[Sixstrings]

They want a trade war because Canadian meat says made in Canada?

People have no right to know where their food comes from?

Personally I doubt consumers would distrust Canadian meat. Maybe Chinese. Make a good product, build a good reputation and protect it, and be proud to say "made in Canada."

(am i missing something, is there some reason to be worried about canadian meat?)

[Subjectivist]

They want a trade war because Canadian meat says made in Canada?

People have no right to know where their food comes from?

Personally I doubt consumers would distrust Canadian meat. Maybe Chinese. Make a good product, build a good reputation and protect it, and be proud to say "made in Canada."

(am i missing something, is there some reason to be worried about canadian meat?)

I think it is all about Mad Cow disease, it broke out in Alberta in 1993 and lead to lots of bans/worries about Canadian beef in th US markets here in the states that border on Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spo ... th_America

[Sixstrings]

I think it is all about Mad Cow disease, it broke out in Alberta in 1993 and lead to lots of bans/worries about Canadian beef in th US markets here in the states that border on Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spo ... th_America

Well Jesus, I'm glad I know then.

Has the mad cow been cleaned up????

Far as I know we haven't ever had this in the US? Though I think we do the same thing don't we, feeding cows cow brains. Makes me so mad. Why isn't this just outlawed everywhere.

[yellowcanoe]

It has nothing to do with Mad Cow disease -- while the incident in 1993 did disrupt what had been an integrated market for beef between Canada and the US that has long since been fixed. Now it is country of origin labeling that threatens the integrated market for beef and other meat. Food processors can currently source meat from either the US or Canada and not worry about the actual origin of each piece as it goes through their plant. It's a whole different ballgame if the packaging has to specify the actual country of origin. It would be a huge headache for a plant to track the origin of each piece of meat as it passes through the plant so most processors will simply start buying US meat only. So from the perspective of Canada, the country of origin labeling is just a form of trade protectionism.

[Subjectivist]

It has nothing to do with Mad Cow disease -- while the incident in 1993 did disrupt what had been an integrated market for beef between Canada and the US that has long since been fixed. Now it is country of origin labeling that threatens the integrated market for beef and other meat. Food processors can currently source meat from either the US or Canada and not worry about the actual origin of each piece as it goes through their plant. It's a whole different ballgame if the packaging has to specify the actual country of origin. It would be a huge headache for a plant to track the origin of each piece of meat as it passes through the plant so most processors will simply start buying US meat only. So from the perspective of Canada, the country of origin labeling is just a form of trade protectionism.

Seems like if that is the issue a lable saying contains beef from the US and Canada both would fix it without having to make this huge trade dispute deal out of the issue.

[Keith_McClary]

It's a whole different ballgame if the packaging has to specify the actual country of origin. It would be a huge headache for a plant to track the origin of each piece of meat as it passes through the plant so most processors will simply start buying US meat only.

Why not require "country of origin" labels on the gas pumps ?

(We got some great deals on beef prices in Canada during the Mad Cow scare - not so good for the ranchers).

[Tanada]

Wasn't the whole Mad Cow scare supposed to make Thermal Depolymerization companies rich? Regular sterilizing processes don't kill the prions that cause MCD but if you convert the cow into Diesel fuel you don't have to worry about it, or something like that.

I grew up surrounded by Dairy and Beef cattle, the whole MCD thing seemed like a major media blow everything out of proportion scare, just like when we were all supposed to panic over Alar pesticide on our apples from Washington State.

I am sure John Kerry could settle this whole thing with one memo if he chose to do so, anyone know where he stands on this trade dispute?

[Sixstrings]

It has nothing to do with Mad Cow disease -- while the incident in 1993 did disrupt what had been an integrated market for beef between Canada and the US that has long since been fixed.

Do you happen to know, have Canadian and American ranchers both stopped feeding cows to cows? (the origin of mad cow) Has it been outlawed?

It would be a huge headache for a plant to track the origin of each piece of meat as it passes through the plant so most processors will simply start buying US meat only.

