Canada to fight back?

[Displaced Flames fan]

This is long overdue. Just saying it is long overdue.

We can play that game too!

[nieuwy-89]

Nice to see Ottawa finally showing some backbone in this dispute. Yeah a trade war could hurt the economy, but some would say the economy is at capacity. In the short term I think most Canadians would rather accept a slowdown in trade than an increase in interest rates.

[Mike F]

It would be great if we did, however I recall similar talk last fall, with one of the targets for the war being (no joke) Wisconson(?) mittens.

"One particularly tough measure has already been ruled out: imposing export quotas on Canadian oil going to the United States. Emerson, who initially supported the idea when he was a lumber industry executive, now says it would unfairly saddle the western oil producing province of Alberta with the bulk of the economic fallout."

You know what.... I'd have to say suck it up Alberta. I was just watching a report on the news yesterday talking about Alberta's $7 Billion surplus. Given that you guys already have the lowest taxes in the country, I think you can take one for the team to hit the protectionist US politicians where it hurts.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Mike F@Aug 24 2005, 05:28 AM
It would be great if we did, however I recall similar talk last fall, with one of the targets for the war being (no joke) Wisconson(?) mittens.

"One particularly tough measure has already been ruled out: imposing export quotas on Canadian oil going to the United States. Emerson, who initially supported the idea when he was a lumber industry executive, now says it would unfairly saddle the western oil producing province of Alberta with the bulk of the economic fallout."

You know what.... I'd have to say suck it up Alberta. I was just watching a report on the news yesterday talking about Alberta's $7 Billion surplus. Given that you guys already have the lowest taxes in the country, I think you can take one for the team to hit the protectionist US politicians where it hurts.

Somehow, I think with the Demand for Oil, the US can't really afford to say no.

[Thunderball]

Funny we only grow a backbone when its the States... when Denmark wants our island, we quietly talk and urge negotiation...

Seriously though, this isn't anything any of us should be excited about.

A trade war is gonna cost both sides a lot of money. And lets not forget, its easier for the US to replace 20% of its trade than for Canada to replace 70% of ours. Most of our exports are commodities that are expensive to move off-continent. Escalating this conflict is a dumb move, the solution is trade missions to other countries; ween ourselves off of the US dependency and using the WTO and NAFTA to our maximum benefit. In other words, not cutting off our nose to spite our face. Canada is already splintered enough without targetting exports to damage the US which may damage Canadian provinces. Notice the first place they looked was Alberta industry. Now, the US counter of this would be to tariff something crucial to Canada, and we'd go back and forth until one cries uncle... odds are that would be Canada. The US is too big and powerful with better trade agreements with the rest of the world. Now all we did is make ourselves more reliant and have our spirits crushed by seeing that no aggressive acts can help us. Not to mention risk national cohesiveness further if a province or provinces were hung out to dry on this one.

This is probably another vote buying scheme aimed at converting Anti-Americanism into votes. The government is not acting in the best interests of all Canadians on this one.

Lastly, and honestly... we do subsidize many of our industries, including softwood lumber, and frankly, the non-government interference portions of NAFTA should give the US right to tariff it. How the NAFTA and the WTO panel sided with Canada, I don't know, I think it was luck, or a poorly presented US case. We shouldn't doi something equally illegal and risk losing the support of these too.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Thunderball@Aug 23 2005, 11:43 PM


How the NAFTA and the WTO panel sided with Canada, I don't know, I think it was luck, or a poorly presented US case. We shouldn't doi something equally illegal and risk losing the support of these too.

Jeebus Aitch -- luck? Talk about a bad string of luck, considering how many times they lost the case.. I hardly think it was a "poorly presented case" either. Chances are they put a few bucks into this and didn't hire my cousin Vinny's lawyer to look after it.

It's blatantly obvious what is going on here -- they don't like the ruling so they are ignoring it. They don't deny it themselves so I don't get the apologists point of view at all.

