The Candice Malcolm Show - Economist Jack Mintz EXPOSES Mark Carney’s HIDDEN budget

00:00:00.040 Half of young Canadian women say they're putting off kids because they can't

00:00:04.200 afford them. But Mark Carney wants 100 million people, not for families, for the

00:00:11.160 machine. No homes, no hope, and no future. Just growth at any cost. Not to build

00:00:19.680 Canada, but to change it. Hi, I'm Candace Malcolm, and this is The Candace Malcolm Show. Folks, we are

00:00:35.140 in the final stretch of the election, less than one week until E-Day. Very excited. I hope that

00:00:41.400 you got out there and voted in the advance poll. My husband and I did. We were actually the first

00:00:45.880 people to show up on Saturday morning, and it was very seamless. Very easy. I didn't bring my own

00:00:50.840 pen. Didn't need it, though. So hopefully you got out there and voted in the advance polls. If not,

00:00:57.460 go and vote on election day. Like I've said throughout the campaign, I believe this is the

00:01:01.840 most important election of my lifetime. I know you hear that a lot during elections, but really we

00:01:07.320 are at a crossroad as a country. And I think that the past few days have really, really shown this

00:01:13.040 as both parties have released their costed budget. And so I didn't want to just skim over this. I

00:01:18.980 wanted to do a deeper analysis of the two parties' costed budget. And so to do this today, I'm very

00:01:25.040 pleased to be joined by one of the foremost economic experts in the country, Dr. Jack Mintz, who's an

00:01:31.600 economist and public policy expert, and he is the President's Fellow of the School of Public Policy

00:01:36.740 at the University of Calgary. Professor Mintz, thank you so much for joining us.

00:01:41.700 It's my pleasure, Candice.

00:01:43.440 Okay, so this morning, Pierre Polyev was out there and he released his costed platform.

00:01:50.100 He announced it in Woodbridge, Ontario. And this is a clip of Polyev making that announcement.

00:01:56.960 The choice is this, a fourth Liberal term with Mark Carney, whose reckless Liberal plan will add

00:02:03.060 even more debt than Trudeau. Or a new Conservative government with a responsible plan to save $125

00:02:09.700 billion and put us back on the path to growth and security. This is my plan for change. First,

00:02:17.620 we will cut the Liberal deficit by 70% by cutting back on bureaucracy, consultants, foreign aid to

00:02:27.380 dictators, terrorists and global bureaucracies, slashing money for special interests and unleashing a

00:02:34.180 half trillion dollars of extra economic growth by unlocking the power of our resources and home

00:02:40.260 building. In the past, I've told you that there would be a dollar-for-dollar law. Every dollar of

00:02:44.740 new spending would need to be matched with a dollar of savings. We've gone even further. Every dollar of

00:02:50.180 new spending in our platform, especially for things like defence, will be met with $1.50 in savings in other areas.

00:02:59.220 Gradually and through attrition, without mass layoffs, we will wind down the cost of the bureaucracy

00:03:06.500 by hiring back only two people for every three who voluntarily retire.

00:03:11.460 So he announced 70% cut in the deficit. There will still be a deficit with a plan deficit of $31 billion

00:03:19.300 in the first year. But like he said, they're 70% less than what the Liberals were planning for. For

00:03:24.180 every new dollar introduced in spending, he says it will be matched by $1.50 in savings. This includes

00:03:30.660 lower taxes, 15% savings for the average worker, about $900 or $1,800 for a family. His plan, again,

00:03:38.660 is to build 2.3 million homes by axing taxes, he says, which will save up to $100,000 per home built.

00:03:46.900 He also, as he previously mentioned, the plan includes locking up criminals and, like he says,

00:03:53.380 putting Canada first. So, Jack, what do you make of Polyev's platform? Do you think it's a good plan

00:03:59.380 for Canada? Well, I think it's a plan that certainly is consistent with the views of the Conservative Party,

00:04:05.780 but I think of a lot of Canadians who would like to see some more fiscal discipline, but at the same

00:04:11.620 time putting priority on the things that are needed. I think the plan, I think there's a very

00:04:17.140 interesting contrast, actually, between the Liberal plan and the Conservative plan. The Liberal plan is

00:04:23.780 really based on the federal government spending money to so-called catalyze investment, private

00:04:30.820 sector investment in the economy, kind of like on a partnership basis, government-led decision-making,

00:04:38.100 while the Conservative plan is based on removing obstacles to private investment and building

00:04:45.060 up private investment through either lower regulations by getting the Impact Assessment Act

