- Reaction score
- 13,671
- Points
- 1,160
I can easily see this being adopted in Canada.
Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???
- Thread starter Altair
- Start date
I’d be cautious putting too much stock in ‘Charestiste’ tweets. That’s a self-disclosed kid (17 I think?) whose ‘modelling’ can be rather fanciful at times.
Not to suggest BC NDP don’t have problems. Their blunder is probably going to fall somewhere between merely ‘hilarious’ and ‘politically epic’.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 6,109
- Points
- 1,040
@ArmyRick, there are no trade "tariffs" between provinces. You have trade barriers, which is quite different, and they usually arise out of the exercise of proper Provincial powers, but with side effects on the other provinces. It's a feature, not a bug, of our constitution, which is not to say that they should be reduced to the fullest extent possible.
For instance, you create barriers merely by adopting a standard in each province for something, and then, in each province, forcing the supplier to demonstrate compliance of your product before it can be sold there. This can lead to either higher prices for the product due to the numerous compliance requirements, or a decision altogether by a supplier form province "A" not to sell in province "B" because they don't want to have to "make" that province's standard and they can more easily sell their product "as is" to the US (often the case) or elsewhere.
This is an international case, but here is how it happens: Remember those days when there were dealership in Canada for Citroen, Renault and Peugeot? Where did they go? Well, Canada adopted much higher and more stringent standards for rust protection and resistance for automobiles and the French car manufacturer decided it was not worth their wile to meet them for the volume of sales in Canada, so they simply exited the market.
With every province establishing their own standard in various fields, that's how inter-provincial trade gets hampered. Another way, of course is when the commercial sector is actually in the hands of the provincial government, such as for Alcohol in just about every province, thus limiting direct "producer to retailer" contracting.
Since provinces, no matter what they say otherwise, are jealous of their powers and exercise them in numerous fields (just about every field actually, as we live in a nanny state), resolving this is near intractable. But even more than that, it is simply not a field where the Federal government has any power or capacity to act, except perhaps as the "organizer-mediator' of inter-provincial talks. So both Carney and Poilievre can talk the big talk on that, but neither can deliver. It's up to the provinces to resolve amongst themselves (and we know how that usually goes well
).
For instance, you create barriers merely by adopting a standard in each province for something, and then, in each province, forcing the supplier to demonstrate compliance of your product before it can be sold there. This can lead to either higher prices for the product due to the numerous compliance requirements, or a decision altogether by a supplier form province "A" not to sell in province "B" because they don't want to have to "make" that province's standard and they can more easily sell their product "as is" to the US (often the case) or elsewhere.
This is an international case, but here is how it happens: Remember those days when there were dealership in Canada for Citroen, Renault and Peugeot? Where did they go? Well, Canada adopted much higher and more stringent standards for rust protection and resistance for automobiles and the French car manufacturer decided it was not worth their wile to meet them for the volume of sales in Canada, so they simply exited the market.
With every province establishing their own standard in various fields, that's how inter-provincial trade gets hampered. Another way, of course is when the commercial sector is actually in the hands of the provincial government, such as for Alcohol in just about every province, thus limiting direct "producer to retailer" contracting.
Since provinces, no matter what they say otherwise, are jealous of their powers and exercise them in numerous fields (just about every field actually, as we live in a nanny state), resolving this is near intractable. But even more than that, it is simply not a field where the Federal government has any power or capacity to act, except perhaps as the "organizer-mediator' of inter-provincial talks. So both Carney and Poilievre can talk the big talk on that, but neither can deliver. It's up to the provinces to resolve amongst themselves (and we know how that usually goes well
).- Reaction score
- 44,011
- Points
- 1,210
More like in the Venn diagram intersecting hilarious and politically epic.
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,272
- Points
- 1,190
It's have, not of.
- Reaction score
- 13,310
- Points
- 1,360
It's not only a political hazard.
It's a security and economic hazard as well. There were a lot of problems with this policy.
- Reaction score
- 7,168
- Points
- 1,260
“Fanciful” is an understatement. The seat projections he posts are completely out to lunch most of the time.
