Jim Balsillie

And this is six months after we signed these two treaties. And they talk about innovation is all about jobs.

And this is six months after we signed these two treaties. And they talk about innovation is all about jobs.

And they make no reference to the two IP treaties that were the underpinning of innovation that they signed earlier that year.

And they make no reference to the two IP treaties that were the underpinning of innovation that they signed earlier that year.

They didn't know a revolution had occurred. Right.

They didn't know a revolution had occurred. Right.

So that's the original sin.

So that's the original sin.

Well, the US understood that if it was to be strong and prosperous, rich, powerful, and secure, it had to corral this knowledge. So the world moved from open science, open knowledge to closed science and monopolized knowledge that you had to get a rent. You had to pay a rent for the permission to use

Well, the US understood that if it was to be strong and prosperous, rich, powerful, and secure, it had to corral this knowledge. So the world moved from open science, open knowledge to closed science and monopolized knowledge that you had to get a rent. You had to pay a rent for the permission to use

somebody else's intellectual property and that went to software technology it went to pharmaceuticals it went to manufacturing technology it went to uh creative industries and right that went to all the value ads that are on top of basic resources yeah intangibles are now 90 of the value of the s p 500. that's where all the money's been and so define intangibles again for everybody

somebody else's intellectual property and that went to software technology it went to pharmaceuticals it went to manufacturing technology it went to uh creative industries and right that went to all the value ads that are on top of basic resources yeah intangibles are now 90 of the value of the s p 500. that's where all the money's been and so define intangibles again for everybody

Well, intangible asset is an asset... When you have a physical asset, like this jacket is a physical asset. I own it. That's called a positive right. But the design... And only one person can wear it at a time. That's called rivalrous. Right, so it's finite in supply. It's finite. But the design of this jacket is not finite. It's non-rivalrous. A million people can have that design. And...

Well, intangible asset is an asset... When you have a physical asset, like this jacket is a physical asset. I own it. That's called a positive right. But the design... And only one person can wear it at a time. That's called rivalrous. Right, so it's finite in supply. It's finite. But the design of this jacket is not finite. It's non-rivalrous. A million people can have that design. And...

where that's not designed at the same time. And the person who owns that design has a negative right that says, I have the legal right to stop you from using that design. So they own a fence. They own a fence. And the economy shifted from producing, getting rich from producing jackets alone to extracting a rent from, for the design of that jacket.

where that's not designed at the same time. And the person who owns that design has a negative right that says, I have the legal right to stop you from using that design. So they own a fence. They own a fence. And the economy shifted from producing, getting rich from producing jackets alone to extracting a rent from, for the design of that jacket.

Oh, Napster. Napster.

Oh, Napster. Napster.

Yeah, and when you physically own something, it's kind of not contested most of the time. It's unambiguous. But ownership of an idea evolves literally hundreds of times a day, different standards. And so Napster is an idea where there was very intense copyright issues that shut down Napster. But there was a dozen very substantial copyright cases for Google.

Yeah, and when you physically own something, it's kind of not contested most of the time. It's unambiguous. But ownership of an idea evolves literally hundreds of times a day, different standards. And so Napster is an idea where there was very intense copyright issues that shut down Napster. But there was a dozen very substantial copyright cases for Google.

Were you allowed to bring a snippet forward? And if you remember, all the owners of this content were litigating from New York City to say stop Google, and Google ran the cards. And so a bunch of judicial decisions framed the opening for Google to do search.

Were you allowed to bring a snippet forward? And if you remember, all the owners of this content were litigating from New York City to say stop Google, and Google ran the cards. And so a bunch of judicial decisions framed the opening for Google to do search.

Yeah, and that's a principle of fair use. Because when you index something and you show it forward to somebody and then give a link to that content... Is that taking away their revenue? And they argued no in the original search, but now in AI, do the weights embody expressive content that fundamentally takes away the revenue of the owner and that's- Or even replaces the owner.

Yeah, and that's a principle of fair use. Because when you index something and you show it forward to somebody and then give a link to that content... Is that taking away their revenue? And they argued no in the original search, but now in AI, do the weights embody expressive content that fundamentally takes away the revenue of the owner and that's- Or even replaces the owner.

Well, I mean, replaces and takes away the revenue are two sides of the same coin. And then at that point, the courts have to weigh in because intellectual property is not a natural right. It's a social bargain. whereas your physical possession is pretty much kind of a natural, right? My home is my home. It's more self-evident. It's self-evident, but these are evolving bargains for social good.

Well, I mean, replaces and takes away the revenue are two sides of the same coin. And then at that point, the courts have to weigh in because intellectual property is not a natural right. It's a social bargain. whereas your physical possession is pretty much kind of a natural, right? My home is my home. It's more self-evident. It's self-evident, but these are evolving bargains for social good.

There's some good questions there. I mean, one is that Milton Friedman talks a lot about free markets, but that predates the knowledge-based economy and then the data-driven economy.

There's some good questions there. I mean, one is that Milton Friedman talks a lot about free markets, but that predates the knowledge-based economy and then the data-driven economy.

Well, but the issue is the nature of these laws is to introduce friction to grant monopolies. So free trade agreements in a production economy are to spread competition, right? But then these agreements went to stronger and stronger enforcement of intellectual property rights to spread monopolies.

Well, but the issue is the nature of these laws is to introduce friction to grant monopolies. So free trade agreements in a production economy are to spread competition, right? But then these agreements went to stronger and stronger enforcement of intellectual property rights to spread monopolies.

And the market and the government designs and changes the definition of ownership all the time for... And the courts as well. With the courts interpreting that to... advanced state interest, so it becomes an instrument of geostrategic projection, because if you control the valuable assets, you're more secure and you're more rich.

And the market and the government designs and changes the definition of ownership all the time for... And the courts as well. With the courts interpreting that to... advanced state interest, so it becomes an instrument of geostrategic projection, because if you control the valuable assets, you're more secure and you're more rich.

And so it was a two-legged race, spreading liberalization of markets, capital, and labor. Yeah, which we did reasonably well at. And then enclosing and monopolizing knowledge.

And so it was a two-legged race, spreading liberalization of markets, capital, and labor. Yeah, which we did reasonably well at. And then enclosing and monopolizing knowledge.

But other countries did very, very well.

But other countries did very, very well.

No, no, we signed the same agreements as everybody else. But as I said to you, I think the original sin was,

No, no, we signed the same agreements as everybody else. But as I said to you, I think the original sin was,

was that 1994, December 1994, Orange Book by Industry Canada that talks about building a more innovative economy, that it's about better jobs and more efficiency, which are production economy constructs, and never references the two seismic treaties that the country signed six months earlier.

was that 1994, December 1994, Orange Book by Industry Canada that talks about building a more innovative economy, that it's about better jobs and more efficiency, which are production economy constructs, and never references the two seismic treaties that the country signed six months earlier.

Well, Canada in the last 10 years has been last place in GDP per capita of the top 50 developed countries in the world.

Well, Canada in the last 10 years has been last place in GDP per capita of the top 50 developed countries in the world.

Well, GDP per capita performance. Performance. You can call it the worst decrease. Yeah. We're last place in performance. Of 50 developed countries.

Well, GDP per capita performance. Performance. You can call it the worst decrease. Yeah. We're last place in performance. Of 50 developed countries.

So the number three AI research center in the world is in Edmonton. Number five is in Toronto. We gave essentially all that away to other US tech companies. I think Trump has made a strategic mistake because America's got an unbelievable deal from Canada.

So the number three AI research center in the world is in Edmonton. Number five is in Toronto. We gave essentially all that away to other US tech companies. I think Trump has made a strategic mistake because America's got an unbelievable deal from Canada.

Of the 50. Yes. Over the last 10 years. And in the last 40 years, we're last place in the OECD in productivity, in growing that. And then we're forecast to be last place in the next 40 years. So we've pretty well cemented. So we've got 100 years. We're cemented last place.

Of the 50. Yes. Over the last 10 years. And in the last 40 years, we're last place in the OECD in productivity, in growing that. And then we're forecast to be last place in the next 40 years. So we've pretty well cemented. So we've got 100 years. We're cemented last place.

It's a proxy for paycheck per worker.

It's a proxy for paycheck per worker.

What's that? It's the quality of your paycheck per worker.

What's that? It's the quality of your paycheck per worker.

Catastrophic, catastrophic.

Catastrophic, catastrophic.

Could happen this year.

Could happen this year.

Well, as I've said, rhetorically, we become Puerto Rico without a passport. We'll be very poor in terms of quality of life and what we can buy and no political representation, no clout. And we have a beautiful country that both you and I love, but it's an expensive country. So if you don't have the prosperity, you can't pay for the health care, the transportation.

Well, as I've said, rhetorically, we become Puerto Rico without a passport. We'll be very poor in terms of quality of life and what we can buy and no political representation, no clout. And we have a beautiful country that both you and I love, but it's an expensive country. So if you don't have the prosperity, you can't pay for the health care, the transportation.

The public safety, the social services, the heat, all the things that we value being a prosperous, sophisticated country. And we've seen those come under stress in this last era. Okay, so let's detail out that a little bit. It's expensive. It hurts a lot when you don't do well in this.

The public safety, the social services, the heat, all the things that we value being a prosperous, sophisticated country. And we've seen those come under stress in this last era. Okay, so let's detail out that a little bit. It's expensive. It hurts a lot when you don't do well in this.

Yes, that's all correct. Yeah, and one in a quarter Canadians have food insecurity now. Define food insecurity. Well, there's metrics on it, but basically they're not able to provide, they're skipping meals or children are unable to be fed what they need. So you're not secure in providing the food to your home. Okay, so one in four.

Yes, that's all correct. Yeah, and one in a quarter Canadians have food insecurity now. Define food insecurity. Well, there's metrics on it, but basically they're not able to provide, they're skipping meals or children are unable to be fed what they need. So you're not secure in providing the food to your home. Okay, so one in four.

Yeah, that's really, and food bank lines have doubled, and these things, these are terrible consequences of economic policy and attention. Yeah, it really hits home.

Yeah, that's really, and food bank lines have doubled, and these things, these are terrible consequences of economic policy and attention. Yeah, it really hits home.

Yeah, for sure. Yeah, and in, I mean, in the United States, they have, you know, the White House has an office of IP, you know, it has an IP caucus, and they have, and he said he's a very, he runs a global IP, international IP association that everybody knows.

Yeah, for sure. Yeah, and in, I mean, in the United States, they have, you know, the White House has an office of IP, you know, it has an IP caucus, and they have, and he said he's a very, he runs a global IP, international IP association that everybody knows.

Yeah, and he says all these other countries have IP attaches, but he never comes across an IP attache of Canada.

Yeah, and he says all these other countries have IP attaches, but he never comes across an IP attache of Canada.

Pharmaceutical and Hollywood and agriculture and finance. It's every sector's an IP business.

Pharmaceutical and Hollywood and agriculture and finance. It's every sector's an IP business.

And changing it to their favor.

And changing it to their favor.

And then inserting it into quote-unquote trade agreements that don't say trade. You can look at the million words of the USMCA. You would not find the words free trade in it. But they use them as instruments of regulatory remote control to extract the rentier economy to their home country's benefit. Okay, USMCA, detailed out. That's Canada's trade agreement signed under Trump.

And then inserting it into quote-unquote trade agreements that don't say trade. You can look at the million words of the USMCA. You would not find the words free trade in it. But they use them as instruments of regulatory remote control to extract the rentier economy to their home country's benefit. Okay, USMCA, detailed out. That's Canada's trade agreement signed under Trump.

six, seven years, five years.

six, seven years, five years.

It's an instrument for regulatory remote control. Yes.

It's an instrument for regulatory remote control. Yes.

They set the rules for how we manage our IP systems, regulate our health care, put in standards, how we manage, who we can, how we do our macroeconomic policies, who we can do trade agreements with.

They set the rules for how we manage our IP systems, regulate our health care, put in standards, how we manage, who we can, how we do our macroeconomic policies, who we can do trade agreements with.

Yeah, it's a seeding of democracy, for sure. And it also had a provision to sunset it in six and a half years, which created a chronic instability, which has come home at this time, literally. And I was... trying to explain that this is actually a ticking time bomb for Canada.

Yeah, it's a seeding of democracy, for sure. And it also had a provision to sunset it in six and a half years, which created a chronic instability, which has come home at this time, literally. And I was... trying to explain that this is actually a ticking time bomb for Canada.

I was writing and articulating that if you read the agreement, it's none of the celebration that's happening in the economic discourse in the media of the country, that this is going to erode our prosperity, which has happened, and it's going to come back with a bomb to supersize the erosion of that prosperity. Well, you have to read the agreement. Wow. And you have to understand it.

I was writing and articulating that if you read the agreement, it's none of the celebration that's happening in the economic discourse in the media of the country, that this is going to erode our prosperity, which has happened, and it's going to come back with a bomb to supersize the erosion of that prosperity. Well, you have to read the agreement. Wow. And you have to understand it.

Yeah, but I read agreements for a living. That's what I do all day. These are legal economic contracts. That's what you do. Okay, so let me drill down. That's what I do.

Yeah, but I read agreements for a living. That's what I do all day. These are legal economic contracts. That's what you do. Okay, so let me drill down. That's what I do.

Okay, so let's delve into that a little bit to make it concrete. Yeah, but what's interesting about that is that was... Our government invited Google to privatize our largest city, government of our largest city, under the Google Sidewalk Labs.

Okay, so let's delve into that a little bit to make it concrete. Yeah, but what's interesting about that is that was... Our government invited Google to privatize our largest city, government of our largest city, under the Google Sidewalk Labs.

Yes, is that? Yeah. Can I wind this back and walk into it? So you ask Canada's, we talk about Canada's original sin and how we got there. So in 1989, and I will work into this because you see the original sin. In 1989, we signed the original Canada-US free trade agreement. And that was liberalizing all these things. That was leg one. That was leg one.

Yes, is that? Yeah. Can I wind this back and walk into it? So you ask Canada's, we talk about Canada's original sin and how we got there. So in 1989, and I will work into this because you see the original sin. In 1989, we signed the original Canada-US free trade agreement. And that was liberalizing all these things. That was leg one. That was leg one.

And then because of that, all Canada has to do is take its hands off everything forever and do nothing. And the smartest person in the room is the one that builds no capacity and doesn't do anything.

And then because of that, all Canada has to do is take its hands off everything forever and do nothing. And the smartest person in the room is the one that builds no capacity and doesn't do anything.

And that was Canada's economic orthodoxy.

And that was Canada's economic orthodoxy.

And it's part of one leg. It's necessary, but not sufficient.

And it's part of one leg. It's necessary, but not sufficient.

So then what happened was we had an economic thinking capacity in the country called an economic council, which was the equivalent of some of these sophisticated realms in the United States. These IP offices, they have trade advisory committee. You know, the U.S. has... 50-year-old, if you go to the U.S.

So then what happened was we had an economic thinking capacity in the country called an economic council, which was the equivalent of some of these sophisticated realms in the United States. These IP offices, they have trade advisory committee. You know, the U.S. has... 50-year-old, if you go to the U.S.

Trade Representative and search advisory committees, they have 26 advisory committees, 700 experts, been together for 50 years. Tremendous insertion of sophistication.

Trade Representative and search advisory committees, they have 26 advisory committees, 700 experts, been together for 50 years. Tremendous insertion of sophistication.

And we shut all that down in Canada. because you don't need to do anything. You don't need to know anything. You just have to cut taxes, cut regulations, get out of the way, which is the true efficient nature of leg one. But when you make yourself blind, you're not able to see this leg two come along because you're done.

And we shut all that down in Canada. because you don't need to do anything. You don't need to know anything. You just have to cut taxes, cut regulations, get out of the way, which is the true efficient nature of leg one. But when you make yourself blind, you're not able to see this leg two come along because you're done.

Right, and it's leg two that happens to be kicking the hell out of us at the moment, say, in the last two months. Right. So what happened was, so this was around 92, we shut down our economic council to save money. So it's, yeah, it's getting- So now the people that- It's like taking the instruments off the airplane to save money. Right. Because you don't need instruments anymore.

Right, and it's leg two that happens to be kicking the hell out of us at the moment, say, in the last two months. Right. So what happened was, so this was around 92, we shut down our economic council to save money. So it's, yeah, it's getting- So now the people that- It's like taking the instruments off the airplane to save money. Right. Because you don't need instruments anymore.

And there's nothing- And there's no interest. There's no interest.

And there's nothing- And there's no interest. There's no interest.

We have all the knowledge we ever need. Knowledge is over. Just get out of the way.

We have all the knowledge we ever need. Knowledge is over. Just get out of the way.

Yeah, well, okay, so let me put one more step into this and then I'll go to the Google part. And so what happens is in the production economy,

Yeah, well, okay, so let me put one more step into this and then I'll go to the Google part. And so what happens is in the production economy,

When you bring in a foreign branch plant, as I said a few minutes ago, you get management, technology, you get capital, you get skills upgrading of the workers, you get a supply chain in a factory of local vendors, and you get a tax base based on that activity. So you get a lot of positive what are called economic spillovers from the... Manufacturing branch plant.

When you bring in a foreign branch plant, as I said a few minutes ago, you get management, technology, you get capital, you get skills upgrading of the workers, you get a supply chain in a factory of local vendors, and you get a tax base based on that activity. So you get a lot of positive what are called economic spillovers from the... Manufacturing branch plant.

When you go to an ideas economy, when you buy the company or come in, you exfiltrate the IP, you exfiltrate the data. All of the ownership is back at the headquarters. There is no...

When you go to an ideas economy, when you buy the company or come in, you exfiltrate the IP, you exfiltrate the data. All of the ownership is back at the headquarters. There is no...

management of any consequence in the in the in the when you sell your uh peterson academy into spain you don't set up a country president and a whole management team it's just you get somebody helping you sell and localize and then it's all run back wherever you run it and all the taxes and all the wealth effects happen at the home country spanish branch plant

management of any consequence in the in the in the when you sell your uh peterson academy into spain you don't set up a country president and a whole management team it's just you get somebody helping you sell and localize and then it's all run back wherever you run it and all the taxes and all the wealth effects happen at the home country spanish branch plant

Exactly, and you don't pay taxes in Spain and there's no wealth effect in Spain and there's no management transfer and all that. So the spillovers in the tech industry operate exactly opposite. Pretty much most of the time, not absolutely, To how they work in the production economy.

Exactly, and you don't pay taxes in Spain and there's no wealth effect in Spain and there's no management transfer and all that. So the spillovers in the tech industry operate exactly opposite. Pretty much most of the time, not absolutely, To how they work in the production economy.

Disaster.

Disaster.

And the Canadian people are paid less. They tend to have ancillary roles. They're subsidized through tax credits. And yet all the true wealth effects, and if they're really strong and talented, they tend to get moved to the U.S. and never come back. So that's a hoovering structure there.

And the Canadian people are paid less. They tend to have ancillary roles. They're subsidized through tax credits. And yet all the true wealth effects, and if they're really strong and talented, they tend to get moved to the U.S. and never come back. So that's a hoovering structure there.

And so the thinking of the Google sidewalk was like setting up a pulp and paper mill in Northern Ontario, that this is great. Not understanding that they'll own all the IP, own all the data, have all the security benefits, have all the wealth effects, have all the control benefits. And Canada gets 1% and they get 99%.

And so the thinking of the Google sidewalk was like setting up a pulp and paper mill in Northern Ontario, that this is great. Not understanding that they'll own all the IP, own all the data, have all the security benefits, have all the wealth effects, have all the control benefits. And Canada gets 1% and they get 99%.

And if you have that subordinate low value added position in technology, then you get a low GDP per capita and you can't pay for the country. And it gets a second leg to that. That you're not secure, which is what's happening in the contemporary leverage. And those of us that understand what prosperity and security looks like saying this is catastrophic.

And if you have that subordinate low value added position in technology, then you get a low GDP per capita and you can't pay for the country. And it gets a second leg to that. That you're not secure, which is what's happening in the contemporary leverage. And those of us that understand what prosperity and security looks like saying this is catastrophic.

This will be a step in the grave for the country.

This will be a step in the grave for the country.

And his leadership predated the knowledge economy.

And his leadership predated the knowledge economy.

Well, the government is making the market. It manufactures the assets in the market and it changes them a hundred times a day in the knowledge economy.

Well, the government is making the market. It manufactures the assets in the market and it changes them a hundred times a day in the knowledge economy.

And you have to have a plan for getting your words in there to advance your specific interests through your advisory councils, which is the opposite of hands-off.

And you have to have a plan for getting your words in there to advance your specific interests through your advisory councils, which is the opposite of hands-off.

Okay, so that's a reasonable coverage of our... Yeah, and what bothers me so much about this, you have this country with so much potential. We have brilliant innovators. We have brilliant researchers. We come up with... earth-changing ideas, and we don't capitalize on them. We give them away.

Okay, so that's a reasonable coverage of our... Yeah, and what bothers me so much about this, you have this country with so much potential. We have brilliant innovators. We have brilliant researchers. We come up with... earth-changing ideas, and we don't capitalize on them. We give them away.

So our economic structure should be much more like the Scandinavians in the U.S., but our economic structure is much closer to Russia's right now because of this abdication. And so you also mentioned in Google really quickly that the taxpayers in Canada... spent 30 years funding the fundamental artificial intelligence at University of Toronto and in Alberta.

So our economic structure should be much more like the Scandinavians in the U.S., but our economic structure is much closer to Russia's right now because of this abdication. And so you also mentioned in Google really quickly that the taxpayers in Canada... spent 30 years funding the fundamental artificial intelligence at University of Toronto and in Alberta.

So the number three AI research center in the world is in Alberta, in Edmonton. Number five is in Toronto. We gave essentially all that away to Google and other US tech companies. So Canada- So what kind of loss is that in economic terms, do you suppose? Trillions. Trillions.

So the number three AI research center in the world is in Alberta, in Edmonton. Number five is in Toronto. We gave essentially all that away to Google and other US tech companies. So Canada- So what kind of loss is that in economic terms, do you suppose? Trillions. Trillions.

And you take a trillion away or you take a couple hundred billion dollars of earnings a year on a trillion dollar asset, that's the difference between an enormous budget surplus paying for military and health care and public safety along the way versus a deficit.

And you take a trillion away or you take a couple hundred billion dollars of earnings a year on a trillion dollar asset, that's the difference between an enormous budget surplus paying for military and health care and public safety along the way versus a deficit.

And better paychecks versus a deficit that is eroding those services.

And better paychecks versus a deficit that is eroding those services.

And by the way, real quick, also – We also invented fundamental technology for battery, taxpayer-funded from Dalhousie, that we transferred to Tesla. No economic benefit to Canada. The prof gets the research papers. We have fundamental technology for mRNA out of UBC that we don't have any economic benefit for Canada.

And by the way, real quick, also – We also invented fundamental technology for battery, taxpayer-funded from Dalhousie, that we transferred to Tesla. No economic benefit to Canada. The prof gets the research papers. We have fundamental technology for mRNA out of UBC that we don't have any economic benefit for Canada.

We have fundamental telecommunications technology, which we transferred from a couple dozen researchers in many universities to Huawei with no economic ownership back to Canada. This... inattention to owning the assets of IP and data and is an orthodoxy in Canada that is inexplicable, that puts us, that is unique to Canada. I've not seen it anywhere else in the world and it's put us in last place.

We have fundamental telecommunications technology, which we transferred from a couple dozen researchers in many universities to Huawei with no economic ownership back to Canada. This... inattention to owning the assets of IP and data and is an orthodoxy in Canada that is inexplicable, that puts us, that is unique to Canada. I've not seen it anywhere else in the world and it's put us in last place.

Okay, so Jim, one more thing.

Okay, so Jim, one more thing.

Absolutely not. Absolutely not. That's a false myth. perpetrated by the policy community that thinks they've done it right when they've done it exactly wrong to manufacturing excuse why their strategies didn't work. The US is, I believe now, the largest oil producer in the world. don't see any resource curse there.

Absolutely not. Absolutely not. That's a false myth. perpetrated by the policy community that thinks they've done it right when they've done it exactly wrong to manufacturing excuse why their strategies didn't work. The US is, I believe now, the largest oil producer in the world. don't see any resource curse there.

The Scandinavians, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, tremendous productivity and prosperity and innovation, absolutely bursting with resources.

The Scandinavians, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, tremendous productivity and prosperity and innovation, absolutely bursting with resources.

If others with resources don't have that curse, it's a different kind of curse. Because you're saying in the resource curse, if you have resources, you won't be productive.

If others with resources don't have that curse, it's a different kind of curse. Because you're saying in the resource curse, if you have resources, you won't be productive.

So this is the curse of being... But others with lots of resources are extraordinary. They're world-leading.

So this is the curse of being... But others with lots of resources are extraordinary. They're world-leading.

Yeah. As well as these others. The curse of false myths by those who have failed us.

Yeah. As well as these others. The curse of false myths by those who have failed us.

And they've got lots of other ones of complacency, and they use that, and we'll go at... cases in a few minutes on those who use this sitting on dead money complacency stuff, but not quite right now because they use that as an excuse mechanism, but let's keep on this.

And they've got lots of other ones of complacency, and they use that, and we'll go at... cases in a few minutes on those who use this sitting on dead money complacency stuff, but not quite right now because they use that as an excuse mechanism, but let's keep on this.

Yeah, sure. Well, I wrote a piece, which possibly you can put on a link during this thing called We're All Economic Nationalists Now. And the reason I used that was that it's a phrase for strategic U-turns, coined by Milton Friedman.

Yeah, sure. Well, I wrote a piece, which possibly you can put on a link during this thing called We're All Economic Nationalists Now. And the reason I used that was that it's a phrase for strategic U-turns, coined by Milton Friedman.

The darling of the free marketers. The darling of the free marketers. Because he famously said in the late 60s, we're all Keynesians now. So he spent 20 years fighting Keynes. And then when there was a crisis with Nixon and they had to respond to it with a bunch of new monetary and fiscal structures, he said, well, we're all Keynesians now. Keynes was an interventionist compared to Friedman.

The darling of the free marketers. The darling of the free marketers. Because he famously said in the late 60s, we're all Keynesians now. So he spent 20 years fighting Keynes. And then when there was a crisis with Nixon and they had to respond to it with a bunch of new monetary and fiscal structures, he said, well, we're all Keynesians now. Keynes was an interventionist compared to Friedman.

And Friedman was at war with him. Right. He represents the opposite. And what he's fundamentally saying is that economics is a social science, not a natural science. And you have to tune your behavior to the facts on the ground. So if you are a Friedmanite in this contemporary reality, then attune, period.

And Friedman was at war with him. Right. He represents the opposite. And what he's fundamentally saying is that economics is a social science, not a natural science. And you have to tune your behavior to the facts on the ground. So if you are a Friedmanite in this contemporary reality, then attune, period.

And the nature of the geopolitical era of strategic behavior. So responding very specifically to what you said, the question you asked on Trump, when you go to an intangibles economy... When you're producing economy, you trade on a principle called comparative advantage. Yeah, lay that out.

And the nature of the geopolitical era of strategic behavior. So responding very specifically to what you said, the question you asked on Trump, when you go to an intangibles economy... When you're producing economy, you trade on a principle called comparative advantage. Yeah, lay that out.

Well, comparative advantage, it was done by David Ricardo, Ricardian comparative advantage, that says you may produce cups better than me and even saucers better than me. But if I can produce saucers comparatively better than I produce cups relative to you, if we trade, we're both better off. So it's a principle of comparative advantage.

Well, comparative advantage, it was done by David Ricardo, Ricardian comparative advantage, that says you may produce cups better than me and even saucers better than me. But if I can produce saucers comparatively better than I produce cups relative to you, if we trade, we're both better off. So it's a principle of comparative advantage.

Okay, lay that out one more time because everyone needs to understand this. So if you make a cup for $2 and a saucer for $1, and I make a cup for $3 and a saucer for $2, and I'm going to mess up my logic here, I'm absolutely worse than... than you on both, but I'm comparatively better on cups, because I'm only 50% more expensive rather than 100% more expensive.

Okay, lay that out one more time because everyone needs to understand this. So if you make a cup for $2 and a saucer for $1, and I make a cup for $3 and a saucer for $2, and I'm going to mess up my logic here, I'm absolutely worse than... than you on both, but I'm comparatively better on cups, because I'm only 50% more expensive rather than 100% more expensive.

So if I ship you cups and you ship me saucers, That will rise the tide of everybody. So everybody has an incentive to trade on physical goods based on comparative advantage.

So if I ship you cups and you ship me saucers, That will rise the tide of everybody. So everybody has an incentive to trade on physical goods based on comparative advantage.

You trade on Riccardi and comparative advantage. Okay. That's a material-based core principle of liberalizing trade. Now, when you go to an ideas economy, which is based on a principle of restriction and monopoly, somebody wants to be the landlord and somebody has to be the tenant. And you can compete on absolute advantage or you can be the landlord 10 out of 10 times.

You trade on Riccardi and comparative advantage. Okay. That's a material-based core principle of liberalizing trade. Now, when you go to an ideas economy, which is based on a principle of restriction and monopoly, somebody wants to be the landlord and somebody has to be the tenant. And you can compete on absolute advantage or you can be the landlord 10 out of 10 times.

It's not a cooperative system anymore. It's a rival system. And what that means is if you're a big, strong guy, You get everything. You do what's called strategic behavior. And that's what we're experiencing right now. And the piece I wrote on We're All Economic Nationalists Now, I talk about the strategic behavior, Trump 1.0. Biden took all of those things and added many more.

It's not a cooperative system anymore. It's a rival system. And what that means is if you're a big, strong guy, You get everything. You do what's called strategic behavior. And that's what we're experiencing right now. And the piece I wrote on We're All Economic Nationalists Now, I talk about the strategic behavior, Trump 1.0. Biden took all of those things and added many more.

which you can read it, and I won't go into them now, but he did many very substantial strategic elements of behavior. Trump first, then Biden. Biden did more than Trump. In relationship to Canada. Yeah, and then Trump took it to a whole other level very, very recently. And so it's an era of strategic behavior, which means it's not a cooperative-based system.

which you can read it, and I won't go into them now, but he did many very substantial strategic elements of behavior. Trump first, then Biden. Biden did more than Trump. In relationship to Canada. Yeah, and then Trump took it to a whole other level very, very recently. And so it's an era of strategic behavior, which means it's not a cooperative-based system.

And Canada believed in the multilateral rules-based order. This is a shared global project. And my exhortation is this is an absolute advantage era that leads to strategic behavior. And if you don't focus on being reasonably sovereign, reasonably strong, you become the one they pick on.

And Canada believed in the multilateral rules-based order. This is a shared global project. And my exhortation is this is an absolute advantage era that leads to strategic behavior. And if you don't focus on being reasonably sovereign, reasonably strong, you become the one they pick on.

And it's very profitable for a nation state to pick on a weak state, especially one that has some good assets to pick and wither Canada in the era of Trump.

And it's very profitable for a nation state to pick on a weak state, especially one that has some good assets to pick and wither Canada in the era of Trump.

And we also thought that it was a multilateral rules-based system where control and ownership of strategic assets doesn't matter. And we're learning a very hard lesson that who owns it and controls it is really the only thing that matters. It's really matters a lot. Yeah. And so we're paying a very, very sorry price for that inattention to our economic policies.

And we also thought that it was a multilateral rules-based system where control and ownership of strategic assets doesn't matter. And we're learning a very hard lesson that who owns it and controls it is really the only thing that matters. It's really matters a lot. Yeah. And so we're paying a very, very sorry price for that inattention to our economic policies.

We're giving tens of billions of dollars to foreign battery companies where we had no domestic control, no very small domestic value add. And now, and what was happening to Canada, and the U.S.

We're giving tens of billions of dollars to foreign battery companies where we had no domestic control, no very small domestic value add. And now, and what was happening to Canada, and the U.S.

played a very clever game, and Western Europe played along, and the Southeast Asians got really good at this, that they said, if you want to play in the production economy, leg number one, you've got to sign up to these rules on leg number two.

played a very clever game, and Western Europe played along, and the Southeast Asians got really good at this, that they said, if you want to play in the production economy, leg number one, you've got to sign up to these rules on leg number two.

