Category: Navigator Black

Geoff Smith is the executive chairman of EllisDon. The Mississauga-based firm provides construction and related services on projects around the world including the Middle East and North Africa.

Chris Hall: Over your years with EllisDon, have you put together a policy about when and how to respond to international incidents that might have an impact on your company?

Geoff Smith: No. We do not have a policy on that. We do have policies around inclusiveness and diversity where I would tell you I’m very proud of what we’re doing, and I think we’ve been an industry leader.

We have very clear policies and a clear statement of values on how we treat people, about what we stand for, but literally until October the 7th, it never occurred to us that we would need a policy around those issues that you’re talking about.

We have discussed in this company — I don’t want to say a 50,000-foot level, but let’s say a 1,000 foot level — that we welcome everybody and we will not tolerate a lack of accommodation, a lack of a deep attempt by everybody to understand each other and to take the time to work with each other.

I think we did a reasonably good job of it, generally. But that’s it.

This industry has a racism problem at large and it’s an anti-black racism specifically, although we have anti-Asian and anti-women prejudice too. EllisDon has been working really hard on this front and we’ve let the employees define what those policies are and what we need to do. I don’t tell them what we’re doing. They tell me what I need to do. We work very hard on it.

But to your question on what’s going on in Gaza right now and what happened on October the 7th, the answer is we never had a policy around that kind of thing.

CH: So what kind of input did you get from people? Because you are present in Muslim countries. Did you have a discussion with your senior staff or your employees about how to respond to this conflict?

GS: We had a conversation with our senior management team, which is about 40 people, and which obviously includes the CEO.

We did talk about it, but we talked about it in terms of, until we think we better do something different, let’s just keep talking about the things we believe in, which is inclusiveness, which is universal tolerance.

I wasn’t there because I’m not the CEO anymore, but it was important for the new CEO to be there.

We’ve also taken steps around mental health, which goes beyond these issues, but the mental health challenges are very acute in construction. We’ve taken real steps around how we provide assistance to our employees, from places to go, to where to turn when they’re not feeling well.

So that’s what we’ve done so far.

CH: But was there any concern put forward about saying something on this issue given the operations you have in that part of the world?

GS: No, I mean let me put it this way, I’m not worried about people asking why we’re there.

What I’m more concerned about, within the company here, is any ethnic or religious tensions, because the fact is we’re spread out around many job sites, around many offices, and we are very diverse. That’s what I’m worried about — a lack of tolerance with what is now, obviously, a very inflamed issue in the world and having that inflammatory situation come to EllisDon.

So, we haven’t seen it. We’re watching it. We have talked about whether we should go out with the statement, and I’ve seen a couple of good ones… We just haven’t done it because I don’t want to get it wrong and sometimes, as you know, if you go out with something and you get it wrong, then you took a situation where everybody was pretty calm and cool about this and you created an issue.

Anyway, that’s where we’re sitting right now. We’re just saying it’s OK. We keep talking about our values. We don’t see a problem. If we see one, we’re ready to act.

CH: You mentioned anti-black racism. I remember, I think it was in 2020, when you came out very publicly to condemn whatever or whomever was behind hanging the noose at a couple of your work sites. How was that different? I mean, I know it was local and specific to your company, but how did you approach that in terms of why it was important to speak then?

GS: Let’s be really clear about this. It was neither local — we had nooses in Calgary… we had nooses in Vancouver — nor was it specific to our company. PCL had nooses. The other companies had nooses. It was only EllisDon — and I’m very proud of this but it caused us so much grief — only EllisDon and Daniels who came out and said there are nooses on these job sites, we’re going to do something about it.

There’s a problem in society, but there’s a problem in our industry, and we’re going to stand up and say to everybody there’s a problem and ask what are we going to do about it.

Everybody else, I can tell you, they cut the nooses down and they threw them in the garbage. We told the media there are nooses on our job sites.

We could have hidden them. But I think our employees would have known we’re hiding them and that was the, if anything, the number one thing. How do you say to your black employees, “Yeah, we have a racism (problem), what did we do about it? We cut the nooses down to throw it in the garbage, get back to work.” That’s just unacceptable.

So, for a long time you got the impression that this was an EllisDon problem. It was not. It was EllisDon who said this industry has a problem. We needed to say it publicly and we needed everybody to help fix it.

I’m proud of the way we dealt with it. We went to our employees and said you tell us how to fix it. We’ve got three different employee councils now. One around sexual identity and sexual preference. One around intolerance generally. And one around anti-black racism. These are the three main ones, and they get together and they tell us what to do.

CH: What are the takeaways from this kind of issue for other corporate leaders? I know you speak for your company, but you have dealt with these kinds of issues before when external events required some kind of discussion internally at least. What lessons are there for corporate and other leaders about how to respond to a conflict like this?

GS: Well, I would only give you two answers — and I’ve mentioned both already. One is to get the employees involved in how you respond in an open way. We’re a company of 6,000 salaried employees and obviously we’re not going to hold a plebiscite. But we’re going get the leaders in. We are going to get the leaders of these committees (I mentioned) in within a day. So, speed, right? Speed is key.

Having the employees not just meaningfully involved but openly and obviously involved. It’s allowing them to feel that this is what we stand for, because my fellow employees, who I respect, are on it. I think that’s important.

And just like I said to you, no running and hiding from this stuff. You’re better off if you put it on the front page of The Globe and Mail. That complete openness is one of our five character values. If you have a problem, put it on a billboard beside the 401 and beside the Deerfoot in Calgary. If you do that, you will get the problem solved.

If you take your time and if it comes from the corner office, I just don’t think that works. So, we do many things the other way, but speed is key. That’s what I would say. Openness. Embrace it. Get the employees involved but fucking well do it fast. Do not have an employee meeting next Tuesday.

Uncertainty. Change. Growing polarization. Perhaps no election cycle has been more fraught with risk than the run-up to the 2024 United States presidential race. For Canadian businesses, managing the challenges and recognizing opportunities south of the border will be a major focus over the next 12 to 14 months. 

Few people understand Canada-U.S. relations better than David MacNaughton. As Canada’s former ambassador to the United States, he was instrumental both in making the case for Canadian investment and trade to the Trump administration and building alliances among American industries and other levels of government. MacNaughton is now president of Palantir Technologies Canada Inc., and continues to serve on numerous boards. Before his time in Washington, D.C., he served as a strategic advisor to governments and companies. 

We turned to MacNaughton for help understanding the risks and potential benefits ahead, especially with Donald Trump once again seeking the Republican nomination in a country that’s become increasingly polarized over his candidacy and America’s role in the global marketplace. 

While the former ambassador sees huge opportunity for Canada in the year ahead, he says Canada has to move beyond being satisfied with mediocrity. 

Chris Hall: As Canada’s former ambassador to Washington, what should Canadian businesses be watching for as the U.S. presidential race heats up? 

David MacNaughton: I think the underlying trend in both the Republican and the Democratic parties is increasing isolationism and protectionism. In the United States, we’ve seen the ebb and flow of protectionism and isolationism going back a long way. I think what you have right now, in both parties, is some elements of both. You see a whole group in the Republican Party that is against NATO, against helping Ukraine. And even though Biden has done a reasonably good job of reaching out to allies and pulling together a coalition to support Ukraine, there is still that underlying protectionism within the Democratic Party. Both of those developments have consequences for Canada and for Canadian business.

Chris Hall: Elaborate on that. What are the potential consequences? Because as ambassador during the first Trump administration, you dealt with these trade issues and the sense of protectionism. 

David MacNaughton: If you look at the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, it was essentially a massive subsidy to U.S.-based industry to adapt to green energy and we had to look at matching or coming up with similar subsidies. You saw it in terms of the money that Canada and Ontario put into batteries and the investment tax credits that [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia] Freeland had in her budget. So at the governmental level, they’re trying to figure out how to remain competitive with the subsidies happening in the U.S.

What I found when I went to Washington is that they will pursue what they think is in their best interests and that’s normal for any country. What they don’t appreciate is that Canada has a really important relationship with the United States, on both security and trade, and unless we remind them of it and enlist supporters, we will end up on the short end of the stick because they just don’t think about us. I mean, it’s just, “Canada, they’re nice people, they say sorry all the time,” and “You know, not a bad place to visit.” But there’s no sense of the integrated economy.

Chris Hall: Donald Trump is running again. While I don’t want to prejudge the outcome of that nomination race, he has proposed at least one thing: that a 10 per cent tariff be imposed on all imports to the United States, regardless of country of origin. What are the implications of a renewed protectionist trade policy for a Canadian business looking for opportunities south of the border? 

David MacNaughton: First of all, let’s discuss that proposal. My guess is it will have trouble getting through Congress. But the fact that he’s proposing it is an indication that there is an element in the United States electorate that sees foreign competition as being bad and unfair. I remember the first time we met with Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau raised the softwood lumber issue. [Commerce Secretary] Wilbur Ross was in the meeting and said, “You know the Canadians subsidize their timber.” Of course I challenged him on that. And then Ross said, “Mr. President, we have tariffs on at the present moment but we’re negotiating a quota arrangement.” And Trump’s response was, “I like tariffs. I don’t like quotas. Quotas tend to drive prices up.” And you just kind of shake your head and say, clearly, there’s a kind of gap in understanding of economics there. I think Trump doesn’t have deep policy expertise or views. He is tapping into a sentiment in the United States, and I think it’s that sentiment we have to be concerned about.

Chris Hall: You mentioned that protectionism is part of the ethos now of the United States. So what strategies can Canadian businesses and investors adopt to try and deal with that?  

David MacNaughton: It’s kind of a combination of working collaboratively with the people in the United States who understand Canada’s importance and occasionally showing a little bit of toughness.

We can’t get into a full-scale trade war with the United States. We depend far more on our trade with them than they do on their trade with us. Having said that, there are important elements where they do rely on us. We can remind them of the importance of that two-way trade and keeping it open.

Chris Hall: You helped negotiate the new trade agreement [CUSMA]. Presumably, this will become a target for candidates looking to score points with the American public in the next year and a half. To what extent is it in jeopardy? 

David MacNaughton: It’s quite possible that it’ll become a subject of some discussion. I think that what you will find is that the principal target of the American discontent will be Mexico because they have a whole series of other issues, including the border. The Canadian issues tend to be isolated, whether it be software or supply management. During the negotiations, in the first instance, the Americans wanted to specify that a certain amount of automobile content had to come from the United States. Basically, that would have killed our auto industry because there would have been two sources of automobile production. One in the United States and the other in Mexico.

Obviously, we were trying to figure out how the heck we were going to get in that tent with the Americans. Luckily, one of our trade officials came up with an idea and said, “Why don’t we propose that percentage of the automobile be produced in factories that pay their workers a minimum of $16 an hour.” All of a sudden we were on the same side of the table as the Americans because no Mexican plants paid an average of $16 an hour. So it’s a combination of cajoling, some targeted threats and some creativity.

Chris Hall: You haven’t mentioned the push that came after the Trump administration for nearshoring or onshoring supply chains. Is that something businesses should continue with no matter how the election turns out?  

David MacNaughton: Yeah. What the Obama administration called it is friend-shoring. But most of the friends that they’re looking at actually are in the United States as far as I can tell.

But there’s a huge adjustment going on in supply chains in terms of looking at reducing dependence on China, and seeking both secure and friendly places to get supplies from. That adjustment to global supply chains is going to take time but it creates opportunities for Canada. If you look at critical minerals, Canada’s got a huge number [that are] currently supplied from China, some from Africa, some from South America. We have to figure out how we’re going to get those resources to market quicker. I talked to a former senior security advisor to the United States government a while ago and was asking about critical minerals and I said, “Would you be prepared to sign a sort of take-or-pay long-term contract in order to get access to Canadian minerals?” He said, “Yeah, sure, but we’d like to have the delivery before 2050 because it takes you guys so long to get your act together.”

Chris Hall: Something to consider. Can I ask you about politics, too? Looking to the Americans, there is a sense in this country that they are more deeply divided, more polarized politically than perhaps any point in recent history. What’s your assessment of the implications of a country (that) divided along party lines? 

David MacNaughton: Well, I think it’s serious and very worrying. But the other thing, the reality, is that I worry about it infecting our own politics in Canada. I think it already has, not to the degree that it has in the United States, but the Americans have a remarkably resilient country. They have a huge economy, the largest economy in the world still. It’s very innovative and productive. I’m not saying they can get away with being stupid about their politics, but they can get away with it a hell of a lot more than we can. And what we were able to do when we faced an existential threat, which was the threat to get rid of the free trade agreement, Canadians pulled together, the federal and provincial governments, the private and public sector unions, Indigenous people. I mean everybody worked together in this country to help us succeed. And I think what’s happened in the last couple of years is that sense of common purpose has broken down and we have become much more fractured in terms of our approach to things. I’m not blaming the right and I’m not blaming the left. I think both sides are to blame for this kind of polarization. As a country of 40 million people with productivity issues and not a big enough domestic market to thrive, we just can’t afford that.

Chris Hall: Let’s get a broader picture from you of U.S. leadership in international affairs. Trump isn’t a huge fan of NATO or global co-operation on climate change. You’ve talked about a global goodwill here. Are you worried that support for these initiatives could dissipate as we look ahead to November 2024? 

David MacNaughton: I do worry about the ability for the United States to provide international leadership in a number of those forums. But I think the other thing we’ve got to realize is that some of the international institutions we’ve relied on since the Second World War to maintain peace and prosperity have broken down. They don’t work. I mean the United Nations is, I won’t say useless, but it’s hardly a vibrant organization. The World Trade Organization is a bit of a joke. So we need to think about our alliances as being based on a gathering of the willing … and to work with the Americans on hemispheric challenges, including migration in Central and South America. Canada can’t be a freeloader or a free rider anymore. On things like climate change the discussion is a really, really complex one. Anybody who says you’re going to solve the problem by having a bunch of people go to Paris or wherever and agree on targets, that’s just naïve. I would like to see plans rather than targets in terms of achieving some sort of an energy transition.

We’ve been missing in action on a lot of those fronts. We’ve been heavy on rhetoric and agreeing to targets and weak on practical plans that can help achieve global solutions rather than simply Canadian ones.

Chris Hall: Last question. I get a sense that you see far more risk on the horizon than you see benefits for Canadian business. Is that fair? 

David MacNaughton: Step back and look at the globe today. Look at Canada and ask, where is there a country that has our advantages? We’ve got natural resources. We’ve got a positive attitude towards immigration. We’ve got an educated workforce. What else would you want to have to make this a leading economy in the world? Well, we seem to be satisfied with mediocrity and that’s not just a knock against government. I think some of industry is the same way, too.

We don’t encourage, in my view, enough competition within the marketplace. So, on the one hand, I look at it and I see a huge opportunity for Canada. But we can’t achieve great things if we insist on scoring cheap political points on our opponents rather than having a vision where we can work together towards common objectives. If Canadian governments don’t get their act together and work with the private sector, I see lots of threats. If we do, I just see huge opportunities for this country.

Authored by Rod Lohin, the Executive Director of the Michael Lee-Chin Family Institute for Corporate Citizenship at the Rotman School of Management, Key concepts and terms in corporate sustainability strategy, sustainable finance, and sustainability reporting looks at the growing body of evidence over the past 20 to 30 years of how sustainability strategy and sustainability finance are good for business and better for society, too. We are moving from an era of corporate social responsibility (CSR) to “creating shared value” (CSV), or the age of corporate purpose.

To get to the heart of some of the many existential challenges facing Canadian businesses, we spoke to Dominic Barton, one of Canada’s proudest expatriates and a leading authority on global business. Barton is chairman of Rio Tinto and LeapFrog Investments, serves as chancellor for the University of Waterloo, and recently joined the Eurasia Group as a strategic counselor. He previously served as Canada’s ambassador to China and as global managing partner of McKinsey & Company, where he spent the majority of his career.

Barton is known for helping some of the world’s top CEOs navigate challenging transformations and has provided advice to heads of government in Canada, the United States, Singapore and South Korea. Drawing on this experience, Barton helped us make sense of the “new form of globalization” he sees on the horizon, the probable recession and challenges for the environmental, social and governance (ESG) movement. Despite volatile social and economic conditions, he is optimistic about the opportunities that lie ahead for Canadians and Canadian businesses.

At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the rise of stakeholder capitalism captured the attention of investors and media alike. As we face an affordability crisis, has the pendulum swung the other way?

We’re at an inflection point; there are just so many forces coming together at one time: technology shifts, economic power shifts, rising inequality, declining levels of trust, supply shocks and the war in Ukraine. Governments and businesses are worried about supply chain security. We’re moving towards a new form of globalization.

We’ve spent a humongous amount of money trying to get through COVID-19. We’ve got an inflationary bogeyman that we’re all facing. It feels like the tanks are drained, patience is low and brittleness is high. People are frustrated.

In university, I studied financial and economic crises and, like many economics students, I read Charles Kindleberger’s Manias, Panics and Crashes. He refers to the five-stage life cycle of a bubble. The fourth stage of this cycle sees insiders selling off their shares and the fifth stage sees outsiders running for the exits, causing a bubble to burst altogether. I think we’re somewhere between stage four and five. After an initial high with cheap borrowing and easy-to-access capital, nearly $11 trillion in stock market value has disappeared since the January 2022 peak. We’re likely going to have a recession; we’re going to have dislocation and we’re going to see unemployment go up. There are also political cycles, with governments seeking an evolving balance between national and global interests.

You have to think long term. This can be a time when you actually build, when people are running for the hills. Think about investing in your competitive advantages, your talent, critical capabilities, including R&D, and your suppliers, as counterintuitive as that might be.

Can you elaborate on the new form of globalization you see on the horizon?

Globalization is not going away. We’re not going to suddenly become nationalistic countries and stop importing and exporting. Consumers won’t put up with it. Companies won’t put up with it because they’ve gotten used to the efficiencies within the system that have improved our quality of living. Trade as a percentage of Canada’s GDP has increased three per cent from the global financial crisis and global trade nearly tripled from the beginning of the century to 2018.

But there have been challenges since then. With more emphasis on supply chain security and countries like Canada and the U.S. embracing the concept of friend-shoring, it’s likely that we will see a reduction of trade in goods.

Countries want to make sure they’re secure, and for good reason. For example, Ukraine accounts for half of the world’s neon production, an essential ingredient for the lasers used to make chips, but its two leading suppliers had to shutter their operations following Russia’s attack. This had immediate knock-on effects on the world’s chip-manufacturing capacity and the production of cellphones, laptops and cars. So there’s going to be conversations about identifying vulnerabilities and strengthening domestic capacity in certain areas.

And there are trade blocs forming. You’ve got the Eurozone, you’ve got North America (USMCA). That’s a really important bloc. There is ASEAN (Southeast Asia) where there are 600-million-plus consumers in that economic region. You’ve got MENAP, which is Middle East North Africa Pakistan. There is sub-Saharan Africa. You’ve got the South American and Central Asian economies that are going to be doing more together. Right now, 75 per cent of our trade is in North America and we must broaden it and see how Canada is positioned in all these key blocs.

It’s easy to overstate the decline of globalization, but what we can expect is a different type of globalization. There’s going to be more in the commercial services category – with people outsourcing work. And information will continue to flow quickly across borders through platforms like Facebook, YouTube and TikTok. There’s information that’s connecting people in the United Kingdom with people in Indonesia, on entertainment and e-commerce. In my view, we’re nowhere near the peak on that side.

What can we learn about the way Canadian consumers and political leaders responded to the Russian invasion?

The Russia situation has shown us that there are red lines in terms of international trade and commerce. Companies have to do the scenario analysis that asks what are our plans if we’re cut off and have to stop all trade and investment activity? What are we going to do when a critical ingredient we need for a solar cell or for a chip in a cellphone is not there?

It’s one of the areas where banking regulators may be the most sophisticated in assessing risk because they say to banks: you have to be prepared for these tail risks – think about the “Taiwan risk,” for example. Even though the probability may be low, you have to be prepared. It’s not zero. Ten years ago, I wouldn’t even be thinking about it.

Do you have any advice for leaders who want to focus on long-term goals while contending with intense short-term pressures to cut costs?

You have to acknowledge that there are economic cycles and parts of those cycles are obviously deeply unpleasant. There are significant ups and downs. A lot of companies can go bankrupt and disappear. It’s serious.

But if you look at the major crises that the world has gone through, like the Global Financial crisis of 2008-2009 and the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-1998, there’s considerable research to show that companies that invested and were competitive in critical areas, like R&D, in the middle of these crises actually came out of them with better financial performance. In the middle of the crisis, their stock prices may have lagged compared with others who did not invest, but in the long run they were rewarded for investing strategically.

If I think about Korea and Singapore in the middle of the Asian Financial Crisis, most foreign companies were shutting down, scaling way back or leaving the region, saying we’re done. It’s done. It’s all over.

