Blog

The uncertainty surrounding trade policies and the potential for sustained tariffs have already begun to erode business confidence in Ontario. 

A survey conducted in February by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce (OCC) has revealed that more than 80% of businesses believe U.S. tariffs are clearly impacting confidence in Ontario’s economy. 

Coupled with the results of the OCC’s 2025 Ontario Economic Report released last month which revealed that business confidence had risen from a historic low of 13% to only 26% in 2024, Canada’s economy remains in a precarious position in wake of U.S President Donald Trump’s continued tariffs attacks.

“The problem is we have Trump, a 78-year-old man trying to run a country in the same manner as it would have been run in 1968,” says Cambridge Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Greg Durocher. “But that country doesn’t exist anymore.”

He notes Trump’s continued claim that NATFA (North American Free Trade Agreement) resulted in the closure of 90,000 plants and factories in the U.S. is an exaggeration as well as touting that introducing exorbitant tariffs will eliminate the need for income tax.

Many industries at risk

“It’s literally impossible for that to happen,” says Greg, adding revenue from tariffs would equate to about 2% of the U.S. budget. “His whole end game centres on minerals, considering all he talks about is titanium and lithium from Ukraine. There’s no question about it.”

But in the wake of this pursuit, experts agree the impact of sustained tariffs will hit Canada hard.

The manufacturing sector stands at the forefront of potential adverse effects due to its substantial contribution to Ontario's economy and its heavy reliance on U.S. markets.

The automotive industry, a cornerstone of Ontario's manufacturing base, is especially vulnerable. Tariffs could render Canadian auto parts and vehicles less competitive, leading U.S. companies to seek alternative suppliers. This shift threatens to result in decreased production, layoffs, and a contraction within the sector. 

Beyond automotive manufacturing, other industries such as steel and aluminum production are also at risk. 

In retaliation to the U.S. tariffs, the federal government has already announced a $155 billion tariff package targeting various U.S. goods. The first phase included 25% tariffs on $30 billion worth of U.S. imports, confirmed March 4, encompassing products like orange juice, peanut butter, wine, spirits, beer, coffee, appliances, apparel, footwear, motorcycles, cosmetics, and pulp and paper.

An additional list targeting $125 billion worth of U.S. goods is under consideration on products such as electric vehicles, trucks and buses, certain fruits and vegetables, aerospace products, beef, pork, and dairy. 

Businesses ready to adapt

While these countermeasures aim to protect Canadian interests, they also risk escalating trade tensions, potentially leading to a trade war that could further destabilize Ontario's economy.

The results of the OCC tariffs survey reflect these concerns considering 77% of the 600 respondents said they expect U.S. tariffs will negatively impact their business, while slightly fewer (74%) believe that Canadian tariffs will have a negative impact.

However, when it comes to adapting to U.S. tariffs, approximately half (52%) of the respondents remain confident in their businesses ability to do so, something that doesn’t surprise Greg.

“When Canadian entrepreneurs are pushed, they become very structured and organized and say if our only option is to branch out and look elsewhere, then we're prepared to do that,” he says, adding having 52% of business owners prepared to seek other opportunities and avenues is a positive sign. “It just demonstrates that the structure of the businesses in Canada are probably more resilient than they are anywhere else, even compared to businesses in the U.S. They’re not relying on Donald Trump when it comes to changing his mind, they're relying more on themselves.”

Key findings of the OCC tariffs survey

The OCC conducted an online survey from Feb. 7-23 in co-ordination with local Chambers and Boards of Trade

Business confidence

• 60% of respondents do not currently feel confident in Ontario’s economic outlook, with nearly a quarter indicating they are not at all confident (24%).
• 88% of respondents indicated the U.S. tariffs are negatively impacting Ontario’s economy. In fact, 51% said that U.S. tariffs will have a significant negative impact on their confidence in the province’s economy.

