policies as somewhat supportive, although what he’s done in particular has not had any effect, and really, what we find is that he hasn’t delivered on anything that he’s proposed so far,” says Mark MacDonald, Ucore’s vice-president of business development. “Our confidence that it’ll make much difference at all long-term is deteriorating.”



Among the Canadian executives surveyed, 46 per cent said Mr. Trump’s administration was doing a poor job with economic policy, though a quarter said it’s performing well.

The C-Suite’s feelings on trade policy are more stark: only 3 per cent think the team is doing well, with three-quarters believing they’re doing poorly.

There are few trade issues as unifying in corporate Canada right now as softwood lumber. Nearly nine in 10 executives support protecting the country’s interests by fighting the duties averaging nearly 20 per cent that the United States has slapped on softwood as its latest parry in the countries’ long-running dispute.

“If you look at the forest sector, it’s very important coast-to-coast,” says Yvon Rousseau, executive vice-president and chief financial officer of Laval, Que.’s Uniboard Canada Inc., which manufactures wood products including particleboard and luxury flooring. “All Canadians should be worried that we do not have free access to the U.S. market.”

Companies like his depend on Canadian sawmills, many of which depend on U.S. markets, too. If the United States continues slapping countervailing duties on softwood, it could set off a trickle-down effect for Canadian companies and consumers.

“The sawmills might at a certain point stop their operations; if they stop their operations, we’ll have problems getting our raw materials,” Mr. Rousseau says. “Therefore we’ll have to go further to get it. That will increase the costs and time of transportation.”

With so much uncertainty in the United States, executives are keen to strengthen trade partnerships elsewhere. Nearly 90 per cent of them consider it a priority to both to forge ahead with a Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement without the United States, and to work out a free-trade agreement with China.

“We produce way more than we need,” says Willy Kruh, KPMG’s global chairman of consumer markets. “We’ve got to look to the world.”

Carolina Gallo, the Montreal-based vice-president of public affairs with ABB Canada, an energy technology company, has a more optimistic position on U.S. trade: with federal uncertainty, companies should get to know individual states. “Where the noise is coming from is not actually where the growth and the actual decision-making is at the end of the day, for economic growth, projects, and investment,” she says.

Or perhaps physical trade isn’t where companies should focus their expertise. “Our future lies in digital innovation,” she says. “Our work spaces are changing, our cities are changing, and the pathways of mobility. So I think for trade, it’s got a potentially really positive impact for Canada.”

PACIFIC ALLIANCE

Global Affairs Canada. June 26, 2017. International Trade Minister attends the Council of Ministers of the Pacific Alliance in Colombia to pursue market opportunities for Canadian workers and their families

Ottawa, Ontario - The Government of Canada is committed to fostering and strengthening its growing ties with our Latin American partners, including the important trading bloc, the Pacific Alliance, through an open and progressive approach to trade and investment that will support growth, opportunities, and middle class jobs in both Canada and Latin America.

From June 27 to 29, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of International Trade, will conduct his first official visit to Colombia, where he will meet with his counterparts, engage with a number of investors and other key stakeholders and mark Canada's rising place in Latin America by attending the Council of Ministers of the Pacific Alliance with observer states. At this meeting, Minister Champagne will engage his international counterparts on issues of common interest, especially the economic and social potential that awaits countries engaged in a more open and progressive trade agenda.

In Bogota on June 27 and 28, Minister Champagne will hold bilateral meetings, including a roundtable discussion with key Canadian investors in Colombia to highlight the merits of Canada’s progressive approach to trade and investment and discuss Canada’s strategy regarding corporate social responsibility. The Minister will then take part in the Council of Ministers of the Pacific Alliance meeting with observer states in Cali on June 29.

Quotes

“With its growing middle class and open, market-driven economies, the Pacific Alliance offers immense potential for business partnerships that, in turn, will support inclusive growth in the Americas and help us deliver on our progressive trade agenda.”

