Instead, a series of overly simplified, wedge-issue policies were dressed up as democratic process. With any luck, the citizens of Alberta will see that for what it is, and reclaim their own understanding of their own province - as a place of economic power, but also social generosity. One that has benefited from its place inside a strong and generous federation. But the damage from those divisive, overly-simplified questions might be done.

My Takeaway? People are cynical about politics...and on weeks like this, it’s not hard to see why.

Joining Amanda on The Wrap this week is Bruce Sellery, financial journalist, personal finance author and CEO of Credit Canada

Kenneth Rogoff’s recent book:
Our Dollar, Your Problem: An Insider's View of Seven Turbulent Decades of Global Finance, and the Road Ahead
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300275315/our-dollar-your-problem/

That U.S. company promised not to cut any jobs at Stelco, in exchange for permission to acquire it. Now Canada wants to extract some punishment. The company, meanwhile, is threatening to fight in court over the supposed violation of terms.

There’s some precedent for both sides, since the Canadian government has already sued Stelco - or rather, its U.S. parent, then U.S. Steel - for violating employment thresholds in exchange for takeover approval. In that case, U.S. Steel ran into a little something called the global financial crisis, and argued that while it promised to maintain jobs for three years, it hadn’t promised to do it every day ‘of’ the three years. In the end, a bankruptcy court stood in the way of any concessions and U.S. Steel sold Stelco once again.

Now Cleveland Cliffs may similarly argue the same kind of force majeure, one-off aspect of a trade war - and also that it could well rehire if circumstances change.

But the real lesson here is about governments extracting promises from businesses they should know won’t keep them, if they shouldn’t keep them. It might feel good and scan well politically at the moment of a takeover to extract promises on jobs and production levels - but at the end of the day, a business makes decisions based on the underlying economic environment, from Canadian policy to geopolitics. And putting itself at risk to honour a commitment it made at a different point in history isn’t rational behaviour. And may not be behaviour the courts would require either.

So the real question for politicians isn’t how can they trust business to keep their word. It’s why they keep thinking they can, when there is so much evidence to the contrary. My Takeaway? As the saying goes - fool me twice, shame on me - but keep allowing it? Then you’re just a fool.

When the President says out loud that there is no reason for Canada to have an auto industry. He’s not wrong. If the Canadian auto market was the only thing supporting auto manufacturing, it would look a lot different, and it would be a lot smaller.

So why have we had a thriving, North American integrated auto market? Because the two countries decided it was a good idea. The U.S. understood that a strong Canada made sense: as its best and nearest customer, and as its most important supplier, keeping Canada’s economy strong fits neatly into a case of enlightened self-interest.

But it speaks to more than just economic value - and the change in attitude we are witnessing is stretching far beyond trade.

Why should one country care about another at all? Never mind a near neighbour - why send aid thousands of miles away to places like Africa? Why concern ourselves with territorial disputes on another continent? And why care if citizens of a far-flung nation are starving, or dying of diseases we could help eradicate?

The answer to all of those questions is more philosophical than political or economic. We should care because we should care. Because we are evolved creatures who have a sense of morality and goodwill, and an understanding at a basic level that some of our good fortune is a lucky accident of birth and geography.

But here’s another argument for remaining committed to caring for each other, regardless of borders. When the trend goes the other way, it’s hard to know which border to stop at.

In the U.S., ending foreign aid and removing troops from global conflicts is a clear political win: it’s hugely popular with all voters. But once you’ve accepted the premise that Americans need not care about the Sudanese, say, because it lies beyond their borders, you introduce a dangerous concept.

Why should Americans then care about the fate of Canada - never mind its proximity and value. Or - why should Americans in Florida care about Americans in Texas? Which border do they stop at?

And if they are stopping, why not stop at the border of a neighbourhood - why look after others even in your own city?

My Takeaway? Caring about our fellow humans is a choice...and it turns out if we stop choosing it, we don’t know where that ends.

But there is now some evidence they will stop themselves, and the reason is worth considering.

Open AI and Anthropic have both warned that their so-called frontier models, or those at the cutting edge of general intelligence, are capable of doing real harm. Examples abound of ways they have already exhibited troubling behaviour, and the people who know most about the technology are asking for help.

Both companies now endorse the idea of outside evaluators, and have asked for new regulations. You might wonder about the sudden crisis of conscience on the part of CEOs who until recently painted only a rosy picture of the potential of their technology.