00:04:52.980 or by cutting taxes. So, I think there are a clear difference between the two approaches of the two

00:05:02.100 parties. Well, it's interesting, too, because, I mean, I think a lot of us, when we hear a Conservative

00:05:07.060 government, we expect to have a balanced budget. I think that Polyev is being quite cautious,

00:05:12.180 right? He could have probably come up with a platform that was able to balance the budget

00:05:16.100 immediately by doing deeper cuts, but he doesn't want to do that. So, this platform that he released

00:05:23.380 has a $31 billion deficit in year one, $31.5 billion in year two in 2026-27, $23 billion in year three,

00:05:34.900 $14 billion in year four, and then a promise to balance the budget. So, not quite as hawkish

00:05:41.220 fiscally as someone like myself would have liked, but I think it's a bit more cautious. Interestingly,

00:05:46.180 as well, Polyev announced that his goal isn't to go in there and slash the public service. He says,

00:05:52.100 again, cautiously, that he will only hire two federal employees for every three who retire. So, to me,

00:05:59.540 this is a very gradual sort of conservative budget. Do you think that he could have gone

00:06:05.940 further and boosted the economy even more, or do you think that this was a smart decision?

00:06:11.060 Some say the bubbles in an aero truffle piece can take 34 seconds to melt in your mouth,

00:06:15.380 sometimes the very amount you're stuck at the same red light.

00:06:19.380 Rich, creamy, chocolatey aero truffle. Feel the aero bubbles melt. It's mind bubbling.

00:06:26.260 Well, I think it's kind of a realistic position to take. I mean, as everyone acknowledges, the federal

00:06:33.220 government has just ballooned in size in the past 10 years. I mean, the total number of employees has

00:06:39.940 gone up 40%. It would be one thing if we said that, oh, we're getting really much better services out of

00:06:46.180 the federal government, but we're not. And so, I think there is a need to scale back the size of

00:06:51.300 of the government labor force, plus all the contract tracking that has been going on. It's been a huge

00:06:57.140 increase in that as well. So, definitely there's room for cutting there. Could it have been more

00:07:03.460 aggressive? Potentially. I think that could be the case, but I think he did take a more, let's say,

00:07:10.900 cautious approach, I think, to that. Of course, you know, he is living in an Ottawa area,

00:07:16.980 you know, constituency. So, perhaps he's more sensitive to the issues around the public service

00:07:23.620 for that reason. But it's certainly not like what's happening in the United States with Doge,

00:07:28.420 which is a very, very different type of approach. But also, what we see in the Carney plan,

00:07:35.540 the one that the liberals are putting ahead, I don't see any real cut in the size of the civil

00:07:41.060 service. And in fact, as you mentioned about the deficits not going down by the conservatives,

00:07:46.980 but not balancing the budgets, when you look at the liberal deficits, they actually go up in size.

00:07:53.060 Although, there's a little bit of confusion between what's being measured, because there's

00:07:58.820 a separation between what's called the operating budget and the capital budget. But capital spending

00:08:05.300 is going up by $200 billion in the liberal budget plan. And that $200 billion is close to 6% of GDP.

00:08:16.580 So, it's a very remarkable increase in the size of the debt. Of course, all this is going to be

00:08:22.820 different in the years from now, because I suspect the world is going to be going through a very tough

00:08:29.220 time with the recession, as a result of the Trump tariffs that are certainly having a very significant

00:08:36.580 impact on trade flows and what's happening across countries.

00:08:40.900 Well, it's interesting. Okay, let's switch over then and start talking about Mark Carney's budget.

00:08:45.380 Because one of the things that you just mentioned is this kind of sleight of hand that seems to be

00:08:49.860 taking place with the difference between a capital deficit or a capital budget and operational

00:08:56.500 budget. And so, you know, typically, you would assume that, you know, operations is the day-to-day

00:09:01.220 spending of the government, and then the capital spending is investments in the future. And somehow,

00:09:06.100 in Mark Carney's costed platform budget, he sort of increased the number of things that you could

00:09:13.060 typically describe as being investments in the country. And so, that was sort of a way that he could

00:09:20.020 say that he, you know, he's not racking up as much deficit as possible. Could you help us understand,

00:09:26.100 like, what he did and why is that allowed? Like, how is it that a prime minister could just like

00:09:31.140 change the way that we account of our federal spending? Well, first of all, the federal government

00:09:36.980 and all the provinces have adopted capital budgeting for a long time. And in fact, you calculate an

00:09:43.380 operating budget where you subtract off, you know, from the revenues received and all the costs of

