Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Today on the True Patriot Love Media Network, under the Pillar Economy, we're going to examine the five creative chapters that lay out the new initiatives in the 2025 federal budget and let you know our thoughts on if any of them has a shot at increasing our subpar productivity in Canada or increasing our gdp. The federal government team worked really hard and did an excellent job writing this budget.
Given the mandate by the Prime Minister to switch the budget to a new accounting methodology, accrual accounting similar to the UK but somewhere it looks like the Federal Marketing Agency took over and this document became more form than substance with chapter captions like Building a stronger Canadian Economy, Shifting from reliance to Resilience, Empowering Canadians and Protecting Canadian sovereignty and Security, Creating a more efficient and effective government. Sure, the Federal marketing team gets an A for creative writing, but in the end, will it make a difference? Well, at this point it has to. Canada is on the brink. Given our strained relationship with the usa, we cannot afford to put money into projects that do not increase our productivity or have a return via increase in GDP and other better measures. Quite frankly, we will crash. If this plan does not work out, it will spell catastrophe for the economy. If we do not see growth, our personal assets, including home values will plummet, unemployment will go higher than the 2027 projected 9 to 10% and people will start to leave Canada en masse.
So we have to pay attention now. Canadians have always been happy to go about their daily lives not concerned about the federal government and spending. But we are all starting to get a hard lesson in years of poor growth, lack of productivity have caught up to us and we are still feeling it at the supermarket real estate businesses leaving. We are at that turning point in Canada and these new and some old federal initiatives have to work or be abandoned forever. We are a small country so we can pivot, but we need to have contingency plans if these proposed plans do not work. We are all shareholders of Canada and we deserve a truthful answer analysis. And as we enter a very risky path with our country's future through record expenditures and investments. So stay tuned and let us know your thoughts today. I'm here with Mike Wixon and we're going to talk about the 2025 budget. We started going through the profit and loss statement of the federal government and today we're going to dig into those.
How do I put it? Those marketing terms that were in the budget and I love them. I think I've mentioned that before on other shows. The guys who write the budget, I think they did a terrific job. And I'm not being sarcastic when I say that they did really have a tough task because we were converting what was a cash accounting system to an accrual accounting system, and there was a lot of rejigging in this budget. This is probably one of the more complicated budgets, Mike, that we've had.
I think they did a terrific job. But let me take you through some of the marketing spin that's in this.
They actually had a reconciliation in the budget, and they have five chapters on the programs that they're really focusing on. So when they talk about the investment in Canada and this being going to restructure the whole investment of the country, they're talking about building a stronger Canadian economy, shifting from reliance to resilience, empowering Canadians, protecting Canadian sovereignty and security, and creating a more efficient and effective government.
[00:04:01] Speaker B: Paul, did they look up the pillars of TPL Media by any chance?
[00:04:05] Speaker A: They might have. I think they're following it. They must be watching the show.
[00:04:07] Speaker B: It's so funny.
[00:04:08] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:04:08] Speaker B: But it seems like all of the major pillars of Canadian interest are kind of covered by those marketing titles.
[00:04:17] Speaker A: Yeah, they did. It was kind of funny. And I'll call them for the show, not to confuse anyone. Every once in a while, I probably will refer to them as pillars, but they're federal government pillars and there's five of them. Right.
And I think it's a good idea today for us to go through them and to talk a little, Mike, about how they categorized these expenditures between operating and capital.
[00:04:44] Speaker B: How is it possible for us to distinguish that in the budget? Is there some method that makes sense for people to understand when they're looking at the budget?
[00:04:53] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:04:54] Speaker B: Look at it this way.
[00:04:55] Speaker A: There is actually in each of the chapters, you know, this 400 plus page budget, there's five chapters that outline the pillars I just mentioned. And at the end of each one is a reconciliation of the account.
[00:05:09] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:05:09] Speaker A: Which is good. So it does show you in the end how much of this went to capital and how much went to operating.
The interesting part, which you're going to, you know, I don't want to ruin the show for everyone, but the interesting part is that you're going to see how little went into operating, how much got capitalized.
[00:05:29] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:05:30] Speaker A: So. And you know, we talked about it on the previous show when we broke down the federal government's profit and loss statement, kind of like you would do your own revenues and expenses for your own life. So we broke it down that way to explain to everyone how the 78.3 billion deficit for this year 2026 and $65 billion deficit for 2027 was broken down and then how on top of that, we have to spend a capital amount and then we have to finance it all. So that's the last show we did.
[00:06:03] Speaker B: The two bucket system.
[00:06:05] Speaker A: The two bucket system.
[00:06:06] Speaker B: It's a great. By the way, go back and watch that episode if you can, because it breaks it down for the average Canadian like myself.
Thanks, Paul. I appreciate you put the effort in and your team on this.
Just to make it a little more simple, this budget is really difficult for Canadians, I think, to understand just because of that major change from cash budget to accrual system.
All right, take us through the pillars. What are we spending the money on, Paul?
[00:06:35] Speaker A: Well, okay, so this is interesting.
Before budgets, there's always this release and the release is explaining to you some of the key projects. Right. And they always come out with it. It's every government does it. So Prime Minister Carney came up and he said, here are our national building projects and strategies.
And this was a map.
You have it up on the screen there. It basically talked about building a stronger Canadian economy through major projects. And this was how they were going to accelerate nation building. And the interesting part of it, when you take a look and I only. I broke down the budget only to the year 2027, the fiscal year.
[00:07:27] Speaker B: Because beyond that, to you, it seems a little fantasy land.
[00:07:31] Speaker A: Personally, there's a couple of things there. I would like to first of all see where they're at at the end of 2027, you know, because I think you can go to 2030, but quite frankly, if the projects aren't turning and doing well by 2027, I think they're going to have to pivot.
[00:07:47] Speaker B: Yeah, there needs to be a pivot at that moment.
[00:07:49] Speaker A: Yeah. I think one of the key things that this government's really got to pay attention to because if you, if you are a risk taker, and in this case, this is a very risky budget, you know, it's high investment, high spending.
You have to really monitor what you're doing. Like you have to say, are these projects recouping anything for me or are they just sunk costs?
[00:08:10] Speaker B: Because if you've accrued them over so many years, they're affecting every single budget that they're not effectively returning on.
[00:08:18] Speaker A: Yeah. If you're spending the money and they're not recouping, you're writing them off and they're increasing your total deficit line.
[00:08:24] Speaker B: So it's interesting to me, $3 billion is being budgeted 2.7 allocated as capital expenditure in 2027. And these projects are mainly mining, ports and power, if I may be honest with you.
[00:08:40] Speaker A: Well, so the interesting part is only $71 billion in 2027 is being spent on this. 71 million. Sorry, 71 million. So only. So these projects that we announce as major projects we're really only spending $71 million on. And quite frankly, I don't know, most of them are kind of either coming to completion have been started or. And there's up until 2030. There's. I think I have it in my notes here, they're spending another 244 million.
[00:09:19] Speaker B: So I don't understand. $71 million against 10 projects that are massive.
This does not build a port. This does not open up a security corridor. This does not create the LNG phase two. What is $71 million actually probably going toward?
[00:09:38] Speaker A: I think it's a lot of consulting, it's a lot of project development, a lot of maybe soft costs going into this number. But this definitely isn't a full charge on these projects, right?
[00:09:48] Speaker B: No, it's impossible that it would be.
[00:09:49] Speaker A: Some of these projects like I said, have been completed in the past. I think they're just being thrown on the list. But you know the one I always laugh about is the high speed rail between Ontario and Quebec.
[00:10:00] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:10:00] Speaker A: You know, it always gets on the list. It never is going to happen.
[00:10:02] Speaker B: It's never happening.
[00:10:03] Speaker A: Never happening.
[00:10:04] Speaker B: The other one that, the other thing that occurred to me is there's a lot of mining, there's a lot of.
How to put this, there's a lot of remote project development here outside of the major city cores. And it leads me to wonder, okay, how are we going to employ people in that in those areas and does this really go to the bottom line for employment and, and you know, then income tax revenues if they're so far removed from, you know, the major centers.
Yeah.
[00:10:36] Speaker A: Again, I just think a lot of them are.
They're good. They're good projects that occurred a while ago. I think you throw them on the list, you throw a bunch of money and you can talk about them in the budget.
[00:10:47] Speaker B: But I, that makes sense. Honestly, I don't think that's exactly what it looks like here. All of these are. They all have names that we're familiar with.
[00:10:54] Speaker A: Yes. Yeah, they've been marketed, they've been branded. I think again, the marketing company that put the budget together did an excellent job on getting us attached to the different branding for the initiative. Yeah.
[00:11:06] Speaker B: For sure. Yeah.
[00:11:07] Speaker A: So the next thing that came up, which if you look at that $3 billion, they created a set of tax incentives and I thought they did a good job. And they referred to this as supercharging growth.
And they allocated $3 billion in 2027. Most of it was capitalized, as we talked about it, and they did a good job in doing that.
Basically, you can write off your assets faster, you can get a quicker deduction, you can get immediate expense for manufacturing and building, accelerated CCA for low carbon, liquefied natural gas.
And basically marginal effective tax rates by more than 2% have been increased.
So there's some tax benefits. Yeah.
[00:12:04] Speaker B: Actually this makes a lot of sense to me in developing business.
[00:12:07] Speaker A: Yeah. And it doesn't really cost you a lot, quite frankly. You can throw it on the books. It's kind of the opportunity cost of not getting taxed. Americans probably do this really well.
Australians have been amazing at it. Right. That's been the premise for actually development. And a lot of industries in Australia.
[00:12:27] Speaker B: Right now, a lot of their, Their, their industries have been charged from within.
[00:12:32] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:12:32] Speaker B: And, and have done very well. I mean, we were seeing them take resource gigs that we could. Resource deals that they have with the US we could have easily been taking those.
[00:12:43] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:12:44] Speaker B: But we're not that far along in the. The development of this.
[00:12:47] Speaker A: Yeah. Our mining and lng, and that has been delayed.
They've kind of hopped to the front of the parade and they have a prime minister who's aggressive at it and they've given tax breaks to companies. They stopped subsidizing companies. One of the things that they did a while years ago, which is they had to hit a little bit of a hiccup. It was a bump. Right. The government said we're going to stop doing as much in subsidizing to companies coming to create employment here. And by doing that, they've kind of created a whole internal economy that they don't rely on companies to come in.
[00:13:19] Speaker B: And necessity filled that gap, I would assume.
[00:13:22] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Smaller entrepreneurs.
So, you know, if you go through. And the other one that pops to mind, Mike, when you look at this is a scientific research and experimental development. Tax incentives.
[00:13:33] Speaker B: Yeah. Shred credits.
[00:13:35] Speaker A: Shred credits. Right. So, you know, we back in. In this, we put a bunch of money into shred credits and I don't know, you know, mixed feelings on this, quite frankly.
Do I think it's a good idea?
Yes. Do I think it.
[00:13:56] Speaker B: I've seen short credits used in some very, very nefarious ways. If I may be honest with you. Yeah, never really amounted to much.
[00:14:04] Speaker A: No.
I hate to say it, but it tend to be kind of wasted opportunities and quite frankly I think they've thrown a little bit of money in here to try to get some stuff done.
[00:14:14] Speaker B: Like 1.5 billion. Doesn't seem like a huge a.m. i mean, and it's all up against business.
So these are existing business really. It's another way to support independent business in Canada.
[00:14:28] Speaker A: It is. The challenge is it has to get into the right hands to bring people. So you know, we're going to talk about it in a minute, but they're going to spend a lot of money this year bringing international talent. So if you're going to give companies the shred credits, you should align that with your international talent. So to sort of move your industrial production ahead. Right.
[00:14:48] Speaker B: So in other words, use these credits alongside getting the right talent to create earth shattering or globally desired accessible product.
[00:14:58] Speaker A: Yes, you got it. So now it's interesting because they had other things in here. So for example, they had 11 million in seizing full potential for AI. I saw that they had protecting Canadian intellectual property, 54 million. They had immigration levels planned for 29 million, which doesn't seem like a lot. Improving foreign credential recognition. They only wanted to spend 3 million. So you know, they're not truly that serious on that. It's not a big initiative for them.
[00:15:33] Speaker B: That's the marketing money. Yeah, that's it.
[00:15:34] Speaker A: Yeah, that's it. Then they don't really want to do that. Recruiting international talent. They spent, they budgeted for 2027, $226 million, which is kind of an odd one, right. Why would you spend $226 million to go abroad to find international talent?
[00:15:55] Speaker B: I mean, are these guys using Marriott? Because there's a cheaper way to do this, I think.
[00:16:01] Speaker A: Well, it's interesting. And then catalyzing investment in airports and ports. $3 million.
[00:16:06] Speaker B: Okay, this one caught my attention.
[00:16:08] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:16:09] Speaker B: I didn't understand how $3 million does anything at a port. It barely puts a gate on the fence.
So what is this meant to do? Create more studies.
[00:16:18] Speaker A: More? Yeah, more studies. Now here's the interesting thing about operating expenses were capital expenses. Right. So if you go to the next slide and it basically it shows that. And this is one they threw up in, in the budget. They basically said that 1.3 billion on AI is being invested by the government over five years. But then when you look at the 2027 budget, it basically has $11 million. Right. So but that's the difference between. Here's the funny thing. It's a couple things. Number one, money gets mixed into the different areas of the budget and then so much gets capitalized. So if you look at, if you look at this pillar which is building a stronger Canadian economy, they say we're going to spend $3 billion on it.
We're going to capitalize out of that 27. So in the operating expenses, you're going to see basically $300 million.
[00:17:13] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:17:13] Speaker A: Right.
So quite frankly, there's a bunch of.
[00:17:16] Speaker B: Quite the assumption, but okay, there's a.
[00:17:18] Speaker A: Bunch of money sitting in that capital budget which includes a bunch of things. And they're saying in that capital budget mostly is the AI expenditure of 1.3 because the only money that could hit the operating budget is about 11 million plus some that's mixed into other small line items. But for the most part that's what they're doing. And with airports, they're doing that too.
So they do talk about it. They talk about the projects and everything.
[00:17:46] Speaker B: Else, but they don't really commit hard dollars until I would imagine 26, 27.
[00:17:54] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:17:54] Speaker B: Okay. So right now there's 11 million of that 1.3 billion actually committed over the next year.
[00:18:01] Speaker A: Well, and sometimes they go back. So it's interesting. They've retroactively restated the budget back to 2025.
So they went back and they started setting up accruals. So they went back and tried to do apples to apples. So they've actually went back and restated the budget.
The books, let's say, not the budget, the books back to go forward. So it all looks like the same budget because you can't have a cash, you couldn't have cash accounting and accrual accounting and try to compare the two. It looked very wonky. Right. So they've done that job, which again, I take my hat up to the bureaucrats that worked on this. It's a yeoman's task. And only imagine for the short period of time they had how much work they did, which really is commendable.
[00:18:43] Speaker B: Kind of gives you an understanding now of, I mean, I complained a lot about this. Where's the budget? Where's the budget? Where's the budget? Well, now, you know, kind of understand what they were doing was a major overhaul of how we go about this.
And I have questions about that before we go today as well, planned investments in building in Canada.
So trade and transport infrastructure is 5 billion. I guess that's where we extend from the ports and we start to actually the rubber starts to meet the road.
The next amount on the planned Investment building is 19 billion for indigenous communities and municipal infrastructure.
That, by the way, averages $10,500 per Indigenous person in Canada.
That budget, not that that's where the money's going, but there are infrastructure projects that they're doing here. So here's my question. If you don't have the answer, of course, I don't know who would know this, but we put 19 billion into this, and these are indigenous projects.
Do those assets then hit the books for the federal government, or do those belong to the indigenous peoples who owns the asset that we're investing the 19 billion in, saying that there's a 5 billion or $7 billion asset left behind?
[00:20:03] Speaker A: Yeah, that's a good question. You know, that's a. I don't really know the answer to that one, Mike. But, you know, the question's an interesting question. It's similar to, you know, recently there was that issue in B.C. with the homes that basically were built on first nations land.
[00:20:18] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:20:18] Speaker A: And quite frankly, they came out and said, listen, we own, you know, we own. We owned a fractional part of those homes.
And so now these projects that the government's actually putting on their books that are indigenous or first nations projects, do they then own the projects?
[00:20:33] Speaker B: We'll come back to it too, because.
[00:20:34] Speaker A: Maybe I guess they do because they're capitalizing them. They're not like they're capitalizing them. They're putting them as an asset on a balance sheet.
[00:20:41] Speaker B: So if they're actually putting them on as an asset. See, I'm not an accountant, but even I saw if they're using assets to amortize this and keep the deficit down, this is $19 billion that may not be ours.
[00:20:58] Speaker A: Yeah, that's a good question, Mike. I'd love to, you know, probably next show, but, you know, it's interesting. So you look at this $115 billion. Now, most of that is capital, right? So those are in. There's three types of capital that the government has outlined in this budget. There's baseline capital.
[00:21:17] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:21:18] Speaker A: There's. They call it fees 2024, which is basically the estimates.
So if they change the policy after 2024 up to 2025, they. They account for it. And then there's in Budget 2025 capital. So there's three buckets. There's three holes, let's call it, of capital.
And quite frankly, they add up. They're significant, as we've talked about, and they include things like this generational infrastructure so if you look at the operating budget, which we're talking about reconciling for the $65 billion deficit for 2027, the interesting part is that that 300 million, sorry, the $3 billion they're going to spend on it, most of it is capitalized. It does include 4.75 in generational infrastructure, less funds previously provisioned. So when they do the accounting adjustments, it works out to about $2.2 billion in infrastructure. Generational infrastructure forward.
Well, that's only moved over into the capital.
[00:22:40] Speaker B: Right.
[00:22:40] Speaker A: Budget. Right. So it's moved over. So what's left in that 70 or $65 billion deficit? You know, revenues, less operating expenses is only a small portion of this amount of the 115 billion.
[00:22:54] Speaker B: Oh, I see. Okay.
[00:22:55] Speaker A: That's for the year. So there's only a small amount. So it gets moved over, capitalized. And so that's why you're seeing such an aggressive capital budget and a sustaining large deficit. Right. Because as we talked about in previous shows, the deficits are just kind of the standing expenses. Right. You know what we pay the seniors, anything we do. On top of that, this is, this is. And that's what's been ramped up capital investment. Right. Which is truthfully. And this is where, you know, it's odd that in some of these discussions that have taken place since the budget was dropped, the opposition should be spending all their time on these capital spends. They can go back and they can spend time on the operating budgets. They have to at some point because it's just getting larger, it's upside down. So they have to slowly reduce it to get us back into a reasonable operating deficit. But it's making sure these capital projects move forward and are successful.
[00:23:55] Speaker B: Paul, I want to ask you something.
Chapter two.
This caught my attention. Protecting Canada's Strategic Industries. Only 20 pages of the budget, which is a major portion of this presentation, funny enough, I saw your notes, lots of stats on demographics in other countries.
But in 2027, we'll spend $4.7 billion on capital expenditures.
[00:24:24] Speaker A: Well, 4 point. So interesting. So 4.7 on 27.
And we're going to capitalize. We're going to capitalize 1.4.
So it is going to be. This is money we're going to spend. This is money that's going to be hard. Expenses that come out, operating expenses that are coming out in 27. But this is, I think, Mike, this is what scares me a little bit again, where we have to spend some time.
We've just been through this in Ontario, with this kind of a scandal on training and everything else, retooling humans, it's a huge amount of money on that. Right. So, you know, we're talking about retraining, retooling companies, diversifying economies. Like all the words we're using in this, you know, this is kind of a concept right now. So we, this is like concept money that we've set aside.
[00:25:15] Speaker B: Also, not for nothing, but on our team, Shara pointed out just before the show, if we don't have people here to employ, that are what, training programs, if we don't have skilled and qualified people to come into these programs, even to retrain them and stuff like that, where is this money actually going? So it's almost like the cart before the horse on this one.
[00:25:36] Speaker A: Well, and it's, you know, it is a little bit. But, you know, this is where, where we're challenged at lowland Canada right now. And we can't make the mistake of not doing the right thing to make this work.
And basically we have to figure out our key industries that we want to be involved in. So what is going to make us the most money, increase our gdp. Then we have to find people and then we have to train them properly to do it. So with Jimmy Lang, I did this show and it's about building submarines.
We got a lot of views on it, a lot of comments, and everyone was an expert. I was surprised. There's a lot of really smart comments, which was great.
[00:26:17] Speaker B: People are very smart. Thank, by the way. Keep your comments coming. Yeah, they don't hurt our feelings. We learn.
[00:26:22] Speaker A: No, no. Well, but the one thing I think that they weren't paying attention to or I think we missed a little bit from the conversation was how do we take Canadians and train them to be in that industry? So as we're going, and we're going to spend billions of dollars to. On defense and submarines and aircraft, you know, how do we shift into that industry, use our ports to build submarines and things like that. But again, I use China just. I know the economy is different, the governmental system, I get all that. But one of the things the Chinese do really well is they have a definite strategic vision of how they create key industries within their country. And they do things with. With that in mind every time. So if they build a cruise leisure ship, you know, for like, like we would in Carnival Cruise Line to go on a cruise, they also make it functional. So at the end of the day, they can take military vehicles and load them up and ship them to another port. Yeah.
[00:27:27] Speaker B: And and they do. And they do this in many, many sectors and many industries in China that have a dual purpose. Yeah. You know, capital protection or capital asset or whatever the case is. But also is a corporation making a product for consumers.
[00:27:43] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah.
[00:27:43] Speaker B: They can flip on a dime and become operational for the purpose of the country.
[00:27:48] Speaker A: Yeah. Their whole, their whole auto industry, quite frankly, is geared up for their national defense. So when they want to switch an auto plant over, they can switch it over and go to weapon production.
[00:28:00] Speaker B: So this one does concern me a bit because it feels like maybe I don't know where it shows up in the budget, but I think it's in 2027. So we almost have to be up and operating in some industries that require us to have people and train them.
[00:28:18] Speaker A: By 2027, we've actually started it. So in this year ending, we're going to spend 3 billion on these initiatives.
[00:28:28] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:28:28] Speaker A: And we're going to only capitalize 500 million of it. So we're. The money is already flowing, the retraining, everything. The programs are already in play, which, you know, again, it's monitoring that success to make sure you're getting the people trained in the right industries to recreate those industries. So, you know, I think it becomes, and this is something I don't know if government's really focused on at the end of this, it's going to be hard for them to say, well, I don't have any welders, I don't have any tech people. I don't have any.
You spend a lot of money. Because we're talking, you know, if we look at this, quite frankly, we're talking grapes.
It's a huge amount. It's, it's, it's roughly around $50 billion up until 20 or, sorry, no, not that much. $16 billion up until 2030.
And we're going to capitalize 8 billion of it.
So that means 8 billion operating expenses and 8 billion, so 8 billion in training is a lot of money for the most part.
[00:29:36] Speaker B: And what are we recouping on that up to 30?
It's not significant. Right. We're not even close to getting to recouping that spend by the end of this forecast of 2030.
[00:29:49] Speaker A: Well, yeah, no, we're not. But you have to get it back in production.
[00:29:53] Speaker B: Yeah, that's fair.
[00:29:55] Speaker A: If you spend $16 billion, you better make sure you get the right people in the right industries coming out of it.
[00:30:00] Speaker B: This is maybe where this kind of budget makes sense because you're amortizing over a long period of Time. Which major industries do when they're opening a plant or they're creating a new facility.
[00:30:11] Speaker A: It does.
The scary part is again, making sure you're doing the right thing. Right.
[00:30:16] Speaker B: If they don't do it, then we're left in quite a, quite a debt.
[00:30:21] Speaker A: Yes. Well, and that's, you know, so if you look at it, it consists of 182 million in 2027 that's going into agricultural. Agricultural, fisheries, food and forestry. And then we have this big lump which is protecting workers and transforming Canadian strategic industry. So that's kind of the. What I call the bubble.
[00:30:44] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:30:44] Speaker A: You know that we don't really know what we're doing.
[00:30:46] Speaker B: We don't understand what that really means.
[00:30:48] Speaker A: No, we haven't fully developed that. And we also, also protecting workers and transforming.
We have more money from a financing perspective, another 1.2 billion.
[00:30:57] Speaker B: So financing means that you're going to borrow from the government up to $1.2 billion as industries to retool, re strategize and retrain.
[00:31:06] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:31:06] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:31:07] Speaker A: So it's a big, it really is. It is a big nugget. And that's a scary thing. Right. And you know, we also have, which before we leave this one I just wanted to comment on. We have growing Canada's trade the world. So we also are spending in 2027, $690 million on a strategic new trade strategy, which is again, a concept.
[00:31:36] Speaker B: I was going to say it sounds very conceptual. I mean, it needs a detailed plan.
And that's a lot of money to spend in this year without a plan. Unless there's already one in play that we don't know about or it's already been. Well, previously.
[00:31:49] Speaker A: Yeah. This is like the Arctic Infrastructure Fund. So to build. And this is for diverse diversification of ports, new corridors.
[00:31:57] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:31:58] Speaker A: So this is money that spent. This is kind of the Prime Minister Carney's idea of doubling trade with non US Partners. So in order to get, in order to get things over to the those countries, we need new.
[00:32:12] Speaker B: New routes.
[00:32:12] Speaker A: We need new routes. Right. And so we're kind of at that point where we used to just throw it on a truck or rail, ship it down to the U.S. now it's tougher. Right. We, you know, we're, we're landlocked, you know, by water.
[00:32:23] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:32:24] Speaker A: So now it's trying to find a way to get, to get that happen. And, and that's a strategy that has to rapidly be developed.
It's got to be deployed and it's got to be figured out. With all the side, you know, and main deals that are happening with the other countries as he's traveling around, all those trips he's doing, he's trying to figure out what they need and, and quite frankly, how to get it there.
[00:32:48] Speaker B: Well, it was interesting because I had a moment with former liberal MP last week and I said, well, here's Carney flying all over the world doing photo ops. And you know, I got corrected pretty quickly by her. She said, actually what he's doing is he's taking businesses and trying to activate trade deals that we have that nobody's using, trade arrangements with countries where we don't have trade at the moment.
[00:33:14] Speaker A: Right.
[00:33:15] Speaker B: And that was his mission out there at that moment.
I saw it a different way, to be honest with you. I saw him flying around first class in the best plane on earth next to the presidents. But it does make sense that you've got to get out there. And if we're going to do business in other parts of the world that are not the US we actually have to take our businesses to those countries. We have to host these arrangements to make it happen.
[00:33:41] Speaker A: Yeah. Boy, I wish you would have known that, you know, because that would have been. I think that would have been a great communication strategy.
[00:33:46] Speaker B: You know, this is the worst part about all of this.
[00:33:48] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:33:48] Speaker B: This got. The budget got communicated to us in big bolsterous ways and it was very noisy leading into this budget that really would have been better explaining to us. We're going to go about it a different way. Canada.
And I'm not just traveling the world taking photos with world leaders. I'm actually doing business out here. But they have not communicated really since Carney got into office. They have not really communicated things that well with Canadians. I think this is an example of that.
[00:34:20] Speaker A: Yeah, you know, I know. Not a fan. But quite frankly, one of the things that I think Trump does really well, right. He brings industry leaders in, he puts them at the table, he does press conferences, he announces deals. You know, when he goes somewhere, he's got a group of entourage with him cutting deals. It's very deal oriented. Right. And I think that quite frankly, gives people a little bit of confidence or a little more confidence that things are happening and investment is starting to take place. And I. That's a page. I don't know how, you know, we get there, but I think we need to think about.
[00:34:53] Speaker B: Yeah, I would agree.
[00:34:54] Speaker A: Yeah, for sure. So Chapter three, so empowering Canadians. Right. So this is one, primarily the first part of it deals with building homes. So this is Anabio. You know, this is what we heard about a few weeks ago, where we're setting up this new supercharged home building across the country.
And it's a big number. It's a big number actually in the 2027 budget, it's actually 10.2 billion and only 2.5 billion of it's capitalized. So this is money they want to move out as an operating. They want to move this cash into market as soon as they get. They want to get, you know, home building happening. They want to tackle affordability. Now that 10.2 billion is made up of a big nut. Now you might think, okay, that's a lot of homes.
It is. But quite frankly, a big portion of that 10.2 billion is just a cash payment to ontarians, which we're going to get to in a minute. So it's just a lump sum. We're all going to get a check and it's to kind of tie us over, I guess, in times of tough, tough times.
And basically it also is an expenditure on protecting Canadian culture, values and identity.
So this one's just not on home building. It actually has a payment to us in general and then going forward. So, you know, we all heard about this. You know, we want to build more homes, partner with industries and indigenous communities to build affordable housing.
We wanted to figure out a way to harness innovative housing strategies. So this is, you know, I think the Prime Minister met with modular home builders a couple times. We've seen a couple photo ops haven't gone that well, to tell you the truth.
[00:36:49] Speaker B: But no, and this actually feels a lot to me like incentives that are made to get people buying new homes as, as opposed to buying a resold home. There's not a lot of incentive, I think, built into this as we, as we go forward, we're going to see. But what I do see is great benefit to developers building brand new homes and marketing. So this is going to give people a cut, a break on.
[00:37:19] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:37:20] Speaker B: Buying a developer new home for the first time.
[00:37:22] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:37:23] Speaker B: It's going to give the developers incentives and match monies.
It's not doing that for the average person selling a house and trying to move, move out, you know, move on to another property.
[00:37:35] Speaker A: It's competition really. Right. So it's creating forces to move people into new homes and developed homes, which is.
[00:37:42] Speaker B: That's fine. Established communities and neighborhoods that have beautiful homes and beautiful infrastructure already.
[00:37:48] Speaker A: Right. Well, that, you know, this is a whole other Pandora's box. But, you know, we did a show on it the other day, it's going to be coming on to the network. But you know, you have 30,000 condos that are vacant or struggling right now. You have low home starts, you have, you know, tough time. People are selling a home is near to impossible right now. An existing home.
So if you on top of that start to, you know, go out and build modular homes like crazy throughout, you're going to add another pressure onto all those markets. You're going to be competing, right?
[00:38:23] Speaker B: Seems like competition.
[00:38:24] Speaker A: Yeah. So it's. This is a very complicated.
[00:38:27] Speaker B: What happens with competition usually, Paul.
[00:38:30] Speaker A: Oh, it's good for the investor because it drives the price down. The equity holder. It doesn't help.
[00:38:35] Speaker B: Exactly.
[00:38:36] Speaker A: Right. The, the guy, the person that's, you know, paid their mortgage, paid their house off, was hoping it for their retirement savings. Quite frankly, they take the hit as the market value goes down, down, down.
[00:38:47] Speaker B: Down, and it usually comes back. But if you're not in that, if you're the guy selling your house at that wrong moment and this seems like a dip that could take a while to come back.
[00:38:57] Speaker A: Oh, yeah.
[00:38:58] Speaker B: Back from. I mean, that is if they actually deliver on this.
[00:39:00] Speaker A: Well, it's interesting. It's just, you know, I was watching a stock market thing the other day and you know, if you see a 20 to 30% hit in home prices, it'll take at a 2% growth rate on home prices going back up. It'll basically take you almost 30 or 40 years to get back to where you were. So most people will never see the daylight of that dip. So, you know, it's not like the, you know, the. I think we're kind of coming. We're all sort of getting wising up a little. Realizing the real estate booms of old are probably.
They're gone. Yeah. So unless there's something. Unless. Unless this budget. Here's the thing, if this budget hits and productivity just skyrockets and we become a nation that's booming again, we're going to see housing prices go up again. If we don't, we're not going to see housing prices go up.
[00:39:52] Speaker B: Honestly, this budget does seem aimed at that.
[00:39:54] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:39:55] Speaker B: If I was to be truthful.
So supercharging home building across the country, $1.8 billion.
The remainder of that money comes out in the form of removing the GST for the first time, home buyers, which is something that's in effect right now. But this extends itself even further with new development, new homes.
[00:40:15] Speaker A: Yeah. The person with the existing home really doesn't come into play I'm about to get canceled.
[00:40:21] Speaker B: Paul.
[00:40:22] Speaker A: No, no.
[00:40:23] Speaker B: So strengthening first nations infrastructure financing and access to clean water.
[00:40:29] Speaker A: Right.
[00:40:30] Speaker B: The better part of a billion dollars.
Is there some point at which we will provide our indigenous people, our first nations people, clean water? How many years have you seen us putting money toward cleaning the water? We have the most fresh water of any place on Earth, but for some reason, we have to spend a billion dollars in every budget to try and get clean water to our indigenous people.
What is going on?
[00:40:59] Speaker A: Yeah, well, I'm hoping so here's, you know, this has been, you know, you know, my theory on dealing with, you know, problem solving. I'm hoping that this brain trust that we're gonna immigrate, we're gonna go out and recruit, bring to Canada, there's someone there who actually can tackle this. Because at some point we should be able to, like, you know, we have rockets going up all the time. We have Elon Musk. Elon Musk has a bulletproof car that, you know, can go weigh 7,000 pounds and goes faster than a Porsche 911, but we can't figure out a way to filtrate water.
[00:41:32] Speaker B: We figured out how to get a pipeline across their lands, but not get them clean water.
[00:41:37] Speaker A: Yeah, It's. It's just ridiculous. And I, quite frankly, it's some. It's time to actually move on and get this resolved.
[00:41:42] Speaker B: Right. Either. Either it's not been resolved because it's unsurmountable at this point, or something really strange is going on. We need to have a look.
[00:41:50] Speaker A: Yeah, I think it's. It is solvable. And then I mentioned at the beginning, so a big portion of empowering Canadians is quite frankly a payment in 2027 of $420 per person.
So $840 a year for a couple.
It's just basically tax relief. Right. So you're going to get a little bit of money in the mail.
You know, I guess it's good. We seem to have this. It's interesting. We have it slated every year till 2030.
So we have five to six billion dollars a year. Almost six billion. It grows. It gets indexed. It does grow every year. So we, we've indexed it, saying every year we're just going to give people so when they're really unhappy, we're going to write them a check.
And I think we tried this and, you know, we've tried this a few times recently coming out of COVID Oh.
[00:42:45] Speaker B: The carbon tax check that I get for 78.
[00:42:48] Speaker A: 78, yeah, we tried that. And then we tried, you know, Trudeau tried it a couple times just to say, you know, here's the money. You're in tough times.
It doesn't have any economic benefit. So quite frankly, whenever studied it, it really didn't have any. So I'm not sure we put a lot of money in.
[00:43:08] Speaker B: Well, I'm sorry, but $420 means nothing. But when you could spend that at the grocery store, easily in two weeks.
[00:43:16] Speaker A: Well, the funny. And the funny thing is, quite frankly, empowering Canadians is this is the pillar it's under, and basically we're subsidizing them. But I don't know if it makes. It's inconsistent, so. Well, yeah, I mean, not great marketing on that front, right?
[00:43:31] Speaker B: No, no. Okay. So anyway, I get it. But at the same time, $800 a year is not an enormous savings to anybody. And it. I don't think Canadians buy it, to be honest with you. We know it's coming out of our taxes.
[00:43:46] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Just here's some money, you know, here's.
[00:43:49] Speaker B: Some of your money back.
[00:43:49] Speaker A: Here's some of your money back. And then we spread it across. I guess it is kind of a.
It goes to everyone regardless.
[00:43:57] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:43:58] Speaker A: So quite frankly, it's just, you know, it's the equalizer. Now they're saying it's a middle class tax cut. So it does cut some people off, you know, at a higher income.
[00:44:06] Speaker B: But, yeah, 114,000, I think 115,000. You're cut off.
[00:44:11] Speaker A: Yeah. But for the most part, you know, we talked about it earlier.
The Canadian sort of scatter diagram for income is fairly consistent. So, you know, we are a country where a lot of people make a very mean level of income. So everyone's around the average. So for the majority, it's very consistent. Right.
[00:44:31] Speaker B: They also committed 800 million in 2027 to help youth find and keep jobs, which was a major news story leading into the summer.
[00:44:39] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:44:40] Speaker B: There was no jobs for anybody. So I can see some make work projects going on there that might benefit students.
[00:44:46] Speaker A: Yeah. Well, and quite frankly, again, it's these investments we're making that should be creating jobs that students can jump into, and we should be using them. If we're looking for brain trust to recruit people, let's start training, training our youth.
The last one in this category and of empowering Canadians is protecting Canadian culture, values and identity.
474 million in 2027.
So it's basically 132 million to fund department of Women and Gender Equality.
They're going to cut off so now, this is interesting. It shows zero going to cbc, to mainstream media. So there's no more increases. So the 1.4 billion they get a year is sitting in that. When I talk about the operating cost, they've now moved that into the operating cost. So that's a standard fixed amount that's now in our deficits. That's 78.3 in 26 and the 65 billion in 27. So that's there.
[00:45:49] Speaker B: It's not that they're cutting off the cbc. The CBC still receives way more money than a network requires to operate. Who's not profitable.
What they're saying is, see, this is what makes me nervous about the two buckets. I don't know which bucket to look in because everybody. Not everybody, but a huge outcry was, stop putting so much money into the cbc.
[00:46:12] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:46:12] Speaker B: Okay, we will. We'll put it in this bucket, guys.
[00:46:15] Speaker A: Well, yeah, they've basically the billion four, whatever it turned out to be in the end, that's sitting over in the operating expenses right now.
[00:46:23] Speaker B: So it's not like we're reducing anything from the cbc.
[00:46:26] Speaker A: They're just not increasing it.
