Business leaders face common challenges & peer discussions lead to cost effective solutions

This following Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters (CME) offering brings executives and seniors managers together to exchange information, ideas, and insights. Members meet 6x a year in facilitated peer groups of 8 to 10 individuals from non-competing companies. The peer council model ensures high-level commitment and accountability which in turn offers valuable solution-seeking discussions

Manufacturers’ Executive Council (MEC)
Owners, presidents, and CEOs who discuss executive-level topics such as business development, manufacturing competitiveness, financing and succession planning.

Manufacturers’ Operations Council (MOC) 
Senior operations professionals focused on productivity improvements, managing and eliminating waste, plant floor leadership, KPI measurements to improve workforce operational efficiencies through best practices like LEAN and Six Sigma.

Sales, Marketing & Exporting Council (SMEC) 
Senior sales and marketing professionals focused on export activity relating to sales strategy, opportunity identification, international trade supports, cross border challenges, and policies affecting sales and exporting.

Manufacturers’ Human Resources Council (MHRC) 
Senior company representatives responsible for labour and employment issues will discuss topics such as occupational health and safety, recruitment, skills, retention strategies, and effective training models.

Manufacturers’ Safety Council (MSC)
Occupational health and safety professionals meet to discuss a wide range of current issues related to OHSE. The council tours each of its member’s facility and provides a safety assessment to their host. This group has a direct link to CME’s Employer Advocacy Council (EAC).

Manufacturers’ Supply Chain Council (SCC)
Supply chain leaders, director of logistics, material managers, purchasing managers, demand managers, and planners meet to resolve supply chain challenges faced by small to medium-sized manufacturers in today’s global environment.


Is your business impacted by clean fuel standards, burdened by regulatory red tape, or looking for investment support? The Federal government wants to better understand manufacturers challenges and hear your suggestions on how the issues can be resolved. CME is putting together its submission and we want to hear from you.


At the end of June, Federal Environment and Climate Change Minister, Catherine McKenna announced major updates with respect to the Output-Based Pricing System (OBPS) and the Clean Fuel Standards (CFS). The Federal Government is calling on stakeholders to provide input on the Clean Fuel Standards (CFS) Regulatory Paper. CME is putting together its submission and we want to hear from you.


As mentioned during the webinar, we are seeking input and recommendations from members on both the CFS Regulatory Design Paper and on the OBPS Offset System and Return from Proceeds. To help guide your input, please view the following:

To provide your input, please answer the following questions by Thursday, August 16th, 2019 to Alex Greco.   For questions call 647-455-2197


Clean Fuel Standards (CFS) Regulatory Design Paper:

  1. What are your overall thoughts on the regulatory design paper? Based on this paper, what should be CME’s position be on the CFS?
  2. Are there any new solutions that you would propose for Energy-Intensive Trade Exposed (EITE) Industries and to help prevent costs being passed onto small-medium manufacturers?
  3. Can your member company provide any estimates as to how much the CFS will cost your plant and how it will affect your operations?
  4. Do you have input around credit generation or the proposed compliance fund under the CFS?
  5. For companies affecting by the gaseous stream of the CFS, what are your concerns with what is being currently proposed? What are your specific recommendations?
  6. Do you have any additional thoughts or input on the CFS?


Output-Based Pricing System (OBPS) Revenue Recycling and Offset System:

  1. If you prefer to receiving program funding under the OBPS, how would you would like a large emitters fund to be introduced, implemented and administered under the OBPS?
  2. If you prefer to have revenue recycling under the OBPS take place throughout the tax system, how would you like this to be undertaken? What are some key consideration for this?
  3. Do you agree with the proposed criteria for eligible projects under the OBPS Offset System? If not, what would you propose be amended to the criteria?
  4. Are there other considerations that should be taken into account for protocol development and the administration of the OBPS system?
  5. Do you have any other thoughts and input for OBPS Revenue Recycling or the OBPS Offset System?


Is Red Tape Holding You Back?

Is government red tape and cumbersome regulations one of your biggest challenges? Have ideas on how it can be fixed? Here’s your chance to have your say!

The Federal Government is calling on businesses to provide input on all of their regulatory modernization efforts. CME is putting together its submission and we want to hear from you. There are four streams to the review that you can read up on here, or, just answer the following questions:

  1. The Government wants to improve regulations surrounding clean technology, digitization and technology neutrality, and international standards. Do rules in these three areas affect your business? If so, how? Any ideas on how to improve these regulations?
  2. The Red Tape Reduction Act came into effect in 2015 and introduced the one-for-one rule. For every new regulation the government brings in it has to eliminate an old one. Has this law made a difference? How do we improve it?
  3. Do you have ideas on how to reform regulator mandates? CME has always said regs should be outcome driven rather than prescriptive (e.g. a chair must be designed to be stable and safe, vs, a chair must have 5 legs to be stable and safe). What other big picture principles should regulators follow?
  4. How do we clean up regulations generally? What’s duplicative, redundant, out-of-date, or unclear in Canadian law that holds back progress (e.g. requiring wet signatures or conducting business by fax).  Let us know.

Please provide your comments to Matt Poirier by Friday, August 16, 2016. If you prefer to share your ideas by phone, please call: 613-406-9002


CME is seeking feedback around the redesign of the Eastern Ontario Development Fund (EODF) and Southwestern Ontario Development Fund (SWODF) programs so these programs can help enable manufacturers to attract investment, reduce business costs and hire new skilled workers.

To provide some background, the government has undertaken a review of Ontario’s business support programs to determine their effectiveness, value for money and sustainability. As part of the Ontario Budget, the government introduced the Open for Jobs Blueprint (OJB), which is a new vision and approach for Ontario’s business support programs to help drive the economy and create quality jobs, while increasing accountability and transparency.

As part of the Open for Jobs Blueprint the Ministry will be launching a redesigned regional program in Fall 2019. The redesign will need to consider:

  • Fiscal constraints – there is a limited program budget;
  • Funding should be directed to projects that are outcome-focussed and provide value for money;
  • OJB priorities of creating a business-friendly climate, reducing cost of doing business, investing in skills and talent and address regional disparities.

Specifically, we are seeking your input on the following questions:

  • What are the obstacles that if removed, would expedite business investment in the regions?   When companies expand and need to deal with government, are there ways that government can make it easier for them to interact with various ministries, so they can proceed more quickly?
  • The province has offered a mix of business support tools through various programs.  For a loan-based program, what features would be important to businesses?
  • With limited funding available the government needs to ensure that funding is directed to projects with the most impact.  What would be important factors to consider in a “rounds-based” application process? (vs continuous intake)
  • How can the programs help the regions become more investment-ready?  What types of projects would position regions for increased business investment?  What features in a regional program would be useful for projects like these?

To provide your input on the questions above, please contact Alex Greco either via e-mail or by phone at 647-455-2197.