00:09:50.100 running the government, including depreciation costs on capital. And then you might have a

00:09:55.780 capital budget that you, you know, you report the capital, and then as it depreciates, you,

00:10:02.340 you know, provide a stock. But that's been done, you know, by the provinces and the federal government

00:10:09.140 for some time. But there's always this issue about what you call capital. And if you put money into a

00:10:14.180 bunch of funds that may not be spent until a later time, you're not necessarily creating capital,

00:10:20.980 or at least not much capital. And so it's very confusing, actually, in terms of what is being

00:10:26.260 called capital, in without further explanation coming from the Liberal Party. And so when I look

00:10:32.740 at all this so called capital expenditure, it looks like to me, it's just a bunch of

00:10:38.180 money to be put aside to be spent in the future. In fact, they talk about, you know, cash costs versus

00:10:44.900 accrual accounting. And it does sound like they're, they're naming a lot of things as capital, but it's not

00:10:49.940 clear it really is capital. Well, it's so interesting. And so even with that sleight of

00:10:54.420 hand that's taken place, the Liberal budget still would have $130 billion in new spending with no

00:11:02.100 timeline for a balanced budget. That was according to the National Post. Interesting, there's an account

00:11:08.740 on X called Canada Spends. It's an advocacy organization started by former Liberal staffers

00:11:14.580 who are concerned about the fiscal future of the country. So the Canada Spends account put this out,

00:11:20.500 which just shows, it says a reminder of past deficits. So you can see 2024, back to 2019, 2020,

00:11:29.700 we have a deficit, this is going backwards, $48 billion, $61 billion, $35 billion, $90 billion,

00:11:35.060 $327 billion, that was post COVID, and then $39 billion. And then a look ahead at the projected

00:11:41.300 deficits under Mark Carney. So first year, $62 billion, next year, $59 billion, $54 billion, $47

00:11:49.780 billion. And so many were pointing out, you know, these are, this is Trudeau level spending,

00:11:54.420 if not more, you know, is actually more spending than the current year. And so maybe it's because

00:12:00.660 it's an election and politicians often make promises during campaigns, and they have to include those.

00:12:05.460 But I think to many, the idea of bringing in Mark Carney, a central banker, someone who understands the

00:12:12.180 economy, from a Liberal perspective is, you know, he's got similar views on social issues as Justin Trudeau,

00:12:18.020 he believes in sort of the diversity, equity, inclusion mantra of the left. But he's fiscally

00:12:24.660 responsible, he's a banker, he's, you know, he's got this persona as being a hand, someone who can guide our,

00:12:31.060 guide our country through a crisis. And yet, what I'm seeing here, is just a continuation of Justin

00:12:39.220 Trudeau's spend, spend thrift, sorry, spend happy government. So what is your, what is your view on

00:12:47.300 this? Well, I think there's no question that actually, there's not only an increase in spending,

00:12:54.900 including capital spending, you know, you got both operating and capital spending rising.

00:12:59.540 But, but I think what's more worrisome is any lack or discussion about fiscal anchors. As we know,

00:13:08.900 if you don't have a fiscal anchor, there tends to be not enough fiscal discipline taken on by the government.

00:13:15.220 And perhaps there will be a fiscal anchor that, that the Liberals will introduce if they do win power.

00:13:21.860 Uh, they've had a very weak one in the past, you know, uh, which, uh, is that we're going to try to

00:13:27.540 let the debt GDP ratio not rise. But of course, it has risen all through the time that they've been,

00:13:33.060 uh, been in power, but they're not the first ones to do that. You have to go back to the days of

00:13:37.380 uh, of the, uh, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. When he was prime minister, uh, they, they ran up the debt

00:13:44.500 quite a bit. And then also the Marooney government also ran up debt. And the fact that they used to

00:13:48.900 use a fiscal anchor that, oh, we're going to reduce debt GDP ratio, uh, over time. But then

00:13:54.420 every budget, it kept getting revised upwards, the debt GDP ratio, and they never really accomplished

00:13:59.300 anything. So I don't think it's a very good fiscal anchor. And the best anchor actually is moving

00:14:04.180 towards a balanced budget. And so I think that's where the conservative plan does have, I think,

00:14:08.900 the stronger aspect to it. But again, let me warn that we're in a very, we're in uncharted waters

00:14:15.380 right now, uh, because of the significant changes that are happening internationally with respect to

00:14:20.980 trade flows. And, and, uh, frankly, a lot of these plans are probably going to get blown out of the

00:14:26.660 water, uh, in that the deficits are going to end up higher, uh, and there'll be more borrowing,

00:14:32.260 uh, because of the fact that the economy may end up weaker by next year. So I, I'm not actually

00:14:37.940 counting that, uh, that these plans are really going to end up, uh, you know, working. I think

00:14:43.860 more important is the direction of the plan. The conservatives certainly will try to keep some

00:14:48.660 fiscal responsibility in holding back expenditures to, to a certain extent and, and cutting where,

00:14:54.980 where they can, or at least not allowing it to go out of whack. Uh, if we do end up with a recession,

00:15:00.820 well, I think the liberals, uh, uh, plan does not show a lot of, um, uh, I would argue fiscal

00:15:06.740 discipline and, and the fact that right now I don't see any fiscal anchor making sense.

00:15:11.540 We no longer have the 1% deficit, uh, limitation that was in, you know, that was in the last Trudeau

00:15:18.100 budget. Uh, and, and we don't have a promise to try to keep the debt GDP ratio falling. In fact,

00:15:24.100 it's very interesting in the liberal plan and the costing, they didn't even show what happens to the

00:15:28.260 debt GDP ratio. It's not in their lines. And so it's, uh, uh, it was something that was actually

00:15:34.260 kind of hidden, uh, in the, in their actual document. Well, doesn't that just show what

00:15:38.500 they actually think about the thing that they've been saying for the last, uh, 10 years? There

00:15:42.180 was a clip that was circulating that showed, uh, Rosemary Barton on the CBC. She was talking about

00:15:46.580 how this, uh, costed, uh, budget platform was written weeks ago and that they basically just had to

00:15:52.660 update it once Mark Carney became leader. So it really was written by the same, uh, policy people,

00:15:57.380 uh, that were writing the budget for Justin Trudeau. And interesting that they stressed so much that

00:16:02.820 debt to GDP ratio, uh, net debt, that was what Chrystia Freeland always said, um, because they

00:16:07.780 included, they, they, they weighed, uh, pensions and other, uh, assets that aren't really government

00:16:13.220 assets against the debt. Of course, they also didn't include any subsovereign borrowing and debt,

00:16:19.060 which would also be part of the picture in Canada. So I, I never liked the net, uh, debt to GDP ratio,

00:16:24.740 but, um, interesting that they themselves said it. Well, I want to talk to you a little bit about

00:16:29.380 this storm, um, and this crisis that is coming, uh, from the tariffs that are being imposed

00:16:34.580 by Donald Trump. I mean, that was the theme of the election early on, and it seemed like we were

00:16:39.460 sort of moving away from it. And especially during the debates last week, the focus really was on

00:16:44.980 Canadian policy as an election debate should be focusing on what, you know, what we can do,

00:16:49.620 our domestic policies, things that they've gotten us into this economic problem in the first place,

00:16:54.900 um, with the rising cost of living with mass immigration, those kinds of issues.

00:16:59.060 Um, so like, do you, do you think that the issue with tariffs and Trump have come back and overtaken and,

00:17:06.740 you know, overtaken the election? Or do you think that the ballot box question will be something more

00:17:10.820 like the cost of living and what Canadians, uh, what the Canadian leader can do about it?

00:17:15.860 Well, I think the tariffs, uh, have played a role in this election and I think it's, uh,

00:17:19.940 it shows up, I think, uh, vis-a-vis the, uh, issue around leadership. Uh, you know, the, uh,

00:17:26.180 you know, the argument has been made that, uh, Mark Carney's got, you know, tremendous background in terms of,

00:17:32.020 you know, once being the governor of the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, uh, you know, et cetera.

00:17:37.460 Uh, and so, uh, as a result would be able to deal better with the Trump tariff issues and,

00:17:42.500 and negotiations, uh, than, uh, the Pierre Polyev who's had more of a background as a politician

00:17:48.660 over the years. Although, uh, we have to remember experience as a politician is a lot different

00:17:53.220 than experience as a bureaucrat. And I think, I think that's something which, uh, people have not

00:17:58.180 paid much attention to. Uh, but I think that's where the Trump terrorists have done. They are scaring

00:18:03.300 Canadians and they do feel the concern about it. Uh, but it's interesting that no one really has

00:18:09.380 a plan about how they're going to deal with it, except to really say, well, we, we need to build

00:18:14.820 the Canadian economy. In fact, that's probably the best response, uh, to be made. And, and I think

00:18:20.500 this is where, uh, the issues play in the hand of, of, of, uh, Polyev because, uh, he can go back and say,

00:18:28.020 look, we've had 10 years of a lost decade. Uh, we've had, uh, really not very good public policy

00:18:33.700 when it comes to, uh, building the economy. Uh, in fact, uh, Canada's performance has been the worst

00:18:39.540 of all the G7 countries. In fact, the calculations I've shown is that, uh, GDP per capita has hardly

00:18:45.460 grown in, in the past 10 years. It's been virtually stalled. Uh, and, and this is unlike any other G7

00:18:52.740 country. And in fact, it's well below the OEC on average. Uh, and, and here we've had a time

00:18:58.100 with a pandemic and Europe is weak and we've still done worse than other countries. And so,

00:19:04.660 uh, you know, certainly policies have not worked very well in terms of building up the capacity

00:19:09.780 of the Canadian economy and the incomes that Canadians can enjoy. And, and we are falling behind,

00:19:15.780 uh, the rest of the world, including United States, uh, where per capita incomes are now much

00:19:21.140 higher than we find here in Canada. In fact, it's a sad story. As I wrote recently, uh, just on Friday,

00:19:27.140 uh, that got published in the print version of the national post today, that Ontario is now the sick 0.62

00:19:31.940 man of North America. It's had two decades now of the lowest growth amongst all the provinces.

00:19:37.700 It's per capita GDP now is, is hardly any different than the, than the poorest U U S states, uh, like

00:19:45.140 Mississippi and Alabama. In fact, it's a bit less than South Carolina. And so it sort of tells you

00:19:50.100 the story that Canada is not doing very well. And, and I think this is where the election,

00:19:55.220 some of those election issues have come back, which has probably helped a bit the conservatives,

00:19:59.540 but so far I think it hasn't made a real dent. The question is, is the liberal plan better in

00:20:05.300 building up that economy or is the conservative plan better? And I think that's, I think is the,

00:20:10.580 is the, let's say, uh, $20 billion question for this election.

00:20:14.740 Yeah. Well, it seems to me that Mark Carney hasn't really learned the lessons that one might

00:20:18.580 learn from the last five years or so in public policy. I mean, his strategy, it seems to me in

00:20:23.860 the UK was sort of idea, the Keynesian idea of quantitative easing, spending money to boost

00:20:30.340 economic growth that, that hasn't come to fruition in Canada. When I looked at his budget and tried to

00:20:36.260 read through it, it seemed to me like the deference was sort of what I would call crony capitalism,

00:20:40.820 like give lots and lots of money, pump it into the private sector, have government working hand

00:20:46.420 in glove with big corporations, and that somehow this would be the answer to our economic woes.

00:20:52.580 Like it hasn't worked, uh, post-COVID. I mean, I think that many Canadians do connect that dot,

00:20:57.620 that the reason we have massive inflation in Canada and, you know, across the Western world

00:21:03.380 is because governments blew out the bank during COVID with spending. And that is the result, you know,

00:21:08.660 when governments put lots of money, there's lots more money in the economy, which means that

00:21:13.380 prices get driven up. And yet it doesn't seem like he's learned that lesson. In fact,

00:21:17.860 he's doubling and tripling down on it with, with his plan. What do you think?

00:21:21.540 Uh, well, I think that's what concerns me about the liberal plan particularly, is that it's really

00:21:26.180 focused on, uh, more money being spent, uh, by governments, uh, in partnership, uh, with the

00:21:32.740 private sector, uh, certainly by creating all, all these different funds, whether in the past was

00:21:38.100 the Canada Growth Fund, which it's questionable how much it's really achieved. Uh, and now we're

00:21:43.780 creating new funds in order to try to, uh, catalyze, as, as Mark Carney likes to use that word, catalyze,

00:21:51.940 uh, uh, private sector investment. Uh, whether that is actually the best way of achieving that, I, I,

00:21:57.940 I've never been convinced because as we know, governments and private sectors, uh, investors

00:22:04.020 have very different, uh, objectives, uh, private sector investment investors want to make money.

