Understanding the Budget: What Would Harper, Chrétien, and Mulroney Do?

Is anyone writing about the application of the federal budget within industries — how to build, year by year? We often get broad headlines and surface-level summaries, but what about the application? Can we speculate, even roughly, on what those conditions might look like if we played them forward?

Then we can start asking: is this the right approach to tackle the deficit, or is there a better way? Just take any weakness and model it over time.

That matters, because so many components have to work together. You can’t just say “deficit — bad.” We already know that. Could it be worse?

Who in the past was radical, and what blunders did that lead to? Who systematically built better? Make that comparison — and recommend how to execute.

Does this budget allow for more drastic adjustment later? Are things too sensitive and the wisest move is to play it safe? It's always hindsight that benefits policy choice.

Increasing the standard of living is a tough equation — when you pull from one area, you often take from another. Are we looking to reengineer the entire system? Do we want an overhaul?

The older generation acts like kids sometimes — everything turns into satire. Nobody’s got time for that. Instead, help younger people like me understand what Harper, Chrétien, Mulroney, and others would do in this first part of the timeline. How would they sequence the moves?

Who was right, who was lucky? And who blundered?

It’s important we look at the equation from different cross-sections: across time, industries, and global change, among others. Let’s Take LNG for Example

K. Roworth (Alberta energy expert) recently posted RSM commentary on the federal budget, highlighting a proposal to reinstate accelerated capital cost allowances (CCAs) specifically targeting low-carbon LNG facilities.

Is this a signal of commitment to Canada’s energy sector? There are certainly barriers to overcome — but is this a practical mechanism to keep the door open for investment, or is it largely symbolic given other structural hurdles?

Kirk might know. 

Pipelines remain controversial, but what other ways can the Energy sector remain viable in the meantime? Is CCA the simplest and most effective lever? What has been the historical response to such measures, and how should we assess them in terms of risk and fiscal discipline? 

I’d be interested in B. Szabo’s perspective, particularly on Mark Carney’s potential globalist bias and how it might influence these policy directions — if at all. 

As a tangent, will the immediate expensing of manufacturing and processing buildings actually produce the desired outcome? Is Canada just following other nations here, or do we really know what we are doing? Production costs remain high, and our competencies in global niches are still limited.

Back to Energy

It’s also worth exploring how land-locked Alberta and port-present British Columbia can coordinate more effectively to help Canada fully leverage opportunities. Inter-provincial barriers remain one of the greatest inefficiencies in our country— a challenge that contrasts with nations like China, which can plan 15–20 years ahead and execute through a single, unified agenda.

K. Moody often writes about lowering the personal tax burden on citizens. It would be worth examining how developing and taxing this industry could offset that burden — potentially turning energy growth into fiscal relief.

We’ve become so institutionalized that the average Canadian rarely gets the opportunity — or the framework — to consider these connections.