Can Canada Survive?

[jimmoyer]

Good points, Toro.

Although we got to give Reverend Blair points for one overall truth: America is the most hated nation on the planet.

Hate will get what it wants, and when the object of its hate is removed, where will that hate go?

Like a runner who has run a race and the race is over, hate stands there panting, the reason for its effort done, the reason for its existence vanished, but hate doesn't disappear for science tells us that although that log burned to seemingly nothing but ashes and weighs less than it did before, the rest of that log's original weight is in the atmosphere.

Hate does not go away. Once the object of its hate is removed, it wanders like a nomad.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Actually, the US gets a large portion of their potash from Saskatchewan, Toro. So does the rest of the world. You should know that.

The trade issues did come up under Clinton, but the US has become much more predatory under Bush. There is no doubt of it.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Can Canada Survive?

Actually, the US gets a large portion of their potash from Saskatchewan, Toro. So does the rest of the world. You should know that.

I stand corrected

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/potash/potasmcs05.pdf

The US is a net importer of potash. I was thinking of diammonium phosphate.

IMC is now called the Mosaic Companies. To quote from their web site

We're the largest processed phosphate producer with significant equity interests in the rapidly growing markets of China and Brazil. We're the leading miner, processor and distributor of potash worldwide. Mosaic is also the exclusive marketing agent of 1.2 mmt (million metric tons) of nitrogen products. In fact, we have a 50 percent equity stake in Saskferco Products, one of the world's most efficient nitrogen production facilities.

http://www.mosaicco.com/about/index.shtm

Define "leader" any way you wish.

I had looked at this market several years ago. At the time, I recall IMC producing more potash than PCS while PCS had more capacity and was the swing producer as PCS was in better financial shape.

 

[Reverend Blair]

You do stand corrected, Toro...thanks for admitting it. You should have known that, being a Saskatchewan boy and all. You haven't been listening to those doomsayers and mental midgets in the Saskatchewan Party, have you?

Anyway, back to the main point...the US needs Canada as much as Canada needs the US. Without us, they cannot run. There is no US industry and there isn't enough food to keep the people happy. Bread and circuses works. Circuses alone are only good for a month or so.

 

[Northboy]

This is not a ideological battle between left and right, nor a party battle between Liberal and Conservative. It is about the survival of Canada's political system. This minority system has made me more so afraid than in the past.

There are four official Canadian parties, Bloc, Liberal, NDP, and Conservative. Liberal support is increasing and is flooding into the NDP (due to scandals). Conservative and Bloc are sustained in their regions but lowering in areas the NDP may be capable of picking up. Even the Green Party is picking up on support.

If the once dominant support of the Liberal Party splits any further no one will be capable of forming a government. The once strong Conservative support in Quebec died when the Bloc showed up.

In the future I cannot foresee the Bloc losing Quebec. I can also not see the Praries being lost from the Conservatives. Nor do I see the NDP losing their hold on BC. The Liberals and Conservatives split Atlantic Canada. Ontario is split between the three non-separatist parties. The places that the Liberals have the Liberals will probably keep. There are some that are close but that just means that the person leading the minority government may change.

Unless something changes in the next year or so we may be in this stalemate for a while. The Liberals need to go down, the Conservatives need to go down, or the Bloc need to go down to make some fundamental change in the dynamics of our stability.

The only solution I see is:
Liberals are announced as a guilty party in the sponsorship inquiry and having to pay back a lot of money cannot run a proper campaign.

This is an open discussion on potential solutions to the problem of minority governments. Are we forever left to form "coalition partners" in government?

In answer to your question, in the near term, I hope so....

IMHO
The people of Canada have gone to the polls on the "Great Scandal" already and chose not to give anyone a majority.
It all comes down to your definition of Government. I believe that we elect individuals to represent our concerns in Ottawa and manage assets held in the public trust---- not to lead....
In this spirit, minority governments are more responsive to the needs of the people. I feel that Canadians expect the politicians of the day to make this parliament work and come up with progressive policies that address the concerns of the nation..

The parties that choose not to engage in this arrangement will get their just rewards in the next election when the people ask "What have you done for me or the country?" At present the Conservatives are blowing it because their strategists, who I feel have been trained elsewhere, feel that they can ride scandal politics to power.....That dog just don't hunt north of the border..
The Liberals have a lot to answer for, NDP have their own mistakes, so here we are faced with a political vacuum.. The Canadian answer--- Don't give anyone absolute authority..
Make 'em work together. After all, we're the boss.......
What a great system!!!!

 

[Toro]

Without us, they cannot run. There is no US industry and there isn't enough food to keep the people happy. Bread and circuses works. Circuses alone are only good for a month or so.