00:22:10.100 Uh, profitability is important and it's absolutely critical, uh, for the bottom line, uh, while

00:22:16.100 governments are interested in other objectives besides profits. And in fact, as we've seen, you

00:22:21.700 know, in the United States with the inflation reduction act, uh, you know, and giving out all sorts of,

00:22:26.820 uh, uh, tax credits and other, uh, types of, um, of, uh, subsidies to, to the private sector,

00:22:34.580 the government starts attaching all sorts of conditions to it. You know, that they have to

00:22:38.260 have a certain type of gender balance, let's say in their labor force. So they have to have 1.00

00:22:42.420 unionized wages or, or et cetera. And so then the private sector, people get a little shy of even

00:22:48.180 touching, uh, these kinds of, this kind of money because it comes with a lot of things, uh, attached to

00:22:53.460 it. And, and I suspect that's going to happen, uh, with the liberal plan as well. Uh, you know,

00:22:58.660 the money will be given, but it's going to be given on based on certain conditions and whether

00:23:03.860 that's going to actually, uh, push investment. I'm not certain because if you have a very uncertain

00:23:10.020 world and, uh, things are not looking very good, investment won't go up. And in fact, people forget

00:23:16.340 that Mark Carney, when he was Bank of Canada, uh, governor, he kept on talking about, uh,

00:23:21.700 dead cash held by the, you know, dead money held by the private sector. They weren't making

00:23:26.740 investment. Well, the private sector will make investments. If it looks like the economy is

00:23:31.300 going to be doing well. And, and if their cost of capital isn't too high or regulations aren't in

00:23:36.180 their way. Uh, and so if we don't solve those issues, uh, that's not actually going to generate,

00:23:42.340 uh, more, more investment. And I think, uh, I think that's actually a fatal flaw in the

00:23:47.860 approach that's being used in the liberal plan where I don't see it generating $500 billion

00:23:53.300 investment, uh, based on $150 billion of spending by, uh, by, by the, uh, by the government on

00:24:00.580 transfers to businesses. Uh, it sounds like the Brookfield approach to growing all these, you know,

00:24:06.980 assets, uh, in order to grow the economy, but I don't think this is, uh, really the best approach

00:24:12.900 for governments to achieve, uh, the kind of things they want to do. I think we need some,

00:24:17.140 what I'd like to call big bang, uh, reforms that really try to push the, uh, Canadian economy forward,

00:24:23.940 uh, through major deregulation and tax reforms and, and other policies that, that really spur, uh,

00:24:30.740 economic activity. Well, Canada absolutely needs it. And I think this sort of like yin and yang

00:24:35.940 conservative liberal is like, you know, we try, we tried the liberal thing for a decade and look

00:24:40.340 at where it's got us. It's not working. Let's try something else. Let's, let's zag. Let's go

00:24:44.580 another direction. I want to quickly get your response to this black locks report. I'm not 0.60

00:24:49.860 sure if you've seen it, but, uh, really alarming. The headline over at black lock says fed report

00:24:54.980 predicts collapse. And so it's based on a privy council report called, uh, here's the report,

00:25:01.780 future lives, social mobility in question, basically saying that, you know, looking at

00:25:07.860 what Canada might look like in 2040, and it does not paint a good picture saying that we're already

00:25:13.780 at the place in Canada where young people can't necessarily afford the same standard of living

00:25:19.300 that their parents had. They would potentially have a decline in standard of living from their

00:25:23.860 own parents. Um, this, this paints a picture of something even more frightening by 2040. The Toronto

00:25:30.660 Sun also reported on it saying government report predicts 2040 dystopia collapse, collapsed economy,

00:25:36.580 hunting for food. So that was one of the little snippets in here that they're worried that people

00:25:40.260 will begin, um, hunting on public lands just to eat. Uh, things will be so dire, uh, in the not so

00:25:48.100 distant future. Um, do you think that this is something that we should be preparing for? Do you think

00:25:53.860 this is, uh, kind of hyperbolic or, you know, is this, is this the direction Canada will be heading

00:25:59.460 towards if we continue to vote liberal in this country? Well, I'm not going to, uh, you know,

00:26:05.060 be partisan in terms of who we're voting for. I think any party that, uh, doesn't address, I think,

00:26:10.660 these issues around productivity are going to have, you know, it's going to create a major problem for

00:26:14.820 Canada as the OECD and number of studies have already shown is that, uh, you know, we are going

00:26:21.700 to be a pretty, we're, we're going to be pretty low ranked as a country, uh, in the next 20,

00:26:26.580 30 years, if we continue doing what we've done in the, in the last 10 years. Uh, and I,

00:26:32.180 and I don't blame just the federal government in terms of the policies. I also put a lot of blame

00:26:37.540 on some of the provinces, uh, particularly our largest province, uh, Ontario, which is 40% of the

00:26:43.140 Canadian economy, uh, has not exactly has had a stellar economic record in, uh, in the past 20 years,

00:26:50.820 either, both under, uh, liberal and now conservative, uh, uh, governments. So I think,

00:26:56.820 I think we really have a significant problem on our hand, but I think the one thing that, uh,

00:27:02.020 that report probably doesn't talk about is the fact that we may end up losing a lot of young Canadians

00:27:07.460 who will go elsewhere, uh, to work. And in fact, in some work I've been doing with somebody, we've been

00:27:13.300 finding that, um, you know, that the advantages, uh, offered elsewhere, like in the United States,

00:27:19.140 is very attractive for very young people, uh, to decide on, on where to go. And some of the young

00:27:24.340 people I talked to, they are very seriously thinking about moving to the United States.

