Welcome to sellout of Canada 2.0

15 posts / 0 new

Mon, 2010-10-04 11:58

thorin_bane

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/10/01/shipping-tariffs-reduced.html#s...

Imported cargo ships, tankers and large ferries will no longer be subject to a 25 per cent tariff, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced Friday.

The measure is aimed at making it cheaper for Canadian shipowners to replace aging fleets with more modern and more efficient vessels.

Waiving the tariff will save the industry $25 million a year for the next 10 years, the government estimates.

"These were tariffs that don't serve any purpose because … the ships to which they apply are not capable of being made competitively in Canada," Flaherty told reporters in St. Catharines, Ont.

"There's a big business … in refitting ships and a lot of that happens here and that is not affected by this tariff," he said. "This is one of those tariffs that had outlived its usefulness."

OK so now we are actively destroying our manufacturing sector. Thanks for spelling it out conservatives.

Mon, 2010-10-04 12:09

thorin_bane

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/10/01/us-steel-hamilton-closure.html#...

"In 2008, they did the same thing," Gerstenberger said. "They shut the blast furnace down on Oct. 26 and said they're not laying anybody off, and then three weeks later they started laying people off, because you can only find so much busy work."

Motives questioned

He also questioned the company's motives, and whether the stalled labour talks might have had something to do with the decision.

The federal government has launched a lawsuit over U.S. Steel's temporary shutdown of two Ontario mills during the 2008-2009 recession, which put 1,500 employees out of work.

The company acquired those assets in 2007 when it bought out Hamilton-based steelmaker Stelco Inc. At the time, U.S. Steel promised to "maintain employment levels" at the sites to win Ottawa's support.

Mon, 2010-10-04 19:14

Sean in Ottawa

Thanks Thorin for this.

Canada has no industrial strategy and has not had one for years. this is part of the same problem.

If we do not have an industry that can do this we should ask the government why not-- it is not like Canada does not have a coastline or something like that.

Mon, 2010-10-04 21:59

My Cat Knows Better My Cat Knows Better's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Canada has no industrial strategy and has not had one for years. this is part of the same problem.

If we do not have an industry that can do this we should ask the government why not-- it is not like Canada does not have a coastline or something like that.

Canada does indeed have an industrial strategy. It involves the wholesale exploitation of the tar sands to the next, not necessarily the highest bidder. Further, it includes the rapid, unregulated exploration of the Artic coastal areas for additional reserves of fossil fuels. The old industries such as manufacturing, can be allowed to disappear. These jobs to be replaced with retail, and service industry jobs. Anything difficult, or high tech should be encouraged to relocate off-shore.

Tue, 2010-10-05 01:09

Sean in Ottawa

That is not an industrial strategy-- that is resource extraction.

The difference between a developed country and an underdeveloped one is if the country gets a majority of its GDP from industry or resource extraction Canada used to be a developed country.

Tue, 2010-10-05 01:13

thorin_bane

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/10/04/vale-edc-financing.html

The Export Development Corporation, a Crown corporation that provides financial support for Canadian exports, said it is creating a line of credit to help Vale with expansion in Canada and to encourage the firm to expand its use of Canadian suppliers.

Miners at the Voisey's Bay nickel mine in northern Labrador have been on strike against Vale since August 2009. (CBC)

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation called for the federal government to scrap the loan and the United Steelworkers described the assistance as an insult to workers.

The loan will include $250 million US for capital projects at the Long Harbor processing plant in Newfoundland and Labrador. Another $250 million will be available for several projects in Ontario.

The loan is also intended to generate opportunities for Canadian firms by rewarding Vale for using domestic suppliers.

The remaining $500 million, the EDC said in a news release, will be available for future purchase of Canadian goods and services by Vale for its operations outside Canada, or to support Vale exports involving signed contracts with Canadian suppliers.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

BHP Billiton's proposed takeover of PotashCorp could reduce Saskatchewan government revenues by at least $2 billion over the next 10 years, the Conference Board of Canada says.

The impact would be more drastic if Billiton or any new owner adopted a "high production" strategy, the think-tank said in a report released Monday.

