U.S. urges 'fivefold expansion' in Alberta oilsands production

[JAH]

U.S. urges 'fivefold expansion' in Alberta oilsands production

Last Updated: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 | 10:45 PM ET
CBC News

The U.S. wants Canada to dramatically expand its oil exports from the Alberta oilsands, a move that could have major implications on the environment.

U.S.and Canadian oil executives and government officials met for a two-day oil summit in Houston in January 2006 and made plans for a "fivefold expansion" in oilsands production in a relatively "short time span," according minutes of the meeting obtained by the CBC's French-language network, Radio-Canada.

The meeting was organized by Natural Resources Canada and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Canada is already the top exporter of oil to the American market, exporting the equivalent of one million barrels a day — the exact amount that the oilsands industry in Alberta currently produces.

A fivefold increase would mean the exportation of five million barrels a day, which would supply a quarter of current American consumption and add up to almost half of all U.S. imports.

But the current extraction of oil from the tarsands results in the spewing of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere: it's already the biggest source of new greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.


The news of call for the massive boost in oil production comes as Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged to make the environment one of his top priorities, vowing that Canadians deserve more action on climate change. Polls show the environment is the number one concern of Canadians.

Yet, according to the minutes of the Houston meeting, to multiply its output by five and to do it quickly, Canada would have to "streamline" its environmental regulations for new energy projects.

"We need to look at additional pipelines from Canada to the U.S. as a new source of supplier, a growing source of supply," said Bob Greco of the American Petroleum Institute.

In his state of the union address in 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush set out a goal to drastically reduce oil imports from the Middle East and make American dependence on Middle Eastern oil "a thing of the past."

"America is addicted to oil which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," Bush said then.

Paul Michael Weaby, a Washington insider and an expert on the geo-strategic aspect of the oil industry, said Bush is counting on Canada to achieve the U.S. of goal to wean the country off Middle Eastern oil — a goal now defined as a national security objective.

"He wanted to have a reduction of 1.5 million barrels a day by 2015 from the Middle East. Although he did not mention Canada, that is in fact where the replacement supply will come from."

[Dalreg]

Yep and when we won't increase production an invasion will soon happen. Better hide the nukes!

[1ajs]

aww wtf............

[CorporateWhore]

U.S urges Canada

riiiiiiiight. time to drop our pants and bend over.

[h0twired]

A five fold increase would be nice for the economy.

Good luck finding the people to actually work on the rigs.

[harls]

riiiiiiiight. time to drop our pants and bend over.


no kidding.

[freeweed]

Fortunately Bush and his neocon cowboys are soon to be out of office. Here's hoping the US can FINALLY figure out a credible candidate to counter the past 6 years of fearmongering and stupidity. My vote's on that Obama dude (nice and close to Osama, just to frighten the red staters), but my gut tells me something stupid like Hillary.

Serious question though - why are the oilsands such bad GHG polluters? Is it due to all the natural gas being burned during extraction/upgrading? What is inherent to oilsands work that produces so much CO2? And can this be controlled?

[Wooster]

Better send us some people then. Mexicans perhaps?

That is too much expansion too soon for us to handle. Maybe the US can then pay for some of the refineries or Nuclear Plants to power all this.

[Waterlooson]

Better send us some people then. Mexicans perhaps?

That is too much expansion too soon for us to handle. Maybe the US can then pay for some of the refineries or Nuclear Plants to power all this.

Maybe if the US wants us to save their ass - as we always do - perhaps they should honor their legal obligations under the NAFTA.

[rrskylar]

riiiiiiiight. time to drop our pants and bend over.

Alberta already does!

[The Chemist]

Can we send the 5-fold increase in pollution and environmental damage this expansion will cause to the US too?

[Doug]

The "US" nor any national government drives expansion of oil sands production. Financial markets do.

[big W]

The "US" nor any national government drives expansion of oil sands production. Financial markets do.

Yes you are right. The demand is not the US government but the US consumer. We know the demand is there and the problem is getting the stuff to the US. The issues in my mind are environmental concerns and increased royalty rates.

[ScottFromCalgary]

That is too much expansion too soon for us to handle. Maybe the US can then pay for some of the refineries or Nuclear Plants to power all this.