 Business impacts of U.S. tariffs

• 77% expect U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods will negatively impact their businesses, while 74% expect Canadian tariffs will also be negative for them.
• 26% are expecting decreases sales/revenue and/or increased costs, while 23% expect increased costs of raw materials.  About 21% expect changes in customer demand because of tariffs.

 Adapting business to U.S. tariffs

• 52% of responding businesses are confident they can adapt with ongoing trade tensions between Canada and the U.S.
• 35% of businesses say they are diversifying their suppliers or considering it while 24% are considering a price increase. Approximately 84% said they are not looking to relocate any part of their business operations due to U.S. tariffs.
• 36% of respondents are anticipating a shift in market focus, while 31% expect innovations in products/services in their industry.
• 48% of respondents would welcome information and guidance, or advocacy when it comes to dealing with U.S. tariffs, while 41% would welcome financial assistance.

Click here to read survey results.

The following column by Cambridge Chamber President and CEO Greg Durocher appears in the winter edition of our INSIGHT Magazine

There’s a chance we might be panicking over nothing after Donald Trump was again elected this past fall as President of the United States, defying political norms in a way few others have.

Despite being a convicted felon—yes, by a jury of his peers, not a partisan judge—Trump secured his return to the highest office in the land, with a staggering 34 convictions under his belt. His campaign rhetoric was, as always, polarizing and often crossed the line of decency. 

Politics has clearly changed since there was a time when even a fraction of Trump's controversies would have ended a political career. Yet here we are. Some Canadians celebrated his victory, but it perplexes me why anyone north of the border would since he has demonstrated little regard for Canada, dismissing us as an afterthought despite our deep economic ties.

The truth is America’s prosperity is intrinsically linked to our resources and partnership.

Canada: An Indispensable Ally

Consider this: 60% of the crude oil the U.S. consumes comes from Canada. Saskatchewan supplies uranium, which is essential for energy production and national security, and potash essential for the agriculture industry. Quebec powers the northeastern United States with hydroelectricity. Alberta’s natural gas and Canada’s aluminum and steel exports are cornerstones of U.S. infrastructure.

But what would happen if we turned off the taps? A trade war would hurt us both, but Canada’s contribution to the U.S. economy is undeniable. Trump’s focus should be on challenges like China and Russia, not antagonizing U.S. allies.

Revisiting NAFTA and Trade Tactics

However, his threats are nothing new since we’ve seen this playbook before. In 2016, Trump declared NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) dead, demanding a "fair deal." After much posturing, the agreement was merely updated—something long overdue. Trump called it a victory, and his supporters cheered him on, but the changes were only modest at best.

Similarly, his famous promise to build a wall funded by Mexico resulted in just 732 km of construction—most of which replaced existing barriers. Mexico, of course, didn’t pay a dime and some of the "new" wall even deteriorated quickly, bogged down by allegations of corruption among Trump’s staff.

The Reality of Trump’s First Term

Let’s be honest—Trump’s first term was marked by unfulfilled promises and many controversies. His pandemic response was completely disastrous, with state governors openly criticizing his lack of leadership. Who could forget his infamous suggestion to inject bleach as a COVID-19 treatment? Why would a person even suggest that? Trump signed agreements that drove up gas prices, contributing to inflation.

Running a country is vastly different from running a private business, and Trump’s approach often revealed his lack of governance expertise.

What’s Next?

His 25% tariff plan threat on Canadian goods are likely bluster—an opening gambit to pressure Canada and Mexico into renegotiating trade agreements. It really is a strategy very reminiscent of his NAFTA theatrics.

In the end, we’ll likely see a slightly revised deal that Trump will tout as another one of his "wins." Of course, his base will applaud, despite little substantial change.

Canada’s Challenge

For Canadians, Trump’s presidency is very concerning since his leadership style— always chaotic and self-serving—offers no real benefit to Canada. Therefore, we must brace ourselves for uncertainty and prepare to protect our interests.

Meanwhile, south of the border, Americans will face the consequences of his polarizing and often ineffective leadership.

