NationStates Jolt Archive


Canada says to the United States "Pwned biatch"

[NS]Canada City
29-08-2005, 14:26
Alberta is about to get wildly rich and powerful

What does that mean for Canada?

STEVE MAICH

At Suncor Energy's Millennium oil sands project, just north of Fort McMurray, Alta., the unmistakable odour of black gold drifts up from the ground and hangs thick in the air. Everywhere around you, water pooled in footprints, tire ruts and potholes carries the telltale rainbow sheen of oil. "The smell of economic progress," jokes Brad Bellows, a spokesman for Suncor, playing host on a damp spring afternoon. But it's much more than that. It's the smell of raw power -- the kind that comes from having plenty of what the rest of the world can't live without. It's the smell of a resource locked in the ground for millions of years and which now has the potential to shape the future of a nation, for better or for worse.

Suncor's extraction plant on the bank of the Athabasca River looks like a science fiction movie set -- hundreds of kilometres of steel pipe twisted into incomprehensible knots around hulking industrial buildings, storage tanks and smokestacks. The whole scene is bathed in a constant haze of steam and exhaust. Two other such plants are now operating within an hour's drive of here, and several more are scheduled to commence operations over the next few years, all to exploit what may be the biggest petroleum deposit anywhere in the world, a sea of oil-saturated soil covering an area the size of New Brunswick.





Already, one million barrels of petroleum a day are being spun out of the sand and pumped south, and that number is projected to triple within the next decade. During that time, the oil sands will generate about 100,000 new jobs and billions of dollars in royalties and taxes to various levels of government, not to mention billions more in dividends to investors. But the significance of the oil sands beyond Canada's borders may be even greater.

Energy has become a central obsession of international politics in recent years, as exploding economic growth in Asia and America's ongoing love affair with gas-guzzling vehicles have accelerated the drain on world petroleum reserves. Terrorism, trade, the war in Iraq, nuclear diplomacy -- all of it, on some level, is related to the international preoccupation with energy, and access to affordable oil. So if Canada is to play a more significant global role in the years ahead, experts agree it will be due to the reeking, doughy black soil in northern Alberta, and the rest of the world's keen desire to share it. "The oil sands give Canada one of the single greatest advantages of any state in the Western world," says Paul Chastko, a University of Calgary historian who recently published a book called Developing Alberta's Oil Sands. "It gives Canada the ability to supply all of North America for the next 50 years without touching a drop of imported oil." It is, in short, an economic engine and political lever that any nation would desperately love to have.

But rich inheritances can be mixed blessings -- that opportunity comes with a host of potentially poisonous and divisive questions about how best to manage the windfall. Amid Canada's tangle of regional rivalries, three dominant political cultures have emerged -- western conservatives, eastern liberals and Quebec nationalists -- each with its own starkly different priorities and visions for the country. While attention has traditionally focused on feelings of alienation in Quebec, the sense of historical grievance and isolation is just as deep in Alberta, where most believe Ottawa has long pandered to the economic interests of eastern elites at the expense of the West. Even the cultural symbols seem irreconcilable: it's the clash between cowboy oilmen and their libertarian leaders, versus buttoned-down eastern bankers and their old-money political allies.

Now Alberta is poised to reap the biggest bonanza in its history, an economic jackpot giant enough to fundamentally shift the balance of wealth and power westward. The province can control its own destiny more than any other because, in the years to come, Canada will need Alberta far more than Alberta will need the rest of Canada. What remains to be seen is whether the gift of the oil sands will secure the country's prosperity for generations to come, or be the force that finally pushes the straining seams of federalism to their breaking point.

The locals have taken to calling this northern outpost "Fort McMoney" and it's not hard to see why. The signs of sudden, conspicuous growth are everywhere -- from the overflowing sewage treatment plant to the huge morning queues at the two Tim Hortons franchises. Housing development and local infrastructure have not kept up with the surging population, so renting a single bedroom in a shared mobile home will set you back about $700 a month.

And this, clearly, is just the beginning. The region's population is projected to grow by about 43 per cent in the next five years, all because of the oil sands. The National Energy Board estimates there are approximately 1.6 trillion barrels of crude bitumen saturating the ground in northern Alberta. Bitumen -- a form of heavy, thick oil laden with sulphur and deficient in hydrogen -- can be refined into synthetic crude oil to make everything from gasoline to plastics. It is the lifeblood of every industrialized economy. According to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, about 178 billion barrels of bitumen are economically recoverable using existing technology -- enough to produce more than 150 billion barrels of crude.

If these estimates are accurate, Canada's oil reserves rank second behind only Saudi Arabia's 260 billion barrels. And there are many who believe the current oil sands assessments understate the true potential here. The AEUB has projected that rising prices and improved technology could ultimately push the oil sands yield close to 300 billion barrels, which would make it the richest petroleum field in the world. By 2015, the oil sands are expected to be producing roughly three million barrels of petroleum a day. Assuming prices will average US$40 a barrel (well below where they are today), that suggests annual revenues of close to US$43 billion.