“Canada enjoys close and growing trade and investment ties with Colombia. We are committed to pursuing a progressive approach to trade that will build on this relationship and foster real opportunities for the middle class in both our countries.

- François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of International Trade

Quick facts

• The Pacific Alliance is a regional integration initiative founded in 2011 by Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru aimed at fostering the free movement of goods, services, capital and people among member countries.
• In 2012, Canada became the first non-Latin American country to become an observer with the Pacific Alliance. Canada is also the only observer country with a joint declaration on partnership, which identifies six areas for cooperation, from trade to education and training to environment and climate change.
• Canada’s total merchandise trade with the Pacific Alliance member countries reached a value of $48 billion in 2016. The four countries of the alliance account for more than 75% of Canada’s two-way trade with the whole Latin American region.
• Canada has comprehensive free trade agreements with all four members of the Pacific Alliance.
• Canada’s bilateral trade with Colombia reached a value of $1.6 billion in 2016, and two-way foreign direct investment stood at $3.7 billion at the end of 2016.
• Exports to Colombia have primarily comprised cereals, pulses, fertilizers, paper and paper board, vehicles and machinery.

DAIRY

StatCan. 2017-06-26. Dairy statistics, April 2017

The volume of milk and cream sold in April was 257 432 kilolitres, down 0.5% from April 2016.

Sales of milk in April decreased 2.6% from the same month a year earlier to 222 343 kilolitres, while cream sales increased 14.7% to 35 089 kilolitres.

Variety cheese stocks on May 1 were at 36 828 tonnes, up 12.4% from the same day a year earlier.

FULL DOCUMENT: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/170626/dq170626a-eng.pdf

ENERGY

StatCan. 2017-06-26. Coal and coke statistics, April 2017

Monthly data for April on the production and export volumes of coal, by coal type and use, are now available. Data are available at the national level and by coal-producing province.

Monthly data for April on the volume of coal received by coal coke plants and the volume of coke produced and sold are also now available. Data are available at the national level only.

FULL DOCUMENT: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/170626/dq170626b-eng.pdf

The Globe and Mail. 26 Jun 2017. Oil’s price dip compounds obstacles for Canada’s energy sector
KELLY CRYDERMAN 

CALGARY - The list of challenges facing Canada’s oil and gas sector just keeps growing.
Oil’s latest price slump is bad news for energy companies around the world. But Canadian producers face a wider set of mounting obstacles – everything from carbon taxes and an oil sands emissions cap to endless opposition to pipeline developments, argues Ted Morton, a former Progressive Conservative Alberta cabinet minister, now a professor at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.
“One argument is that what is happening in Alberta isn’t unique to Alberta or Canada. It’s just that oil and gas are getting beaten up everywhere,” Prof. Morton says. “I reject that. Some of the same companies that have sold their Western Canadian assets have gone and spent equally large sums of money in other jurisdictions.”
In the past 21⁄2years, investment in Canada’s energy sector has plummeted, including the dollars coming from foreign sources. Toronto-Dominion Bank analyst Menno Hulshof wrote this month that foreign entities accounted for 72 per cent of Canadian asset and corporate acquisitions in the oil and gas industry between 2010-14. But since then, this number has fallen to an average of 8 per cent a year – including 2017 to date.
A vacuum of foreign investment is especially true in the oil sands, where global energy companies have sold off $30-billion of oil sands assets this year. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, for one, says it made its decision to seek “higher returns on capital, and prioritizing businesses where we have global scale and a competitive advantage.” Some energy companies looking for North American investments have shifted dollars to tight oil in the Permian basin, or other U.S. plays, where costs are lower and where President Donald Trump is promising policies to transform the country into a powerful energy exporter.

