General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Neolithic Transit Revolution
The Globe and Mail
comments

Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "The Globe and Mail" channel.

I used to be against Supply Management. It is in fact a cartel that raises prices. But it achieves a lot, that would be very difficult to achieve without it. Right now, it should be very clear why it is important to ensure domestic supply of core food items. Can we really risk depending on our trade partners, frankly the US, to control our food supply when they are willing to weapoize trade? But more than that, it protects small farms. Maybe it doesn't generate the worlds most efficient output. But what is the cost of that? How many rural towns depend on the strong middle class farmers who are protected by supply management, and what is the cost of these towns failing. Im not an animal rights activist, but I don't want to see the 10 thousand cow factories we see in the US. In Canada cows go to pasture. They are able to leave a building and concrete stall. There is a value to knowing there was a level of ethics. And just like we are seeing with avian flue, that protects against disease. More, small farms, mean outbreaks don't destroy production. Its better for the environment, look at the the massive manure waste coming out of us factory farms, smaller operations allow manure to be spread evenly over a field. Look at the health aspect. The antibotics that the cows need to avoid disease. The hormons they are given in the States. I don't want that in my milk. Supply management protects consumers, protects the farmers, and protects the animals. I don't want to have a hand full of factory farms producing chemical laiden milk while rural communities fall apart for milk that costs a few cents less a liter.
26
If we were serious about diversifying, we would be doing it. Canada owns a pipeline company, which just finished building a pipeline, with logistics and trained staff and skilled labour and contractors all sitting on their hands. Work should be starting on adding pumping stations to Transmountain as an immediate option and to keep ground workers in projects. We should be starting Projects, which will take years and upfront planning, for another West Coast export pipeline and an Eastern pipeline, ideally getting Europe to agree to invest in the later upfront. With Coastal link complete we should be rapidly permitting the Prince Rupert Gas line to keep works employed and lower costs by keeping those same skills and logistics systems employed. And yes interprovincial trade is important as well. But BC doesn't need GM parts from Ontario, Nova Scotia can't change regulations to import Albertan oil and replace the lost demand. New Brunswick might be able to sell more refined products to Quebec, but at the end of the day that's at Quebec's expense. Our economy is based on exporting commodities and importing consumer goods. If we can't export, making it cheaper to ship internally isn't going to offset. We need to be going full steam to reorient our export infrastructure. Not releasing the same proposal to do a study on high-speed rail we see every year. I supported high speed rail every other year, but right now every dollar we have needs to be invested in exporting east and west..
11
If you're real; what do you think we're living off your success? Because we trade with you? What do you think will happen to your export industries? We produce oil and you refine it to gas. This is like a wheat farmer selling to a flour mill, and having the flour mill expecting us to buy as much as we sell wheat. It makes no sense. We supply you materials that you turn into your own exports. Canada has the 10th largest trade deficit of anyone you trade with. Why are we receiving higher tariffs than China?
11
There is, lets call it a non 0 chance, that this suggestion ends up in a boondoggle - but I'd say its worth the risk. Government should buy HBC in bankruptcy, keep a few flagstone shops open, open a bunch of small order to locations, and revamp the Bay's Core Business model to be the Canadian Amazon. Then release it from government control and turn it into a customer owned co-op. I would love a large Canadian online retailer, I would love if it were a Co-op, and I am one of those people who would like the bay to hang in there even though I don't use it.
10
You should also cover A Users Guide to Restructuring the global trade system. Written by Stephen Miran, Trumps chief economist
8
The data center/Ai growth should be something Canada is trying to pull, and very specifically Labrador. Labrador is drastically oversupplies with electricity, to the point lack of demand is actually pushing consumer prices up. Its obviously freezing half the year. The intercontental line between europe and North America runs through Newfoundland, allowing ease "access to market". And it has very little in the way of economic opportunity. Newfoundland at the same time gets over a thrid of its entire GDP from oil. Newfoundland should be building itself into a hub of tech.
7
Something I think needs to be discussed in Canadian politics is the sale of The Wheat Board to the Saudis. Who supports oil in Alberta? Everyone, but most importantly the Conservatives. Who makes up the conservative base? Largely farmers. Canada, a major competitor to the the Saudis, allowed the Saudis a near monopsony on the sector of our economy which, through politics, arguably has the most influence on our oil industry.
6
If we try to join OPEC or cut oil production, aside from the physical difficultly in reducing SAGD outputs, what happens next? Does Trump cut off RRPs to Thunder Bay and cut off the pipelines through Michigan? If we reverse Pipleline 7A to import oil from overseas to southern Ontario, does he blockade the St. Laurent? We're going to throw everything we have at an impluse of Trump's. When does the US Army walk into Alberta?
5
The issue isn't failing to see weaning off oil, imo, it's failing to see declining prices. I know that sounds similar, but I'd compare it to the rust belt. The world still needs iron, but you can't run an economy around it. Imo, Alberta needs to push investment into Carbon Fiber produced from Bitumen to create an alternative demand Geothermal, to make use of Drilling and Geological fluid transportation expertise, and to leverage existing equipment. Carbon Capture, which I think is a very limited applicability, but I think Canada is the best in the world at it and nursing the technology now if properly leveraged could put us in a Global position. A new way to move oil. I'd settle for a Keystone XL to the US Gulf, which is probably going to happen now, but what I would really like is an Eagle Spirit type pipeline connecting to North BC with a connected series of refineries to diversify our product and market, or else something like bitumen pucks that can easily be shipped by rail and treated like coal.
5
We need our own government to create a Crown Corporation to engage in minimg.
5
A lot of Alaska also depends on tourism
5
Mines need flow through shares and tax deductions, perhaps refundable, for exploration. Environmental assessments are important... In the Rockies and BC. In the Tundra and Boreal forest, the ecosystems evmxist over vast distances with little variations, and is largely green desert in terms of animals or biodiversity. Water has to be protected, we can't have contamination run off, but this area that was under ice for 100s of thousands of years should not be viewed as a pristine and delicate ecosystem; its a system of weeds living on bed rock. Bigger riskes are earth worms and invasive beetles, and we need the government to have money to deal with that. I don't think these American tariffs are going anywhere. I think we should push for having any tariffs on our manufacturing put into the Sovereign wealth fund and invested into Canadian non-energy industries, particularly mining.
5
If Canada is going to peacefully share north America with the US, and it's really the only way we do share North America, we need to sell them water. I believe we should follow the Great Recycling and Northern Development Canal. Unlike the absurd proposal around Alaska refrenced, this is a partical and low impact option to get access to large quantities of Fresh water.
4
I really appreciate this discussion
4
@qjsharing2408 and the profit. But clearly the issue is not enough capital and firms not able to engage on long time lines, both areas a crown Corp can support. When the risk is the government saying no, it seems to be reduced when it's the government trying to say yes.
4
My biggest fear is that the combination of Trumps Tariffs, lower global demand from Chinas EV push+ economic slow, a return of Russian oil, and a Saudi price war will will plument prices. Alberta will be exporting Bitumen for decades. The Midwest US is built around it. But if the price we're getting is only $30 a barrel, you get no investment, no tax revenue, no good employment. The bigger problem is Fort Mac. Refineries in Alberta can't use Bitumen. So, we upgrade bitumen into lighter SynCrude. Almost all the oil converted to Syncrude comes froma strip mining operation around Fort Mac. And between the mining operations and the upgraders, this is some of the most expensive oil in the world, maybe the most expensive barrel being produced. And unfortunately this is where all the high paying blue collar jobs are. I'm deeply worried about cheap light oil replacing syncrude. A lot of syncrude goes to Ontario and Quebec via US pipelines. But beyond that, oil could move North from Dakota, and my worst fear is a reversal of Transmountain to bring cheap over see light crude to Alberta. If the mining operations shut down, we'll have 10s of thousands of high paying blue collar jobs disappear in Alberta, all centered on Fort McMurray. All going on EI, at the same time as Provincial revenues are being slashed and collapsing Exports are making the CAD plumet. And that will be a national issue. Port cities will struggle with falling imports. Our stock market will collapse if SynCrude (the company) and Suncor write of reserves. CN rail has almost a third of its cargo related to O&G. We desperately and urgently need to diversify our economy. Im worried next year is the point of collapse and Mining will come on line at reduced capacities after defered spring maintenance. We have a regional economy that nearly disappeared during Covid, thats going to drive a provincial depression and national recession if we aren't very skillful with our trade policy over the next few months.
4
"A 25% rise in Oil Prices" is not going to be the reality. We supply half their oil, but the vast majority goes to the midwest theough Enbridge Mainline system. And we have no alternative market at all for these 4M bbl/day. Whats going to happen will be generally consistent prices paid by US refineries, kept relatively high by Bakken crude from North Dakota and Barges bringing crude from Texas up to Mississippi, and some increased imports from the Atlantic through Pennsylvania pipelines if our output drops. Our output won't significantly drop, however, because the SAGD operations that feed the US can't be turned off without long term damage (In Covid, Mining production was down some 40%, insitu output was nearly unchanged) and because they have low operating costs, and producers will accept lower prices. The real loaer will be the Government of Alberta, because Royalities are on a scaled system, and lower profits have a much more dramatic effect on Albertas budget. The other big issue is the oil mines themselves. They are very expensive to operate and ultimately produce a light oil product, and competitive with US shale oil. If its price is increased, refiners are likely to displace it. To some extent this can be offset by having Ontario and Quebec refiners buy more Syncrude and reduce Bakken imports, and a competent policy might include requiring exports to mix Syncrude into DilBit at some level. But this is the biggest risk point, shutting down the oil mines would kill Fort McMurray and destroy an enormous amount of high wage blue collar employment.
4
@BarbMacdonald-uv9zd I agree. But they didn't. And now it is right now.
3
Did you post the comment calling this a great interview or time deaf first? I agree with your point on wanting good jobs, but they can't all be oil. We need a leader to come in and say to Alberta: You will start putting all your royalties into an investment fund and investing that money in non oil and gas sectors in Canada And say to the rest of the Provinces: you will allow a pipeline or we will pull equalization payments. But this only works if the other provinces get something out of it. You wouldn't let your neighbor store the fuel tank for their gas station under your garden for free. Canada has for a long time had Dutch disease, oil makes the CAD strong and pushes out manufacturering investment. We need our oil revenues going back into Canadian investing so people can get those good jobs.
3
Step 1: Prorouge Parliament so that its impossible to legislate because it might help your party
3
US Banks are allowed in Canada, telecommunications I agree. Grocery store I'm confused by since I've been to Walmart and shop at Costco. But in terms of supply management I disagree. We don't need the good middle class farm jobs that support rural communities being destroyed by hormone laden milk out of a factory farm in the US. I don't want that at all. We allow the US quotas to sell tariff free, and they don't use the quotas, because their milk does not meet health standards.
3
Why is there never discussion on the deflationary aspects on our exports. Oil prices will collapse if demand is impacted, which means demand must be constant, and therefore prices will decrease 10%. Alberta is going to get cooked.
3
I genuinely can't imagine something stupider or more harmful to Canada than proroguing government over the period Trump takes the presidency while threatening to place 25% tariffs.
3
Pensions, and in particular the CPP should be more engaged in these long term Canadian projects. The CPP should have to review future CPP tax revenues when selecting an investment, since obviously over seas investments only return profit and no taxes.
3
Honestly, nothing that large scale is needed. We just need to Connect Edmonton to Site C and Calgary to Revelstoke, and both cities to each other, so that Alberta can access cheap hydro when the wind doesn't blow and BC can buy cheap renewables when it does. Same with the East coast, we just need to match wind with Quebec and Newfoundland hydro. Honestly the biggest thing is somehow getting Quebec to give a fair deal to Newfoundland. (We should also be pushing investment for data processing centers into Labrador like nobodies business). That mostly just leaves Toronto, where I think the answer is Nuclear, but a Bipole line from Northern Manitoba and/or a connection to Quebec could work, it's an extreme distance either way. The last thing is Saskatchewan, who really love their coal power plant, and honestly I'm okay with letting them keep it for a bit it's such a tiny blip in the picture. I'd say ideally they get connected to Manitoba eventually to do the same wind for Hydro Trade as Albert/BC, but it's much greater distances for much smaller markets. But, it would allow them, potentially, to sell solar power to Ontario through Manitobas hydro lines, particularly solar in the evening while Saskatchewan still has sun for an hour or two.
3
If we don't rapidly fix this, and ensure industry that we can maintain trade ties, Canadian Auto Manufacturing is dead. This alone could be terrible for any long term prospects, just the idea of tariffs. Labling this as Americans will pay 25% more for cars is wrong. First of all, the majority of Americans won't buy a new (to them) car in the next 4 years. Many of those will be used cars. America has existing parts manufacturing, and lots of time to create manufacturing before an impact is felt by the public, and most importantly we're only talking about parts, the entore car would never see such a drastic price increase. Canada needs to address this rapidly. Any tariff exposure here will rapidly kill off an industry which has been hesitant to remain in Canada to begin with and as a long term prospect is unlikely to grow
3
@wesswainson254 I will still argue that turning it into a co-op farmers could opt into, which also buys and sells on an open market, would have been a far preferable option. Selling it to the Saudis for a bigger cash deal was a mistake imo. It also killed any shipping out of Churchill right as we start to discuss opening the Arctic ocean.
2
@wesswainson254 the only reason they came to an end was Saskatchewan over paying, no? Plus global wheat prices have been higher since 2010 overall, so that's a confounding factor
2
Its a nice wish list, but 1) how do you secure a trade deal with a guy who is ripping up the trade deal of false terms? 2) 30% of the budget? Simply how. And do you understand how hard it is to fire a government employee? 3) would be nice, but I don't think the Conservatives (haven't been the PCs for over two decades) are going to run a massive deficit 4) again how? And schizophrenia is a weird way to describe high prices. The houses aren't like confused about their prices. 5) AGAIN, how? While cutting the budget back 30% to boot? PP has been pretty clear we won't be meeting 2% spending goal. Honestly, we need to decide what the point of our military even is before you can make it functional. 6) I guess that would be the point of our military? We could build some airfields maybe for the planes we don't have and can't afford. Secure it from who, anyway? Because the only threat to it in reality is the country to our south, and there is no way we are securing it against them.
2
Useful things the Cons actually can and probably will do 1) get rid of the bogus gun restrictions 2) Get rid of internet censorship Bs meant to give money to legacy media 3) stop the capital gains increase
2
@BarbMacdonald-uv9zd right now, to have new trade partners, would be incredibly difficult and requires an enormous build out of new infrastructure. I'm not saying that's a bad thing to do or the government is doing a good job. But definitely not easily done
2
@raphaellagdameo7811 As I said, I have always previously been very supportive of High-speed rail - although frankly Ottawa should be cut out, it increases project cost by an order of magnitude for what could be an easy transfer from Cornwall. But frankly who is making this trip? You aren't going to be running enough trains that people are commuting every day from Kingston to Toronto, certainly not to an extent it impacts housing prices on the lower end. Maybe some executives will choose it over flying but most of them will choose a teams call. And if we are seriously going to try to fight these tariffs, there isn't going to be a lot of money thrown around for tourism. At the end of the day we have rail already, and busses and a Highway for cars. I don't think cars are as efficient as a train, but what's the cost of high-speed rail vs the incremental saving? If our economy is good, and you can say a Canadians time is worth $20 an hour, then it's worth it. But if we're looking at mass unemployment and a collapsing CAD, and suddenly our time is worth half that, it's not worth it. The stimulus impact would be beneficial, but we have better projects that earn us export revenue to support the CAD to choose from. And frankly it's not as though the project is expected to break the ground in the next 5 years in any event..