Last year alone, Alberta collected almost $900 million in oil sands royalties, and the Athabasca Regional Issues Working Group, an industry association, estimates that provincial revenues will hit $3 billion a year by 2011. Add federal and other taxes not directly related to oil sands production and you're looking at billions more. The same industry group recently estimated that between 1997 and 2025, total new revenues to various levels of government from the oil sands should be close to $200 billion.

It's all being driven by a slew of expansions and start-ups scheduled to commence over the next several years, sending an estimated $60 billion in construction and development costs sloshing through the Canadian economy. The Petroleum Human Resources Council of Canada recently estimated that the number of people directly employed in oil sands operations -- currently about 50,000 -- will reach 80,000 by 2008. An additional 70,000 construction, manufacturing and service jobs will also be created -- 40 per cent of them outside Alberta.

Even now, most Canadians still don't fully grasp the significance of the industry, says Rick George, the president and chief executive of Suncor. "There's going to be $6 or $7 billion in new capital put into this business this year," he says. "What other industry is putting that level of capital into the country? There's no comparison that I'm aware of. And you will see that each and every year for the next 10 years, if not the next 20. Obviously that's a huge benefit to the country."

Especially in Alberta. According to a 2003 study by TD Bank Financial Group, the Calgary-Edmonton corridor is already the fastest growing economic region in the country, boasting per-capita gross domestic product that's 40 per cent above the Canadian average. And the Canada West Foundation recently projected that Alberta's economic growth will lead the country this year and next, due in large part to the booming energy sector. For a province that already boasts zero provincial debt, comparatively low taxes and a budget surplus, the future is bright, and promises to provide even better services, lower taxes and an influx of migration to the new western tiger. And in Canada, that could pose a problem.

In August 2001, Jean Chrétien foreshadowed the coming tension over Alberta's blossoming oil wealth during a speech in Edmonton. "We have to make sure that every person in every part of Canada benefits from the potential and the wealth that belongs to the people of Canada," he said. With those words, Chrétien jabbed a stick into the hornet's nest of western alienation. The reaction in the oil patch was swift and indignant. For many Albertans, it was just another sign that Ottawa was intent on stealing their birthright.

It was also a familiar story. In 1980, Pierre Trudeau's government imposed the National Energy Program, which slapped hefty export taxes on oil shipments and capped foreign investment in Canadian oil companies, in part to ensure that eastern Canada's manufacturing base had continued access to cheap oil. The program was deeply resented in Alberta, and was eventually scrapped by the Mulroney Conservatives. But the bitter aftertaste of the NEP remains.

Barry Cooper wasn't surprised at Chrétien's audacity. A University of Calgary political science professor and staunch critic of the federal Liberals, Cooper fully expects that, as the oil sands continue to develop, they will become a flashpoint in federal-provincial relations. Alberta already pays far more in equalization transfers to other provinces than it receives in federal program spending. And as the gap grows between rich Alberta and the poorer parts of the country, the demands to spread the wealth are sure to follow -- especially if prices for gasoline and heating oil skyrocket, as many predict. It's guaranteed to fan the flames of western discontent, Cooper says. "It's Alberta's oil if you live in Alberta and it's Canada's oil if you live in Ottawa," he says. "Energy has become the basic fault line of federalism."

Small tremors have already been felt, in the disputes over Hydro-Québec's plans to explore for oil and gas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the fight by Nova Scotia and Newfoundland over offshore energy royalties and equalization payments. But the biggest showdown is yet to come, Cooper says. It will centre on two conflicting agendas: Alberta's desire to reap maximum benefit from oil sands development, and Ottawa's determination to slash greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

So far, the oil industry and federal government are making soothing noises about the impact of Kyoto on development. After initial threats that some oil companies would shelve projects if Canada signed on to Kyoto, industry players are now saying they can cope with the costs without destroying their businesses. But many questions remain about how Ottawa will roll emissions back to pre-1990 levels and who will pay for it.

Although producers like Suncor are reducing emissions on a per-barrel basis with better technology, and are researching ways to cut the amount of gas and water used in the extraction process, the total environmental impact of oil sands development is sure to increase substantially over the next decade. That has many convinced Ottawa is on a collision course with industry. "If government decides to clamp down hard on CO2 emitters to meet the Kyoto commitments, or if they use Kyoto and the treaty-making power to confiscate income that belongs to the province, the anger generated by the National Energy Program would pale in comparison," says Cooper.

Paul Chastko agrees, and says the environment is just one of many potential conflicts. What will happen if we're heading for a worldwide oil shortage that will send prices shooting higher? Will the rest of the country, particularly manufacturing-reliant commuter cities like Toronto and Montreal, be content to let Alberta profit while their industries are crushed by higher fuel prices, or will there be renewed calls for government intervention, as there were in the 1970s?

These questions may have a pivotal impact in determining Canada's place in an increasingly energy-obsessed world, he says. Because when it comes to this country's relationship with the United States and other economic powers, Alberta holds the trump card, but Ottawa gets to decide how it's played.

Frederick Cedoz is used to getting skeptical laughs around Washington when he refers to Canada as a superpower. This country's image as a mostly boring fringe player in world politics remains deeply entrenched in the U.S. capital. But Cedoz, vice-president of operations with the Global Water and Energy Strategy Team, is trying to change that. He describes a new world in which power flows more from the end of a gas nozzle than the barrel of a gun, a world in which Canada must be considered among the most critical brokers of petroleum power.