Well thankfully the decision to build these massive oilsands projects is not made by US politicians but rather good old fashioned economics. If the demand is there and it can be supplied by Canadian companies, why would we not want to supply the US? They are going to get their oil from somewhere, so they may as well be lining our packets rather than further enriching OPEC.

As long as the government keeps its nose out of this, private enterprise will ensure that supply and demand stay in equilibrium.

[ScottFromCalgary]

Ottawa hails nuclear energy for oilsands

Jason Fekete and Mike de Souza
Calgary Herald and CanWest News Service

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Ottawa set its sights on the oilpatch Wednesday, as one minister said he's "very keen" on using nuclear power in the oilsands while another questioned the wisdom of retaining tax incentives to develop Alberta's massive bitumen deposits.

Energy experts quickly questioned the federal government's ringing endorsement of using nuclear power for the oilpatch, arguing there are better alternatives for slashing greenhouse gas emissions.

Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn told reporters Wednesday in Ottawa that nuclear power is an option worth pursuing as petroleum producers look to decrease reliance on natural gas and slash greenhouse gas emissions from oilsands operations.

"As we see the potential increase in (oilsands) production, moving from a million barrels a day up to four or five (million), we need to do better. I think there's great promise in the oilsands for nuclear energy," Lunn said.

"There's a great opportunity to pursue nuclear energy -- something that I'm very keen on."

Whereas oil companies burn vast amounts of natural gas to extract the molasses-like bitumen from the oilsands, nuclear energy is emission-free and doesn't spew greenhouse gases, Lunn argued.

Lunn's comments came as he announced $230 million in federal funds will be invested over four years into research on clean energy, which could look at such options as clean-coal technology, carbon capture and storage, and "next-generation nuclear."

Details of where the new investments will go won't be released until this spring. The announcement was the first of three new climate change initiatives to be unveiled this week, replacing billions in energy programs scrapped or frozen when the Conservatives took office.

While nuclear power was hailed by Lunn, experts are skeptical about its future in the oilsands.

David Keith, Canada research chair in energy and the environment at the University of Calgary, said nuclear is "really not a very good fit" for the oilsands.

Rather, carbon dioxide capture and storage is the most likely technology to be used in Alberta to curb emissions, he said.

"If we want to do sensible policy instead of just get driven by sound-bite foolishness, we need to back off on forcing the oilsands companies to do this," Keith said, "and instead push where it's more cost-effective on the electric utilities."

Alberta would be better suited eyeing nuclear energy as an option for replacing coal-fired electricity plants if the aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, he said.

Premier Ed Stelmach predicted this week the nuclear power debate will only heat up in coming months and years.

Meanwhile, federal Environment Minister John Baird -- who joined Lunn for the research announcement -- seemed to question tax incentives introduced in the 1990s to boost oilsands output.

Baird said he couldn't understand why Liberal Leader Stephane Dion was part of a government that introduced the incentives, and was puzzled by the federal assistance in the booming sector.

"I cannot explain why the Liberal government of Mr. Dion made these changes," Baird said, speaking in French. "I'm not here to defend the policies of Stephane Dion and the Liberal party. It was his cabinet with Stephane Dion that created this program. (Finance Minister Jim) Flaherty is in the middle of listening to the needs of Canadians from coast to coast and he will present the budget not this morning, but in the coming weeks and months."

Environmentalists and the NDP and Bloc Quebecois have repeatedly called for an end to programs introduced in 1997 that allow oil companies to write off their startup costs with breaks on taxes and royalties. While it helped kick-start development in the 1990s -- when oil prices languished below $15 US per barrel -- critics say the industry now makes record profits.

Stelmach has promised a review of the oilsands royalty regime. The deal charges companies one per cent royalties of a project's gross revenues until their investment is paid off. Then the rate jumps to about 25 per cent of net revenue.

Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, noted Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised weeks ago not to adjust the tax structure that's been so successful at drawing investment into the northern Alberta oilsands.

"He said there would be no changes to the oilsands fiscal regime as part of the budget -- those are the prime minister's words," Alvarez said. "We have not heard that there would be any fiscal changes and we are proceeding on that basis."

