Martin Coiteux is an economist and former Quebec cabinet minister with more than 35 years of experience in government, central banking, and pension fund investing, now contributing to public policy as a blogger and podcaster.
Someone needs to explain our energy relationship with the US. If Canada is the leading exporter of oil to the US, why can we not use that as leverage? As far as I can tell, the answer continues to be "because that's the way it's always been."
SG, I think - in other words, my thought alone and I have not seen anyone else say this - that energy is such an important commodity and quite unlike a whole lot of other commodities.
For example, say we sold grain to the US. If we said, "No more grain." then the US would simply go to the market and buy, say, Australian grain. If, however, we said "No more oil." or we said, "Very much reduced oil." the US would be badly hurt.
You may have noticed that pipelines take years to build. If the US went to market and purchased, say, Saudi oil to come by tanker, it could get that oil to port in Texas or wherever very quickly but it could not easily distribute it. Oh, it could reverse some pipelines that already carry Canadian oil to the Gulf Coast but just a whole lot of Canadian oil is destined for various points on the way to the Gulf Coast and there is a minority of the capacity that actually goes that far. That is the first point.
Secondly, oil is such a strategic commodity that to cut someone off or to unilaterally reduce shipments is tantamount to a declaration of war. You can argue that the US deserves that (I really, really, really disagree with that idea) but if the US sees it that way then Canada would be making it so difficult that we would never be trusted again and probably never again be able to have access of any consequential size to the US oil market. That matters!
Thirdly, if it is a declaration of economic warfare, what are the chances that the US considers it a declaration of actual warfare and reacts accordingly?
All in all, I believe firmly that any suggestion of using oil is, well, to be excruciatingly and undeservedly polite, silly. Please don't ask what the adjective that I really think is appropriate.
And, finally, I am an Albertan - and an Albertan who is a separatist but doesn't want to join the US - what do you think any such reduction in oil flows would do to Alberta public opinion about Canada? Nothing good, I assure you.
Oh, and as for the appellation that you have appropriated for yourself? Your suggestion makes me think that the first word is appropriate but the second word is the reverse of the truth.
And you, I think, feel that appellation should belong to you.
Someone needs to explain our energy relationship with the US. If Canada is the leading exporter of oil to the US, why can we not use that as leverage? As far as I can tell, the answer continues to be "because that's the way it's always been."
SG, I think - in other words, my thought alone and I have not seen anyone else say this - that energy is such an important commodity and quite unlike a whole lot of other commodities.
For example, say we sold grain to the US. If we said, "No more grain." then the US would simply go to the market and buy, say, Australian grain. If, however, we said "No more oil." or we said, "Very much reduced oil." the US would be badly hurt.
You may have noticed that pipelines take years to build. If the US went to market and purchased, say, Saudi oil to come by tanker, it could get that oil to port in Texas or wherever very quickly but it could not easily distribute it. Oh, it could reverse some pipelines that already carry Canadian oil to the Gulf Coast but just a whole lot of Canadian oil is destined for various points on the way to the Gulf Coast and there is a minority of the capacity that actually goes that far. That is the first point.
Secondly, oil is such a strategic commodity that to cut someone off or to unilaterally reduce shipments is tantamount to a declaration of war. You can argue that the US deserves that (I really, really, really disagree with that idea) but if the US sees it that way then Canada would be making it so difficult that we would never be trusted again and probably never again be able to have access of any consequential size to the US oil market. That matters!
Thirdly, if it is a declaration of economic warfare, what are the chances that the US considers it a declaration of actual warfare and reacts accordingly?
All in all, I believe firmly that any suggestion of using oil is, well, to be excruciatingly and undeservedly polite, silly. Please don't ask what the adjective that I really think is appropriate.
And, finally, I am an Albertan - and an Albertan who is a separatist but doesn't want to join the US - what do you think any such reduction in oil flows would do to Alberta public opinion about Canada? Nothing good, I assure you.
Oh, and as for the appellation that you have appropriated for yourself? Your suggestion makes me think that the first word is appropriate but the second word is the reverse of the truth.