The Globe and Mail. 26 Jun 2017. Energy: Canadian companies are looking south for big investments

At the same time, the certainty of major projects being built, including the expansion of Kinder Morgan Inc.’s Trans Mountain pipeline, remains in doubt. And although there are plans for 20 projects, Canada has not yet built any liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities.
Much of the blame for the economic rout, job losses and slowdown in activity and investment falls on weak natural gas prices and the global oil price drop that began in 2014. The price signals for 2017 are ugly. Oil has tumbled 20 per cent this year and an especially tumultuous week ended Friday with West Texas intermediate oil at about $43 (U.S.) a barrel. Some analysts predict a continuing slide that could soon see crude sell for less than $40 a barrel. Those prices make it more difficult for higher-cost oil sands projects to compete for investment dollars.
But Prof. Morton argues more is at play in Canada, where the oil and gas industry faces a long list of limits most other energy-dependent jurisdictions don’t. His roundup includes: a corporate tax hike in Alberta; a hard cap on the growth of greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands; Alberta’s implementation of a carbon tax this year, and a plan for a countrywide levy pegged to grow to $50 a tonne by 2022; a dearth of environmental rules and regulations in the United States under the Trump administration – giving U.S. oil producers a competitive edge; the federal push to halt long-time tax allowances for oil firms seeking to drill new wells; and a promise by the British Columbia NDP and Green Party – with a power-sharing agreement in place to form the next provincial government – to halt the Trans Mountain expansion. Alberta sees the pipeline project as key to opening global crude markets and reducing its near-total reliance on exporting to U.S. buyers.
“It’s a big sign that says ‘invest here at your own risk,’ ” he says.
Prof. Morton’s spent his political career hell-bent on asserting his province’s economic and political interests against federal intrusion. It’s a mould which lends itself into the nascent discussion in some Alberta circles regarding interprovincial, retaliatory trade measures – should B.C. actually go ahead with blocking the Trans Mountain expansion. He says an “extreme” step would be the Alberta government buying a controlling share in the Trans Mountain pipeline – and the 300,000 barrels a day of capacity that exists right now – and cutting off gasoline and refined product supplies to B.C.
He notes in 1980, at the height of Alberta’s dispute with Ottawa over the National Energy Program and resource control, thenpremier of Alberta Peter Lougheed rattled Confederation with a plan to cut oil shipments to the rest of the country. However, it’s unclear whether a strategy of cutting off supplies would work in a world awash with oil and a continent full of natural gas.
“Gone are the days when we thought we were running out of oil,” says Kevin Birn, a director at IHS Energy in Calgary, speaking of the larger energy picture that has changed drastically in the past decade thanks to new technology for unconventional oil production. “We’re in this age of abundance.”
Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Alberta NDP Premier Rachel Notley have formed a political alliance on the energy file, with the belief that a middle path – that includes new heavy oil pipelines alongside subsidized solar, wind, waste-to-energy projects – is the way forward. The strategy also relies on carbon taxes, tough new environmental regulations to improve Canada’s greenhouse gas-intensive reputation and a bigger say for Indigenous communities in the development of massive new infrastructure projects.

The Globe and Mail. 26 Jun 2017. Energy: Canadian companies are looking south for big investments