00:27:29.060 Um, you know, even with all the noise that's made now is being created over,

00:27:33.140 over, uh, US, uh, policies, uh, vis-à-vis terrorists and everything else, uh, and, you know, Canadians,

00:27:39.540 you know, getting their elbows up and all this sort of stuff, uh, and, and newfound patriotism. But,

00:27:46.100 you know, if young people are seeing that they can get twice a salary elsewhere, uh, compared to Canada,

00:27:52.180 uh, and, and have as just as good a life as it would encounter, uh, they'll move.

00:27:57.460 Yeah. And I think that's going to be the biggest danger down the road where we're going to have,

00:28:02.340 uh, we're going to be losing some of our best and brightest, uh, to other countries because we're not

00:28:06.980 offering, uh, the kind of society that, that people can enjoy. And so we'll have to see how,

00:28:12.500 you know, how the world develops in the, in the next number of years. I, I, I find even trying

00:28:18.020 to forecast the next few years is difficult. Nevermind try to forecast 20, 30 years, uh, down

00:28:23.860 the road when all sorts of things can, can happen. Well, I, I completely agree. I would argue that

00:28:29.060 the brain drain has been happening for decades. I mean, um, you know, I think that the best and

00:28:33.540 the brightest do go to the United States in just about every field. Uh, my husband and I lived in

00:28:37.540 the Silicon Valley for a few years and I couldn't believe it, Jack, there was a club called the C100.

00:28:41.860 They claimed that there's a hundred thousand Canadians in the Bay area. So you think of,

00:28:46.100 you know, Silicon Valley, the tech hub of the world, the place where the most sort of thoughtful,

00:28:50.500 intellectual, uh, creative, uh, engineers and others go to work in the, in these companies.

00:28:57.540 It's sort of a sad reflection. And that's, that's looking backwards. That's how already happened

00:29:02.020 over the past, I don't know, 10, 20 years, you know, looking forward, if, if things continue

00:29:07.380 in that direction, it won't just be the best and the brightest. It won't, it will no longer be like

00:29:10.820 the top five or 10% of the graduates. It'll be like the top 40%. And our poll, we did a poll

00:29:16.660 that asked Canadians whether they'd be interested in becoming Americans. And it was the young cohort, 0.74

00:29:21.380 the 18 to 34 that had the highest percentage of people who would say yes, especially males.

00:29:27.300 Uh, you know, when you think of those young men trying to start out their lives,

00:29:30.020 trying to start out their careers, build a family, it was something like 45% of them said

00:29:33.780 that they would take American citizenship. It was offered to them, uh, which is, which is a scary

00:29:38.500 statistic. Um, you know, we're, we're heading into the very last week of the campaign from all

00:29:44.260 measures, things look incredibly close. So I just want to read through a few sort of recent polls

00:29:48.740 here. Ipsos asked the question over the weekend, is it time for a change? 54% said it's time for another

00:29:55.140 party to take over 46% said that the liberals have done a good job and that Carney deserves to be

00:30:01.140 reelected, uh, approval, uh, for the liberal government, um, 50, 50. So exactly dead, even

00:30:07.540 according to this poll, uh, the Ipsos poll, uh, overall found that the liberals were at 41%,

00:30:12.900 the conservatives at 38%. So we're talking about almost within the margin of error. And that is with

00:30:18.820 the NDP down at 12%. It's hard to imagine that the conservatives might get 38, 39% and still lose

00:30:24.420 the election. That would typically be a high enough percentage to win. I don't think that

00:30:28.660 Justin Trudeau ever broke 40%. I don't think that Steven Harper did either. Um, so we could see a very

00:30:33.860 truly divided country. Main street had a similar poll that came out yesterday, 41% for the conservatives,

00:30:40.340 41% for the liberals. So we're looking at an incredibly close election. Now I know that you don't

00:30:46.340 like to get into the partisan, um, side of things. And I tend to agree that in Ontario,

00:30:50.660 the problem hasn't gotten any better under conservatives. I would say that the conservatives

00:30:54.020 just sort of done a continuation of what the liberals had done, uh, prior. But I'm wondering