So we own all the ideas. Well, if you get really good, you can start to own some too, but you've got to be very high-functioning, of which the Western Europeans and the Southeast Asians are. Right. And now what America's doing is saying, just kidding. I want the rules for this intangibles economy.

So we own all the ideas. Well, if you get really good, you can start to own some too, but you've got to be very high-functioning, of which the Western Europeans and the Southeast Asians are. Right. And now what America's doing is saying, just kidding. I want the rules for this intangibles economy.

And I'm now even going to do more strategic behavior and pull the rauka out under the production economy, which is a form of neo-feudalism. that you have to pay a tax to the sovereign. And there's, you know, there's an aristocracy and then there's a non-aristocracy. Well, we're going, that's what I mean by without a passport. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so, and here we are, here we are.

And I'm now even going to do more strategic behavior and pull the rauka out under the production economy, which is a form of neo-feudalism. that you have to pay a tax to the sovereign. And there's, you know, there's an aristocracy and then there's a non-aristocracy. Well, we're going, that's what I mean by without a passport. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so, and here we are, here we are.

Yeah, I'm trying to spend most of my time with you today characterizing what's going on. I've only said one normative thing to date so far in this, which was my belief in capitalism in a liberal democracy as the best way for human flourishing. And I'm going to give you what I plan to be only the second normative thing that I plan to say today that I think...

Yeah, I'm trying to spend most of my time with you today characterizing what's going on. I've only said one normative thing to date so far in this, which was my belief in capitalism in a liberal democracy as the best way for human flourishing. And I'm going to give you what I plan to be only the second normative thing that I plan to say today that I think...

that Trump's behavior is un-presidential, it's unprovoked, it's unkind, it's almost certainly illegal, though, though hard to enforce. Yeah, which matters. But in the characterization, I'm also going to say that I think he miscalculated and it's actually been unwise and is counterproductive to America's interests and actually in Canada's interests if we seize it.

that Trump's behavior is un-presidential, it's unprovoked, it's unkind, it's almost certainly illegal, though, though hard to enforce. Yeah, which matters. But in the characterization, I'm also going to say that I think he miscalculated and it's actually been unwise and is counterproductive to America's interests and actually in Canada's interests if we seize it.

So I think this is a fascinating... And to sort of, for Canada, to quote the famous Yogi Berra, when you reach a fork in the road, you got to take it. Right. And so Trump sees Mexico as just a commodified labor to lowest cost for blue-collar candidates to commodified labor at white-collar workers. And it's all going to be subsidized.

So I think this is a fascinating... And to sort of, for Canada, to quote the famous Yogi Berra, when you reach a fork in the road, you got to take it. Right. And so Trump sees Mexico as just a commodified labor to lowest cost for blue-collar candidates to commodified labor at white-collar workers. And it's all going to be subsidized.

And so I actually think the appeasement – there's a little bit of benefit in appeasement and diplomacy because you inform the U.S. that he may have to dial a few things back a little bit because it's counter to Americans' interests, not because he's – compassionate to Canada economically or socially or security-wise. But I think he's said what he is. He believes that...

And so I actually think the appeasement – there's a little bit of benefit in appeasement and diplomacy because you inform the U.S. that he may have to dial a few things back a little bit because it's counter to Americans' interests, not because he's – compassionate to Canada economically or socially or security-wise. But I think he's said what he is. He believes that...

that they are the empire, that you must pay a tax for the privilege of participating with the empire, interrelated with the empire. He wants to rename the Internal Revenue Service, the External Revenue Service, and that people's taxes domestically can go down in the US, and that it's paid for through tariffs.

that they are the empire, that you must pay a tax for the privilege of participating with the empire, interrelated with the empire. He wants to rename the Internal Revenue Service, the External Revenue Service, and that people's taxes domestically can go down in the US, and that it's paid for through tariffs.

And in economics, in prosperity, in a global system, the number one objective is to improve your terms of trade. And terms of trade is really simple, that it's the ratio of the price of what you sell to what you buy. And if you get a better price for what you sell, your terms of trade go up. If you pay more for something that you buy, your terms of trade go down.

And in economics, in prosperity, in a global system, the number one objective is to improve your terms of trade. And terms of trade is really simple, that it's the ratio of the price of what you sell to what you buy. And if you get a better price for what you sell, your terms of trade go up. If you pay more for something that you buy, your terms of trade go down.

And that's the whole game is terms of trade. And we thought that it was about comparative advantage, get out of the way. And America realized that it's about

And that's the whole game is terms of trade. And we thought that it was about comparative advantage, get out of the way. And America realized that it's about

inserting the rent stuff where you get really high rents which means that drives up your gdp per capita through higher terms of trade and so their thinking is that i'm going to make you pay to come in here that's going to uh enhance our the prices we get and we believe that's going to deflate your currency because it makes you and a deflation of a currency is like a pay decrease or an

inserting the rent stuff where you get really high rents which means that drives up your gdp per capita through higher terms of trade and so their thinking is that i'm going to make you pay to come in here that's going to uh enhance our the prices we get and we believe that's going to deflate your currency because it makes you and a deflation of a currency is like a pay decrease or an

Because it buys less. And you sell it for less too. Right. So that worsens your terms of trade, which benefits America's terms of trade. So they're trying to shift the structure of the global economic system where they become effectively aristocratic and everyone else is some lower economic status economy. and that is an economic logic being played out to Mexico and Canada.

Because it buys less. And you sell it for less too. Right. So that worsens your terms of trade, which benefits America's terms of trade. So they're trying to shift the structure of the global economic system where they become effectively aristocratic and everyone else is some lower economic status economy. and that is an economic logic being played out to Mexico and Canada.

The tricky part is there's not a lot more blood to get out of the stone that is Mexico. I think there is a legitimate security thing that they're paying attention to. With regards to the border? Yeah, and there's probably a couple little strategic things they want in the economy, access to the oil system and owning it and so on.

The tricky part is there's not a lot more blood to get out of the stone that is Mexico. I think there is a legitimate security thing that they're paying attention to. With regards to the border? Yeah, and there's probably a couple little strategic things they want in the economy, access to the oil system and owning it and so on.

But there's a lot of blood to get from the Canadian prosperity because we're a relatively prosperous and rich country, eroding as we are. There's a lot of gems in there to get. So I think his objective, if you weaken it enough, you go in for the gems and you hold it in a subordinate position. Because that's the economic logic that is at play here. So it's a dominance logic, fundamentally.

But there's a lot of blood to get from the Canadian prosperity because we're a relatively prosperous and rich country, eroding as we are. There's a lot of gems in there to get. So I think his objective, if you weaken it enough, you go in for the gems and you hold it in a subordinate position. Because that's the economic logic that is at play here. So it's a dominance logic, fundamentally.

Yeah, it's an economic insecurity dominance logic.

Yeah, it's an economic insecurity dominance logic.

I'm angry. I'm angry about. Yeah. Yeah. I'm angry about them. Yeah. I wake up angry on it because I feel. it's wrong at so many levels. So that's my second normative thing. I'll shed it. Now, you be a clinical psychologist, make me feel a little better, and I'm bothered by it. And I think it's going to hurt one in four people. What about the one in four people that have food insecurity?

I'm angry. I'm angry about. Yeah. Yeah. I'm angry about them. Yeah. I wake up angry on it because I feel. it's wrong at so many levels. So that's my second normative thing. I'll shed it. Now, you be a clinical psychologist, make me feel a little better, and I'm bothered by it. And I think it's going to hurt one in four people. What about the one in four people that have food insecurity?

Like, for goodness sakes, people need food and a home. And now... Really? And you're going to erode the whole system, hurt Canada comparatively more, still hurt America, and vulnerable people are going to pay the largest price. Because what? Because that's how the aristocracy works and let them eat cake. And... Yeah, as a proud Canadian and somebody that believes in... My dad was an electrician.

Like, for goodness sakes, people need food and a home. And now... Really? And you're going to erode the whole system, hurt Canada comparatively more, still hurt America, and vulnerable people are going to pay the largest price. Because what? Because that's how the aristocracy works and let them eat cake. And... Yeah, as a proud Canadian and somebody that believes in... My dad was an electrician.

I mean, these structures, I wouldn't have gone to school. I wouldn't have had this. Yeah, it violates all sense of fairness for me. So that part of it is not... Not cool by me, but yeah, we'll go into the misplay hand by Trump. Okay, well, two things.

I mean, these structures, I wouldn't have gone to school. I wouldn't have had this. Yeah, it violates all sense of fairness for me. So that part of it is not... Not cool by me, but yeah, we'll go into the misplay hand by Trump. Okay, well, two things.

Well, it's a beautiful country. How can you not love the country? I mean, just because I love it doesn't mean I always like it. Yeah.

Well, it's a beautiful country. How can you not love the country? I mean, just because I love it doesn't mean I always like it. Yeah.

Yeah, of course. And I've doubled down. Of course. Yeah, yeah, of course. Yeah, this is my team. This is my country. This is my home. Your job, it's given me so much. And as you said, your obligation is to carry the load you think you can handle. So you carry the load that you think is yours that you can bring to bear.

Yeah, of course. And I've doubled down. Of course. Yeah, yeah, of course. Yeah, this is my team. This is my country. This is my home. Your job, it's given me so much. And as you said, your obligation is to carry the load you think you can handle. So you carry the load that you think is yours that you can bring to bear.

And there's beautiful people who volunteer at food banks, who do many wonderful things in this country, health care workers who care for vulnerable, and on and on it goes.

And there's beautiful people who volunteer at food banks, who do many wonderful things in this country, health care workers who care for vulnerable, and on and on it goes.

Yeah, it's very rewarding. It's very meaningful. It's a shame to see it suboptimized, but do you let the bullies and the elite failure of the last 30 years prevail when there are so many good people who are trying to advocate for for a better country and a better future. And if I can provide some resources and air cover for them, as opposed to the banning them,

Yeah, it's very rewarding. It's very meaningful. It's a shame to see it suboptimized, but do you let the bullies and the elite failure of the last 30 years prevail when there are so many good people who are trying to advocate for for a better country and a better future. And if I can provide some resources and air cover for them, as opposed to the banning them,

Well, morally, what do you think is the right thing to do? Right, and hence this discussion.

Well, morally, what do you think is the right thing to do? Right, and hence this discussion.

Yes, do you want to flesh that out? Yeah, I didn't answer that yet. I didn't answer that yet because we split too hard here. I think Trump has made a strategic mistake because... America's got an unbelievable deal from Canada. And as they got this exfiltration of our best graduates tend to leave in droves from places like Waterloo to Silicon Valley, adding to the trillions of market cap.

Yes, do you want to flesh that out? Yeah, I didn't answer that yet. I didn't answer that yet because we split too hard here. I think Trump has made a strategic mistake because... America's got an unbelievable deal from Canada. And as they got this exfiltration of our best graduates tend to leave in droves from places like Waterloo to Silicon Valley, adding to the trillions of market cap.

We have brilliant innovators. We have brilliant researchers. We come up with earth-changing ideas.

We have brilliant innovators. We have brilliant researchers. We come up with earth-changing ideas.

Our best ideas invariably are taken by U.S. companies where they own them and commercialize them. Our best resources like Alberta oil is overwhelmingly shipped raw to Canada. to America where it's value added and sold back here. American companies come to Canada basically get monopolies for what they sell here in various technologies and products and pharmaceuticals.

Our best ideas invariably are taken by U.S. companies where they own them and commercialize them. Our best resources like Alberta oil is overwhelmingly shipped raw to Canada. to America where it's value added and sold back here. American companies come to Canada basically get monopolies for what they sell here in various technologies and products and pharmaceuticals.

So it's already a pretty good deal for the US. It's an amazing deal. And then they don't have to pay taxes here and the wealth effects aren't shared here. So America has got a great deal from Canada, an unbelievable deal. And Canada says, thank you for that. Would you like fries with this? And that's because of this inattention that we've talked about in the second leg. And

So it's already a pretty good deal for the US. It's an amazing deal. And then they don't have to pay taxes here and the wealth effects aren't shared here. So America has got a great deal from Canada, an unbelievable deal. And Canada says, thank you for that. Would you like fries with this? And that's because of this inattention that we've talked about in the second leg. And

The frog has been cooking one degree at a time for Canada over 30 years. And a shrewd person would have said, let's keep this game going. Let's maybe turn it up two degrees at a time, but don't turn it up too much that you freak out the frog and it jumps out of the pot. And I think Trump thought he had such dominance.

The frog has been cooking one degree at a time for Canada over 30 years. And a shrewd person would have said, let's keep this game going. Let's maybe turn it up two degrees at a time, but don't turn it up too much that you freak out the frog and it jumps out of the pot. And I think Trump thought he had such dominance.

It was kind of like the Russians with the Ukrainians, that they would just submit. And what Trump has done, he's been so extreme, so out of line. that he's actually woken up Canadians to say, we're better than this. We're capable of being more sovereign. We're capable of being more prosperous. I'm not going to take it. I'm not going to submit. I'm going to invest.

It was kind of like the Russians with the Ukrainians, that they would just submit. And what Trump has done, he's been so extreme, so out of line. that he's actually woken up Canadians to say, we're better than this. We're capable of being more sovereign. We're capable of being more prosperous. I'm not going to take it. I'm not going to submit. I'm going to invest.

I'm going to start to think about this. Wake up. And actually, Canadians will start to get their fair deal in this changed economy with an updated sense of thinking. That could happen. Well, that's the fork in the road. So do they submit and become a subordinate Puerto Rico without a passport? Or do they respond and build the capacity

I'm going to start to think about this. Wake up. And actually, Canadians will start to get their fair deal in this changed economy with an updated sense of thinking. That could happen. Well, that's the fork in the road. So do they submit and become a subordinate Puerto Rico without a passport? Or do they respond and build the capacity

to vision and work towards an appropriate standing and future for the country in this changed world. And I think that potential of the latter one is there and before us. I'm gonna bring all I can to bear in encouraging and supporting that potential, but it's not certain that that's gonna happen. It's very clear what Trump's gonna do. He's not gonna back off.

to vision and work towards an appropriate standing and future for the country in this changed world. And I think that potential of the latter one is there and before us. I'm gonna bring all I can to bear in encouraging and supporting that potential, but it's not certain that that's gonna happen. It's very clear what Trump's gonna do. He's not gonna back off.

He's not a back-off sort of guy, exactly. It's his orthodoxy. He's more locked in that orthodoxy than we were in our 30 years of hands-off, in spite of all the facts that came out of it. I think it's going to take—he's just going to keep tweaking it. But he's already done the damage because the law doesn't apply anymore. He says you can't have access to the U.S.

He's not a back-off sort of guy, exactly. It's his orthodoxy. He's more locked in that orthodoxy than we were in our 30 years of hands-off, in spite of all the facts that came out of it. I think it's going to take—he's just going to keep tweaking it. But he's already done the damage because the law doesn't apply anymore. He says you can't have access to the U.S.

markets, so move your factories here. Nobody's going to do a press release that says I'm moving my factory in the middle of the night to the U.S. The damage is done for Canada in this current system. He barely needs to put tariffs on it anymore. Just the threat of it is de facto in, in the, in the business realities.

markets, so move your factories here. Nobody's going to do a press release that says I'm moving my factory in the middle of the night to the U.S. The damage is done for Canada in this current system. He barely needs to put tariffs on it anymore. Just the threat of it is de facto in, in the, in the business realities.

Uh, so the big question is what is Canada going to do in that response to that fork in the road? And if we take the higher potential route, we will have a much better future. Granted a bumpy interim phase, uh, And that goes to the point of leadership that you were... Okay, okay.

Uh, so the big question is what is Canada going to do in that response to that fork in the road? And if we take the higher potential route, we will have a much better future. Granted a bumpy interim phase, uh, And that goes to the point of leadership that you were... Okay, okay.

I don't belong to any party and I've given no money to either party. Okay.

I don't belong to any party and I've given no money to either party. Okay.

And one thing we haven't put on the table, which is very important in our structural conversation, we talked about the knowledge-based economy of IP, and that's followed by a data-driven economy that's data and AI, and that that has become this new factor of productivity where it's replacing the human, it's controlling the human, and that's turbocharged this era of intangibles, which is...

