Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Being an Albertan, take a look at the oil and gas industry, which is one of the largest drivers of Canada’s economy, and what Trudeau has done to dismantle the industry since he came into power.

Ok, so you're focusing on the O/G industry, which contributes 3.2% of Canada's total GDP.

Let's look at some other facts about the marcro-level Canadian economy:

While it's true that investment is a key driver of economic growth, it's important to look at the broader context. Canada remains an attractive destination for investment due to its strong financial sector, highly educated workforce, and access to global markets, including through trade agreements like CETA and the USMCA.

In fact, despite global economic challenges, Canada continues to see significant investments in industries like tech, green energy, and natural resources. For example, companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Tesla have increased their footprint in Canada in recent years. According to the Brookfield Institute, tech is the fastest-growing sector in Canada, employing over 1.72 million Canadians in 2022, contributing more than $96 billion to the economy. And as for green energy, according to Clean Energy Canada, the country attracted $25 billion in clean energy investments in 2022 alone, a sector that’s critical for future economic growth and global competitiveness.

As for natural resources, in 2021, investments in oil, gas, and mining rose to approximately $26 billion after a recovery from pandemic lows. Projects like the TMX and liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities on the West Coast are multi-billion-dollar investments that demonstrate confidence in the sector. Then you have things like the Ring of Fire in Northern Ontario, with estimates of $60 billion in potential value in mining exploration.

As for immigration, it's actually a long-term strategy that supports economic growth. With an aging population and low birth rates, Canada relies on immigration to fill labor shortages and maintain a healthy economy. Immigrants contribute to the workforce, start businesses, and drive innovation. Without immigration, labor shortages would worsen, harming productivity and growth.

And government jobs, while a part of the equation, aren't the whole story—private sector job growth continues to outpace public sector growth. For example, Canada saw 346,000 jobs added in the private sector in 2022, primarily in professional services, construction, and manufacturing, while government job growth was comparatively slower .

Let's not pretend like Canada is 'failing', especially when O/G is just one piece of the pie, and immigration is the hot topic of the day. Dollars to donuts the Conservatives reel in student visas, but not immigration targets.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I'd say Canada is more divided through polarization of people; not province to province.
I don't know many people who even think of issues in a provinces vs others way anymore.

That’s like Alberta’s whole thing. It’s definitely one of the main drivers here, and one of the most common pieces of rhetoric coming out of the Alberta government.

I don’t think Canada in general is notably divided. They’re certainly not more polarized. Maybe on some specific issues, but many surveys show that the majority of Canadians agree on most fundamental issues.

Hell, a Nanos poll from last month found that only 35% of Canadians oppose the Liberals and NDP continuing to work together to avoid an early election. That’s despite the Conservatives polling in majority territory. Which means even Canadians that are planning to vote Conservative are made of a lot of people who are not particularly fussed about making that happen any sooner than it needs to. That fact flies in the face of how we would view a polarized, divided society.

Even with COVID, which the majority viewed as polarizing and contributing to division in our society… yet over 80% of Canadians were fully vaccinated.

It’s true that Canadians percieve the country as more divided, but it doesn’t really seem to be true. Part of that perception comes from social media, but a lot of it comes from actual media and politicians highlighting and exploiting our small divisions. You look at PP, and he very much is reliant on fascist, populist rhetoric. Very binary, very inflammatory, very us vs. them. But if (when?) he wins, it’s less likely to be because Canadians actually buy what he’s selling, and more likely to be because they’re just tired of the current government and are looking for a change. And if that change doesn’t result in their lives getting better, he’ll likely have a short go of it.

[PepsiFree]

I also think the division sentiment is very provincial (and not in reference to the provinces).

Look at Canada, and then look at the US, Europe, the Middle East, etc.

Hell, look at Canada now and then look at the last 150 years of Canadian history.

More divided than ever? lol. OK.

[TheIronMaiden]

I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about foreign investment, but I was curious so I googled to see if there was something tracking this year over year. It looks like a gross over simplification, but investment is growing?



https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dail...01-png-eng.htm

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Ok, so you're focusing on the O/G industry, which contributes 3.2% of Canada's total GDP.

Let's look at some other facts about the marcro-level Canadian economy:

While it's true that investment is a key driver of economic growth, it's important to look at the broader context. Canada remains an attractive destination for investment due to its strong financial sector, highly educated workforce, and access to global markets, including through trade agreements like CETA and the USMCA.

In fact, despite global economic challenges, Canada continues to see significant investments in industries like tech, green energy, and natural resources. For example, companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Tesla have increased their footprint in Canada in recent years. According to the Brookfield Institute, tech is the fastest-growing sector in Canada, employing over 1.72 million Canadians in 2022, contributing more than $96 billion to the economy. And as for green energy, according to Clean Energy Canada, the country attracted $25 billion in clean energy investments in 2022 alone, a sector that’s critical for future economic growth and global competitiveness.

As for natural resources, in 2021, investments in oil, gas, and mining rose to approximately $26 billion after a recovery from pandemic lows. Projects like the TMX and liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities on the West Coast are multi-billion-dollar investments that demonstrate confidence in the sector. Then you have things like the Ring of Fire in Northern Ontario, with estimates of $60 billion in potential value in mining exploration.

