Exigenomicon

The Leaders of Canada, Ladies and Gentlemen

Recently a co-worker of mine asked me whether I was concerned about the heaping of attention poured upon Justin Trudeau and what it might mean for 2015.

It is true that the current Conservative-Liberal war certainly takes up a lot of the limelight. It appears that the Conservatives will stop at nothing, not even wasting taxpayer money on partisan "10-percenters", to attempt to grind the Liberals into the dust. This is an ongoing vendetta that sometimes plays out in public, sometimes in the House and always on social media.

On the one side that sort of blind partisanship, that singularity of focus, makes me question all that 'focusing on the economy' rhetoric, but that is another story altogether.

So in my opinion it makes the Conservatives appear vengeful and spiteful, it probably has an effect on Trudeau's ratings (or else they wouldn't do it), which is actually pretty good for Mulcair, since he can focus on things that actually matter to Canadians.

And lo and behold, here is Tom Mulcair making a lot of sense, in the midst of this hyper-partisan war of attrition.

 

So here we have three leaders:

1. Harper is attacking Trudeau on all fronts with his entire arsenal
2. Trudeau is trying to deflect the barrage
3. Mulcair is talking evidence-based policy, jobs and manufacturing

Why Tariffs are Taxes Twice

Tariff: A tax or duty to be paid on a particular class of imports or exports.

Tariffs on imports from 72 countries have increased in the 2013 Federal Budget. But what does that mean? Well, for retailers, it means an increase in the cost of goods that will be passed onto the consumer.

For instance, tariffs on leather jackets from China would increase by five percentage points, costing retailer Danier Leather Inc. an estimated $1.2-million a year, with the price of its leather jackets rising between $10 and $20, chief executive officer Jeffrey Wortsman said.

U.S. duties on leather jackets are just 6 per cent compared with Canada’s proposed 13-per-cent duty. The gap “will put us at a real disadvantage compared to our U.S. competitors,” Mr. Wortsman said.

The Finance Minister isn't much help in predicting the impacts all this tariff/tax stuff:

Flaherty said he had not calculated the effects of the increased tariffs on retail goods, but defended the government’s decision.

“I haven’t costed retail goods. We know that they’ll [sic] be some consequence to the change in who gets the preferential tariff compared to others,” he said.

Let's Do The Math

Right now let's say that a retailer purchases bikes for $1000 each and sells with a 20% markup. Currently the tariff is 8.5% for bikes, so acquisition cost is $1085 for the bike, assuming it is from abroad, and so the markup is $1302. As the end consumer I am paying GST on the bike as well, which equates to $65.10. Total tax to the feds: $85 + $65.10 = $150.10

Tariff is going up to 13%. Now the bike is $1130, so the markup is $1356. Consumers now pay $67.80, for a total tax dividend to the government of $197.80.

• Original tax: $150.10
• New tax: $197.80
• Increase: $47.70 (32% increase)

So it appears safe to say the following:

An increase in tariffs leads to an increase in acquisition costs, which leads to a higher retail price, which leads to a greater absolute dividend of GST.

The Spin

Chris Alexander went on Power and Politics and said that these increased tariffs will create competition and actually lower prices. While this is possible, it is not probable. It is even less probable when Alexander proclaims that lower tariffs lower prices, but higher tariffs will also lower prices.

He refers to mathematics as an 'opinion'. He believes that these tariffs will affect 'less than one percent of trade'.

Tariffs are going up on bicycles, leather goods, umbrellas, table fans, tableware and potato starch, to name a few things, which hardly seem like less than one percent of trade.

 

Conclusion

Don't believe the hype. Believe the math.

Gnashing of Teeth Puts The Banks In Line

For those of you that don't remember, in the recent past Jim Flaherty, through the Bank of Canada, chastised Canadian corporations for sitting on piles of dead cash ($600B). Flaherty thought that if he gave them lower corporate taxes, that the offset would be used to create jobs. It wasn't used that way - instead it was squirrelled away into rainy day funds, never to be seen again.

For more information about this see my blog post Why Corporate Canada Should Voluntarily Follow Mark Carney's Imperatives.