In the end, Trump’s bravado may have won temporary support from his base, but we must remember it’s critical to separate rhetoric from results. As the old saying goes, “Be careful what you wish for—you just might get it.”

The following column by Cambridge Chamber President and CEO Greg Durocher appears in the fall edition of our INSIGHT Magazine

I’m not sure you are with me on this, but I am perplexed and concerned about the anger and vitriol commentary coming from not only politicians, but more so these days from the voting public. 

I recall the early days of the environmental movement and the efforts made to get politicians to believe it should be a concern for everyone, especially now considering the mild winters we’ve been experiencing.  Many blamed politicians for not acting fast enough. However, in all fairness to them, it was the voters who put “climate” further down the list of priorities of what they wanted their government to do for them.

However, it did ignite the creation of the Green Party, and while their optimism and frustration often appeared to be on high volume, back then there wasn’t much name calling, lying, fabricating and conspiracy theories surrounding this issue.

In the 1980s, the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) was the big issue, and the Progressive Conservative Party led by Brian Mulroney won a majority government by making it the focus of the campaign. However, while the Liberals, led by John Turner, and the NDP, led by Ed Broadbent, vigorously campaigned hard against the FTA, there were no stones being thrown, literally or figuratively. 

Today, every social media stream is filled with vitriol commentary aimed not at the ideas, but rather at the people behind them. There appears to be a feeling that we need to beat people down because it’s believed this is the only way to get them to change their minds, or the only way we can convince others to think the same way. 

While Canada’s national election campaign hasn’t started (officially), we’ve seen this scenario play out in the United States’ election race as actual policies have taken a backseat to insults and taunts. 

Democratic process remains

What has changed in politics? Certainly not the process since we live in a democracy that provides us with the opportunity to make, hopefully, an informed a choice every four years after following election campaigns covered by the media. 

Sure, there are some mainstream media (MSM) outlets that have a bias, some more noteworthy than others, but at the core there are facts being reported. Sure, they edit and can pick out the worst of the worst, but it’s not like they are reporting things that didn’t occur.

I remember when John Tory, while vying to be Ontario Premier, supported universal government funding for all schools. Frankly, that wasn’t the whole story, but nonetheless, the MSM reported it and he fell off the cliff in terms of support.

Communication is important and can derail or rev up a campaign.

But today’s election campaigns have turned on the MSM, calling them “fake news”, calling out their reporters, vilifying the industry in favour of… you guessed it, their own made-up reporting on social media. 

Right after the 2015 federal election where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau moved from third place to first place with a majority government, The Globe and Mail published a story stating that former PM Stephen Harper was the most bullied politician in Canadian history. Today, he wouldn’t even be in the top 1,000 and comparatively got off easy because Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) weren’t in the public domain until after he was elected. 

It took a few years for people to understand how easy it was to hide behind a keyboard and say anything they liked.

Social media posts creating chaos

Don’t get me wrong, I love seeing photos online of family and friends living their lives, but there seem to be less of that compared to all the other trash which seems to fill our social media feeds. Someone really needs to figure out how many posts are valid compared to the amount which are strictly someone’s opinion or false. 

I read a tweet recently by someone with 1.2 million followers, a supporter of former U.S. President Donald Trump, who posted that VP Kamala Harris was not eligible to run for President because she wasn’t born in the U.S. Well, despite that some Republicans don’t want to believe California is even in the U.S., she was in fact born in Oakland, CA.

But the problem is, potentially 1.2 million followers of this person may now believe that tweet. I also read a post where a U.S. senator has promised that if the Republicans win the Senate, he is going to reopen the case on former U.S. President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. 

Stupid posts like these create the chaos we are experiencing and now that the horse is out of the barn, there is no putting it back in.  If the executives of these social media giants get a kick out of the chaos they’ve created, they will never do anything to clean it up. Elon Musk has been using his social media platform ‘X’ to campaign for Trump and when he comes across conspiracy commentary, he generally hasn’t rebuked it, instead he retweets it with a “I wonder” attached. 