Former Edmonton Liberal MP Anne McLellan, who helped negotiate the federal/provincial oilsands deal now in place, said energy companies have come to rely on the agreement and appreciate the certainty. There are more than $100 billion worth of oilsands developments on the drawing board.

"It's been absolutely key to the prosperity of this province," said the former deputy prime minister. "I find it very interesting if this Conservative government is suggesting that we were somehow mistaken when we did that."

[vid]

Well, if AMERICA said it...

[JAH]

Crazy thought.. but if Alberta and the US became major trade partners and Alberta supplies the US with all this oil and have them less dependant on the Middle East for oil.. might this increase any terrorist threats for Alberta in the future?

[Canadian Mind]

Fuck what america wants, fuck em. if they want it, they can pay the cost of oil plus 50%.

I also think we should be using nukes in the oilsands. Far cleaner.

[Xelebes]

Fortunately Bush and his neocon cowboys are soon to be out of office. Here's hoping the US can FINALLY figure out a credible candidate to counter the past 6 years of fearmongering and stupidity. My vote's on that Obama dude (nice and close to Osama, just to frighten the red staters), but my gut tells me something stupid like Hillary.

Serious question though - why are the oilsands such bad GHG polluters? Is it due to all the natural gas being burned during extraction/upgrading? What is inherent to oilsands work that produces so much CO2? And can this be controlled?

Hillary won't be able to run for President, me thinks.

[dubiousmike]

Well, for what it's worth, I wouldn't mind seeing Canada take a huge, huge bite out of Saudi Arabia's market share. That would give me a nice, warm feeling inside.

[PPAR]

This is GOOD NEWS for Alberta. It means we will have some stability of investment if big players believe our oil is a American national security objective.
This may in some instances encourage investment that was perhaps sitting on the fence. ie Penny Lane FCC II and City Center.

[Greco Roman]

This is GOOD NEWS for Alberta. It means we will have some stability of investment if big players believe our oil is a American national security objective.
This may in some instances encourage investment that was perhaps sitting on the fence. ie Penny Lane FCC II and City Center.

On the flip side, this spells disaster for the environment :hell:

[SFUVancouver]

Quite simply there is a big difference between crude oil and the oil/tar sands. Crude oil is liquid oil, held in pockets beneath the earth. You merely have to drop a well and start pumping. The oilsands on the other hand are... well... oily sand. It is truly one of the most well named substances on the planet. To turn oilsands into oil you first have to get the sand out of the ground and the most cost-effective way to do this is open strip mining on a scale that is truly hard to imagine. You scoop of the dirt with the oil sands in it and then you hit it with jets of steam. Where do you get the water? From rivers. Where do you get the heat to boil said water? From burning natural gas. So now we need to add natural gas extraction to the equation or look to other methods of heating up water, like nuclear power. A few dozen large nuclear power plants up in the oilsands would not only create steam but would also produce the huge quantities of electricity you need to power the strip mine diggers, the kilometres of conveyer belts, pumps, housing, etc. The steam liquefies the previously congealed oil that is stuck to the sand and is then separated. The oil is then sent off to a refinery where it is transformed into varying grades of petroleum products with an emphasis on the heavy end of the spectrum; sweet light crude this is not. So you're left over with a hell of a lot of waste at the end. You've got lakes of boiling hot, thoroughly dirty water to clean and cool before pumping it back into the rivers, you've got huge amounts of sand that needs to be backfilled into the used up seams, you've got titanic amounts of greenhouse gases that have been expelled in the varying steps to extract and process the oil sands, not to mention the extraction of the fuel to power the process, you've also got large industrial footprints and outright destruction of the landscape, and lastly, you've got a finished product that will release still further greenhouse gases and perpetuate patterns of dispersed spatial organisation that are sending us careening towards catastrophe.