2
@chickenfishhybrid44 the Protectionism point is saying there are no tariffs. So BC wine can be sold without an Extra BC tax. Whether or no the government owned Liquor store decides to buy BC wine is a seperate concern..
2
I think this is really a non issue with battery storage becoming commercialized. The 2h units we see being built now deal with the frequency control, which allows them to buy and sell power regularly through the day and provide return on capital. Which also lets you turn off NG plants, and since a 2h reserve into the evening is available, let's you uprate NG plants to Cogeneration. Of course, Storage like this works best with Solar. I think as we see Solar with short batteries grow in capacity we'll see existing NG plants uprated in this way to grow NG capacity for the night periods, while burning less gas overall by not operating inefficiently in the day to load follow and not operating overcapacity in the evening. In terms of wind in Alberta though, the simple solution is connections between Edmonton-Site C and Calgary-revelstoke. Allows you to sell power to BC and California when it's windy (less over supply on the local grid let's NG operate at raised levels constantly), while importing cheap Hydro when it's not to avoid NG plants monopolizing prices. We already have the Calgary - Edmonton connections. On the coal point, particularly in Texas where fracking to produce all the NG has such significant leakage, a critical Coal plant might actually be lower emissions - likewise in Alberta where NG is coming from fracking in the North West. It's what China has been doing since they don't have gas, you hear all about China building coal capacity but it's much more efficient than people realize. The much higher capital cost is the killer, imo, since expectations are storage will drop enough to outcompete, whereas NG has less risk of stranded assets. But I do have to point out most coal stations are not bituminous, and that is more expensive than more common Lignite. I'd also like to see large oil Sands SAGD operations move to Nuclear steam production, and through Cogeneration provide a relatively stable baseload to industry around Edmonton. And I'm very hopeful for the investment that's gone into Hydrogen in Alberta. Hydrogen might be an excellent way to adsorb solar and particularly wind surpluses. If cheap hydrogen can be produced, then you can upgrade any carbon feedstock into synthetic NG. It won't matter if it's from coal, or ideally, bitumen, adding Hydrogen can get you all the petrochemicals and light fuel you need without methane emissions from Fracking. I think the best possible outcome would be an upgrader in BC at the end of Transmountain able to produce oil to order specifications to sell to a premium to refineries who need it to balance other blends bought on the market.
2
Respect for saying Russia could in fact use a Nuke. I think its unlikely and shouldn't dominate our strategic policy, but I'm tired of most commenters acting like its utterly impossible.
2
Really needs to be clear. We have a coach. Hes just off in the chamge room drinking himself into a coma. He could quit and have someone do this job. He just refuses to.
2
He's only destroying the part of the Industry that uses pistons. The Tesla part will be better for the lack of competition
2
@linebrunelle1004 What's your point ?
2
@tdpay9015 who would hurting Quebec's and BCa electrical sales to Democrat leaning states help us? Even if it hurt certain Americans, it would only hurt Democrats, and Trump isn't going to change policy for them.
1
@Buzzable, the Americans are the one starting the trade war. America let's more drugs and immigrants into our country than the reverse. This isn't Mexico. I don't know how you can expect the solution to an issue clearly not based on facts to be fixing problems that don't exist.
1
Elastic in Demand doesn't just mean Uranium prices. Trump would probably love to see Nuclear and BC/Quebec hydro more expensive to justify more Coal generation. Just another way to label lower CO2 power as expensive. And again, we can hurt California and New York all day. Trump isn't going to change policy over it, that isn't his base. Potash is better. But at the same time Trump will be forcing a peace deal on Ukrainian and lifting Russia Sanctions, who will be flooding the market with Potash.
1
@tdpay9015 Elastic in Demand doesn't just mean Uranium prices. Trump would probably love to see Nuclear and BC/Quebec hydro more expensive to justify more Coal generation. Just another way to label lower CO2 power as expensive. And again, we can hurt California and New York all day. Trump isn't going to change policy over it, that isn't his base. Potash is better. But at the same time Trump will be forcing a peace deal on Ukrainian and lifting Russia Sanctions, who will be flooding the market with Potash.
1
@Buzzable, the Americans are the one starting the trade war. America let's more drugs and immigrants into our country than the reverse. This isn't Mexico. I don't know how you can expect the solution to an issue clearly not based on facts to be fixing problems that don't exist.
1
@LelandWolf-zt4wz Trump will just hand out Agricultural subsidies.
1
@tdpay9015 in terms of Potash, I believe the US will just end up buying from Russia if we did this, and because Trump intented on returning Russia to the world market seemingly 1 way or another, Russia will end up swamping the global markets. This is true for many of our commodities on a global market. In regards to Uranium, I think the global market, quantity and value of imports needed, and ability to reprocess waste currently illegal that could be easily brought on line of the US was short on energy make this a very weak threat. And the fact that coal plants (which Trump strongly supports because it generates Domestic coal production in red states) are ideally suited to replacing nuclear will see higher demand will be a policy goal.
1
@tdpay9015 in terms of Potash, I believe the US will just end up buying from Russia if we did this, and because Trump intented on returning Russia to the world market seemingly 1 way or another, Russia will end up swamping the global markets. This is true for many of our commodities on a global market. In regards to Uranium, I think the global market, quantity and value of imports needed, and ability to reprocess waste currently illegal that could be easily brought on line of the US was short on energy make this a very weak threat. And the fact that coal plants (which Trump strongly supports because it generates Domestic coal production in red states) are ideally suited to replacing nuclear will see higher demand will be a policy goal.
1
@wesswainson254 the wheat pool and it's evolution only disappeared because Sak wheat bought it for way more than it was worth and promptly collapsed. Alberta Wheat pool didn't fail in anyway.
1
@emilschattner3407 this is entirely correct. We need better port access and better internal mobility for goods and labour.
1
@Willowgirl2015 it sure seems Canadian whenever you want a pipeline built through another province.
1
@jodyperyk1978 have you ever considered that the reason no one wants a DilBit pipeline built through their province is Alberta refuses to share any of the revenue? If half of that funded the Federal government, Alberta would see more revenue, because the rest of Canadians would see a benefit and not just a risk. But we did just build you that nice new pipeline over a mountain. And for the record I support Keystone XL, although I think it's a far from ideal project. Mass Commercialization of those bitumen pucks that can be loaded and shipped like coal, or the Eagle Spirit pipeline for large-scale upgraded oil to the Pacific, would be better. Keystone cements our role as a 0 value added exporter of crude bitumen focused entirely on the US, which will ultimately end in us facing steep price discounts when Russian volumes return to Europe. But competition between Chicago and Texas refiners is better than no competition at all, and we might be able to export some internationally, or even domestically to Irving and Quebec, from the Gulf.
1
@Willowgirl2015 bitumen isn't worthless. It's a very valuable resource. Like I said, we should find ways to ship it safely enough other jurisdictions will accept it and diversify sales. We are developing that resource in the worse way possible and allowing a foreign nation to reap all the benefits. The rest of your comment is just saying Albertans have higher than average incomes and pay income tax. Congrats on having the highest incomes in Canada, you are clearly a victim of most nefarious of plots. Again, if Canadian across the country could point to services being provided directly through an oil fund, that grew or shrank with oil revenues, they would be more in favor. Right now they have nothing to gain, and infact many provinces suffer from the stronger dollar more oil exports create. Alberta would sell more oil, and make more money. This is a case of being greedy to the point of losing money.
1
@jodyperyk1978 bitumen isn't worthless. It's a very valuable resource. We are developing that resource in the worse way possible and allowing a foreign nation to reap all the benefits. Like I said, we need to process it into something safe enough to handle other jurisdictions will allow it so we can diversify our markets. The rest of your comment is just saying Albertans have higher than average incomes and pay income tax. Congrats on having the highest incomes in Canada, you are clearly a victim of most nefarious of plots. Again, if Canadians across the country could point to services being provided directly through an oil fund, that grew or shrank with oil revenues, they would be more in favor. Right now they have nothing to gain, and infact many provinces suffer from the stronger dollar more oil exports create.
1
@jodyperyk1978 bitumen isn't worthless. It's a very valuable resource. We are developing that resource in the worse way possible and allowing a foreign nation to reap all the benefits. Like I said, we need to process it into something safe enough to handle other jurisdictions will allow it so we can diversify our markets. The rest of your comment is just saying Albertans have higher than average incomes and pay income tax. Congrats on having the highest incomes in Canada, you are clearly a victim of most nefarious of plots. Again, if Canadian across the country could point to services being provided directly through an oil fund, that grew or shrank with oil revenues, they would be more in favor. Right now they have nothing to gain, and infact many provinces suffer from the stronger dollar more oil exports create.
1
@jodyperyk1978 bitumen isn't worthless. It's a very valuable resource. We are developing that resource in the worse way possible and allowing a foreign nation to reap all the benefits. Like I said, we need to process it into something safe enough to handle other jurisdictions will allow it so we can diversify our markets. The rest of your comment is just saying Albertans have higher than average incomes and pay income tax. Congrats on having the highest incomes in Canada, you are clearly a victim of most nefarious of plots. Again, if Canadian across the country could point to services being provided directly through an oil fund, that grew or shrank with oil revenues, they would be more in favor. Right now they have nothing to gain, and infact many provinces suffer from the stronger dollar more oil exports create.
1
@Willowgirl2015 again, you are literally just talking about income and corporate income tax. Everyone pays federal income taxes. Alberta just has a high average wage. You don't pay at a different scale, high income earners in Ontario pay just as much, and royalties mean you pay far less in provincial income taxes. But If Ontario stopped paying income tax it would be felt by all Canadians lol. I don't know what you're looking for. That is not the same as royalty sharing. Nobody thinks about how Alberta's economy actually works, I think that's obvious from policy. If Alberta said "Every barrel to go through your province, we'll give you 10% of the Royalties" they would get a lot further. Alberta does the same our/your flip when it's convenient. I don't know what your so upset about you get to keep all the royalties.
1
@NorthernGuy-v1x "Northern Guy", you may have a bias in who you talk with, but the Bloc as the opposition is hilarious, and there is still about half the population who want either the Liberals or NDP, so one of them is going to end up in second.
1
@clydemifflin3600 I agree, but doubling soft wood to 20% is still lower than the baseline on all products being put forward by Trump. There is no reason to support Keystone if we aren't making money on the oil we sell.
1
@geofflepper3207 the issue with this line of reason is Trump's clear desire to end sanctions against Russia, which will flood the European market with many of our exports, from metals and minerals to oil to timber to fertilzer.
1
@Ratbiker the problem with this "solution" is there is nothing to comply to. There isn't a genuine underlying problem. Trump just wants to appear powerful to his electorate and bully us into trade concessions. If it were really about immigration or drugs, it would have been directed at Mexico alone. Last time Trump was in power, he found reasons to start a trade war with us. If we "comply" he'll just find new, made up reasons.
1
@Willowgirl2015 well, 1, oil royalties are like a third of Alberta's Government revenue. It's nowhere near 70% of Alberta's GDP that's outlandish. 2) it wouldn't have to change over tomorrow. And anything can be negotiated. But yes I would expect the bulk of revenues to be put into a long term wealth fund owned by Alberta. 3) you might not want it said, but they would get oil out. Not just more oil, but also a higher price for all oil, and investment into more oil. That's more jobs, more government revenue, and more royalties. 4) Alberta would own the investment fund. It isn't giving anything way. It would choose what investments were made, which would give it an enormous amount of influence within Canada. All the profits generated would be Alberta's to reinvest domestically, internationally, or spend. The agreement would simply be that the royalties are invested in Canada. I'm not even saying it has to be invested based on where the pipeline goes. I'm not trying to cut out PEI. I'm saying we pull equalization payments if a province tries to block it. But in exchange for the Federal government using its power to get pipelines built, Alberta uses it's royalties to build up Canada. 5) Alberta wouldn't have to pay so much in equalization if those other provinces had a stronger economy. And the fact is, oil prices drive up the CAD, and that destroyed eastern Canada's manufacturing all through the 2000s. We have Dutch disease. We need to diversify our economy. Frankly, if all of Canada had more investment, the Federal government would be able to lower taxes on everyone, including Alberta, because there would be a much larger tax base.
1
@wilfdarr well 1, it's crazy that Alberta gets a third of its government revenue from oil and then calls other provinces spoiled. 2, maybe people would be more appreciative of equalization payments if Alberta didn't spend all it's time complaining about paying it. I'm in Ontario, it received less than PEI last year, and nothing the 4 years before, so forgive me for not being appreciative of your generosity. 3, I'm trying to help you. Are you getting pipelines built right now? Even the US federal government under Trump blocked the last one. If you want to build pipelines, maybe consider making it worthwhile. Or, go on not getting pipelines. I'd rather the win-win. But frankly, high oil prices killed Ontario's Manufacturing, so it's no real skin off my back if you can't get it out of the ground.
1
I like the interview and like your podcast in general, but I have to point out the point of a metaphor is to increase clarity, and I think you may be pushing it to far...
1
@angies.7689 not to be rude, but this take is like watching a hurricane come toward you and hoping it will just go away. Trump launched trade wars last time. Even against us. He got elected on the basis of Trade wars this election. There is every reason to believe he's going to tariff us, and we need to have a plan.
1
Why did you make Chat GDP do this
1
@RocketRon7779 except for the fact Trump is going to quickly force an end to the Ukraine Russia war, and Russia will be flooding the market.
1
@RocketRon7779 I disagree, I don't believe you are considering Trump's plans towards Russia and Ukraine. I think he will almost certainly force a stalemate that leaves Russia with land it has gained, and in Trade negotiations forces Europe to accept Russian trade again to ensure a unanimous end to the war as part of free trade agreement with the US. And as part of that, and along side a depressed China, we will see lower prices for most commodity markets.
1
@raphaellagdameo7811 I definitely agree with the appeal. But what does it matter if a Toronto to Montreal trip is cut to 3 hours? It's certainly much more convenient but what economic activity does that spur? And what activity does it spur if we assume we're in an economy that's seeing a 10% drop of GDP? I am arguing this is an either or scenario. Again, in the past I wouldn't be. But this isn't Covid or the great recession. The Bank of Canada isn't going to be able to keep rates low without mass sell offs of our US Treasury reserves and that's a very finite amount. Without exports to the US, there is going to be substantially less demand for Canadian dollars internationally, and that means our dollar is going to struggle to purchase the imported consumer goods we rely on, leading to inflation, and the capital equipment we need to build these infrastructure projects. This is very much a shoe string budget we will be on in a way that hasn't traditionally been true. If you follow MMT, then when the discussion is that it's not about dollars available to a government it's about resources available, we are not going to have resources available if we don't have export revenue. We don't need to spend money to keep people employed. We need to spend money that gets us exports. The people who are against pipelines, we can't afford to give them air time. We're talking about Alberta collapsing into a permanent depression. Ontario will be losing its manufacturing sector. And quite frankly I do not have a lot of faith the millions of immigrants in that corridor will be choosing to stick around, or the Ontario's housing sector, or housing and oil sands dependent banking sector, will manage to stay afloat. Very soon Quebec, along with BC, may be two of the few provinces of supplying transfer payments, and it's not because their economy will be getting stronger. We failed to develop our economy when it was possible to build both and when we did have demand for foreign investment. And I don't want to get to the point our competitive advantage is low wages. We simply don't have the fiscal space to borrow and spend if these tariffs happen, and I believe they will, because I think the goal of this is to deindustrialize Ontario and bring that industry to the rust belt it is already integrated into, and in doing so crash the CAD to access our resources cheap. If you want to argue for better rail in general, for more freight capacity east-west or better regional rail to Oshawa or Hamilton or even Niagara, areas people do commute and don't require 10s of billions of dollars for a single route, I think it could be very helpful in lowering cost of living. But right now I'd rather see a light rail/street car from Niagara on the lakes vineyards through Niagara falls to the border at Buffalo that can drive some tourism and help people in Niagara commute than a speed line between two cities that have very little economic integration just because they're big..