That motivation might be clearer this week, thanks to a leak of a pre-IPO document from Anthropic. Both companies are in the process of preparing for a public offering, which would allow their inside investors to cash out at extremely profitable levels.

But even in Donald Trump’s America, there is due process around an IPO, including a realistic review of the risks to the company. One of the great unanswered questions of our age is: who will be held responsible for a major attack or breach by AI.

And we are starting to see an answer. Legally, these companies could well be on the hook if their agents run amok. That forces them to estimate the realistic size of that potential harm. And it turns out, it’s a lot.

Of course, if AI wipes all of humanity off the map, there won’t be many lawsuits. But anything short of that will become the liability of the big AI names.

My Takeaway? We are getting important information from the CEOs of big AI. And given what we all have to lose, we should probably believe them.

That lends an atmosphere of purpose to the country, and has left businesses feeling more confident. Growing our economy, and doing it in a new way, is the undertaking of a generation. It feels like a time of great import because it is.

But for Canadians, a lot of what determines our day to day quality of life isn’t changing for the better. The housing market remains unaffordable, especially for renters. Provincially run systems like health care and education are not getting the same air time as export diversification. Rather than investment and innovation, both are seeing cost reductions. And it is those three things - housing, health care, and education - that affect most people in a material way.

About six million Canadians still lack a primary care doctor, and for all the effort to reduce wait times, non-emergency waits continue to hit records. Meanwhile health care eats up an ever-larger share of provincial budgets, while still managing not to keep up with population growth.

Meanwhile our education system, which should be our investment in future growth and prosperity, is slowly degrading. International assessments for K to 12 reading, math and science show declines, although we still rank well overall for education - thanks to falling quality everywhere. We do better on post-secondary education, but provinces are busy capping what they send to schools, not investing in them.

None of it reads like an emergency, which is why in a time of crisis like that with our national trade, they get lost. But given how much these things matter to the quality of our lives, it may be time to elevate them again.

My Takeaway? There is an atmosphere of getting things done in Canada. Let’s remember to apply it to the areas that actually matter most to Canadians.

The news that Canada will balance its operating budget next year - a year ahead of schedule - should not be buried in the raft of other news drops. Our fiscal position matters. It matters to Canadians, because when we live beyond our means we incur more debt, which ties up dollars we could spend on things we want, and applies them to interest payments to our creditors. And it matters to potential investors, who are being reassured that the government will keep its spending in line, and its credit good.

Timing matters too. To the south of us, the world’s largest economy is going the other direction, incurring eye watering deficits that the market is no longer ignoring. U.S. bond yields - or the price the U.S. is being charged to borrow - are soaring. The Ten-Year Treasury, long considered a risk-free asset by investors globally, crossed 5% this week. That’s a signal that investors either think inflation is about to take off in that economy, or they aren’t totally sure the U.S. government is reliable.

What happens next won’t just concern the American government or public. A U.S. economy that craters is bad for the whole world. But for now, Canada stands in relief against that mismanagement, even if we got there by splitting our federal accounts like Solomon’s baby.

Since we are courting global investors, showing ourselves to be prudent managers of our capital is smart. Investors care about the stability of the markets they choose. Canada looks like a beacon of stability in an uncertain world.

My takeaway? The best thing about life is that it’s graded on a curve. And when it comes to the yield curve? Canada sure looks like the top of the class.

So pandas are on my mind this week. Between warnings of past-the-point-of-no-return on climate change that are covered, if at all, on page 4 (metaphorically and otherwise), and warnings from AI insiders that we could all be dead inside this decade (go ahead and search that one up if you’re slow on your news today), it’s hard not to feel a bit bemused by humanity.

We seem intent on caring not at all about our own survival. Kind of like the panda. Maybe somewhere there is another species - or entity - that is keeping us around, just for amusement. Because we are cute. For the cliffhanger of it all. As a kind of pet.

Two warnings inside one week that are legitimate end-of-the-world predictions. And we are busy arguing about the price of hockey sticks and honey. Having created these incredible neural network innovations that could have solved our problems (including presumably climate change), we managed to do it in classic bumbling panda fashion. Let’s not put any guardrails on! Let’s let the free market sort it out! What if it becomes a geopolitical race, where the prize is completely uncertain! Why not let a handful of guys figure this one out, it will probably be fine!

One of my favourite dark facts about the panda? When it does finally manage to procreate, the female will often inadvertently sit on her young, crushing it to death. Oops.

