Quote from: Zoupa on Today at 12:37:16 AM
Good luck, non-WASPs.
Quote from: Josquius on Today at 05:16:18 AMDay one did seem a bit too far. Though shame they couldn't bring it down from 6 months, thats much too long. A week or two would seem rational.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 27, 2025, 05:13:00 PMIt's a gamble there too. We could disallow potash export to the US at any moment.
Quote from: Zoupa on Today at 12:38:26 AMWhat's so special about potash that it needs a dedicated export terminal?
Quote from: Bauer on November 27, 2025, 10:54:40 PMThe 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.
QuoteDiet also played a role. Early Europeans relied heavily on meat, fish, and wild foods rich in vitamin D. When farming spread, diets changed. Grain-based foods lack vitamin D. Over time, lighter skin may have helped boost vitamin D production when food could not.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 27, 2025, 03:40:55 PMThe Law Commission is still running here. Their proposals aren't always picked up but often is because it's normally quite unsexy, relatively technocratic changes. So their current research program covers:QuoteAgricultural tenancies
Commercial leasehold
Consent in the criminal law
Deeds
The defence of insanity
Desecration of a corpse
Management of housing estates
Ownerless land
Product liability
Public sector automated decision-making
Which is fairly (admirably) variedI can imagine some of those becoming fairly contentious but a lot won't.
And as I say in this case the government got a report on criminal justice by Sir Brian Leveson, former President of the Queen's Bench Division and Head of Criminal Justice. He looked at Canada, New Zealand and Australian territories (I don't fully know why but Australia is always very popular with judges as a persuasive authority in the UK). The government's plan if they stick to it is to apparently go way, way beyond his recommendations.
Although to Jos' points I think there is a very good reason Leveson limited his comparators to other common law jurisdictions.
Quote from: Zoupa on Today at 12:38:26 AMWhat's so special about potash that it needs a dedicated export terminal?
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 27, 2025, 05:13:00 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2025, 04:08:24 PMQuote from: Jacob on November 27, 2025, 03:58:50 PMQuote from: Bauer on November 27, 2025, 02:38:16 PMMeanwhile 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/4115276QuoteMicrosoft 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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on November 27, 2025, 08:32:30 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2025, 04:03:50 PMYour 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.
Page created in 0.023 seconds with 11 queries.