1
@adelezakus4795 I agree entirely with reducing our car orientated infrastructure in place or walkable neighborhoods. But high speed rail is that last step to that, not the first, people need to be able to get to work before they can get from Montreal to Toronto, which they already can do with a few extra hours. And more importantly, right now I'm afraid all that congestion is going to go away in the worst possible way if a million immigrants decide Canada is no longer better than their home countries and the middle class can't afford repairs when their car breaks down. We need to be able to afford imports, and that means we need to focus our limited fiscal capacity at reorienting our export infrastructure as quickly as possible and with all priority.
1
@raphaellagdameo7811 efficiency of what? Their trip? How does that make Canada's GDP grow? Really that means about a sixth of the population of the corridor we're talking about made a single there and return trip. If we assume that's all between Montreal and Toronto, we're saying save an average of 6 hours a year for 12% of the population between the two. Europe and Asia have far more cities densely packed, and more importantly, aren't car dependent in their building. You have to start by making cities and neighborhoods survivable without a car for these kinds of benefits. No one decides against buying a car because they can make that one trip a year to Montreal in only 3 hours, they decide not to buy a car because they can get to work conveniently without one. I agree with the point on freight. Although, I would much rather see new freight from North Bay to Ottawa so that we can free up the middle corridor in Toronto and reroute trains through Northern Ontario. But again, a high speed rail that skips Ottawa might make sense if the goal is to free up freight. Frankly, I think dedicated passenger rail would be more cost effective and provide most of the benefits, but if you're building splurge a little I guess. But if you include Ottawa that isn't what it's about at all and you're spending 10 times more on a vanity projects. Again, just because it's well studied, doesn't mean it will help. We need to be generating export revenue. Even if a high-speed rail could be bought at a good price, if it isn't getting us foreign reserves it isn't helping. Even if we bought every part of it domestically, those domestic workers turn around and are buying imported consumer goods, because we don't make consumer goods, and that money is flowing out and having to be bought back by the BoC, and we can't do that for long before rates have to go through the roof or the CAD collapses against international currencies.
1
@raphaellagdameo7811 okay. Again, I can agree with the value of Toronto to Montreal. I think most would be realized with simple passenger dedicated rail, but I'm okay with a long term investment. It frees up freight and might make some trips more cost effective. This project is not Montreal to Toronto. It's Montreal to Ottawa to Toronto. Which means that instead of flat farmland and already existing right of way, you're cutting through eastern woodlands, building over the hard rock and bogs of Canadian Shield, and through the Algonquin highlands. For hundreds of Km. Including Ottawa makes the entire project not worth the return. We have a highway for those buses. We have airports for those planes. We aren't talking about entirely new infrastructure. In fact we will probably see those airports struggling when Canadians can't afford to travel and there is no US business to fly and attend to. There is an enormous marginal cost to building a high-speed rail over what exists. What's the goal, just to replace the buses and plains? What's the cost per ticket. Is it really cheaper than the bus, or are those riders going to keep taking the bus because it's what they can afford, today, when the economy is relatively good. Because I'll be shocked if it's cheaper than the current train. And are the execs on those flights going to be flying, or are their companies going to make them do more online calls to save money, when the economy is in recession. Time is money when you're employed. We are facing a mass unemployment crisis. A crisis unlike Covid or 2008, because our central bank will be unable to keep rates low and our government unable to borrow large amounts. And we are talking about maybe an hour a person per year in the region? The GTA won't have a GDP of $450 billion a year if these tariffs are real. When Hamilton and Oshawa and Windsor lose industry, when immigrants decide they don't want to live in a country they came to for economic opportunity that now is facing a decade of recession, that won't be the case. What are people in the GTA going to do with quicker access to Montreal that makes money, and vice versa. From Paris or London I can go to a dozen other cities. You're naming hubs in a network. Our cities are islands; especially if you got there on a train. And they are cities that have public transit outside the downtown. Montreal and Toronto are maybe the best in Canada, but you can't go to the suburbs. I'd much rather see this money spent on building new LRT, or just bus lanes and stop lights timed to bus routes. There is far more time we could be saving for people with the very limited fiscal space we have being put into public transit compared to an HSR. Right now a quarter of the country's exports, which fund a quarter of the country's imports, are oil sands. When the price of that collapses, our dollar can't buy things. I'm not even saying to expand the oil sands. I think we'll probably lose the oil sands mines, a million barrels a day, which you might think is a good thing until you realize it means the tailings ponds along the Athabasca will be abandoned. I'm simply saying we need to prioritize getting what we can out of the country, or else decade and hundreds of billions of investment into the Canadian economy are written off. While Ontario's Manufacturering is written off. We won't be able to afford importing those $200 billion in service if we can't get our exports to market, and you have not given any explanation to how this rail line would internalize those services. And tar is an acidic oxidized carbon residue, you are referring to bitumen..
1
@adelezakus4795 obviously we agree on a lot, most importantly the importance of planning infrastructure on long time lines. There are two things I disagree. First is that HSR is a solution to sprawl or long commutes. No country with HSR treats it as a commuter service. I get the idea but I think the solution has to be developing dense walkable communities within our cities, around existing transit hubs. That's how we reduce long commutes, we reduce the number of long distance commuters, not spend more on subsidizing long distance commuting. And in regard to to tariffs, my point there is that even if all the iron for rails and manufacturing of train cars and equipment used to build is made in Canada, those workers get paid. And when they get paid, they end up buying imports, because almost all of our consumer goods are imported. And buying imports when we don't have exports means the Bank Of Canada has to protect the CAD, either selling reserves or raising rates. I really believe we need to focus everything on salvaging those exports. Any government money spent means capital flight, and if it isn't being invested on getting access to foreign assets, it's wasted. We are in such an incredibly similar situation to Venezuela. Our ace up the sleeve is the US doesn't want a Venezuela on its border. And I don't want to play it..
1
@geofflepper3207 I agree. Including the bias of politicians part, although I think it is equally a case of contractors having no reason to say there is a much easier cheaper route and politicians not actually knowing anything about infrastructure, and that they will have trouble communicating to their base that even though including Ottawa just looks like a different straight line on a map, it's a very different line..
1
We have a lot of very negative head winds. A blanket Tariff of 10% on oil exports is bad on its own. Trump bringing Russia back into the global market will flood Europe and cut Brent prices (also fertilizer, minerals, lumber, gold, diamonds, nuclear power projects, really everything we do but make car parts, which the tariffs are going to kill anyway), the Saudis appear to be maneuvering toward low prices, and with China about to enter a depression oil demand will collapses. My biggest fear, not just for Alberta but Canada, is Fort McMurray shutting down and Transmountain being reversed to import light oil for Alberta's refineries.
1
@caireengraham what deals?