If it’s not clear - in this analogy, we are both the panda..and its young.

From having a few minutes of an expert’s time to draw as much information as possible, to getting facts from someone who’d rather not share them, the right question matters. And here, I have an admission to make. I don’t plan my question lines in detail. For years, guests (or more frequently, their publicists) have asked me for my questions in advance. And for years I have responded, “I can give you my questions if you provide me with your answers first.” It’s a joke, but one with truth in it. I might be able to tell you my general areas of interest. I should be able to tell you where I’m starting the interview – the first question – but after that, it’s highly dependent on how the guest responds.

It took me a few years to figure out that listening is another asset. Guests kept telling me the same thing: “I enjoy your interviews because you are actually listening to me.” That had me stumped; doesn’t everyone listen in interviews? Turns out, not always, or even, often. Hosts have a lot of good reasons for that, but the most common culprit is questions they prepared in advance. Like at a dinner party, when you can tell the person you’re talking to is really just waiting to say what they want to say, rather than really hearing what you are saying. Interviews can be like that too, and guests can feel it.

Which brings me to Ted Danson. I interviewed Ted when I was a business anchor at CBC. He was in Toronto for a charity he was promoting, and while there wasn’t much of a business story, he was Ted Danson. So, we sat down for a two-camera pre-tape. I can’t tell you what we said, but I can tell you this: it was the best interview I have ever had. When it was over, and I tried to figure out what made it so great, I realized something: Ted was really listening to me, too. It turns out that most of my guests aren’t – or if they are, it’s with half an ear. It’s understandable, because they have their own agenda. They have something to say, or something they really don’t want to say. And they are on guard because, well, journalists. But this guest was focussed entirely on what I was saying. And I was focussed, as I tend to be, on what he was saying. The result was a feeling of connectedness that was really special. (For me, at least – I suspect this is how Ted goes through life, the people around him being frequent beneficiaries.)

I’ve been chasing that Ted Danson high in interviews ever since. And the place where it shows up, and with some regularity, is on a podcast. The guest is as comfortable as possible, sometimes literally in their own home. The conversation is less formal. The audience is more imagined. It makes for conversations where their answers really are informed by my questions. The privilege I’ve had, and I will never stop taking for granted, is that so many people are willing to share their time and their thoughts. The podcast will be an extension of years of knowledge building, of curiosity, of relationship building. I hope it will inform and entertain.

And my questions? Those will still come from the guest’s answers.

Good Question with Amanda Lang debuts Sep 9th - anywhere you get your podcasts. Subscribe or follow now, and don’t miss an episode. https://pod.link/6807858730?view=apps&sort=popularity

But while we re-write the trade deal, Canada has a chance to make changes too. And front and centre on that list should surely be a clause that we agreed to the last time we signed a deal with America.

Article 32-10 gives the U.S. veto power over new trade deals with ‘non-market’ economies. Which is really another way of saying China, although the definition also currently captures Vietnam.

The clause kicked up a storm when it appeared back in 2018. Because not only does it allow the U.S. to walk away from our trade deal if it doesn’t like another deal we sign, but gives it the right to review the text of any deal we are negotiating.

In other words, we surrendered our sovereign capacity in exchange for the current iteration of CUSMA. And let’s consider how well that worked out: a mere 6 years after it was formally instated, we are back to the drawing board. It would seem we gave up some precious freedom for very little security in return.

Now the need to broker new deals, and forge new economic ties has been made even more clear, by the very partner who wants to keep us bound to it. They don’t want us, but they sure don’t want anyone else to have us. If that isn’t the definition of as toxic relationship, it’s hard to imagine what is.

The idea of a North American trade bloc made a lot of sense back in the days when we trusted each other, and considered our shared interests as a shared priority.

With the U.S. undermining those principles, it behooves us to look for new friends. That’s not to say China, with its authoritarian state, dismal human rights record, and a willingness to spy on us, is an ideal partner. But in this climate, trading what we can, on terms we can live with, is a reality Canada has surely come to accept.

My Takeaway? Canada is adapting to a changing geopolitical reality. Letting the U.S. stand in the way of that progress is adding insult to injury.

* I thought I was supremely clever with this title, and have since realized that trade expert Barry Appleton has a wonderful Substack by this name, and while I did not do so consciously I may have ripped it off. Apologies to Barry for the belated credit.

But while we sun and swim, it’s worth noticing something odd happening in our economy…specifically: good news.

