David Akin’s On The Hill

The United States buys much, much, much, much more from the world than it sells to the world. Most economists believe that this is an unhealthy trend for the economy of the United States if it persists over the long term. Many economists also believe that, since the U.S. is the single largest national economy on the planet, this is also an unhealthy trend for the global economy. For example, for the first four months of 2006 — these are most recent stats that are available — there were only nine countries in the entire world that bought more stuff from the America bought from them.
Recently, I took a look at the most recent foreign trade numbers issued by the U.S. Census Bureau and present the following snapshots:

• For the first four months of 2006, the American trade deficit is $259.5-billion. In other words, the value of the stuff Americans bought exceeded the value of stuff Americans were able to sell to the rest of the world by nearly $260-billion — and that's just for the first four months of the year.

• For the first four months of 2006, the nations with the biggest trade surplus with the U.S. (or America's biggest trade deficits to turn it around) are (all figures in US$):

1. China ($64.4-billion)
2. Japan ($28.9-billion)
3. Canada ($27.6-billion)
4. Mexico ($19.7-billion)
5. Germany ($16.5-billion)
6. Venezuela ($9.5-billion)
7. Nigeria ($8.6-billion)
8. Saudi Arabia ($7.5-billion)
9. Malaysia ($7-billion)
10. Italy ($6.1-billion)

• For the first four months of 2006, the nations with a trade deficit with the U.S. (or America's biggest trade surpluses) are:

1. Netherlands ($4.6-billion)
2. Australia ($3.2-billion)
3. Hong Kong ($2.9-billion)
4. Singapore ($1.9-billion)
5. Belgium ($1.7-billion)
6. Egypt ($394-million)
7. Switzerland ($69-million)
8. Argentina ($49-million)
9. That's it. The U.S. has a trade deficit with every other country in the world with which it trades.

• So far this year, the U.S. has managed to sell $327-billion worth of stuff to the rest of the world. Here are America's biggest export markets:

1. Canada ($75.3-billion) (That's more, by the way, than all of the European Union countres combined; three time as much as all of South and Central American countries combined; and about six times more than the combined purchasing of OPEC countries)
2. Mexico ($43.4-billion)
3. Japan ($18.7-billion)
4. China ($16.9-billion)
5. United Kingdom ($14.6-billion)
6. Germany ($12.9-billion)
7. Korea ($10.7-billion)
8. Netherlands ($9.7-billion)
9. France ($8.1-billion)
10. Singapore ($7.4-billion)

• So far — so far, at this point, being the four months of this year ending April 30 — America has bought $583.7- billion worth of stuff from suppliers in foreign countries. One-sixth of that came from Canada. Here are the countries that are America's biggest suppliers:

1. Canada ($102.9-billion) (Canada sold twice as much stuff to Americans than every OPEC country combined; and more than twice as much as every South and Central American country combined; Canada also sold more to the U.S. than Japan, Germany, and the UK combined)
2. China ($81.2-billion)
3. Mexico ($63.1-billion)
4. Japan ($47.7-billion)
5. Germany ($29.4-billion)
6. United Kingdom ($16.7-billion)
7. Korea ($14.7-billion)
8. Venezuela ($12.085-billion)
9. France ($12.083-billion)
10. Taiwan ($11.9-billion)

Commenter John Wunderlich picked up on the news that Boeing was planning to cancel production of the C-17. Well, there's a report now that Boeing has in fact told suppliers to cease work on uncommitted aircraft.
The Canadian government is interested in buying four C-17s from Boeing to fill a hole in the country's strategic airlift capabilities and we have officially told Boeing we are interested but negotiations to actually buy some of these things are just now under way.
As I'm technically on holiday this week, I will not be placing any calls to DND or to Public Works to see how, if it all, this latest move by Boeing may affect Canada's ability to buy C-17s.
I can pass on some speculation that I've heard over the last few months from different military and government sources, that being that Canada might be able to snag at least two C-17s that are right now in production and destined for service with the U.S. But beyond that, I don't what else this might mean.
If you happen to be reading this and work for DND or Public Works, feel free to volunteer your opinion your below 🙂

So a month or so ago, a very senior Canadian Air Force officer and I were chatting about Canada’s purchase of new military aircraft. One of the things Canada is buying will be some tactical airlift capacity — machines that will replace the aging fleet of CC-130s made by Lockheed Martin. The conventional thinking is that Lockheed Martin will win the multi-billion dollar deal to supply Canada with the latest version of its C-130 (right) . (Some in Canada’s fleet over 40 years old and are no longer safe to fly.)

This Air Force officer, though, told me I shouldn’t rule out Boeing, which just won the contract for Canada’s strategic or long-haul airlift and for medium-lift helicopters.

Boeing for tactical lift? Seems odd. So I ran this suggestion by some other bloggers who know a lot more than I do about military matters. They had some interesting responses.

One of the reasons I thought this just might make sense was that the Canadian military was floating this Boeing rumour as a means to keep Lockheed Martin honest during the negotiations.

Of course, then I got the bright idea: Hey, I’ll just phone up Boeing and ask if they’re bidding on the tactical airlift. Here’s the response from Boeing’s spokesperson in Ottawa: “They did not, nor do they have plans to, submit a proposal for the tactical contract.”

Well, that’s that, then.

 

Well, with a week to go until the deadline for the Canadian industry to get on board and sign the U.S-Canada softwood lumber deal, the deal’s fate is very much up in the air.

News today from the Globe’s Bert Marotte that the layoffs in the forestry sector in Canada this year is now at 6,000 and counting. Simon Tuck, my officemate here in Ottawa, reports that Canada won another World Trade Organization ruling this week and that may stiffen the resolve of some companies to refuse to back the softwood deal.

There are two key aspects of the deal that puts a lot of power in the hands of industry players. First, companies who would collectively stand to receive 95 per cent of the money coming back from the U.S. have to agree to the deal. So far, it’s not clear that companies controlling 50 per cent of that money are on side. Secondly, any company or organization that has a lawsuit over the issue of illegally collected softwood duties has to agree to drop the lawsuit. So, presumably, if just one company refuses to drop a lawsuit, the deal is scuttled.

Simon, in his story, says companies are not being very forthcoming about their intentions in the days ahead of this deadline. I, too, have been wondering what the following companies will do. All of the following firms or organizations are plaintiffs in civil actions with either or both of the U.S. government and the Canadian government as defendants and, as a result, every single one of them has to agree to drop their lawsuits. I’ve listed the name of the company, provided a link where I could find one, put the head office location is (in brackets) and given their responses, where applicable.

1. AJ Forest Products Ltd. (Garibaldi Highlands, B.C.) “AJ Forest Products has no comment.”
2. Abitibi Consolidated. (Montreal) – No decisions havet yet been made. Company spokesperson said the company’s most senior leadership continues to meet right through the week to assess a course of action for Abitibi. Abitibi is also due about $239–million U.S. in illegally collected duties so it will also be a key decision maker on the the “95 per cent” issue. “What we have said to Mr. Emerson is we need some clarification with respect to the agreement … to reassure [us].”
3. Aspen Planers (Surrey, B.C.) —message left—
4. Buchanan Lumber Sales (Thunder Bay, Ont.) — message left —
5. Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance — making no comments at this time —
6. Domtar (Montreal) — making no comments at this time —
7. Galloway Lumber Co. (Galloway, B.C.) – representative not available —
8. Gorman Brothers  (Westbank, B.C.) – representative not available —
9. Leggett and Platt (Carthage, Missouri)— — messages left —
10. Ontario Forest Industries Association (Toronto) — representative not available until the end of the week —
11. Teal-Jones Group — messages left —
12. Tembec (Montreal) — messages left —
13. Terminal Forest Products (Richmond, B.C.) — messages left —
14. Tolko Industries (Vernon, B.C.) — messages left —
15. West Fraser Timber Co. (Vancouver) — messages left —

The Conservative Party of Canada has a rule, recently ratified by its national council I’m told, which, to some, seems an odd one: Every riding association in the country must hold a nomination meeting prior to the next election — even the riding associations where there is a sitting Conservative MP.

Some groups with a conservative social policy agenda think this rule is terrific because they believe it presents them with a chance to get rid of Conservative MPs who would vote in the House of Commons for the status quo when it comes to same-sex marriage.

Garth Turner, (left)the Conservative MP for the riding of Halton west of Toronto, is one of those MPs who has been “targeted” and Turner put out a press release today on the subject. [Can’t find the link to the release but here’s an item from Garth’s blog which pretty much sets out his thinking on the matter.]

“The rules certainly favour any group who can sign up instant members and then stack a meeting,” Turner says in the release. “And while that is democracy in action, and I respect it, this also means a special interest candidate can emerge whose views might be completely at odds with the majority of people who live in this riding.

Turner’s nomination meeting is set for Sept. 11 but the deadline for new members join the riding association — who will be eligible to vote on Sept. 11 — is this Sunday.

Gerald Keddy (left), the Conservative MP for the Nova Scotia riding of South Shore-St. Margaret’s also voted in favour of same-sex marriage and earned the enmity of individuals like Charles McVety who warned Keddy that he would try to mobilize his supporters to oust Keddy at a nomination meeting. Keddy’s riding association, playing by the rules, called their nomination meeting immediately. As a result, no rival candidate to Keddy could be found in time and, when the deadline passed last Sunday at midnight for rivals to declare themselves, Keddy found himself acclaimed to be the Conservative candidate for South Shore-St. Margarets in the next federal election.

James Moore, the MP for the B.C. riding of Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam is another Conservative who voted in favour of same-sex marriage and may find some interlopers in his riding association looking for a new standard-bearer.

 

Toronto-area Liberal MP Maurizio Bevilacqua and former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae will hold a press conference in just over an hour to announce that Bevilacqua is withdrawing his candidacy for leadership of the Liberal Party and will support Rae’s candidacy.

Mr. Bevilacqua may have some explaining to do about some comments he made in the speech on April 19 that kicked off his campaign. Most took this particular line as a shot at Rae,  who would declare his candidacy shortly thereafter:

“When it came [time] for me to choose a political party, it was the Liberal Party of Canada, my first and only choice.”

Bevilacqua was also seen as the most right-leaning of all candidate and Rae is, well, a former NDP premier :).

 

No one in Ottawa will go on the record at this point to talk about the cost of the evacuation of Canadians from southern Lebanon, but we reported Friday that, according to our sources, the cost to date is about $70–million to pull more than 14,000 Canadians from Lebanon to Canada.

That’s roughly comparable to what the U.S. has spent to pull 15,000 American citizens out of Lebanon. The lion’s share of the American bill — about $38 million CDN — has been to charter commercial aircraft. The Americans have spent another 10.5–million CDN on cruise ships and the rest — about $21–million CDN — is the cost of American military equipment and personnel and U.S. State department personnel.

We have not yet been able to get a breakdown of how much Canada spent on planes and ships.

More Canadian evacuees, incidentally, were rescued today.