Export Tax on Alberta Oil and Gas

[scribblet]

The NDP have announced they will put an export tax on Alberta oil and gas exports to the USA in retaliation for U.S. softwood lumber tariff.

Note that the tax is on exporters (Alberta) not the importers, so I'm sure Alberta vogers will be elated to this.

[Argus]

The NDP have announced they will put  an export tax on Alberta oil and gas exports to the USA in retaliation for U.S. softwood lumber tariff.

Note that the tax is on exporters (Alberta) not the importers, so I'm sure Alberta vogers will be elated to this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another example of how clueless the NDP are on fiscal and economic matters.

Or, if you care to grant them more intelligence and knowledge, an acknowledgement by them that they can safely write off Alberta anyway, so might as well get some cheap publicity out of a policy that will never be implimented anyway. You'll notice they didn't suggest a tax on exports of Newfoundland oil or the cars produced in Ontario.

[shoop]

OP, I am interested in seeing a link to that announcement.

If Argus is correct that really does show how clueless the NDP are. To actually suggest only imposing tax on Alberta oil, instead of Newfoundland, Saskatchewan or Manitoba oil is incredibly wrong thinking.

Either they were to clueless to consider the fact that other Canadian provinces produce oil, or even worse, they new at and specifically targeted Alberta anyways.

No wonder the NDs have only *ever* won one seat in Alberta.

Another example of how clueless the NDP are on fiscal and economic matters.

Or, if you care to grant them more intelligence and knowledge, an acknowledgement by them that they can safely write off Alberta anyway, so might as well get some cheap publicity out of a policy that will never be implimented anyway. You'll notice they didn't suggest a tax on exports of Newfoundland oil or the cars produced in Ontario.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[kimmy]

Globe'n'Mail: Layton campaigns in BC.

"We favour a polite, clear, neighbourly warning that Canada is prepared to impose export duties on oil and gas exports to the United States," he said.

To clarify: he said oil and gas exports and did not specifically single out Alberta gas and oil. Of course, as the G'n'M article notes,

The softwood lumber issue is a major concern in areas where the NDP hopes to do well, such as British Columbia and Northern Ontario. Canada's oil and gas sector is concentrated primarily in Alberta, where the NDP has very little support.

-k

[mcqueen625]

The NDP have announced they will put  an export tax on Alberta oil and gas exports to the USA in retaliation for U.S. softwood lumber tariff.

Note that the tax is on exporters (Alberta) not the importers, so I'm sure Alberta vogers will be elated to this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another example of how clueless the NDP are on fiscal and economic matters.

Or, if you care to grant them more intelligence and knowledge, an acknowledgement by them that they can safely write off Alberta anyway, so might as well get some cheap publicity out of a policy that will never be implimented anyway. You'll notice they didn't suggest a tax on exports of Newfoundland oil or the cars produced in Ontario.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here Here!! CBC headline reads: LAYTON URGES RETALIATORY TAXES OVER SOFTWOOD LUMBER DISPUTE. This is also on other forms of energy besides oil and gas. This is talking about hydro electric exports. THank God Layton doesn't stand a chance of ever being PM. We have to make sure also that he doesn't get to hold the balance of power otherwise he just may try to force the government to start a trade war with the U.S. that we cannot possbly hope to win, in fact it very well put hundres of thousands of Canadian's out of work. What a moron!!

[err]

Here Here!! CBC headline reads: LAYTON URGES RETALIATORY TAXES OVER SOFTWOOD LUMBER DISPUTE. This is also on other forms of energy besides oil and gas. This is talking about hydro electric exports. THank God Layton doesn't stand a chance of ever being PM. We have to make sure also that he doesn't get to hold the balance of power otherwise he just may try to force the government to start a trade war with the U.S. that we cannot possbly hope to win, in fact it very well put hundres of thousands of Canadian's out of work. What a moron!!

Canada should threaten tariffs on oil and gas exports to the United States as a way of dealing with the ongoing softwood lumber battle, NDP leader Jack Layton said Saturday.

The opening message says "The NDP have announced they will"... The quoted text above says "threaten"... and why not... If the USA will not play fair, and abide by the NAFTA agreement, then why not.... Canada provides 30% of the USA's oil and 95% of their natural gas.... It might be a way to catch their eye...

[Argus]

The opening message says "The NDP have announced they will"... The quoted text above says "threaten"... and why not... If the USA will not play fair, and abide by the NAFTA agreement, then why not....  Canada provides 30% of the USA's oil and 95% of their natural gas.... It might be a way to catch their eye...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, your numbers are wrong. Second, Canada provides exports at the world price. You can't just arbitrarily raise your export price unless there is a shortage because your customers will just go elsewhere.