I disagree with this statement. A "commodity" by definition is something with little or no differentiation. There are different grades of crude, but hydrocarbons are hydrocarbons no matter where they found. Canada's value to the US is ease of access but if Canada's reserves didn't exist, they'd buy their oil from someone else, although at a higher price. That's different from "need".

I can't remember the exact numbers, and frankly don't want to make the effort to look at the moment, but something like 35-40% of Canada's GDP is dependent on the US market and something like 2-4% of the US market is dependent on Canada.

The US is not a bread and circuses economy. There are imbalances and problems for sure, but the US is the biggest, deepest, most dynamic modern economy the world has ever seen. To dismiss it as merely bread and circuses misunderstands the nature of the US economy.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Most Canadian gas an oil get to the US via pipeline, Toro. While they can get oil elsewhere (and the price would go up if that was the case), the amount of gas they need cannot be delivered through any other existing infrastucture.

Electricity simply isn't available from anyplace else. If Quebec, Manitoba and BC were to cut off the supply, there would be no way to replace it at all.

Now look at what that energy supplies...jobs, food (mechanized farming requires a lot of energy), heating and cooling, transportation.

Our trade may make up a small portion of the US economy, but what we trade keeps their economy going.

 

[Toro]

No question that the US benefits from its proximity to Canada. We have a fairly integrated energy market. The market has evolved over decades. What I'm trying to caution though is this idea that in terms of trade, Canada can hold its own with the US. Canada cannot. That doesn't mean Canada is unimportant, but if you got down to brass nuckles, Canada would lose a trade war. Or more accurately, lose more. That is generally why Canada doesn't retaliate when the US invokes trade action. Well, that and its almost always stupid to retaliate economically, especially for a trading nation like Canada.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Canada would not lose though. It would hurt us badly, but it would cripple the US. The big shots in the US know that too. The corporations who own the politicians don't like the idea, so Martin has said there will be no linkage. Harper is even worse...not only wouldn't he link things, he'd give away the store while he was at it.

Look at it another way....a 15% export tax on energy would push the cost of doing business up in the US. They wouldn't even stop buying our energy because they can't. If they retaliate, we can whack it up another 10%.

The claims that we can't hurt the US or that they can hurt us worse are simply not true. We have other markets for our goods that can be developed. That includes our domestic markets because we sell a lot of raw material south, then buy it back as finished goods. We never try to change that because we've always got some fool in a tie telling we can't. We can.

 

[annabattler]

Of course it can survive.
We'll likely always have to make adjustments,make compromises....does anyone realize that Harper was once a Trudeau-ite?
I've been around long enough to see many leaders(both in and out of power) come and go....and that will also continue.Some will be brilliant,some mediocre,...and we'll all wring our hands in political angst yet again.
The process has a life of it's own,very independent of what any of us post on this site.

 

[peapod]

HA! annabattler you have some grey cells in that head of yours :lol: 8)

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: Can Canada Survive?

Canada would not lose though. It would hurt us badly, but it would cripple the US. The big shots in the US know that too. The corporations who own the politicians don't like the idea, so Martin has said there will be no linkage. Harper is even worse...not only wouldn't he link things, he'd give away the store while he was at it.

Look at it another way....a 15% export tax on energy would push the cost of doing business up in the US. They wouldn't even stop buying our energy because they can't. If they retaliate, we can whack it up another 10%.

The claims that we can't hurt the US or that they can hurt us worse are simply not true. We have other markets for our goods that can be developed. That includes our domestic markets because we sell a lot of raw material south, then buy it back as finished goods. We never try to change that because we've always got some fool in a tie telling we can't. We can.

Just so we have a common frame of reference

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/usa.html

8% of America's oil consumption comes from Canada and 16% of America's natural gas consumption come from Canada. Canadian gas reserves are being depleted and will become less important in future years.

The United States averaged total net oil (crude and products) imports of an estimated 11.8 million bbl/d during January-October 2004, representing around 58% of total U.S. oil demand. Crude oil imports from Persian Gulf sources averaged 2.4 million bbl/d during that period. Overall, the top suppliers of crude oil to the United States during January-October 2004 were Canada (1.6 million bbl/d), Mexico (1.6 million bbl/d), Saudi Arabia (1.5 million bbl/d), Venezuela (1.3 million bbl/d), and Nigeria (1.1 million bbl/d). ...

The United States consumed an average of about 20.4 million bbl/d of oil during the first ten months of 2004, ...

Canada is an important source of the U.S. natural gas supply. In 2003, Canada exported some 3.5 Tcf of natural gas to the United States, representing almost all of Canada’s natural gas exports. Canada’s exports represented 16% of U.S. natural gas consumption in 2003. Most Canadian natural gas exports enter the U.S. through pipelines in Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota. ...

Overall, the United States depends on natural gas for about 24% of its total primary energy requirements (oil accounts for around 40% and coal for 23%).

Thus, Canadian oil and gas account for 7% of America's energy needs.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Can Canada Survive?

