Resource rich provinces lead economic growth

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,635
14,363
113
Low Earth Orbit
TORONTO - Resources will continue to drive the economies of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador forward next year, leading Canadian economic growth.

That's according to the latest provincial forecast from the Royal Bank of Canada.

In a report released early Monday, Canada's largest bank said "the biggest differentiating factor" for provincial growth in 2012 will continue to be a dynamic natural resource sector.

All three provinces are oil and natural gas producers, with Newfoundland's big offshore operations, Alberta's growing oilsands production and new fields in Saskatchewan's Bakken zone.

The bank predicts Saskatchewan will experience the greatest provincial growth, at 4.2 per cent, compared to 4.5 per this year.

Royal Bank pegs Alberta's growth at 3.9 per cent and Newfoundland and Labrador's at 2.8 per cent — just above the predicted national average of 2.5 per cent.

The banks expects Manitoba's economy to grow by 3.2 per cent, by 2.3 per cent in both Ontario and British Columbia, by 1.9 per cent in P.E.I., 1.8 per cent in Quebec and New Brunswick and 1.6 per cent in Nova Scotia.

"The biggest differentiating factor for provincial growth next year will continue to be the dynamism of the natural resource sector," said Craig Wright, Royal Bank's senior vice-president and chief economist.

"Resources will continue to be a catalyst for increased capital investment and production in resource-heavy provinces like Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Newfoundland and Labrador."

In Quebec, the Royal notes that job losses this fall totalling 44,000 jobs in October and November resulted in the worst two-month job loss in nearly 30 years in Quebec, a slump that could dampen consumer confidence in the province in 2012.

"In retrospect, we may have been overly optimistic about growth in the province," added Wright.

"While we remain confident that Quebec's economy will improve, the fact remains that it is carrying very little momentum going into 2012."

In Ontario, the province is showing signs that it is on track for modest growth — with two per cent growth this year and 2.3 per cent in 2012.

The auto industry is also recovering, after production shutdowns caused by the Japanese earthquake and tsunami last spring and the more recent flooding in Thailand, which affected parts supplies to Japanese carmakers Toyota and Honda, which have major assembly plants in Ontario.

"Barring any major slippage in the European sovereign debt crisis, Ontario's economy is now on a path of modest growth that will extend into next year," said Wright.

"Recently, we have seen further recovery in the manufacturing sector, thanks in large part to rising vehicle production where we see plenty of room for further gains going forward."




Not very well reseached but close enough.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Thank God canada has resources. Few jurisdictions have what it takes to succeed with access to limited natural resources on home soil, with Japan, Germany, Hong Kong, and a few others being among those few. Looking at how Canada seems to succeed only when resource prices surge, we'd likely have been a pretty poor country had we not had natural resources.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,635
14,363
113
Low Earth Orbit
It was kicking the doors wide open to foreign investment and development that is fuelling this. It's not the doings of Canadians.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,888
126
63
It was kicking the doors wide open to foreign investment and development that is fuelling this. It's not the doings of Canadians.
Bloody Canadians, imagine asking foreigners help us exploit our resources to create wealth for us and them.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Explain how wealth is created for us with profits going offshore?

Correction: all after-tax profits after all overhead costs including local equipment purchases and salaries, etc. go offshore. So we benefit too, and should investors not get a fair return on their investment? Why else would they invest otherwise?

I'm not against the resource industry per se, however I would say we need a national trades and professional training programme for the unemployed to ensure that they can engage in more value-added jobs and not rely so exclusively on just resource extraction alone.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,888
126
63
Explain how wealth is created for us with profits going offshore?
Ask all the car companies assembling and selling cars here in Canada as well as creating 10,000's of jobs. Not one of the companies is Canadian. ltw's tell all of the Canadian gold companies to ony mine for gold in Canada. What a silly post you made.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Also, consider that just as foreign companies invest in Canada, Canadian companies invest abroad. The moment we engage in inprotectionism, don't you think other countries will reciprocate?

Just a thought.

By the way, protectionism exacerbated the Great Depression of the 1930s in a big way, making it much, much worse that it would otehrwise have been.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,635
14,363
113
Low Earth Orbit
Ask all the car companies assembling and selling cars here in Canada as well as creating 10,000's of jobs. Not one of the companies is Canadian. ltw's tell all of the Canadian gold companies to ony mine for gold in Canada. What a silly post you made.
Making a product is different than removing resources. Are they paying for the resource in jobs? Jobs are peripherals. Many gold companies pay 10 times what Govt of Canada asks for royalties. I wouldn't expect something that complex to be understood by a stump like yourself.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,888
126
63
Making a product is different than removing resources. Are they paying for the resource in jobs? Jobs are peripherals. Many gold companies pay 10 times what Govt of Canada asks for royalties. I wouldn't expect something that complex to be understood by a stump like yourself.
Ad hominem; you win. Tell the unemployed that jobs are peripheral.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,635
14,363
113
Low Earth Orbit
You can always get another job but you can't replace the resource. once it's sold for a penny or two on the dollar it's gone for good.

When was the last time you got a cheque from Exxon?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Making a product is different than removing resources. Are they paying for the resource in jobs? Jobs are peripherals. Many gold companies pay 10 times what Govt of Canada asks for royalties. I wouldn't expect something that complex to be understood by a stump like yourself.

I could certainly agree with the government asking a higher price for resources. This would push the cost of resources up, but that might be a good thing as it would force Canadians to use our resources more efficiently. It would also force government to spend more on trades and professional training for the unemployed.

however, none of this is relevant to foreign investment.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
It wouldn't push the price of the resource up. Not at all. It's all about demand.

Er, should the government charge more for the sale of crown resources, that would be an extra overhead cost to resource companies which they'd have to pass on to the customer. Now I'd be for the government charging more for the sale of crown resources to resource exploitation companies for various reasons, but am under no illusions that it woudl also have at least one bad side effect which would be an increase in the cost of resources.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Er, should the government charge more for the sale of crown resources, that would be an extra overhead cost to resource companies which they'd have to pass on to the customer. Now I'd be for the government charging more for the sale of crown resources to resource exploitation companies for various reasons, but am under no illusions that it woudl also have at least one bad side effect which would be an increase in the cost of resources.

The selling price to the customer isn't goverened by the cost to produce it. The selling price is governed by market demand.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
The selling price to the customer isn't goverened by the cost to produce it. The selling price is governed by market demand.

Yes, but the government's selling price to resoruce extraction companies will determine how much the companies will be interested in buying from the government to then sell to consumers, meaning a likelyhood of reduced extraction and thus reduced supply.

Again, I'm not saying I'd be opposed to the government asking a higher price for its resources, but merely that we still have to be honest about the fact that for all the advantages of such a move which I believe would outweigh the disadvantages, that rising resource prices would be one negative side effect.

To take an example, if you have a lemonade stand and it costs you 5 cents to make a 10 cent glass of lemonade, and then suddenly it costs you 6 cents to make a 10 cent glass of lemonade, you'll start to question whether it's still worth it especially if you can go into another business that costs 5 cents for a 10 cent product. If you do move out of this business as a result of this, then otehrs who decide to stay in the business will eventually be able to raise the price to 11 cents per glass, or 21 cents per two glasses.