• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

You’re proving my point on foreign ownership risk, but the rest of the math simply doesn't hold up.

Reclaiming Stelco won't create demand out of thin air. Without guaranteed high-volume domestic need across all sectors, a Canadian-owned mill faces the exact same structural deficit. Chinese import volumes are fragmented across dozens of specialized product grades, meaning total tonnage still falls well short of the multi-million-tonne threshold needed to justify a dedicated mill to replace them.

As for Europe, targeting their market ignores massive transatlantic ocean freight costs and carbon border taxes that destroy any profit margin. At the end of the day, we can't subsidize or nationalize our way past basic market size. Without seamless access to North American supply chains, isolated Canadian lines will just run under capacity at taxpayer expense.

We've seen this sort of thing before: it starts with a Cape and ends with a Breton. I'm a Maritimer with a long memory.

Turning uncompetitive mills into state-backed heritage projects to preserve jobs or signal industrial pride is how you end up with another Sysco / Sydney Steel: decades of endless taxpayer bailouts, billions spent chasing markets that don't exist, and an eventual collapse that leaves the public holding the bill. You can't nationalize or subsidize your way past basic market reality.

We have always been a net importer of steel. But we're in the hurt locket now that tarriffs have pinched off access to the US markets...

Meanwhile, the (astonishingly complex, multi-faceted, expensive and risky) mitigation plan that was announced last year for wood and steel - the most heavily unionized, capital intensive and hard to adapt quickly to new conditions industries:

Prime Minister announces new measures to protect and transform Canada’s steel and lumber industries​


The world is changing rapidly. The United States, the world’s largest economy, is fundamentally reshaping all its trade relationships, causing major disruption and upheaval for Canadians. It is time to transform our economy from one that is reliant on a single trade partner to one that is stronger, more self-sufficient, and resilient to global shocks. That means working with urgency and determination to transform our strategic industries – including steel and lumber – so they can adapt, compete, and win in this new global environment.


 
Was that a legal requirement?
Sometimes yes. Frequently in contract law there is a requirement under the contract to give notice to the defaulting side that they are in default and that they need to remedy that and even set up an off ramp to arbitration. In other cases legislation requires that a notice be given. Some claims against the crown legislation requires a notice of intent to sue - in Ontario its 60 days. Claims against municipalities for negligence have very tight notice requirements. Same for libel and slander against newspapers and broadcasters.

There's a general distinction: where legislation requires it the document is usually called a notice of intent to sue and the format set out in court rules. Where no legislation covers it then a demand letter provides the opposing party an opportunity to remedy their action or omission and in many cases is an overture to start settlement discussions.

Laws and procedures vary from province to province.

🍻
 
Sometimes yes. Frequently in contract law there is a requirement under the contract to give notice to the defaulting side that they are in default and that they need to remedy that and even set up an off ramp to arbitration. In other cases legislation requires that a notice be given. Some claims against the crown legislation requires a notice of intent to sue - in Ontario its 60 days. Claims against municipalities for negligence have very tight notice requirements. Same for libel and slander against newspapers and broadcasters.
I missed OGBD's comment saying it was law as well. I'm enlightened, thank you.
 
Meanwhile...

"France is one of 10 European Union countries which have never ratified a trade deal with Canada, even though that deal has been in effective operation for almost a decade. The French Senate voted against ratifying the deal in 2014 in the face of lobbying by the country's politically sensitive agriculture industry."


France's envoy says Carney admired for response to 'extremely radical' U.S.​


France's new ambassador to Canada says her country admires the Carney government's response to "extremely radical" American demands and is calling for swift action to boost Canada's strategic ties with Europe.

"My mission is very clear. It's to work toward making France one of Canada’s closest allies in Europe, in each field, in every sector," French Ambassador Hélène Farnaud-Defromont told The Canadian Press on Friday.

In her first interview since her posting started last month, Farnaud-Defromont said in French her country sees Prime Minister Mark Carney's approach to managing trade negotiations with U.S. President Donald Trump's administration as "exemplary."

The prime minister called a halt to trade talks with Washington in August and accused the Trump administration of bringing fresh demands to the table at the last minute. Carney also has vowed to protect Canada's language sovereignty and ability to regulate big tech firms.