That doesn't really make sense. How many sources of meat does a plant have? If it's coming from 30 countries or something then I don't think I want to eat it.

If it's just a few sources, then I don't see how it's a problem to "track them." If it's so many sources they can't possibly track it down, then that is a problem, no? Food safety wise we need to know where food is coming from, so you can track it back if there's a e coli outbreak or something.

Anyhow, markets and profit margins being what they are, I find it hard to believe a food processor would rather pay higher prices than track the meat. Doesn't make sense. Is Canada just getting a bit prickly here?

So from the perspective of Canada, the country of origin labeling is just a form of trade protectionism.

I doubt it's any protectionism.

Though we do need some protectionism down here -- US has hemorrhaged jobs from global free trade. 47 million Americans are on foodstamps. If Congress takes those away, folk can't buy any meat at all, Canadian or otherwise.

[Sixstrings]

By the way, about Canada, there's ads running on TV down here saying the tar sands pipeline is just to sell Canadian oil overseas and it wouldn't do anything for US oil supply:

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States

Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.

From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States. As Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, "we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that."
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/keystone_xl_is_a_tar_sands_pip.html

If they want to diversify from selling to the US, then why must it be through a potentially dangerous pipeline through the US? Why not build a pipeline to vancouver and fill tankers up there?

I always thought this pipeline would bring oil here, but if it's for Canada to sell elsewhere, if we don't need the oil anyway, then why are we doing the pipeline?

Labeling Canadian beef is "protectionism." But when selling their oil they want to "diversify" from us. Mmmkay. I think Canada's getting prickly.

All that oil is going to their heads. One day they'll be facing Russians over Arctic oil, so be nice Canada.

[Subjectivist]

By the way, about Canada, there's ads running on TV down here saying the tar sands pipeline is just to sell Canadian oil overseas and it wouldn't do anything for US oil supply:

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States

Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.

From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States. As Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, "we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that."
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/keystone_xl_is_a_tar_sands_pip.html

If they want to diversify from selling to the US, then why must it be through a potentially dangerous pipeline through the US? Why not build a pipeline to vancouver and fill tankers up there?

I always thought this pipeline would bring oil here, but if it's for Canada to sell elsewhere, if we don't need the oil anyway, then why are we doing the pipeline?

Could the government at least tax that oil or something? I don't see what the US is getting from this.

Based on everything Rockman has posted about the KXL it is 90% completed already and moving the oil already, they just use rail tankers for the border crossing section.

[yellowcanoe]

By the way, about Canada, there's ads running on TV down here saying the tar sands pipeline is just to sell Canadian oil overseas and it wouldn't do anything for US oil supply:

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States

Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.

From Canada's perspective, the problem with existing pipelines is they all end in the U.S. Midwest and only allow one buyer - the United States. As Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently said, "we export 97 percent of our energy to the U.S. and we would like to diversify that."
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/keystone_xl_is_a_tar_sands_pip.html

If they want to diversify from selling to the US, then why must it be through a potentially dangerous pipeline through the US? Why not build a pipeline to vancouver and fill tankers up there?

I always thought this pipeline would bring oil here, but if it's for Canada to sell elsewhere, if we don't need the oil anyway, then why are we doing the pipeline?

Could the government at least tax that oil or something? I don't see what the US is getting from this.

As far as I can see at the present time, the existing cross border pipelines are delivering enough Canadian oil to meet the demands of the US market. If Keystone XL is completed, much of the additional oil delivered to the US would have to be exported possibly as refined products. The tax breaks you refer to are to help the refineries get business converting other peoples oil to refined products. A lot of countries in the Caribbean and Latin America are too small to have their own refineries so they buy oil, have it delivered it to the US to be refined and then have the refined products shipped to them. US refineries need to be competitive as there are other places that oil could be sent to be refined. If Keystone XL is not approved I think that will be because more oil from Canada isn't needed right now to meet American demands. Why should the president expend his political capital for something that will primarily benefit another country?