More importantly, softwood exports are an extremely minor part of our economic relationship with the US. Despite it being an emotional issue to many, it is vastly overshadowed by the multi-billion dollar surplus in trade we have with the Americans every MONTH. That is not something to be jeapordised through a trade war with a largely insensitive and economically incompetent Republican government.

[normanchateau]

You can't just arbitrarily raise your export price unless there is a shortage because your customers will just go elsewhere.

Here's what Layton said in the Globe and Mail:

"We favour a polite, clear, neighbourly warning that Canada is prepared to impose export duties on oil and gas exports to the United States."

He made this statement not in Ontario or Quebec but in British Columbia, a province whose northeast sector produces billions worth of oil and gas annually. What's so outrageous about this statement of a polite warning and why hasn't Harper uttered a peep about how he'd solve the illegal actions of the US in their violation of NAFTA and their illegal seizure of billions of dollars from Canadian softwood lumber producers?

Layton is at least suggesting a possible approach. Harper's failure to deal with this issue is just another example of how bankrupt he is of any useful ideas or strategies. The thought of Harper in the US negotiating for Canada is repulsive. In the 1980's, Brian Mulroney failed to get a single concession from Ronald Reagan on softwood lumber duties which were in place then despite the personal friendship between Reagan and Mulroney. Does anyone seriously believe that Stephen Harper could negotiate a deal with George Bush? He couldn't even negotiate a deal with Preston Manning which is why Harper quit Reform and went to the National Citizens' Coalition.

[shoop]

Normie,

Your socialist background, i.e. lack of work experience, is showing. GW Bush is hurting for friends right now, to a far greater extent than Reagan ever was.

You think he wouldn't be more inclined to help Harper, hmmm I never heard anyone on Harper's staff call Bush an a**hole. Harper can be trusted, unfortunately Martin's childish handling of BMD killed any chance of a professional, working relationship with GW.

Nice take on why Harper quit Reform. Care to explain what the issues were and what even *one* potential deal could have been....

Does anyone seriously believe that Stephen Harper could negotiate a deal with George Bush?  He couldn't even negotiate a deal with Preston Manning which is why Harper quit Reform and went to the National Citizens' Coalition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

The opening message says "The NDP have announced they will"... The quoted text above says "threaten"... and why not... If the USA will not play fair, and abide by the NAFTA agreement, then why not....  Canada provides 30% of the USA's oil and 95% of their natural gas.... It might be a way to catch their eye...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, your numbers are wrong. Second, Canada provides exports at the world price. You can't just arbitrarily raise your export price unless there is a shortage because your customers will just go elsewhere.

OK, let's suppose Layton's position is too risky.

Are you suggesting that we stick with Martin's less threatening approach, which Layton has attacked, or should we go with Harper's approach, which is to utter not a peep and hope that if we say nothing, the friendly giant will give us back the money he stole?

[Kiraly]

OK, let's suppose Layton's position is too risky.

Are you suggesting that we stick with Martin's less threatening approach, which Layton has attacked.

If you want to take retalitory action, taxing exports makes little sense.

They should look at taxing strategic imports.

[southerncomfort]

First of all, your numbers are wrong. Second, Canada provides exports at the world price. You can't just arbitrarily raise your export price unless there is a shortage because your customers will just go elsewhere.

More importantly, softwood exports are an extremely minor part of our economic relationship with the US. Despite it being an emotional issue to many, it is vastly overshadowed by the multi-billion dollar surplus in trade we have with the Americans every MONTH. That is not something to be jeapordised through a trade war with a largely insensitive and economically incompetent Republican government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good reply, this proposal would just give Alberta separatists another reason to do it, not a good proposal at all in my books anyway.

[normanchateau]

OK, let's suppose Layton's position is too risky.

Are you suggesting that we stick with Martin's less threatening approach, which Layton has attacked.

If you want to take retalitory action, taxing exports makes little sense.

They should look at taxing strategic imports.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Taxing imports would be less risky then Layton's plan but Harper's plan remains the worst of all, i.e., do nothing and hope that the friendly giant returns the 5 billion that he stole. Why is Harper afraid to take even a modest stand on this issue?

[sharkman]

The big reason why the lumber thing dragged on was that the Canadian gov has been stand offish to the Americans on a host of issues. It got so ridiculous that our ships were not 'needed' to patrol the Persian Gulf since Chretien's policy was if our navy captured any terrrorists from Iraq they would be released. Who needs friends like that.

In our present non-friendship, solving Canadian concerns is not a big priority to the U.S.. But if Harper gets in, I think he could have a dialogue with Bush where Martin's only strategy is to brag in our media how he stood up to the Americans, done no doubt to appeal to the anti-american vote.

[normanchateau]

The big reason why the lumber thing dragged on was that the Canadian gov has been stand offish to the Americans on a host of issues.  It got so ridiculous that our ships were not 'needed' to patrol the Persian Gulf since Chretien's policy was if our navy captured any terrrorists from Iraq they would be released.  Who needs friends like that.