To be sure, many skeptics remain, in part because oil sands present a much greater technological challenge than conventional oil fields. In operations like Suncor's Millennium project, raw oil sand must be dug up using massive power shovels, or liquefied using steam so bitumen can be pumped to the surface. Either way, the process is arduous, expensive and consumes vast amounts of natural gas and water. Moreover, oil sands operations have been plagued with cost overruns and mechanical breakdowns.

"What's going to happen to the oil price? Will they have access to enough natural gas? Enough labour? Enough water? Can they contain the pollution? Now that Canada has signed the Kyoto Protocol, you've got to watch those things," says Robert Ebel, chairman of the energy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, running through a rapid-fire list of the issues routinely cited by the skeptics.

But Cedoz and others say these concerns are insignificant when stacked against the looming prospect of a world oil shortage. Since taking office in 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush has spoken repeatedly about the need to ensure America's "energy security." In his National Energy Policy, outlined four years ago, Bush specifically mentioned Alberta's oil sands as a key building block in his plan to ensure American refineries never run dry. Canada may have opted out of the war in Iraq, but in the campaign to fuel the North American economy, this country is still Washington's most prized ally.

In 2003, the U.S. consumed approximately 20 million barrels of petroleum per day, and about 12 million barrels of that was imported. Canada shipped a little over two million barrels a day to its southern neighbour, according to U.S. government estimates, making this country the U.S.'s biggest single energy supplier by far. By 2015, it is projected that Americans will be consuming more than 24 million barrels a day, and if they are going to meet that demand, rising production from the oil sands will be essential.

In early April, oil prices spiked to almost US$60 a barrel on concerns that global demand is growing faster than the industry can produce new supplies. Analysts at Goldman Sachs, a prominent Wall Street investment bank, speculated that the world market may be in the early stages of a "super spike" that could send prices rocketing above US$100 a barrel. All this has only heightened Washington's fear of another oil crisis, reminiscent of the gas shortages that followed the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s. Nothing can suck the wind out of America's economic sails faster than spiralling energy costs, and the Bush administration, far from pushing conservation, is determined to satisfy the nation's thirst for affordable fuel.

"The whole issue of oil is increasingly being seen through the lens of national security," explains Michael Klare, a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict. "The fact that Canada is nearby, an ally, and its oil doesn't have to be shipped by sea on ships that could be blocked or attacked by terrorists, all makes it more appealing. So there will be a premium placed on imports from Canada."

Energy security is not just an American fixation, however. China is in the early stages of an industrial revolution which will vastly increase that country's energy demands over the next decade. And recently Chinese officials have been eyeing the oil sands as a source of precious fuel. In April, a Chinese firm bought a minority stake in MEG Energy Corp., a tiny oil sands developer, and a few days later PetroChina signed a deal with Enbridge Inc. to build a new $2.5-billion oil pipeline between Edmonton and Canada's west coast, to ship up to 200,000 barrels a day to China. And last week, another Chinese energy company, Sinopec Group, bought a 40-per-cent stake in Synenco Energy Inc.'s Northern Lights Project for $105 million, and committed to invest an additional $2 billion to help build the project, aiming for completion by the end of 2010.

This, says Klare, is sure to raise anxieties in Washington. "You're going to see a collision between increased demand around the world and constrained supplies, and that is inevitably going to lead to greater conflict, especially as the U.S. and China come into competition over access to supplies," he says. "I think there's going to be growing emphasis in the U.S. on ensuring those oil sands resources come south and don't go anywhere else. That's going to be a greater emphasis in the relationship between Canada and the U.S."

With two economic superpowers knocking on the door, Canada should wield greater heft in everything from diplomatic efforts to trade negotiations, says Shawn Smallman, director of the International Studies Program at Portland State University. "Even though Canada is our largest trading partner, it's no secret the country hasn't really been on the political radar screen in Washington," he says. "But I think that's changing now because of the growing importance of Canadian oil. Energy is just so central to all discussion of foreign policy in the U.S. right now. It's going to make Canada a much higher priority in the U.S."

But deciding how best to use that power could prove to be yet another thorny question in Canada. Back in 2001, Jean Chrétien hinted the government might link the softwood dispute to Canadian energy exports, arguing that if the U.S. wanted energy, it would have to accept other exports as well. "If they were not to have oil and gas from Canada, they will need a lot of wood to heat their homes," he joked. Again, Chrétien's bluntness exposed a raw nerve in federal-provincial relations. Oilmen don't like the sound of anything that might complicate the lucrative flow of petroleum across the border, and these days Suncor's Rick George will say only that he doesn't think the oil sands should be used as a bargaining chip.

And there you have the tension that simmers between Calgary and Ottawa. Two capitals: one economic, the other political. Both eager to exploit the oil sands for their own incompatible, often contradictory agendas.