And one thing we haven't put on the table, which is very important in our structural conversation, we talked about the knowledge-based economy of IP, and that's followed by a data-driven economy that's data and AI, and that that has become this new factor of productivity where it's replacing the human, it's controlling the human, and that's turbocharged this era of intangibles, which is...

intellectual property, knowledge enclosure, and then data and AI, which is the control of this factor of production, which is really changing everything. And also, by the way, the largest filing of IP is in AI with 1.5 million patents granted to date. And that's very important as I critique these two political options for Canada. We have to, when you talk about the things I talk about, we haven't

intellectual property, knowledge enclosure, and then data and AI, which is the control of this factor of production, which is really changing everything. And also, by the way, the largest filing of IP is in AI with 1.5 million patents granted to date. And that's very important as I critique these two political options for Canada. We have to, when you talk about the things I talk about, we haven't

fully unpacked AI and how it's replacing human capacity and augmenting human capacity. But I think everyone agrees it's a monster factor of production. It's changing all the rules. It's putting trillions of dollars in the economy.

fully unpacked AI and how it's replacing human capacity and augmenting human capacity. But I think everyone agrees it's a monster factor of production. It's changing all the rules. It's putting trillions of dollars in the economy.

And you've got to have something, something there. Yeah, yeah. So that's fine. Okay, so you mentioned about Carney, then you mentioned about Paglia. And I did too read his book because I'm interested in public policy. As people, you've mentioned, you and I are active in Washington, I'm active in Brussels, and I'm also active nationally and sub-nationally. And provincially.

And you've got to have something, something there. Yeah, yeah. So that's fine. Okay, so you mentioned about Carney, then you mentioned about Paglia. And I did too read his book because I'm interested in public policy. As people, you've mentioned, you and I are active in Washington, I'm active in Brussels, and I'm also active nationally and sub-nationally. And provincially.

Well, sub-nationally, provincially. And I absolutely see myself as a Canadian, and I always think of Canada when I try to engage in these things, and I'm a passionate Canadian. So a couple, three things in Carney. He's positioning himself as an outsider when he's been an advisor to Trudeau since… and he's chairman of his economic task force.

Well, sub-nationally, provincially. And I absolutely see myself as a Canadian, and I always think of Canada when I try to engage in these things, and I'm a passionate Canadian. So a couple, three things in Carney. He's positioning himself as an outsider when he's been an advisor to Trudeau since… and he's chairman of his economic task force.

But most importantly, he's been... So he's not an outsider. Well, most importantly, he's been a charter member of the orthodoxy of Ottawa for decades. So all this thinking structure, and I'm going to get very specific on how Bank of Canada has been a central actor in selling Canada short in these decades because they've been the keepers of this orthodoxy And he's been a central, as governor of St.

But most importantly, he's been... So he's not an outsider. Well, most importantly, he's been a charter member of the orthodoxy of Ottawa for decades. So all this thinking structure, and I'm going to get very specific on how Bank of Canada has been a central actor in selling Canada short in these decades because they've been the keepers of this orthodoxy And he's been a central, as governor of St.

Claude Bank. He's been, prior to that, he was in Finance Canada. He's been advised. So he's got to own the Ottawa thinking. Right, and not as a follower, but as an architect. An architect. Right, right. So here's the two or three things on Carney, Mark Carney's book that I read. One, he talks a lot about pricing carbon to affect a transition. Right.

Claude Bank. He's been, prior to that, he was in Finance Canada. He's been advised. So he's got to own the Ottawa thinking. Right, and not as a follower, but as an architect. An architect. Right, right. So here's the two or three things on Carney, Mark Carney's book that I read. One, he talks a lot about pricing carbon to affect a transition. Right.

And then he's come up with his new policies to subsidize things like heat exchangers and various forms of technology to green your homes and stuff like that, very specifically. And so what happens is that when you look at Canada, it's good terms of trade. I explained terms of trade earlier. Its best terms of trade are in energy, right? That's where we get good money.

And then he's come up with his new policies to subsidize things like heat exchangers and various forms of technology to green your homes and stuff like that, very specifically. And so what happens is that when you look at Canada, it's good terms of trade. I explained terms of trade earlier. Its best terms of trade are in energy, right? That's where we get good money.

That's where it pays for the country.

That's where it pays for the country.

Fossil fuel, hydrocarbons.

Fossil fuel, hydrocarbons.

Sorry, hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons, yeah. Import, or sorry, consumption and export of hydrocarbons overwhelmingly pays for this country.

Sorry, hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons, yeah. Import, or sorry, consumption and export of hydrocarbons overwhelmingly pays for this country.

That's good terms of trade.

That's good terms of trade.

On the good terms of trade. I'm speaking technically. Yeah. Okay. We have a deficit in intellectual property. And that would be much more if we included data in AI. And we're major importers of intellectual property and technology products. So we have poor terms of trade in technology. The technology arena.

On the good terms of trade. I'm speaking technically. Yeah. Okay. We have a deficit in intellectual property. And that would be much more if we included data in AI. And we're major importers of intellectual property and technology products. So we have poor terms of trade in technology. The technology arena.

In spite of all the things we invent, the smart people, the government funding over decades... And the effectiveness of that even. Well, that's the issue is we're first world in inputs, third world in outcomes. Right. And there's not... And today in this conversation, we're unpacking why. Yeah. But I'm going to stay on this orthodoxy of Mr. Carney. Yeah.

In spite of all the things we invent, the smart people, the government funding over decades... And the effectiveness of that even. Well, that's the issue is we're first world in inputs, third world in outcomes. Right. And there's not... And today in this conversation, we're unpacking why. Yeah. But I'm going to stay on this orthodoxy of Mr. Carney. Yeah.

So we have very good terms of trade in hydrocarbons, very poor terms of trade in... technology products. And so his proposition is that we tax the things that we sell and we subsidize the things that we buy. So if you want to affect a green transition, and you have this structure, that's called a dichotomy. You have to choose between

So we have very good terms of trade in hydrocarbons, very poor terms of trade in... technology products. And so his proposition is that we tax the things that we sell and we subsidize the things that we buy. So if you want to affect a green transition, and you have this structure, that's called a dichotomy. You have to choose between

The economy paying for the place or the environment in his structural view of the world of scarce natural capital that we have to deal with. And I'm not making a normative comment. I'm just talking economically here. So his prescription will make us poorer.

The economy paying for the place or the environment in his structural view of the world of scarce natural capital that we have to deal with. And I'm not making a normative comment. I'm just talking economically here. So his prescription will make us poorer.

This is economics. This is economics 101.

This is economics. This is economics 101.

Let's say carbon... Well, he thinks they're scarce enough to show capital, and he wants to transition to a green economy. Right, right. Which is what we're going to go to in the next part of this discussion.

Let's say carbon... Well, he thinks they're scarce enough to show capital, and he wants to transition to a green economy. Right, right. Which is what we're going to go to in the next part of this discussion.

And thus we'll import what we're bad at. Right. And we'll export what we're good at. That's right. Right. Which is a path towards... 40 cents to the American dollar in terms of GDP. And he says that will lead to an innovation transition. And that is true because when you price something, you signal to the market, bring in something else. Yeah.

And thus we'll import what we're bad at. Right. And we'll export what we're good at. That's right. Right. Which is a path towards... 40 cents to the American dollar in terms of GDP. And he says that will lead to an innovation transition. And that is true because when you price something, you signal to the market, bring in something else. Yeah.

And that's fine, that will affect a green transition, but he's using a closed economy model that says Canada will get its fair share of that transition. But it's- Which we haven't. We've had decade, we've had poll positions in these systems over decades. We've got really smart people. We've invented really good ideas.

And that's fine, that will affect a green transition, but he's using a closed economy model that says Canada will get its fair share of that transition. But it's- Which we haven't. We've had decade, we've had poll positions in these systems over decades. We've got really smart people. We've invented really good ideas.

We spent tens and tens of billions of dollars and we have 10 cents on the dollar to show for our dollar. And he has nothing to say about how we're going to resolve that dichotomy.

We spent tens and tens of billions of dollars and we have 10 cents on the dollar to show for our dollar. And he has nothing to say about how we're going to resolve that dichotomy.

So that we get some of the money for our deficit. And in his book, he has one sentence on IP right near the end says intellectual property is becoming increasingly important to companies and therefore we need to enforce it better to protect their investments. And that's it. Yeah, right.

So that we get some of the money for our deficit. And in his book, he has one sentence on IP right near the end says intellectual property is becoming increasingly important to companies and therefore we need to enforce it better to protect their investments. And that's it. Yeah, right.

That's a drive-by nothing burger in the most structural change that I talked about happen, where he's been a central... So he's a central actor in attention to intellectual property.

That's a drive-by nothing burger in the most structural change that I talked about happen, where he's been a central... So he's a central actor in attention to intellectual property.

Whether that's a good idea or bad, he's using Ottawa's failed economic logic of the 70s to affect the norm of a green transition or anything else.

Whether that's a good idea or bad, he's using Ottawa's failed economic logic of the 70s to affect the norm of a green transition or anything else.

And I'm not making a normative case whether it's a good or bad idea. Well, that's me making the normative claims. He's just... It's going to fail, and it's going to fail in obvious economics. Okay, and what will failure look like? Well, there's a second leg to the failure. Okay. That the most profound force in the history of mankind in economics is the data-driven AI economy.

And I'm not making a normative case whether it's a good or bad idea. Well, that's me making the normative claims. He's just... It's going to fail, and it's going to fail in obvious economics. Okay, and what will failure look like? Well, there's a second leg to the failure. Okay. That the most profound force in the history of mankind in economics is the data-driven AI economy.

And he has nothing to say of data as a factor of production and input to AI and how we have to own and control that and harness our own AI. He says nothing about it. He has two sentences about be careful about privacy and social media, and that's it. And so if you look at every market, Energy, mining, agriculture, lumber, they're all AI and, excuse me, IP-driven.

And he has nothing to say of data as a factor of production and input to AI and how we have to own and control that and harness our own AI. He says nothing about it. He has two sentences about be careful about privacy and social media, and that's it. And so if you look at every market, Energy, mining, agriculture, lumber, they're all AI and, excuse me, IP-driven.

And so he has nothing to say about that. Why are they AI and IP-driven? Well, because the force of it is allowing, I mean, as Schlumberger, who's one of the top 10 AI IP owners in the world, and the large oil, sorry, Halliburton, sorry, but Chambler's A2. The oil is a digital economy that you need digital AI and IP to get it out of the ground, get it refined. Right.

And so he has nothing to say about that. Why are they AI and IP-driven? Well, because the force of it is allowing, I mean, as Schlumberger, who's one of the top 10 AI IP owners in the world, and the large oil, sorry, Halliburton, sorry, but Chambler's A2. The oil is a digital economy that you need digital AI and IP to get it out of the ground, get it refined. Right.

It's like the delivery taxicab business. It became IP-driven. Right, right. The medallion used to be worth $2 million. It went to zero because it's this superstructure of IP and data. And the same applies to, you know, shopping.

It's like the delivery taxicab business. It became IP-driven. Right, right. The medallion used to be worth $2 million. It went to zero because it's this superstructure of IP and data. And the same applies to, you know, shopping.

Sure, and it's great to be with you. Yeah, we've known each other for 15 years. You were also my wife's professor 25 years ago when there were nine students in your class. So, my gosh, what a journey. Congratulations for you. For me, with RIM...

Sure, and it's great to be with you. Yeah, we've known each other for 15 years. You were also my wife's professor 25 years ago when there were nine students in your class. So, my gosh, what a journey. Congratulations for you. For me, with RIM...

Everywhere. It even transforms the reason. It's horizontal. Right. It's horizontal. And there's no... There's no articulation of that. So it's very important. He defines, he lays out a path that affects us to an adverse outcome because of the dichotomy. And he says nothing about the innovation structure adjustment.

Everywhere. It even transforms the reason. It's horizontal. Right. It's horizontal. And there's no... There's no articulation of that. So it's very important. He defines, he lays out a path that affects us to an adverse outcome because of the dichotomy. And he says nothing about the innovation structure adjustment.

But he uses further 1970s economic analysis that he says, because he very famously said, businessmen are sitting on dead money. It's a very famous expression, he said. And he said that we use shovels instead of excavators, backhoes. He said that, which means we don't invest in technology. So the key is that if you just...

But he uses further 1970s economic analysis that he says, because he very famously said, businessmen are sitting on dead money. It's a very famous expression, he said. And he said that we use shovels instead of excavators, backhoes. He said that, which means we don't invest in technology. So the key is that if you just...

If business people stopped being lazy and they opened up their wallets and just threw it in there, they would do great.

If business people stopped being lazy and they opened up their wallets and just threw it in there, they would do great.

But it's also a variation of complacency. Yes, exactly. Resource-cursed complacency. And I've been doing business in this country for 35 years. I have never met a CEO who says... I'm just going to take it easy and be on the dock this weekend. I don't want to double my profits this year. I've dealt with money managers all that time, both for investing companies and me putting my money to work.

But it's also a variation of complacency. Yes, exactly. Resource-cursed complacency. And I've been doing business in this country for 35 years. I have never met a CEO who says... I'm just going to take it easy and be on the dock this weekend. I don't want to double my profits this year. I've dealt with money managers all that time, both for investing companies and me putting my money to work.

I have never met a money manager who says, you know, I'm happy to be third quartile this year rather than first quartile because the fishing's good.

I have never met a money manager who says, you know, I'm happy to be third quartile this year rather than first quartile because the fishing's good.

yeah and and the fact of the matter nobody's sitting back on their laurels every businessman has this nose that they're sniffing for money and they're sniffing how to make money that's the game everybody does that all day every day and for somebody who's been fundamentally a career civil servant and to make these broad articulations

yeah and and the fact of the matter nobody's sitting back on their laurels every businessman has this nose that they're sniffing for money and they're sniffing how to make money that's the game everybody does that all day every day and for somebody who's been fundamentally a career civil servant and to make these broad articulations

who has never gone out and got a purchase order and traded Canadian goods globally, that actually means that he doesn't understand the nature of how capital goes in the productivity function. But he's also shuffling off responsibility. Well, the issue is if you don't have the IP... And you don't have control of the AI function. If you put the money in that, that accrues to the owner of that.

who has never gone out and got a purchase order and traded Canadian goods globally, that actually means that he doesn't understand the nature of how capital goes in the productivity function. But he's also shuffling off responsibility. Well, the issue is if you don't have the IP... And you don't have control of the AI function. If you put the money in that, that accrues to the owner of that.

So it's like you building a house on land you don't own. And we had an economic policy of never owning the land underneath it. And then he says, well, look, if you build a house on that, it's going to be a great, big, beautiful hotel. Don't be so lazy. Where the business kind of goes, I know I don't own the land. I don't know how to own that land.

So it's like you building a house on land you don't own. And we had an economic policy of never owning the land underneath it. And then he says, well, look, if you build a house on that, it's going to be a great, big, beautiful hotel. Don't be so lazy. Where the business kind of goes, I know I don't own the land. I don't know how to own that land.

I don't have a public policy that supports me there. But I'm sure not going to turn my dollar into 10 cents. Now, the public investments have always turned 10. a dollar into 10 cents, but that's taxpayer money. But if a businessman does that, they're quickly bankrupt and out of the business.

I don't have a public policy that supports me there. But I'm sure not going to turn my dollar into 10 cents. Now, the public investments have always turned 10. a dollar into 10 cents, but that's taxpayer money. But if a businessman does that, they're quickly bankrupt and out of the business.

yes prodigies yeah uh so so with me with rim uh it's the greatest i mean first of all uh i believe capitalism is the in a liberal democracy is the best form for human flourishing in the world and and i'm an ardent fan of capitalism entrepreneurship technology innovation

yes prodigies yeah uh so so with me with rim uh it's the greatest i mean first of all uh i believe capitalism is the in a liberal democracy is the best form for human flourishing in the world and and i'm an ardent fan of capitalism entrepreneurship technology innovation

So his articulation and framing of, we just have to spend more money longer, which is Einstein's definition of insanity, I think is misplaced because he's not resolving the core issue, which is what creates a good investment opportunity in an era of intangibles.

