Jake Silverman

to to they would actually really things would really suck for the average person who can cheer this on or you know say that they're super against this but then when you know unemployment's 15 and nobody in construction has jobs uh you know they're like oh maybe maybe maybe i changed my mind right i don't know i again i know we're quibbling here but i challenge that right again it's just the equity portion of the capital stack right so you

Well, the way I look at it is they're either going to do this or the government is going to do a bunch of recession era make work projects, which this is one of, by the way.

And both political platforms that were run in the last election, I think were proposing budgets that accepted that Canada was going to acquire recession level of spending.

So it's a nonpartisan discussion.

They're either going to do this.

And when you're talking about the equity stack, the challenge is you need somebody to take capital risk and move on to the future projects that are going to keep these people employed.

And so the idea would be you're getting equity back out of the deals that it's trapped in so that they can go move on to the other projects in the pipeline and keep the machine moving.

Again, not saying that it's an appropriate decision, but I'm trying to substantiate their logic.

They're either going to do that or they're going to spend they're going to take on projects on their own.

They're going to build social housing.

They're going to hire all these people.

They're going to build infrastructure projects, etc.

They're not sending all these guys to go dig holes to build pipelines or go oil and gas and diversify our economy.

I promise.

Right.

So, yeah, we never do something like that.

Right.

They're going to spend it stupidly in another way, I think, because that's just what governments like to do.

And so I don't know if this is a better, but that's my fear.

And I think you're going to see both.