At Suncor, the hulking machines of Canada's oil future continue their methodical task. An electric power shovel with a scoop the size of a two-car garage rips a 100-ton chunk of oil-saturated sand away from a black cliff face. The machine stands three storeys tall, and yet is eerily quiet as it goes about its work, merely humming along as it dumps its cargo into the bed of a Caterpillar 797 -- the world's largest truck, with 12-foot wheels capable of hauling a load of up to 400 tons. The truck rumbles away, loaded down with enough sand to produce about 200 barrels of oil -- about US$10,000 worth at current prices. The work continues, around the clock, 365 days a year. "How can you not be optimistic with these commodity prices?" George says. "And look, prices aren't going to stay this high. There will be volatility. But even with oil in the mid-US$30s, this industry and Suncor will perform very well."

But Chastko, who can tell you as much about the oil sands as anyone, knows that keeping politics out of the way won't be easy. "The oil sands have tremendous potential, but it also has the whiff of political dynamite about it," he says. "The born-and-bred Albertan in me says I should be shouting from the highest rooftop about how the oil sands are going to pave the way for our future. The historian in me recognizes that rarely are things ever so simple."

Hmm, Canada has the second largset oil reserves, a thirsty neighbour to the South and political neutrality (and no enemies to boot!)

Too bad the U.S.A is currently inflicting illegal trade practices on us and completely pissing us off, isn't it? :cool:
Balipo
29-08-2005, 14:46
Canada City']Hmm, Canada has the second largset oil reserves, a thirsty neighbour to the South and political neutrality (and no enemies to boot!)

Too bad the U.S.A is currently inflicting illegal trade practices on us and completely pissing us off, isn't it? :cool:

Too bad the US dollar is still worth more...and that's really what everything comes down to isn't it. With NAFTA in place you will profit from the US purchase of oil...but not as much if Canada hadn't signed it.
Kelikstadt
29-08-2005, 14:53
Yes the U.S dollar is worth more than the Canadian...currency... but still the British pound is worth almost twice the US dollar. SELL YOUR OIL TO US!!! (By 'US' i mean England, not the U.S)
PaulJeekistan
29-08-2005, 14:54
Keep it under your hats till at least 2008. If Gergie Boy figures out there's oil there he might declare you all terrorists and invade.
Non Aligned States
29-08-2005, 14:56
Keep it under your hats till at least 2008. If Gergie Boy figures out there's oil there he might declare you all terrorists and invade.

Easily gotten around. Just say that current extraction techniques cost 3 to 4 times that of drilling. Once he's gone, announce a "breakthrough" where the cost has been driven to soemthing more economical.
Kroisistan
29-08-2005, 14:57
Canada's always been awesome... but now they are rich and globally important too!

Karma's a beautiful thing. :)
Balipo
29-08-2005, 15:03
Keep it under your hats till at least 2008. If Gergie Boy figures out there's oil there he might declare you all terrorists and invade.

I thought this was pretty funny...and as an american more than likely COMPLETELY ACCURATE!!

Sometimes I weep at my country...I still have yet to figure out how GWB got the white house the first time, much less twice.
Little India
29-08-2005, 15:06
Keep it under your hats till at least 2008. If Gergie Boy figures out there's oil there he might declare you all terrorists and invade.

I wouldn't be at all surprised: he'd probably claim that the Governor-General and the Prime Minister are involved in some sinister plot to dominate the entire world using a special, "modified" maple syrup that will turn you into a zombie in 45 minutes.

*That is just my twisted view of what he might come up with, and is of course, entirely fictional*
Palarue
29-08-2005, 15:14
that's a bunch o' crap
Canada has no oil. If they did then i agree that bushy would take it. he only declared iraq dudes terrorists cause the alquieda were their.
keep yer trap shut canada! :D
Sinuhue
29-08-2005, 15:39
Don't forget the Territories in this equation...with only two operational diamond mines, Canada is the third largest producer of diamonds in the world. Two more diamond mines are opening up within the next three years, and deposits are being developed in five other sites. And that's not counting the gold mines, or the other mineral deposits popping up all over in the Yukon, Northwest and Nunavut territories.

Interestingly, when Nunavut was created, the federal government ceded 2% of all mineral rights over to the Nunavummiut. It doesn't sound like much, but it's more than most territories and provinces have. And when you're talking billions of dollars in mineral rights, 2% turns out to be a pretty big number.

AND, Canada has the largest offshore petroleum reserves in the world. Right now, it isn't cost effective to exploit those resouces...but when the stocks start going dry elsewhere, it will be.
Sumbol
29-08-2005, 16:02
Keep it under your hats till at least 2008. If Gergie Boy figures out there's oil there he might declare you all terrorists and invade.

He'd probably say that the 'terrists' are getting into the US from Canada (and that too from South of Calgary).
Colodia
29-08-2005, 16:10
Much as we're doing wrong and bad things, pretending that our economy is depending solely on your resources is a mistake for the Canadian public to believe that they can do whatever they want to make us turn around.

Please find other means.