So his articulation and framing of, we just have to spend more money longer, which is Einstein's definition of insanity, I think is misplaced because he's not resolving the core issue, which is what creates a good investment opportunity in an era of intangibles.

And so I look at his prescriptions and you have to, it's important to understand this for people is that he's a macroeconomist and a central banker. And that's a very narrow function, right? Your responsibility is price stability of the money systems, banking stability in the regulatory, compliance of the payment systems. You operate in a narrow but important realm.

And so I look at his prescriptions and you have to, it's important to understand this for people is that he's a macroeconomist and a central banker. And that's a very narrow function, right? Your responsibility is price stability of the money systems, banking stability in the regulatory, compliance of the payment systems. You operate in a narrow but important realm.

But your involvement with the firm and the productivity, that's a very distant part. It seems similar. Right.

But your involvement with the firm and the productivity, that's a very distant part. It seems similar. Right.

Well, the metaphor I can say is it's like he's a leading dermatologist. Yeah. He's a doctor. Yeah. And he said, well, I'm a doctor. I'm going to do a neurosurgery because that's a doctor and the brain is very close to the face, which has got skin. So I can do this. And in fact, these are very, very different realms that have very different levels of expertise.

Well, the metaphor I can say is it's like he's a leading dermatologist. Yeah. He's a doctor. Yeah. And he said, well, I'm a doctor. I'm going to do a neurosurgery because that's a doctor and the brain is very close to the face, which has got skin. So I can do this. And in fact, these are very, very different realms that have very different levels of expertise.

But there seems to be a comfort and a cavalierness way into realms that... have Canada's performed poorly. He has been part of a scene that's performed, an architect of a scene that's performed poorly. And he has no expertise in this realm and no experience. He didn't need to have it as central banker, but he's availing as if he does.

But there seems to be a comfort and a cavalierness way into realms that... have Canada's performed poorly. He has been part of a scene that's performed, an architect of a scene that's performed poorly. And he has no expertise in this realm and no experience. He didn't need to have it as central banker, but he's availing as if he does.

And it makes me nervous because his thinking to me is just a more efficient Trudeau. Yes, much more efficient. More professional.

And it makes me nervous because his thinking to me is just a more efficient Trudeau. Yes, much more efficient. More professional.

Yeah, but I think efficient in this direction, given what's happened to Canada.

Yeah, but I think efficient in this direction, given what's happened to Canada.

And we're last place already. What's below last place?

And we're last place already. What's below last place?

He's a dermatologist, and we need a neurosurgeon. And they're both on the head, but they're different, and they're really different.

He's a dermatologist, and we need a neurosurgeon. And they're both on the head, but they're different, and they're really different.

Well, when I wrote that piece about we're all economic nationalists now, that was really a word to the neocons, that if you're a Friedmanite, then be a Friedmanite. Adjust to the facts on the ground. I've recently heard some things that are encouraging that seem like the emergence of, and Mr. Polyev does not owe us a full campaign yet because the campaign has not started.

Well, when I wrote that piece about we're all economic nationalists now, that was really a word to the neocons, that if you're a Friedmanite, then be a Friedmanite. Adjust to the facts on the ground. I've recently heard some things that are encouraging that seem like the emergence of, and Mr. Polyev does not owe us a full campaign yet because the campaign has not started.

And that created the framework for me to be partners with Mike Lazaridis as co-CEOs to create Blackberry, something we took that really globalized the smartphone, grew it from an idea to $20 billion in over 150 countries around the world. And it's remarkable, you prosper beyond your wildest dreams. You change the world and you also learn how the world works.

And that created the framework for me to be partners with Mike Lazaridis as co-CEOs to create Blackberry, something we took that really globalized the smartphone, grew it from an idea to $20 billion in over 150 countries around the world. And it's remarkable, you prosper beyond your wildest dreams. You change the world and you also learn how the world works.

So my fulsome evaluation is to be done. But I think Carney's played his cards because he's in a campaign, right? He's written a book and he's done a campaign. So I assume that's his playbook and Mr. Polyev is imminent. if there's an election imminent, which I think there is. And so, but he's done some green shoots, which intrigued me. He recently said, we need to take back control of our economy.

So my fulsome evaluation is to be done. But I think Carney's played his cards because he's in a campaign, right? He's written a book and he's done a campaign. So I assume that's his playbook and Mr. Polyev is imminent. if there's an election imminent, which I think there is. And so, but he's done some green shoots, which intrigued me. He recently said, we need to take back control of our economy.

We need to be sovereign, secure and prosperous or something like that. But the fact that the government has a role of taking back control of our destiny and our security and our sovereignty and our prosperity and our economic entity, not as protectionism, but to make us strong for a dangerous world and to make our company strong going out to the world. Well, that's interesting.

We need to be sovereign, secure and prosperous or something like that. But the fact that the government has a role of taking back control of our destiny and our security and our sovereignty and our prosperity and our economic entity, not as protectionism, but to make us strong for a dangerous world and to make our company strong going out to the world. Well, that's interesting.

He's introducing the second leg. And then what I've heard for the first time in 30 years, he has an industry critic named Rick Perkins who has said, we need to own our ideas. We need to control our data to build our companies. And nobody has said that. It was an interview about a month ago. And I'm like, well, where'd that come from? And then he's had... So where did it come from?

He's introducing the second leg. And then what I've heard for the first time in 30 years, he has an industry critic named Rick Perkins who has said, we need to own our ideas. We need to control our data to build our companies. And nobody has said that. It was an interview about a month ago. And I'm like, well, where'd that come from? And then he's had... So where did it come from?

I think they're thinking. I think they're trying to think. They're trying to realize that there's two legs here. His trade critic, Ryan Williams, has been calling for updated trade strategies where we actually figure out how to project Canadian interests in these games where there's strategic behavior by nation states, which is encouraging because we should have had it 30 years ago.

I think they're thinking. I think they're trying to think. They're trying to realize that there's two legs here. His trade critic, Ryan Williams, has been calling for updated trade strategies where we actually figure out how to project Canadian interests in these games where there's strategic behavior by nation states, which is encouraging because we should have had it 30 years ago.

Nice to start now. Michelle Rempel's been talking about updated competition strategies where you don't just throw it as one bucket. You need to compete in domestic services more, but you need to support our global traders more. So one is supporting them into the world. One is to compete away monopoly rents that hurt consumers. Again, that distinction has not been done for 30 years.

Nice to start now. Michelle Rempel's been talking about updated competition strategies where you don't just throw it as one bucket. You need to compete in domestic services more, but you need to support our global traders more. So one is supporting them into the world. One is to compete away monopoly rents that hurt consumers. Again, that distinction has not been done for 30 years.

And I've heard Michelle Rempel and Adam Chambers talk about helping Canadian companies grow for the benefit and building more capacity in the civil service to deal with this change. So I see these as green shoots in what seems to be a loosely emerging industry. poly of doctrine. We see the Kearney doctrine. We know the Kearney doctrine.

And I've heard Michelle Rempel and Adam Chambers talk about helping Canadian companies grow for the benefit and building more capacity in the civil service to deal with this change. So I see these as green shoots in what seems to be a loosely emerging industry. poly of doctrine. We see the Kearney doctrine. We know the Kearney doctrine.

A two-legged race. And if we don't have a two-legged strategy, we will be subordinated Puerto Rico without a passport. If we do have it, then the question is, are we effective in the capacity building of the political class and the civil service to actually perform into it while we've been atrophied in this realm for the better part of 30 years?

A two-legged race. And if we don't have a two-legged strategy, we will be subordinated Puerto Rico without a passport. If we do have it, then the question is, are we effective in the capacity building of the political class and the civil service to actually perform into it while we've been atrophied in this realm for the better part of 30 years?

He's rooted... He's got bad economics. It's rude in the 1970s economics. It's poor economics. For a doctor, it's poor surgery.

He's rooted... He's got bad economics. It's rude in the 1970s economics. It's poor economics. For a doctor, it's poor surgery.

With no strategies to resolve that dichotomy. Okay, so that's Mr. Carney. And then Moralize is that says we got to spend more money longer doing the things we did before because that's the key because people don't see the pot of gold of just opening up your wallets more, despite the fact we've been opening up our wallets for decades at enormous amounts. It's just about more and longer.

With no strategies to resolve that dichotomy. Okay, so that's Mr. Carney. And then Moralize is that says we got to spend more money longer doing the things we did before because that's the key because people don't see the pot of gold of just opening up your wallets more, despite the fact we've been opening up our wallets for decades at enormous amounts. It's just about more and longer.

And I very quickly learned and had very good mentors in the United States that the way I'd been explained how the economy works is very, very different than the way it works in the ground. And so that's what shaped my experience at RIM. As I said, we grew it to...

And I very quickly learned and had very good mentors in the United States that the way I'd been explained how the economy works is very, very different than the way it works in the ground. And so that's what shaped my experience at RIM. As I said, we grew it to...

Just following them. Yeah, following them. I've testified to committees. Yeah.

Just following them. Yeah, following them. I've testified to committees. Yeah.

Well, the dilemmas of the muddling is going to be is we need a neurosurgeon, not a dermatologist. And say, well, get me a neurosurgeon tomorrow. And it's going to take time to train people to be a neurosurgeon. You can't just, you've got to find the expertise where it is and you've got to build the capacity. And that's not going to happen overnight.

Well, the dilemmas of the muddling is going to be is we need a neurosurgeon, not a dermatologist. And say, well, get me a neurosurgeon tomorrow. And it's going to take time to train people to be a neurosurgeon. You can't just, you've got to find the expertise where it is and you've got to build the capacity. And that's not going to happen overnight.

And we have to have democratic discourse, not bullying. That's why I said we're all kind of like nationalists now. That's a calling out of the bullies. Because we don't do discourse. We do bullying in Canada. We don't do discourse. What do you mean by that? You just ad hominem shut people down and state your dogma, right? You're either free markets or you're North Korea.

And we have to have democratic discourse, not bullying. That's why I said we're all kind of like nationalists now. That's a calling out of the bullies. Because we don't do discourse. We do bullying in Canada. We don't do discourse. What do you mean by that? You just ad hominem shut people down and state your dogma, right? You're either free markets or you're North Korea.

And somebody says, well, you're just a mean whatever-phobe who just wants to be like MAGA. And in fact, these are very complex, very technical, very nuanced realms in a geostrategic era of strategic behavior. And the stakes are enormous. And what Trump has done is just laid it all bare. It's been going on for decades. He just turned the heat up really fast. I would say irresponsibly fast.

And somebody says, well, you're just a mean whatever-phobe who just wants to be like MAGA. And in fact, these are very complex, very technical, very nuanced realms in a geostrategic era of strategic behavior. And the stakes are enormous. And what Trump has done is just laid it all bare. It's been going on for decades. He just turned the heat up really fast. I would say irresponsibly fast.

And I think he's miscalculated because if the world responds strategically... to that threat.

And I think he's miscalculated because if the world responds strategically... to that threat.

I retired at the end of 2011 when we had 5.2 billion in revenue on a $20 billion year and moved on to other things and Mike stayed with it. So yeah, that was my experience.

I retired at the end of 2011 when we had 5.2 billion in revenue on a $20 billion year and moved on to other things and Mike stayed with it. So yeah, that was my experience.

We have that opportunity. So will we build the capacity In our civil service, will the conservatives go through a process of actually debating ideas and figuring out this? Who should they be discussing this with? Like, where is the expertise that's available? There's lots of it in the country, but they have to be open to ideas. Who would they invite to speak? Who would they talk with?

We have that opportunity. So will we build the capacity In our civil service, will the conservatives go through a process of actually debating ideas and figuring out this? Who should they be discussing this with? Like, where is the expertise that's available? There's lots of it in the country, but they have to be open to ideas. Who would they invite to speak? Who would they talk with?

There's lots of it. practitioners, and there's no business councils like in the U.S. Our domestic business councils, except for the Council of Canadian Innovators, are very dominated by foreign interests who are considered Canadian firms, but they represent the foreign firms.

There's lots of it. practitioners, and there's no business councils like in the U.S. Our domestic business councils, except for the Council of Canadian Innovators, are very dominated by foreign interests who are considered Canadian firms, but they represent the foreign firms.

Who think of Canada first. And they're in there in certain think tanks, certain universities. There are experts out there, but it has to begin with leadership that says... We're open to this. Because to have the right answer but not have everybody with you is not going to work. But I don't think we can do a five-year Royal Commission. That's because it needs to be something quicker and iterative.

Who think of Canada first. And they're in there in certain think tanks, certain universities. There are experts out there, but it has to begin with leadership that says... We're open to this. Because to have the right answer but not have everybody with you is not going to work. But I don't think we can do a five-year Royal Commission. That's because it needs to be something quicker and iterative.

Why 100%? Because I deal with them with regularity. But they've been pushed to the fringes by the people who cooked this strategy 35 years ago. And they're fighting on all they can to protect their legacy of getting it right in spite of this Canadian resource curse. And I'm saying we are where we are today. because of this flaw and you need to bring in new voices.

Why 100%? Because I deal with them with regularity. But they've been pushed to the fringes by the people who cooked this strategy 35 years ago. And they're fighting on all they can to protect their legacy of getting it right in spite of this Canadian resource curse. And I'm saying we are where we are today. because of this flaw and you need to bring in new voices.

And I've funded a new initiative called Public Policy Shield Initiative, much more for young scholars and young thinkers to come in and architect the future that they want, that they're gonna inherit and they're gonna live in. And I think if Pierre Polyev or Carney chooses to embrace these true experts to design a proper two-legged race, then I think we're going to be okay. Maybe better than okay.

And I've funded a new initiative called Public Policy Shield Initiative, much more for young scholars and young thinkers to come in and architect the future that they want, that they're gonna inherit and they're gonna live in. And I think if Pierre Polyev or Carney chooses to embrace these true experts to design a proper two-legged race, then I think we're going to be okay. Maybe better than okay.

Much better than okay. But I get very nervous about a more efficient Trudeau and the hubristic representation of knowing things that you don't and a little humility with openness to ideas and a communication structure with Canadians that says, I'm involving new smart voices. I've got good leaders who are buying into this. I'm open to this stuff. We're going to be on this journey together.

Much better than okay. But I get very nervous about a more efficient Trudeau and the hubristic representation of knowing things that you don't and a little humility with openness to ideas and a communication structure with Canadians that says, I'm involving new smart voices. I've got good leaders who are buying into this. I'm open to this stuff. We're going to be on this journey together.

I think our future can be the best yet to come. But if we fail in that, I think the failure will be... Marking. Yeah, really bad.

I think our future can be the best yet to come. But if we fail in that, I think the failure will be... Marking. Yeah, really bad.

And that sounds pretty bad, but the situation you outlined could be- And we missed the boat in the data-driven economy of AI, so extreme that we're actually inviting Google to own the AI, own the IP, and control the citizens and have the control of security and get all the wealth and economic effects from our largest city. Yeah.

And that sounds pretty bad, but the situation you outlined could be- And we missed the boat in the data-driven economy of AI, so extreme that we're actually inviting Google to own the AI, own the IP, and control the citizens and have the control of security and get all the wealth and economic effects from our largest city. Yeah.

But we could. And we have the resources because, the financial resources, because we do have... liquid assets to deploy in this country. We don't invest them here because the business case is not there, but we could create that through pension funds and Canadian savings. I think we have to think about what we do spend our personal time and money on and find out that we have more of that

But we could. And we have the resources because, the financial resources, because we do have... liquid assets to deploy in this country. We don't invest them here because the business case is not there, but we could create that through pension funds and Canadian savings. I think we have to think about what we do spend our personal time and money on and find out that we have more of that

I've had, as an example, considerable interplay with Premier Smith of Alberta and Premier Canoe of Manitoba, NDP and Conservative. Extremely impressed by how they want to chart this kind of value-added future for their economy. I think... I think Manitoba has more critical minerals than Ontario does. One of the greatest reserves in the world. And they want to do value-added strategies.

I've had, as an example, considerable interplay with Premier Smith of Alberta and Premier Canoe of Manitoba, NDP and Conservative. Extremely impressed by how they want to chart this kind of value-added future for their economy. I think... I think Manitoba has more critical minerals than Ontario does. One of the greatest reserves in the world. And they want to do value-added strategies.