From stronger than expected economic growth in May to a pop in our exports, it suddenly fees like, at a high level at least, things are improving.

And while GDP data can feel a bit remote when the price of hot dogs is still high, there is some evidence that the positive energy will trickle down.

A survey by KPMG of a cross-section of Canadian business leaders is surprisingly upbeat, even though some of our economy’s toughest headwinds remain.

The ‘National Business and Trade Outlook Survey’ showed that more than half of businesses think the federal government’s strategic moves will make them better off in the next three years. And an even higher number think that policies designed to offer support for business are working.

Two-thirds of the businesses surveyed also said they have adjusted their prices to account for tariffs, suggesting a high level of adaptability.

For consumers and employees, confidence by business leaders is great news.

Only a confident business spends money to invest in the future. And only one that sees its prospects improving will expand and add to its employee base.

These are all signs that despite some massive pressures, including a trade war we didn’t start, and inflation that we didn’t create, Canada may be finding its way back to growth.

Those GDP numbers for May - at 3.4% annualized - aren’t just solid, they are fantastic.

Most of us might need a little time to adapt to the idea that things are on the upswing, especially as we have reminders of the affordability issue all around us.

Like whiny kids in the back of the car on our way to a great destination, we can’t help asking “are we there yet?” But like the leaders surveyed by KPMG, we aren’t backseat passengers. We’re more like team-mates, rowing a boat together.

My Takeaway? It doesn’t help anyone to be a Pollyanna about the economy. But let’s not get so accustomed to bad news that we forget what good news looks like.

Without putting a dollar amount on its strategy, the new federal plan for nuclear in Canada has a clear direction, and with it will come a compass for capital to follow.

While small modular reactors are still of interest, they are more complex, still largely untested in the wild, and rely on inputs that Canada does not control, like enriched uranium. The Candu technology that runs Canada’s existing nuclear power generators uses un-enriched uranium, something Canada has a lot of. They also have a long and proven safety record, and existing customers globally - from South Korea to Argentina, with real potential growth as nuclear comes back into fashion.

By focussing on large scale reactors, Canada can expand its baseload grid, getting more bang for the buck by boosting the capacity of existing infrastructure. Enabling the capital investment required for this kind of growth is most certainly a role for the federal government.

The ambitious plan for up to ten new large-scale reactors comes with a capital cost above 100 billion dollars.

The feds have promised to outline how it will support that financing by next spring. De-risking this kind of investment is exactly the role of government, with its deep pockets and ability to think and invest long term.

But above all, the nuclear strategy is a team Canada play: built on Canadian intellectual property, it aims to modernize and increase that IP, upping exports, of both technology and uranium, as well as the many other parts of the supply chain that Canada supports. And while nuclear carries with it some risks, including in the handling of radioactive waste, those are risks that are also regulated federally.

My Takeaway? A nuclear strategy that plays to Canadian strength and helps grow it doesn’t just feel like the smart play. It feels like the mature one.

The timing feels funny too: with the U.S. decision not to re-up on our existing trade deal, negotiations are necessary to determine our shared economic path.

Canada has not been idle while this existential threat has loomed. Our federal government has criss-crossed the globe shoring up alliances and investors for Canada. They can do that because there’s a lot to recommend us, including vast natural resources, a highly skilled workforce, a framework of laws that tend to be reliable, and yes, access geographically to the massive U.S. market. Like it or not, Canada still benefits from proximity.

On that note, our premiers have not been idle, firming up economic partnerships with U.S. states who are well aware of Canada’s importance as a customer and a supplier.

Still, uncertainty is no friend to business, and the longer it takes to paper a deal, the harder it will be for them to invest and make plans. Meanwhile, the industrial policies that have been described, but not yet prescribed, in Canada will take time to flourish.

So how are 50% tariffs to be seen as good news? There’s really only one way to see a move this erratic and self-harming by the Trump White House.

Behavioural psychologists call it the extinction burst. It’s the last gasp of desperate action on the part of someone resisting change. Humans do it when they are changing a habit, and breaking a feedback loop. In this case, the loop is: the U.S. threatens, and others capitulate.

Canada threw that script away, and has held firm. From liquor off the shelves to new trade and investment agreements, the message to the U.S. has been that while we absolutely want a deal, we aren’t waiting around for the next wild swing.

My Takeaway? This latest effort by the Trump White House should be seen for what it is: a last, desperate burst of activity...before making a deal.