Believe it or not I am not entirely against the oil sands project. I just think that we're being stupid about it. Using nuclear power is a good first step to getting ourselves on a more even keel. Why use up one highly saleable commodity (natural gas) to extract the oilsands when we can use a small fraction of a less readily saleable commodity (uranium) to do the job. Also, why aren’t we planning to limit extraction rates to maximize returns and limit damage to the environment. Alberta could be part of the solution for transitioning humanity off of its fossil fuel dependence towards renewables. Holding the keys to the car sure puts you in control of it. Furthermore, I think that Alberta needs to put to paper some significant, long-term plans for the revenue from the oil. If Alberta is going to be the new Saudi Arabia then it had better be sure it has learned all the lessons it can from its predecessor petro-despotisms.

My grandfather began working on the Fort McMurray oilsands project when he was a petrochemical engineer with Imperial Oil in the 1950s through 70s. Back then Imperial Oil was putting to paper its financial plans for the oil sands with a 50 year time horizon. I am certain the Province of Alberta has not thought through what it will do with its petro-dollars beyond the easy low hanging fruit of rebate cheques, heritage fund, and debt elimination. What exactly will Alberta and Albertans do with a trillion dollars over the next century? Will Alberta have an immigration cap? Will it begin planning its cities better? Will it make higher education tuition free? Will it lead a global effort to combat climate change? (Because it WILL be the poster child of the problem) In the greatest irony in the country’s history will it form its own separatist movement?

I've got family all over Alberta and from my conversations with them it is as if they just won the lottery; they still haven't quite grasped what is about to happen to them. And much like the lottery the changes relationships between people the oil money will shake Alberta’s relationship with other Provinces to the core. Good luck, you’ll need it.

[freeweed]

Crazy thought.. but if Alberta and the US became major trade partners and Alberta supplies the US with all this oil and have them less dependant on the Middle East for oil.. might this increase any terrorist threats for Alberta in the future?

Well, considering that most of the modern terrorist "threat" to the US is a direct result of their dependency on Middle East oil, I'd say this will help both countries on that front.

Besides, nearly every terrorist act in North America has been committed by bored, psychotic white guys. Very little to do with oil, the Middle East, or any other such boogeymen.

[JAH]

Maybe the US gov't needs to come to Alberta and see first hand the labour shortage going on here. We can hardly keep up with whats already planned.. how the hell does the US expect us to increase production 5-fold in a "short" period of time? Maybe instead of crying about it, they should help with some of the project and infrastructure costs.

[ReginaGuy]

easy for them to say.. we don't have cheap abundant mexican labour like the states do

[Thunderball]

It is easy for them to say... especially when if you read carefully... they didn't actually say it.

The Americans asked how much production can be increased... CAPP said by about 5x, but that was a rough estimate. This all happened at a joint Canadian-American meeting. Canada already has plans to boost it by 3x by 2015 regardless of the American statement. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good story... especially when its from the Communist Broadcasting Corporation.

[freeweed]

easy for them to say.. we don't have cheap abundant mexican labour like the states do

It's funny because it sounds like a joke or stereotype about the US, but there's actually something to this.

Back when the housing construction market took off (and likely still to some degree), contractors were bringing in hordes of Mexican workers to Calgary. There are a lot of skilled tradespeople in Mexico looking for work. The problem was, once September rolled around, they all took off and went home as it got too cold for them to work.

This created a huge labour shortage for much of the 2005-06 winter (exacerbating the already crazy market) and led to what seemed like a complete halt in construction activity.

It sounds like a joke made in poor taste to say "hey, let's bring up some Mexicans to work on the oilsands", but it's a very good idea. They certainly have the skill base and one hell of a work ethic. The problem is, you'll have one hell of a time keeping these folks around once winter sets in. Ft. McMurray isn't exactly the mildest of Canadian climates.

Not to mention immigration issues, etc...

[lubicon]

Can we send the 5-fold increase in pollution and environmental damage this expansion will cause to the US too?

We will be doing that to some extent anyway. Every barrel that is shipped to the US for refining will be one less barrell to produce GHG's in Canada.

One other point about the oilsands we should keep in mind. While they may generate large amounts of GHG's, they are also the most efficient method of oil extraction around (the mining operations I mean). The recovery rate for the mines is near 100% meaning we recover nearly all the oil in place. Conventional oil production (wells) is lucky to recover 50-60% of the oil in place.