Premier Smith also wants to do value-added strategies. And her economy with energy in the realms we talked about, in agriculture and healthcare and AI and IP, they see the potential. They see what they give away. And same with Premier Canoe. So I see the political leadership of the subnational countries. I see green shoots international or national. I see all the fundamentals are there.

Premier Smith also wants to do value-added strategies. And her economy with energy in the realms we talked about, in agriculture and healthcare and AI and IP, they see the potential. They see what they give away. And same with Premier Canoe. So I see the political leadership of the subnational countries. I see green shoots international or national. I see all the fundamentals are there.

You have all the spices in the spice rack if you choose to cook a good meal. So yeah, I think the potential is there.

You have all the spices in the spice rack if you choose to cook a good meal. So yeah, I think the potential is there.

And thank you, President Trump, for finally forcing the issue.

And thank you, President Trump, for finally forcing the issue.

And also do, most of my time is still with my businesses around the world. I spend two thirds to three quarters of my time with my businesses in North America, tech and other, and in Europe and the Middle East. So yeah, most of my, I'm still fundamentally a businessman.

And also do, most of my time is still with my businesses around the world. I spend two thirds to three quarters of my time with my businesses in North America, tech and other, and in Europe and the Middle East. So yeah, most of my, I'm still fundamentally a businessman.

Sure, sure. And again, I come at this as an ardent capitalist, so I'm going to explain how capitalism works and Canada's issue in this and why the US and other like-type economies have thrived so much in this changed era.

Sure, sure. And again, I come at this as an ardent capitalist, so I'm going to explain how capitalism works and Canada's issue in this and why the US and other like-type economies have thrived so much in this changed era.

The traditional economy is a production economy where you manufacture goods and you produce them with efficiency and scale and you sell them at a positive margin and you fundamentally compete on cost. And the purpose of trade agreements was to get rid of friction of moving those products or what are called tariffs or border adjustments. And that's the traditional economy.

The traditional economy is a production economy where you manufacture goods and you produce them with efficiency and scale and you sell them at a positive margin and you fundamentally compete on cost. And the purpose of trade agreements was to get rid of friction of moving those products or what are called tariffs or border adjustments. And that's the traditional economy.

And Canada does that pretty well. It set up foreign branch plants. They brought technology. They brought machinery. They brought capital. They brought management. And when you set up these plants... They create domestic supply chains. They create upskilling of workers. They create domestic tax base.

And Canada does that pretty well. It set up foreign branch plants. They brought technology. They brought machinery. They brought capital. They brought management. And when you set up these plants... They create domestic supply chains. They create upskilling of workers. They create domestic tax base.

And you get lots of these positive spillovers and the headquarters gets good performance and everything works great. And that was Canada's prosperity. Canada had tremendous prosperity post-World War II, really up until the early 1990s. About 30 years ago, the US culminated a multi-year effort to birth the knowledge-based economy of intellectual property.

And you get lots of these positive spillovers and the headquarters gets good performance and everything works great. And that was Canada's prosperity. Canada had tremendous prosperity post-World War II, really up until the early 1990s. About 30 years ago, the US culminated a multi-year effort to birth the knowledge-based economy of intellectual property.

And so this culminated with putting in the NAFTA agreement, extensive intellectual property provisions in 1994, But also in the World Trade Organization, the U.S. led a five-year exercise to globalize intellectual property rights. And it was called TRIPS, the Trade-Related Aspects for Intellectual Property Systems, I think something like that. And so the world shifted to...

And so this culminated with putting in the NAFTA agreement, extensive intellectual property provisions in 1994, But also in the World Trade Organization, the U.S. led a five-year exercise to globalize intellectual property rights. And it was called TRIPS, the Trade-Related Aspects for Intellectual Property Systems, I think something like that. And so the world shifted to...

amassing IP assets and collecting a rent. So it stopped being a production-based economy only, and it became a two-legged race, liberalizing markets, capital, and labor through production economy, Ricardian comparative advantage of making things, to a parallel race of enclosing knowledge, using agreements to spread friction and monopoly to capture a rent based on an idea.

amassing IP assets and collecting a rent. So it stopped being a production-based economy only, and it became a two-legged race, liberalizing markets, capital, and labor through production economy, Ricardian comparative advantage of making things, to a parallel race of enclosing knowledge, using agreements to spread friction and monopoly to capture a rent based on an idea.

And that's interesting because that's at the time we were also doing Blackberry. And my mentors in commercialization were in the U.S. and helping me in Washington and all the different things we had to do to navigate. But I think the original sin in Canada was in 1994. Early 1994, Canada signed two agreements. The NAFTA agreement with extensive intellectual property provisions, which was new.

And that's interesting because that's at the time we were also doing Blackberry. And my mentors in commercialization were in the U.S. and helping me in Washington and all the different things we had to do to navigate. But I think the original sin in Canada was in 1994. Early 1994, Canada signed two agreements. The NAFTA agreement with extensive intellectual property provisions, which was new.

and the TRIPS agreement of the World Trade Organization, which was the globalization of the IP system. But what's interesting is domestically in Canada, later that year, they published a book called The Orange Book. Who was they? Industry Canada, the government of Canada. It published an orange book, and you can see it on the web, called Building a More Innovative Canada.

and the TRIPS agreement of the World Trade Organization, which was the globalization of the IP system. But what's interesting is domestically in Canada, later that year, they published a book called The Orange Book. Who was they? Industry Canada, the government of Canada. It published an orange book, and you can see it on the web, called Building a More Innovative Canada.

And this is six months after we signed these two treaties. And they talk about innovation is all about jobs.

And they make no reference to the two IP treaties that were the underpinning of innovation that they signed earlier that year.

They didn't know a revolution had occurred. Right.

So that's the original sin.

Well, the US understood that if it was to be strong and prosperous, rich, powerful, and secure, it had to corral this knowledge. So the world moved from open science, open knowledge to closed science and monopolized knowledge that you had to get a rent. You had to pay a rent for the permission to use

somebody else's intellectual property and that went to software technology it went to pharmaceuticals it went to manufacturing technology it went to uh creative industries and right that went to all the value ads that are on top of basic resources yeah intangibles are now 90 of the value of the s p 500. that's where all the money's been and so define intangibles again for everybody

Well, intangible asset is an asset... When you have a physical asset, like this jacket is a physical asset. I own it. That's called a positive right. But the design... And only one person can wear it at a time. That's called rivalrous. Right, so it's finite in supply. It's finite. But the design of this jacket is not finite. It's non-rivalrous. A million people can have that design. And...

where that's not designed at the same time. And the person who owns that design has a negative right that says, I have the legal right to stop you from using that design. So they own a fence. They own a fence. And the economy shifted from producing, getting rich from producing jackets alone to extracting a rent from, for the design of that jacket.

Oh, Napster. Napster.

Yeah, and when you physically own something, it's kind of not contested most of the time. It's unambiguous. But ownership of an idea evolves literally hundreds of times a day, different standards. And so Napster is an idea where there was very intense copyright issues that shut down Napster. But there was a dozen very substantial copyright cases for Google.

Were you allowed to bring a snippet forward? And if you remember, all the owners of this content were litigating from New York City to say stop Google, and Google ran the cards. And so a bunch of judicial decisions framed the opening for Google to do search.

Yeah, and that's a principle of fair use. Because when you index something and you show it forward to somebody and then give a link to that content... Is that taking away their revenue? And they argued no in the original search, but now in AI, do the weights embody expressive content that fundamentally takes away the revenue of the owner and that's- Or even replaces the owner.

Well, I mean, replaces and takes away the revenue are two sides of the same coin. And then at that point, the courts have to weigh in because intellectual property is not a natural right. It's a social bargain. whereas your physical possession is pretty much kind of a natural, right? My home is my home. It's more self-evident. It's self-evident, but these are evolving bargains for social good.

There's some good questions there. I mean, one is that Milton Friedman talks a lot about free markets, but that predates the knowledge-based economy and then the data-driven economy.

Well, but the issue is the nature of these laws is to introduce friction to grant monopolies. So free trade agreements in a production economy are to spread competition, right? But then these agreements went to stronger and stronger enforcement of intellectual property rights to spread monopolies.

And the market and the government designs and changes the definition of ownership all the time for... And the courts as well. With the courts interpreting that to... advanced state interest, so it becomes an instrument of geostrategic projection, because if you control the valuable assets, you're more secure and you're more rich.

And so it was a two-legged race, spreading liberalization of markets, capital, and labor. Yeah, which we did reasonably well at. And then enclosing and monopolizing knowledge.

But other countries did very, very well.

No, no, we signed the same agreements as everybody else. But as I said to you, I think the original sin was,

was that 1994, December 1994, Orange Book by Industry Canada that talks about building a more innovative economy, that it's about better jobs and more efficiency, which are production economy constructs, and never references the two seismic treaties that the country signed six months earlier.

Well, Canada in the last 10 years has been last place in GDP per capita of the top 50 developed countries in the world.

Well, GDP per capita performance. Performance. You can call it the worst decrease. Yeah. We're last place in performance. Of 50 developed countries.

So the number three AI research center in the world is in Edmonton. Number five is in Toronto. We gave essentially all that away to other US tech companies. I think Trump has made a strategic mistake because America's got an unbelievable deal from Canada.

Of the 50. Yes. Over the last 10 years. And in the last 40 years, we're last place in the OECD in productivity, in growing that. And then we're forecast to be last place in the next 40 years. So we've pretty well cemented. So we've got 100 years. We're cemented last place.

It's a proxy for paycheck per worker.

What's that? It's the quality of your paycheck per worker.

Catastrophic, catastrophic.

Could happen this year.

Well, as I've said, rhetorically, we become Puerto Rico without a passport. We'll be very poor in terms of quality of life and what we can buy and no political representation, no clout. And we have a beautiful country that both you and I love, but it's an expensive country. So if you don't have the prosperity, you can't pay for the health care, the transportation.

The public safety, the social services, the heat, all the things that we value being a prosperous, sophisticated country. And we've seen those come under stress in this last era. Okay, so let's detail out that a little bit. It's expensive. It hurts a lot when you don't do well in this.

Yes, that's all correct. Yeah, and one in a quarter Canadians have food insecurity now. Define food insecurity. Well, there's metrics on it, but basically they're not able to provide, they're skipping meals or children are unable to be fed what they need. So you're not secure in providing the food to your home. Okay, so one in four.

Yeah, that's really, and food bank lines have doubled, and these things, these are terrible consequences of economic policy and attention. Yeah, it really hits home.

Yeah, for sure. Yeah, and in, I mean, in the United States, they have, you know, the White House has an office of IP, you know, it has an IP caucus, and they have, and he said he's a very, he runs a global IP, international IP association that everybody knows.

Yeah, and he says all these other countries have IP attaches, but he never comes across an IP attache of Canada.

Pharmaceutical and Hollywood and agriculture and finance. It's every sector's an IP business.

And changing it to their favor.

And then inserting it into quote-unquote trade agreements that don't say trade. You can look at the million words of the USMCA. You would not find the words free trade in it. But they use them as instruments of regulatory remote control to extract the rentier economy to their home country's benefit. Okay, USMCA, detailed out. That's Canada's trade agreement signed under Trump.

six, seven years, five years.

It's an instrument for regulatory remote control. Yes.

They set the rules for how we manage our IP systems, regulate our health care, put in standards, how we manage, who we can, how we do our macroeconomic policies, who we can do trade agreements with.

Yeah, it's a seeding of democracy, for sure. And it also had a provision to sunset it in six and a half years, which created a chronic instability, which has come home at this time, literally. And I was... trying to explain that this is actually a ticking time bomb for Canada.

I was writing and articulating that if you read the agreement, it's none of the celebration that's happening in the economic discourse in the media of the country, that this is going to erode our prosperity, which has happened, and it's going to come back with a bomb to supersize the erosion of that prosperity. Well, you have to read the agreement. Wow. And you have to understand it.

Yeah, but I read agreements for a living. That's what I do all day. These are legal economic contracts. That's what you do. Okay, so let me drill down. That's what I do.

Okay, so let's delve into that a little bit to make it concrete. Yeah, but what's interesting about that is that was... Our government invited Google to privatize our largest city, government of our largest city, under the Google Sidewalk Labs.

Yes, is that? Yeah. Can I wind this back and walk into it? So you ask Canada's, we talk about Canada's original sin and how we got there. So in 1989, and I will work into this because you see the original sin. In 1989, we signed the original Canada-US free trade agreement. And that was liberalizing all these things. That was leg one. That was leg one.

And then because of that, all Canada has to do is take its hands off everything forever and do nothing. And the smartest person in the room is the one that builds no capacity and doesn't do anything.

And that was Canada's economic orthodoxy.

And it's part of one leg. It's necessary, but not sufficient.

So then what happened was we had an economic thinking capacity in the country called an economic council, which was the equivalent of some of these sophisticated realms in the United States. These IP offices, they have trade advisory committee. You know, the U.S. has... 50-year-old, if you go to the U.S.

Trade Representative and search advisory committees, they have 26 advisory committees, 700 experts, been together for 50 years. Tremendous insertion of sophistication.

And we shut all that down in Canada. because you don't need to do anything. You don't need to know anything. You just have to cut taxes, cut regulations, get out of the way, which is the true efficient nature of leg one. But when you make yourself blind, you're not able to see this leg two come along because you're done.

Right, and it's leg two that happens to be kicking the hell out of us at the moment, say, in the last two months. Right. So what happened was, so this was around 92, we shut down our economic council to save money. So it's, yeah, it's getting- So now the people that- It's like taking the instruments off the airplane to save money. Right. Because you don't need instruments anymore.

And there's nothing- And there's no interest. There's no interest.

We have all the knowledge we ever need. Knowledge is over. Just get out of the way.

Yeah, well, okay, so let me put one more step into this and then I'll go to the Google part. And so what happens is in the production economy,

When you bring in a foreign branch plant, as I said a few minutes ago, you get management, technology, you get capital, you get skills upgrading of the workers, you get a supply chain in a factory of local vendors, and you get a tax base based on that activity. So you get a lot of positive what are called economic spillovers from the... Manufacturing branch plant.

When you go to an ideas economy, when you buy the company or come in, you exfiltrate the IP, you exfiltrate the data. All of the ownership is back at the headquarters. There is no...

management of any consequence in the in the in the when you sell your uh peterson academy into spain you don't set up a country president and a whole management team it's just you get somebody helping you sell and localize and then it's all run back wherever you run it and all the taxes and all the wealth effects happen at the home country spanish branch plant

Exactly, and you don't pay taxes in Spain and there's no wealth effect in Spain and there's no management transfer and all that. So the spillovers in the tech industry operate exactly opposite. Pretty much most of the time, not absolutely, To how they work in the production economy.

Disaster.

And the Canadian people are paid less. They tend to have ancillary roles. They're subsidized through tax credits. And yet all the true wealth effects, and if they're really strong and talented, they tend to get moved to the U.S. and never come back. So that's a hoovering structure there.

And so the thinking of the Google sidewalk was like setting up a pulp and paper mill in Northern Ontario, that this is great. Not understanding that they'll own all the IP, own all the data, have all the security benefits, have all the wealth effects, have all the control benefits. And Canada gets 1% and they get 99%.

And if you have that subordinate low value added position in technology, then you get a low GDP per capita and you can't pay for the country. And it gets a second leg to that. That you're not secure, which is what's happening in the contemporary leverage. And those of us that understand what prosperity and security looks like saying this is catastrophic.

This will be a step in the grave for the country.

And his leadership predated the knowledge economy.

Well, the government is making the market. It manufactures the assets in the market and it changes them a hundred times a day in the knowledge economy.

And you have to have a plan for getting your words in there to advance your specific interests through your advisory councils, which is the opposite of hands-off.

Okay, so that's a reasonable coverage of our... Yeah, and what bothers me so much about this, you have this country with so much potential. We have brilliant innovators. We have brilliant researchers. We come up with... earth-changing ideas, and we don't capitalize on them. We give them away.

So our economic structure should be much more like the Scandinavians in the U.S., but our economic structure is much closer to Russia's right now because of this abdication. And so you also mentioned in Google really quickly that the taxpayers in Canada... spent 30 years funding the fundamental artificial intelligence at University of Toronto and in Alberta.