Is it any wonder that we are having difficulty finding good candidates these days? Who wants to be the target of some tyrannical rage of baseless unvetted information? 

Ignore conspiracy theorists

I have had my battles with the MSM in the past, but I’ll take them over any social media feed because at least there are guidelines and rules they must follow. On social media, it seems the more outrageous the better and it’s bound to only get worse since many major MSM outlets continue to restructure resulting in layoffs.

The light at the end of the tunnel appears to be growing even more dim for many mainstream media outlets. But I leave you with a very important question: Where will you get the REAL news when the MSM disappears? Will it be X or Facebook, Instagram, or even TikTok? 

I think we all need to understand that what we see today is minor compared to what we will see just a few years down the road. 

The next time we go to the polls, maybe, just maybe try to ignore the conspiracy theorists and crazies and instead read a newspaper (print or online) or listen to the radio - preferably 570 News Radio at noon on Sunday - or watch your favourite newscast on TV because you might just learn something factual about the candidates and their policies.

Quiet quitting, thanks to viral posts on social media, has become a term very familiar in workplaces worldwide.

It describes the phenomenon of employees who no longer go above and beyond by doing only what is expected in effort to maintain jobs that may no longer interest or inspire them.

This disengagement from work has grown exponentially since the pandemic. In fact, the 2022 State of the Global Workplace report from Gallup shows only 21% of employees are engaged at work.

“We’ve come through such a crisis over the last couple of years. To some extent, I think we’re over it now, but it has forced people to make different decisions about work, especially if they were burnt out already,” says Frank Newman, CEO of Newman Human Resources Consulting, who will explore quiet quitting at a Cambridge Chamber of Commerce webinar Dec. 1 entitled Is Your Team Quietly Quitting?

He will not only touch on some of the top reasons why employees quietly quit as well as the warning signs but provide insight on how employers can alter their work environment so they can not only attract but, more importantly, retain employees.

“You want to make sure you create the best work environment as possible,” says Frank, acknowledging the existence of an “employees’ market” due to labour shortages.  “That really means taking a very critical look at your work environment. Do you know what people need? Is it benefits? Is it better management? This is the ideal time to do an employee survey or workplace assessment to provide you with some sort of tool you can use to get a fix in terms of what are you going to fix first.”

He says this process may not prove to be a comfortable experience for some workplaces, however, insists this information can go a long way in assisting an organization set benchmarks regarding branding, image or even compensation.

“There are so many changes happening right now and if you don’t understand where you’re going or where you’re at, it’s pretty hard to make any progress,” says Frank.

He also recommends employers conduct exit interviews, formally or informally, to get a sense of why an employee has decided to leave.

“Make sure you understand what people are feeling. Also, spend some time with your newest employees and ask them what attracted them to your organization.”

Frank says in the age of social media, it’s important to encourage people who leave to remain an ambassador for the organization adding that bad reviews tend to get more traction than good ones.

“Organizations need to think about that as they manage those who are quietly quitting and those who suddenly walk out the door,” he says. “I always encourage my clients to search various job boards to see what’s being said about them.”

Frank admits it’s a tough time to be a manager right now, noting that employees have become much more critical on how their companies are managed than they were in the past.

“People looking for work have so many options out there now, and if you’re a hiring manager, it’s putting more pressure on management to get work done with less resources,” he says, noting the difficulty this causes employees who are now required to pick up the slack due to staffing shortages.

However, Frank says he’s optimistic as the economy continues to readjust following the pandemic there will be less quiet quitting.

“As companies get smarter in managing their businesses and people, I think you’ll see less of that," he says.

Work Trends Facts:

• Burnout is a big risk in the workplace, especially amongst younger Gen Z professionals aged in their 20s, research shows. A survey of 30,000 workers by Microsoft showed 54% of Gen Z workers are considering quitting their job.
• In its 2021 Global Risks Report, the World Economic Forum ranks “youth disillusionment” as eighth of 10 immediate risks. Findings include deteriorating mental health since the start of the pandemic, leaving 80% of young people worldwide vulnerable to depression, anxiety, and disappointment.
• Workforce data from organizations including McKinsey & Company suggests 40% of the global workforce are looking to quit their jobs in the next three to six months.