I mean really. I'm on your side. Illegal stuff = baaaaad! But I mean, your way of dealing with it sounds stupid.
Arab League
29-08-2005, 16:11
i think canada should save there oil like the other poor arab countries are doing, later, when the oil is finnished, they can sell it to the world for twice as much...
Copiosa Scotia
29-08-2005, 16:18
Yes, what the U.S. is doing is screwed up. But please, Canadians, be realistic here. You do not want to make this an all-out trade war, because you can't win.
Warrigal
29-08-2005, 16:48
Yes, what the U.S. is doing is screwed up. But please, Canadians, be realistic here. You do not want to make this an all-out trade war, because you can't win.
So... Canada should just bend over and take it, forever and ever, amen, huh? :rolleyes:
Colodia
29-08-2005, 16:49
So... Canada should just bend over and take it, forever and ever, amen, huh? :rolleyes:
No, Canada should find a way to fight it without making themselves looking like a 6 year old threatening to kick the 20 year old's ass.
Waterkeep
29-08-2005, 17:20
Yes, what the U.S. is doing is screwed up. But please, Canadians, be realistic here. You do not want to make this an all-out trade war, because you can't win.
Actually, Canada can't lose.

Our primary export is raw resources.
Our primary import is manufactured goods.

Any tarriffs we impose on imports only encourage Canadians to start our own manufacturing companies. We have the know-how, but the massive industrial base of the US has simply made it not profitable to do such things. Tariffs imposed would work to curing that.

Any tarriffs the US imposes on imports from Canada slows down the US economy, because they can't "create" resource production like we can create manufacturing production.

In addition, Canada's the only G8 country to be running a surplus, and has been for a while. We can probably withstand a short-term slowdown. In contrast, the US is a country running increasingly on credit. A slowdown could easily snowball.
Sinuhue
29-08-2005, 17:22
No, Canada should find a way to fight it without making themselves looking like a 6 year old threatening to kick the 20 year old's ass.
The actual position of Canada is that we would like the US to abide by the NAFTA panel ruling, which is a tool written into the NAFTA agreement, an agreement that was pushed by the US.

Asking you to live up to the standards you yourseld set is far from childish. Asking to rewrite the rules because you no longer like them is problematic. Yet you are doing it with both NAFTA and the WTO. Interesting that.
Copiosa Scotia
29-08-2005, 17:29
So... Canada should just bend over and take it, forever and ever, amen, huh? :rolleyes:

Of course not. Canada should just find a better way to fight it than trying to screw the U.S. in return. I'm no economist, so I'm not qualified to tell you what better options you have. But making this an economic penis-waving contest is not going to help either side.
Myotisinia
29-08-2005, 17:30
I thought this was pretty funny...and as an american more than likely COMPLETELY ACCURATE!!

Sometimes I weep at my country...I still have yet to figure out how GWB got the white house the first time, much less twice.


Because, there are obviously more of us than there are of you. You want the White House? Try putting up a viable candidate. That always works.
Copiosa Scotia
29-08-2005, 17:39
Sometimes I weep at my country...I still have yet to figure out how GWB got the white house the first time, much less twice.

Democratic party incompetence. They picked possibly the only serious candidate who could have lost to Bush, and gave him a strategy he couldn't possibly win with.
Phasa
29-08-2005, 17:56
'Canada says to the United States "Pwned biatch"'

Actually most Canadians just go about our business and don't pay all that much attention to the histrionics. We know we can't lose in the long run. When the U.S. bites us, we bite back in our own way, for not to do so would be the worst sort of spinelessness. So we don't say "pwned, biatch", we just smile, and bide our time.
Southwest Asia
29-08-2005, 18:08
Because, there are obviously more of us than there are of you. You want the White House? Try putting up a viable candidate. That always works.

The same could be said about you, though I hardly think that Bush is a viable candidate.
Schrandtopia
29-08-2005, 18:09
wait a tick, correct me if I'm wrong but itsn't Alberta the province that said they'd leave if you didn't get rid of gay marriage?
Sinuhue
29-08-2005, 18:11
wait a tick, correct me if I'm wrong but itsn't Alberta the province that said they'd leave if you didn't get rid of gay marriage?
No, certain idiots in my province made this ridiculous threat. There was no referendum to decide that such a thread should be made on our behalf.

I just wish the idiots who said it would leave...I'm sure they'd feel more comfortable in some fundamentalist hide-out in the US:).
Oblivions Reach
29-08-2005, 18:19
Canada's always been awesome... but now they are rich and globally important too!

Karma's a beautiful thing. :)
Yeah. Now they will actually be useful for something. Kidding. Canadas a great vacation spot. ;)
Stephistan
29-08-2005, 19:20
Actually, Canada can't lose.

Our primary export is raw resources.
Our primary import is manufactured goods.

Any tarriffs we impose on imports only encourage Canadians to start our own manufacturing companies. We have the know-how, but the massive industrial base of the US has simply made it not profitable to do such things. Tariffs imposed would work to curing that.

Any tarriffs the US imposes on imports from Canada slows down the US economy, because they can't "create" resource production like we can create manufacturing production.

In addition, Canada's the only G8 country to be running a surplus, and has been for a while. We can probably withstand a short-term slowdown. In contrast, the US is a country running increasingly on credit. A slowdown could easily snowball.

Couldn't of said it better myself! :)
Cana2
29-08-2005, 19:41
Actually, Canada can't lose.

Our primary export is raw resources.
Our primary import is manufactured goods.

Any tarriffs we impose on imports only encourage Canadians to start our own manufacturing companies. We have the know-how, but the massive industrial base of the US has simply made it not profitable to do such things. Tariffs imposed would work to curing that.