So the number three AI research center in the world is in Alberta, in Edmonton. Number five is in Toronto. We gave essentially all that away to Google and other US tech companies. So Canada- So what kind of loss is that in economic terms, do you suppose? Trillions. Trillions.

And you take a trillion away or you take a couple hundred billion dollars of earnings a year on a trillion dollar asset, that's the difference between an enormous budget surplus paying for military and health care and public safety along the way versus a deficit.

And better paychecks versus a deficit that is eroding those services.

And by the way, real quick, also – We also invented fundamental technology for battery, taxpayer-funded from Dalhousie, that we transferred to Tesla. No economic benefit to Canada. The prof gets the research papers. We have fundamental technology for mRNA out of UBC that we don't have any economic benefit for Canada.

We have fundamental telecommunications technology, which we transferred from a couple dozen researchers in many universities to Huawei with no economic ownership back to Canada. This... inattention to owning the assets of IP and data and is an orthodoxy in Canada that is inexplicable, that puts us, that is unique to Canada. I've not seen it anywhere else in the world and it's put us in last place.

Okay, so Jim, one more thing.

Absolutely not. Absolutely not. That's a false myth. perpetrated by the policy community that thinks they've done it right when they've done it exactly wrong to manufacturing excuse why their strategies didn't work. The US is, I believe now, the largest oil producer in the world. don't see any resource curse there.

The Scandinavians, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, tremendous productivity and prosperity and innovation, absolutely bursting with resources.

If others with resources don't have that curse, it's a different kind of curse. Because you're saying in the resource curse, if you have resources, you won't be productive.

So this is the curse of being... But others with lots of resources are extraordinary. They're world-leading.

Yeah. As well as these others. The curse of false myths by those who have failed us.

And they've got lots of other ones of complacency, and they use that, and we'll go at... cases in a few minutes on those who use this sitting on dead money complacency stuff, but not quite right now because they use that as an excuse mechanism, but let's keep on this.

Yeah, sure. Well, I wrote a piece, which possibly you can put on a link during this thing called We're All Economic Nationalists Now. And the reason I used that was that it's a phrase for strategic U-turns, coined by Milton Friedman.

The darling of the free marketers. The darling of the free marketers. Because he famously said in the late 60s, we're all Keynesians now. So he spent 20 years fighting Keynes. And then when there was a crisis with Nixon and they had to respond to it with a bunch of new monetary and fiscal structures, he said, well, we're all Keynesians now. Keynes was an interventionist compared to Friedman.

And Friedman was at war with him. Right. He represents the opposite. And what he's fundamentally saying is that economics is a social science, not a natural science. And you have to tune your behavior to the facts on the ground. So if you are a Friedmanite in this contemporary reality, then attune, period.

And the nature of the geopolitical era of strategic behavior. So responding very specifically to what you said, the question you asked on Trump, when you go to an intangibles economy... When you're producing economy, you trade on a principle called comparative advantage. Yeah, lay that out.

Well, comparative advantage, it was done by David Ricardo, Ricardian comparative advantage, that says you may produce cups better than me and even saucers better than me. But if I can produce saucers comparatively better than I produce cups relative to you, if we trade, we're both better off. So it's a principle of comparative advantage.

Okay, lay that out one more time because everyone needs to understand this. So if you make a cup for $2 and a saucer for $1, and I make a cup for $3 and a saucer for $2, and I'm going to mess up my logic here, I'm absolutely worse than... than you on both, but I'm comparatively better on cups, because I'm only 50% more expensive rather than 100% more expensive.

So if I ship you cups and you ship me saucers, That will rise the tide of everybody. So everybody has an incentive to trade on physical goods based on comparative advantage.

You trade on Riccardi and comparative advantage. Okay. That's a material-based core principle of liberalizing trade. Now, when you go to an ideas economy, which is based on a principle of restriction and monopoly, somebody wants to be the landlord and somebody has to be the tenant. And you can compete on absolute advantage or you can be the landlord 10 out of 10 times.

It's not a cooperative system anymore. It's a rival system. And what that means is if you're a big, strong guy, You get everything. You do what's called strategic behavior. And that's what we're experiencing right now. And the piece I wrote on We're All Economic Nationalists Now, I talk about the strategic behavior, Trump 1.0. Biden took all of those things and added many more.

which you can read it, and I won't go into them now, but he did many very substantial strategic elements of behavior. Trump first, then Biden. Biden did more than Trump. In relationship to Canada. Yeah, and then Trump took it to a whole other level very, very recently. And so it's an era of strategic behavior, which means it's not a cooperative-based system.

And Canada believed in the multilateral rules-based order. This is a shared global project. And my exhortation is this is an absolute advantage era that leads to strategic behavior. And if you don't focus on being reasonably sovereign, reasonably strong, you become the one they pick on.

And it's very profitable for a nation state to pick on a weak state, especially one that has some good assets to pick and wither Canada in the era of Trump.

And we also thought that it was a multilateral rules-based system where control and ownership of strategic assets doesn't matter. And we're learning a very hard lesson that who owns it and controls it is really the only thing that matters. It's really matters a lot. Yeah. And so we're paying a very, very sorry price for that inattention to our economic policies.

We're giving tens of billions of dollars to foreign battery companies where we had no domestic control, no very small domestic value add. And now, and what was happening to Canada, and the U.S.

played a very clever game, and Western Europe played along, and the Southeast Asians got really good at this, that they said, if you want to play in the production economy, leg number one, you've got to sign up to these rules on leg number two.

So we own all the ideas. Well, if you get really good, you can start to own some too, but you've got to be very high-functioning, of which the Western Europeans and the Southeast Asians are. Right. And now what America's doing is saying, just kidding. I want the rules for this intangibles economy.

And I'm now even going to do more strategic behavior and pull the rauka out under the production economy, which is a form of neo-feudalism. that you have to pay a tax to the sovereign. And there's, you know, there's an aristocracy and then there's a non-aristocracy. Well, we're going, that's what I mean by without a passport. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so, and here we are, here we are.

Yeah, I'm trying to spend most of my time with you today characterizing what's going on. I've only said one normative thing to date so far in this, which was my belief in capitalism in a liberal democracy as the best way for human flourishing. And I'm going to give you what I plan to be only the second normative thing that I plan to say today that I think...

that Trump's behavior is un-presidential, it's unprovoked, it's unkind, it's almost certainly illegal, though, though hard to enforce. Yeah, which matters. But in the characterization, I'm also going to say that I think he miscalculated and it's actually been unwise and is counterproductive to America's interests and actually in Canada's interests if we seize it.

So I think this is a fascinating... And to sort of, for Canada, to quote the famous Yogi Berra, when you reach a fork in the road, you got to take it. Right. And so Trump sees Mexico as just a commodified labor to lowest cost for blue-collar candidates to commodified labor at white-collar workers. And it's all going to be subsidized.

And so I actually think the appeasement – there's a little bit of benefit in appeasement and diplomacy because you inform the U.S. that he may have to dial a few things back a little bit because it's counter to Americans' interests, not because he's – compassionate to Canada economically or socially or security-wise. But I think he's said what he is. He believes that...

that they are the empire, that you must pay a tax for the privilege of participating with the empire, interrelated with the empire. He wants to rename the Internal Revenue Service, the External Revenue Service, and that people's taxes domestically can go down in the US, and that it's paid for through tariffs.

And in economics, in prosperity, in a global system, the number one objective is to improve your terms of trade. And terms of trade is really simple, that it's the ratio of the price of what you sell to what you buy. And if you get a better price for what you sell, your terms of trade go up. If you pay more for something that you buy, your terms of trade go down.

And that's the whole game is terms of trade. And we thought that it was about comparative advantage, get out of the way. And America realized that it's about

inserting the rent stuff where you get really high rents which means that drives up your gdp per capita through higher terms of trade and so their thinking is that i'm going to make you pay to come in here that's going to uh enhance our the prices we get and we believe that's going to deflate your currency because it makes you and a deflation of a currency is like a pay decrease or an

Because it buys less. And you sell it for less too. Right. So that worsens your terms of trade, which benefits America's terms of trade. So they're trying to shift the structure of the global economic system where they become effectively aristocratic and everyone else is some lower economic status economy. and that is an economic logic being played out to Mexico and Canada.

The tricky part is there's not a lot more blood to get out of the stone that is Mexico. I think there is a legitimate security thing that they're paying attention to. With regards to the border? Yeah, and there's probably a couple little strategic things they want in the economy, access to the oil system and owning it and so on.

But there's a lot of blood to get from the Canadian prosperity because we're a relatively prosperous and rich country, eroding as we are. There's a lot of gems in there to get. So I think his objective, if you weaken it enough, you go in for the gems and you hold it in a subordinate position. Because that's the economic logic that is at play here. So it's a dominance logic, fundamentally.

Yeah, it's an economic insecurity dominance logic.

I'm angry. I'm angry about. Yeah. Yeah. I'm angry about them. Yeah. I wake up angry on it because I feel. it's wrong at so many levels. So that's my second normative thing. I'll shed it. Now, you be a clinical psychologist, make me feel a little better, and I'm bothered by it. And I think it's going to hurt one in four people. What about the one in four people that have food insecurity?

Like, for goodness sakes, people need food and a home. And now... Really? And you're going to erode the whole system, hurt Canada comparatively more, still hurt America, and vulnerable people are going to pay the largest price. Because what? Because that's how the aristocracy works and let them eat cake. And... Yeah, as a proud Canadian and somebody that believes in... My dad was an electrician.

I mean, these structures, I wouldn't have gone to school. I wouldn't have had this. Yeah, it violates all sense of fairness for me. So that part of it is not... Not cool by me, but yeah, we'll go into the misplay hand by Trump. Okay, well, two things.

Well, it's a beautiful country. How can you not love the country? I mean, just because I love it doesn't mean I always like it. Yeah.

Yeah, of course. And I've doubled down. Of course. Yeah, yeah, of course. Yeah, this is my team. This is my country. This is my home. Your job, it's given me so much. And as you said, your obligation is to carry the load you think you can handle. So you carry the load that you think is yours that you can bring to bear.

And there's beautiful people who volunteer at food banks, who do many wonderful things in this country, health care workers who care for vulnerable, and on and on it goes.

Yeah, it's very rewarding. It's very meaningful. It's a shame to see it suboptimized, but do you let the bullies and the elite failure of the last 30 years prevail when there are so many good people who are trying to advocate for for a better country and a better future. And if I can provide some resources and air cover for them, as opposed to the banning them,

Well, morally, what do you think is the right thing to do? Right, and hence this discussion.

Yes, do you want to flesh that out? Yeah, I didn't answer that yet. I didn't answer that yet because we split too hard here. I think Trump has made a strategic mistake because... America's got an unbelievable deal from Canada. And as they got this exfiltration of our best graduates tend to leave in droves from places like Waterloo to Silicon Valley, adding to the trillions of market cap.

We have brilliant innovators. We have brilliant researchers. We come up with earth-changing ideas.

Our best ideas invariably are taken by U.S. companies where they own them and commercialize them. Our best resources like Alberta oil is overwhelmingly shipped raw to Canada. to America where it's value added and sold back here. American companies come to Canada basically get monopolies for what they sell here in various technologies and products and pharmaceuticals.

So it's already a pretty good deal for the US. It's an amazing deal. And then they don't have to pay taxes here and the wealth effects aren't shared here. So America has got a great deal from Canada, an unbelievable deal. And Canada says, thank you for that. Would you like fries with this? And that's because of this inattention that we've talked about in the second leg. And

The frog has been cooking one degree at a time for Canada over 30 years. And a shrewd person would have said, let's keep this game going. Let's maybe turn it up two degrees at a time, but don't turn it up too much that you freak out the frog and it jumps out of the pot. And I think Trump thought he had such dominance.

It was kind of like the Russians with the Ukrainians, that they would just submit. And what Trump has done, he's been so extreme, so out of line. that he's actually woken up Canadians to say, we're better than this. We're capable of being more sovereign. We're capable of being more prosperous. I'm not going to take it. I'm not going to submit. I'm going to invest.

I'm going to start to think about this. Wake up. And actually, Canadians will start to get their fair deal in this changed economy with an updated sense of thinking. That could happen. Well, that's the fork in the road. So do they submit and become a subordinate Puerto Rico without a passport? Or do they respond and build the capacity

to vision and work towards an appropriate standing and future for the country in this changed world. And I think that potential of the latter one is there and before us. I'm gonna bring all I can to bear in encouraging and supporting that potential, but it's not certain that that's gonna happen. It's very clear what Trump's gonna do. He's not gonna back off.

He's not a back-off sort of guy, exactly. It's his orthodoxy. He's more locked in that orthodoxy than we were in our 30 years of hands-off, in spite of all the facts that came out of it. I think it's going to take—he's just going to keep tweaking it. But he's already done the damage because the law doesn't apply anymore. He says you can't have access to the U.S.

markets, so move your factories here. Nobody's going to do a press release that says I'm moving my factory in the middle of the night to the U.S. The damage is done for Canada in this current system. He barely needs to put tariffs on it anymore. Just the threat of it is de facto in, in the, in the business realities.

Uh, so the big question is what is Canada going to do in that response to that fork in the road? And if we take the higher potential route, we will have a much better future. Granted a bumpy interim phase, uh, And that goes to the point of leadership that you were... Okay, okay.

I don't belong to any party and I've given no money to either party. Okay.

And one thing we haven't put on the table, which is very important in our structural conversation, we talked about the knowledge-based economy of IP, and that's followed by a data-driven economy that's data and AI, and that that has become this new factor of productivity where it's replacing the human, it's controlling the human, and that's turbocharged this era of intangibles, which is...

intellectual property, knowledge enclosure, and then data and AI, which is the control of this factor of production, which is really changing everything. And also, by the way, the largest filing of IP is in AI with 1.5 million patents granted to date. And that's very important as I critique these two political options for Canada. We have to, when you talk about the things I talk about, we haven't

fully unpacked AI and how it's replacing human capacity and augmenting human capacity. But I think everyone agrees it's a monster factor of production. It's changing all the rules. It's putting trillions of dollars in the economy.

And you've got to have something, something there. Yeah, yeah. So that's fine. Okay, so you mentioned about Carney, then you mentioned about Paglia. And I did too read his book because I'm interested in public policy. As people, you've mentioned, you and I are active in Washington, I'm active in Brussels, and I'm also active nationally and sub-nationally. And provincially.

Well, sub-nationally, provincially. And I absolutely see myself as a Canadian, and I always think of Canada when I try to engage in these things, and I'm a passionate Canadian. So a couple, three things in Carney. He's positioning himself as an outsider when he's been an advisor to Trudeau since… and he's chairman of his economic task force.

But most importantly, he's been... So he's not an outsider. Well, most importantly, he's been a charter member of the orthodoxy of Ottawa for decades. So all this thinking structure, and I'm going to get very specific on how Bank of Canada has been a central actor in selling Canada short in these decades because they've been the keepers of this orthodoxy And he's been a central, as governor of St.

Claude Bank. He's been, prior to that, he was in Finance Canada. He's been advised. So he's got to own the Ottawa thinking. Right, and not as a follower, but as an architect. An architect. Right, right. So here's the two or three things on Carney, Mark Carney's book that I read. One, he talks a lot about pricing carbon to affect a transition. Right.

And then he's come up with his new policies to subsidize things like heat exchangers and various forms of technology to green your homes and stuff like that, very specifically. And so what happens is that when you look at Canada, it's good terms of trade. I explained terms of trade earlier. Its best terms of trade are in energy, right? That's where we get good money.

That's where it pays for the country.

Fossil fuel, hydrocarbons.

Sorry, hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons, yeah. Import, or sorry, consumption and export of hydrocarbons overwhelmingly pays for this country.

That's good terms of trade.

On the good terms of trade. I'm speaking technically. Yeah. Okay. We have a deficit in intellectual property. And that would be much more if we included data in AI. And we're major importers of intellectual property and technology products. So we have poor terms of trade in technology. The technology arena.

In spite of all the things we invent, the smart people, the government funding over decades... And the effectiveness of that even. Well, that's the issue is we're first world in inputs, third world in outcomes. Right. And there's not... And today in this conversation, we're unpacking why. Yeah. But I'm going to stay on this orthodoxy of Mr. Carney. Yeah.

