[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Steven Guilbeault resigns from Mark Carney's cabinet 

Danielle Smith is doing her happy dance right now.

[Grey Fox]

Meanwhile Nutrien is choosing to build a new potash export terminal in Washington state due to excessive regulations in Canada.  This is exactly the thing we're supposed to be avoiding right now. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/nutrien-selects-u-s-port-to-build-new-potash-export-terminal-9.6992424

It goes both ways, though: https://seattlered.com/taxes/microsoft-business-taxes/4115276

Microsoft issues chilling warning: New WA taxes will drive companies out—Vancouver already winning

...

Vancouver already benefiting as Seattle stumbles
Microsoft has been quietly expanding its office in Vancouver, B.C., doubling its headcount there since before the pandemic.

No, you are making a false equivalency.  Nutrien is not moving its business. It is still extracting Potash from Saskatchewan. The problem they are facing is the lack of infrastructure on the West coast of Canada to move their product to market, and the regulatory hurdles (some would say nightmare) to get things built here.

Bauer is correct to point out this is the very thing Carney is trying to address.  And I would add, needs to get addressed quickly.  One way to think about it is that the announcement of special projects that get to avoid the regulatory tangle we have created is another way of saying that they are probably unnecessary brakes on much needed infrastructure development.

It's a gamble there too. We could disallow potash export to the US at any moment.

[viper37]

Canada rolls back climate rules in energy deal with Alberta

A huge win for Alberta, again.  No wonder Guilbeault ran away.

[Oexmelin]

Your dismissiveness is unwarranted.  This is a professor in the University of Saskatchewan's  Agricultural and Resource Economics department.  If he doesn't know what he is talking about in this area, then nobody does.

I wasn't dismissive of the issue. I was dismissive of its treatment here. Maybe Canada has an infrastructure problem, but I'd have little reason to subscribe to the argument from that example.

From the article:

« To put a billion-dollar investment in place is going to require rail capacity improvements, and by the sounds of what Nutrient is saying, things are easier to get done in the United States than they are in Canada," Smyth said last week in an interview with CBC's The 306 guest host Theresa Kliem. »

I am solicited by the media often. I know that their modus operandi is to ask for reactions very quickly, and it's up to the individual expert to determine whether or not they are sufficiently informed on the specifics. It does seem here that Smyth is nodding along/drawing from Nutrien's reasoning, rather than from his own analysis.

As for his expertise, a look at his publication history - basically, a pro GM crops outlook - suggests a rather dismissive view of the idea of political controls and regulation. A legitimate perspective, to be sure - not mine - but not one that would lead me to simply defer to his brief media point.

In short, my own perspective is that matters such as these are too serious to be treated mostly through self-serving industry arguments. Are there legitimate issues that require more time? Is this only red tape? What would these legitimate issues be? I'd rather have these questions considered beyond press releases.

[Zoupa]

I'm not sure what the issue is with potash being shipped out of WA instead of BC, exactly. Where is Canada losing out in this situation?

[Bauer]

The loss is business investment, jobs, materials (probably buy American supplies down there). It adds up to economic activity and Canada has been losing a lot of business investment in the past decade.

[Zoupa]

What's so special about potash that it needs a dedicated export terminal?

[crazy canuck]

Meanwhile Nutrien is choosing to build a new potash export terminal in Washington state due to excessive regulations in Canada.  This is exactly the thing we're supposed to be avoiding right now. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/nutrien-selects-u-s-port-to-build-new-potash-export-terminal-9.6992424

It goes both ways, though: https://seattlered.com/taxes/microsoft-business-taxes/4115276

Microsoft issues chilling warning: New WA taxes will drive companies out—Vancouver already winning

...

Vancouver already benefiting as Seattle stumbles
Microsoft has been quietly expanding its office in Vancouver, B.C., doubling its headcount there since before the pandemic.

No, you are making a false equivalency.  Nutrien is not moving its business. It is still extracting Potash from Saskatchewan. The problem they are facing is the lack of infrastructure on the West coast of Canada to move their product to market, and the regulatory hurdles (some would say nightmare) to get things built here.

Bauer is correct to point out this is the very thing Carney is trying to address.  And I would add, needs to get addressed quickly.  One way to think about it is that the announcement of special projects that get to avoid the regulatory tangle we have created is another way of saying that they are probably unnecessary brakes on much needed infrastructure development.

It's a gamble there too. We could disallow potash export to the US at any moment.

Your dismissiveness is unwarranted.  This is a professor in the University of Saskatchewan's  Agricultural and Resource Economics department.  If he doesn't know what he is talking about in this area, then nobody does.

I wasn't dismissive of the issue. I was dismissive of its treatment here. Maybe Canada has an infrastructure problem, but I'd have little reason to subscribe to the argument from that example.