Under that scenario, potash prices would tumble and corporate taxes and royalties could be reduced by $5.7 billion over a decade.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/10/04/sk-bhp-potashcorp-1010.html#ixzz11SR57x7J

My sole reason for being a Dipper was because I live in a border town and watched amercans come over and use our city like a toilet(though that is mostly teenagers, it was one of the things that started me down this path), while their bellicose government took over our corporations without a peep. In another time I would have been a red tory, but seeing as how corporations are corporations it makes more sense to nationalize than give them a dime.

One of the funniest things is to watch canadians get their underwear in a knot whenever a chinese company attempts a takeover, but the amercians are our friendly neighbour and would never do the awful things those commies would do. Unless you look at facts and see in general they outstrip other nations in this fashion(at least as far as canada is concerned)

Although one of the links is about a brazilion company, they are only following US steel. Because our lazy leadership won't stand up for the people that put them into power(though we know where power is actually derived from)

The part that is frustrating is it is covered. But it is usually in the back of the business section, so canadians aren't seeing the dirty business that happens from free trade and unregulated capital.

Tue, 2010-10-05 14:59

Michael Moriarity

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

That is not an industrial strategy-- that is resource extraction.

The difference between a developed country and an underdeveloped one is if the country gets a majority of its GDP from industry or resource extraction Canada used to be a developed country.

I could be wrong, but it really seems to me that MCKB was being sarcastic.

Tue, 2010-10-05 15:01

Sean in Ottawa

No doubt but some people may not see the distinction and this is something that should not be left to subtlty.

I certainly was not arguing with that post.

Tue, 2010-10-05 22:56

siamdave

Of course we have an 'industrial' strategy - it's been being imposed since the Mulroney days - 'we're open for business!' - translation - selling it all to the highest bidder and becoming a branch-plant economy. Actually it's not really a 'strategy' anymore so much as a fait accompi. Ol TS knew - 'not with a bang but a whimper' . Anybody new to all this should read some Mel Hurtig - start with The Vanishing Country, maybe, or The Truth About Canada. Obviously very few Cdns know or understand what is happening, or they'd be making different choices politically.

Wed, 2010-10-06 09:42

#10

My Cat Knows Better My Cat Knows Better's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I could be wrong, but it really seems to me that MCKB was being sarcastic.

... in the final analysis, it doesn't matter whether or not I understand the difference between an industrial policy and resource extraction, but whether our federal government understands the concept. Perhaps I don't give them enough credit, it may be that they are attempting to use the exploitation of our natural resources in lieu of an industrial policy. Like most good conservatives, they seem to have an inate aversion to joining the "developed world" as a full "partner". Remember Dief and the Arrow?

Wed, 2010-10-06 09:49

#11

My Cat Knows Better My Cat Knows Better's picture

siamdave wrote:

Of course we have an 'industrial' strategy - it's been being imposed since the Mulroney days - 'we're open for business!' - translation - selling it all to the highest bidder and becoming a branch-plant economy. Actually it's not really a 'strategy' anymore so much as a fait accompi. Ol TS knew - 'not with a bang but a whimper' . Anybody new to all this should read some Mel Hurtig - start with The Vanishing Country, maybe, or The Truth About Canada. Obviously very few Cdns know or understand what is happening, or they'd be making different choices politically.

Its a slippery slope. After the second world war Canada was an industrial power, then we became a branch plant economy, then we were open for business and sold the branch plants and went into resource extraction in a big way. Now the resources are being sold off in a fire sale. With the political choices we make, we will be able to close in economically on the third world with only a little more effort on our parts. As everybody else is striving to climb the economic ladder, Canadians have somehow decided not to compete but the buck the trend and climb down instead.

Wed, 2010-10-06 11:48

#12

Sean in Ottawa

My Cat Knows Better wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

I could be wrong, but it really seems to me that MCKB was being sarcastic.

... in the final analysis, it doesn't matter whether or not I understand the difference between an industrial policy and resource extraction, but whether our federal government understands the concept. Perhaps I don't give them enough credit, it may be that they are attempting to use the exploitation of our natural resources in lieu of an industrial policy. Like most good conservatives, they seem to have an inate aversion to joining the "developed world" as a full "partner". Remember Dief and the Arrow?

Well from your comment, I assumed you did know but I certainly did want to underline the difference and that was the purpose of my comment. I believe most Canadians do not make the distinction and that is why Canada has gone from an industrial country over 4 decades in to a resource-extraction country. Of course there is a failure to recognize as well that these are non-renewable resources and what that means.