1
Again, a 25% tariff on oil won't hurt KeyStone. US refineries won't pay any higher a price, they'll just oil sands producers less. But this is probably part of the negotiation and we will probably build KeyStone as a result. Edit: recent attention to Venezuela may actually indicate no KeyStone. Chevron already has sanctions exemptions I'm sure they'll be tariff exempt, and technically their condensate for heavy crude swaps don't count as buying and selling oil, and growing Venezuelan output serves a number of political goals as well as increasing regional demand for US light oil, which in many ways is lighter than the market has demand for, particularly in the light of Trump ending support for a Ukraine war and Russia returning to the European market and lowering global prices.
1
No, the US has far more flexibility in supply than Canada does markets. Oil sands producers are quite clearly price takers from the historical example. Refiners aren't going to pay 25% more for oil that's unprecedented. Oil sands producers charging a third less is common. Even the smallest drop in US demand would cause a price collapse on the Canadian side as it regularly has. The Alberta royalties are based on a scaled system. Revenue drops much faster than oil prices. Canadians may not pay the tax, but Albertans will when their provincial revenue collapses. All of that is most true of the Mining Operations, which are the largest area of employment and could see closures as the US does not need our light SynCrude.
1
@geofflepper3207 I see when I click your avatar (you replied in another video and I thought I recognized the name, is it actually your name or meant to look like deaf leopard? I think it's pretty solid if the later lol), but you replied to me about the experts saying I'm wrong and that got deleted. But I don't believe they do say that. Ultimately, every barrel of Canadian Western Select is priced in Hardisty outside Edmonton. Regardless of where it ultimately ends up, pipelines may have differing fees, but all oil is sold at the same price. We have some 600k a day flowing down Keystone to the US's Gulf Coast refineries. Which means every barrel in Hardisty needs to be competitive with the price those refineries buy at. The price of CWS+the tariff + pipeline fees (which are a small component, but Keystone is already the more expensive) has to equal the global price, or else the Gulf refineries will switch. Which means every barrel of CWS, including those going to the Midwest, has to subtract the cost of the tariff from their current price. Any tariff will show up as a discount on our oil. If the Gulf refineries stop buying, then we have an immediate oversupply, which will force prices down as producers have no where to store significant quantities and will lose more money stopping production al together where that is even possible. Also, Marathon is already saying it can switch over it's refineries to run on Bakken. That's another 300k a day. It isn't actually hard for the US refiners to move away from Canadian Crude, it just means they lose a bunch of investment. But within 2 years Keystone could be reversed, and add barges on the Mississippi, you can bring another million barrels a day north from the Gulf, and push out another million barrels a day from the Midwest. And frankly, especially if we try to retaliate and reduce supply like we did in 2018 to support prices, I think they will cut Line 5, which Michigan is already trying to do, under EPA order. That's another 300k barrels a day, and half of Ontario's pipeline supply gone. I'm not even mentioning the Washington refineries or California refineries currently taking our product because in theory we can ship anything that reaches the Pacific by sea, but in reality that is a very congested waterway and adding so many super tankers will be difficult, particularly initially because they generally aren't floating around the Pacific coast and will take weeks to arrive after needing an economic incentive to leave their normal clients..
1
@ToeKneeOooo I don't think that's true. CBC and Canada Post obviously haven't monopolized their market. If most crown corps are monopolies I think that has more to do with the fact that you can't really have a competitive market on companies operating the Windsor bridge, for example.
1
@1voluntaryist Austrian economics is like Christian rock, lots of good concepts in there, but if you have to use the label you probably aren't any good at communicating them. But I've no idea why you're bringing this up, socialism isn't when another country puts tariffs on you lol.
1
@1voluntaryist have you ever read Klondike? Great book imo. It's in no way a book on economics, but I think it's a great historical lesson. I don't generally support regulation outside of environmental, sometimes labour. I largely agree with the comments on economic growth, situations like the Klondike Gold Rush not withstanding. But I support the government collecting resource and land rents, and I don't have an issue with government owned entities or supported Co-ops operating in a free market and believe it's a net benefit.
1
@kevinwills6218 Oil sands producers will simply lower the price they sell at, and reduce royalty payments to Alberta. And Alberta would never allow an export tariff on oil.
1
Ya it's arguably a conservative leaning paper in terms of being pro capitalism. Not in a culture war sense. But this pod cast, which is pretty good imo, arguably leans slightly left.
1
@jodyperyk1978 maybe in terms of covering topics relevant to the left but I wouldn't say in terms of content or presentation
1
@therighteousrighthand this has been a problem with our politics since NAFTA. If one party can offer more growth, it's going to win, because the electorate didn't see the threat to the south. it's the same reason we don't spend on a military or have conscription.
1
@therighteousrighthand well that isn't necessarily true. Saudi Arabia is obviously an export economy. Russia, Brazil, Venezuela was. The Auto point I think is arguably the opposite. It was used as a way to gain much wider access to the US, and has been our only manufacturing industry to really survive. I think Space and Arms as an industry is a difficult selling point. Both are really just government funded. You may drive some innovation through it, but we are a very small economy and population relative to India or China or the US. Even France with nearly twice the population struggles to have a domestic military that is modern, and long ago gave up an independent space program. That isn't to say we couldn't have more of a military Industrial complex. But these are not things that drive an economy to success unless we are aiming to be a global arms supplier. Although, I do think we could pull German investment for artillery manufacturing to help supply Ukraine..
1
@Alvin-my6wj Well Canada exports largely the imports to manufactured goods. So we could have a very symbiotic relationship with China if we chose, like a wheat farmer selling to a flour mill. Similar to Australias.
1
@therighteousrighthand I mean for Auto, we have a small population, historical lly smaller. Like 10 years ago we had maybe 80% the population we have today. A country that small isn't going to have a successful auto industry, either it's protected and so ultimately not very good, or needs access to other market to sell which means other countries will want access in return. Southern Ontario makes parts for cars sold all over the US. That's nearly a 400 million person market when you include us. The economies of scale are very preventative. For space, that's a 60 year investment the US has made that is only just starting to pay off in a way none of the legacy players anticipated or will likely survive. I think we should probably team with the UK and try to develop SKYLON. That could be a competitor. But I don't think it's fair to say we should have been advancing a space industry for the past 30 years. Maybe the last 10 we could have started. Remember, all those innovations were funded by a population 10x the size of our own. Very expensive.
1
@therighteousrighthand Sweden is a very unusual case, and even they are now partnering internationally for their next generation fighters. And, along with all the big players, we would also be competing against Sweden. In many ways I would prefer to work with Sweden and buy their products than attempt to enter an industry they are struggling in. But I certainly agree with the rest. I just don't agree with your industries. Halifax, Either Vancouver or Prince Rupert, and Southern Ontario should all house massive food processing industries to value add to the enormous amount of food we export raw and in bulk. We need to start allowing mining again. I'm the a cut the red tape type problem solver, and there is lots of other things we should do, but in the case of mining cutting tape is a must do. All the EV manufacturing and batteries were premised on us having the supply chain to keep costs low. Without that, our only advantage was access to the US market. Maybe we can do well in the battery market, and that the main thing for EVs, if we have the supply chains. But I'm not going to support EVs if we aren't creating the inputs. We need to build some pipelines to the West Coast. An east coast pipeline is fine, good for economic security, and we might be able to get Europe to invest in it if they feel the US is unreliable. But we should have massive petrochemical facilities on the West. It's import to understand we don't have all that much oil, we have bitumen it's as different as NG from oil, and the advantage here is that Oil is going to be hurt by EVs kicking out demand for gasoline. Bitumen doesn't have that problem, we can turn it all to diesel, or jet fuel. Or non combustion uses like Asphalt or lubricants or even carbon fiber. And we can have a dominant position in Asia with that. Along with that I'm pretty pro Hydrogen investment. It's unlikely to be relevant for energy, but we can use it in our fertilizer industry, we can use it to upgrade that bitumen to other products, we can use it in industry for heating. And also SMRs, we should be ripping out the boilers in the Oilsands and using nuclear for the steam generation. Likewise for the petrochemical clusters or other industrial clusters or upgraders. In terms of Industry/manufacturing, I'll take whatever the Europeans will invest in us, wether it's artillery or hydrogen/ammonia or an LNG pipeline. If they pay I'm in, the east coast has always been an economic weakness. If I'm using government money, I'll support wind turbines (particularly in NF), mining equipment, and maybe heat pumps and solar cells. Things we need domestically at scale for either cost of living and lowering consumer energy costs or for powering industry, and can find large export markets particularly in Latin America. And I'm okay to throw some money at Additive manufacturing/3D printing random consumer junk but I don't expect it to stick. Last point, agricultural. 3 pillars and 2 add on. 1) we should be trying to pull in Dutch farmers finding land to expensive in the Netherlands to come to southern Ontario and the two food hubs and putting money into a massive greenhouse industry, and building those greenhouses. 2) we should be trying to turn the tundra into a massive grazing land for cattle and some additional animals, domestic muskox for wool and bringing in some Fins for Caribou. 3) we should be subsidizing kelp farming on the east coast to drive employment, increase fish stocks, and use it as biomass for fertilizer, Biogas, and chemicals. And 2 less large scale, creating more markets for berries from the North, and trying to bring in some American farmers from Wisconsin/Minnesota who have been priced out to develop Ontario's sand belt for wheat.