In our present non-friendship, solving Canadian concerns is not a big priority to the U.S..  But if Harper gets in, I think he could have a dialogue with Bush where Martin's only strategy is to brag in our media how he stood up to the Americans, done no doubt to appeal to the anti-american vote.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is one of the funniest explanations I've ever heard.

Are you not aware of how Brian Mulroney sucked up to Ronald Reagan to get Reagan to interfere on softwood lumber tariffs unilaterally imposed by the US pre-NAFTA.?

Indeed that was one of the reasons why Mulroney and his government introduced NAFTA. No matter how much Mulroney kissed ass, arm-in-arm sang drunken songs with Reagan, Reagan never budged. Do you seriously, seriously believe that Harper has either the personality or negotiating skills to wring from Bush what Mulroney could not get from Reagan?

[sharkman]

Yes, I feel that Martins strategy has been quite silly as well. I think your memory is a little selective regarding Mulroney, but we are talking about Harper and BUSH not Reagan.

There are consequences to actions, Norman and our governments actions have been decidedly anti-american for many years now.

[shoop]

The anti-Americanism does hurt. Shows how devoid of leadership material Martin really is. Canada would be far better off if he would have handled BMD maturely. Not giving Bush the heads up before the announcement was *classless* and jurt more than the actualy policy decision itself.

Yes, I feel that Martins strategy has been quite silly as well.  I think your memory is a little selective regarding Mulroney,  but we are talking about Harper and BUSH not Reagan.

There are consequences to actions, Norman and our governments actions have been decidedly anti-american for many years now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[sharkman]

Hey Shoop, apparently we are the same guy since we agree on conservative issue, disagree with Norman and never post at the same time. Lookin' good buddy!

[shoop]

Yeah, maybe we should arrange through PMs to post at the exact same moment so little Normie dispels this myth as well. Ahh, who cares he isn't here to debate, just to attack. So be it. Too bad the Liberals are losing this election...

Hey Shoop, apparently we are the same guy since we agree on conservative issue, disagree with Norman and never post at the same time.  Lookin' good buddy!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

Yes, I feel that Martins strategy has been quite silly as well.  I think your memory is a little selective regarding Mulroney,  but we are talking about Harper and BUSH not Reagan.

A little selective? You mean that Mulroney did not suck up to Reagan? You mean that the US did impose softwood lumber tariffs during that era?

If I'm wrong on how ineffective Mulroney was in his approach, why not present the facts and tell it like it was? And while you're at it, explain why Harper would be more effective

with Bush since that's your belief.

What's especially hilarious here is that you're actually defending Harper's position on softwood lumber. Harper has no position on softwood lumber other than to do absolutely nothing and hope that Bush will return the money. This is a position? This is a strategy? This is leadership?

[sharkman]

You are making an assumption, my friend, and assumption is the mother of all evils. Just because Harper hasn't stated a policy on it, doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Your memory on Mulroney forgets that Canada did quite well with the U.S. during this time, we've always had the occassional disagreement. But I know, you prefer Martin's approach, which we never actually hear or see except afterwords when he claims to have stood up to Bush. Yah, right, he couldn't stand up to a stiff wind.

[normanchateau]

  Just because Harper hasn't stated a policy on it, doesn't mean one doesn't exist. 

And just because I haven't seen the tooth fairy doesn't mean she doesn't exist.

I'm sure his policy is so brilliant that he doesn't want to reveal it.

I hope it's more brilliant than his policy of putting young people in jail for simple possession. He was willing to reveal that position this weekend so this policy must be an even more clever vote getter.

[sharkman]

You either totally misunderstood the crime policy announced by Harper or are trying to spread inaccuracies about it. At any rate, I suggest you would be better off voting for Jack Layton.

gotta go.

[normanchateau]

You either totally misunderstood the crime policy announced by Harper or are trying to spread inaccuracies about it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Harper said that he would not re-introduce into Parliament the Liberal legislation to decriminalize marijuana possession. True or false? What have I said that's inaccurate?

[southerncomfort]

Yeah, maybe we should arrange through PMs to post at the exact same moment so little Normie dispels this myth as well. Ahh, who cares he isn't here to debate, just to attack. So be it. Too bad the Liberals are losing this election... 

Hey Shoop, apparently we are the same guy since we agree on conservative issue, disagree with Norman and never post at the same time.  Lookin' good buddy!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh Oh does that mean I'm you guys too LOL best thing to do is put Normie on ignore, he is obviously here simply to disrupt the forum and engage in silly tactics. I'm guessing the administrator here can check IP's and dispel any myths perpetuated on that score. I find that many people who simply want to post innendo and deliberately distort facts usually start with those type of accusations, they don't have anything else going for them. Best thing to do is not feed the trolls.