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives may or may not realize that inasmuch as Canada needs an industrial strategy this is a problem from a right-wing perspective since such a policy is a public good and the investments that are required to be a player require public enterprise. If we look at most developed nations there is a recognition regardless of culture of this fact. In all cases advanced industrial capacity is publicly owned/controlled/or supported. Indeed Canada is absolutely unique in imagining this is not the case.

Even the most culturally right-wing countries understand this well. South Korea became an economic powerhouse with public investment and ownership in key industries. And of course, most here are aware that this is also true of the United States which has its military complex as it is called as its primary industrial engine with the bulk of civilian enterprise at least related to the military investments. While inefficiently privately owned it is flushed with public investment on a constant basis and the US industrial economy would not survive without that (they would need to replace that military investment with a civilian one if they were ever to retreat from the investment they are making).

Only in Canada do we imagine that you can have an industrial policy that does not include public enterprise as a leading force and that private enterprise will survive without the public context. Only in Canada do we assume that you can have a healthy industrial sector, with healthy employment without a plan to make it that way. And of course we don't.

What we do have in Canada is a weak auto-sector and add-on industries at the periphery of the US military complex-- beyond that we have what little light industry can exist in such a void and massive resource extraction with breath-taking subsidies perhaps with the objective as you suggest of hiding the fact that we are unwilling to take on a real industrial policy due to ideological reasons.

We should also note that in some respects Canada is more right wing than the United States. The US seeks to preserve and extend the capital of those who made it rich and to reward high income with as little interference as possible. It also lifts as icons those who make their own wealth apparently from nothing (minimizing the recognition of any public goods along the way). Canada on the other hand seeks to maintain class distinctions. It seeks to preserve and extend the capital of generations of particular classes of Canadians and reward wealth inheritance with as little interference as possible. We lift as icons the small number of families whose ancestors "made" this country ignoring the collective efforts of the rest of Canadians then and now. It has been said that in the United States it matters most what you do while in Canada it matters more who you are. Here we have a much more colonial outlook on social organization modified with policies that seek both to make the "underclasses" more comfortable and to keep them exactly where they are.The Americans cling to the idea that a poor person can make a million even when for most that is not realistic. In Canada we cling to the idea that anyone can get a minimum wage job, have a shot at over-priced education and get enough money to survive in old age even if that is one cat food. We have a famous floor below which we want the poor not to sink but we also have a ceiling beyond which we want them not to rise and that ceiling is everything to do with who you are. These ideas are directly related to our approach to industrial development and frame much of our establishment politics with two parties that differ most in rhetoric and branding but very little in substance. Equality is here every bit as much of an illusion as it is in the US and perhaps the barriers here are even harder to pierce. And Canada remains a colony always in search of a master-- if the US loses interest or moves on once we no longer serve a purpose, the same people that toady to the US today will be colonists in search of an empire.

Wed, 2010-10-06 23:22

#13

Fidel

Canadians should at least be able to afford to heat their homes. http://heatyourhome.ca

Wed, 2010-10-06 23:49

#14

Sean in Ottawa

That is well done-- good job on the NDP for that

Fri, 2010-10-08 13:53

#15

Noah_Scape

"Canada's industrial strategy" appears to be to sell out our national treasures, corporate entities and natural resources especially, to foreign owners.

I picked up that idea from Mel Hurtig's 2008 book "The Truth About Canada". Here is a quote from The Tyee report on that book:

On the danger of foreign takeovers:

"Since Brian Mulroney abolished the Foreign Investment Review Agency and replaced it with this Mickey Mouse, incompetent, do-nothing organization called Investment Canada, there have been 10,924 takeovers of Canadian companies. The total value of those takeovers is $847 billion. Now here's a question: what percentage of that money was for takeovers, and what per cent for new business investment? 2.4 per cent was for new business investment, the rest for takeovers. As a result, our levels of productivity have plummeted, and we're now the 13th most competitive country in the world.

"You would think big business would take their all-time record profits and invest in new machinery, especially since the dollar has strengthened, and so the cost of equipment would be significantly lower. But what are they doing? They're sending their money out to tax havens. No other developed country in the world would allow this to happen.

"How is Canada going to be a competitive country if we sell ourselves off like this? I've got grandchildren. I have no intention of letting my grandchildren grow up in a world where they're tenants in their own country."

Mel's appalling fact #3:

"In 2005, over $22.3 billion of foreign-controlled corporate profits left Canada."