Even Canadian companies are looking to the United States to make big investments, including midstream companies Enbridge Inc. and TransCanada Corp.
At the same time, the certainty of major projects being built, including the expansion of Kinder Morgan Inc.’s Trans Mountain pipeline, remains in doubt. And although there are plans for 20 projects, Canada has not yet built any liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities.
Much of the blame for the economic rout, job losses and slowdown in activity and investment falls on weak natural gas prices and the global oil price drop that began in 2014. The price signals for 2017 are ugly. Oil has tumbled 20 per cent this year and an especially tumultuous week ended Friday with West Texas intermediate oil at about $43 (U.S.) a barrel. Some analysts predict a continuing slide that could soon see crude sell for less than $40 a barrel. Those prices make it more difficult for higher-cost oil sands projects to compete for investment dollars.
But Prof. Morton argues more is at play in Canada, where the oil and gas industry faces a long list of limits most other energy-dependent jurisdictions don’t. His roundup includes: a corporate tax hike in Alberta; a hard cap on the growth of greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands; Alberta’s implementation of a carbon tax this year, and a plan for a countrywide levy pegged to grow to $50 a tonne by 2022; a dearth of environmental rules and regulations in the United States under the Trump administration – giving U.S. oil producers a competitive edge; the federal push to halt long-time tax allowances for oil firms seeking to drill new wells; and a promise by the British Columbia NDP and Green Party – with a power-sharing agreement in place to form the next provincial government – to halt the Trans Mountain expansion. Alberta sees the pipeline project as key to opening global crude markets and reducing its near-total reliance on exporting to U.S. buyers.
“It’s a big sign that says ‘invest here at your own risk,’ ” he says.
Prof. Morton’s spent his political career hell-bent on asserting his province’s economic and political interests against federal intrusion. It’s a mould which lends itself into the nascent discussion in some Alberta circles regarding interprovincial, retaliatory trade measures – should B.C. actually go ahead with blocking the Trans Mountain expansion. He says an “extreme” step would be the Alberta government buying a controlling share in the Trans Mountain pipeline – and the 300,000 barrels a day of capacity that exists right now – and cutting off gasoline and refined product supplies to B.C.
He notes in 1980, at the height of Alberta’s dispute with Ottawa over the National Energy Program and resource control, thenpremier of Alberta Peter Lougheed rattled Confederation with a plan to cut oil shipments to the rest of the country. However, it’s unclear whether a strategy of cutting off supplies would work in a world awash with oil and a continent full of natural gas.
“Gone are the days when we thought we were running out of oil,” says Kevin Birn, a director at IHS Energy in Calgary, speaking of the larger energy picture that has changed drastically in the past decade thanks to new technology for unconventional oil production. “We’re in this age of abundance.”
Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Alberta NDP Premier Rachel Notley have formed a political alliance on the energy file, with the belief that a middle path – that includes new heavy oil pipelines alongside subsidized solar, wind, waste-to-energy projects – is the way forward. The strategy also relies on carbon taxes, tough new environmental regulations to improve Canada’s greenhouse gas-intensive reputation and a bigger say for Indigenous communities in the development of massive new infrastructure projects.
There is a growing perception in downtown Calgary, however, that the industry is hamstrung. Canoe Financial LP’s Rafi Tahmazian says most Canadians don’t understand the vast amount of foreign capital required to operate the economy.
“We’re so quagmired,” Mr. Tahmazian says of the current state of energy development, giving the lack of LNG projects as an example. “No other country in the free world really deals with these issues like we do. So investors say, ‘Don’t bother.’ ”
He added that renewable energy might be the path forward, but it won’t happen overnight. And there is little understanding of “the gap that we create by destroying one of the industries that run our economy without replacing it with something else.”
Another take on Canada’s investment climate is coming in the fall. Dominic Barton, the head of Ottawa’s Advisory Council on Economic Growth, says his group is working on a report on encouraging more business capital investment and making sure Canadian regulations are strong but aren’t so costly that they impede the money flow to the country.
Mr. Barton says sectors such as renewable energy technology and pipeline-building will be a part of the review, to see if there’s “anything where it takes longer to be able to get something done, or makes it more uncertain, or more difficult for people to invest.”

GENDER

The Globe and Mail. Special. Jun. 24, 2017. What Chrystia Freeland’s pink dress taught me about feminism today
EMILY DICKINSON, actress and freelance writer based in Toronto.

I got this text from my mother recently:

“It annoys me to see Chrystia Freeland wearing a tight dress and pearls. I’m just like – if you’re going to be a ball-busting foreign minister – wear a pair of pants. It’s sexist to say but I think to be in a man’s world and get taken seriously (right now, early days) a pink dress and pearls isn’t going to cut it.”

Despite being embarrassed that we were engaging in a morning argument over another woman’s outfit, I saw a bigger issue.

My core issue with this text, and the kind of limitations it implies, is that expecting Ms. Freeland to wear pants is saying: Yes, women can do big jobs just like men, but they can’t be too feminine while doing it.

This archaic way of thinking needs to be replaced with the earth-shaking concept that women should be allowed to be themselves, whatever that means to them. (I refer to the word “women” as inclusive to all self-identifying women, in all shapes and sizes, from all walks of life.) The next step toward true equality is allowing women to express as much femininity as they wish – and not just in their clothing choices – and be respected for it.

This is not to devalue my mother’s opinion. She grew up in a small town in the 1970s, and for her, being a feminist meant fitting in with men to gain their respect. My mother has always been rebellious and progressive. When I was a little girl, I would worry about the other kids thinking she was a boy because of her short hair. She wore army jackets and combat boots. She didn’t care what people thought of her (and she cares even less now). I wasn’t really surprised by her opinion about the pink dress. She is empowered in her self-expression and, in her experience, presenting oneself as too feminine warrants disrespect.

In 1977, John T. Molloy wrote The Women’s Dress for Success Book, which used drawings of various styles of women’s clothing, hairstyles and accessories to gain statistics on how men reacted to them. He uses this information to make “scientific claims” to help women succeed in the workplace. In the book, he states it’s “not sexism; it’s realism.” He speaks about the importance of a pantsuit and low heels, yet also states explicitly that women should not be too masculine to “fit in.” In a nutshell, women shouldn’t be too feminine or too masculine. They should, essentially, just be neutral. This 1970s how-to book is laughable, but so many of these limiting “rules” seem to still haunt women today.

I wonder how much of my personal style is based on societal pressure to come off as more “masculine” (or at least what we popularly think of as masculine, since masculinity and femininity are shifting constructs). I have a stereotypically feminine way of being – I am extremely sensitive and emotional – and I haven’t always felt empowered to be that way. I never thought I’d see the day that I was arguing for someone else’s right to go back to the dress, but by denying women the chance to wear what they want and be who they want, we’re just contributing to a system that shames femininity. Simply put: What a woman is wearing doesn’t represent her intelligence or capability to do her job.

The text from my mother reminded me of a debate at an International Women’s Day event this year. One panelist – a successful music producer – was advised at the beginning of her career to wear dark, masculine clothing in order to be taken seriously in a male-dominated industry. She encouraged the crowd to do the same, which sparked a lot of questions. I wondered if, had she ignored this advice, she would be sitting on that panel. Her choice to adhere to these “rules” meant gaining respect and power in her industry. Had she not done that, would she have been as successful?

“Even when women used the same career advancement strategies – doing all the things they have been told will help them get ahead – they advanced less than their male counterparts and had slower pay growth.” A report from Catalyst, The Myth of the Ideal Worker: Does Doing All The Right Things Really Get Women Ahead? shows the sad truth that, even as women change their behaviour for the sake of their careers, it’s still not resulting in equality.

These experiences leave me with questions about systemic sexism, the sexism that women engage in against other women and the beliefs entrenched in our hearts that limit us. Moving forward, I believe that we need to be grateful for where our foremothers have brought us, and we need to fight for a new level of equality. Men and women are not the same. Everyone deserves the same kind of respect and acknowledgment because of this, not in spite of it.

I wonder: Did Ms. Freeland choose this bright pink dress to make a point? It’s a stereotypically female colour, and conveniently the theme colour of the Women’s March. I like to think she did. Maybe she just liked the dress, and it has no political weight whatsoever. Maybe (although highly unlikely) she just grabbed the first thing she saw on a hectic morning.

I don’t think it matters.

The Globe and Mail. Jun. 26, 2017. OPINION. The Liberals are talking about gender, and that will change Ottawa
CAMPBELL CLARK

Last week, Maryam Monsef, the Minister of Status of Women, announced a strategy to address gender-based violence. Two weeks earlier, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland delivered a speech declaring that women’s rights are at the heart of Canada’s foreign policy, and a few days later, International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau announced a “feminist” foreign-aid policy.

Nothing is more regularly the focus in the Liberal government’s announcements, and its politics, than gender-equity and policies and symbols about women. On the day he was sworn in as Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau famously named a gender-balanced cabinet. Since then, almost 60 per cent of the judges appointed by the federal government have been women. In the military, women have been promoted to senior, high-profile positions on the Liberals’ watch, including the appointment of the new Judge Advocate General, Navy Captain Geneviève Bernatchez, last week. The March federal budget came with the gender-based budget statement.

“We are changing the world with this work,” Ms. Monsef said in an interview. She often seems earnest, but there’s no doubting she believes in the impact of these things: that girls such as her eight-year-old niece will be inspired by seeing women in positions of power, or that other countries will feel pressure to follow the example. France’s President, Emmanuel Macron, unveiled a gender-balanced cabinet too, she noted.

In fact, it’s not easy for the Liberals to show their gender policies will change the day-to-day lives of women here, let alone around the world. And political opponents dismiss a lot of it as branding.

But there’s no doubt that this government’s focus on women will have a lasting impact on Canadian politics and government. Even the symbols: It’s hard to imagine a future prime minister appointing a cabinet where two-thirds of the ministers are men.

Some of the symbols around gender issues that delight Liberals seem to particularly irritate their opponents, such as Mr. Trudeau’s repeated assertions that he’s a feminist. “Pinkwashing,” one New Democrat called it – accusing the Liberals of mounting a marketing exercise when they won’t back substantive policies to address, for example, the gender gap for low-income women. Some Conservatives argue the Liberals spend money on bureaucracy to signal their good intentions, but their plans won’t have concrete effects.

But opponents who dismiss it as political marketing tend to admit it probably works. “Oh, they’re kicking our ass,” said one Conservative. When in power, Conservatives were often reluctant to talk about the representation of women in positions of power; on the left, touting a feminist foreign-aid policy, for example, can help the Liberals compete with the NDP for progressive voters.

And it’s clearly not motivated by just electoral politics. There are true believers, cabinet appointees such as Labour Minister Patty Hajdu and influential senior aides such as Mr. Trudeau’s chief of staff, Katie Telford. The government, under Ms. Telford’s eye, has applied gender-equity tools on matters so boringly inside the machinery of government, such as gender analysis in every department and on all initiatives before cabinet, that it can’t possibly be aimed at voters. It’s hard to say if that will really have an impact, but in theory, the government will know if infrastructure funds for hockey arenas or daycares are going to create jobs for men or women, or benefit one gender more.

When an investigation by The Globe and Mail’s Robyn Doolittle found that one in five sexual-assault complaints was dismissed as unfounded, and that the rate of this finding varied dramatically from place to place, it sparked an immediate e-mail chain between Ms. Telford, Ms. Monsef, and Ms. Hajdu. A month later, the budget set aside $100-million for a gender-based violence strategy.

The thing is, gender-based violence is a big, complex problem. Ms. Monsef called it the “greatest barrier to gender equity in this country.” The centrepiece of the government’s new strategy is collecting data, and there have been questions about whether that’s really an adequate response.

Ms. Monsef noted that figures haven’t been collected since 1993 – “We have cyberviolence. That didn’t happen in 1993,” she said. Data will help design effective prevention programs. But a key reason she offers is that they will honour the stories of survivors by collecting “evidence” for policies. Another Liberal government insider suggested that with solid numbers, it’s harder to argue about the scale of the issue.

It’s unclear what impact the strategy will have. But the Liberals have done a key thing to the politics: They’ve raised demand, and expectations.

________________

LGCJ.: