Welcome to Money Talks, and we have an absolute must-listen show. I've got Rick Rule, certainly well-known in the investment markets by everybody throughout North America. But here's the thing. Rick has been a bull on gold, I guess, how many years? Maybe 20 years, 25 years?

but I want to know what he thinks now. We got gold at something like $3,300 gold per ounce. Well, I want to hear what he's got to say about it, and he will. And I know he's got some great advice for what we should do individually, and that's the key. What should we be doing? Plus, I've got Tim Sesnick looking forward to this conversation

Tim is our go-to guy about taxation. He's got some important things to say. I know we've only got a week left, self-employed, you get till mid-June. There's things you should definitely know, changes they've made, things you should avoid, all of that. And this is the kind of thing, my goodness, if you had to book Tim individually, you're talking about a lot of money. You get to listen to him absolutely free here on Money Talks. Plus, we've got a great...

shocking stat of the week. We've got a quote of the week and don't miss the goofy award, all of that coming your way. But first.

I mean, what can I say about the federal election? You know, in some ways it's been bizarre, kicked off by the Liberals disavowing the carbon tax. That was their top policy priority for seven years. During which they viciously attacked anybody who was the opponent of the carbon tax and told everyone they were better off financially with it. And then, wow, a turnaround? That was their best Gilda Radner, for those who remember Saturday Night Live. Emily Lutella going, never mind.

And they cancelled the tax. Incredibly, they pat themselves on the back for cancelling it. Then they follow up by cancelling their feature policy of last April's budget, the increase in capital gains. Again, after spending nearly a year extolling its virtues, of course not acknowledging the damage it would do to the economy by discouraging capital investment, but after a year of that, they cancel it? I mean, what are we supposed to make of that? Does it make every promise in this election campaign suspect?

As I said, bizarre. But what's not surprising is that when it comes to the economics and finance of the country, Mark Carney has avoided talking about the Liberal Party's near 10-year record. It's brutal. And he knows it.

Of course, he and the Liberal candidates don't want to talk about it, about the decline in competitiveness or the increase in homelessness or the number of Canadians, a quarter, who feel they're living in poverty. Or the warning by the Bank of Canada that the decline in the GDP per capita is, in the bank's words, an emergency. Now, while he was embarrassingly wrong on predicting inflation,

I'm sure in hindsight, Prime Minister Carney realizes or should realize a 28% increase in the money supply in two years, along with record government spending, with the vast majority going to the middle class or well-to-do, at a time of supply shortages, would push prices higher and create a cost-of-living crisis, especially for lower-income Canadians.

And it's not a surprise that Prime Minister Carney and the Liberals don't want to talk about the 12% increase in homelessness, or the 2 million Canadians who visit food banks monthly, or, as I say, those experiencing poverty. What I find, though, is those stats and the fact that they are ignored is alarming.

Now, it's also an example of what is on full display during elections. The issues people care about and who they vote for reflects their values. So let me be clear. I'm not suggesting for a moment that my caring for the vulnerable is more important than any other issue or value that you have.

No. Personally, though, I do think that no one benefits from a weak economy. Individuals, as well as our social programs, are more vulnerable with a weak economy. But some Canadians have different priorities other than economic growth and sound finances. They're not bothered by the record debt, the explosion in food bank use, that kind of thing. And that polls find that the majority of young people will never feel that they never will be able to buy a home.

but it also forms what I think is the basis of the biggest divide in this election. There are those that prioritize economic slash financial issues and those that have legitimate other priorities. It could be climate change, 2SLGBTQ1 plus issues, the expansion of government programs like dental and childcare. I have no problem with different opinions, but you know what? I have a huge issue with pretending that policy choices don't have consequences.

Abraham Lincoln said, give the people the fact and democracy will be safe. Well, the problem is that too often politicians and partisans hide or ignore the facts in order to more easily manipulate voters. I mean, the point to understand about policy is there's no right or wrong, but there are always consequences to each one, including for nine years, economics and finance were way down the list of priorities by the Liberals.

So it's hardly a surprise, by the way, that me personally, I focus on results like the decline in the standard of living, especially again for lower income Canadians, or the amount of debt and interest changes, charges being passed on to our children. Now, I'm not going to swamp you with a whole bunch of numbers, but I do want to give you just one.

By the government's own forecast, the cumulative interest on the federal debt between now and fiscal 2029-30 is $370 billion. $370 billion. And that's what we're passing on to the younger generation. And by the way, I'm well aware, but I don't have a lot of company in that concern. At least I haven't seen or heard a single member of the commentariat mention it. I have friends with children who doesn't seem to register.

But the good news for those confused or numb by the nonstop political bombardment is it looks like we've retreated right back to the familiar political divisions of the last five to 10 years, albeit with a possible exception. I think it's more prominent today, at least, of the divide between younger Canadians versus baby boomers. As the National Post's Tristan Hopper points out, have never experienced the consequences of the policies they support.

Other than that, we're back to that familiar debate about the size and scope of government. Liberals want bigger government. We've had a 43% increase in the federal workforce since 2015. And that comes with higher taxes, more government spending, more programs, more restrictions on individuals. One that concerns me is censorship.

Obviously, conservatives disagree. They want smaller government, lower taxes, lower levels of government spending, and a stop to the encroachment on individual freedoms, including they prefer free speech. The good news, though, here's the thing, is that we get to choose which path to take. That's a democracy. Canadians, I hope, take that right very seriously and take a little time to examine the issues and not just settle for something like, well, I just don't like that.

Canada's future, make that our children's future, merits far more than that. Hey, by the way, you can sign up for five minutes with Mike by simply going to Michael Campbell's Money Talks on Facebook or Money Talks tweets on Twitter or X, or go to our website, mikesmoneytalks.ca. I hope you do that. And I want you to stay tuned now. I got Rick Rule. You are going to love this interview.

What an absolutely fabulous time to get a chance to talk to Rick Rule. And Rick, let me start off by saying how much I appreciate you finding time. I know there's like no, of course, there's no shortage of things to talk about, but there's so many compelling things that people want to know. They want to know what your opinion is about this, that. And so I'm going to start with something super positive. What about gold? Because you've been a big advocate. You've been recommending it to everybody who follows you. So tell me your perspective at this point.

You know, it's an interesting topic, obviously one of the news today. People around the time of our last interview, eight or nine months ago, were saying to me, Rick, when is the gold price finally going to move? And Michael, I would scratch my old chin sagely and say, I think gold's going to move in the year 2000. It was $253 an ounce then. It moved up to $3,000. What's that? Yeah.

A tenfold move, more than a tenfold move. And people are saying, when is gold going to move? It's moved eight and three quarter, nine percent compound for 25 years. And people say, when is the gold price going to move? You sort of scratch your head. Yeah, that's a great point, by the way. It has done what we ask it to do. It's maintained its purchasing power. One must ask before the recent move in gold.

whether the gold price actually increased or whether the value of the currency that it's denominated in decreased. That's another issue.

Sorry, Rick, but a key issue, I think, because I think that was one of the – I would have considered that a guarantee. I look historically, and I can't find exception to that. So, you know, when governments get a hold of paper currencies, you know, their purchasing power goes down. So I thought that was – you know, many things will drive the price. I'm just saying I thought that was the guaranteed one, you know. That's the crux of the gold decision today. I think people who are traders need to look at the current strength in gold and

and need to consider whether they're going to take profits. If you were in gold because you thought that there was going to be a move in the gold price, well, there's been a move in the gold price. So do you take money off the table or not? It depends on who you are. For me, I own gold for a reason. I trade other things. I store wealth in gold. And I think it's useful in the vein that you talked about to discuss what would cause me to sell my gold. That's pretty simple. I would need...

I own gold because I'm concerned about the deterioration of the purchasing power of my savings denominated in U.S. dollars. By the way, more concerned about that portion of my savings denominated in Canadian dollars. But that's a different topic. In terms of U.S. dollars, the thing that would cause me to sell my gold would be my concerns to go away. Particularly, I would need to see a balanced federal budget. Last year, my country...

took in at the federal government level $5 trillion, and they spent $7 trillion, meaning they were $2 trillion upside down with no end in sight. The second thing that I would need to see, Michael, is a fiscal resolution to the off-balance sheet liabilities of the U.S. government. Many Americans don't realize that the net present value of unfunded government promises, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security,

federal pensions, military pensions, that number, according to the Congressional Budget Office, not Rick Rule, exceeds $100 trillion. To put that in perspective, that's 20 times gross federal revenues before they spend a dime. That's a little ugly. So I would need to see some resolution of that. And the third thing I'd need to see is a resolution of what I see as negative real interest rates. And let me explain that.

Our government would have you believe that the correct measure of the debasement of the currency is something they call the CPI. I call it the CP lie. If you rely on their estimate, the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is deteriorating about 2.6% compounded annually. It doesn't seem too stark. But I think that any of your American listeners who compiled a list of goods and services that they actually buy

and looked at the price escalation in that basket of goods and services in the period say 2020 to 2025 gasoline other energy health care health insurance mortgage interest rents pick something food uh they would find i think that the purchasing power of their savings is deteriorating at a rate more like seven and a half or eight percent than 2.6 and that's problematic

If you are saving U.S. dollars in, as an example, the world's benchmark savings instrument, which is the U.S. 10-year treasury, the government is paying you 4.5% in a currency where the value is deteriorating 7.5%, which means that you're becoming 3% less wealthy every year for 10 years. So when would I sell my gold? When the federal budget is balanced.

When there's a fiscal resolution to $100 trillion in off-balance sheet liabilities, net present value, by the way, not nominal value,

And when I get paid a real interest rate on my savings, I'm tempted to say the 12th of never. Well, I would certainly say that. And let me just put the Canadian context. We have a federal election, as you well know, going on right now. The sovereign debt issue hasn't been mentioned. The declining purchasing power of the dollar has not been mentioned. We have right now the polls are saying a liberal government will be formed. Well, I look at it. I try and add up those numbers.

promises, you know, and it's a guarantee of more deficit, more debt spending and higher taxes. Well, I'm with you. Like I see no reason to think that the security of the currency is going to get better. The purchasing power protected. There's nothing that would suggest that'll happen to me, you know, for me. So I love your distinction though. There's a store of wealth

And then there's another portion that, you know, maybe you're trading. You know, you think that stock got too far or the metal itself is just going to take a little rest. But you're keeping a core position because of the very reasons you stated. And I think it's important for people to decide what portion of their portfolio their goal fits in. You know, for me, very clearly, it's the insurance and savings portion.

I also maintain sufficient fiat currency liquidity so that I can take advantage of circumstances of illiquidity rather than being taken advantage of. But, you know, my core store of value is in gold. And when I think about the price of goods measured against my gold, all of a sudden stuff feels cheap.

When I do the same calculation in U.S. dollars or Canadian dollars or Australian dollars, goods seem expensive. There would seem to be a lesson. Yeah, yeah.

And again, it's not a separate topic, but it's what the Canadian dollar is going to do. And if we continue to pursue, people should... My big thing is make your policy choice, but understand there's consequences. I'm not trying to say to anybody, just as you know in the markets, I don't care if you buy or don't buy. I don't get an emotional attachment to what others are doing. And it's the same. I look, you have a right to choose any priorities you want. I'm just saying know the consequences of those priorities.

And in this case, you know, we will have higher deficit and higher taxes if it goes the way the polls are suggesting. And that's people's right. But I'll tell you, if you don't prepare for it, just like if you would describe, if you haven't been preparing for that, you're getting killed. And that's what we're seeing also in the stats. People who did not have big time assets that were rewarded during the pandemic with government and central bank policy. Well, you're in real trouble.

Michael, you know, I'm not, as you know, a Canadian citizen or a Canadian voter. I am, sadly, a Canadian taxpayer. For that reason, I pay some attention to Canadian politics. It's interesting to me that the incumbent party

First of all, seems to be running against Trump, who, as far as I understand it, isn't running in Canada. Correct me if I'm wrong. And they're also campaigning for change, which seems to me to be particularly ironic. The party has been there for, what, 10 years? Yeah. I'm all for change. I just wonder who might manage the change. The other thing that I think about south of the border, looking north,

is that if you look at the voting history in Canada, with a few exceptions, what I guess I would describe as the consolidated left, the Liberals, the NDP, the Greens, the Bloc Québécois, consistently get between 60 and 62% of the popular vote. And the set of circumstances which causes that to change is

appears to happen fairly infrequently after very long mismanagement. It could be, I suspect, that Mr. Trudeau became personally unpopular. Yes, that's what I noticed. Mr. Poliev ran against Mr. Trudeau for three years rather than four-something. And the consequence of that is that the—and correct me, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong— that the liberals decided to fashion change from within, which is to say—

allowing Mr. Trudeau to pursue other employment opportunities while drafting a very unlikely proponent of change, given the strings that he allegedly pulled behind the scenes among the Liberals.

It's an odd circumstance. Yeah, it absolutely is. Let's come to the U.S., though, across the border. Because of the tariff situation, as you well know, I think the most ill-advised statement, at least from a Canadian point of view, is President Trump saying it will be the 51st state. That took so much of the oxygen out of the room. You know, it was emotion-based. I think then we had politicians trying to take advantage of that.

and sort of distract from the tariff issue, which is incredibly significant, but it did distract from it. And I think, again, we're not well served by that in Canada that solicited that emotional response. You know, if I were Mr. Carney, I would build a shrine to Donald Trump. I think Trump is the best thing that ever happened to Donald Carney. From my own point of view as an American, it's important to remember that tariffs are taxed.

And Americans are not undertaxed. The idea that, as an example, an American consumer of Canadian aluminum, the idea that Canada is going to pay the tax, the tariff, is silly. I mean, it's truly silly. Tariffs are taxes and taxes are bad. There's a different problem if you're an American, I think. One of the great statesmen of the last hundred years

was the great Turkish president, Kemal Ataturk. He said, many friends, no enemies. He lives in a very difficult jurisdiction. He had Iran to the south of him. He had Russia to the north of him. And the Turks, until fairly recently, negotiated that fairly well. And I would prefer that my president and my Congress also pursued a strategy of many friends and few enemies. And the idea that they're going to punish the enemies

by increasing my taxes. Well, let's say it seems to be to be ironic at best. Now, this will doubtless raise the ire of some of your listeners who live in the United States. Unlike many Americans, I read Mr. Trump's book, The Art of the Deal. And Mr. Trump seems to believe that

that there shouldn't be two winners to a transaction. There's logically only one winner to a transaction. And I fundamentally disagree with that. I want to do transactions with people I can do repeat transactions with. I want to save myself additional due diligence. And I believe that transactions are supposed to be win-win, not win-lose. And I believe further that if you're going to pick a fight, I've been in a few fights in my life,

that you not pick 200 fights simultaneously. You pick two or three fights and you win them and then you move on. So there's an awful lot about US policy, both foreign and domestic, that are problematic for me. But further to that theme, a lot has been made in my country about something called the Department of Government Efficiency. It's interesting that the political forces that promise us budget cuts

just passed a continuing resolution to raise the debt ceiling and proposed in a budget the fourth largest quarterly deficit in history. You know that I have an upcoming investment conference July 7th, and my keynote's political speaker will be a guy named David Stockman. Yes, I do. He presided over the last Department of Government Efficiency. It was called the Office of Management and Budget in the first Reagan administration.

Reagan had a real political mandate to reduce the size of government, not a small plurality, which Trump had, but a real, real plurality. And David Stockman's book, The Triumph of Politics, describes the derailment of the Reagan revolution within six months of his inauguration by political forces that were both Republican and Democrat. It's important to understand the rhetoric in the United States around the political reality of the United States. And sadly, uh,

What happens when you look at that is not particularly encouraging for the United States. I would agree completely with that. I mean, what I look at the modeling is that, you know, we're in a path that doesn't lead very many good places. And you watch how not just polarized, but this is the revenge of the establishment, in my view. I'm not amazed, but boy, we should note at least how powerful their blowback is to some ridiculous spending cut.

I mean, they've managed to turn the attention to somewhere else within that. And, you know, it's just been astounding. But I think the question with the tariffs and with that, that people have is, has it changed your investment outlook? You know, are you cautious? Like, I was bullish before this.

The tariff stuff and not I'm not talking to tariffs on April 2nd. I'm talking to tariffs going back because Mr. Trump was very consistent in saying he's doing this. Well, I'm probably making a mistake as a consequence in terms of your own politics. Your federal government doesn't believe that there's a business case for Canadian oil and gas.

The market believes differently. And irrespective of my common sense, I've decided that Canadian oil and gas is just too cheap. That may be a mistake. It may be that Mr. Carney, despite his obvious financial acumen, also can't see the business case for Canadian oil and gas. I saw the business case for American oil and gas, and I would suggest to you on a discounted net present value basis that

that the Canadian companies are substantially cheaper than their US counterparts who are also cheap. So I've been a consistent buyer and consistent advocate of the Canadian oil and gas industry. And it may be that I will be, as a consequence of that, a victim of Mr. Carney like I was a victim of Mr. Trudeau. Well, I think it's also people have to check. See, I agree with your assessment.

You look at the incredible advantages we have. And I do think the public has shifted at least to some degree. I didn't buy it all when the Trump tariffs came on. All of a sudden, we had some of the same people who were very disparaging of the oil and gas industry sort of say it's our best weapon in fighting back against the Trump tariffs.

I'm not sure to what degree I thought that would stick, but I do think it has somewhat. Like, for example, the anti-pipeline view, I think the majority of Canadians think we have to get a pipeline going through eastern Canada. I mean, what is it? We import something like 179 million barrels a year from the U.S. And so I think it is changing.

And I like the discount. They're efficient. They've had to be efficient, you know, in Canada. They're not spending a ton on exploration. So the cash flow situation still looks good, you know, even at these kind of numbers. I think it depends on the timeframe. I think you will be rewarded, you know, maybe not next Tuesday, but I think the foundation is there. That's my own belief. The inventory of undrilled grade A locations in Canada

relative to the size of Canadian production seems to be substantially greater. One of the great things that the United States has done is increased marketly production from the most over-drilled place on the face of the earth. One consequence of that is that by some estimates, only 15% of the original undrilled A-quality locations in the Permian remain to be drilled, whereas the

corresponding number in you know the cardium or some of the canadian horizons is more like 60. which i think says an awful lot assuming that some of the political challenges around canadian production go away i also think from a strategic point of view that uh had your budget balanced itself uh or had mr trudeau uh business case for canadian oil and gas

that Canada would be in a much better position to have these discussions with Mr. Trump. You do a better job if you have multiple outlets for your product as opposed to just one. And you also do better if you're arguing from a position of solvency. I would say the same thing to our president. To the extent that we weren't running such extravagant deficits, we might be able to threaten in the same way that Reagan did,

potential political adversaries will spend you into the ground. When Reagan made that threat, aggregate government debt was about 33% of GDP. When Trump makes the threat, aggregate government debt before off-balance sheet liabilities is 120% of GDP, which is four times as high. Reagan's threat was credible. Mr. Trump's threat is much less credible.

But your point's so well taken, and I'm disappointed because I have children. I have grandchildren. You know, that's what concerns me. You know, I can afford the consequences of poor policy, you know, but they can't. It's unfair to them, in my opinion. Now, I want to acknowledge there are people who disagree with that. Clearly, it's not a priority for them. I personally don't know how a parent can sit by and have that view. But your point's well taken. We entered this problem, you know,

With the tariffs in a much weaker position than we needed to be, whether we're talking, you know, financially, you know, structurally with the sovereign debt or with just our GDP growth and having alternatives. And I don't see any lessons learned in that. We have a prime prime minister and a prime minister who hopes to be reelected.

absolutely all over the map when it comes to pipelines. I'm going to talk more about that later, but all over the map when it comes to pipeline. Yeah, we'll do them. No, we won't. I'll do them, but I'll give Quebec the veto over it in the First Nations. Well, it's not happening then. I mean, it's, yeah, I hope people pick up on that though. So, of course, the answer, if you're Canadian or if you're American, is to understand that

The solution for the next generation is not the Commonwealth. It's you and them. You have to invest in your kids' attitudes and your kids' financial education, and you have to save and you have to invest prudently. Invest, by the way, before you speculate. I'm not saying don't speculate, by the way. I'm saying know the difference between the two and do the former. Invest and speculate if you can afford to do that because the –

The way that you're going to be able to ensure your family's solvency is not by relying on Canada Pension Plan or if you're in the US Social Security. Those are actuarily very unsound vehicles. You're going to have to do this yourself. And people need to recognize when they look at the Canadian budget or the American budget that your retirement and your family's financial future is up to you.

Up to you. This isn't meant to scare anybody. We're going to get through this, Mike. We're going to do it. But there's going to be a reckoning. People like you and I, who are old enough to remember the decade of the 70s, understand something about what's in front of us. Many people don't remember this, but in the period 1970 to 1980, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar increased

not relative to the Canadian dollar or the Australian dollar, just internally, fell by 75%, which meant that $1,000 worth of goods and services in 1980 was worth $250 in 1970 terms. What that meant is that if you saved with a constant dollar budget, your standard of living declined by 75%. Not coincidentally, Mike.

in that same period where the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar fell by 75%, the gold quote increased 30-fold. Some of that, I will give you, had to do with the deregulation, the gold price, probably the move from 35 to 100. Some of it at the end of the decade probably had to do with the popularity of gold, the fact that it probably overshot its value. But let's assume just for fun that the

correspondence between the decline in the purchasing power of the US dollar and the increase in the nominal price of gold were equivalent. What that meant was that a 75% decline in the purchasing power of the US dollar should generate a fourfold increase in the price of gold. My own supposition, when I look at the on and off balance sheet liabilities of the US government and the US economy's ability to generate surplus revenue,

will be that the only way out of our fiscal challenges will be to again reduce the purchasing power of the US dollar. And I suspect over 10 years, a corresponding increase in the price of gold.

This is why, by the way, I'm going to a little plug here for what you're doing, because I think education in this way, I mean, people who've been to our World Outlook Conference several times have heard me say the only, maybe the only bright thing I said is you've got to disabuse yourself of the fact that government is going to bail you out. If you don't, I mean, I couldn't be more aligned with you. But you're also doing a conference coming up on July 7th at Boca Raton, Florida. Can you just give me a little hint what you're doing down there? Well, thank you for the opportunity.

I should say to begin with, this is the 30th anniversary of this conference. We held it in Vancouver for a very long time until COVID and the ArriveCAN app got in the way.

You know, Mike, with my constituency, there would have been border issues. So anyway, we moved the conference to Boca Raton. A few things I'd like to say. First of all, it's gone on for 30 years, which means we've done a few things right. We have a wonderful returning group of attendees.

What I think sets our conference apart from most conferences, and by the way, you can attend live in Boca Raton or more conveniently for most people via live stream online. You know, you don't have to be in Boca. Either way, we give attendees over 50 hours of programming, more than they can absorb in four days. Yes. We make the recordings of the conference available for a whole year and you need them. Why? Well,

The big picture stuff, the macro stuff that we do, we always try to get speakers who speak to the issues in a biblical sense from the belly of the beast. The guy who's going to talk about U.S. debt and deficits is David Stockman from the belly of the beast. He ran the Office of Management and Budget. He just wrote a book called How to Cut $2 Trillion from the U.S. Budget. Sobering reading, by the way.

We have Daniela DiMartino Booth talking about the U.S. Fed. She's not a journalist. She was a researcher at the Dallas Fed. We have Nomi Prins talking about the structure of Wall Street. Again, she's not a journalist. She was a partner at Goldman Sachs. We talk about financial products and the excessive leverage in U.S. private and public sector. And the guy who does that for us,

is Jim Rickards, who was general counsel for long-term capital management, whose failure almost brought down Wall Street. So what we try to do with the macro part of our conference is have players, not commentators. Go ahead. I was just going to say, where can people get more info? I know it's up online, but...

rulesymposium.com is probably the best place to do that. Failing that, ruleinvestmentmedia.com. Both places will do it. As I say, you could attend live or via live stream. And importantly at this conference, unlike any other conference I know, whether you attend live or via live stream, if you don't think you got your money's worth, I'll give you your money back. It's a full money back guarantee. No questions asked. We've been doing it for 30 years.

By the way, over 30 years, the product has been good enough that we've had to refund about one-tenth of 1% of the tuition that we've charged. But the guarantee is there. And we'll also put that up, just so everybody knows, on our social media. So you didn't have to memorize what Rick was saying. I'll make sure it's there sitting for you. But just before you go, I've got to say this last thing you guys do, and you've been doing it for years.

You can say, and our audience can take advantage of this. It's free. Everybody can do it. You can send Rick your resource stock portfolio.

And he and his team will review it for you. I mean, this is fantastic. You know, and again, just go to ruleinvestmentmedia.com. And on Twitter, it's at real Rick Rubin. But anyways, you can send in your portfolio. And Rick and his team will go over and say, that's a stinker. That's a good one. That's a this, that's a that. I just think that's a fabulous service. And it's absolutely free.

That's right. No obligation. Send me your portfolio. We'll rank it 1 to 10, 1 being best, 10 being worst. We'll comment on individual issues if we think our comments might have utility. And there's no charge, no obligation. It's absolutely free. Great stuff. We'll put that up, too, on our social media. Rick, thank you for finding time. I know, obviously, you've been very busy. I'm glad you made time for us on Money Talks. Well, thanks for the opportunity. I've enjoyed talking to your audience through you for some time. Thank you for having me back. Appreciate it.

Time now for the quote of the week, but first the headline in Bloomberg. It said in quotes, China pivots from U.S. to Canada for more oil as trade war worsens.

And now to the quote of the week from Eric Nuttall, Managing Partner, Portfolio Manager for Nine Points Energy. He responded by saying in quotes, there is an insatiable demand for Canadian energy and meeting that demand is the surest way to improve our quality of life while also defending our sovereignty. Anyone who says that new pipelines would not necessarily get future government approval just doesn't get it. End of quote.

My question is, how many hundreds of billions of dollars in any energy projects, along with tens of thousands of jobs, have to get postponed or cancelled? Because we're there already, while head offices move, costing us billions in government revenue. How much do we have to see before we stop stripping Canada of our biggest economic advantage in a country where the total emissions from oil production is 12 one-hundredths of 1% of global emissions?

The fact is there's literally no country in the world where the climate agenda has worked out. We should understand that. Worked out as promised? No. And has instead been responsible for massive economic and social problems. And yet they keep making the same promises and pushing the same narrative. I'm going to bring Mike Levy in now. Obviously a big week when we had the Federal Reserve and the Bank of Canada. Both keep interest rates flat. Mike, what's your take on that?

Well, I think Jerome Powell, the chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, said it very well, said the central bank needed to make sure that any increase in prices from tariffs didn't lead to continued inflationary pressure. Well, how do you do that? Let's just go out and lower the interest rates, too. And you know what, Mike, is that old word that you and I use?

around now, I think for a couple, three, four decades is stagflation, stagnant economy. And I think that's what Powell's worried about, but he's getting all the pressure from Trump and team where in Canada, you've got, uh,

And Tiff Macklin, chair of the or head of the Bank of Canada, saying almost the same thing. And everybody's saying, yeah, no, that's right. So one is political and the other is pragmatic.

I want to come back to that. Interesting that the Bank of Canada said we can't forecast in this environment. And, you know, a great example is we get this massive tariffs put on by Trump in, you know, April 2nd, April 9th, a week later. So I think we're going to get a 90 day suspension there. You know, so I understand what they're coming from. They gave us two scenarios. One is a little less gloomy. And that's the one where they negotiate out of these tariffs in fairly short order for Canada.

and we would remove our retaliatory tariffs. But the other is, hey, if these are permanent, it's bad news. We're talking about negative growth for the next year. So again, I'm not critical at all. They just said there's too much uncertainty. And I think also that's what Jerome Powell was saying with the Federal Reserve. He was. They are good central bankers. They're smart central bankers.

Both of them seem to be apolitical, Mike, which is what they're supposed to be. Yeah, and of course...

Interesting on that note, though, is look at President Trump, again, interfering or making noises about his central bank, the Federal Reserve. And I'll tell you, Mike, historically, that is a recipe for disaster. The job is supposed to protect the purchasing power of the currency, which Rick Rule said earlier didn't happen. But still, boy, you don't want a politician running the central bank because we have a boatload of evidence how disastrous that is. Well.

Well, I don't think we have to go back too far. Mike, this is straight memory, but wasn't there a Federal Reserve chair by the name of Arthur Burns? And he got caught up in the political and it was just an absolute mess. And he was the last one. And they've tightened all the parameters. They've set out, you know, what they should do.

and can and are capable of doing, but with the full feeling that what they've got to be doing is right for all aspects. It's not to make a president happy or look good, or it's not to say to the Bank of Canada, lower rates because it's going to be better for us and our government.

Yeah. Well, keep in mind, we're in an election right now. Trevor Toome, I love his work, economist, University of Calgary, just wrote something saying this is one of the least, well, not discussed issue is that the next government will choose the mandate.

for the central bank yes that scares me you know again you're opening to because it could be uh our policy has to take in mind green agenda you know take in mind this and that well i don't think that's positive um you know for you and my you and i and our finances because we don't want that level of political interference there's lots of place for politics i don't want it in the central bank

Well, I don't want it in the central bank either. And that, I think, is, and I'll get a bit political, is what Carney is doing right now is he is mixing his experiences as a central banker with his run for prime minister of Canada, and the two are overlapping. And there's just no reason to think that they're not going to continue to overlap.

Well, that was one of the main criticisms of Mr. Carney when he was the head of the Bank of England, that he stepped right into, you know, the Brexit debate. They weren't supposed to do it. It's supposed to be non-political. And so I am worried about that aspect. And we'll have many more times to talk about it, I'm sure. Oh, absolutely.

Mike, absolutely. But I think, and here's a political forecast from me, what's going to happen in the U.S. is I think that either Scott Besant or Lutnick, Harold Lutnick, are going to be dismissed because Trump is going to want this thing to go his way. And

Keep it very, very political. I don't know that he isn't going to try and fire Jerome Powell. Mike, all those are catastrophic things.

to the way our system works, system of checks and balances. And right now, it's not working that well in the U.S., working much better in Canada. But still, the level of uncertainty is there. We'll be dealing a lot more with it when you look at the interest rate environment and the currency environment. Mike, go out and have a terrific week. You too, Mike. Thank you. Thank you.

We are so lucky on Money Talks to be able to call on Tim Sesnick. Now, he's co-founder, CEO of our family office. Talk to him about all the sort of tax issues as we come to the last week here for most people. And if you're self-employed, you've got some self-employed income, it's mid-June. But the point is, we get to talk to him about it. We love it. Tim, thanks for finding time.

I always love coming on your program, Michael. So thanks for inviting me. Let me just throw something out of left field. What's the most asked question you seem to get this year? And maybe it's the same as last year and the year before too, but our get, I mean, there's been a lot of confusion this year, capital gains, no capital gains increase, you know, that kind of thing. I mean, this year, the most common question is just what's, what's actually changed. What really has changed because some of these were on again, off again. Um,

So there are some things that I think affect the average person more than you might think. Obviously, the capital gains changes are now, at least for the time being, no longer on the table. And depending who wins the election, well, they're all saying they won't increase capital gains tax rates except the NDP. But who knows? Who knows what's going to happen once someone forms the government?

But that was a bigger mess than I thought people understood. When they proposed that, it changes people's investment decisions. And the fact that they proposed it and then didn't cancel it, you know, for 11 months after talking it up the whole time, I think there was a lot of damage done in that way. I know personally I would have avoided making some capital investments.

And there were a lot of people that did a lot of planning, a lot of very expensive planning, spent money with their accountants last year to try to deal with this change in the tax law that was coming. And it never came. And that money is just gone now. Wasted fees. So, yeah, it was sort of the approach of the Liberal government was, I guess, and hopefully it's not going to be this way going forward, but

depending on what happens in the election, but certainly it was a ready, shoot, aim. I would describe how they handle tax changes.

Well, it was incredible. They never presented the legislation because it was never written. I mean, wow. Let's talk about this year, though. As I say, what should I be aware of? Is there anything that's changed? Yeah, there's a couple of things that have changed. I think, for example, more and more Canadians are making money on the side. Michael, life's expensive. 7.4 million Canadians, in fact, have part-time work.

They've got the gig economy. They're making money on the side doing things, whether that's extra freelance work or whatever it might be. And CRA recognizes this. And so what they've done now is they're chasing all these platforms, whether it's Airbnb, whether it's Uber or whatever, and getting names from these companies that run these platforms of all the people that are earning income on the platforms.

So if you are making money on the side through some digital platform, you need to be aware that your name is being provided to CRA very likely. So don't try to skip out on reporting that income. That's number one for this year. Very important. And let me, you know, it's funny because I know a few people who do drive Uber. And I'm sure, well, I don't want to...

They got to know that they've started a business as far as CRA is concerned. But within that then, not just you got to keep track of your income, but what about make sure you then have your expenses ready? - Yeah, all your expenses. Any cost you've incurred at all that was incurred for the purpose of earning income from your business, however long as it's legal and it's reasonable, you can deduct that cost. So track every single thing, keep all your receipts,

your marginal tax rate on that income, the tax rate on that income is still going to be pretty good. You're claiming writing off expenses for things like cars and home office and things like that. So it's still a good idea. Just be aware that they're watching the gig economy. And sort of along those lines, short-term rentals. So people who are renting out rooms in their homes through Airbnb or similar platforms, the rules have changed this year, which now may actually...

Limit what you can deduct against your income, depending on whether you're in compliance with your local, municipal and provincial laws around short term rentals. So if you need a license or you need to be registered with your municipality and you're not, for example, then CRA won't allow you to claim any tax deduction against that income.

So make sure you're in compliance with your local and municipal and provincial licensing and registration requirements if you're going to rent out rooms in your house. And again, yeah, get on that. This is the kind of thing that it's not pleasant. I'll tell you where I am out in British Columbia. We have a speculation tax. Okay, listen to this. I filed them all, had a record, got a letter from the government, said I'd filed nothing.

Oh, okay. Isn't that a pleasure? I'm confident it will resolve in my favor, of course. I mean, I've got the document. But it's time. Yeah. Time and everything. And by the way, Michael, people need to be aware, it's just a fact of life, that the size of the CRA has grown by 50% since 2015.

And so there are now about 60,000 employees. One of the highest numbers of auditors or employees per capita in the industrialized world in terms of our tax department. What it means is that so many people who have never really been audited before are now being audited. And people are seeing it and feeling it. And they're not always reasonable. So it's just time and effort out of your day. Let me ask you, like, what's the best way, you know, within our power as individuals to avoid an audit? Right.

Well, I'm not sure there's a really good answer to that because some of the audits are a result of just random checks, right? Your return gets selected. There are certain kinds of expenses that do get audited more frequently than others. And so just be aware of that. So that can include charitable donations, for example, especially if you're giving more in a particular year that you might have in the past. Interest deductions, child care deductions,

moving expenses. These are fairly common things, but you know, there are things that people make mistakes on at times or they would double count something. And so they will audit these things, employment expenses, home office expenses. I'm going through in a home office expense audit related to COVID. We all work from home, but they're looking at those. So those are a pretty big list of, of common deductions that they are auditing. Unfortunately, I got to tell you, I, as a taxpayer, I feel like,

really under the gun. Do you know what I mean? Like that was my first experience going back a few years with real bullying. Fortunately, as a child, I wasn't bullied. I've been bullied by Revenue Canada and you can't win.

You can't win. Many kids are feeling the same way. Many kids feel the same way. And they're not reasonable about, they don't draw an alignment between the work they make you go to to provide information and the actual tax dollars at stake. There's supposed to be a correlation to that. And in fact, you read the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, it talks about, I'm paraphrasing here, how important it is that the government be reasonable about what it's requesting of you, right?

in line with the kind of tax dollars that are at stake, and that just isn't happening. The other thing I think that's important this year is obviously the first home savings account came out last year. A couple years ago, it had very good take-up. A lot of Canadians are using this, which is wonderful. So you can get a tax deduction for obviously putting money into the first home savings account. It's a no-brainer if you're a first-time home buyer, you should have one of these accounts.

Just realize that like your RRSP deduction, the deduction for the FHSA is discretionary, meaning you can claim it this year if you made a contribution for 2024, or you can defer the deduction until next year or the year after if you expect to be in a higher tax bracket next year because you'll save more tax by claiming when your tax rate is higher.

Again, as usual, great tips coming out here, Tim. Let's just finish off here. I know you're busy, but again, if you had a wish list and you said to your cousin or something, don't miss these ones. You've just given us a couple of great examples of that, of knowing is there anything else? I don't want to miss something that you say is prominent. For sure. I think saving tax dollars is a cumulative thing. If you make one change to your life every year to save a bit more tax,

that will build on itself over the course of years. And by the end of five or 10 years, you're saving a lot more. So things like some self-employment, we talked about the gig economy. If you want to claim a deduction for things you're paying for anyway, like your car, like your home, home office, maybe even some mortgage interest,

Earn some income personally, self-employment income, do whatever you might be able to do, freelancing or whatever it is. That's a common thing. I think also doing the basics right, income splitting. So if you are the only taxpayer in your family, you've got a spouse or children who are not highly taxed, not paying any tax at all, you can try to move income to them. There's different ways to do that.

One of the ways you can do that is by lending money to your spouse. We're getting to the point now where interest rates are coming down. And so the rate of interest you need to charge to your spouse is coming down. That's going to make good sense. Again, that lending money to your spouse and let them invest that money, pay the tax on the income. That can make sense. Also, don't forget about things that are easy to forget, like digital news subscriptions are deductible, up to $500 of those in a year.

Pension income splitting. So if you have pension income from your employer, not CPP, but employer kind of pension, you can report up to half of that on your spouse's tax return. That's a great way to split income with your spouse. Do the math, do the tax return for both of you and see what works best in terms of shifting that income from one return to the other. And don't forget about home office expenses. A lot of people are still working from home.

To claim them now, you have to be working from home more than half the time. And your employer has to require that. Not in writing, but they have to require it. But if you're doing that, you can claim an deduction for all kinds of home office expenses. Great stuff, as usual. And I love this, Tim, because I get to say...

I always put you on the spot and then you go, okay, I'll join you again, but we do. I think we all appreciate that taxation, depending on your circumstances, comprises your single biggest cost of living. Sometimes combined with food and shelter...

So it's incredibly key. And I think part of the election coming up is you've got to decide who is more beneficial for you when it comes to your personal taxes. And that should influence your vote because it's your cost of living. It should. I did write a piece two weeks ago in the Globe and Mail on what all the parties are saying about their taxes, about what changes are they proposing to the tax law. So you can read that and get caught up.

Great stuff. And again, just Globe and Mail Online is right there. You can do it. Just Google search and tap it. It's important to know. Tim, thanks so much for finding time and good luck for the last week and a bit of tax season. Thanks. Thanks, Mike. Appreciate it. Time now for the shocking stat of the week. Can I say shocking? Because it hasn't rated a single mention during the federal election campaign.

I'm talking about this massive 43% growth in the size of government since the Liberals took power in 2015. I mean, the question is, what did you get for it?

It's part of a major political divide in Canada because those who want far more government intervention in society through regulation, higher deficit spending, taxation, and those who would like to see less government intervention in some areas, smaller government overall, less regulation, maybe a balanced budget and lower taxation. I mean, and there is no sign there's going to be some agreement between the two sides.

What's interesting is no matter where we place ourselves on the political divide, it would seem that efficient spending, I mean, lower levels of waste would be important. But that's not the case. I mean, while cases like Arrive can grab the public's attention for a short while, I can't remember an instance where government's lack of efficiency or misspending or mismanagement was even in the top 10 list of issues when pollsters asked people about their top concerns.

And it certainly hasn't been in this election. And that brings me to the shocking stat. I mean, payroll costs of the federal government have grown 68% since the Liberals took power, along with a record number of people being employed. I mean, as of the end of 2023, the Parliamentary Budget Office estimates there were 428,000 more federal employees. And that doesn't include the record number of consultants. As head of the Parliamentary Budget Office, Yves Giraud told Money Talks,

We can decide if we got our money's worth. Are the services better? Are they run more efficiently? In other words, what specifically did we get for the money? But arguably the most shocking stat

that came out of the Parliamentary Budget Office studies is in quotes, it's not uncommon for departments to have five levels of executives and associate deputy ministers or more and one deputy minister. I mean, it leads to a situation where an employee can have seven levels of management above them.

Now think about that. Not only as a taxpayer who pays the salaries and benefits, but the inherent inefficiency of having an employee dealing with seven layers of management, there is absolutely no way that can be efficient. And as numerous Auditor Generals have reported, government is not efficient. All I'm pointing out though, is that with seven layers of management, it cannot be efficient.

And still, it's not an election issue, despite the fact that literally hundreds of billions of tax dollars are on the line. Good to be back with Ozzy Jurek. Hey, Ozzy, I'm going to fire something at you that out of the blue completely. But, you know, if there is a continuation of the liberal government, I think that we

primary residence tax is going to be back on the table. You know, they have spent lots of money getting studies on it. I think with the new prime minister, they are going to need more taxes when you look at the platform. And I think they're going to use that back in play. At least it should be discussed.

Well, and they do it quickly because usually you do all the nastiness in the first year of your new mandate. And so hopefully people forget. I've been saying that for, I don't know, three or four years. You and I have been discussing it. UBC has studied it. They've denied it. And they found out that they were studying it. So, yeah, you're probably right.

Well, as you consider, it was Prime Minister Trudeau who stood up and said, we won't do it. Prime Minister Carney made no such guarantee. And so I think that gives license to revisit in that way, you know, and say, oh, yeah, but I wasn't the one promising. I just think people should be aware of that, that I think they are going to have a desperate need for money. I mean, the promises start adding up.

I think it's a good bet there's going to be more taxation. I think that's one of the areas. Again, simply put, because there are no other areas. And it is, if you want, about economic impact. If you tax more of my income, that gives a disincentive to work. But if you tax my assets, then it's not quite the level of disincentive. So I'm just putting that out there. That's not what we're here to talk about today. But it sort of encouraged me over the last few days that that's going to be back in play at least.

Well, plus, you know, assets, a lot of people that don't have any assets are all for taxing them. Yeah. Okay. Let me go to something else here because you're looking at the studies that say, and I'm thinking of FIFA World Cup coming, you know, next year. And it's been clear we don't have the hotel rooms. Now we don't have Airbnbs. You know, you can't do the short-term rental anymore in the city of Vancouver. So what's going to happen there?

Well, interesting, the BC Hotel Association had sort of a report that was featured in the Western and Western. They're saying that we need 10,000 rooms. And the thing is that what people don't realize is if you want to attract a large audience,

convention or an event, you need to have somewhere to put the people. And we are now running an unbelievable, we only built 12 new hotels in 20 years, and we have the same number of hotel rooms than we did in 2002. That's 23 years ago. And as you pointed out, FIFA is watched by billions of people around the world, and hundreds of thousands are traveling.

They're going to come to British Columbia. Now, unlike us, they don't really know what British Columbia is because we're neither British nor are we Colombian, right? But if you wanted them to come and stay and look at the beauty and we really get on the map with all these foreigners because that's what happened at Expo, right? It gets a lot of people. But where are they going to stay? No short-term rentals. And currently we're running at almost 95% occupancy downtown.

You know, it's one of those things, again, an unintended consequence of, you know, eliminating, you know, the short-term rental. I mean, it was brought up right away. They haven't done any compensation for it in terms of allowing that we've got this shortage problem. So, again, that's going to be a story we're going to hear a lot more about. By the way, I wanted some good news here.

You know, all our friends in Edmonton, we've been telling them for ages that they were a great market, especially, you know, if you get a recovery in oil, which we've had somewhat with a recent downturn, but somewhat. And lo and behold, look at Edmonton. Yeah, and we like Edmonton always from a cash flow perspective. You may not have the wild gyrations of Vancouver or Toronto, but this in March sales were up almost 37% from February. The average house price reached $460,000.

I mean, I have to laugh at that. We get a good, nice doorknob for that in Vancouver, right? But that's up from February 2.5% and a full 10% from year over year. And that's different even than the other favorite Alberta city, Calgary, where sales are down 19% and inventory is up 100%. Or Toronto, that's down 23% and Vancouver is down in sales dramatically. So Edmonton shines dramatically.

Well, okay, I've got to go to the other side of that, the other side of that coin. I just keep reading stats coming out of Toronto that this is a disaster with far-reaching implications, rather, when you're talking about economic growth, if there's no residential development going on, et cetera, et cetera, that that's a story that I think is going to impact everyone.

Well, Mike, and it's astounding. I've looked at all of these really negative videos that are out on Toronto and said it can't be that bad. But Urbanation just said it's the slowest sales point in 30 years. It's a 62% year-over-year decline. And in the city of Toronto, we only sold some 250 new sales in the first quarter. That's the lowest since 1990. I mean, you know, that is a dramatic change.

As I say, it ripples through the rest of the country because it's such a dominant aspect of our gross domestic product. So we're going to be hearing a lot more about that. So there you go. I proved I could do some good news and unfortunately a little bit of bad news when we talk real estate. Ozzy, go out and have a terrific week. And I want to invite people to find you on YouTube.

Just type in Ozzy's name, Ozzy Jurek on YouTube. There is a ton of stuff he's put up there. Great to have. And also, of course, you can go to, you know, ozbuzz.ca, sign up for the weekly newsletter, ozbuzz.ca. Ozzy, thanks. Have a great week. Thanks, Mike. And talking real estate is always important, that in real estate there's no such thing as too many bathrooms, unless you're the one cleaning them.

Oh, gosh. I'll put that when I put my next resale up. Ozzy Jurek, OzBuzz.ca. I'm going to go live to the trading desk now. I'm going to bring in Victor Adair. Hey, Vic, let me start with a big thank you for filling in the last few weeks. Great job, great guests, and what a great time, too. You weren't sitting there going, gee, I wonder what I could talk about today. Yeah, there...

I think the thing I didn't get enough of over that period of time was sleep. I mean, because these markets that I follow are 24 hours a day. Yeah. It was great doing the show, and I'm glad you're back doing it. Well, thank you. But anyway, so let's talk about some of this stuff. And I wanted to get with you because I spend time looking at currencies. You live them. And I'm being serious. You know, I'll look at what's happening vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar. But you're looking at them.

you know, what, 100 times a day? You know, you're looking at every tick that's out there. Yeah, I follow currencies a lot. I've said, I guess, from time to time over the years, if I was restricted and I could only trade one market, I would trade currencies. Now, I'm not restricted, so I can also trade stocks and bonds and gold and crude oil, but like that. Well, let me just add to that. If I was asked if there was one thing I could have a crystal ball for, it would be the U.S. dollar.

Now, if we go back, and I'm proud to say this, going back about two months, we warned that Donald Trump wanted the U.S. dollar weaker. So look out. That long-term trend that we'd been on in money talks saying buy U.S. dollar on dips, I said, be careful. This is going to be a switch in trend. I was using it simply because the Donald said, I want it weaker. And that's exactly what you've been chronicling on VictorAdair.ca.