So we have very good terms of trade in hydrocarbons, very poor terms of trade in... technology products. And so his proposition is that we tax the things that we sell and we subsidize the things that we buy. So if you want to affect a green transition, and you have this structure, that's called a dichotomy. You have to choose between

The economy paying for the place or the environment in his structural view of the world of scarce natural capital that we have to deal with. And I'm not making a normative comment. I'm just talking economically here. So his prescription will make us poorer.

This is economics. This is economics 101.

Let's say carbon... Well, he thinks they're scarce enough to show capital, and he wants to transition to a green economy. Right, right. Which is what we're going to go to in the next part of this discussion.

And thus we'll import what we're bad at. Right. And we'll export what we're good at. That's right. Right. Which is a path towards... 40 cents to the American dollar in terms of GDP. And he says that will lead to an innovation transition. And that is true because when you price something, you signal to the market, bring in something else. Yeah.

And that's fine, that will affect a green transition, but he's using a closed economy model that says Canada will get its fair share of that transition. But it's- Which we haven't. We've had decade, we've had poll positions in these systems over decades. We've got really smart people. We've invented really good ideas.

We spent tens and tens of billions of dollars and we have 10 cents on the dollar to show for our dollar. And he has nothing to say about how we're going to resolve that dichotomy.

So that we get some of the money for our deficit. And in his book, he has one sentence on IP right near the end says intellectual property is becoming increasingly important to companies and therefore we need to enforce it better to protect their investments. And that's it. Yeah, right.

That's a drive-by nothing burger in the most structural change that I talked about happen, where he's been a central... So he's a central actor in attention to intellectual property.

Whether that's a good idea or bad, he's using Ottawa's failed economic logic of the 70s to affect the norm of a green transition or anything else.

And I'm not making a normative case whether it's a good or bad idea. Well, that's me making the normative claims. He's just... It's going to fail, and it's going to fail in obvious economics. Okay, and what will failure look like? Well, there's a second leg to the failure. Okay. That the most profound force in the history of mankind in economics is the data-driven AI economy.

And he has nothing to say of data as a factor of production and input to AI and how we have to own and control that and harness our own AI. He says nothing about it. He has two sentences about be careful about privacy and social media, and that's it. And so if you look at every market, Energy, mining, agriculture, lumber, they're all AI and, excuse me, IP-driven.

And so he has nothing to say about that. Why are they AI and IP-driven? Well, because the force of it is allowing, I mean, as Schlumberger, who's one of the top 10 AI IP owners in the world, and the large oil, sorry, Halliburton, sorry, but Chambler's A2. The oil is a digital economy that you need digital AI and IP to get it out of the ground, get it refined. Right.

It's like the delivery taxicab business. It became IP-driven. Right, right. The medallion used to be worth $2 million. It went to zero because it's this superstructure of IP and data. And the same applies to, you know, shopping.

Sure, and it's great to be with you. Yeah, we've known each other for 15 years. You were also my wife's professor 25 years ago when there were nine students in your class. So, my gosh, what a journey. Congratulations for you. For me, with RIM...

Everywhere. It even transforms the reason. It's horizontal. Right. It's horizontal. And there's no... There's no articulation of that. So it's very important. He defines, he lays out a path that affects us to an adverse outcome because of the dichotomy. And he says nothing about the innovation structure adjustment.

But he uses further 1970s economic analysis that he says, because he very famously said, businessmen are sitting on dead money. It's a very famous expression, he said. And he said that we use shovels instead of excavators, backhoes. He said that, which means we don't invest in technology. So the key is that if you just...

If business people stopped being lazy and they opened up their wallets and just threw it in there, they would do great.

But it's also a variation of complacency. Yes, exactly. Resource-cursed complacency. And I've been doing business in this country for 35 years. I have never met a CEO who says... I'm just going to take it easy and be on the dock this weekend. I don't want to double my profits this year. I've dealt with money managers all that time, both for investing companies and me putting my money to work.

I have never met a money manager who says, you know, I'm happy to be third quartile this year rather than first quartile because the fishing's good.

yeah and and the fact of the matter nobody's sitting back on their laurels every businessman has this nose that they're sniffing for money and they're sniffing how to make money that's the game everybody does that all day every day and for somebody who's been fundamentally a career civil servant and to make these broad articulations

who has never gone out and got a purchase order and traded Canadian goods globally, that actually means that he doesn't understand the nature of how capital goes in the productivity function. But he's also shuffling off responsibility. Well, the issue is if you don't have the IP... And you don't have control of the AI function. If you put the money in that, that accrues to the owner of that.

So it's like you building a house on land you don't own. And we had an economic policy of never owning the land underneath it. And then he says, well, look, if you build a house on that, it's going to be a great, big, beautiful hotel. Don't be so lazy. Where the business kind of goes, I know I don't own the land. I don't know how to own that land.

I don't have a public policy that supports me there. But I'm sure not going to turn my dollar into 10 cents. Now, the public investments have always turned 10. a dollar into 10 cents, but that's taxpayer money. But if a businessman does that, they're quickly bankrupt and out of the business.

yes prodigies yeah uh so so with me with rim uh it's the greatest i mean first of all uh i believe capitalism is the in a liberal democracy is the best form for human flourishing in the world and and i'm an ardent fan of capitalism entrepreneurship technology innovation

So his articulation and framing of, we just have to spend more money longer, which is Einstein's definition of insanity, I think is misplaced because he's not resolving the core issue, which is what creates a good investment opportunity in an era of intangibles.

And so I look at his prescriptions and you have to, it's important to understand this for people is that he's a macroeconomist and a central banker. And that's a very narrow function, right? Your responsibility is price stability of the money systems, banking stability in the regulatory, compliance of the payment systems. You operate in a narrow but important realm.

But your involvement with the firm and the productivity, that's a very distant part. It seems similar. Right.

Well, the metaphor I can say is it's like he's a leading dermatologist. Yeah. He's a doctor. Yeah. And he said, well, I'm a doctor. I'm going to do a neurosurgery because that's a doctor and the brain is very close to the face, which has got skin. So I can do this. And in fact, these are very, very different realms that have very different levels of expertise.

But there seems to be a comfort and a cavalierness way into realms that... have Canada's performed poorly. He has been part of a scene that's performed, an architect of a scene that's performed poorly. And he has no expertise in this realm and no experience. He didn't need to have it as central banker, but he's availing as if he does.

And it makes me nervous because his thinking to me is just a more efficient Trudeau. Yes, much more efficient. More professional.

Yeah, but I think efficient in this direction, given what's happened to Canada.

And we're last place already. What's below last place?

He's a dermatologist, and we need a neurosurgeon. And they're both on the head, but they're different, and they're really different.

Well, when I wrote that piece about we're all economic nationalists now, that was really a word to the neocons, that if you're a Friedmanite, then be a Friedmanite. Adjust to the facts on the ground. I've recently heard some things that are encouraging that seem like the emergence of, and Mr. Polyev does not owe us a full campaign yet because the campaign has not started.

And that created the framework for me to be partners with Mike Lazaridis as co-CEOs to create Blackberry, something we took that really globalized the smartphone, grew it from an idea to $20 billion in over 150 countries around the world. And it's remarkable, you prosper beyond your wildest dreams. You change the world and you also learn how the world works.

So my fulsome evaluation is to be done. But I think Carney's played his cards because he's in a campaign, right? He's written a book and he's done a campaign. So I assume that's his playbook and Mr. Polyev is imminent. if there's an election imminent, which I think there is. And so, but he's done some green shoots, which intrigued me. He recently said, we need to take back control of our economy.

We need to be sovereign, secure and prosperous or something like that. But the fact that the government has a role of taking back control of our destiny and our security and our sovereignty and our prosperity and our economic entity, not as protectionism, but to make us strong for a dangerous world and to make our company strong going out to the world. Well, that's interesting.

He's introducing the second leg. And then what I've heard for the first time in 30 years, he has an industry critic named Rick Perkins who has said, we need to own our ideas. We need to control our data to build our companies. And nobody has said that. It was an interview about a month ago. And I'm like, well, where'd that come from? And then he's had... So where did it come from?

I think they're thinking. I think they're trying to think. They're trying to realize that there's two legs here. His trade critic, Ryan Williams, has been calling for updated trade strategies where we actually figure out how to project Canadian interests in these games where there's strategic behavior by nation states, which is encouraging because we should have had it 30 years ago.

Nice to start now. Michelle Rempel's been talking about updated competition strategies where you don't just throw it as one bucket. You need to compete in domestic services more, but you need to support our global traders more. So one is supporting them into the world. One is to compete away monopoly rents that hurt consumers. Again, that distinction has not been done for 30 years.

And I've heard Michelle Rempel and Adam Chambers talk about helping Canadian companies grow for the benefit and building more capacity in the civil service to deal with this change. So I see these as green shoots in what seems to be a loosely emerging industry. poly of doctrine. We see the Kearney doctrine. We know the Kearney doctrine.

A two-legged race. And if we don't have a two-legged strategy, we will be subordinated Puerto Rico without a passport. If we do have it, then the question is, are we effective in the capacity building of the political class and the civil service to actually perform into it while we've been atrophied in this realm for the better part of 30 years?

He's rooted... He's got bad economics. It's rude in the 1970s economics. It's poor economics. For a doctor, it's poor surgery.

With no strategies to resolve that dichotomy. Okay, so that's Mr. Carney. And then Moralize is that says we got to spend more money longer doing the things we did before because that's the key because people don't see the pot of gold of just opening up your wallets more, despite the fact we've been opening up our wallets for decades at enormous amounts. It's just about more and longer.

And I very quickly learned and had very good mentors in the United States that the way I'd been explained how the economy works is very, very different than the way it works in the ground. And so that's what shaped my experience at RIM. As I said, we grew it to...

Just following them. Yeah, following them. I've testified to committees. Yeah.

Well, the dilemmas of the muddling is going to be is we need a neurosurgeon, not a dermatologist. And say, well, get me a neurosurgeon tomorrow. And it's going to take time to train people to be a neurosurgeon. You can't just, you've got to find the expertise where it is and you've got to build the capacity. And that's not going to happen overnight.

And we have to have democratic discourse, not bullying. That's why I said we're all kind of like nationalists now. That's a calling out of the bullies. Because we don't do discourse. We do bullying in Canada. We don't do discourse. What do you mean by that? You just ad hominem shut people down and state your dogma, right? You're either free markets or you're North Korea.

And somebody says, well, you're just a mean whatever-phobe who just wants to be like MAGA. And in fact, these are very complex, very technical, very nuanced realms in a geostrategic era of strategic behavior. And the stakes are enormous. And what Trump has done is just laid it all bare. It's been going on for decades. He just turned the heat up really fast. I would say irresponsibly fast.

And I think he's miscalculated because if the world responds strategically... to that threat.

I retired at the end of 2011 when we had 5.2 billion in revenue on a $20 billion year and moved on to other things and Mike stayed with it. So yeah, that was my experience.

We have that opportunity. So will we build the capacity In our civil service, will the conservatives go through a process of actually debating ideas and figuring out this? Who should they be discussing this with? Like, where is the expertise that's available? There's lots of it in the country, but they have to be open to ideas. Who would they invite to speak? Who would they talk with?

There's lots of it. practitioners, and there's no business councils like in the U.S. Our domestic business councils, except for the Council of Canadian Innovators, are very dominated by foreign interests who are considered Canadian firms, but they represent the foreign firms.

Who think of Canada first. And they're in there in certain think tanks, certain universities. There are experts out there, but it has to begin with leadership that says... We're open to this. Because to have the right answer but not have everybody with you is not going to work. But I don't think we can do a five-year Royal Commission. That's because it needs to be something quicker and iterative.

Why 100%? Because I deal with them with regularity. But they've been pushed to the fringes by the people who cooked this strategy 35 years ago. And they're fighting on all they can to protect their legacy of getting it right in spite of this Canadian resource curse. And I'm saying we are where we are today. because of this flaw and you need to bring in new voices.

And I've funded a new initiative called Public Policy Shield Initiative, much more for young scholars and young thinkers to come in and architect the future that they want, that they're gonna inherit and they're gonna live in. And I think if Pierre Polyev or Carney chooses to embrace these true experts to design a proper two-legged race, then I think we're going to be okay. Maybe better than okay.

Much better than okay. But I get very nervous about a more efficient Trudeau and the hubristic representation of knowing things that you don't and a little humility with openness to ideas and a communication structure with Canadians that says, I'm involving new smart voices. I've got good leaders who are buying into this. I'm open to this stuff. We're going to be on this journey together.

I think our future can be the best yet to come. But if we fail in that, I think the failure will be... Marking. Yeah, really bad.

And that sounds pretty bad, but the situation you outlined could be- And we missed the boat in the data-driven economy of AI, so extreme that we're actually inviting Google to own the AI, own the IP, and control the citizens and have the control of security and get all the wealth and economic effects from our largest city. Yeah.

But we could. And we have the resources because, the financial resources, because we do have... liquid assets to deploy in this country. We don't invest them here because the business case is not there, but we could create that through pension funds and Canadian savings. I think we have to think about what we do spend our personal time and money on and find out that we have more of that

I've had, as an example, considerable interplay with Premier Smith of Alberta and Premier Canoe of Manitoba, NDP and Conservative. Extremely impressed by how they want to chart this kind of value-added future for their economy. I think... I think Manitoba has more critical minerals than Ontario does. One of the greatest reserves in the world. And they want to do value-added strategies.

Premier Smith also wants to do value-added strategies. And her economy with energy in the realms we talked about, in agriculture and healthcare and AI and IP, they see the potential. They see what they give away. And same with Premier Canoe. So I see the political leadership of the subnational countries. I see green shoots international or national. I see all the fundamentals are there.

You have all the spices in the spice rack if you choose to cook a good meal. So yeah, I think the potential is there.

And thank you, President Trump, for finally forcing the issue.

And also do, most of my time is still with my businesses around the world. I spend two thirds to three quarters of my time with my businesses in North America, tech and other, and in Europe and the Middle East. So yeah, most of my, I'm still fundamentally a businessman.

Sure, sure. And again, I come at this as an ardent capitalist, so I'm going to explain how capitalism works and Canada's issue in this and why the US and other like-type economies have thrived so much in this changed era.

The traditional economy is a production economy where you manufacture goods and you produce them with efficiency and scale and you sell them at a positive margin and you fundamentally compete on cost. And the purpose of trade agreements was to get rid of friction of moving those products or what are called tariffs or border adjustments. And that's the traditional economy.

And Canada does that pretty well. It set up foreign branch plants. They brought technology. They brought machinery. They brought capital. They brought management. And when you set up these plants... They create domestic supply chains. They create upskilling of workers. They create domestic tax base.

And you get lots of these positive spillovers and the headquarters gets good performance and everything works great. And that was Canada's prosperity. Canada had tremendous prosperity post-World War II, really up until the early 1990s. About 30 years ago, the US culminated a multi-year effort to birth the knowledge-based economy of intellectual property.

And so this culminated with putting in the NAFTA agreement, extensive intellectual property provisions in 1994, But also in the World Trade Organization, the U.S. led a five-year exercise to globalize intellectual property rights. And it was called TRIPS, the Trade-Related Aspects for Intellectual Property Systems, I think something like that. And so the world shifted to...

amassing IP assets and collecting a rent. So it stopped being a production-based economy only, and it became a two-legged race, liberalizing markets, capital, and labor through production economy, Ricardian comparative advantage of making things, to a parallel race of enclosing knowledge, using agreements to spread friction and monopoly to capture a rent based on an idea.

And that's interesting because that's at the time we were also doing Blackberry. And my mentors in commercialization were in the U.S. and helping me in Washington and all the different things we had to do to navigate. But I think the original sin in Canada was in 1994. Early 1994, Canada signed two agreements. The NAFTA agreement with extensive intellectual property provisions, which was new.

and the TRIPS agreement of the World Trade Organization, which was the globalization of the IP system. But what's interesting is domestically in Canada, later that year, they published a book called The Orange Book. Who was they? Industry Canada, the government of Canada. It published an orange book, and you can see it on the web, called Building a More Innovative Canada.