[Kevin_foster]

^ They have to, or they would be loosing money

[caltrane74]

You guys are gonna have to toughen those Mexicans up, to witstand even this half assed Canadian winter.

[IntotheWest]

Back when the housing construction market took off (and likely still to some degree), contractors were bringing in hordes of Mexican workers to Calgary. There are a lot of skilled tradespeople in Mexico looking for work. The problem was, once September rolled around, they all took off and went home as it got too cold for them to work.

One of those companies was called CANMEX (I believe), and a good chunk of them would work through winter on 1-2 year contracts. They would travel home once every two months (I think for a week) - I sat beside a few Mexicans on my usual Monday morning flight to Vancouver, on their way down to MC. The company would provide them a "boot camp" training in Mexico on getting prepared for our culture and especially our winter. Apparently, a good chunk of them would return for additional contract time, but less than 15% wanted to move here...however, that was apparently mostly to do with family connections at home - not just climate.

[ScottFromCalgary]

Fuck what america wants, fuck em. if they want it, they can pay the cost of oil plus 50%.

Where is the logic in this statement? Although I suppose your pic speaks for itself.

[Canadian Mind]

Where is the logic in this statement? Although I suppose your pic speaks for itself.

Quite simple, when it comes to recources we give them away on the cheap... sometimes to cheap, like with softwood lumber. So why not jack up the cost so that we can afford to pay all the extra infrastructure costs?

Edit - and wouldn't you appreciate the extra 25-30 dollars per barrel flowing directly into your provincial economy?

[ScottFromCalgary]

I completely understand your desire for Canada to be given more for our resources, and of course Alberta would like to see as many benefits come our way as possible. My point is that we simply cannot add a premium onto our oil since we only receive the price that the market will bear. In fact, oil from Alberta usually trades at a significant discount to oil from other sources since our oil is generally of a heavier (lower quality) variety that requires more refining and processing to bring it up to standard, West Texas Intermediate grade. Canadian companies do not command the market and would not be able to just start asking for more money. Even if we could, our exports would decrease and America's other sources of oil (Gulf Coast, Alaska, Middle East, Venezuela) would see increased demand, and therefore increased revenue and profit. If the federal government mandated a premium on energy exports, this would be regarded as an illegal tariff and a violation of NAFTA as well as a direct contradiction to our stated goals regarding international trade. In fact, it is a violation of NAFTA if Canada reduces our overall energy exports to the US without reducing our domestic consumption. It is true that the US seems to have ignored parts of NAFTA where convenient (softwood lumber), but the law regarding energy exports is clearly outlined in NAFTA, and as the weaker partner in the deal, we would surely be forced to get back in line by the US. In addition, Canadian energy companies would much rather maintain the status quo, keep expanding the oilsands, and continue to record record profits than get involved in a trade dispute with the country's strongest economic driver.

[Waterlooson]

^^^ Good points about violating NAFTA there Scott. "America" is really concerned about the NAFTA rules - except when it restricts their actions.

[asher11]

If the federal government mandated a premium on energy exports, this would be regarded as an illegal tariff and a violation of NAFTA as well as a direct contradiction to our stated goals regarding international trade. In fact, it is a violation of NAFTA if Canada reduces our overall energy exports to the US without reducing our domestic consumption. It is true that the US seems to have ignored parts of NAFTA where convenient (softwood lumber), but the law regarding energy exports is clearly outlined in NAFTA, and as the weaker partner in the deal, we would surely be forced to get back in line by the US.

as the weaker partner in the deal ... In this case, I'm not sure who's the "weaker" partner in the deal.

Give the required amount of notice that NAFTA is done. After all the whining by the multi-nationals, etc, let the dust settle and everyone come to their senses. U know - Canadians don't necessarily have to bend over and blow Uncle Sam all the time.

[ScottFromCalgary]

Only problem is that NAFTA is a net benefit to Canada. Sure we lost a significant number of manufacturing jobs in southern Ontario, but the rest of Canada has enjoyed unfettered access to cheaper American and Mexican goods.

[asher11]

Canada has enjoyed unfettered access to cheaper American and Mexican goods.

Shouldn't that be "cheaper" Chinese goods sold at Walmart - what in the hell is made in America (except maybe candles) any more?