Yeah, the U.S. dollar has been...

From a trading point of view, the U.S. dollar has been overvalued, and that made it easy for other countries, especially Asian countries, to export into the American market. It's that simple. Martin Mirabield, who's been on our show here many, many times, usually talking about gold, but Martin has been showing me for years these massive trade deficits that America ran up with the

the rest of the world, but particularly Asian, was a purposeful policy on the part of the Asians. And I'd say it starts with Japan. Japan devalued their currency effectively from 2012 to 2024 in half.

And that allowed them to export into the American market. And that's straightforward to understand for people. You don't have to be an economist to figure out, hey, if you cut your currency in half, you're not going to be buying the foreign goods that just went up as a result and vice versa. That's what this is all about in terms of the currencies. Hey, let's get the U.S. dollar weaker. That'll help our manufacturing, according to President Trump.

Yeah, so Japan, actually their currency was at all-time highs in 2012. And Abe, who was the prime minister then, started what he called his Three Arrows program. But effectively, one of the main parts of that was to weaken the yen so they could be more competitive with the currency.

With the yen at all-time highs, they weren't competitive. Now, when the yen was going down, other countries in Asia needed to match weakness in the yen so they could compete with the Japanese, and there you go. Anyway, the U.S. dollar did hit what I call 23-year highs in February. It was a little bit higher for a couple of weeks in 2022, but it has come a long way up from where it was in 2008 and 2020.

Mike, I've said this for years, that in the currency markets, the trends often go way further than seems to make any sense. And then they turn on a dime and go the other way. Well, let's be aware of that. And I want to come to the strength, the big, bold Superman here. And that's the Swiss franc. I just think I want people to know that. Yeah, well, the...

Over the years, I've also seen the exchange rate between the euro and the Swiss franc as a fantastic risk barometer. And I used to describe it this way. Picture a German guy who's built up a family business and all that, and he's a little concerned about what's going on in Europe. So he's going to take a suitcase full of euros and

and go across the border into Switzerland at night and switch them into the safety, thankfully, of Swiss francs and have it there. Well, the Swiss franc is not only at all-time highs against the U.S. dollar, but also against the euro. Now, Mike, this is not trading advice, but me, just because it's my way of looking at things, I think the Swiss franc is a short year.

And I'm taking a chance here, but I don't think the Swiss want to see their currency as absolutely the strongest in the world because they've got to export as well.

And I'll just throw one other thing that is going to be in this mix, and that's the geopolitical tensions. I still don't think in North America they get enough attention, you know, what's going on vis-a-vis Russia, et cetera. Anyway, it's going to be fascinating. You're not going to have a boring time, Vic. Let's be clear on that. You're going to be, you know, it's been incredibly busy. But I want to finish with one. Let me just keep you one moment longer here. And that is, look at gold. Yeah.

look at gold i mean what what is it up uh i think we're up about 23 24 year to date uh and it's it's interesting now i i pay a lot of attention to gold i have traded gold and finance gold mines and all that stuff i've been in the gold market for years one of the guests i had on while you were away uh john johnson jj uh was on the floors in new york in the early days and he and i both worked for the same company back then we never met back then but

Mike, JJ's forgotten more about gold than I've learned about gold in that 50 years. So he and I've had a lot of back and forth. I think what's happening here, when you look at the New York market, it's very quiet. The volume's not there. The open interest is not there. This is an Asian market. And we, JJ and I and other people as well, track the difference between what the price of gold is in Shanghai and what it is in London right now.

That is really wide. In other words, people in China are paying up

$35 more per ounce of gold in Shanghai just to get their hands on gold there over and above what the price is in London. It seems to me, and this will happen in some markets, that even though we trade the stuff in New York, not much going on. Same thing, by the way, happened in copper when copper had a great big run. There wasn't really much action in the New York market, but it was the Asian market that was driving it. So I think gold...

In the big picture here, it's very much about gold is moving from the west to the east. Good stuff as usual, Vic. I want to remind people, go to victoradair.ca, victoradair.ca. Vic, go out and have a terrific week. You deserve a little bit of a rest, and I guess you've got about 12 hours now. Yeah, it's going to be a long weekend. Thanks, Mike. Glad to have you back. Thanks, and stay tuned. We've got the goofy for you.

Time now for this week's Goofy Award. Now, I'm well aware I'm walking into a minefield talking about the election, made worse by the fact that the reality of economics and the wishful thinking of politics don't mix. Simply put, I believe in fact-based, research-based economic policy and our governing politicians, well, don't, at least if it gets in the way of their ideological point of view.

You know, our government traffics in ignorance, by the way, on this political posturing and misinformation. We had a great example with the GST holiday that was put in just before Christmas when Chrystia Freeland admitted it was nothing more than an unaffordable political gimmick. That's exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about, which brings me to the two worst ideas I've heard in this election.

First, the repeated promise by Prime Minister Carney that, in quotes, we will build an all-in-Canada auto manufacturing network to create higher-paying jobs for Canadians and secure our economy. Well, that's more than wishful thinking. I mean, it's outright hogwash. And he knows it, but he hopes you don't. I mean, he's talking about...

trillion-dollar-plus investments to produce approximately 30,000 individual components, including tiny screws and fasteners, electronic elements that go into the average car.

How long do you think that would take to start from scratch? Well, how about something like 15 to 30 years to build facilities slash infrastructure, supply chain integration, developing domestic suppliers, plus extension of raw material mining and refineries. By the way, Australia tried to do that with its own manufacturing industry with a, in quotes, made in Australia branding. It collapsed amid high production costs, global competition.

Now, the next fallacy that I'm going to put forward that isn't so straightforward, though, is Prime Minister Carney's claim that Canada will be an energy superpower.

Well, how is that going to happen without a commitment to expanding the pipeline infrastructure? There will be no private sector investment to achieve that if there's not. Now, I appreciate Mr. Carney has been all over the map since day one on that one, started by promising more pipelines. But the next literally within a couple of days, he was in Quebec saying, no, he won't overrule them. And he continues to present that case, giving veto power to the provinces and First Nations.

Well, that's just like saying there's going to be no new pipelines. And again, if that's the case, well, we're not going to be an energy superpower. But he knows that is my point. But he still puts it out there. I mean, it's incredible.

That's all the time we have today. Just a reminder, though, I want you to go to YouTube and search Money Talks. You've got a whole bunch of content that goes up to YouTube. So join us on the YouTube channel for Money Talks. I look forward to that. And also, you can also go to Mike's Money Talks dot C.A. Join us on the website and sign up for five minutes with Mike.

We're getting tremendous feedback on it, but it's straightforward. There is so much that the mainstream media does not cover that I think is pertinent to what's going on. This is your chance to catch up on much of it. Mike's money talks.ca sign up for five minutes. It's absolutely free. And in the meantime, one last thing, I hope you go out and have a terrific week.