Source: World Economic Forum website

The race is on to determine who will represent Cambridge residents for the next term at City Hall.

Although the municipal election will be held Oct. 24, advanced voting begins Oct. 6 providing many of those seeking a seat on City Council a limited amount of time to garner support in their quest to make a difference in how our community remains a great place to live and do business.

“I think every level of government is important to business,” says Cambridge Chamber of Commerce President & CEO Greg Durocher. “There are federal, provincial, and municipal regulations that mitigate the growth of business and business owners need to pay very close attention to every level of government and participate by voting or campaigning, or supporting, or whatever they need to do to stabilize their business within the confines of Canadian democracy.”

In Cambridge, three new councillors will be seated at the table with the potential for several others if the incumbents fail to retain their positions. But whether the prospect of massive change around the council table is enough to sway more residents to vote remains uncertain since traditionally, municipal elections garner a lower voter turnout than provincial or federal races. In the last municipal race in 2018, voter turnout in Cambridge was 32.4% compared to the provincial average of 38.30%. Compare this to the recent provincial election which experienced a voter turnout of about 43.5%, one of the lowest in decades.

“Media tend to focus on national or provincial elections, and of course those are organized by political parties who are able to mobilize an enormous amount of activity and intention because they can spend a great deal of money and voters can easily identify who the political operatives are,” explains Dr. Dennis Pilon, Associate Professor, Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies – Department of Political Science at York University. “When you look at it from the point of view from the voters, the challenge they face is that it’s very difficult to get informed about what’s really at stake. For voters to work out what each individual (municipal) candidate represents without a party label is somewhat challenging.”

As well, Dr. Pilon is candid when he talks about the legislative controls at the municipal level, noting even their ability to determine land uses can be circumvented by developers through the Ontario Municipal Board process.

“When we look at how the founders of our country and current federal and provincial politicians look at local government, they deliberately made it the weakest level of government,” he says. “It has very little independent power and has almost no fundraising capacity and is completely controlled by the provincial governments.”

Despite that, Greg notes the fact municipal governments are responsible for many elements –waste collection, police, fire service, roads, water and sewer, snow removal – that provide business owners with the ability to operate their businesses.

“They make the community safe and habitable, so the people you need to run your business want to live in your community,” he says. “I think businesses should encourage their employees to get out and vote because local government is the one level of government that truly affects their everyday lives.”

But inspiring people to vote in a municipal election can be difficult.

“It’s not that people don’t care and are not passionate,” says Dr. Pilon. “But often it takes a huge issue to catalyze the public and give them a focus for their concerns.”

For example, he says the proposed construction of the controversial Spadina Expressway in Toronto in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and more recently the amalgamation plans outlined in former Ontario premier Mike Harris’ ‘Common Sense Revolution’ in 1995 mobilized an enormous amount of people.

“You have to have a big issue that’s going to affect the majority of people, and thankfully, we don’t have those big issues,” says Greg, adding even the approval of the LRT didn’t garner as much concern as expected. “When there are those neighbourhood issues, they generally don’t drive people to the polls.”

Dr. Pilon agrees and notes that even the current housing and homelessness issues facing most communities is likely not enough to inspire more people to vote.

“Historically, when we look over the 20th century, the market has had an uneven ability to respond to housing needs again and again. It’s not a new problem and not one that municipalities have the finances to deal with so there you’ve got this mismatch,” he says, adding it’s a difficult issue for local candidates to succeed with at the ballot box. “There will be no accountability on the issue because there’s very little that municipalities can do.”

Dr. Pilon says ‘dramatic events’ that rise above the ‘noise’ are needed to mobilize voters at the local level, which is difficult due in part to media cutbacks.