1
@therighteousrighthand Sweden is a very unusual case, and even they are now partnering internationally for their next generation fighters. And, along with all the big players, we would also be competing against Sweden. In many ways I would prefer to work with Sweden and buy their products than attempt to enter an industry they are struggling in. But I certainly agree with the rest. I just don't agree with your industries. Halifax, Either Vancouver or Prince Rupert, and Southern Ontario should all house massive food processing industries to value add to the enormous amount of food we export raw and in bulk. We need to start allowing mining again. I'm the a cut the red tape type problem solver, and there is lots of other things we should do, but in the case of mining cutting tape is a must do. All the EV manufacturing and batteries were premised on us having the supply chain to keep costs low. Without that, our only advantage was access to the US market. Maybe we can do well in the battery market, and that the main thing for EVs, if we have the supply chains. But I'm not going to support EVs if we aren't creating the inputs. We need to build some pipelines to the West Coast. An east coast pipeline is fine, good for economic security, and we might be able to get Europe to invest in it if they feel the US is unreliable. But we should have massive petrochemical facilities on the West. It's import to understand we don't have all that much oil, we have bitumen it's as different as NG from oil, and the advantage here is that Oil is going to be hurt by EVs kicking out demand for gasoline. Bitumen doesn't have that problem, we can turn it all to diesel, or jet fuel. Or non combustion uses like Asphalt or lubricants or even carbon fiber. And we can have a dominant position in Asia with that. Along with that I'm pretty pro Hydrogen investment. It's unlikely to be relevant for energy, but we can use it in our fertilizer industry, we can use it to upgrade that bitumen to other products, we can use it in industry for heating. And also SMRs, we should be ripping out the boilers in the Oilsands and using nuclear for the steam generation. Likewise for the petrochemical clusters or other industrial clusters or upgraders. In terms of Industry/manufacturing, I'll take whatever the Europeans will invest in us, wether it's artillery or hydrogen/ammonia or an LNG pipeline. If they pay I'm in, the east coast has always been an economic weakness. If I'm using government money, I'll support wind turbines (particularly in NF), mining equipment, and maybe heat pumps and solar cells. Things we need domestically at scale for either cost of living and lowering consumer energy costs or for powering industry, and can find large export markets particularly in Latin America. And I'm okay to throw some money at Additive manufacturing/3D printing random consumer junk but I don't expect it to stick. Last point, agricultural. 3 pillars and 2 add on. 1) we should be trying to pull in Dutch farmers finding land to expensive in the Netherlands to come to southern Ontario and the two food hubs and putting money into a massive greenhouse industry, and building those greenhouses. 2) we should be trying to turn the tundra into a massive grazing land for cattle and some additional animals, domestic muskox for wool and bringing in some Fins for Caribou. 3) we should be subsidizing kelp farming on the east coast to drive employment, increase fish stocks, and use it as biomass for fertilizer, Biogas, and chemicals. And 2 less large scale, creating more markets for berries from the North, and trying to bring in some American farmers from Wisconsin/Minnesota who have been priced out to develop Ontario's sand belt for wheat..
1
@therighteousrighthand Sweden is a very unusual case, and even they are now partnering internationally for their next generation fighters. And, along with all the big players, we would also be competing against Sweden. In many ways I would prefer to work with Sweden and buy their products than attempt to enter an industry they are struggling in. But I certainly agree with the rest. I just don't agree with your industries. Sorry I had to break up this to see why it wouldn't post
1
Probably the Eastiest thing we should be doing is in food manufacturing. It's relatively low tech , hihh employment, and high value adding. Halifax, Either Vancouver or Prince Rupert, and Southern Ontario should all house massive food processing industries to value add to the enormous amount of food we export raw and in bulk.
1
agricultural. 3 pillars and 2 add on. 1) we should be trying to pull in Dutch farmers finding land to expensive in the Netherlands to come to southern Ontario and the two food hubs and putting money into a massive greenhouse industry, and building those greenhouses. 2) we should be trying to turn the tundra into a massive grazing land for cattle and some additional animals, domestic muskox for wool and bringing in some Fins for Caribou. 3) we should be subsidizing kelp farming on the east coast to drive employment, increase fish stocks, and use it as biomass for fertilizer, Biogas, and chemicals. And 2 less large scale, creating more markets for berries from the North, and trying to bring in some American farmers from Wisconsin/Minnesota who have been priced out to develop Ontario's sand belt for wheat.
1
We need to start allowing mining again. I'm the a cut the red tape type problem solver, and there is lots of other things we should do, but in the case of mining cutting tape is a must do. All the EV manufacturing and batteries were premised on us having the supply chain to keep costs low. Without that, our only advantage was access to the US market. Maybe we can do well in the battery market, and that the main thing for EVs, if we have the supply chains. But I'm not going to support EVs if we aren't creating the inputs.
1
We need to build some pipelines to the West Coast. An east coast pipeline is fine, good for economic security, and we might be able to get Europe to invest in it if they feel the US is unreliable. But we should have massive petrochemical facilities on the West. It's import to understand we don't have all that much oil, we have bitumen it's as different as NG from oil, and the advantage here is that Oil is going to be hurt by EVs kicking out demand for gasoline. Bitumen doesn't have that problem, we can turn it all to diesel, or jet fuel. Or non combustion uses like Asphalt or lubricants or even carbon fiber. And we can have a dominant position in Asia with that.
1
Along with that I'm pretty pro Hydrogen investment. It's unlikely to be relevant for energy, but we can use it in our fertilizer industry, we can use it to upgrade that bitumen to other products, we can use it in industry for heating. And also SMRs, we should be ripping out the boilers in the Oilsands and using nuclear for the steam generation. Likewise for the petrochemical clusters or other industrial clusters or upgraders.
1
In terms of Industry/manufacturing, I'll take whatever the Europeans will invest in us, wether it's artillery or hydrogen/ammonia or an LNG pipeline. If they pay I'm in, the east coast has always been an economic weakness.
1
If I'm using government money, I'll support wind turbines (particularly in NF), mining equipment, and maybe heat pumps and solar cells. Things we need domestically at scale for either cost of living and lowering consumer energy costs or for powering industry, and can find large export markets particularly in Latin America. And I'm okay to throw some money at Additive manufacturing/3D printing random consumer junk but I don't expect it to stick
1
@BobLanctot The scale of electrical sales is very small, both relative to overall trade and US power consumption.
