We are creeping closer to the deadline set by the Carney/Trump duo on where all the trade discussions are going to end up. 

I’ve lost count of how many “deadlines” there have been, but the latest one is August 1st. It seems increasingly clear that if that is the final deadline then the final answer will be some sort of tariffs. Even the PM concedes that now. 

But how much and on what? Every day produces more guesses. As a result, there are all sorts of assessments and opinion pieces on what to consider. I’ve narrowed it down to one piece this week. Try this from Neil Moss in The Hill Times:

🔒 Transparency in trade talks to come when deal complete, says Senator on Canada-U.S. council

Part of the process on leading towards this new Canada, as some describe it, is consultation with all partners on the Canadian side. 

That’s why we’ve seen frequent cabinet meetings, frequent premiers’ meetings, frequent meetings with business leaders. But how frequent are the meetings with Indigenous leaders? There was one on Thursday with at best, mixed results – it’s rare you can make everyone happy.

But have there been enough direct talks? Not according to this piece from Deliah Bernard in The Globe:

🔒 Instead of scrapping Indigenous consultations, let’s make them better

When it comes to consultations, this may surprise you. 

Danielle Smith has a tough reputation, one that suggests that when she makes up her mind, it’s full speed ahead no matter the obstacles. 

There’s no doubt she’s a controversial premier but is it fair to say she always ignores voices of opposition? I’ve been in Alberta a few times this year and I have two more trips planned in the next couple of months. Twice I’ve been in the room where Smith has done a Q-and-A session with parties challenging her position. Both sessions went longer than planned and in both cases, she wasn’t shy - she engaged in discussion, even debate. 

Not everyone left happy, but they left convinced they’d been heard. Here’s another example from Jason Markusoff of the CBC:

A farmer protested policy at a Danielle Smith town hall. 5 days later, it was paused

Journalist turned politician Evan Solomon is slowly trying to turn his newly created AI cabinet post into a functioning department. 

It’s not easy starting from scratch, but he has a plan. The question is, is it the right plan? Don Lenihan asks that in this National Newswatch piece:

Evan Solomon’s Plan to Build Trust in AI: Is it Enough?

Some of us have been around long enough to remember the days when government members could have private stock portfolios and no one said boo. 

Then it was deemed that it was worth a few boos and guidelines were put in place for blind trusts. Some even went so far as to suggest journalists should face the same restrictions. I can recall, during the 1988 free trade election, questions being raised about my stock portfolio because we had been covering the ups and downs of the market as part of the news. The suggestion was I’d push for market crashing stories to benefit my holdings. It was ridiculous of course, but the suggestions did happen. 

These days the same old “who holds what and how blind are the trusts they’re in” are being raised again, directed mainly at Mark Carney who, not surprisingly, coming from whence he came, holds a lot of stocks and bonds and whatever else is classified to go into a blind trust. He and the ethics counsellor say he’s following all the rules to the letter. But that’s not good enough for the naysayers, they want more.

Well, here’s to long time Conservative strategist Tim Powers who is calling “bullshit” (sorry for the BS word, but really in this context, it is the right one). This has gone too far, argues Mr. Powers, and it’s just stupid. Take it away, Tim:

🔒 Hurly-burly nonsense around Carney’s assets is standard politicking—and a shame

The Buzz has been following the brain drain flowing into Canada from the States in the past few months and lately, it’s been picking up both in the numbers draining into our country, and the stories American papers are doing about it. 

Especially the NY Times. Here’s their latest:

Canada’s Trump-Fueled Brain Gain

I’m also loving all the Greenland stories that pop up these days ever since the Orange man sent some of his flunkies to Greenland on a shopping expedition. 

But they really hadn’t done their research. They would have been much better off if they just hired The Walrus to give them a little context on US-Greenland relations:

Greenland Has Been Fighting Off Americans for Over a Century

Greenland Has Been Fighting Off Americans for Over a Century

We all know why, in a world where the big network’s cringe, crumble and crater to Donald Trump. Well, it’s now official:

🔒 Is Colbert’s Ouster Really Just a ‘Financial Decision’?