All we have to go by is the results of NAFTA. Nothing says anything would be worse/better because we have no experience of the other option. China is doing much better than Canada as far as trade with America is concerned and I don't know of any NAFTA type trade deal between the US and China. Furthermore, China aint blowin' Uncle Sam out of fear that jobs and markets might be lost like Canada insists on doing.

[vid]

Lots of things are made in America. Cars... Lumber, I assume.

[freeweed]

All we have to go by is the results of NAFTA.

Yeah, and after Free Trade destroyed our health care system, this country was never the same.

Thanks for the intelligent campaigning, NDP!

Warning: some of you may be a bit too young to know what the hell I'm talking about. :jester:

[Waterlooson]

Only problem is that NAFTA is a net benefit to Canada. Sure we lost a significant number of manufacturing jobs in southern Ontario, but the rest of Canada has enjoyed unfettered access to cheaper American and Mexican goods.


Yeah, it's just too bad that US residents haven't enjoyed unfettered access to cheaper goods that come primarily out of western Canada - do you recall softwood lumber or durum wheat, etc.? :rolleyes:

[Waterlooson]

Yeah, and after Free Trade destroyed our health care system, this country was never the same.

Thanks for the intelligent campaigning, NDP!

Warning: some of you may be a bit too young to know what the hell I'm talking about. :jester:

The US could decide to complain about our healthcare system at any time as a subsidy.... or if we decide to permit private clinics, they could demand open access for US healthcare companies.

NAFTA gives the US an opening to tell Canadians how to run our country (such as with stumpage fees)..... but they obviously don't feel the reverse is true.

To me a deal is worthless unless it binds both parties.... can we agree on that much?

[ScottFromCalgary]

NAFTA and the FTA have raised Canada's overall standard of living, study shows

Release Date: May 4, 1998

Vancouver, BC - The evidence is in: both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) have raised the overall standard of living for Canadians, according to a study released today by the Fraser Institute.

Economic nationalists insist that the Canadian economy and national sovereignty have been permanently damaged as a result of the FTA and the NAFTA. This view is challenged in Debunking the Myths: A Review of the FTA and the NAFTA. which confronts the myths about free trade with facts proving the protectionists wrong.

According to co-authors and Fraser Institute policy analysts Marc Law and Fazil Mihlar, "The empirical facts simply do not support the protectionist case. The protectionist rhetoric about the impacts of free trade on the Canadian economy is simply mythology unsupported by fact."

Some of the myths found to be without empirical support include:

Myth #1: Significant job losses have resulted from the FTA and the NAFTA

Total employment has been rising in Canada over the past several years, not falling. Total non-agricultural employment has risen from 12.4 million jobs in 1988 to 13.22 million in 1996. In 1997, the Canadian economy created an additional 324,000 full-time jobs.

Myth #2: Low wages in Mexico will reduce investment and wages in Canada
Because Canadian workers are considerably more productive than Mexican workers, neither jobs nor investment will be lost to Mexico on account of the NAFTA. Statistics from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) show that Canada's unit labour costs are lower than Mexico's. Furthermore, Statistics Canada data show that average weekly earnings and average hourly wages have been rising, not falling, in Canada in recent years.

Myth #3: Canada's manufacturing base will be decimated as a result of the FTA and the NAFTA
Manufacturing as a share of total output has remained fairly constant over the past several years. The share of Canada's gross domestic product (GDP) due to manufacturing was 19.2 percent in 1988 and declined only marginally to 17.3 percent in 1996. Canadian merchandise exporters have thrived, with exports to the U.S. increasing from $81.9 billion in 1988 to $164.7 billion in 1996. This hardly constitutes a "decimation" of the Canadian manufacturing base.

Myth #4: Foreign competition will hurt Canada's agricultural sector

Canada's agricultural sector will become more, not less, competitive as a result of free trade. Furthermore, losses to producers will be outweighed by gains to consumers in lower prices and increased product variety.

Myth #5: Food safety and health standards will be undermined by the NAFTA

If anything, the NAFTA has encouraged upward harmonization of such standards across the three countries.