That being said, I don't think Canada should get too noisy about it yet. OUr hero Mr. Martin could soon be the target of yet another American Christian Coalition Hit Squad.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Aug 23 2005, 11:25 PM
That being said, I don't think Canada should get too noisy about it yet. OUr hero Mr. Martin could soon be the target of yet another American Christian Coalition Hit Squad.

Ya, you know Pat Robertson called for all Christians to pray for a Supreme Court vacancy and just 2 short years later it happened -- he's got that much pull with the big guy

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Aug 24 2005, 12:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Aug 24 2005, 12:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@Aug 23 2005, 11:43 PM


How the NAFTA and the WTO panel sided with Canada, I don't know, I think it was luck, or a poorly presented US case. We shouldn't doi something equally illegal and risk losing the support of these too.

Jeebus Aitch -- luck? Talk about a bad string of luck, considering how many times they lost the case.. I hardly think it was a "poorly presented case" either. Chances are they put a few bucks into this and didn't hire my cousin Vinny's lawyer to look after it.

It's blatantly obvious what is going on here -- they don't like the ruling so they are ignoring it. They don't deny it themselves so I don't get the apologists point of view at all.

That being said, I don't think Canada should get too noisy about it yet. OUr hero Mr. Martin could soon be the target of yet another American Christian Coalition Hit Squad. [/b][/quote]
I'm not a US apologist. I'm trying to see it from both sides.

I can clearly see why the US would think Canada protects its industries (they do). I can also see why they'd be upset that the rulings have repeatedly not gone their way for whatever reason. Its not cause the protectionism doesn't exist, cause we all know, it does to some degree. Evidentally not bad enough protectionism for the WTO or NAFTA. Maybe people like me are too sensitive to any kind of protectionism.

I can also see why Canada is upset, and that the US is acting poorly in this too. Getting trade back on track is very important and it has to be fair. The US can't complain about protectionism and commit their own. Canada has an obligation to ALL of its citizens to create the best atmosphere for commerce and a US dominated one way system isn't accomplishing that.

However, escalating the matter to this probably won't help, and I am appalled at the idea of sacrificing Alberta to the wolves to help the rest. If the oil revenues are squandered on stuff like a foolish trade war with the US, how is this province expected to be vibrant in 50 years. Of course, the rest of Canada could care less about Alberta, and why should they... they only pay for Confederation and get little to nothing in return. Not to mention the big picture I mentioned earlier, Canada has an obligation to ALL citizens, not just those who aren't in "Oil Rich Alberta" from which everyone prospers.

Find new trade partners and use less obvious and destructive methods to balance trade... don't get deep into the dirt, waste money and risk national unity. This isn't worth it. The Feds are upset about $5B in tariffs while nursing an $8 BILLION surplus.

[Claeren]

This is so easy to solve it is just silly.


Propose a private-public partnership to build a 1 million barrel/day pipeline to the pacfic coast with infrastucture to increase that by 1mbpd twice.

The thought of 3 million barrels per day of oil going directly to China is MORE then enough to solve this problem. (We received visits from a dozen senior American officials and made CNN (etc) after the announcements of an 80k/day pipeline!)


Need a little more leverage?

Invite 10,000 Chinese troops to Canada for 'practice excercises'.

On a side note, the Chinese President is visiting in a couple weeks... !!!!



For America no issue is unconnected relative to any other (ie - never as simple trade v. trade). If Canada's only 'friend' is America then that pragmatic friend has us by the balls. If our (America's old best friend) new best friend is their competitor in the new world order, China, we have THEM by the balls.




Claeren.

[Table 5]

I don't know, I really don't see any other resource besides energy that Canada can use against the U.S.

Oil is obviously the most powerful weapon, but perhaps Canada needs to restrict some of the hydro energy from Quebec that powers a good chunk of the eastern U.S sea board (but if you do shut if off, Id appreciate it if you give me a heads up, just in case im in the shower or something. thanks).

there is of course all the fresh water in this country, not really sure what we could do with that though.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Claeren@Aug 24 2005, 08:46 AM
This is so easy to solve it is just silly.


Propose a private-public partnership to build a 1 million barrel/day pipeline to the pacfic coast with infrastucture to increase that by 1mbpd twice.

The thought of 3 million barrels per day of oil going directly to China is MORE then enough to solve this problem. (We received visits from a dozen senior American officials and made CNN (etc) after the announcements of an 80k/day pipeline!)


Need a little more leverage?

Invite 10,000 Chinese troops to Canada for 'practice excercises'.

On a side note, the Chinese President is visiting in a couple weeks... !!!!



For America no issue is unconnected relative to any other (ie - never as simple trade v. trade). If Canada's only 'friend' is America then that pragmatic friend has us by the balls. If our (America's old best friend) new best friend is their competitor in the new world order, China, we have THEM by the balls.




Claeren.

Great so we're willing to get into bed with a country with a deplorable human rights record, and threaten America not on the level of economics, but on the level of national security.

Wow thats stunning

[peter12]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Aug 24 2005, 08:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Aug 24 2005, 08:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Claeren@Aug 24 2005, 08:46 AM
This is so easy to solve it is just silly.


Propose a private-public partnership to build a 1 million barrel/day pipeline to the pacfic coast with infrastucture to increase that by 1mbpd twice.

The thought of 3 million barrels per day of oil going directly to China is MORE then enough to solve this problem. (We received visits from a dozen senior American officials and made CNN (etc) after the announcements of an 80k/day pipeline!)


Need a little more leverage?

Invite 10,000 Chinese troops to Canada for 'practice excercises'.

On a side note, the Chinese President is visiting in a couple weeks... !!!!



For America no issue is unconnected relative to any other (ie - never as simple trade v. trade). If Canada's only 'friend' is America then that pragmatic friend has us by the balls. If our (America's old best friend) new best friend is their competitor in the new world order, China, we have THEM by the balls.




Claeren.

Great so we're willing to get into bed with a country with a deplorable human rights record, and threaten America not on the level of economics, but on the level of national security.

Wow thats stunning [/b][/quote]
Not to mention our own security. What an appalling idea.

[MarchHare]

Clearly imposing export tariffs on oil and gas would be the best method to get the US admin's attention, but I can understand why the Liberals won't do it. They're unpopular in Alberta as it is; doing that would have Albertans screaming bloody murder.

According to a National Post story today, it's the US corn industry that they're considering targetting with punitive duties, but they're waiting for a WTO ruling allowing the retaliation first. At least our government, unlike our neighbours to the South, are playing by the rules.

[Lurch]

Ha, this is hilarious. The 'Canada should grow a pair' group is basically saying Canada should assume the position and let the US dictate trade rules. What is that you want - Canada to stand up for itself or Canada to bow down before the one we serve?

IMO, using the oil industry would not necessarily cost Alberta much at all. Oil is in very short supply, so an export tariff would most likely be passed on to the US consumer, not the Canadian producer. The US has no real option to replace a million bpd of oil along with about 3 TCf of gas per year. This is a lot of leverage. I don't get how it is anti-Americanism to suggest Canada should simply apply the penalties it jointly agreed to with the US via the NAFTA agreement when the US acts illegally.

[Hakan]

Export tariff on natural gas sold to the American southwest. That will do. Natural Gas demand is inelastic as it is used for electrical generation. Once electricity prices double in Arizona, Nevada, California etc. Then the U.S. will give us our $5bn back.

[tjinaz]

Export tariff on natural gas sold to the American southwest. That will do. Natural Gas demand is inelastic as it is used for electrical generation. Once electricity prices double in Arizona, Nevada, California etc. Then the U.S. will give us our $5bn back.

Um sorry... Cali, AZ and Nev have what is called the Colorado river with many many Hydro plants on it for electricity. You will not hurt them. AZ in particular has surplus Electricity that it sells to Cali. All of Las Vegas is powered from Hoover dam and there are 3 more further down river.

Also the US uses 21k barrels of oil a day. Canada supplies 1.6k barrels to the US so don't think that the US is that dependant.

Beware playing hardball. If threatened the US will simply plan around the problem by building more power plants or using the oil tarriff as ammo to drill more in Alaska. That is the beauty of American capitalism it is very flexible in the near and long term. You can play the card once.

[Lurch]

Um sorry... Cali, AZ and Nev have what is called the Colorado river with many many Hydro plants on it for electricity. You will not hurt them. AZ in particular has surplus Electricity that it sells to Cali. All of Las Vegas is powered from Hoover dam and there are 3 more further down river.

Also the US uses 21k barrels of oil a day. Canada supplies 1.6k barrels to the US so don't think that the US is that dependant.

Are you serious??? US uses 22 MILLION barrels per day, of which Canada is nearly 10%. They import 1/2 of their oil for a reason, i.e. they have NO CHOICE. Selling oil internationally isn't so simple as you seem to believe - there really are no more tankers, etc. to bring more oil to the US and they are literally over the barrel. There is very little spare productive capacity in the world - you'd be hard pressed to show me that the US could avoid paying an export duty on oil from Canada by going elsewhere - short or long term.

As for electricity, California is in a state of near crisis with its power industry, and natural gas is the swing fuel. Power plants take 3 to 5 years to develop, despite the magic of US market economy (how its different than the Canadian market economy, I'm not sure.) Hydro cannot be expanded in the short-term at all, long term maybe but I've never seen anything to suggest it.

[tjinaz]

My mistake on the decimal places. Still Canada only supplies less than 5% of US oil needs. You think they can't make up that 5% from elsewhere? Also you are discounting the MASSIVE US oil reserves. There is plenty of oil in the US that is untapped because it would not be profitable to do so. You make it profitable through raising the cost of alternatives, it will be drilled.

US uses 21m Canada supplies 1.6.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrole...ent/import.html

California may have problems but Nevada and Arizona have surplus energy. Arizona already has 19 new power generation facilities proposed and additional power to come from the local Nuke plant. We have no power issues and are the fastest growing areas in the country.

how its different than the Canadian market economy, I'm not sure

How is it then even Canadian Radio has to play 45% Canadian artists? Where the US is wide open. It is called protectionism.

I am not saying that Canada does not have the right or would be wrong to try to do something, but be careful what you wish for. If you tarriff the oil or gas, once the trade war is over the buyers may have found other sellers or found alternate methods to meet the needs, mainly from either Mexico or through tapping reserves in the US. Sure Canada can sell it else where but will be saddled with the additional cost of shipping where they can use a pipeline to the US. Also you open the door for US response. If they put an additional duty on all Canadian good as a reprisal who else will buy the goods the US does not? The US is the largest market in the world if it closes itself off to Canadian exports who will buy them? It all comes down to who will be hurt more if this escalates.

[FireFly]

It's not oil that will cripple them, as they have the world market tapped. It's hydro from BC and ON as well as natural gas that would do it.

[tjinaz]

Maybe the Hydro from Ontario but not the gas. Us actually exports NG to some areas of Canada.

excerpt from the US Dept of energy report on NG trends from 2003

Net imports of natural gas to the United States in 2003
declined to 3,305 Bcf, or 5.6 percent (Figure 2). The
volume of net imports fell for the second consecutive year,
after 15 years of increases in net imports starting in 1987. In
2003, U.S. imports of Canadian gas decreased, and U.S.
exports to Mexico and Canada increased. Because U.S.
natural gas consumption dropped by 4 to 5 percent in 2003,
net imports as a percent of U.S. consumption fell less than a
tenth of a percentage point to 15.1 percent. Natural gas
imports represent a small percentage of U.S. consumption
relative to many other major-consuming countries, such as
Japan and Spain, both of which receive over nine-tenths of
their natural gas supplies from imports.

Rest of the report can be found here.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:http:...xp/ngimpexp.pdf