“A lot of local newspapers have taken a hit over the past decade, so people aren’t receiving as much local council coverage and that makes it difficult for them to find out what’s going on,” he says.

To encourage more voter participation, Dr. Pilon recommends several potential changes including allowing the formation of ‘slate’ parties in Ontario, similar in nature to what is allowed Vancouver, B.C., as well as reforming campaign finance laws to prevent developers from having too much ‘pull’.

“Another reform that would make a big difference is stop reducing the size of councils,” he says, referring to Premier Doug Ford’s reduction of wards in Toronto. “What kind of impact is that going to have on representation?”

In terms of representation, Greg says a party system is not the answer at the municipal level.

“People are there representing their neighbourhoods and community, their friends and family and the businesses they shop in,” he says, adding a party system doesn’t lend itself to this type of scenario and that leaving their own political ‘baggage at the door’ is key for a successful council candidate.

“You’re not looking for someone with a platform of ideas as much as someone who has leadership and communication skills and can deliver on the interest of the neighbourhood. You want an individual who is compassionate and understanding and can also communicate well to upper levels of government to make sure that the community’s broader needs that may relate to provincial or federal issues are understood and addressed as best they possibly can.”

To learn more about the 2022 Municipal Election, visit the City of Cambridge.

The number of employees returning to their workplaces has been steadily increasing since the start of the year, according to stats recently published in the Globe & Mail. However, as the months pass not all may be thrilled with the notion of going back to the office.

“We are hearing mixed reviews about returning to work and that has to do with both employee preference as well as the expectations that businesses put in place prior to the pandemic,” says Peninsula Canada Account Manager Victoria Vati, adding that if a business didn’t have a working from home policy in place prior to COVID-19 not many put one in place when staff began staying home. “This created confusion for staff who have been productively working from home for the last year or two, and now they are expected to return. Many of them feel as though it is not necessary to be there in-person and are pushing back.”

Victoria, an HR expert, says it’s imperative that workplaces ensure they have something in writing outlining what the expectation is for employees when it comes to returning to the workplace.

“It can be tricky to navigate this area completely,” she says, noting that some businesses have found it more lucrative to have employees work from home removing the financial need for physical office space. “Others may opt for a hybrid solution because they have the resources to accommodate and support both in-house and remote workers.”

When it comes to hybrid working, the JLL (Jones Lang LaSalle) Workforce Preferences Barometer report released in June notes that from among just over 4,000 office workers surveyed in 10 countries – including Canada - this type of work model was expected by 60% of respondents, with 55% already utilizing a hybrid approach.

The report also indicated that 73% of these office workers are going into the office at least once a week, an increase of 5% compared to March of 2021.

To ensure a hybrid model works, the report states that six out of 10 employees expect to be supported with technology and financial assistance for expenses linked to remote work and outlines the need for a ‘holistic’ approach to management since 25% of those surveyed felt isolated from colleagues, with 55% stating they missed the social interactions of the workplace.

“Many employees are mentally, physically and emotionally drained from the last two years,” says Victoria, adding that many employers are also feeling ‘burned out’ trying to juggle the day-to-day issues of operating a business amid financial worries and ongoing labour shortages. “The burnout is a little different for them, but they are facing it as well.”

She says not overworking their employees and themselves is very important.

“Employee retention right now is key for all employers. It is important for employers to provide support to their staff in as many ways as they possibly can. If an employee now suffers from anxiety due to the pandemic and would like to work from home on certain days, the employer has an expectation to (within reason) explore options to assist that employee. If remote working is not possible, then providing the employee with resources and guidance on where to turn to for help is also very important.”

Working for an employer that focuses on their health has become very important to many, as outlined in the report which states 59% of employees expect to work for a company that supports health and wellbeing and now rank them as the second biggest priority, after quality of life and before salary.

“It is important for employers to evaluate and understand the needs of the business and weigh the pros and cons of remote working,” advises Valerie, noting the recent implementation of Ontario’s ‘Right to Disconnect’ legislation is a great way to build transparency and trust in these changing work environments. “By enforcing this and educating staff on what their rights are, employers can create a culture of excellence and finding what works for both the business and staff.”

