Comments by "Neolithic Transit Revolution" (@neolithictransitrevolution427) on "The ‘valley of death’ for Canada’s mining companies" video.

We need our own government to create a Crown Corporation to engage in minimg.
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
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
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
@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
@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