[00:46:28] Speaker B: Right?
[00:46:28] Speaker A: Yeah, so they're not increasing it. So that's kind of.
They have 134 million for music and film in Canada.
[00:46:35] Speaker B: Garbage.
[00:46:36] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:46:37] Speaker B: That's 10 movies.
[00:46:38] Speaker A: Yeah. For the most part.
[00:46:39] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:46:40] Speaker A: They want to keep the strong Canadian strong pass for almost a hundred million dollars.
And of course, which is always a good thing. Disability barriers for 81 1, FIFA, which is interesting. So this year they're spending $43 million on it.
[00:46:56] Speaker B: We talked about this. Where's the money coming from?
[00:46:58] Speaker A: Well, now we know 100 million. So 43 this year. And 57 and 27 and Terry Fox research is about 20 million. It's a good thing.
[00:47:09] Speaker B: Good thing to have happening.
[00:47:10] Speaker A: Yeah. So that's pillar three. So now pillar four.
So this is interesting. So this is our defense biller which.
Protecting Canada's sovereignty and security. So 11.7 billion in 2027. Only 0.9 of that is capitalized.
[00:47:33] Speaker B: So this is all sitting.
[00:47:35] Speaker A: Remember that slush fund line that went up?
[00:47:38] Speaker B: Yeah, it's sitting in that line.
[00:47:39] Speaker A: Sitting in that line. That's where.
[00:47:41] Speaker B: So they pull from it as required.
[00:47:43] Speaker A: So now they see it as a priority for this year. They put it into operating expenses.
So it's sitting over there. So that's really.
[00:47:50] Speaker B: And of course it is a priority right now because we've made a huge commitment to NATO. We've made some pretty serious commitments to securing our Border.
[00:47:59] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:48:00] Speaker B: So they know this, this money has to be spent now to get moving.
[00:48:03] Speaker A: Well, he's still, you know, they're still putting in the budget that they're moving towards the 5%.
Yeah, 5%. 3.5.
[00:48:12] Speaker B: That's right. It was 3.5 to 5% by 2028, I think it was.
[00:48:17] Speaker A: Right. It's 3.5 in the core expenditures and 1.5 in basically infrastructure.
So it's security related. So roads, ports, all those things.
[00:48:28] Speaker B: Oh, they stretched it out to 2035.
[00:48:30] Speaker A: Yeah, they stretched it out to 2035 now. So. So they are saying they're gonna do it. They're starting to put money aside. They're putting money this year.
A lot of the money, quite frankly, is to build a force.
Right. So as you go through it, they're trying to get people. The big thing is they're trying to recruit. So they've got a ton of money in to try to get people pay raises, healthcare benefits, career paths.
And so I think that's a good thing. They've created a new division.
They've decided to save some money by basically turning off some of their machinery that's costing them so much to retool, rebuild. So, you know, they've, they're actually going.
[00:49:15] Speaker B: To redo, I guess they're going to repair all of the bases as well, which is good because standard of living is not great for the, for the military, they say.
[00:49:23] Speaker A: Well, and a lot of it. But you know, it's funny because a lot of it right now is just for them to find people and find places for them to sleep.
[00:49:33] Speaker B: Right.
[00:49:34] Speaker A: So we're at the point where it's that basic. Right.
And then find ways, quite frankly, to buy equipment. We're kind of at square one again.
[00:49:43] Speaker B: It seems from there it'll be interesting what we do with our, our military on a global level, but also if we increase it, what can we do here at home with our military? And that's the other thing that I think a lot of countries, for example Japan, that does this kind of budgeting. Their military is infrastructure maintenance in a lot of ways, when something disastrous happens or they need anybody, it's not city services often or municipal services. It is the military that comes in. Because they're part of that budget.
[00:50:14] Speaker A: Yeah, no, no, that's there. And you know, it's interesting, you know, I did a show with Mike on defense and everything was 10 years, 15 years. So they were buying equipment over 10 years, submarines over 10 years. Everything was kind of a decade, decade, decade. They've now actually, in this budget, they've actually taken it all back to five years.
So it's investments in additional logistics. Utility, light utility and armored vehicles, and counter drones, long range precision strike capabilities.
Ammunitions have all been kind of ramped. A lot of the items have actually been brought back. As far as the timeline of procurement.
[00:50:56] Speaker B: Well, what they did with that procurement, as best I can tell, is they bought stuff that's already on the shelves. You don't have to build a battleship. These are things that can be purchased in a five year period of span without any hesitation. If it was building submarines or aircrafts or something. Yeah. Then it's going to be. There's no way they could have included that in this budget.
[00:51:18] Speaker A: Yeah, so. So no one has to share a gun anymore in the military.
[00:51:23] Speaker B: Yeah. So look, just in case you don't know, we're hearing stories that when you leave your shift in the Canadian military, you have to hand your weapon over to the person taking over that shift. That means we're sharing sidearms. That was stunning to me.
[00:51:40] Speaker A: Yeah, that was stunning. And you know, they also put it. Which is. I think it's terrific for the guys over in Latvia.
They put about a billion dollars into that, which is good. They've got money in there, so hopefully that'll help them. I know they struggled when they got to Lafayette. Yeah, they had no bullets, no ammunition. No ammunition. Yeah, they went with rubber bullets. And we had the. The other countries had to actually help them out.
[00:52:04] Speaker B: Okay, you be Canada, I'll be one of the other generals. So everybody got their stuff. Yeah, we got our rubber bullets.
[00:52:11] Speaker A: What, what.
So, yeah, so there were some, there are some challenges. So I think they're, they're being overcome and, and hopefully that'll. That'll get. And everyone will be safe.
[00:52:24] Speaker B: And, and well, I think an increase in what we're doing with our military was well overdue. And so I don't think anybody's really going to argue the fact that we need to put some money into that. It's how we do it. And what will come of that that I think is going to be interesting.
[00:52:42] Speaker A: Yeah. So radar systems, of course, all the things we need up in the Arctic actually are in this budget. So I think it's a pretty good, healthy budget for defense. It was much needed. Commendable that he did get to it, he did address it. And so on that side, I think long overdue.
And the monies, I think are good protecting our borders. So the last part of this was basically strengthening law Enforcement.
So that's the RCMP contribution. You know, the additional RCMP people.
I think there's 236 million in 2027. Enhancing border services. 85 million.
Modernizing meteorological services. That was trying to figure that one out. I haven't dug into it. So if anyone knows, because that number goes up, believe it or not, that number goes crazy high. So.