00:30:59.300 if you think that these costed platforms and these budgets being released in the last week,

00:31:05.300 will this have an impact on the election? Do you think that it could help sway the vote one way or the

00:31:10.580 other? Well, it could. I mean, I think there's going to be a bit of an alarm over the

00:31:16.020 uh, over the liberal party platform, which has such an increase in, in government spending and debt,

00:31:22.740 uh, that, uh, that they even forecast and that's without a recession. I actually looked at their,

00:31:29.300 uh, GDP numbers that, uh, you can calculate from, from their, from the numbers and, and, and, uh,

00:31:35.780 if GDP rises from, uh, the 25, uh, 2025, 26 fiscal year, uh, it's, uh, uh, about $3.2 trillion

00:31:45.300 and rises over the next three years to, um, uh, uh, 35.5 trillion dollars. I'm looking at my numbers.

00:31:51.300 So, so, so, so I'm looking down for that. Um, and so it's about a, a 12, uh, close to a 12%

00:31:57.940 increase. In other words, about a 4% increase in nominal GDP every year, that's not a recession.

00:32:04.820 And so just imagine if things get a lot worse, it's, it's, it's not going to be particularly,

00:32:09.620 uh, uh, a positive, uh, outcome. And I think, you know, when we talk about the resource sector,

00:32:15.700 particularly, I think this is where, you know, that, uh, there's a significant divide between

00:32:20.500 the conservatives and liberals, uh, because the conservatives really do want, uh, do understand

00:32:25.460 that resources are a significant comparative advantage for Canada. We should never give that

00:32:30.500 up as our, as, as our most important, um, uh, lever that we have vis-a-vis trade internationally.

00:32:36.580 And when you look at the top exports coming out to Canada, they're all primarily based

00:32:41.700 on, on resources. The only one, uh, that is significant, uh, is, uh, is autos, uh, and,

00:32:48.980 and auto parts, uh, but the rest is all mainly resource-based, uh, products. Uh, and that's not

00:32:55.620 surprising. You tend to have your biggest comparative advantage where you, uh, you know, have certain,

00:33:00.580 uh, uh, uh, uh, advantages, uh, particularly. And we have, uh, lost a great

00:33:06.420 deal in terms of resource development because we, you know, we're not building LNG plants.

00:33:11.700 Uh, we're not, we're not getting oil out to other parts of the world. We have made ourselves

00:33:15.940 completely dependent on the U S market when it comes to both, uh, vehicles and energy and resources.

00:33:22.820 Um, because over 90% of our oil and gas is sold to the United States over 90% of our

00:33:28.580 autos are sold to the United States. And so here, here, we're completely dependent on the U S economy.

00:33:34.820 And, and, uh, we have not developed that much in terms of diversification, uh, that we could have

00:33:40.180 done. And that's where I think, uh, you know, important changes have to be made. If we're going

00:33:45.220 to get, uh, we're gonna, we're going to improve GDP, give higher incomes and let people feel that they

00:33:50.900 can stay in Canada and have a very good life. Uh, not just in terms of incomes, but also, uh,

00:33:56.740 and the opportunities, but also in terms of the kind of lifestyle that we can offer,

00:34:00.660 you know, despite our cold weather, which is of course, never a positive thing for any

00:34:04.980 country to have, but that's what life is. I guess it's better sometimes than being in really hot

00:34:10.180 weather. Uh, so I think, you know, uh, one, one can live with that as well, but I do worry about,

00:34:15.620 about Canada, uh, particularly, uh, in terms of its long-term growth, uh, and not just in the short

00:34:22.180 term. And I think, uh, I think right now this election is really important because I think there are

00:34:28.740 two very different paths, uh, that are being, uh, suggested by the two parties in terms of how to

00:34:35.380 generate more productivity, more growth. Uh, one is for governments to get out of the way,

00:34:40.020 and the other one is for governments to be the helping hand, uh, and, uh, and whether that succeeds

00:34:45.860 or not, of course, is a big question. Absolutely. Well, Dr. Mintz, thank you so much, uh, for joining

00:34:51.300 the show. That's Dr. Jack Mintz from the University of Calgary. We really appreciate your time today.

00:34:55.620 No pleasure. All right, folks, we'll be back again tomorrow with all the news.

00:34:58.900 I'm Candace Malcolm. This is the Candace Malcolm Show. Thank you and God bless.

The Candice Malcolm Show - April 22, 2025

Economist Jack Mintz EXPOSES Mark Carney’s HIDDEN budget

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript