November 25th Episode 01:09:40

Welcome to Money Talks. My name is Mike Campbell, and I'm really glad you're with us. There's so many things happening, but we're going to feature Chris Kiefer. This guy has done more to promote nuclear energy than anyone I can think about in this country with success, and it's about time. You are going to love this guy.

this interview. Plus, Ozzie Jurek's going to talk about more changes to real estate regulations. My goodness, Victor Adair talking about the latest delusion in the stock market, or maybe it's just called wishful thinking. Michael Levy's going to wade in on the fall financial statement by the federal government. Plus, we've got a

Really a terrific quote of the week. This is something that maybe I just like it because it echoes how I feel, the sort of hopelessness we've seen when we watch some of the reaction to the Hamas horrific attack on October 7th. Anyways, it's a good one. You want to stay tuned for that. Got a great shocking stat of the week, so this is a place to be. But first, let me just ask a couple of questions here.

Do you think the goal of the federal government in all their talk and policies focusing on climate change was to see no reduction emissions? Come on, after all, reducing emissions to fight climate change has been the prime minister's number one goal. But, and it's a monster but, according to the Environment Commissioner's latest report, there have been no emission reductions under the Trudeau government.

Let's go to housing. Was it the federal, provincial, municipal government's goal to have record prices and record rents? Because that's what's happened, despite the never-ending concern expressed over the lack of affordability. Not surprisingly, they never acknowledged the role governments play, despite the fact that, depending on the jurisdictions, governments can add as much as 25% to the cost of new housing.

Meanwhile, as this week's shocking stat chronicles, the federal government continues to allow record new arrivals, which puts even more strain on both housing and health care, too. Speaking of health care, was it the goal of the federal and provincial governments to have over a million Canadians on wait lists or to finish dead last in the Commonwealth Survey of 11 developed countries for patients waiting to see a doctor?

in the emergency room or maybe waiting the most to actually see a specialist once the referral's taken place? Do you think it's the goal to make it very difficult to get a family doctor? Because these are the results. But you get the idea because there's more.

Was it the federal government's goal to create inflation by increasing the money supply by 27% in just two years at a time of supply shortages? And by the way, in case you missed it, Scotiabank's Global Economics estimates that 40% of the interest rate increase we've been experiencing is due to government spending. Because if all of these things weren't the goal, and they clearly couldn't have been, then what's the reason?

I mean, these are not the results that we wanted. Incompetence, was it? Or ignorance? Ideology over practicality? I'm not getting into policy debates. I'm saying once they've decided what to do, you know, how have they done in performance? I'm not talking about the significant waste of billions of dollars. I'm not talking about questionable dealings. I'm talking about the lack of results, lack of performance on major issues.

What's incredible though, and this is my point, is that no matter how dismal the results in this huge variety of areas, we still have millions of Canadians

with such low performance standards that not only do they excuse the lack of results, they actually want government to do more in more areas. They actually think the very people who created or contributed significantly to problems are suddenly going to be able to fix them. They don't have any evidence to base that optimism on, but boy, that is wishful thinking. But they want more of the same. I don't think we can afford it.

Here's the point. We're in a period of historic financial and social change, both domestically and internationally. And much of it's going to be driven by things like the sovereign debt crisis, unfunded pension liabilities, government's insatiable appetite for money. I mean, we're already experiencing some of the impact on our standard of living. We've seen this record jump in interest rates. It's going to actually force people from their homes. We've got record levels of taxation, and there's more to come.

We've dramatically reduced purchasing power of the currency versus the U.S. dollar, versus commodities, other assets, including housing. Come on, we've all experienced record gasoline prices, and we got record debt. Come on, if we keep doing the same things, things are going to get worse. I'm not guessing at this. Confidence in government and establishment institutions are going to continue to fall, along with the standard of living of, what, maybe 60, 70% of the population.

I mean, most of us are still living or already rather living paycheck to paycheck. Most are already experiencing financial stress. And that in turn, this is the interesting part. It's going to produce political change. Just this week, we saw a massive change in Argentina with the election of Javier Malay and Gert Wilders, who's described, he's in the Netherlands, who's described as anti-Islamic populist. Here's a shocking prediction, though. I'm going to have to go into this in some depth another time.

I sense we're going to have a revolution, at least in some form. Democracy and individual freedoms are going to be curtailed. We've already seen that with COVID and the aspects of the climate agenda. This is the road we're on. The math of interest payments and unfunded liabilities, it won't be avoided.

Three years ago on Money Talks, we clearly stated that the importance of energy and the impact of impractical, ideologically driven climate policy would become more obvious. By 2022, we warned you that the monetary crisis would start being more evident. And in 2023, it would be even a more dangerous and challenging environment. All of those turned out to be true.

So you might want to pay attention when we say it's only going to get more challenging. And I see no way out given the track record of our leadership. And that, by the way, is why we're hosting the World Outlook Conference. That's the whole goal to get us through this period. It's incredibly important.

And that's why we're holding it February 2nd and 3rd. We've got some of the best people in the analytical world, in the English-speaking world. You've got to do it. You've got to take action. Be proactive because I'm telling you,

the period we've just been living through, you've seen how chaotic, how volatile it is. It's going to get even more difficult. And this, by the way, is the last day or tomorrow is on Sunday for the early bird special by midnight. So take advantage of it. I don't think you're going to be disappointed. There's good advice, good things to do.

information to get and you can then critically evaluate and see where it fits for you but i think ignoring it is not the way out so i look forward to seeing you at the world outlook conference and again early bird special closes down sunday night and that's for february 2nd and 3rd

It's fascinating when individuals stand up and get counted. They say this is important for our country, not just them personally. It's not them personally. It's a bigger good. That's what Chris Kiefer just absolutely fills that bill. He's the president of Canadians for Nuclear Energy. He's also the host of the Decouple podcast. Chris, thanks for finding time. My pleasure. It's always great to be on, Mike.

Well, and I love that this is coming at a time when you've just had a really big win in getting nuclear included in Canada's green bond. So tell us a little bit quickly about that. I'll come to much bigger or some bigger issues with nuclear, but I mean, I love to celebrate a win and it shows progress. Absolutely. You know, I've been in this just for about three and a half years, got into it out of some climate concern. My son was born, discovered nuclear energy here in Ontario. You know, we have one of the only deeply decarbonized grids in an industrial economy in the world. Um,

And so that inspired me to start a nonprofit on the podcast, as you mentioned. And yeah, three years ago, we kind of went to battle, at least, you know, went to advocate and lobby with the liberal government and got a pretty cold reception. Yeah.

They were working on this green bond framework and they, under the direction of former Greenpeace activist and now minister of energy and climate change, he, sorry, climate change and the environment, you know, he, in that framework listed nuclear alongside the sin stocks, gambling, firearms, tobacco. It wasn't quite like trade and exotic endangered species or something, but, you know, kind of really slandered Canada's nuclear sector and the 76,000 people working in it.

We organized a big House of Commons petitions, mobilized about 15% of that sector to sign on. Lots of conversations, met the prime minister, met Seamus O'Regan, other ministers on the federal liberal side. And we've seen a total U-turn and kind of the wish list has been granted. Nuclear is now in the green bond. Refurbishments, large nuclear, small nuclear. Similarly, the investment tax credit includes all levels of nuclear energy.

Canada Infrastructure Bank gave a billion dollars for the West First SMRs at Darlington. You know, I've got to say I'm pretty happy with the direction things have taken and it's been great to play my own small part in making that happen. Well, it wasn't a small part. It wasn't a small part and I don't mean modesty or anything. It was not a small part. This was huge. You

You know, public perception of nuclear energy had been poisoned by a phenomenal amount of misinformation. And it's been a struggle, but it's been a struggle where you see progress in so many different areas. In fact, I would say, you know, there are some sort of holdouts there, but there's so many countries that are turning to nuclear as the obvious. It should have been obvious solution. If climate change is your deal, how about something that doesn't have emissions?

that lasts for, you know, a generation. It's a generational thing, and it's just taken a long time to sort of beat that down. And one other victory I'm counting for you is I saw that the Ontario Federation of Labour, come on, they wouldn't have been described as big proponents of nuclear energy, but of course this will be a big benefit to unionized workers, but they've turned around too. That plays a part.

Absolutely. One of our slogans is the best climate solutions belong in every party. Conservatives are definitely on board, at least rhetorically. I do have some concerns, actually, with how they'll manage the nuclear file, if in government, once in government. The Liberals are on side now. The NDP have really been disciplined, I think, by organized labor.

You know, it is fairly concentrated in Ontario, but again, 76,000 workers, Saskatchewan, Ontario, in uranium and in nuclear. These are the best jobs out there. And this is the so-called just transition. You know, former coal workers who worked at, you know, our coal plants that provided 25% of Ontario's electricity, they transitioned into nuclear. And those workers are making their voices heard loud and strong in the labor movement.

They're demanding respect. They're getting it. And, you know, you've seen the NDP, which, you know, let's face it, they're worried about hemorrhaging votes to the Green Party. They're being disciplined, I think, by organized labor. And so it's creating a pretty interesting dynamic because there's some old blowhards in the NDP still. But, you know, they're coming around.

It's remarkable, and I'm going now outside of Canada too, it's remarkable how determined opponents of nuclear have been in the face of an avalanche of evidence, in the face of the failure and at least the recognition that wind and solar, for example, are intermittent power sources.

And, of course, we're seeing a blowback against wind and solar in so many areas. We've seen companies canceling projects, but we've seen lawsuits filed, et cetera, et cetera. Now, not to say that nuclear certainly has had to fight lawsuits, too, but it just seems like the tide's turning when you see, you know, when you see Japan turning back toward nuclear energy. You know, they're the Fukushima people, and they have overcome those fears. And, of course, we're not talking the same caliber of plant.

You know, I mean, there's been a hell of a lot of progress since Fukushima, let alone Chernobyl. Well, I mean, listen, Fukushima is really your worst case scenario. I mean, that was one of the, I think it was the fourth largest earthquake ever measured. You know, all of the deaths were related to the earthquake, not the radiation from the nuclear accident. And that was, you know, those three simultaneous meltdowns of large gigawatt scale reactors. No one died as a result of radiation.

There was a panicked evacuation and unfortunately over a thousand people lost their lives. And I don't like to sort of allege blood on the hands of anybody, but, you know, the usual suspects in terms of the anti-nuclear activists were almost giddy and playing into, you know, a culture of fear, which unfortunately did lead to deaths, but it was from this botched and rushed evacuation.

So the evidence is now clear on that on Three Mile Island. Nuclear accidents, there's radiation issues in the plant in terms of an industrial accident. Beyond the fence line, certainly Fukushima and particularly Three Mile Island, the highest dose the general public received there was about a chest X-ray.

I'm going to be at work in a couple hours doing a whole bunch of chest X-rays today. So we just, you know, nuclear has to be considered alongside the other choices that we have. There's risks and benefits and alternatives. But again, in terms of a sort of sober analysis that I've made over the last few years and, you know, with very much a public health lens, I think nuclear comes out on top in terms of our low carbon options.

Speaking of that, how should we evaluate when making choices of energy sources? How do we side them up one by one? Obviously, things like reliability would have to be pretty high. Costs would have to be pretty high. What kind of criteria? Because we have jumped into this debate big time, and I'm going back over the last 20 years, without any framework agreed upon, and there should have been. I mean, we found out the hard way that reliability might be pretty high up on that list, which

when you look in Europe and all of a sudden there was no reliability. Of course, reliability is of absolute utmost importance. And it really speaks to the kind of privilege we have in the Western world. Um, our blindness, uh, to energy, our blindness to the material world, what we take for granted flicking that switch on, you know, and how pissed off we get when, when there's even just a brief blackout, you know, I mean, Louis CK has that great joke about, uh, being up in an airplane and someone, uh,

ragging on the Wi-Fi not working. And he's like, you're in a tube flying almost at the speed of sound through this. You know how long it took for the cattle trains to work their way across this country? And now you're in LA in five hours and you're just griping about some minor thing. Anyway, the challenge is not to create lots of clean energy. The challenge is to replace fossil fuel services.

And, you know, like love them or hate them, fossil fuels enable modern civilization. You know, all the, you know, this on my ears, everything in our house. I mean, if you didn't grow it, if you didn't cut it down out of wood or it's not leather, then yeah, it's coming to you as a mineral, which was, you know, mine using fossil fuels, or it's literally a petroleum product, 6,000 products out of a barrel of oil. Fossil fuels are not easy to replace and we need to replace their services. So what are those? You know, it's things like reliable baseload electricity.

which nuclear does an exquisitely good job of. And we've gotten up to, you know, 75% nuclear in France, and that has powered a growing economy while accidentally decarbonizing the whole system. So I think that tells you something pretty remarkable that you can, again, accidentally decarbonize while, you know, having a healthy growing economy.

So, you know, there's lots of ways to look at this. I try not to anyway be dogmatic or, you know, pick a favorite just based on aesthetics. But when I line up my goals in terms of deep decarbonization, reliable, low-cost grid, even things, again, like workers' rights, you know, dignified employment, a local supply chain, you know, nuclear just consistently knocks the ball out of the park. And when we have, you know, mostly...

Total Chinese dominance of the solar supply chain, credible allegations of forced or even slave labor, you know, dismal environmental regulations over there. You know, we need to not be romantic in how we make our energy choices, but be sober about it. So I'm hoping some sobriety is coming back. It has a tendency to when you have an energy crisis, when prices spike or when energy security concerns raise their heads again.

You know, Francis Fukuyama is wrong. It's not the end of history. We're heading into a multipolar world, disrupted supply chains. You know, and I think that's getting reflected now in some of the maturity of decision makers just out of necessity.

That's something you mentioned a few minutes ago. You know, yes, we are. We can laugh at ourselves when we have any disruption. I mean, I'd be with that. Like if if my computers don't work, you know, my goodness gracious, you know, it is amazing to me, though, that over the last couple of years, we needed some harsh lessons to find out, hey, we need energy. I mean, it was so fascinating.