Visit Peninsula Canada for more information.

At a glance (Source: JLL Workforce Preferences Barometer)

• Hybrid work has reached an ‘optimal point’ – 60% of office workers want to work in hybrid style today and 55% are doing so already (These figures were about 63% and 50% a year ago).
• 55% of employees alternate between different places of work every week (+5% vs. March 2021).
• 73% of office workers are going to the office at least once a week (+5% vs. March 2021).  26% exclusively in the office.
• Six in 10 employees expect to be supported with technology and financial assistance for expenses linked to remote work. Less than four in 10 currently benefit from these types of initiatives.
• Enabling hybrid work shows your people that you are flexible and empathetic employer – This workstyle is especially appreciated by managers (75%), Gen Z (73%) Gen Y (69%) and caregivers (66%).
• Only 48% of the workforce believe that their company is a great place to work today.
• 38% would like to work in an office that is designed sustainably.
• 27% could leave their employer because they do not share the values promoted by their company.
• 59% of employees expect to work in a company that supports their health and wellbeing. This is now ranked as the second priority at work, after quality of life and before salary.

The decision by Premier Doug Ford’s government to extend its COVID-19 sick days program has pushed the issue of paid leave back into the spotlight for many employers and their employees.

The province announced Dec. 7 that it’s COVID-19 Worker Income Protection Benefit, which require employers to provide up to three paid days off related to the pandemic and was to expire at the end of December, will continue until July 31.

But what happens after that date remains unclear, especially as the pandemic continues to drag on.

“In terms of what we do going forward, this is a question that deserves debate and discussion because on the one hand, there is a sound rationale to having a program like this in place, but the government can’t be footing the bill for everyone endlessly,” says Daniel Safayeni, Vice-President of Policy for the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. “And on the other side, small businesses have been disproportionately impacted by the crisis and the cost of doing business has gone up.”

He says it is worth noting the government budgeted $1 billion for the provincial program and that less than one-tenth – approximately 10% - has been used since it was launched last April. Under the program, employees receive a maximum of $200 per day, with the province reimbursing the employer. To date, employers have submitted more than $80 million in wages for sick pay claims for more than 235,000 workers.

“What we’ve seen in the numbers, on average by those who’ve used it, is no more than two sick days,” says Daniel.

The idea of transitioning this support to a more permanent sick day program of 10 days is something the Ontario Federation of Labour has been lobbying the provincial government to implement. In fact, a poll conducted by Envrionics Research in the last two weeks of November of 2021 indicated that 80% of the 1,210 respondents supported the Federation’s call for 10 permanent employer-paid sick days. 

“It is far past time for Ford’s Conservative government to finally do the right thing and introduce permanent, adequate, employer-paid sick leave and Ontarians overwhelmingly agree,” said Patty Coates, Ontario Federation of Labour President, in a Dec. 9 post on the group’s website. “The Worker Income Protection Benefit is temporary and inadequate. While Ontarians face the rise of a new COVID-19 variant and flu season, we urgently need this common-sense health measure to keep ourselves and our communities safe.”

But rising inflation and budgetary constraints faced by many businesses at this time would make implementing such a permanent program difficult, which is why Daniel says careful discussion is imperative.

“Ideally, there is a balance that can be struck in some future version of this program (Worker Income Protection Benefit) in which the government can still support these three sick days, particularly for smaller businesses that are in-person and don’t have the remote capabilities or don’t necessarily have the resources to fund an additional benefit like this,” he says, adding many larger businesses may already have sick day policies in place. “Perhaps there is some evolution that can occur for those that don’t, and that expense is eventually transitioned over to the employer. But this stuff needs to be done in consultation with the business community and the timelines need to match the economic backdrop.”

Daniel says implementing a more permanent paid sick leave program should not be part of any election promises.