As for immigration, it's actually a long-term strategy that supports economic growth. With an aging population and low birth rates, Canada relies on immigration to fill labor shortages and maintain a healthy economy. Immigrants contribute to the workforce, start businesses, and drive innovation. Without immigration, labor shortages would worsen, harming productivity and growth.

And government jobs, while a part of the equation, aren't the whole story—private sector job growth continues to outpace public sector growth. For example, Canada saw 346,000 jobs added in the private sector in 2022, primarily in professional services, construction, and manufacturing, while government job growth was comparatively slower .

Let's not pretend like Canada is 'failing', especially when O/G is just one piece of the pie, and immigration is the hot topic of the day. Dollars to donuts the Conservatives reel in student visas, but not immigration targets.

You asked for some sources, I provided them. You can’t then move the goalposts and talk about how that doesn’t matter to you with numbers out of context.

3.2% is just the impact of the upstream business. When you look at the full supply chain it’s more like 7.5%. And that’s just direct contribution to GDP. That also doesn’t count all of the hospitality, retail, and service jobs that are created because cities like Grande Prairie, Fort McMurray, etc. wouldn’t be around without the industry. That doesn’t count the increase in real estate’s contribution to GDP because the industry is higher paying than almost any other industry out there.

https://www.ivey.uwo.ca/media/379294...ditedjan13.pdf

That’s a significant portion of our economy for a government to actively try and dismantle, and to try and paint that as anything but extremely negative for Canadians is ignorant at best, and damaging at worst.

In any case, the argument was whether the current government has done irreparable damage to the country and based on everything I’ve stated, my view is that they have.

[Monahammer]

The chart would probably be better if it could account for inflationary growth, e.g. if it was all done in 2009 dollars.

But overall I think it tells the story that was already related above: Canada is doing alright at attracting FDI, but also seems to be accelerating at a more rapid pace in investing canadian dollars abroad. I'm not sure I agree with the earlier posted assessment that this is an easier problem to fix than attracting FDI. I think it's a difficult, esoteric problem to address because it speaks to larger lack of confidence issues that canadians have in their own regulatory system/ economy.

[Monahammer]

Here's an anecdotal example relating to the above: H2 for export opportunities. Alberta has 8-9 proposed facilities that would create ammonia from NG, effectively to transport h2 as an energy source globally. Age old problem with alberta has cropped up in that there is no effective way to transport this quantity of ammonia to global ports. The business case outside of this impediment is very, very clear. Clear enough that these projects (~2 billion each in capital value) typically have dual partnership of local operator and foreign sponsor (mostly Japanese- Marubenni, Itochu, Mitshubishi). Without the receiving party, the local operators seem disinterested in continuing the push for development because they aren't confident in a regulatory resolution. Meanwhile, the foreign participants came in with faith because the feds told them they could do it, but are now watching the clock tick by and losing said faith... just more slowly than their local counterparts.

Ultimately, we are unlikely to see many of these projects advance to the construction phase.

Meanwhile, several of these local operators are making developments of their own... in the gulf coast of USA.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I'd say Canada is more divided through polarization of people; not province to province.
I don't know many people who even think of issues in a provinces vs others way anymore.

Maybe the most politically active are. I’d buy that. But the fact the Liberals look likely to get smoked in the next election suggests lots of Canadians are still open to changing their vote. We’re not as locked in to tribes as Americans are.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Ok, so you're focusing on the O/G industry, which contributes 3.2% of Canada's total GDP.

Between 2013 - 2014 the energy sector contributed 10% of Canada's GDP.

In 2019, 6.4%. Double your figure.

What happened?

[Ozy_Flame]

Diversity of economy.

[2Stonedbirds]

Do you have a source that shows the O&G sector didn't shrink during that time period, where other sectors grew to the point that a 10% contributor simply turned into 3.2% due to diversity?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MrButtons

You can see the irony here, right?

Saying dumb stuff as a leader of the not actually in charge party and actual making decisions as being part of the in charge party is a big difference.

Crazy that the difference actually needs to be pointed out....

Speaks to the delusional of many on here, and yet the Liberals might not even be the official opposition after the next election.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Do you have a source that shows the O&G sector didn't shrink during that time period, where other sectors grew to the point that a 10% contributor simply turned into 3.2% due to diversity?

One of the major reasons for the sector's decline has been fluctuating oil prices, particularly the sharp drop in global oil prices around 2014-2015. This caused a significant reduction in capital spending and production across many Canadian oil companies, directly affecting GDP. For example, capital expenditures in the sector dropped by 30-40% during that period, contributing to a reduction in overall economic contribution​.

Source: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/...020007-eng.pdf

Additionally, the volatility of global energy markets and pipeline capacity limitations further hampered Canada's ability to export oil at competitive rates, particularly with steep discounts on Canadian crude oil compared to global prices​ (source: https://economics.td.com/domains/eco...tion_2024_.pdf).

Then during the same timeframe, you have growth of the tech sector (booming in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal), real estate/construction (Vancouver, Toronto, now Calgary), finance and insurance (particularly around REITS), and renewable energy.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Being an Albertan, take a look at the oil and gas industry, which is one of the largest drivers of Canada’s economy, and what Trudeau has done to dismantle the industry since he came into power.

Through terrible bills and regulation, he has caused many international companies to determine that Canadian assets do not compete for capital among their broader portfolios and companies have been selling their assets to get out of Canada for a while now. A few examples:

https://www.reuters.com/markets/deal...al-2024-10-07/

https://www.devonenergy.com/news/201...CAD-38-Billion

https://www.wsj.com/articles/shell-t...ion-1489045655

And yet oil production in Canada is at all time highs, up about 20% since Trudeau came to power.

Next, we can talk about how Canada has completely missed the boat on LNG. It’s taken over a decade to get a project going, meanwhile, the US has built a significant amount of capacity over the last 5 years.

https://www.offshore-technology.com/...acity-us-2022/

Virtually all US LNG export capacity is based on re-fitting import terminals (of which Canada basically has zero). And because of that, virtually all of their export terminals already had pipelines connected to them.

Canada is in a far different situation, where west coast terminals needed about 1,000km of pipeline and east coast ones would need to cross the entire continent. There's a reason that not a single west coast LNG terminal in the US has been built, even though many have been planned. They're simply not viable given the cost of building a facility from scratch and then building thousands of kilometers of pipelines.

The amount of regulation and red tape has made the projects so slow that Canada is lagging and unable to attract investment when the time horizon for the projects is so insanely long. You had Japan come to Trudeau interested in LNG and Trudeau saying “there’s no business case for it”. Which is complete BS when you look at what the US and other countries are doing and much natural gas resource Canada is essentially giving away right now.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...on-to-talk-lng

Japan can buy from one of Canada's west coast terminals when they're up and running. The "no business case" comment was about east coast terminals, which is absolutely true.

And again with the US comparison. Most US projects either have pipelines right up to existing import facilities, or need maybe 30-50km pipelines built. Canada can't compete with that, regardless of who is in power.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Saying dumb stuff as a leader of the not actually in charge party and actual making decisions as being part of the in charge party is a big difference.

Crazy that the difference actually needs to be pointed out....

Speaks to the delusional of many on here, and yet the Liberals might not even be the official opposition after the next election.

I've read this a dozen times and I still can't figure it out.

But, if you're saying what I think you're saying, I'm not really seeing the difference.

If you have a boob in office and you want to get rid of the boobs in office, why would you elect a boob to office?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I've read this a dozen times and I still can't figure it out.

But, if you're saying what I think you're saying, I'm not really seeing the difference.

If you have a boob in office and you want to get rid of the boobs in office, why would you elect a boob to office?

It’s the “delusional of many” here. Don’t you see? Don’t you SEE?

[BowRiverBruinsRule]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I have a full fridge, sustainable peace, no existential threat to my body or property ( granted I am not LGBTQ or a POC), unlimited access to education opportunities, access to high speed internet and other stable forms of communication. A personal vehicle, a place to live and access to health care, though inconvenient is performed at a high standard.

Yeah there are some problems, but nothing like the problems Canadians faced between 1910-1945.

Thank you TheIronMaiden. Sure there are some things that can be better in Canada, but come on, the Liberal Government "irreparably damaging the country". Not happening. Things are pretty damn good in Canada. I can only control what I can control. I don't blame the government of the day, my neighbour, my enemies or anyone else for my situation. I have all the basics and the important stuff you mention. I have been working for just about 50 years now and look forward to retirement with some of the dreaded Social programs helping me out and of course helping my self.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I've read this a dozen times and I still can't figure it out.

But, if you're saying what I think you're saying, I'm not really seeing the difference.

If you have a boob in office and you want to get rid of the boobs in office, why would you elect a boob to office?

I think poster saying that a leader not in power can say anything they want, because they have no power. The thing about PP is, though, that I believe him when he stays stupid stuff. He's not just #### talking, he's planning to do it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I think poster saying that a leader not in power can say anything they want, because they have no power. The thing about PP is, though, that I believe him when he stays stupid stuff. He's not just #### talking, he's planning to do it.

I think it comes down to self preservation. Is the parties ability to turf him greater than his ability to get relelected.

In Alberta the Party was able to turf Kenny when he didn’t implement the social regressive policy they wanted. Smith was palatable enough to be elected. She clearly believes that there is more threat internally than from the electorate.

So how does that play out at the federal level. The threat of not being elected his higher. The federal party is a little more moderate as the chosen right wing candidates have not performed as well. Lewis losing twice and Sloan once. PP was certainly further to the right than O’toole was so some of that shift has happened and Sheer got elected as a social conservative.

So it’s mixed on whether he will be more afraid of party or country. I think the answer will be country and you get the slight move to the center from where he is now but it won’t be as significant as someone like Harper.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I've read this a dozen times and I still can't figure it out.

But, if you're saying what I think you're saying, I'm not really seeing the difference.

If you have a boob in office and you want to get rid of the boobs in office, why would you elect a boob to office?

You have a known boob in office or you have Schrodengers boob. I vote for Schodengers boob.