Myth #6: FTA/NAFTA will make Canada vulnerable to Washington politicians and lobbyists
The effect of NAFTA and the FTA has been to increase the security of Canadian access to the United States market.

Myth #7: The NAFTA will undermine environmental standards

Both economic theory and the empirical evidence suggest that this claim is patently false. In Canada and the United States, environmental quality, as measured by a number of indices, has improved over the past 20 years. International trade fosters faster economic growth which in turn raises environmental standards. As Mexican incomes rise, environmental quality will likely improve there as well.

Myth #8: National sovereignty is lost as a result of the NAFTA and the FTA

Free trade and globalization do not spell the end of the nation state. Government's share of GDP in Canada has increased from 13.3 percent in 1920 to 44.7 percent in 1996, in spite of increased international trade and investment over the same period. This pattern is mirrored in nearly every OECD country.

Overall, the evidence sharply contradicts the alarmist claims of protectionists and economic nationalists. There is no evidence to suggest that either the NAFTA or the FTA have caused the economic destruction of Canada. According to Mr. Mihlar, "The gloomy predictions made by protectionist doomsayers like Maude Barlow, Mel Hurtig, and the Council of Canadians about the impacts of free trade on the Canadian economy have not materialized. The practical case for pursuing a policy of free international trade remains as strong as ever."

[Waterlooson]

Scott, that "study" you cherry-picked - from the Fraser Institute no less (don't they have an agenda?) - is only 10 years out of date... over the last few years a couple of hundred thousand well-paid manufacturing jobs have been lost in just Ontario and Quebec. Such workers often have managed to find other jobs - for about half the pay. US branch plants have closed to consolidate manufacturing in the US. NAFTA has faciliated this, just as the NAFTA naysayers predicted.

Furthermore, as Canada pursued trading with mainly just one country - the US of A - our foreign policy has become less independent and more in line with theirs. Harper wanted to send troops to Iraq and kowtow to the US - for business reasons only.

A huge reason why trade has increased with the US since "free trade"/NAFTA is because of trade in energy.... we didn't have to agree to NAFTA to convince the US to buy our energy!

Brian Mulroney, 2001: “The national income per capita – which in relative terms is in steady decline, now more than 35 % lower than the United States. Within 10 years, if the present trends continue, our per capita income will be 50 % that of the U.S.”

.... and to counter your biased source, I quote another biased source (with their own agenda), they say this about NAFTA:

"The agreement has destroyed more jobs than it has created, depressed wages, worsened poverty and inequality, eroded social programs, undermined democracy, enfeebled governments, and greatly increased the rights and power of corporations, investors, and property holders.

NAFTA has also been used to weaken Canada's sovereignty and promote its economic assimilation by the United States. It has led to greater pressure on Canada and Mexico to conform to U.S. foreign policy objectives. Most alarmingly, the three governments are bent on extending this failed model to other countries in Central and South America and the Caribbean in the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Before leaping into that abyss, citizens and policy-makers throughout the hemisphere should stop and look at the concrete results of this trilateral trade agreement.

On NAFTA's 10th anniversary, researchers based in all three countries have assessed the agreement's consequences and found them to be overwhelmingly negative. Their findings are presented in the following summary of their longer studies."

You can purchase a copy of this report here:

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/Reports/2003/11/ReportsStudies550/index.cfm?pa=3BB76202

Or, read more here:

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/lessons_from_nafta.pdf


:)

I still say if the US doesn't feel bound by the terms of the NAFTA, then neither should Canada. The truth is that under NAFTA there have been winners and losers in Canada.... but the bottom line is that NAFTA has failed to protect Canada from US protectionism - and that was the single biggest reason why we (Canadians) supported it.

[subdude]

Back to the subject of oilsands production...

[Waterlooson]

Back to the subject of oilsands production...

Yes go ahead....:whip:

[asws]

Scott, that "study" you cherry-picked - from the Fraser Institute no less (don't they have an agenda?) - is only 10 years out of date... over the last few years a couple of hundred thousand well-paid manufacturing jobs have been lost in just Ontario and Quebec. Such workers often have managed to find other jobs - for about half the pay. US branch plants have closed to consolidate manufacturing in the US. NAFTA has faciliated this, just as the NAFTA naysayers predicted.