Note that I am saying more oil from Canada isn't needed "right now". It could be a different ball game down the road -- if the supply of oil from other countries dries up due to depletion, war or whatever it could be very handy having that "extra" oil already flowing into the US. It would certainly be easier to get more Canadian oil than if Canada has managed to find another way to export oil that doesn't involve transiting US territory.

It is proving very difficult for Canada to build pipelines to the west coast. A lot of people are opposed to the idea, especially the Northern Gateway pipeline. Getting aboriginal groups to agree to a pipeline running across their traditional lands is especially difficult and the days where a government could simply force a highway or pipeline across aboriginal land without their consent are long over.

[yellowcanoe]

Based on everything Rockman has posted about the KXL it is 90% completed already and moving the oil already, they just use rail tankers for the border crossing section.

I'm not convinced that is the case. My impression from the Keystone XL web site is that construction of the northern section is on hold until they have the cross border approval. There are still landowners fighting them so they don't even have a complete ROW for the pipeline. It would be a huge gamble to start construction and then have the POTUS deny the cross border approval.

[yellowcanoe]

If they want to diversify from selling to the US, then why must it be through a potentially dangerous pipeline through the US? Why not build a pipeline to vancouver and fill tankers up there?

In terms of risk, I would expect Keystone XL would pose far less of a risk to the environment than the Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat would. Expansion of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline to Vancouver would be less risky than the Northern Gateway pipeline but I'm not sure if it would pose more or less risk than Keystone XL. Of course, if there was a serious accident on the American section of Keystone XL it would be American land that would be impacted. So if Americans wonder why they should shoulder the risk associated with a pipeline where the benefits primarily flow to other people, they are simply thinking the same way many British Columbians are.

The counter argument is that these would be new pipelines and we have the capability to make them safer and more closely monitored than existing pipelines.

[Sixstrings]

If Keystone XL is not approved I think that will be because more oil from Canada isn't needed right now to meet American demands. Why should the president expend his political capital for something that will primarily benefit another country?

This opposition is from environmentalists. The right wants the pipeline. I didn't know it's already been built, may as well approve it or what use is an empty pipeline down the country.

Note that I am saying more oil from Canada isn't needed "right now". It could be a different ball game down the road -- if the supply of oil from other countries dries up due to depletion, war or whatever it could be very handy having that "extra" oil already flowing into the US. It would certainly be easier to get more Canadian oil than if Canada has managed to find another way to export oil that doesn't involve transiting US territory.

Well this is like OPEC, what's the definition of "satisfying demand," it's satisfying the demand at the price Canada wants to sell it for, and a pipeline broadens that market for them, could therefore cause higher prices for us because we'd now competing with other buyers, no?

But I guess you're saying that with the pipeline there will be more total supply and enough for everyone.

If the pipeline ramps up production then why can't we get some lower gas prices down here. That could actually spur growth, if we could finally start driving prices *down*.

You're saying demand will be "satisfied" -- that means at top dollar -- and the rest exported. With all this oil around would just be nice if the US could get domestic gas prices down, like the middle east and Venezuela does for its people.

[yellowcanoe]

Note that I am saying more oil from Canada isn't needed "right now". It could be a different ball game down the road -- if the supply of oil from other countries dries up due to depletion, war or whatever it could be very handy having that "extra" oil already flowing into the US. It would certainly be easier to get more Canadian oil than if Canada has managed to find another way to export oil that doesn't involve transiting US territory.

Well this is like OPEC, what's the definition of "satisfying demand," it's satisfying the demand at the price Canada wants to sell it for, and a pipeline broadens that market for them, could therefore cause higher prices for us because we'd now competing with other buyers, no?

But I guess you're saying that with the pipeline there will be more total supply and enough for everyone.

If the pipeline ramps up production then why can't we get some lower gas prices down here. That could actually spur growth, if we could finally start driving prices *down*.

You're saying demand will be "satisfied" -- that means at top dollar -- and the rest exported. With all this oil around would just be nice if the US could get domestic gas prices down, like the middle east and Venezuela does for its people.