Flaherty Learns a Lesson

Flaherty has realized that direct action is more effective than second-hand 'through the Bank of Canada' action:

On Tuesday, Flaherty admitted he asked a member of his staff to phone Manulife Financial Corp. (TSX:MFC) after it had cut its posted rate for five-year fixed mortgages to 2.89 per cent from 3.09 per cent.

It’s the second time in a few weeks that Flaherty interfered in the mortgage market. Earlier in the month, he called the Bank of Montreal (TSX:BMO) after it had dropped its posted five-year rate to 2.99 per cent, but on that occasion BMO did not reverse itself.

“As I said before, we encourage prudent lending practices, we don’t want a race to the bottom on mortgage rates by our financial institutions so I’m pleased at their response,” he said.

“I had one of my staff call them and indicate my displeasure, which is the same thing I did with the BMO except I called myself.”

Flaherty blasted for pressuring Manulife to reverse mortgage rate cut

Good Idea, Bad Tactics

I understand that Flaherty does not want a 'race to the bottom'. No one wants a mortgage crisis in Canada. But that is not up to Flaherty. It is up to all Canadians, including Flaherty. And we, apparently, are not to be trusted. Flaherty needs to operate within his purview and use the tools available at his disposal, which I am assuming are myriad. This is not one of them.

He needs to come up with a better solution that bullying banks into homogeneous mortgage rates.

Father Finance Minister Knows Best

By exploiting his position, Flaherty does us no favours.

It's not like after this happened I was like 'oh, I guess I trust the government and banks more now and their independence is further proven'.

From the Conservative Party of Canada website:

Now is not the time for instability, or for reckless, opportunistic experiments. (quote unattributed)

I think that all Canadians, regardless of partisan stripe, would agree that reckless, opportunistic experiments are bad. Can directly influencing competitive free market bank rates through a phone call be considered reckless? Possibly. I leave it to you to decide. You can also consider whether it is opportunistic, just before the budget is announced.

Investors Should Be Furious

If I were an investor at one of these banks and had products that included mortgages, and I found out the government politely forced my bank to not maximize my dividend according to a business plan, I would be livid.

It Must Be Serious

For Flaherty to try and bully banks twice in the last couple of weeks and try to force them to change their rates, the situation must be dire.

It doesn't give me much confidence in the economy or the upcoming budget either. When the Finance Minister goes rogue to protect Canadians from themselves in the 'greatest economy in the world', you know things are going south.

It also makes me think that maybe interest rates are going to go up. Soon. And often.

Conclusion

The housing market is crashing. The government is desperate to fend off a housing crisis and it seems all but inevitable when Ministers gnash their teeth at banks in reaction to market pricing adjustments.

Related articles

Flaherty says 'concern for Canadians' prompted mortgage move

Flaherty blasted for pressuring Manulife to reverse mortgage rate cut

Why Liberal and NDP Cooperation Won't Work in Saskatchewan

Much has been said recently of an NDP/Liberal cooperative slate in the next election, allowing all disenfranchised voters to voice their dissatisfaction with the Harper government through a single conduit candidate.

This cooperative government would then implement electoral reform to replace the first-past-the-post method to some other method by which each vote truly counts, such as proportional representation.

Then the government would call another election and proceed under the new system as if no collusion had taken place to oust the current government.

I do not believe that this cooperative agreement will come to fruition, using Saskatchewan as my example.

Saskatchewan is Mostly Blue with a Little Red

Federally, Saskatchewan is represented by one Liberal and thirteen Conservative MPs.

It is an easy decision to let Ralph Goodale stand for re-election in his riding. Ralph understands that he is supported by many in the NDP who do not want to see a Conservative sweep of the province.

Liberals Would Essentially Vapourize

However, the NDP came in second in all Conservative ridings. So would the Liberals be content to remove thirteen candidates from their federal slate? I doubt it. And this would need to be established at least a year in advance in order to begin effective messaging.

And if Goodale chose not to run, the NDP would challenge the right to represent that riding in any cooperative agreement, thus wiping the federal Liberals off the map, quite literally, for one election.