Furthermore, as Canada pursued trading with mainly just one country - the US of A - our foreign policy has become less independent and more in line with theirs. Harper wanted to send troops to Iraq and kowtow to the US - for business reasons only.

A huge reason why trade has increased with the US since "free trade"/NAFTA is because of trade in energy.... we didn't have to agree to NAFTA to convince the US to buy our energy!

Brian Mulroney, 2001: “The national income per capita – which in relative terms is in steady decline, now more than 35 % lower than the United States. Within 10 years, if the present trends continue, our per capita income will be 50 % that of the U.S.”

.... and to counter your biased source, I quote another biased source (with their own agenda), they say this about NAFTA:

"The agreement has destroyed more jobs than it has created, depressed wages, worsened poverty and inequality, eroded social programs, undermined democracy, enfeebled governments, and greatly increased the rights and power of corporations, investors, and property holders.

NAFTA has also been used to weaken Canada's sovereignty and promote its economic assimilation by the United States. It has led to greater pressure on Canada and Mexico to conform to U.S. foreign policy objectives. Most alarmingly, the three governments are bent on extending this failed model to other countries in Central and South America and the Caribbean in the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Before leaping into that abyss, citizens and policy-makers throughout the hemisphere should stop and look at the concrete results of this trilateral trade agreement.

On NAFTA's 10th anniversary, researchers based in all three countries have assessed the agreement's consequences and found them to be overwhelmingly negative. Their findings are presented in the following summary of their longer studies."

You can purchase a copy of this report here:

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/Reports/2003/11/ReportsStudies550/index.cfm?pa=3BB76202

Or, read more here:

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/lessons_from_nafta.pdf


:)

I still say if the US doesn't feel bound by the terms of the NAFTA, then neither should Canada. The truth is that under NAFTA there have been winners and losers in Canada.... but the bottom line is that NAFTA has failed to protect Canada from US protectionism - and that was the single biggest reason why we (Canadians) supported it.
Oh come on... policy alternatives is about the most left wing think tank in Canada... just saying ya'all... :rolleyes:

[ummagumma66]

the only way I could see the Oilsands doing a fivefold expansion is if the Federal govenment were to start plugging the oilsands internationaly and getting workers from all over and actually giving incentives to live in Fort Mac and then the Provincial Government actually developing Fort Mac, noone wants to live in a city where its insane to try to rent a place to stay.

[Waterlooson]

Oh come on... policy alternatives is about the most left wing think tank in Canada... just saying ya'all... :rolleyes:

Yes, and the Fraser Institute is about the most right wing think tank in Canada.:rolleyes:

[ScottFromCalgary]

The agreement has destroyed more jobs than it has created, depressed wages, worsened poverty and inequality, eroded social programs, undermined democracy, enfeebled governments, and greatly increased the rights and power of corporations, investors, and property holders.

Yep, there's been some winners and losers. Good thing I work for a corporation, invest in Canadian and American equities, and own real property.

[psych1]

Yep, there's been some winners and losers. Good thing I work for a corporation, invest in Canadian and American equities, and own real property.

Yes, thats what life is all about, yessiree.:worship:

[freeweed]

Yes, thats what life is all about, yessiree.:worship:

No, but it's what the economy is all about.

Life is what happens outside of that, when you've got a solid enough financial base to enjoy everything else.

[Nutterbug]

All your oil are belong to U.S.

[ScottFromCalgary]

All your oil are belong to U.S.

Great reference...I'm serious.

[Wooster]

All your oil are belong to U.S.

:haha: nice one.

[psych1]

No, but it's what the economy is all about.

Life is what happens outside of that, when you've got a solid enough financial base to enjoy everything else.

The problem is that we are often too eager to place economics at the centre of public policy and the rest of life, when as you say "life is what happens outside of" economics. Economics is one aspect which needs to be considered in deriving public (and personal) policy, but hopefully not the central one and certainly not the only one. The market cannot determine right and wrong. Even Adam Smith didn't argue that, but many modern fiscal conservatives imply it in their single minded chant of lower taxes, smaller government.