The NDP aren’t riding high now, but the B.C. Conservatives are kind of a black box right now. If they can keep things professional, moderate, and focused on the economy and public order, they have a great shot.
It will be interesting to see how the smaller parties affect the outcome.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 49,172
- Points
- 1,160
Neither of the leaders can muster much of a smile though.
If they're happy, someone needs to tell their faces
- Reaction score
- 7,555
- Points
- 1,160
Also exercised to protect domestic industries, such as wineries, and to protect labour markets. Barriers can be direct, such as limiting the amount of BC wine available in Ontario, or indirect, such as Quebec demanding that trades by fluent in French and French technical documents.@ArmyRick, there are no trade "tariffs" between provinces. You have trade barriers, which is quite different, and they usually arise out of the exercise of proper Provincial powers, but with side effects on the other provinces. It's a feature, not a bug, of our constitution, which is not to say that they should be reduced to the fullest extent possible.
For instance, you create barriers merely by adopting a standard in each province for something, and then, in each province, forcing the supplier to demonstrate compliance of your product before it can be sold there. This can lead to either higher prices for the product due to the numerous compliance requirements, or a decision altogether by a supplier form province "A" not to sell in province "B" because they don't want to have to "make" that province's standard and they can more easily sell their product "as is" to the US (often the case) or elsewhere.
This is an international case, but here is how it happens: Remember those days when there were dealership in Canada for Citroen, Renault and Peugeot? Where did they go? Well, Canada adopted much higher and more stringent standards for rust protection and resistance for automobiles and the French car manufacturer decided it was not worth their wile to meet them for the volume of sales in Canada, so they simply exited the market.
With every province establishing their own standard in various fields, that's how inter-provincial trade gets hampered. Another way, of course is when the commercial sector is actually in the hands of the provincial government, such as for Alcohol in just about every province, thus limiting direct "producer to retailer" contracting.
Since provinces, no matter what they say otherwise, are jealous of their powers and exercise them in numerous fields (just about every field actually, as we live in a nanny state), resolving this is near intractable. But even more than that, it is simply not a field where the Federal government has any power or capacity to act, except perhaps as the "organizer-mediator' of inter-provincial talks. So both Carney and Poilievre can talk the big talk on that, but neither can deliver. It's up to the provinces to resolve amongst themselves (and we know how that usually goes well
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 21,090
- Points
- 1,260
Didn't some steel company just cut a bunch of jobs ?
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 21,090
- Points
- 1,260
You don't say...
For the record I'm 47.
For the record I'm 47.
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 8,697
- Points
- 1,210
funny how the stated % and the graphic are two different numbers. Flip side is 53-55% think it is moving in the right direction
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 21,090
- Points
- 1,260
I understand, that could have been confusing.
45% is the overall total. (Graphic)
Aged 45-54 is 52%. (Typed)
With 47% stating were heading in the wrong direction.
Do you expect this to grow in PMMCs favour over time ?
Original for your reading leisure:
Poll of 10,000 Canadians finds half consider U.S. to be an adversary and 45% feel worse off today than a year ago
The U.S. trade war poses the most serious threat to Canada for Canadians as a whole, according to a new poll of more than 10,000 Canadians
nationalpost.com
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 8,697
- Points
- 1,210
Yes i Do, because a lot of projects that have been approved will not stat having effect on the economy for some time. Once they do we will hit the long term gain of this short term pain equation.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 21,090
- Points
- 1,260
I'm glad you're hopeful things will improve.
I remain unconvinced. But we're all better off if you're right in the end.
- Reaction score
- 13,310
- Points
- 1,360
LNG Canada is partially owned by China. So only makes sense they source their own stuff.
- Reaction score
- 9,055
- Points
- 1,260
Around 10% ownership. Does that mean we should expect lots and lots of British steel because Shell Canada is owned by a British company?
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 21,090
- Points
- 1,260
Who owns the other 90% ?
- Reaction score
- 13,310
- Points
- 1,360
Incorrect, it's 15%
40% Royal Dutch Shell
25% Petronas (Malaysian National Oil Company)
15% PetroChina
15% Mitsubishi
5% Korean Gas
And who said the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese couldn't all get along!
Similar threads