[00:53:38] Speaker B: Well, as I understand it, we have a. Now it's interesting that you point this out. We have a commitment to this alongside NATO as well. And it's not included in this NATO spending for some reason, but it is that we start watching outer space.
[00:53:54] Speaker A: Okay. Yeah, well, we're going to spend some money because it goes from 17 million this year to 302 million 28. 416 and 29 and 391 million 30.
[00:54:07] Speaker B: Our weather system monitoring has been something Canada has always been sort of top of the world at and we've let it slip. I think it has a lot to do with. We just didn't keep that infrastructure up.
[00:54:20] Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. I don't think so. Removing assault rifles. We continue that. I think comes to. It dies down. It does after this year. So this 27 is the last year that program and then it basically goes to zero. It's 217 million. Emergency management. So 64 million. So we did a show, Mike. It was very interesting. But you know where at one point in Canada we had one person in the department.
[00:54:49] Speaker B: That's what. That's crazy.
[00:54:51] Speaker A: Yeah, we had. We had actually going into Covid. We actually literally had like one person.
[00:54:56] Speaker B: Watching for major emergencies.
[00:54:58] Speaker A: Yeah. It got so skinny because they had cut the budget so much. It was insane.
[00:55:03] Speaker B: So something major was coming at us.
[00:55:06] Speaker A: Like a pandemic or we weren't even talking about it. So now we put some money to it, which is great. Improving asylum claim processing efficiency. I don't really understand that one.
I think it's kind of doing the scan. I hope it is, quite frankly because you know, as you hear about all the people who we don't track, we don't know criminal offenses when they come to the country. So this is a. I'm thinking from what I can. I've read on this that is to do with that, which I think is terrific. But only $33 million put in. Hope they use it wisely.
[00:55:39] Speaker B: Yeah, indeed. So seems like a small amount. To be honest.
[00:55:42] Speaker A: It does seem very small. So okay, so the last one. So more efficiency and effective government. So chapter five or pillar five, spend less and invest more modernized services. A more Efficient tax system and advancing indigenous tax jurisdiction framework.
[00:56:05] Speaker B: That has been something that they've been addressing for and we can go through them all. But the framework for indigenous tax, I think has been widely ignored for some time and we might be at that place now with our indigenous commerce that it makes some sense for this to be in place.
[00:56:27] Speaker A: Yeah, I think the conversation is starting to happen on a deeper level and there's been some chatter about it for a while, as you mentioned, Mike. So I think that'll advance in the coming years. I think it has be to. To as we move forward.
[00:56:41] Speaker B: But so by the way, it's not heavily opposed, I don't think, by the indigenous community. It's part of the plan.
[00:56:49] Speaker A: Yeah, it's part of the plan they put it in. So, you know, we know there's roughly 368,000 or there were 368,000 federal workers coming out of 24.
They want to bring the population roughly to 330,000 by 28, 29.
[00:57:14] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:57:15] Speaker A: So that's the plan to reduce the money. So we're talking here about saving.
[00:57:20] Speaker B: How do they manage that, do you think?
[00:57:21] Speaker A: Well, they're talking about saving 7.8 billion this year.
So they're going to hop on it fast. They've kind of capitalized those a small portion of that, only 0.5 or 500 million, but they're really going to talk. They're going to start now. So they are planning to start and it's about a 10% attrition.
[00:57:45] Speaker B: Okay. So they're just going to stop replacing people that retire out or voluntary departures.
[00:57:51] Speaker A: Give retirement pension out. Right.
So that's their idea. So they're going to start the program and they want to bring the level down.
They feel it got out of control and so now's the time to move. Move it back to where it should be.
[00:58:07] Speaker B: Well, I mean, to be honest with you, as we went through these pillars today, it looks like some reasonable pillars to be paying attention to. Whether or not there's achievement on the asset side of things, I think is remains to be seen. And that's the one thing that does make me nervous about this kind of budget is we have to really deliver on this stuff or that deficit balloons well.
[00:58:33] Speaker A: Yeah, so it's interesting because we've, we've kind of said, okay, we're okay with the, the, this is for 2027. We're okay.
We're okay with the deficit of $65 billion.
[00:58:47] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:58:48] Speaker A: So we've, we've kind of conceded that we're going to live with that deficit. We're going to slowly bring government down.
So we're going to slowly reduce the operating costs because we hit the 78.3 this year in 26. We're going to go down, but we're going to go and we're going to spend and we're going to take those capital projects we're going to which we're going to talk about specifically in the next show and we're going to go for it.
[00:59:13] Speaker B: Can I ask you something, Paul? How which kind of budget do you prefer?
Do you like the old style of budget or do you appreciate this, the way that this has been laid out?
[00:59:24] Speaker A: No, I respect the way they've done it. I really do. I think it has merits. There's other nations. We'll put it on the screen and show everyone. Other countries do do this.
I think the accounting methodology is fine. I think the challenge is how you track it, report it and pivot now becomes more important because if you're going to ramp up and you're going to spend, you know, $280 billion over five years, 56 billion in 2027, you know, you can't go five years and miss all your goals. You have to definitely, you know, you have to re engage and prosper in a number of industries and a number of different sectors to make Canada work again. And if you miss it, what happens is that capital spend just goes to deficit. And if that capital spend goes to deficit as a nation, we're in trouble.
[01:00:18] Speaker B: So I was going to ask you that. I mean, how far down the road do we go before, I mean, at what point does this deficit get to a point where we are no longer.
[01:00:30] Speaker A: We'Ll know at 27, 28. If we're not turning the corner by the end of 27, we probably have part of 28 to take a look at it. If at that point it's not moving and we're spending at that clip, then we're going to have to do a timeout and pivot again because that's going to put us in really, really troublesome water. So we'll know. We'll know.
[01:00:55] Speaker B: Paul, thanks for taking the time to explain the budget to me. I know. You know what, you've really done an amazing job of tearing this down and just making it really simple for me to and for all of us to understand what's going on here with this new kind of budget and, you know, was so hotly anticipated that it's nice to go through it bit by bit. I appreciate it. Thank you.
[01:01:14] Speaker A: Thank you. And do me a favor and all the viewers, any questions you have, comments, please send them along. Your input is definitely valued, and to keep this discussion going would be great. So please subscribe, watch. And we have one more show coming up. And the next show we're doing is just breaking down the capital budget, project by project, line by line. So stay tuned. Sam.