“Right now, it’s getting mixed up within the context of an election,” he says. “It also has to be thought of within a broader package of benefits and compensation that employers are providing.”

And while the pandemic continues, especially for workplaces like smaller manufacturers, Daniel says the need to extend this program is important.

“The other backdrop to this is there is a war on talent and labour shortages and you’re seeing businesses trying to compete in the benefits they offer and to try and be an attractive place to work,” he says, adding providing a safe workplace for employees should remain the top priority right now, especially in the ‘essential’ sectors of retail, administration, and manufacturing. “It’s in no one’s best interest for a business to be in a situation in which they are risking the health and safety of their employees and by extension, the continuity of their business operation.”

Daniel says now is the time to investigate where this paid sick day benefit program can lead.

“It was wise of the government to extend this program, but let’s use the time we have between now and July to determine what the next step for this will look like,” he says. “As a Chamber network, we need to continue to do more work to understand where our members are at this time and what avenues for us going forward could be used to have a productive solution in place.”

From Europe to the U.S.A., our largest trading partners are burning up with anti-trade fever. Is it a short-term flu of harmless populism or the most destructive strains of anti-globalization since the 1930’s?

Last week the Trump Administration leaked a draft executive order to withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA. “I was all set to terminate,” Trump told the Washington Post “I looked forward to terminating. I was going to do it.” What changed his mind?

He backed down after an uproar from U.S. business groups, ferocious blowback from Congress (Senator John McCain said it would be a “disaster”), and calls from the leaders of Canada and Mexico. Apparently the decisive factor was a map of the United States showing the areas that would be hardest hit from cancelling NAFTA and highlighting that many of those counties, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing had voted Trump last November. The blustery threat and same-day retraction inflamed public opinion in Canada and Mexico, so that it will be even harder for those governments to make concessions to the U.S. What could be nuttier?

Frexit. If France elects a President dedicated to exiting the European Union and abandoning the Euro, it would be much worse than Brexit, perhaps leading to a break-up of the EU. Should we be worried?

We will find out on May 7th when the people of France vote in the second round of the Presidential election. The parallels with the U.S. are striking – Marine Le Pen presents herself as a champion of the oppressed working class, les oubliés (“the forgotten”) and she promises to stop immigration, withdraw from the EU, and impose tariffs to protect French business. Her opponent, Mr. Macron is in the centrist Hillary position with somewhat vague promises that are proEU and include investments in training, along with more flexibility and lower taxes for French business. Mr. Macron has a massive lead in the polls, but analysts point to severe trauma in the French political system. From the Euro crisis and bank bailouts, to an influx of migrants, economic stagnation, and terrorist attacks, the French have never been more disenchanted with their elites. In fact, both of the major parties (the equivalents of the Liberals and Conservatives) were eliminated in the first round.

There’s been much talk about a world-wide trend of government elites losing to anti-trade populists, but don’t count on a big win for Madame Trump. Extremist candidates were defeated in the Netherlands and Austria, because of concern about the economic consequences and also because messages of openness do resonate. Polls show that significant numbers of Trump voters and Brexiteers are experiencing regret.

Personally, I think Ms. Le Pen has pushed her luck too far with a promise to exit the Euro. This means that all financial assets, debts and pensions would have to be converted from Euros to some new currency to be introduced by Ms. Le Pen. Hear that, French seniors? Your life savings could be devalued and switched into new Francs from the Front National. Good luck.

That’s the point of Brexit, Frexit, threats to withdraw from the EU/NAFTA and trade wars generally. It’s lots of fun to bluster and bash trade, but there are real consequences and real job losses. Sometimes we only see the benefits of free trade when someone threatens to take it away. So let’s hope the French come to the same conclusion as so many Dutch, Austrians, remorseful Brits and American businesses to embrace openness. Because despite all the uncertainty, faster growth in global trade is just around the corner.

For more information, please contact:

Hendrik Brakel,

Senior Director, Economic, Financial & Tax Policy

613.238.4000 (284)

[email protected]