I have lots of time for people who have disagreement. But when you're talking about something so fundamental, so common sense, one of the lines I use here, Chris, all the time is we're being led by people who didn't realize that the sun doesn't shine every day. I mean, but that's not unfair. They literally didn't in Germany. And you've watched about a 20% exodus of their manufacturing base of their economy. Why? Because they need the reliability.

And you need cost-effective, but you need the reliability. Because look at the prices when they started to run out of energy, but when energy became more scarce, more expensive. Oh, my gosh, you're seeing 400%, 500% increases. So all of that comes together. I'm just sort of astounded that we had to start at that place, let alone we didn't even get to make a choice of which one we prefer. We didn't know we needed it.

This speaks to this idea of romantic choices. I don't mean, you know. Yeah. You don't mean dull lighting. No, I don't. I mean, I mean dull lighting in the sense that the Germans have a word for the doldrums of winter when there is no wind and no sun. It's called dunkelflaute. This is a culture that has a word for this. And yet they installed 60 gigawatts of solar in a country where the capacity factor is less than 10%.

So this was a like historic misallocation, like say what you want about solar in Australia. I think there's still massive problems with it there, but this was just a catastrophically stupid idea. You know, and we're seeing that replicated. And unfortunately, Canada is aiding and abetting that with our Canada, Germany hydrogen alliance, which if you can believe it, you know, and you want to talk about the Rube Goldberg machine of a wind and solar based grid. I mean, it gets crazier, you know, in Germany, they're trying to get rid of gas. Russia did the most.

Russia cut them off. You know, they're delusional, but they're thinking they can replace that gas with Canadian hydrogen. So we're going to have wind turbines running electrolysis, cracking water into hydrogen. We're going to put that through the Haber-Bosch process, make ammonia. We're going to have a whole fleet of ships transporting ammonia over to Germany. They're going to crack it back from ammonia into hydrogen and then burn it. I mean, the efficiencies we're talking about are, you know, 20, 30 percent. You lose all of that energy.

And Canada is going to be subsidizing that. We have a 40% investment tax credit to hydrogen. Canadian government just gave $125 million loan to Everwind Fuels out in the Maritimes. And, you know, these are reckless and irresponsible decisions in a time where, you know, we need to prioritize where we're putting our money because we're going crazy into debt.

What have you found the biggest misconception still? I mean, let's just flash forward a few years. You know, it was everything if I went back five years with you or three years when you started Canadians for Nuclear Energy and all the other work you were doing. But what about now? What do you still bump into? Is it about the storage or the waste? Yeah, it's largely moved to the waste. I mean, I think people have gotten over the sort of Simpsons hangover of three-eyed fish and, you know,

Glowing nuclear waste that finds its way to the nuclear plant in Homer Simpson's car and whatever. But yeah, the waste issue is still there. And I mean, that's a selling point for nuclear energy. It's not a weakness. I mean, the nuclear industry can account for every microgram of waste that they've created in terms of spent fuel.

The total amount that Canada's made would fit in a hockey rink stacked one telephone pole high. I mean, this is the ideal waste stream. It's not a liquid. It's not a gas. It's just a very dense, solid pellet.

which we have managed without a single injury or fatality related to radiation, not just Canada, but the entire civil nuclear world in 70 years. And you may think that's crazy. And it does sound crazy because nuclear waste is dangerous. Fresh out of the reactor, you'd get a lethal dose of radiation in a few seconds, but we make dangerous things safe. For God's sakes, we make aviation safe. We cram hundreds of men, women, and children into, again, these little thin skin pressurized tubes, put them up at 30,000 feet, go near the speed of sound over oceans. You know,

you know, thousands of mission critical moving parts, air traffic control, like the complexity of making aviation safe is insane. When it comes to managing nuclear waste, it's pretty simple. You take the fuel out of the reactor underwater, you put it in a spent fuel pool, it loses a lot of its radioactivity. You put it in a dry cask storage, which is basically a concrete and steel box. It sits there for a few hundred years. And after 400 years, you could take a fuel element and hold it in your hand. It wouldn't be dangerous to you.

So radioactivity decays, the waste gets less and less dangerous over time. When people talk about millions and billions of years, I mean, you and I are experiencing 4,600 radioactive decays inside our body from potassium 40. Potassium's the number one intracellular positively charged ion in our bodies. And there's a portion that's radioactive. That has a half-life of a couple billion years.

You know, it's just, it gets ludicrous. I mean, what are we going to do? Store ourselves in, you know, lead-lined casks underground or something? This is a, it's not, it's not that there's not challenges, but again, far easier than making aviation safe.

Well, you know, and we're part of this absolutism you see everywhere. Like we've got to get to zero emissions. You know, I mean, really good luck with that. In this case, it's zero radiation. And I'm laughing and you're an emergency room doctors. You say you're going to go and x-ray some people today or whatever, you know, MRIs and all that.

People don't seem to understand the exposure we already have. It is not a case of getting to zero on this. And yet I encounter that. Well, you know, radiation, as you said, the Simpsons three eyed fish, you know, it's just the foundation of the discussion is so superficial.

And, you know, the industries and regulators, God bless them. I mean, it's a very interesting culture. These guys accept that and they accept the challenge of it. They're engineers. They love solving problems, even if they're essentially unsolvable problems. Because, again, there's nowhere that's zero radiation in the entire world. I've been...

two kilometers underground into this dark matter research center in the Canadian Shield. We took an elevator two kilometers down because they're trying to get away from cosmic rays and muons and study neutrinos, et cetera. Anyway, there's still a ton of radiation down there. It's just a fact of life. And yeah, I mean, I have parents coming in with toddlers that have fallen and bonked their heads and they're begging me to radiate their child's brain with a dose of radiation that's equal to what you'd get natural background for a year.

There's a, you know, in Kerala, India, there's an area that has a background level of radiation as high as the highest contaminated areas in Fukushima. You know, should they bulldoze up their beaches and put that all in plastic bags? There's solid evidence around the world that low dose radiation, I mean, we can't measure and actually detect harms from it. There are far bigger fish to fry in terms of carcinogens out there. And those are the boring old things that we take for granted because they're, you know, even if they're visible, even if you see the smog, you don't think about it. You know,

You know, you smoke a cigarette. You don't think about that. You have a, you know, your exhaust is broken on your car. These are the dangerous things actually, but they're mundane. They're every day.

I would think, though, on the positive note, back to the positive, at least from my point of view, is we are making progress. I don't think it should have been so difficult. And you're the one who's been on the front line with many people. But I don't think it should have been more difficult. The case was straightforward. If we had started with some sort of what's our framework for the ideal energy sources or what are the variables and how do we choose them, all of that kind of thing. But I want to come back to there has been progress made. I alluded to Japan, but I think South Korea. It seems like every week

You'd have to know, Chris, that uranium is one of our absolute foundational recommendations for investment portfolios. Obviously, I don't know individuals' investments, and I'm not suggesting that way, but I'm saying, hey, you better have a look at this stuff, and it's done extremely well. I'm proud of that. But it all comes from being able to chronicle. It felt like on a weekly basis, oh, this country is increasing. I mean, look at China, for example, the huge growth that they're planning, and India, you know. Yeah.

So there is definite progress made. It's astounding, but I mean, it's interesting. And, you know, you look at why countries build nuclear and there's two reasons. And they all boil down really to energy security. So why did Ontario go gangbusters building nuclear? Well, we didn't have our own coal deposits or gas deposits. We were importing coal from the U.S. You know, we outstripped our hydroelectricity, mostly Niagara Falls, and we were rapidly growing and industrializing.

So we started importing that Midwestern coal, shipping across the Great Lakes and great big barges. Well, in 1973, the OPEC crisis hits, and a knock-on effect is the price of coal doubles.

And that was a big blow. Luckily, you know, we had, you know, the second largest nuclear research center in the world after the States over at Chalk River, because in World War Two, all the allies brought the researchers over here. We'd been developing this nuclear reactor, the can do, and it came just in time. And if you look at, you know, when we really went gangbusters commissioning 22 large can do reactors in 22 years, that's a large reactor every year.

Uh, that was totally in response to, uh, to the doubling of the price of coal. And so, you know, why is Eastern Europe, the Eldorado of nuclear right now? Well, you know, they don't want to be dependent on Russian gas. Um, the other reason, uh, you know, that countries go nuclear, um, the Emirates just brought on, um,

while they're going to have 5,600 megawatts of nuclear soon, 25% of the electricity will be decarbonized in sort of one fell swoop here. They didn't basically have a nuclear engineer 15 years ago and now they've developed quite the workforce. Anyway, I mean, that frees up more LNG for export and earn some arbitrage and

the Europeans have been dumb enough to screw up their energy systems. So I don't really think you can sling mud at the Emiratis. But that's, I guess, in terms of the real politique of why nuclear gets built, that's why. And unfortunately, it doesn't happen for climate reasons because it's really hard. And I

And again, if I want to steal man nuclear and say why it's a bad thing or we shouldn't do it, it's because it's difficult. It takes incredibly highly skilled people, incredible institutions. But the great thing is, is in Canada, we have them. We've developed those. You know, here in Ontario, we've been refurbishing, which means life extending our Canada reactors. Every 40 years, you can you can actually swap out the core of a Canada reactors like an engine swap out. And you're as good or better than new condition because you've got upgraded parts and controls. Yeah.

Those are big nuclear megaprojects. Those are coming in six months early. Those are coming in under budget. So we're proving that we can do big, complex megaprojects here in Canada. We should be enormously proud of it. And I think that gives me hope that we're going to be able to pull it off again.

That's another side. I'm glad you've brought it up because this is a real opportunity for Canada. We've had, as you say, decades-long experience here. You know, we've got the technology. Obviously, we've got an educated workforce that we can still draw on for more. I mean, I just don't want people to lose the economic because that's another thing you rarely hear. Oh, wind and solar are going to give us the opportunity. Are you kidding? We've got sitting in our backyard. We could go out to the world right now.

With proven technology, I just think it's a remarkable opportunity for Canada. And we're actually getting that opportunity. We have sold CANDU reactors around the world to China, Korea, Argentina, Romania. And the Romanians are interested in building a couple more CANDUs. And so they just signed a $3 billion loan from Canada. The Export Bank approved that. Every single dollar of that $3 billion is going to be spent here in Canada in our nuclear supply chain.

And, you know, this is a sovereign-backed debt from Romania. They've paid back their other debts. They borrowed twice before for their other candy reactor builds. So this is a total win-win-win for Canada here. Now, we are in a moment where...

I think we're being a bit naive. We have this precious Canadian technology. CanDo is ranked as one of Canada's 10 top engineering achievements. And we've been incredible in terms of the Avro Aero, for instance, or BlackBerry. I mean, we're a country of real innovators. But because of a lack of a kind of cohesive national industrial policy that

that can really take advantage of this made in Canada design, this incredible supply chain, this economic multiplier factor. Like, did you know that every dollar we spend on can do, we get a buck 40 back in GDP.

It's extraordinary. But due to a lack of vision, there's the risk that we won't make the investments to modernize the latest Can-Do design. The utilities are not asking for small reactors. Bruce Power has been approved for 1,400 megawatts of new nuclear. They want to use that full capacity. So they've said to the Can-Do folks, you've got to come back to us with an even bigger reactor.

they're working on it. But, you know, the government is, again, wasting $125 million on this ridiculous Canada-Germany hydrogen alliance. If they were to match, you know, with a consortium of industry folks, match that investment in R&D, we could get that in time to be competitive and win that bid at Bruce. But these are the things where, you know, despite all the wins, I feel like there's still a lot of work to do. And I'm just this nosy Emerge doc who's kind of fallen into this. And for whatever reason, it's been working for me. So hopefully we can carry that message forward.

Well, it is a key message. And obviously, political considerations jump in, really electoral considerations. And that's been driving way too much of our energy policy. I'm not going to put words in your mouth, seriously. But I'll tell you, we're going to look back on what we've done, squandering our opportunities in energy. I have trouble imagining a bigger mistake.

I always ask, well, you wanted to cancel that project. What did we get in return? Because Canada, 1.6% of emissions. We've got Chrystia Freeland, our Deputy Prime Minister, Finance Minister, clearly stating with the Financial Times, Canada can't move the dial. So where the action is for us would be to do exactly what you're saying, share our expertise, export our expertise, and help other countries reduce their emissions that are much more significant than ours.

And yeah, we'll wait and see if they take advantage. I think the green bond thing, you know, we're finally nuclear, you know, isn't the bastard child in the corner. That's a good start. Thanks to 100%. Thanks to your group.

You know, you talk the language politicians understand. I got 10,000 signatures. You want to be on the other side of that? Yeah, yeah. No, and I mean, 76,000 workers. And again, the supply chain in Ontario, it feeds a lot of families. But, you know, in terms of the wasted opportunity, the 2010s were such a sweet decade and we squandered them, right? I mean, the cost of borrowing...

went negative. We had negative interest rates after the financial crisis for a little while. You know, every single source of primary energy, be it uranium, be it oil, coal, natural gas dropped peak to trough 90% during that decade.

And what did we do? We squandered it on this massive wind and solar build-out, which has shown no real significant size. They can spare a bit of fossil fuels here and there, but they don't decarbonize your economy and your society. They're cheap. They last 20, 30 years. You've got to replace them all. They desecrate landscapes. And they're mostly relying on forced labor in China and coal-fired power to make polysilicon. This is not an environmental success story.

But, you know, I think energy is really in a lot of people's mind. It's that kind of romantic aesthetic of, you know, harnessing these natural flows and you forget that you need a machine to turn that photon into an electron. You need a machine to turn that breeze into electricity. And it's a big, ugly machine that consumes a hell of a lot of resources. So...

You know, I'm glad some maturity is coming back in. We, you know, we always say the best time to build a nuclear plant was 10 years ago. The second best time is now we're in more challenging times. It's not going to be easy. Listen, I mean, all the woes with offshore wind right now, those are capital intensive commodities, intensive projects. So is nuclear. I mean, I'm, I'm, uh,

I'm not sad that those projects are failing, but it's a warning for nuclear as well. It's a big capital intensive project, massive value proposition that wind doesn't give you. But it's not that the challenges aren't over now. Once the nuclear plants paid off, as we are here in Ontario, I mean, nuclear is the second cheapest source of electricity after hydro.

And it is far, far lower than gas, particularly wind and then solar, which we gave these insane feed-in tariff contracts for. And you see that pattern really around the world. There have been economic closures of nuclear plants in the U.S. That's because the price of gas, you know, went down to about $2, you know, for a million BTU on Henry Hub, for instance, right? I mean, that created a very challenging environment. And also, you know, these subsidies, which are mandating, you know, 30% of the system had to be wind and solar, zero marginal costs can come on and off the grid however they want. Right.

and knock a nuclear plant offline. So, you know, that era of closures for economic reasons is over. This is a very cheap source of power. And, you know, when we're talking about reshoring industry and multipolar world, friend-shoring, et cetera, bringing energy-intensive manufacturing back to this country, you know, say what you want about the battery subsidies. I've got some concerns about those. But if you want a power factory, you need baseload.

You need baseload. You can't afford to have a production line going off. There's an interesting documentary out of Germany. And what's actually recorded as a blackout is very different from something that disrupts an industrial process. So they have a factory that makes the copper coils for the wind turbines there. And they've been having millisecond power disturbances, which shut down the entire industrial process. They're offline for three days. Very sensitive instruments in these machines that are doing the manufacturing there.

So it's the things that, again, we're generally blind to. I think people in finance tend to have more of a systems level view. They're constantly studying energy, you know, materials, commodities. They've got a better sense. But unfortunately, you know, even it drives me nuts. The climate folks, they have zero idea about energy. You know, they're concerned. I share that concern. I think we've got some really serious challenges ahead. But if you're energy blind, then the solutions you propose are not helpful. Well,

I say try talking to one about the electrical grid and whether it's ready or not for wind and solar. You know, you want a hopeless feeling conversation, just completely unaware of the challenges that are entailed if we're going to go renewable and the energy grid. And I won't even go there at this point. But let me just let me finish with a couple of really simple questions. Start to finish. If you had the permitting, how long does it take to get a nuclear plant built and running?

Well, you know, we have an issue here where our environmental regulations are bad for the environment. So we have the federal environmental impact assessment process. Bruce Power is working on, you know, getting four large new reactors going up there. You know, and they're not scheduled to come online, according to current plans, until the end of the 2030s, maybe 2040s. And that's because the federal environmental impact assessment duplicates a ton of stuff that's already happening provincially and takes seven years. Right.

And this is, you know, Bruce Power wants to build on a current nuclear site licensed for nuclear. These are some of the most environmentally monitored sites in the world. I mean, there's people out there and they're in their their waders or hip waders sampling invertebrate life out in the lake. You know, so if this truly is an emergency, we should be going gangbusters on it. Doesn't mean you don't do any assessment, but seven years is far too long, especially given the urgency of the matter.

And so, yeah, I mean, we're luckily we have a site at Darlington. I wish it was large nuclear. We need large nuclear in Ontario. Unfortunately, there's a path dependency towards SMRs, which are great for small grids like, you know, Saskatchewan in particular, Alberta, Maritimes. But, you know, they've got a grandfathered in environmental impact assessment. They're planning on having, you know, one of those SMRs online 2029, 2030 and the others coming on in the early 2030s. It's not a lot of power.

Wouldn't have been my decision if I ruled the world. But, you know, I think that's going to be a really interesting testing grounds. A lot of the world's watching that. This whole theory of whether going small and modular is going to save the nuclear industry is untested. Again, like I said, it's not easy street yet. We've won a lot of victories. Things are looking pretty amazing compared to how they were three years ago, but

There's a lot for the nuclear sector to work out for itself. Let me finish with just asking, what's the next benchmark for you? So the green bonds was a big benchmark. You had a big campaign, successful. Is there another benchmark around the corner? It may not be something that you have to advocate to that degree, but you're just going, when I see this, I'll know that another big step forward has been taken.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, listen, if Canada reactors are good enough for Romania with Canadian technology, they should certainly be good enough here at home. We released a report in July called the case for can do. Unfortunately, the industry wasn't doing its own job selling the virtues of this technology. And that goes way back. Unfortunately, Harper sold off the deployment rights of can do to SNC level and for a steal for $15 million. And, you know,

They did well in the refurbishments, but they didn't have a vision to developing the technology and modernizing the reactor, etc. And that's going to take some investment. And it's going to take, again, a cohesive national industrial policy. And I hope we see that happen. That's certainly what we're going to be fighting for. And in terms, again, of the politics of this all, the liberals, I didn't think this would happen, but they've sort of delivered the wish list here.

Uh, the conservatives, they're very pro nuclear, but I do have this concern that because of a, um, you know, it's in the DNA to be small government, to be careful with your spending. That's all good and fine. Um, don't waste your money. Like, you know, like it's happening right now with the Canada, Germany hydrogen Alliance. I think conservatives tend to be pretty energy literate, but if you don't appreciate there's a difference between the natural resource sector and the manufacturing sector, and that takes a different level of government involvement, potentially intervention supports, um,

Nuclear is complex. It needs that. And if we want it to be Canadian and we want to continue to harvest the benefits of nuclear, which it's given to this country, that's going to take some leadership and potentially a bit of a different approach. So, you know, I take a long view. It's going to be interesting. I mean, these projects take a while to come through. There's going to be different politics that arrive and different strategies needed to push things forward. But again, I'm optimistic. Canada is really at the forefront of this and it's an exciting time.

Well, you know, as I say, I want to finish right back where I started and Pat, you on the back as president of Canadians for Nuclear Energy. You also check out Chris at the Decouple podcast. Chris, we appreciate you taking your time, but I appreciate even more of the work you've done on behalf, I think, of all Canadians. And I think, as I say, it's a global reach. If climate change is your deal, you've got to learn about this stuff. Chris, thanks for taking the time.

I can do one shameless plug. We're not industry funded whatsoever. So, you know, support helps. There is a donate button on our website. You can find it at www.c4ne.ca. It really helps. We've accomplished a lot. We'd like to accomplish a lot more. So if you like our work, please support us. And I'll give you my word. I'll be signing on right now. So there you go. Thanks, Chris. All the best.

Time now for the quote of the week. I suspect that most of us, or I hope most of us, have been shocked, appalled, overwhelmed by the anti-Semitism on our university campuses or public sector union office in our streets, which is the context for this open letter written by a Carleton University professor who teaches biblical studies. It's a bit long, but I think worth hearing. In quotes, I have spent the last 25 years showing you the beauty of

Of all the literary, cultural, philosophical, and artistic heights of the human spirit over the course of human history,

Teaching you has been the most wonderful and satisfying of callings. I never wanted to do anything other than meet with you, discuss ideas with you, discover and rediscover human insights, truths, and wonder. I've never regretted my career path, never hated my job, never doubted my legacy. I felt privileged and honored to show you how to analyze, to think critically, to weigh evidence, and to understand people and ideas, context and complexity deeply and thoroughly.

I thought my work was helping to make the world a better place, more humane, more thoughtful. You have broken my heart. No, you've shattered it, irreparably. I don't know how I will ever set foot in a classroom again. I don't know how I will ever see you the same way. I now know that I was deluding myself, that I'd ever had an impact, would ever leave a positive legacy, that my work ever made any difference.

I watched you all on social media, in the streets, in the quads, marching in solidarity with a movement that seeks only to wipe me out, to exterminate me, my children, my parents, my entire family and community.

I know some of you think you're trying to help the oppressed. You think that my kind is the white colonialist racist kind that you hate. But I thought I taught you how to evaluate arguments. I thought I taught you the importance of understanding context, both historical and rhetorical.

I thought that I taught you that the world did not operate according to dichotomies like black and white, oppressor and oppressed, villain and victim. I thought I taught you about complexity, about judgment, and to examine your sources and not to take anyone's statements at face value. I was wrong. End of quote. As I say,

I think the professor obviously shares my sentiment when this whole thing took place from October 7th, the tragedy, the reaction. For me, Canada will never be the same. Clearly for him, teaching on a university campus won't be either. That's just part of the fallout. I want to bring Mike Levy in now. Of course, we've got a fall economic statement this week, Mike. Let me just give you the easy question to start, or at least the Barbara Walters version. Seriously, you heard that statement. What jumped out at you?

Mike, I was surprised and really surprised because everybody was expecting a massively higher deficit with this week's economic statement. And if you zone right into that area, the surprise was pleasant enough as the deficit is projected to be $40.1 billion and came in at $40 billion even and faced the government dodged a fiscal bullet for at least one year. Well, that statement in more than one place surprised me.

Well, but I'm going to throw back at that. And I agree. I think the consensus was we'd get a higher deficit than the 40 billion that was projected earlier this year. But they also come right back and they say basically over the next five years, the deficit is going to be $40 billion, cumulatively $40 billion higher than they just told us it was going to be in March. So there is that other thing. So short term, maybe okay. Longer term, there's still a lot of work to be done, actually. Uh-uh.

Mike, there's a lot of work to be done. And these are the assumptions that they have that they're using. And the analysts that I read, one that you had sent me, is if, if, you just can't keep using the word if and then hope that things are going to happen. The government is going to have to bring spending under control. They're going to have to attract new revenue. You cannot have

have an economic atmosphere in Canada where businesses are reticent to come in and bring in and employ and give them that larger tax base. So those are the kind of things that I

are going to have to happen. All in all, the government has about $3 billion in extra room. And I mean, that to me is, to this current government, is just a gasolineing up the torch and just setting it on fire. Hey, we have 3 billion. Let's see if we can spend six. Yeah.

Good point. And also, I'm not knocking the government for this. I mean, this is by necessity a shorter term. Yeah, they look forward, but come on. It's just one of the circumstances. And I think the big worry for me, Mike, is that none of the numbers are coming out of here are coming from any assumption that we could have a significant economic slowdown. And we had, for example, you know, James Thorne on with me.

on with us a few weeks ago, did a great interview, but he looks for a much sharper decline. Well, certainly these numbers do not reflect any kind of thing that's sort of a sharp, maybe a smooth landing or something. I think that risk is bigger than, or certainly being accounted for when I look at these documents.

I think there's one thing that's bothering me more than anything, and that is the vision of this government. There are absolutely no plans to balance the budget over the next six years. No plans, period. What we're talking about is...

How much more, even if it's a smaller amount, that we're going to raise the deficit each year? Balanced budget does not come into the conversation. It's how much more we're going to spend. And that absolutely...

I just get flummoxed with it because if you don't have a budget or a vision of balancing that budget somewhere, every year it costs us more. We are going to be downgraded on our credit. There is absolutely almost, absolutely almost, absolutely no doubt that Canada is going to be downgraded.

And that means our interest rates are going to go up. We have a population surge coming. We don't have housing for them. So the government is promising new housing in 2028. I just think it all becomes a big story, a big fairy tale. But what worries me even worse is that people keep hearing the same thing, not seeing any results, and then stop listening and stop expecting. And with that,

government can blindly carry on and spend more. Well, I think if there's a couple of other takeaways, there'll be some debate about it, but they say, is the debt affordable? If you're looking at what are your measure of bankruptcy is one end? No, it's not. What it does, it does restrict some of the options you have if things come down the road. I mean, you're looking at debt charges

you know, broadcast now to be 20 billion, 22 billion higher than it was in just in March in their projections. So, you know, that reduces some of the options government has within this. But as I say, tons of stuff to look at. We'll be looking at it as, you know, as we go forward here. But in the meantime, Mike, thanks for taking the time.

Michael, you're welcome, but I just want to add one more thing. I always want more thing. Ottawa now expects debt service costs to rise from $35 billion in the prior fiscal year to $46.5 billion this year and $55 billion three years down the road. That's what Ottawa expects. Let me leave you with that thought. Happy Christmas. No, okay, Mike. Talk to you next week. Okay, Mike.

Time now for the shocking stat of the week. We can file this under things that keep me up at night. I'm talking about the phrase, we get the government we deserve. Oh, sends shiver down my spine. As I said at the outset of the show, we obviously deserve incompetence, if that's the case, in so many areas that impacts our lives directly. And one of those areas that has profound implications for tens of millions of Canadians,

as well as non-permanent residents, including those here on student visa, is the lack of affordable housing and rental accommodation. I'm going to talk more about this with Ozzy, but I want to give you more context. What I'm astounded by, though, is how politicians at all levels have gotten away with expressing their deep concern for the lack of affordable housing, affordable rents, when the evidence is overwhelming that government policy is the major driver of the high prices.

We're well past the point of fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 200 times, shame on me. Gosh, we're at the shame on me part of that one, that's for sure. Forgive the digression, but the incompetence on the affordable housing and rents file is mind-blowing.

It's not enough to understand. It's not tough to understand, actually. Simply put, demand due to record population growth is far outstripping supply. Here's a number for you. Since June 20th, that's when Canada's population crossed the 40 million mark. It's grown by another 513,000 in just five months. Come on, housing starts aren't even in the ballpark of keeping pace. But here's the shocking part.

The federal government has no idea how many people are entering Canada on student visas and temporary work permits. The shocking part is that they've known they don't know that for quite a while and they've done nothing about it. And that guarantees a further rental squeeze. It's going to intensify. This is totally a self-inflicted wound and it's getting worse. Here's the numbers though. In the 12 months from the third quarter of 2022, second quarter of 2023,

697,701 people have entered Canada on a temporary visa. 697,701 and all of them got to live somewhere, but we're not prepared for it. Which put in perspective the sort of big congratulatory announcements by government to build what, just a few thousand housing units? The word drop in the bucket comes to mind. And in keeping with the theme on this week's show,

Well, if we want incompetence in government, we've clearly got it. As you just heard from the shocking stat, my goodness, anybody who thinks we're anywhere close to being on top of the housing problem, whether it's affordable housing or affordable rent, even being able to find a rental property in certain urban areas in the country, we are so far away from that. We predicted, I think it was three years ago, Ozzie Jurek and I, that this was going to be one of the big, big subjects

And I'm proud of the work we've done, thanks to Ozzy's expertise here, bringing it to your attention. And there's more coming here, so I'm going to bring Ozzy in. You can find him at ozbuzz.ca. Ozzy, I'm going to throw a couple things at you out of nowhere, but out in British Columbia, I just want to remind people, they have something called a speculation tax. Just give me the quick summation of that for someone listening in other parts, because I can tell you, governments in other parts are looking at this.

Well, in essence, it's a vacant home tax. Much like the city of Vancouver, if you keep your house more empty than six months, you have to pay a tax of 3%. Now, the speculation tax with the BC government is something different. It's only 1.5%, but for foreigners, it's 2%. So in essence,

They had several cities in BC that they used and now this week they expanded that to 59 cities. It applies to Vernon, Coldstream, Penticton, Summerland, Lake County, Peachland, Courtenay, Comericks, Cameroon, Park Street, Seven Arm, Kamloops. All of these areas are now supposedly, they have no vacancies. The rental situation is so that we have to not have a vacant property.

And you'll take a look at Prince George, Mike, where the vacancy rate is 5%, not 1% like Vancouver. It just doesn't make any sense. Well, let's come back to Andrew Weaver. He was the leader of the Green Party when this was brought in, and he was the partner. He was protecting the NDP and giving them the majority votes. He called it a cash grab.

Do we need to go any further than that? I mean, it's ridiculous to suggest that this tax is going to solve any kind of a vacancy problem in so many of the different areas. It seems arbitrary. I'll give you an example, Ozzy, and I'm not going to go on about this. Whistler isn't part of it. Why? Is that because Whistler doesn't have a vacancy problem? You know, come on. I mean, this is a cash grab.

Well, the thing on all this short-term rental thing is supposed to solve it. It's another thing that government should be building houses.

What they do is they take existing housing stock and change the use of that. That means it's an attack on the homeowner, the builder. I mean, which builder wants to build maybe now in areas like Penticton or Peachland or some of those areas that outside investment was going to come in? And I think it's an attack on our rights. Look, I now have a condo in Vancouver. I have apartments.

I worked for it all my life. I paid it off. All my furniture is there. My mother's dishes are there. Now I'm supposed to rent it out if I'm not spending there six months. Who am I going to send it out to? Some sort of tenant who doesn't care for my property. I also have a little condo on Vancouver Island, let's say, or on Quadra Island, which it took me 20 years to build myself. Every week I went in there and brought my two-by-fours there. And I want to spend my six months there. And again, I don't.

want to render to somebody else that doesn't care for the same kind of thing. Mike, I had that in my ski condo in Kimberley, right?

So now I'm at fault. I'm a terrible person. I'm as a homeowner and I'm the speculator holding off people from their right to my unit. It just blows me away. Well, and again, government isn't going to be worried that they're doing an attack on private property. They're not going to be worried that it's a private owner or developer. But that's the only place we're getting a solution to our housing problem.

You know, look at the government, and I just alluded to this, I know, but the government makes these proud announcements. 21,000 units, look, across the country. We need 500,000. Ozzie, let's go on to something else here, though. As I say, the

The polling results were so negative for the federal Liberal government that now they've sort of turned their attention all of a sudden They've discovered there is a housing a problem here So now we're starting to talk about some changes especially with the mortgage thing rearing, you know things like changing amortization Changing what whether you have to are you subject to the stress test if you come to renew your mortgage? Tell us a little bit more about those changes that are out there. Yeah, it's called the Canadian mortgage charter and and

Right now, if you had a mortgage come due, it's at 2%, it's gone to 6%.

There is already a law in place where the bank has to accept you. You don't have to have a stress test applied to you if I stay with that bank. Now what that did was it helped the bank keep you, right? You couldn't go somewhere else and get a better rate. Well, that's now done away with. The new suggestion is that I now can go and shop around. Now the reality is, Mike, another bank is going to take me if I don't qualify on their stress test.

But anyways, it's supposed to help and maybe it will. But there's also the fees that might have been charged for these relief measures the government puts in should be waived. And then the big thing is that, maybe a good thing is that if you make a lump sum payment, you can't charge a prepayment penalty. So these are maybe some of the good things. But Mike?

What does it do to the banks? First of all, the government says it's voluntary. So what does that mean? It's voluntary. And then what if the bank looks at the statements and says, if we are taken and there's hundreds of billions of dollar mortgages coming to you, I'm going to let them all go. I'm going to write them all off. I'm supposed to write off the interest.

And the government says it will monitor financial institutions carefully. It's voluntary, but they're going to monitor me? It's crazy. Yeah. Well, again, more interference creating more uncertainty. None of that is good if you're looking for true solutions or something that gets it done. I'm just shaking my head, though, here, Ozzy, that this is a reaction that we're seeing, these short-term reactions to problems. Here's my point, that government created.

You know, we just had a report out of Scotia Global Economics. Forty percent of the rate increases you've seen are due to overspending by government right there. You know, and that, of course, has caused the problem. But also the cost that we've I know we've chronicled this many times, the development costs, the extra charges. You know, in one moment they're saying I care about affordable housing and 15 minutes later, there's yet one more charge.

This is going to discourage development for sure. I wouldn't want any part of it right now because not only are these new rules coming in, broadly speaking, and yeah, I agree, some are okay, but it gets me thinking, what's next? That's a real dangerous thing. Don't create uncertainty in this environment.

It doesn't solve a problem. It just temporarily eases a symptom. The crazy thing is also on the extending of amortization to 40, 50 years. Maybe like in Japan, 100 years, maybe a dual. I have my son also owe the bank.

It's not been my week, Mike. The TD Bank went double down and updated a 10% drop in prices by the first quarter. The Ontario Realtors putting out video after video about a falling Toronto market. And the government does everything possible to make me miserable.

Oh, welcome to the club. Oh, my goodness. Let's not get started on that. Ozzy, I'm going to leave it at that because you can't believe all the things I would add to that. Maybe we'll talk about them again next week. But in the meantime, go to ozbuzz.ca. You sign up. It's a free newsletter, too, by the way. Just put your address. I don't know where to send it. Ozbuzz.ca. Have a great week, Ozzy.

Thanks, Mike. And remember, Harvey Mackay said, day in and day out, our tax accountant can make or lose more money than any other single person in your life, with the possible exception of your kids.

I'm going to go live to the trading desk. I'm going to bring in Victor Adair now. Vic, let me just share a thought I was having because obviously the market, and you were alluding to this going back several weeks, the markets decided, hey, the peak in interest rates is over. Now we're going to head down. You know what occurred to me? My goodness, we've been desperate to believe that the other 12 times and it hasn't worked out.

Yeah, you're right. The market has consistently, let's say, trying to front run the Fed, waiting, anticipating the first cut is your best friend and so on. Actually, what I wrote in my blog so many times, Mike, was that the market thinks that that will be the green light special to buy stocks if the Fed is done raising rates. Well,

The market is believing it again. I mean, the Dow Jones is up 3,000 points. That's about 10% since the last month, since we had the turn, you know, when the market started to think that way. Microsoft and Apple are each up about 15%. The stock market gains certainly have been led by MegaCap's tech growth.

The bond yields have fallen from a 16-year high at the end of September, thereabouts, fallen about half a percentage point. And the U.S. dollar has lost about 3% after having a great run from July through September. So we've had this change. And I think the change has been because the market's anticipating that the Fed's done and the next thing they're going to do is cut. And to that point, you know, I think there may be wrong.

In other words, we're priced for perfection here because the central banks, including TIFF, keep telling us that that's not the case. Well, that's what I was going to come to because it's not that we haven't had – I think what happens is that the Federal Reserve, in this case the Bank of Canada you're alluding to, thinks, hey, there's a little too much euphoria already.

in that. So why would Tiff Macklin stand up and say now is not the time to be cutting rates? He didn't have to. It wasn't part of a formal, you know, anticipated statement he's going to speak on this day. No, he felt the need to say that. I think that's noteworthy. I do too. And it's not just Tiff Macklin at the Bank of Canada. It is including the Chairman Powell, several speakers at the Fed, delivering in essence the message that

We're not sure we've got rates high enough to do the job we're trying to do. And, you know, we may have to raise rates some more. And at the least,

We're going to stay at these levels for some time. I think I heard somebody describe it this way. The thing that Powell doesn't want to be remembered for is that he is Arthur Burns, too. Arthur Burns, way back in the day, was the head of the Federal Reserve, and he cut interest rates too early when they were trying to get inflation under control and inflation got away on the upside.

I want to come to crude oil quickly because that's interesting in that. Okay. So the stocks are moving. They're anticipating rates coming down, you know, and that will help rescue the economy, you know, help propel the economy at the same time we got, I know they don't have to be operating to the same variables, but still it's noteworthy. The crude is certainly slowed down. Joseph Schachter on the show with us was looking at this mid 70 area, you know, that we're in now, you know, 95 bucks in September now, 74, you know,

Yeah, I mean, we had, you're right, $95 high in September. And the decline has been, we've had some wicked intraday and interday volatility. I mean, up four or five, down four or five bucks in a day. The market's really trying to,

to find a balance here in terms of supply demand. And coming up, I guess, Thursday of this coming week, the 30th of November, OPEC is going to have a major meeting and that'll be an opportunity for them to either say, okay, we're going to reduce production again or we're not. And even if they say they're going to reduce production, you know, they might not. So yeah, don't look for crude oil to be quiet anytime soon.

Mike, one more point on what we're talking about earlier here with the market getting maybe ahead of itself. The volatility in the stock market indices is as low as it's been at any time in the last 10 years. And that's indicating, in my mind, a real complacency with what's going on, which, of course, that's just waving a red flag at me in terms of when the market gets really complacent, be careful, baby.

Well, I think that's setting up – you know, I love the backdrop for the World Outlook Conference. And I'll just remind people, Vic, you're going to be the kickoff speaker for – again, we're emphasizing energy. Duh. Why not? I mean, because it's the most essential subject that – you're going to be doing the kickoff for that, which I'm looking forward to hearing. And I know you're already – you're a well-prepared guy looking at the markets.

There's going to be plenty to talk about at the World Outlook Conference. And as I say, you'll be kicking off on February 2nd. Conference is February 2nd and 3rd. So, yeah, I'm looking forward to that. Yeah, one of the things I do, Mike, I start making notes. I have different pads in the main. I've got pages of notes already about what I might talk about at the conference. But in that list of things,

is 2024 is going to be the most important or the biggest election year in history. I think we've got something like 40 countries around the world that make up 40% of the world's GDP, represent about half of the world's population. I made those numbers wrong, but just order of magnitude, are going to the polls.

And given some recent results we've seen, say in Argentina and Holland, it could be a case where they're going to throw the buggers out. You know, we want some new guys in here. So it could be a very dramatic year. And that'll be important.

And, you know, you have to forgive me, but I'm not sitting there surprised. Main theme on money talks has been the rejection of the, you know, the establishment institutions and the way they don't understand why they're getting rejected, to me, assures the trend continues. But your point is so well taken. 224, most significant election year in history. Obviously, hear what Martin Armstrong has to say about that.

You know, I mean, this is the kind of stuff he's been chronicling too. As you say, the backdrop it creates for some of the, you know, the markets that you're looking at. Yeah, I think it's going to be terrific. I look forward to that. Hey, by the way, Vic, this is the last weekend for the early bird special. You know, so people have till Sunday at midnight.

you know, to get the discount. So again, of course, we want you to sign up as soon as possible, but I think the backdrop for that certainly justifies our call to action. But Victor Dare, he'll be there looking good as usual. He'll be kicking off the energy section. Vic, have a great week. Mike, I'm looking forward to it. Thank you kindly.

Time now for this week's Goofy Award. You know, I feel like I have to revisit this all the time. I'm going to talk about the CBC for a second and their reporting on the Hamas-Israeli conflict. But I love this quote by Tristan Hopper of the National Post. He says in quotes, I understand that the CBC theoretically doesn't deserve to be destroyed and a plow run over the former site of its headquarters.

But the damage they have knowingly done to Canadians' basic understanding of truth is unconscionable. You can't reform this, end of quote. Well, that was in response to, you probably caught this letter this week, signed by dozens of academics along with various organizations that deny that

that Israeli women were sexually violated by Hamas terrorists on October 7th. Now, this isn't about a debate between, you know, pro-Palestinian or whatever way you want to label it in Hamas. No, they're saying that these women were not sexually violated. And the signatories on the letter

include a full professor in education at the University of Alberta, plus two assistant lecturers, including one in women's and gender studies and a postdoctoral research. You know, University of Calgary, they've got a computer science professor signing on. And we've got other academics from Canada, the U.S., and Europe, all of them denying the atrocities took place. Well, come on, I'm not a clinical psychologist.

I'll leave it for them to label it, but I think the rest of us can just call that plain nuts. I mean, we're not talking about a different view or set of opinions. We're talking about right there in front of our faces. And there are signees from academia and other organizations are exhibiting a significant psychological disorder, a disorientation from reality. Gosh, some of them are teaching, interacting in positions of authority with students on the public dime.

I mean, I'm not talking free speech arguments. These people have a mental disorder and need help, not a platform. But, you know, this letter was really something else. It charges Canadian politicians were not standing in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. But maybe you got the idea when they start off by talking about this so-called country, Canada. Yikes.

And again, the CBC, their response to this, again, is to downplay it. I mean, this was a radical treatise on what's going on in that part of the world. But as I say, to me, highlighted by the fact that they denied obvious facts, facts that have been supported by Hamas. We've got live streaming video. We've got, of course, the Israeli Defense Forces. We've got video from them also. But eyewitness accounts, oh my goodness gracious.

And the CBC chooses not really to talk about that side of the event. And just another little skirmish between sides. I'll just finish with this. The letter that they wrote charges Canadian politicians with not standing in solidarity. This is what the CBC called it. The letter charges Canadian politicians with not standing in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. Urges them to call for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and the freeing of Palestinian prisoners.

I mean, this isn't the essence of that letter. Oh, my gosh, the CBC. I'll let you decide whether Tristan's on the right scale. This is irredeemable. That's all the time we have this week. Hey, let me remind you, though, last day, well, tomorrow, actually, is it Sunday at midnight, depending on when you're listening, but it is Sunday at midnight. You can get the early bird tickets for the World Outlook Conference. Take advantage of it. Look forward to seeing you there. And in the meantime, I hope you have a terrific week.

Bye.