The Globe and Mail reports in its Monday, May 18, edition that a report that Washington sought a "down payment" from Canada to start talks on the USMCA led to a strong consensus to refuse payment for the "privilege" of negotiating. The Globe's guest columnist Daniel Schwaneh writes that this situation calls for Canada to not offer an upfront concession, but an upfront vision. Economist Michael Pettis argues that it makes little sense for the U.S., in seeking to reduce dependence on China, to simultaneously undermine Canada and Mexico. A stronger Canadian economy will attract more U.S. imports, provided tariff uncertainty is lifted, and retaliatory barriers removed. Canada does not need to validate the President's world view to commit to balanced trade between the two countries. What Canada can do is propose a structure that makes escalation less attractive for both parties. Canada should insist on three key points. First, any commitment to "balanced trade" should include services. Second, if the U.S. focuses solely on the goods balance, Canada should seek an energy carve-out recognizing its importance to U.S. security. Third, Canada should secure tariff-free quotas in sectors affected by Section 232 tariffs.