Any tarriffs the US imposes on imports from Canada slows down the US economy, because they can't "create" resource production like we can create manufacturing production.

In addition, Canada's the only G8 country to be running a surplus, and has been for a while. We can probably withstand a short-term slowdown. In contrast, the US is a country running increasingly on credit. A slowdown could easily snowball.
We just need people to start manufacturing these goods. The unemployment rate in Canada is about 7%. That means Canada has about 2.3 million unemployed workers. That would never be enough to manufacture the goods we need. If we do put tarrifs on US manufactured goods, we need to let some more people into the country.
Stephistan
29-08-2005, 19:44
We just need people to start manufacturing these goods. The unemployment rate in Canada is about 7%. That means Canada has about 2.3 million unemployed workers. That would never be enough to manufacture the goods we need. If we do put tarrifs on US manufactured goods, we need to let some more people into the country.

Yeah, but don't forget, Canada put out REAL unemployment stats. The USA doesn't. In the USA they count you as employed even if you work an hour a week... Canada doesn't do that. So we may not have as much unemployment as them after all. :)
Vetalia
29-08-2005, 19:50
We just need people to start manufacturing these goods. The unemployment rate in Canada is about 7%. That means Canada has about 2.3 million unemployed workers. That would never be enough to manufacture the goods we need. If we do put tarrifs on US manufactured goods, we need to let some more people into the country.

Tariffs fail miserably, and do nothing but hurt the economy of the nation that imposes them. You will drive away foreign investment and dry up the capital to start manufacturing. Also, the financial imbalance caused by these tarriffs would drive inflation and create global economic instability. You'd have well over 2.3 million unemployed if you impose tariffs.

If you want to encourage manufacturing, be more competitive. The concept of protectionism truly died with the Great Depression.
Vetalia
29-08-2005, 19:52
We just need people to start manufacturing these goods. The unemployment rate in Canada is about 7%. That means Canada has about 2.3 million unemployed workers. That would never be enough to manufacture the goods we need. If we do put tarrifs on US manufactured goods, we need to let some more people into the country.

Yes and no. Those workers are counted as "marginally attached" and are counted as unemployed, but they don't make up the headline rate.

Factoring them and discouraged workers raises the unemployment rate to 6.0%.
Hoos Bandoland
29-08-2005, 19:52
Actually, Canada can't lose.

.

The U.S. economy dwarfs that of Canada, so any trade war between the two would be disastrous for Canada but only mildly annoying to the U.S.

Still, I hope their differences are resolved amiacably, as I like Canada and visit there every year. The whole thing about requiring passports to visit Canada depresses me to no end.
[NS]Canada City
29-08-2005, 19:56
'Canada says to the United States "Pwned biatch"'

Actually most Canadians just go about our business and don't pay all that much attention to the histrionics. We know we can't lose in the long run. When the U.S. bites us, we bite back in our own way, for not to do so would be the worst sort of spinelessness. So we don't say "pwned, biatch", we just smile, and bide our time.

This is coming from the same guy who probably waved the middle-finger greeting to Bush when he was in Canada, right?

Back at the topic at hand, I admit that Canada's economy is much like a 19th century colony where we have all the resources but do squat with it. But you cannot deny that Canada has many natural resources, and since we just hit a nice oil well, many countries might need to learn how to deal with us in the future.

The Americans broke their own agreement with Canada, so telling off Canadians that we are whiny immature brats would only result in us saying "At least we didn't break our own rules"
Stephistan
29-08-2005, 20:03
The U.S. economy dwarfs that of Canada, so any trade war between the two would be disastrous for Canada but only mildly annoying to the U.S.

Still, I hope their differences are resolved amiacably, as I like Canada and visit there every year. The whole thing about requiring passports to visit Canada depresses me to no end.

Yes, I hope the Americans abide by both the WTO and NAFTA panels and pay Canada the 5 billion it owes us, however, while America's economy may "dwarf" Canada's, we have huge surpluses.. the US has huge trade deficits.. I think we could outlast the US in a trade war.
Ryno III
29-08-2005, 20:30
You Canadians think your all that. But it is not true. You guys act stupid when talking about the U.S.
The Lone Alliance
29-08-2005, 20:33
Good job Canada, maybe they should sponser a pro Canada president in 2008.
Stephistan
29-08-2005, 20:38
You Canadians think your all that. But it is not true. You guys act stupid when talking about the U.S.

Did you have anything to say about the actual subject? Or let me guess, you didn't even know it was going on....... :rolleyes:
Verdant Forest
29-08-2005, 20:46
The Oil in Alberta will help Both Canadian and US's Economies, as buying oil from Canada would cost less then buying it from the other side of the world.then stuffing them in huge-hulking-accident prone tankers and sending it back to USA...

but it will be much more Profitable for the Canadians..

USA seams to hate not being able to have somthing it wants..
Ryno III
29-08-2005, 20:54
Did you have anything to say about the actual subject? Or let me guess, you didn't even know it was going on....... :rolleyes:
Let me guess you are a stuck up snob.
-Verbatim-
29-08-2005, 20:56
You Canadians think your all that. But it is not true. You guys act stupid when talking about the U.S.
You're calling other people stupid? :rolleyes:
Stephistan
29-08-2005, 20:56
Let me guess you are a stuck up snob.