Refineries in the mid-west have been able to buy Canadian oil at a significant discount as there wasn't enough pipeline capacity to move it out of Cushing. That doesn't necessarily mean they passed on the savings in the form of lower gas/diesel prices. Completion of the southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline now enables more of that oil to get to the refineries in Texas so the sweet deal that refineries in the mid-west had is coming to an end.

I don't see any way to get domestic gas prices in the US down. All oil producers want to get as close to world price for their oil as possible. These days about the only place you'll find cheap gas is in countries that export oil and where the oil resource is owned and produced by a national oil company. There are a few oil importing countries like India that subsidize gas but with oil in the $100 a barrel range it has become too expensive to subsidize gas/diesel. Once you get into the subsidize game it is very difficult politically to raise fuel prices.

Despite being a net oil exporter, there's no cheap gas in Canada. Indeed, taxes on fuel are higher so we pay more for gas than you do in the US. Another oddity is that Eastern Canada actually depends on imported oil -- the west exports and we import!

[Sixstrings]

Despite being a net oil exporter, there's no cheap gas in Canada. Indeed, taxes on fuel are higher so we pay more for gas than you do in the US. Another oddity is that Eastern Canada actually depends on imported oil -- the west exports and we import!

Ha, yeah, oddities of how the market works.

Well, okay, I gas gas isn't going down unless so much oil can get fracked / tar sandsed that it affects world supply. Or would the US and Canada ever wind up joining OPEC to keep prices up.

Of course we don't really want low prices and more consumption, but, keeping prices stable would be helpful. When there's a price runup people cut back and it hurts the economy.

Regarding this pipeline, I saw the former governor of Montana (schweizer?) talking about it, he said that the Canadians agreed to an onramp for bakken oil, so bakken will be transported down the pipeline too. They use rail currently.

So that changes things.. if American companies can use the pipeline to send their oil down it too.

[Subjectivist]

What do the Canadian members here think about the Trudeau win? I only want to hear from those who actually are Canadian, not every J6P who thinks they should pontificate about every topic.

[dissident]

What do the Canadian members here think about the Trudeau win? I only want to hear from those who actually are Canadian, not every J6P who thinks they should pontificate about every topic.

Thank God that neocon freak Harper is out.

I am expecting that once the financial books are examined that there will be a serious deficit situation. But of course the MSM consumer lemmings will remember this as "Trudeau's deficit" and not Harper's con job.

Hopefully sane science research funding will return. Harper's climate change denier ideology disrupted a lot of research related to atmospheric modeling. Americans are lucky that they have the arm's length NSF which is not easily manipulated at the whim of the president and his party.

[WildRose]

I'm in Alberta and I'm also glad Harper's out. It's going to take some work to gain back the ground lost in environmental monitoring, accountability, etc. while he was prime minister. I think his economics plan became stale and quite irrelevant. I didn't like that fossil fuels were the "driver" of Canada's economy. We've needed diversification for quite some time. Given the candidates we had to choose from, I think Trudeau is the best person for the job. I think he'll work well with other world leaders and I like his energy.

[Keith_McClary]

This is a metaphor for the state of the nation, Harper's legacy:
Trudeau may postpone move to 24 Sussex to allow crucial repairs

A 2008 audit by the federal auditor general said repairs had been put off too long and should be done as soon as possible or the country would face even higher costs and national embarrassment.

The house contains asbestos, a cancer-causing substance. Its windows, plumbing and electrical systems all need replacement, a sprinkler system must be installed and the building must be made accessible for disabled visitors.

Emails obtained by the Citizen in 2013 painted a grim picture of a cold, drafty house plagued by mould, leaky pipes and even a toilet that alarmingly moves when sat upon.

In 2011, the NCC said there was an urgent need for $10 million in repairs — work that would have required Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his family to vacate the building for more than a year.

Harper steadfastly refused to do that throughout his tenure as prime minister, largely for reasons of political optics. He evidently feared that spending large sums of public money on a house he occupied would play poorly with Conservative voters.