1
@RetroCaptain we don't sell water to the US. It is Infact illegal to sell bulk water across the Canadian border.
1
What? What water do you think we're giving away? We don't own the great Lakes, and there are clear rules for water usage from them.
1
@lstone3633 yes, I don't disagree, what I'm saying is when the CPP investment fund makes an investment, that investment should be determined not just by the direct return on capital, but should also take into account the CPP contribution payments that investment would create. Ie; and Investment in Canada with a 3% return but creating a thousand jobs that will max out CPP contributions per year should possibly be select over an investment in country X returning 4%. A pensioner's payments are made largely using current CPP contributions, those pensioners investments shouldn't be undermining Canadian employment opportunities unless the returns are considerably higher.
1
@lstone3633 I agree with it's independence and that it isn't a nation build tool. My point is that they currently aren't making the best returns for pensioners because pensioners are paid from both CPP contributions and CPP capital investment returns. They are only looking at the direct return on investment. I would still have the board be independent, I'm simply saying they should be required to consider how an investment in Canada would generate employment, and how that employment would generate CPP payments. At the moment I don't believe they are even allowed to consider this. I'm not suggesting they consider how that employment would fund things like income tax or lower transportation costs or raise employment generally within the country. Only how it would directly increase payments into the fund. The only other comment I would make on CPP independence is a mandate not to invest in certain countries the government lists as a strategic security concern, in part because those assets could be seized in the future..
1
@lstone3633 I certainly agree that our country is in a very bad position with trump. I'm not sure I understand your objection on the CPP point, I don't see how this would invite any more political interference than the current system. But in terms of what now I think we desperately need to create investment in export oriented infrastructure. Far more than we can afford capital flight by our own public investments.
1
@Butterflies-are-free New British Empire would be cool, First Global Indian Empire I'm not game.
1
@A__SB Russians overrunning Canada. How absurd. The only possible military threat to Canada is the US itself. Canada doesn't have a poor record of defense, the only way we've ever lost was following the American's to Afghanistan
1
The US doesn't have an air defense system for ICBMs either, and no adversary is close enough to hit Canada with anything else.
1
@A__SB defending from who? It's laughable to think someone is going to sail across the Atlantic or Pacific, into the Arctic, and try and land an armed force in the Tundra. Literally no one but the US has any capacity to invade or otherwise occupy Canada.
1
Ya, exactly. The only threat to Canada is the US. The only reason for Canada to build a Military is to fight the US. We don't need America protecting us from hoards of Russians. What a joke. We just need America not to invade its peaceful and Democratic neighbors. What's gone wrong in America that this is suddenly a big ask?
1
@potato, we are in violent agreement. I agree the US could invade us. The point is they are the only country capable of invading us. We don't need them protecting us from Russia, we just need them not to act like Russia.
1
Americans have F22s not Russian built trash. There is no Air Defense system that exists that would help.
1
Mr Potato Head, are you actually suggesting Canada, a country with the world's largest land border, which is with the US, and a population 10% of the US, should seriously develop a capability to combat the US military? Do you understand this is an impossible goal? And given that it's genuinely not plausible, there is no alternative military threat to justify a Canadian Military outside of long range power projection in support of NATO operations.
1
By this definition anyone but maybe China is a client state. But also I never disagreed with this statement. I think it's dumb to be upset about Canadian military spending. All our spending is to support NATO allies. And we do a very good job of it.
1
@joelscott5783 We need a wide scale militia. This is not an 1812 joke this is a comment on Ukraine's success points.
1
This conversation doesn't even account for the fact that Trump is likely going to force Ukraine to surrender and end Russian Sanctions, and Russia will then flood the market with stock piles of Minerals, lumber, oil, and fertilizers it has built up, all of which are our core exports..
1
@test40323 3. Great idea, I agree 2) also could be great play, I would love to see that 1) important to note the difference between oil and DilBit. Most of our exports are DilBit, which frankly is about as different from oil as oil is from Natural gas. That's Quebec's concern. And, European customers and eastern Canadian refineries can't use DilBit, TransCanada was always about getting it to Tidewater to sail it to the US Gulf. Obviously that would not be the objective in any currently discussed project. If Alberta built an Upgrader and sent SynCrude, I think a lot of these issues around pipelines would have been settled years ago..
1
@jeffDwyer1 I wish this were true and it may be so in the case of some Chinese consumers goods, but the rate at which Americans purchase new appliances, or specifically cars in the case of Canada, is slow infrequent that even if CPI figures increase, Americans won't feel it in their expenses even over the term of a Presidency. Some fancy fruit will increase in prices, but Republican voters won't notice that. Rents will decrease with immigration expulsions, most US food products are domestically produced, all the pain points of inflation will be largely mitigated.
1
@LelandWolf-zt4wz what is the question why oil meant to mean? Why am I talking about it? Why use it? Why sell it? I'm talking about how this will play out in the Canadian economy this has nothing to do with a preference for oil.
1
If car prices go up, fewer Americans will buy a new car. Inflation through car prices isn't going to be top of mind, it isn't rent or food or a regular expense, and the higher income individuals who buy new cars aren't going to be nearly as cash strapped. I suppose is a 25% tariff were triggered each time the car recrossed the border that would be extreme -but why would it be set up like that when even a 10% tariff would steal our manufacturering. I don't believe Canada has a monopoly on any part. But even if we did, 25% on a part is just a part, it doesn't mean a 25% price increase for the consumer, the mechanics labour isn't going up. The point is this is far more damaging to Canadians than Americans. The idea "Americans will just pay higher prices" is as ludicrous as saying that they will go ten years without buying a new car. They will scrap existing cars for parts, keep cars longer, and buy more American parts. Russia managed to survive about 2 years with sanctions on car parts from Europe before they starded to see increasing cat prices. A 25% tariff is far easier to navigate. There will be some short term price increase. And frankly, Trump may just slap on a subsidy to hide the impact. the plan is to steal our industry, it most certainly will work, and it won't take 10 years. any level of trade war will likely kill and rebuild on the American side most of our manufacturing before Trump's term ends.
1
Its mind numbing that Alberta is trying to restrict renewables while Texas is a leader. Why does Smith hate money.
1
Alberta has several relatively easy steps to move toward a cheaper lower carbon grid. Most importantly, Calgary and Edmonton, in particular, need to be connected to BC, particularly to Revelstoke (Calgary) and Site C (Edmonton). This allows access to not only BCs hydro surplus in the winter, but to Californias Solar surplus through BC, and allows Alberta to sell excess renewable capacity west and south. Secondly, we need to invest in solar with 2-4h storage. Overnight storage is a pipedream, but if storage can provide for the few hours into the evening, existing NG plants built around peaking can be uprated into co-generation facilities with slower load following that can support seasonally low renewables and overnight periods. Wind works with transmission, solar works with storage. And people don't realize how great the solar Resources in Alberta are. The sun still shines in the winter (you may have to clear some snow, but efficiency actually goes up with low temp and you actually get stronger sunlight in the winter, although hours go down), and the biggest thing with solar is cloud cover, where Alberta has clear prairie skys. Lastly, we need money going to Geothermal. We need to find a new market for all the drilling equipment and skilled labour. Geothermal takes care of the winter and lets you peak in in the evening.
1
Me as well. Although at the same time I am not looking forward to them getting big enough for the comment section to be nothing but First, Bots, insults, and eventually being closed
1
1. His climate care measures are the conservatives main running point. 2. Trump is actively ripping up USMCA/NAFTA and Trudeau may be leaving government under some of the highest tariffs in the world. 3. The child tax credit is credible, humane, and needed policy.
1
@sharonoddlyenough a whole lot less than other cars, it will be relatively good for it in the market.
1