Key Takeaways
- Prime Minister Mark Carney launched a new Canada‑US economic advisory committee to replace the Council on Canada‑US Relations, amid ongoing trade tensions and a forthcoming CUSMA review.
- The 24‑member panel lacks any representatives from Canada’s technology sector, drawing criticism from Build Canada, the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI), and the Canadian Shield Institute.
- Tech leaders argue that expertise on intangible assets—intellectual property, data, and digital standards—is essential for shaping a trade deal that reflects the 21st‑century economy.
- Some commentators contend that traditional industries, which bear the brunt of US tariffs, should dominate the discussion, asserting that the digital economy faces fewer barriers.
- The federal government has yet to respond to calls for adding technology voices to the committee.
Announcement of the New Advisory Committee
Prime Minister Mark Carney unveiled the freshly formed Canada‑United States (US) economic advisory committee yesterday, positioning it as the successor to the Council on Canada‑US Relations established by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in early 2025. The group is tasked with providing expertise and strategic guidance on all facets of the bilateral economic relationship. Its creation comes at a pivotal moment, as Canada and the United States navigate a strained trade environment marked by reciprocal tariffs and ongoing negotiations over the Canada‑US‑Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). By positioning the committee as a forum for high‑level advice, the government aims to sharpen Canada’s negotiating posture ahead of the CUSMA review slated for July.
Trade‑War Context and Upcoming CUSMA Review
The committee’s launch coincides with escalating trade tensions between the two neighbours, including US tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, and agricultural products that have prompted retaliatory measures from Ottawa. These frictions have heightened scrutiny of the existing CUSMA framework, which governs trade in goods, services, investment, and a range of non‑tariff issues such as intellectual property and digital trade. With the agreement set for a mid‑term review this summer, stakeholders are urging the government to ensure that the advisory body reflects the full spectrum of Canada’s economic interests, especially those sectors poised to gain or lose from forthcoming rule changes.
Tech Sector Leaders Voice Concern
Representatives from Canada’s technology community have been vocal in their disappointment that the committee contains no members from the tech industry. Build Canada, the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI), and the Canadian Shield Institute issued public statements highlighting this omission. They argue that the absence of founders, startup CEOs, venture capitalists, and innovation‑economy builders undermines the committee’s ability to address modern trade realities, where intangible assets increasingly dictate competitive advantage.
CCI’s Patrick Searle on the Need for 21st‑Century Expertise
CCI chief executive Patrick Searle emphasized that the committee’s current makeup fails to capture the expertise required to negotiate effectively in an economy driven by data, platforms, and algorithms. In a statement, Searle urged the federal government to “add expertise to this council that reflects the 21st‑century economy,” warning that without voices familiar with intellectual property (IP), data governance, and digital standards, Canada risks repeating past missteps—particularly the 2018 CUSMA negotiations, which he contends allowed the US to shape critical digital and IP provisions to its advantage.
Committee Composition Reflects Traditional Industries
The advisory panel comprises 24 members, including current and former politicians, as well as leaders from sectors traditionally affected by US tariffs such as automotive, manufacturing, and natural resources. While these industries have borne the immediate brunt of trade disputes, the tech sector—though less directly hit by tariffs—faces profound challenges related to cross‑border data flows, standard‑setting, and IP protection, all of which are enshrined in CUSMA’s chapters on digital trade and telecommunications.
Why Digital Trade and IP Matter in CUSMA
Digital trade, telecommunications, and intellectual property rights are explicitly covered within CUSMA, making them pivotal to the agreement’s overall effectiveness. Searle argued on X (formerly Twitter) that Canada “got CUSMA wrong in 2018” by conceding too much ground on digital and IP rules, allowing the US to set standards that favour its platform giants. He stressed that the upcoming review offers an opportunity to recalibrate those provisions, but only if negotiators possess a deep understanding of how intangible assets generate value in the global marketplace.
Canadian Shield Institute’s Vass Bednar Highlights Big‑Tech Dynamics
Vass Bednar, managing director of the Canadian Shield Institute, echoed Searle’s concerns, noting on social media that Canada must remain vigilant about “Big Tech playing both sides.” Bednar pointed out that at least one committee member—Candace Laing, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce—represents US‑based firms with a Canadian presence that actively support former President Donald Trump’s agenda for technological dominance. This alignment, he warned, could skew the committee’s advice toward interests that do not fully align with Canada’s long‑term innovation goals.
Build Canada’s Lucy Hargreaves Calls the List “Old‑Economy”
Lucy Hargreaves, co‑founder and CEO of Build Canada, took to X to condemn the advisory body as an “old‑economy list,” lamenting the absence of any founder, startup CEO, tech entrepreneur, venture capitalist, or innovation‑economy builder. She argued that excluding these voices deprives the committee of firsthand insight into the challenges and opportunities facing Canada’s high‑growth firms, which are increasingly vital to the nation’s export profile and productivity growth.
Counterargument: Focus on Manufacturing Impacts
Not all observers share the tech sector’s alarm. Sharan Kaur, a former Liberal staffer now working as principal at Navigator—where she lobbies for clients such as SpaceX and TikTok—responded to Hargreaves’ post by calling the criticism “misguided.” Kaur contended that the committee’s primary mandate is trade policy, and that manufacturing industries, especially autos, bear the real brunt of US tariffs. She suggested that the digital economy currently faces fewer substantive barriers, aside from issues like labour mobility, and therefore may not require founder‑level representation on every trade‑focused body.
Searle’s Broader Warning on US Rule‑Making
Expanding on his earlier remarks, Searle warned that the United States is actively shaping the rules governing data, platforms, and algorithms through procurement policies, standard‑setting bodies, and trade policy, while Canada remains largely reactive. He stressed that building domestic expertise on these issues is essential for Canada to negotiate effectively in the next phase of CUSMA, which will determine which country captures value from the growing global market for intangible assets. Without such capacity, Canada risks ceding strategic advantage to its southern neighbour in the digital age.
Government Response and Outlook
As of the time of writing, the Government of Canada has not issued an official response to the calls for increased technology representation on the advisory committee. BetaKit reached out for comment but has yet to receive a reply. The coming weeks will be critical: if the government opts to augment the committee with tech leaders, it could signal a renewed commitment to shaping a trade agreement that reflects Canada’s innovation‑driven future; if not, the panel may continue to be perceived as overlooking a vital component of the nation’s 21st‑century economy. Either outcome will influence how Canada navigates the looming CUSMA review and its broader economic relationship with the United States.