Read letter from Leona Aglukkaq Minister of Health, Canada

by John Brian Shannon

On December 19, 2011, I wrote to the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance for Canada to inquire about and to suggest ways towards long-term sustainable funding for Canada’s multi-layered health system.

Later that day, the Honourable Minister of Finance announced a completely new plan dedicated to long-term sustainable funding of the Canada Health Act and to help support provincial government health care spending programs.

It was felt that long-term, sustainable funding for the provinces would be a better system than the then-system of ‘catch-as-catch-can’ where each individual province approached the federal government seeking funding for the next two or three years — basically, their role was to get as much money as possible from the feds in order to last that province until the next federal election — or as close to that goal as possible.

Although there was some provincial criticism of this new way forward at first, it has since muted considerably as provinces began to realize the benefits of not having to approach the federal government ‘cap in hand’ every 2-3 years to fund ever more expensive health care equipment, human resources and modern health care facilities.

Which is fine when the feds need the assistance of your province for some reason, or when there is a minority government, for just two examples — but this paradigm was not optimum from the provincial viewpoint during times of successive majority federal governments, not to mention when there existed political differences between federal and provincial governing political parties. (CPC federal government vs. NDP or Liberal provincial governments, for just one of many examples over the previous decades)

Minister of Health for Canada, the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq has emailed me a letter with an attachment containing the contact information of all of Canada’s provincial Ministers of Health, so that Canadians can contact their respective provincial Health Minister to communicate their views directly, in regards to provincial health care matters.

Please find the downloadable PDF below.

12-004820-767 final  (You may need to click on the link twice)

For those without PDF file capability, I have pasted the letter and the contact form below for your convenience.

Leona Aglukkaq

Leona Aglukkaq, PC, MP is a Canadian politician, who was elected to the Canadian House of Commons as a Conservative in the 2008 Canadian federal election for the riding of Nunavut. en.wikipedia.org

English: Leona Aglukkaq

Leona Aglukkaq, MP

House of Commons

458 Confederation Building

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6.

Tel: (613) 992-2848. Fax: (613) 996-9764.

Email: Leona.Aglukkaq@parl.gc.ca

How Does China Do It?

by John Brian Shannon

Why do all the jobs keep going to China? Everyone wants to know.

The Western nations are short of jobs. At present, 150 million jobs have left Europe and North America over the past 40 years and have been relocated to Asia.

This trend has been in play for a few decades, but it began in earnest back in 1973 when the Arab Oil Embargo caused millions of Americans to purchase economical Japanese cars instead of Detroit’s offerings at the time – the thrilling but thirsty American gas guzzler.

Since that time, not only Japan but South Korea too have exported cars to the Western democracies by the millions. The market share of imported cars registered in 1960’s North America was microscopic but now sits at over 50%. China is now exporting cars worldwide and they are increasing their market share in Western nations.

That about covers the automotive market discussion.

But it is not the entire story. There are other factors at play some of which I will cover below and in future blogs. It’s a big topic… trust me.

For another example, when the West decides to design, engineer and build a new fighter plane at a cost of 100 billion U.S. dollars (a hypothetical number, just for comparison purposes) up to one-third of that money is diverted to corporate profit and doesn’t influence the final product.

When communist China decides to design, engineer and build a new fighter plane at a cost of the equivalent of 100 billion U.S. dollars (a hypothetical number, just for comparison purposes) all 100% of that investment goes towards the design, engineering and build quality of the fighter plane.

This is but one example which can be demonstrated many times over. It’s not just fighter jets. Every military ship, airplane, vehicle, guns, ammunition, along with civilian cars and trucks, industrial mining equipment, farm machinery, electronics, railway cars, locomotives and even the railway tracks can be built for less in China.

Communist corporations which do not have to make accommodations for profits have an advantage over ones that must make accommodations for profits. On the hypothetical American example above, 30% of 100 billion U.S. dollars is… drum roll please… 30 billion dollars! That is a lot of R&D money diverted to corporate profit from product testing, build quality – or marketing and advertising which almost always results in more sales.

Anything we can manufacture, China can manufacture at a lower cost when compared to the Western manufactured item. Thirty percent is just the beginning as some items can be manufactured for 1000% less than comparable products in Europe or North America.

During a telephone interview in February, a sitting Member of the Parliament of Canada told me that it is much cheaper for North American oil companies to dig up the tar sands in Alberta, Canada, transport that material to China for refining and then transport it back as finished products to North America.

It’s easy to do some quick math here. The Canadian Enbridge Northern Pipeline is projected to cost over 5 billion dollars if it gets built. The plan is to pipeline the material to Canada’s west coast (highly diluted with petroleum condensate) and ship it across the ocean to China where it can be refined into pure gasoline, motor oil, diesel fuel and other products normally made from conventional petroleum.

Super-tankers will pick up the tar sand/condensate mixture, which is called ‘dilbit’ once it is mixed together into a consistency which will flow through the pipeline system and transport it in that form to China, where new refineries are being built to receive the dilbit material. New Chinese oil refineries cost 1 – 2 billion Canadian dollars (equivalent), while new North American refineries with their higher land, construction, permitting, labour and emission control costs are estimated in the 12 billion Canadian dollar range – which is why no new refineries are planned for North America.

New SuezMax super-tankers cost between 500 and 900 million dollars a copy, depending on how many barrels of oil they carry and whether they are single-hulled ships or an infinitely safer design – the double-hulled super-tanker. Some super-tankers carry over 1 million barrels of toxic dilbit. Expect China to run 24 – 32 new super-tankers between the west coast of Canada and China 365 days per year.

After refining in China, SuezMax super-tankers will return the finished products to North America for distribution throughout the western United States and Canada’s western provinces.

Even with all these additional transportation costs and other activities – the gasoline, diesel and other products will cost 30% less than when compared to Canadian or American oil refineries performing the same refining operations here.

It remains to be seen whether the oil companies will pass along those cost savings to consumers.

John Brian Shannon writes about green energy, sustainable development and economics from British Columbia, Canada. His articles appear in the Arabian Gazette, EcoPoint Asia, EnergyBoom, Huffington Post, the United Nations Development Programme – and other quality publications.

John believes it is important to assist all levels of government and the business community to find sustainable ways forward for industry and consumers.

Check out his personal blog at: http://johnbrianshannon.com

Check out his economics blog at: https://jbsnews.wordpress.com

Follow John on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/#!/JBSCanada

Canada – Resource Boom or Manufacturing Boom? Why Not Both!

by John Brian Shannon

I’m a big fan of Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall. You can’t argue with success and the province has excelled with Brad Wall as premier. Well done on all counts, Premier Wall.

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair has a point, however. By devaluing the dollar, a huge part of Canada’s economy (almost 50%) could ALSO start to perform at a high level instead of continuing to sputter along at half-speed.

Not just the resource-based provinces romping along as they have been doing — but manufacturing provinces could return to full performance.

For manufacturing, a lower dollar will drive the demand of exports higher, Canadian production will ramp up, employment will increase. And we all know where – Ontario which is Canada’s largest ‘value added‘ economic zone.

Some people use the term manufacturing, but I call it what it really is, value-added. We take our provincially-owned raw resources and add value to those resources by manufacturing something from them or processing them, instead of merely selling our finite resources out of the country and getting nothing more from them.

Manufacturing has stalled in Canada, due in part to Canada’s strong dollar – our exports have become uncompetitive over the years as the dollar has risen. A direct correlation exists between those two stats.

If you want the biggest economic engine in Canada to suddenly begin to receive larger volumes of orders from other countries including the U.S. our biggest trading partner, causing those goods to become cheaper is the way to go.

Devaluing the Canadian dollar has NO EFFECT on Canadian consumers at all, unless you are purchasing goods and services from outside Canada. And if you are buying goods from other countries – shame on you – buy Canadian!

If devaluation inconveniences you because you purchase goods from other nations, a booming economy (Cdn resources PLUS Cdn manufacturing) firing on all cylinders should more than make up for it!

Some may wonder about losing our strong resource sector exports, which are already performing very well due to high demand for them in the rest of the world.

The price of raw resources will not drop when demand is so high.

It’s only different in the case of Canadian coal exporters who are facing dropping demand, which equals lower prices ($192.86 in July 2008, now at $99.75 in May 2012) devaluation could help, however, as a lower price will increase demand.

Those coal quotes are the 60 month (thermal coal) contract price from indexmundi.com — but are representative of world thermal coal price trends: http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=coal-australian&months=60

It is better to sell lots of coal at $85.00 per metric tonne, than hardly any at all at $100.00 per metric tonne.

Tourism to Canada would also receive a major boost as our prices would become more affordable due to devaluation of our dollar.

So, what’s the downside of getting Canada’s manufacturing sector and related (which together represent up to 50% of Canada’s economy) again firing on all cylinders — by devaluing the dollar by up to 20%?

As long as demand remains high for gas and oil there should be little downside for Canada’s resource-based provincial economies, as that high demand dictates prices will stay the same, or continue to increase.

I can understand Premier Wall’s concerns for Saskatchewan’s resource and agriculture based economy – but at this point in time, world demand remains high for all resources – and for coal too – but only at the right price.

Follow John Brian Shannon on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/JBSCanada

________________________________________________________