Nope, not at all. I just keep current with the issues. I don't troll threads making blanket statements that have zero to do with the thread's subject, how about you?
-Verbatim-
29-08-2005, 20:57
Let me guess you are a stuck up snob.
Ummm... you're the one sounding stuck up right now, buddy...
Eichen
29-08-2005, 20:58
You Canadians think your all that. But it is not true. You guys act stupid when talking about the U.S.
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/lblackwell/2004/10/30/rretarded.jpg
Sinuhue
29-08-2005, 20:59
You Canadians think your all that. But it is not true. You guys act stupid when talking about the U.S.
Says the guy who uses 'your' instead of 'you're' :D
Sinuhue
29-08-2005, 21:01
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/lblackwell/2004/10/30/rretarded.jpg
'Retarded' is no longer a pedagogically sound label for those with learning disabilities. But on behalf of Canada, I'd like to thank you for your support. As a reward, I think you should visit us and find out how warm Canadian women can actually be... ;)
Valosia
29-08-2005, 21:21
Canada + weak notion of nationalism + zero military = teh win for the US

Trust me, any trade disputes are petty in the long run. We'll have fun picking apart Canada once ya'll start splitting up. All the more reason I support an independent Quebec.

As a reward, I think you should visit us and find out how warm Canadian women can actually be...

Yeah, about as warm as a chunk of ice in a freezer in the middle of January. :p

p.s. Please don't kill me, oh wonderful women of Canada
Sinuhue
29-08-2005, 21:23
Yeah, about as warm as a chunk of ice in a freezer in the middle of January. :p

p.s. Please don't kill me, oh wonderful women of Canada
You are guaranteed NO LOVE!!!!!

Eichen...you're definately still in:)
Cana2
29-08-2005, 21:25
'Retarded' is no longer a pedagogically sound label for those with learning disabilities. But on behalf of Canada, I'd like to thank you for your support. As a reward, I think you should visit us and find out how warm Canadian women can actually be... ;)
You pwned that biatch.



Yeah, about as warm as a chunk of ice in a freezer in the middle of January. Your forgetting about Vancouver, it doesn't get cold there. It just rains about 50% of the time.
Saladador
29-08-2005, 21:26
As a US citizen, the only time i heard about these trade problems was when I was in Canada earlier this month; Americans are hearing one big fat zero about this, at least south of states that actually border Canada.

Canada has a snowball's chance in hell of being refunded 5 billion dollars...as to whether the trade differences will be resolved is not for me to say.

Actually I am quite surprised we haven't heard very much about this...in particular, conservatives (Not republicans; there is a difference) in this country are disposed to oppose tarriffs...on anything. The fact is, this policy is a product of agrarian interests of American senators and representatives, who are loth to wreak havoc on their own lumber interests. The plain, simple truth is if you have even a large minority of elected officials whose local economies would be devastated without government help, you have a recipe for tarrifs, quotas, subsidies, and a whole host of other government intrusions.

In general I am opposed to protectionism. It comes down to simple economics: when your industry is put under short-term pressure, there is incentive to trim the fat, work leaner, and function better (like workouts for business). Any tariffs at all should be short-term, small, and should always have phaseout provisions. A long-term softwood tariff is only hurting american businesses.

I have a huge problem with how governments get stuck in the past, which is the biggest reason why I am such an avid capitalist (governments are just big corporations otherwise). Everytime we have a recession, the response of governments shouldn't be, "How do we fix this problem?" but rather, "What is the next step?" and "How can we learn to do better?"
Valosia
29-08-2005, 21:27
You are guaranteed NO LOVE!!!!!

:(

I'll just have to settle for Canadian porn. Icy cold Canuck on Canuck action. :p

Can I still buy your syrup?
Eichen
29-08-2005, 21:29
'Retarded' is no longer a pedagogically sound label for those with learning disabilities. But on behalf of Canada, I'd like to thank you for your support. As a reward, I think you should visit us and find out how warm Canadian women can actually be... ;)

Hmmmmm, I'd love to. :D
I consider Canada to be one of our best freinds internationally. I think the situation will warm up a bit once the next administration takes office.
Regardless of whether it's a Republican or Democrat, I think Canada will be like "Cool. So long as it's not a fucking Bush." We'll be alright, once America eats a little crow concerning the treaty breaches (I think we're going to have to).
Sinuhue
29-08-2005, 21:31
:(

I'll just have to settle for Canadian porn. Icy cold Canuck on Canuck action. :p

Can I still buy your syrup?
Sure. But you never get to find out what we REALLY do with it!
Valosia
29-08-2005, 21:33
Sure. But you never get to find out what we REALLY do with it!

Make delicious and tasty waffles?

/naive
Sinuhue
29-08-2005, 21:34
Make delicious and tasty waffles?

/naive
Sure. Canada hater. Waffles it is. *pssst...Eichen..the truth is....* :eek:
Eichen
29-08-2005, 21:35
You pwned that biatch.
Sin was talking to me... Does that mean I was the bitch? :(
Valosia
29-08-2005, 21:38
Sure. Canada hater. Waffles it is.

Look, for a plate of good waffles, I'll set the trade dispute straight myself. Don't knock the waffles.
Sinuhue
29-08-2005, 21:41
Sin was talking to me... Does that mean I was the bitch? :(
Only if you're MY biatch! :D

Hmmm...this thread is getting spammerific...*runs away before Euroslavia lays the smack down*
Cana2
29-08-2005, 21:59
I consider Canada to be one of our best freinds internationally.
You are just saying that because all of our seniors move to Florida and they bring their pension cheques with them.

I think Canada will ok with this whole trade war. Canada is having a net brian gain(more smart people are coming to Canada than leaving Canada). Eventually we will have a bunch of smart lawyers working on this and they will exploit everything in the NAFTA agreement that would get us more money (man I hate lawyers:mad:), while the US will be stuck with Linal Hutz and Gill.
Ekland
29-08-2005, 22:14
Canada has been dancing among the top four US oil importers for a while now, right up there with Mexico and Suadi Arabia. Ya, I wonder why we haven't gone and invaded Canada already. Bush is supposed to be the Oil Man after all.
[NS]Canada City
29-08-2005, 22:35
Sure. But you never get to find out what we REALLY do with it!

We are getting married right now.

:D
Spencer and Wellington
29-08-2005, 22:51
Canada City']Hmm, Canada has the second largset oil reserves, a thirsty neighbour to the South and political neutrality (and no enemies to boot!)

Too bad the U.S.A is currently inflicting illegal trade practices on us and completely pissing us off, isn't it? :cool:

Two words: oil shale. The U.S. Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves estimates that the oil shale in the United States holds approx. 1-1.2 trillion barrels of oil. Granted that in order for the production to be economically feasible prices would have to remain above $40 per barrel but that doesn't look like too much of a problem now.
Sinuhue
29-08-2005, 23:04
Canada City']We are getting married right now.

:D
Sure...if my husband agrees to become polygamous:) It's the next step after gay marriage apparently...that's what all the opponents to same-sex marriages said...let's make it true!!!
[NS]Canada City
29-08-2005, 23:06
Sure...if my husband agrees to become polygamous:) It's the next step after gay marriage apparently...that's what all the opponents to same-sex marriages said...let's make it true!!!

God damn it.
Ravenshrike
30-08-2005, 01:42
While this may help the canadian economy it really won't alleviate the oil situation as a whole. Currently US oil demand is 20 or so million barrels of oil per day, so even if you sold us all of it hat wouldn't help too much. By 2030 projections are only a about 4 million barrels per day.
Colodia
30-08-2005, 02:35
The actual position of Canada is that we would like the US to abide by the NAFTA panel ruling, which is a tool written into the NAFTA agreement, an agreement that was pushed by the US.

Asking you to live up to the standards you yourseld set is far from childish. Asking to rewrite the rules because you no longer like them is problematic. Yet you are doing it with both NAFTA and the WTO. Interesting that.
WHY ARE YOU TELLING ME THIS WHEN I AGREE WITH YOU?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!:confused:

I'm TRYING to HELP you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111


ARRRRRGHHHHHHHH!

Is it my nationality that makes me an automatic target for you?!!~?!?!?!?

EDIT: I just woke up and I'm sore all over my body. So...yeah.
Cana2
30-08-2005, 02:41
Sure...if my husband agrees to become polygamous:) It's the next step after gay marriage apparently...that's what all the opponents to same-sex marriages said...let's make it true!!!
w00t polygamy!!! I need some of that.
Phasa
30-08-2005, 02:46
Canada City']This is coming from the same guy who probably waved the middle-finger greeting to Bush when he was in Canada, right?
What are you even talking about? You know absolutely nothing about me. I don't know where you get these "probablies" from, but you might think about not basing your opinions of people you have never met on ideas that you made up about them in your head. Or, continue spouting nonsense and looking like a fool. That's your call.
Airlandia
30-08-2005, 03:35
It'll be interesting to watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth in Ottawa if Alberta secedes. :p

Apart from that I am happy for Canada. ;)
Arkangle
30-08-2005, 15:20
woohoo i love canada! go canada! :D
Sinuhue
30-08-2005, 15:26
WHY ARE YOU TELLING ME THIS WHEN I AGREE WITH YOU?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!:confused:

I'm TRYING to HELP you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111


ARRRRRGHHHHHHHH!

Is it my nationality that makes me an automatic target for you?!!~?!?!?!?

EDIT: I just woke up and I'm sore all over my body. So...yeah.
I'm sorry Colodia, but it's a limitation of the English language that we have no subject pronoun for the second person plural that is distinct from the second person singular. In short (too late!) you in this sense was not directed at you, but rather at your nation (and more specifically the politicians making these kinds of decisions). I'm sorry if it seemed I was targeting you specifically!

As well, I was responding to this:


No, Canada should find a way to fight it without making themselves looking like a 6 year old threatening to kick the 20 year old's ass.

and my intent was to show you that the actual response of Canada is not at all childish, but rather a reasonable response based on the protocol of the actual agreement. Sure, there are idiots who would like to escalate things....but they aren't in positions of power, so you need not worry we'll be a nation of six year olds trying to kick your 20 year old ass :D