From the article:

« To put a billion-dollar investment in place is going to require rail capacity improvements, and by the sounds of what Nutrient is saying, things are easier to get done in the United States than they are in Canada," Smyth said last week in an interview with CBC's The 306 guest host Theresa Kliem. »

I am solicited by the media often. I know that their modus operandi is to ask for reactions very quickly, and it's up to the individual expert to determine whether or not they are sufficiently informed on the specifics. It does seem here that Smyth is nodding along/drawing from Nutrien's reasoning, rather than from his own analysis.

As for his expertise, a look at his publication history - basically, a pro GM crops outlook - suggests a rather dismissive view of the idea of political controls and regulation. A legitimate perspective, to be sure - not mine - but not one that would lead me to simply defer to his brief media point.

In short, my own perspective is that matters such as these are too serious to be treated mostly through self-serving industry arguments. Are there legitimate issues that require more time? Is this only red tape? What would these legitimate issues be? I'd rather have these questions considered beyond press releases.

The professor obviously does not study the situation in the US, but he obviously knows the situation in Canada. That is his area of study.  And as I said, I also happen to know something about the ports in BC. And the comments in the article that the BC does need to expand and is currently hard to expand is absolutely accurate.

I agree that this matter is serious. And downplaying the fact that Canada, and in particularly the West, needs dramatic increase in its infrastructure is not helping.

[crazy canuck]

What's so special about potash that it needs a dedicated export terminal?

It's a bulk good. So it needs a lot of real capacity and poor capacity to load it onto the ships that come to pick it up.  The company is expanding its operations in Saskatchewan and so it needs expanded capacity to move that bulk product to market.  It's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with its importance as a commodity.

[crazy canuck]

The loss is business investment, jobs, materials (probably buy American supplies down there). It adds up to economic activity and Canada has been losing a lot of business investment in the past decade.

Yes, and the construction of a port facility is only a minor part of the economic boost. The operation of a port facility is significant economic multiplier.
 

[crazy canuck]

What's so special about potash that it needs a dedicated export terminal?

It's a bulk good. So it needs a lot of real capacity and poor capacity to load it onto the ships that come to pick it up.  The company is expanding its operations in Saskatchewan and so it needs expanded capacity to move that bulk product to market.  It's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with its importance as a commodity.

If you've been to Vancouver, you probably noticed the large grain terminals on the North Shore. That's another example of purpose built, commodity export terminals.

[crazy canuck]

It's a gamble there too. We could disallow potash export to the US at any moment.

There is a certainty that without the expansion of a terminal and the rail capacity to get their product to the terminal, they will not be able to ship their product to market. Balancing that against the unlikely event that Canada will ban potash to it's number one market seems less like a gamble and much more like a sensible business decision.

[Bauer]

Steven Guilbeault resigns from Mark Carney's cabinet

Danielle Smith is doing her happy dance right now.

Steven Guilbeault resigns from Mark Carney's cabinet

Danielle Smith is doing her happy dance right now.

For now, but if a pipeline does get built it will have to include carbon capture, industrial carbon pricing, First Nation consultation, and be private financed.

I feel like the deal might turn out to be a political maneuver where the ball is in AB court now to figure out how to solve the big problems.  Which is how it should have been all along.  You want a pipeline here's how you have to do it...

[crazy canuck]

Steven Guilbeault resigns from Mark Carney's cabinet

Danielle Smith is doing her happy dance right now.

Steven Guilbeault resigns from Mark Carney's cabinet

Danielle Smith is doing her happy dance right now.

For now, but if a pipeline does get built it will have to include carbon capture, industrial carbon pricing, First Nation consultation, and be private financed.

I feel like the deal might turn out to be a political maneuver where the ball is in AB court now to figure out how to solve the big problems.  Which is how it should have been all along.  You want a pipeline here's how you have to do it...

Yes, exactly - smart politics.  Put the burden where it belongs

[viper37]

Steven Guilbeault resigns from Mark Carney's cabinet

Danielle Smith is doing her happy dance right now.

Steven Guilbeault resigns from Mark Carney's cabinet

Danielle Smith is doing her happy dance right now.

For now, but if a pipeline does get built it will have to include carbon capture, industrial carbon pricing, First Nation consultation, and be private financed.

I feel like the deal might turn out to be a political maneuver where the ball is in AB court now to figure out how to solve the big problems.  Which is how it should have been all along.  You want a pipeline here's how you have to do it...

Carbon capture is still an unproven technology and industrial carbon pricing does not include methane leaks as they are not measured at the source, nor are abandoned wells counted as there's no one to "tax" for this.  Plus, it's a provincial responsibility, for which Alberta and Saskatchewan are unwilling to move.

First Nation consultation has its limits.  They have to be consulted, there is no obligation to get an agreement.  If the Federal government decides they want to go forward, they will go forward.  They can easily bypass province's will, they can do so with First Nations too.  It's a matter of having enough good will.  And Liberals are good at this right now, with the fear of US expansionism and trade war.