 
Fair point, but it shows that resource gathering industries are not leading the charge.
That's because of how heavily O&G, Mining, etc, spend on automation. Workforce spending in the mining industry is predicted to drop 30-40% by 2031 with a 25% reduction in headcount:


Forestry is just bleeding jobs, BC alone has lost 15 000 forestry positions since 2022:

 
Stelco drama continues, with the Federal and Provincial NDP calling for nationalization.


 
Stelco drama continues, with the Federal and Provincial NDP calling for nationalization.


This is not really a path that we should be going down - where will it stop and where will it end.
 
Yeah, talk of nationalization is dumb and doesn’t solve the problem.
Nope but it does create an opportunity if it happens. Convert part of the plant into a foundry for medium to large calibre barrels. Probably wouldnt be hard for a crown corp to get licenced production of 155mm, 120mm, and 105mm barrels
 
Last edited:
Nationalize Stelco?

Meanwhile, ironically...

Carney warns Burnham over Thames Water nationalisation​

Canada calls for compensation for its investment in utility if Prime Minister goes down route of state control


Mark Carney has intervened over the potential nationalisation of Thames Water with a warning that it could damage foreign investment in Britain.

Canadian officials are growing increasingly concerned that any decision by Andy Burnham to place Thames Water under state control could result in heavy losses for overseas investors.

Ottawa is thought to have cautioned that any expropriation of privately owned assets without accompanying compensation could jeopardise further investment in the UK economy. Canada’s so-called Maple Eight pension funds, and its banks have poured tens of billions into airports, ports, the energy sectors, key utilities and property.

The dramatic intervention underscores mounting anxiety about the Prime Minister’s hostility towards the private sector. Mr Burnham has promised to “end neo-liberalism” and undo Margaret Thatcher’s legacy of privatisation and deregulation.

Yet private property rights are a fundamental pillar of the UK’s legal and economic system, and one of the key protections that make Britain a top destination for overseas capital.

Ottawa was lobbying primarily on behalf of the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), the country’s national bank champion. It is not known whether the Canadian officials were acting on the instructions of RBC senior figures or independently.

The discussions are understood to have occurred in recent weeks. Mr Carney met the Prime Minister on a visit to Liverpool last month where the pair watched Everton football club, who they both support.

RBC is a senior creditor to Thames Water, and is among a consortium of more than 100 financial institutions that has proposed a £16bn rescue package in which around a third of the supplier’s borrowings would be written off in return for ownership.

However, many of the creditors fear being wiped out if ministers follow through with a threat to seize control of the company instead. Industry sources insist RBC’s concerns are shared by many of the other lenders to Thames.

Both Ofwat and ministers have refused to give the proposal their blessing. Instead, Burnham has made repeated yet vague threats to exert greater “public control” over the failing water industry. It is these remarks that prompted Canadian officials to intervene.

A creditor told The Telegraph: “We are still trying to understand what ‘public control’ is, and what the Government wants to do with Thames. None of us know the answer.”

Another said: “They are not looking for abnormal treatment. They just want fair value, whether that’s through nationalisation or a financial restructuring, and for their security to be respected.”

The uncertainty threatens to derail discussions about another round of rescue funding for Thames Water. Having already lent the company £3bn to keep it afloat for the last 18 months, creditors have been asked to provide another £2.4bn of liquidity.

Earlier this month, Dave Mackay, RBC’s chief executive, warned the UK Government about the risks of creating a more hostile environment for foreign and private capital.

In an interview with the Sunday Times, he said: “When the UK flirts with nationalising … Thames Water, with putting on a bank tax, with putting a capital tax on the wealthy or housing, it sends a signal you want to harvest your economy, not grow it.”

RBC has also privately expressed frustration at the failure to distinguish between institutional investors who are longstanding lenders to Thames Water and some of the more opportunistic funds seeking to profit directly from Thames’s financial predicament.

In September, a cross-party committee of MPs urged ministers to reject the creditors’ recapitalisation plan.

The environment, food and rural affairs committee criticised the “opaque consortium of 100 hedge funds and others” who are seeking to take control of Thames Water and said the Government should consider placing the utility into special administration, a form of temporary

However, a source close to the creditors said more than half of its lenders – including RBC – would not consider themselves to be hedge funds.

“Many of those that are being unfairly stigmatised are long-term holders of UK assets,” the person said.

RBC and a spokesman for the creditors declined to comment. The Canadian High Commission was approached for comment.

 
Back
Top