As a consultancy, Booz Allen held the top position in the Asia region in the 1990s. And they cut back when the Asia crisis hit. Our view at McKinsey was that Asia is and will be an important market over time despite those 1997 challenges. We wanted to be a relevant and significant player in Asia, so we actually invested and hired a lot of people, including many who were leaving Booz Allen. Now, McKinsey is the leading strategic consultancy in the region today.

It’s one example of many, but it’s important to “look through the cycle” you’re in and see through it to actual opportunities. Senior management needs to be honest that it will be difficult. That you’re going to have to operate as efficiently and cheaply as possible. But that investing in priority areas will get you through the other side better positioned. It takes guts to do that.

Having the strategic thinking to say this is going to be a pivot point where we develop a competitive advantage because we’re more focused, aggressive and disciplined than our peers. That’s what long-term companies are supposed to be. Warren Buffet is the epitome of this, right? Remember, he invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs in 2008.

At the same time, we have to ask: what are the cuts we each have to take? I’d rather meet with the executives and pare it back. We may need to suffer. That means no bonus. We’re going to cut the non-fundamental stuff. But don’t touch the core elements, particularly people, R&D and priority customer and supplier relationships.

Has political polarization created an added challenge for the ESG movement?

Since I’ve been at Rio, I’ve seen a bit of a shift. There was a lot of investor excitement and interest in ESG and our decarbonization goals. It’s sort of dropped down. People have said, imagine what your dividend would be if you kept met coal.

I’ve explained that we didn’t because we’re committed to making a shift. We’re a 150-year-old company with a with a 20- to 30-year investment horizon and getting this right on climate is the right answer. So we will continue to aggressively pursue our decarbonization objectives. There are short-term costs, but we’re positioning ourselves to win the real war. I’m finding myself even more determined.

The other issue is that different aspects of ESG can conflict with each other. They don’t all neatly go together. In Rio’s case, for example, we have been seeking a “win-win” compromise with local Indigenous leaders in Arizona on our Resolution Copper project. We know that respecting and working with host communities is imperative.

We need this project because the U.S. and the world needs copper. If we don’t have copper, we’re not going to do the energy transition. Since humankind has been on the planet, we’ve produced 700 million tons of copper. If we’re going to meet the Paris goals, we’re going to have to produce the same 700 million in the next 20 years. The project makes sense from an environmental perspective, but obtaining the social licence takes continued work.
My view is that you have to accept that an answer may not be perfect, but you have to have a point of view and go for it, and don’t let “perfect be the enemy of the good” because then nothing gets done. We’ll just sit here and be paralyzed and burn the planet down. That’s not acceptable.

Picking up on that point, what role should mining companies be playing in the climate transition?

They have a critical role. We won’t be able to do decarbonization without mining companies. A 1.5 MW wind turbine alone uses 1,900 pounds of copper. Electric vehicles use six times more critical minerals than conventional cars.

So mining is critical, but it needs to do better to get the social licence. Even people who understand its importance don’t always want it in their backyard. The minerals are where they are, including some of the most remote parts of the planet. You have to work with that environment and engage with host communities in a responsible manner.

At Rio, we want to be carbon zero by 2050. We want to reduce our own Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 50 per cent by 2030, but we need to do a better job explaining what we do and why it’s important for the world.

We’ve spoken about several challenges for Canadian businesses. What makes you optimistic?

I see huge potential for Canada, especially in these times. When you look at what’s happening in the world — we’re eight billion people going to 10 billion. There is this long-term set of fundamental forces that are underway — technology, climate change, demographics, income inequality. I can’t think of a country that’s better positioned to deal with all this.

You have to think about the water we have, the energy, the mineral resources. That’s one dimension. The second is the people. Our values are very global, multicultural. That’s a huge advantage in this tricky world.

We’re a technology leader; we just don’t talk about it. Go back to Nortel, to BlackBerry. AI is something I’m very excited about because we have three global-class centres in Canada and I think we’re leaders. We have all the active ingredients, but we sometimes lack the ambition.

Our political extremes are a hell of a lot less than what you see in the U.S. We shouldn’t take it for granted, but they’re a hell of a lot less. We’re a reasonable people. That matters over the long term. We have amazing pension funds that are truly world class. I’m just keen that we unleash these capabilities.

I think, in Canada, we should have 50 leading global companies that are number one or two in their industries. Because that creates its own cycle: R&D, innovation, leadership development, talent development. Maybe because of our strengths we are complacent, but I go very long on Canada.