Canada would not lose though. It would hurt us badly, but it would cripple the US. The big shots in the US know that too. The corporations who own the politicians don't like the idea, so Martin has said there will be no linkage. Harper is even worse...not only wouldn't he link things, he'd give away the store while he was at it.

Look at it another way....a 15% export tax on energy would push the cost of doing business up in the US. They wouldn't even stop buying our energy because they can't. If they retaliate, we can whack it up another 10%.

The claims that we can't hurt the US or that they can hurt us worse are simply not true. We have other markets for our goods that can be developed. That includes our domestic markets because we sell a lot of raw material south, then buy it back as finished goods. We never try to change that because we've always got some fool in a tie telling we can't. We can.

A system developed and perfected by eastern canada when dealing with western canada. That is why western canada has over the past 10 - 15 years or so changed their trade patterns from east-west to north south. Keep in mind that energy and resources are provincial matters, so any punitive cost increase would have to be done by the provincial government. The feds, by the constitution, would have to stay out of it. Unless of course they wanted to ignore the constitution again.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Trade deals are negotiated by federal governments and trade agreements and trade matters are handled by federal governments, Blue. Don't like it? Tough titty.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Can Canada Survive?

Trade deals are negotiated by federal governments and trade agreements and trade matters are handled by federal governments, Blue. Don't like it? Tough titty.

But the selling of natural resources is done by the provinces.

 

[Reverend Blair]

If it involves a foreign country, the federal government is necessarily involved. Alberta never signed NAFTA, after all.

 

[Toro]

The reason why trade is shifting to a north/south axis is because that's where the markets are, simple as that. Also, there is a principle in economics that generally holds - the more value added a product requires, the denser the population required to accomodate the process to add value. This is because of transportation costs, human capital and access to capital amongst other reasons. It ain't because some guy in a tie is telling you it is so.

 

[Reverend Blair]

You'll spoil Blue's theory that Ontario is conspiring against Alberta, Toro.

The value added theory only holds to a certain degree. We used to process wheat into flour here. It made sense because it reduced shipping costs. We don't do that much anymore.

In the case of meat products, we are finding out exactly what a bad idea it was to depend strictly on north/south trade. Manitoba and Saskatchewan ended up without enough slaughter capacity to do anything and Alberta's capacity is foreign-owned. Now we are trying to get back to where we were in the 1970's.

When the US introduced it's illegal hog tariff (now struck down, but they haven't given back the money they collected) several operations introduced slaughter facilities. They can now sell directly to foreign markets (mostly Asia) instead of selling live hogs to the US to be sold into the Asian market.

While there does need to be a certain population level to support value-added industry, our population is large enough to support a lot of it. As that happens, the population base grows and there is more capacity for more value-added industry. The mistake is in thinking everything has to be large-scale. It does not.

There is no reason why we cannot mill our own flour for the domestic market and nearby foreign markets. When it comes to lumber, there is no reason why we should should ship it to the US rough hewn, then buy it back as finished product. That does happen though. A fair bit.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Can Canada Survive?

You'll spoil Blue's theory that Ontario is conspiring against Alberta, Toro.

The value added theory only holds to a certain degree. We used to process wheat into flour here. It made sense because it reduced shipping costs. We don't do that much anymore.

In the case of meat products, we are finding out exactly what a bad idea it was to depend strictly on north/south trade. Manitoba and Saskatchewan ended up without enough slaughter capacity to do anything and Alberta's capacity is foreign-owned. Now we are trying to get back to where we were in the 1970's.

When the US introduced it's illegal hog tariff (now struck down, but they haven't given back the money they collected) several operations introduced slaughter facilities. They can now sell directly to foreign markets (mostly Asia) instead of selling live hogs to the US to be sold into the Asian market.

While there does need to be a certain population level to support value-added industry, our population is large enough to support a lot of it. As that happens, the population base grows and there is more capacity for more value-added industry. The mistake is in thinking everything has to be large-scale. It does not.

There is no reason why we cannot mill our own flour for the domestic market and nearby foreign markets. When it comes to lumber, there is no reason why we should should ship it to the US rough hewn, then buy it back as finished product. That does happen though. A fair bit.

Not Ontario, Rev, just federal governments in Ottawa. You wonder why we ship raw products to the US then buy it back as finished? That is exactly what happened in the 50s and 50s with the west shipping raw products to eastern canada, then having the finished products sent back west. One little difference, the west paid the freight costs on the raw products east and the finished products west. Thats what was unfair, and was one of the reasons the west has now moved to more north south, the deals are better.

Gee, third time tonight you have made my points. Come on over, Rev, the waters fine!! :wink:

 

[peapod]

ya know its quite obvious you like to follow the rev around, so I will follow you around and make sure you keep it nice. *goes back to filing nails*