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.

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.

Welcome to the era of economic pragmatism where concerns about social justice are relegated to the same general category as climate: nice to have, but won’t put food on the table.

It’s not as if Canada is alone in adapting to a new reality. Europe is way out in front in fact, almost a year into a softened stance on Saudi Arabia. And China is being courted with varying degrees of passion by just about every advanced nation and tech billionaire. So, playing by the rules of the game, as understood by our major allies, just makes sense.

Is there a danger in giving up the power to persuade and influence on matters that concern Canada?

Of course there is, but it’s a risk the prime minister seems willing to take. And in fact, appears to argue that holding these countries close is the best way to shape their behaviour. There’s something to be said for that argument, other than the fact that it never worked before. Western countries spent decades imagining that once China got a look at a good fast-food restaurant and high-speed cable, they’d fall over themselves to become a liberal democracy. It didn’t play out that way. It turns out that countries with a different system of governing think theirs is the right one, too.

So where does leave a middle power like Canada? It leaves us opening doors we had held firmly closed...but doors that also represent economic opportunity and potential wealth.

My Takeaway? Pining for the past is never a good idea. But pining for a past that didn’t work is even worse.

Wealthsimple has made arrangements with the Canadian financial products regulator to offer a version of Kalshi, on of the big US platforms, to Canadians. Wealthsimple says it is stepping up because Canadians were being left on the sidelines of a growing business: One the company says will be worth $240 billion dollars in annual market volume this year, and growing to more than a trillion dollars by 2030. Which sure explains why Wealthsimple wants in on it.

In Canada, at least to start, the trading will be limited to three categories: Economic indicators, financial indicators, and climate. Sports betting, and the random category betting that is rampant in the US, will not be available north of the border. For now. 

But even so, polls have shown that most Canadians are concerned about prediction markets, which are seen as gambling, rather than some form of investment. And everyone knows - or should know - that gambling comes with a massive social cost, namely a very high rate of addiction. Tying the ability to gamble to a platform that also houses someone's retirement savings seems like a...tricky proposition.

But even if you buy the idea that prediction market trading is a form of knowledge-based, calculated risk hedging, it is worth understanding that the vast majority of users on these platforms lose money. A tiny percentage make all the profit. 

Because for now, users can't place bets on random events, the risk of insider trading and influence is lessened. So we have that going for us. But we are still left with the question of just what burning need in the market is being filled here.

The ability to place a bet on which way the Bank of Canada will go on interest rates can be dressed up as a financial hedge, but it's hard to see how it's much different than betting on the outcome of a sports game.

My Takeaway? It's easy to see why businesses want a piece of this growing market. But pretending something isn't harmful isn't a plan. It's just wishful thinking.

To solve this problem, we could import young people - it’s the underlying case for huge increases in our immigration levels. But as we saw in the past few years, while immigration historically has been very good for Canada - in every way, but notably economically - that isn’t the case in the short term. And in fact, newcomers can put a strain on existing social systems.

The backlash that strain produced is still playing out, and our immigration has shrunk below even our recent averages, so that last year our population overall fell for the first time since we formed the country.

So that kind of growth might not be the answer. A fun social experiment might be to find ways to increase natural population growth. But let’s agree in a civilized country that feels like a bit of a policy overreach. So where else to turn?

One answer is to solve a problem on the other side of the ledger. The cost of transfers to the elderly is already the single biggest line item in the federal budget. But the real cost of old people to our system is in health care. And here, there is plenty we could do.

If we could actually deliver services in a more efficient manner, and finally tackle some of the thornier human-made blocks in the system, we could free up a lot of capital, while getting more value for what we do spend.

Of all of the places we could use new technology to improve our world, health care should shoot to the top of the list. Not just because we all benefit, but because we may not be able to afford anything else.

My Takeaway? Our lopsided demographic chart could just be the catalyst we need to fix a problem that is definitely not ageing well.

Now, as we grapple with the reality that our ally can change the rules of engagement at will, it’s unlikely that Canada will change its perspective. We are still a trading nation. We have much of the what the world needs, from oil and gas to natural resources and agriculture...and increasingly, critical minerals.

All of that means that as we seek a little independence from America, was have some cards to play. Alliances with other regions and countries help underscore for our business community that it’s a big world out there, and customers exist all over it.

Ease of doing business takes on a different meaning when your largest trading partner creates friction. But the government can only do so much. Forging trade deals and alliances opens doors and creates regulatory pathways. But it doesn’t get a Canadian product into global hands. And that might take a little more effort than we are used to. But the fact of its newness shouldn’t stop us from the goal.

Having learned how to integrate supply chains and navigate another country’s laws and currency, we can do the same, elsewhere. And we must. Meanwhile our governments can continue to facilitate new pathways, and invest in the infrastructure of trade here at home. Some of those relationships and investments will take time to play out, but laying the groundwork is the only way to reap the results.

My Takeaway? Canadians got a wake-up call on trade. As we turn to new partners and markets, let’s make sure we stay awake.

A recent Reuters poll found that 90% of businesses across 18 countries expect to be electrified by 2035. And the vast majority want their country’s electricity to come from renewable sources by then.

This push is being facilitated by the market: it is seen as a competitive advantage by business, including in the United States. Perhaps it’s not surprising as energy costs soar - and the reliability of some resources like oil - have been thrown into question in recent months

Even as countries that have fossil fuel resources have ramped up efforts to extract and produce them, the cost of renewable energy technology has plummeted.

Everything from solar to battery storage is now more than competitive. That opens the door for business to consider its options. Add in the possibility of carbon pricing or some form of effort to cap greenhouse gas, and the incentive to de-risk becomes even greater.

So, the willingness to electrify is not the problem. The real problem, according to this same poll of global businesses, is that governments are not keeping up. Most grids are woefully inadequate for even minor increases in usage, let alone a wholesale shift to electrification. Government incentives are found to be lacking, and long-term policy frameworks are unclear.

In Canada, a seemingly ambitious and expensive plan to invest in the grid still sets it target as 2050: A full 15years after most businesses want to be fully electric. The constraints range from a lack of inter-provincial connectivity, to a shortage of the equipment needed to expand the grid. And let’s not get started on the nimbyism that rears its head these days around any meaningful infrastructure project.

Taken together, they add up to a challenging environment, even for the most optimistic of strategies.

My Takeaway? It seems obvious that electricity use will grow exponentially. Now we need our ambition for it to do the same.

But the problem with AI companies and the massive profit they generate is one that all countries may soon have to grapple with, and ownership is one of the many possible solutions.

But one thing is clear: solutions will be needed. We are entering a period in history that may look unlike any other. One in which businesses continue to generate ever more profit, by operating more efficiently and with fewer human labour than ever before.

It could in fact look like a world where humans have very little to do, and nothing to be paid for. That scenario creates some pressing social questions. The first of which will be how to distribute the wealth created by companies back to society more broadly.

The longstanding method, at least since the industrial revolution, has been through jobs. Generally speaking, when new technologies emerged to make a business more efficient, but displacing current workers, new jobs opened up, in whole new industries.

That may no longer be the case, once AI matures. So, humans may need to be paid NOT to work, as it were. Owning the companies outright is a tempting way to go, but there are some pretty obvious perils, not least the conflict of interest presented by an entity like the U.S. government standing to benefit from a business it also has a duty to regulate.

Creating an AI-based sovereign wealth fund may be a more sensible way to go, since it allows for some distance between governments and the businesses themselves. And it spreads the ownership around among companies. One problem with that is the stifling effect it could have on innovation, but there are ways to work around that.

Of course, the model we know best is to simply tax the profit of the businesses directly, if we have the stomach for it.

One thing seems clear - this technology is going to require a new social contract.

My Takeaway? If a social revolution is required, let’s do it with laws, rather than waiting for pitchforks.

Measuring something as unwieldy as a country’s economy generally means sacrificing some of the more nuanced data to get at big picture numbers. So, while GDP is the one we use to check our progress, it’s not a perfect measure.

In this case, higher than normal imports - and even more specifically, purchases of physical gold to match market purchases of paper gold - acted as a drag on GDP, because imports are deducted from exports.

But on numbers that matter to most people, like jobs, and wage growth, and household spending, Canada is doing fine. “Fine” being the operative word here, because it’s not like we have a giant cushion against a downturn.

But if we’re looking for silver linings, after a year of being abused by our largest trading partner, with some supply chain disruption and inflationary shocks as a gift with purchase, we are holding steady. Growth may not be what we are used to (which for the record in this country averages about 1.5 percent), but it’s not that far off, once we strip out these one-off items.

And then there is the massive shift underway in our economy: to new trade partners, and new industrial bases, both of which take time and investment. A dip today could well be laying the foundation for strong growth in the years ahead.

But most important of all, Canadians should remember that we are not our GDP…IT is a reflection of US. And in that way, very much in our control.

My Takeaway? To adapt a well-known phrase ... Let’s not ask what the economy can do for us ... But what we can do for the economy.

Is it fear of inflation? If so, they might yet be proved wrong, as they were in 2023 when 30-year U.S. treasury yields last hit these levels, only to fall after a few weeks. Or they might be right, and persistently higher prices might be part of our landscape.

Either way, if you’re renewing your mortgage today, it will be set against the 5-year Canadian bond rate, and will be higher, almost regardless of what the Bank of Canada does. Similarly, a business who needs a loan today, needs it today, and can’t hope that rates will sort themselves out in a month or two.

There’s a second reason for yields to be hitting these levels, and it has more to do with what irked Mr. Chretien: Investors might be losing faith in overly-indebted governments. The consequence of that is such a scary prospect that it makes you hope it’s actually inflation being priced in.

Either way, it’s beyond the control of the average household, which would do well to focus on what IS in its control. Excess spending should probably slow down, if inflation is taking hold. Businesses should curtail risk. Both of those things are very bad for the economy, but spell self-preservation for the individual.

My Takeaway? Some market signals are easy to ignore for long stretches of time. Until they come knocking at your door…And then you’d best have an answer ready.

Of course, this isn’t the prevailing thinking because the huge generation that is retired and retiring in the next few years have a very different and much more favourable set of circumstances.

In general, Baby Boomers and Gen X are the beneficiaries of a once every few centuries kind of economic boom. One where assets were relatively affordable, and then tended to grow in price at a huge clip. From houses to stocks to watches and art, these cohorts had it good - even if they didn’t know it at the time. They know it now, if only because the economic picture for their children and grandchildren is such a stark difference.

This now or soon to be retired generation, built wealth in a couple of ways. First, through company pension plans, which were often generous, defined benefit plans, some with survivor benefits so even a spouse stands to gain. And second, these folks own their homes, at a high rate - 75% of Gen X, and up to 85% of Boomers own houses they bought at pretty affordable levels, and then watched the equity grow in a material way.

By contrast, Millennials, and those younger, face a world with fewer private company pensions, and if they get one, of much poorer quality. And needless to say, their experience with housing is almost the opposite. The entry price is high, and the ability to accrue meaningful equity in that home will be much harder.

So any discussions around how much is needed for retirement should be framed entirely differently for these younger folks. And the answer is - a lot more.

Rather than the forced savings of home ownership, it might be better if young people got in the habit from the get-go of putting a chunk of their income away for later.

The earlier they start, the more it can grow, and yet data show that most Canadians don’t start saving for retirement until almost middle age.

My Takeaway? The proverbial pigs in the demographic python might well enjoy a good retirement. For everyone else, it’s time to get real.

Canada is staking its claim in compute with data centres, which are the early iteration of production of this commodity. Once compute is created it will be consumed by whomever has ownership rights - it’s why the biggest players in AI are busy investing hundreds of billions in their own future with data centres.

But compute isn’t created out of thin air: it is powered by something else, and so far, that something else is electricity. And here we run into a commodity shortage.

The North American grid is already in danger of running out of power. A combination of rapid electrification driven by climate change, and a massive increase in consumption driven by compute needs, has added up to trouble.

Brownouts are likely to be a recurring problem across major urban centres. Ageing grids are at capacity, so even adding new power sources only solves part of the problem.

The compute hungry tech firms know this, and so are investing directly into centres tapped into power sources. Canada looks good on that front, because in many places our power is relatively green. That is especially true of our vast hydro power resources. So Canada can be a player in this new race for compute.

But here, like everywhere else in this burgeoning technology, we risk losing our sovereignty. It’s one reason the federal government is teaming up with big telecom for investments in Canadian data plays. Theoretically at least, it makes the computing power more sovereign.

Of course, we can build all the data centres we want, but if we don’t have control over our electricity, it will be a moot point. Long-term sales of hydro-electric power between Quebec and Northern US states like Maine and New York take on a very different light in this new race for power.

And what about the tension between big companies who need the electricity for their business, and households who need it to live? Will cities priorities citizens over data centres, when every watt is in demand?

My Takeaway? Tomorrow’s winners will be the ones who have the computing power they need. Canada needs a coherent plant to make sure it’s one of them.

On its face it’s a pretty simple proposition. Governments own a ton of infrastructure that is in some ways “dead money.” From airports to roads to marine ports, these assets are extremely attractive to deep-pocketed, often global, investors. So, a government that wants to free up cash can simply sell - or privatize - these assets.

The trouble with this line of thinking is that it runs into pretty stiff opposition from the public. An airport isn’t just a business, it’s a monopoly play that serves the entire economy, and all travellers, with little or no competition. A for-profit model brings with it fears of travellers and airlines being gouged. Of course, the flip side of that argument is that an asset run by private, for-profit investors is leaner, more competitive, and more innovative than a public one.

It’s a debate that isn’t easily settled by the math, and in the real world, the results have been mixed. Places that have privatized airports for instance, certainly have shown higher levels of investment and innovation. But they have also produced higher costs - one estimate suggests ticket costs rise between 3 to 3.5% after privatization.

There may be middle ground for assets of national significance: either public private partnerships, or a hybrid system that allows the assets to be managed privately but with regulatory controls on the amount of profit, or the way that profit is reinvested.

The real allure of these transactions is it takes an otherwise dormant asset and creates value from it. The catch is that value goes to the government that unlocks it.

And here we come to the underbelly of public resistance.

It seems we don’t trust governments to use that money wisely. And perhaps we’d rather it was locked up in the asset than squandered. But that doesn’t feel like a good solution to the problem it describes.

My Takeaway? If we don’t trust our political leaders to manage our affairs, we have bigger issues than the question of what to privatize.Time for the Takeaway, and who profits from privatizing assets. As part of its announced ‘Canada Strong Fund’ the Federal government has floated some trial balloons about how to raise cash for the investment vehicle. One way is to sell off assets owned by the government.

On its face it’s a pretty simple proposition. Governments own a ton of infrastructure that is in some ways “dead money.” From airports to roads to marine ports, these assets are extremely attractive to deep-pocketed, often global, investors. So, a government that wants to free up cash can simply sell - or privatize - these assets.

The trouble with this line of thinking is that it runs into pretty stiff opposition from the public. An airport isn’t just a business, it’s a monopoly play that serves the entire economy, and all travellers, with little or no competition. A for-profit model brings with it fears of travellers and airlines being gouged. Of course, the flip side of that argument is that an asset run by private, for-profit investors is leaner, more competitive, and more innovative than a public one.

It’s a debate that isn’t easily settled by the math, and in the real world, the results have been mixed. Places that have privatized airports for instance, certainly have shown higher levels of investment and innovation. But they have also produced higher costs - one estimate suggests ticket costs rise between 3 to 3.5% after privatization.

There may be middle ground for assets of national significance: either public private partnerships, or a hybrid system that allows the assets to be managed privately but with regulatory controls on the amount of profit, or the way that profit is reinvested.

The real allure of these transactions is it takes an otherwise dormant asset and creates value from it. The catch is that value goes to the government that unlocks it.

And here we come to the underbelly of public resistance.

It seems we don’t trust governments to use that money wisely. And perhaps we’d rather it was locked up in the asset than squandered. But that doesn’t feel like a good solution to the problem it describes.

My Takeaway? If we don’t trust our political leaders to manage our affairs, we have bigger issues than the question of what to privatize.

For one thing, it’s a sign that Canada is attractive to foreign capital again. It sure hasn’t been for a while. Shell largely bowed out of this market almost a decade ago, as did all of the other major global oil and gas players. At that point Shell divested itself of a chunk of its Canadian footprint, including a big stake in the oil sands, while keeping a presence in refining and retail.

Canada’s efforts to curb emissions, and its aggressive stance on climate change, were read as unfriendly, and capital did what capital does - it went where it could go most easily.

So, this return of a big investment could herald a new dawn. But then, Shell is already ‘back’ in Canada, as the largest owner of LNG Canada, our new export terminal for natural gas. If you’re keeping score, Shell will own one of our biggest shale gas producers, and also owns 40% of the terminal that will ship that gas to foreign markets. So yeah, they like us. But is it good for Canada?

One thing we know is that we need capital to make the investments that will shape our future. Being attractive to global capital is an essential element for a prosperous one.

But should Canadians pay a little more attention to who owns the vast resource wealth we are lucky to perch on top of? If we don’t own any of it - not the resource, and not the export terminal - what do we get? Royalties and taxes, of course. But when it comes to critical resources - and here we should include copper, zinc, lithium, and uranium - we might want to have a strategy around ownership.

This is not an argument for state ownership - a return of the old Petro-Canada is not the idea. But Canadian control, and Canadian investors, which is what Arc had before this transaction, surely makes Canada stronger. Investors by the way who will hate this line of thought: because the ability to sell an asset, and take profit on it matters. And fair enough. But somewhere between profit for them, and a prosperous tomorrow, lies a path we should probably examine.

My Takeaway? Foreign investment is a healthy sign for Canada…as long as we aren’t selling our future.

Closer to home a city councillor in Ottawa included them on a list of items to consider in combatting food insecurity. While it’s tempting to dismiss any notion of centralized food retail as a form of rage bait, best ignored by rational humans, it’s worth taking a moment to consider why the idea has any currency at all.

Access to enough food can surely be considered table stakes in any civilized society. And the growing use of food banks in Canada, where they are increasingly seen as a regular option by a larger pool of people, suggests there might be a problem to address.

Of course, the case can and will be made that there are better ways to do it than state run grocers. The arguments against them are almost too easy, including an almost certain lack of efficiency or economy of scale, higher costs to run, and a degraded selection of goods, creating a second-class shopper. Existing grocers get a bad rap, but tend to operate on thin margins of profitability, relying on scale and efficiency to make it work.

It doesn’t take neo-con thinking to suggest that the better route is to put money in the hands of the folks who need it, so they can afford the food they and their families require.

But again: the fact that centralized food stores are even on the agenda suggests we are failing to do a good job of solving this problem. Food banks work well enough, and additional funding for existing networks is one good place to start. But we could go further, and consider ways to get cash into the hands of the people that need it...or, more accurately, get more cash where it’s needed, since there are already existing social supports in place.

My Takeaway? When people start coming up with desperate solutions to a problem, it’s pretty a good sign that it’s a problem in desperate need of a fix.

But if there is a word that best describes the Canadian predicament in 2026, it is ‘uneven’. More than ever the differences in economic reality are stark. With the energy and commodity sectors booming, and capital beginning to flow, parts of this country - in the west and on the east coast- will see great wealth creation.

But trade friction lands more heavily on the manufacturing belts of Ontario and Quebec, creating an economic drag. Meanwhile housing affordability is bad in some places, but just fine in others. And while we have yet to see a strong currency from higher energy prices, if it happened it would create another form of unevenness, where sellers of goods suffer, but purchasers win.

While the wins and losses of the economy aren’t shared equally, Canada does have some levelling methods. From taxation to provincial transfer payments, ours is a country that has long understood that regions will behave differently at different times. And that sharing the wealth is part of what knits us together.

Making sure we have the right tools for that - ones that feel fair to the ‘have’s’ and equitable to the ‘have nots’ will be a crucial part of our social, if not economic success.

More than ever our economy reminds us of the expression - the future has arrived...it’s just not evenly distributed.

My Takeaway? Getting that distribution right will make all the difference for Canada in the years ahead.

It didn’t take long for savvy businesses to present their ‘made in Canada’ credentials. And in the way of these things, for some to market a little aggressively their claim to that title. So many will be unsurprised when they see that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has levied fines against a handful of businesses for doing just that.

But it has raised legitimate questions about what makes something Canadian. Does it need to be grown here? Designed here? Processed or packaged here? If a global company has chosen to use Canadian services to finish its product, should it get a stamp of approval? At least to differentiate from the next product that shipped in from abroad with no Canadian input? Is a product more Canadian if it’s processed here but grown elsewhere? Or is it more patriotic if it’s grown here, but processed elsewhere, like some pickles we know?

These are questions most of us don’t lie awake over. We’d prefer a simple answer, that says the choices we are making, on balance, are supporting Canada.

With all of that in mind, it was surprising to see Oxford Frozen Food on the CFIA brag list of fined businesses. Oxford might fly under the radar for most Canadians, but it’s a true blue, home-grown success story.

The Nova Scotia firm founded by John Bragg has grown to be the world’s biggest processor of blueberries...with 24,000 acres in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and, thanks to a couple of strategic acquisitions, in Maine. Oxford pioneered its flash-freezing process that keeps the berries fresh for shipping. And it’s true some of the berries on the store shelves in Canada might originate in its U.S. fields.

But as a Canadian-owned business, with Canadian ingenuity, and a massive Canadian footprint that also supports local wild berry farms...the idea that it was offside ‘made in Canada’ labelling feels like a misapplication of the rule.

My Takeaway? Nobody wants to be misled in marketing. But overzealous regulators punishing a Canadian company, doesn’t feel like a made in Canada solution, either.

A big reason for the drop was the number of non-permanent residents - which captures work and study permit holders, as well as refugee claimants and their families. Turns out the international student flow dried to a trickle last year. That was intentional: new permits were sliced in half, from 305,000 last year to 155,000 this year. But it seems the word got out, and even fewer students applied than we targeted. It turns out that making people feel unwelcome actually keeps them from coming at all.

But, so what, many will ask: we had too many newcomers, driving up the cost of housing and other supportive services. And there is for sure a case to be made that the experiment that saw our immigration targets lifted sky high wasn’t matched well with spending on those kinds of support.

But this population decline, seen through an economic lens, is only one kind of story… and it’s not good. Our economy depends on growth, and household formation is a key part of achieving it, even when it’s modest. Shrinking population means falling growth, not just today, but down the road, since the real economic benefit of a newcomer takes some time to hit.

But the immediate impact can’t be ignored either. This development is a reminder that Canada’s demographic problem is still very much with us. And solving it through immigration seemed like the easiest route.

My Takeaway? Immigration got a bad rap in recent years. But pretty soon economic data might remind us why we used to be all for it.