For the federal Liberals, cooperation is political suicide any way you slice it here in Saskatchewan.

 

I am endorsing Erin Weir for Saskatchewan NDP Leader

Let me begin by saying I've really enjoyed the SaskNDP Leadership Campaigns.

And one of the things I've enjoyed is making up my mind to support a candidate. I've chosen Erin because he has economic vision that will make the people of Saskatchewan stand up and take notice in the next election and even before that.

Expert in Economics

I truly believe that the next leader of the NDP in Saskatchewan must be able to provide a credible alternative economic vision for Saskatchewan. Like it or not, the Saskatchewan Party has made the economy their ongoing campaign tool, and so the NDP must be razor sharp on the economy.

If you haven't heard Erin speak about economics, you should. He is razor sharp.

I believe that the NDP can provide a strong vision of the province with progressive ideas within the framework of an economic narrative. And I feel that this vision can be best presented by Erin.

$7/Day Early Learning System

It is this type of bold policy that will set the NDP apart from the Sask Party in the next election. If you've got young children or want to start a family, this could save your family thousands of dollars a year.

• Universal Childcare

But I invite you to examine Erin's platform for yourself.

• www.erinweir.ca/

I recommend reading this blog post first:

• From Opposition to Proposition: Fiscal Politics Versus Fiscal Policy

 And finally, a tongue-in-cheek video:

• The Sask Party Can't Stop  Talking About Erin Weir

Penashue and Accountability - Make Up Your Own Mind

I watch and/or listen and/or read transcriptions of Question Period two or three days a week. I usually listen to it while I work. Sometimes I'll watch a little bit, especially when I enjoy the question being asked. And I am enjoying the questions re: Penashue and election spending.

 He is allegedly accused of the following:

1. Overspending on his election campaign by $4000
2. Accepting corporate donations and trying to hide it
3. Requesting discounts from corporations that amount to donations

The First Corporate Donation

The first is that records may suggest a corporate donation to Tory MP Penashue.

Penashue deposited a single cheque from a company in his province, but wrote separate receipts to the board members for the donation.

Corporate donations are illegal in Canada. It's also illegal to contribute indirectly, by going through another person to make a donation.

I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not he broke the law. I should also mention that the receipts for the board members were for $1100, the maximum personal donation. You'll read about that later.

The Second Corporate Donation

The second concept is that an airline wrote off a large part of his airline bill. His bill was $24,711 and he paid $7000. That's 71% forgiven. For more on that - Penashue campaign finances were fine, says former agent.

A discount on the commercial value of an item or service provided to candidates counts as a political donation. Corporate donations are illegal in Canada.

Once again, the choice is yours - does it seem like laws were broken?

Is This an Admittance?

He blamed a volunteer within his campaign, suggesting a volunteer accepted a corporate donation., which is illegal. The email, which is a printed and manually redacted document, states that corporate donations cannot be received.

• Penashue letter blames volunteer for election irregularities

He places the blame on Reg Bowers, his campaign agent:

But Bowers, in an interview with the Toronto Star, said Penashue's campaign fell within federal limits.

"I did not sign off on the $4,000," he said, referring to the amount by which Elections Canada said the campaign overspent.

"When it left my desk, it was under the cap," Bowers, who was subsequently appointed to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, told the Star.

I'll leave you to decide what happened here - Penashue blamed Bowers, Bowers said there was no problem and then received a plum position.

And Yet He Takes No Questions

From Chris Hall, CBC:

While all this plays out he sits in the Commons, taking the heat, but taking no questions.

It's a difficult position to be in. Attacked, but muzzled. Apparently unable to defend himself, or to explain, which is the essence of parliamentary accountability.

The Conservatives clearly believe the best tactic is to let others answer for the weakened members of the herd, and to turn the focus back on past opposition breaches whenever they can.

So, I let you be the judge and jury for yourself. Do you think he broke the law? Do you think he should explain himself in Question Period? Do you think he had an unfair advantage in the election because of this?

 

The Conservative Real-Time Narrative, Omnibus Bills and Talking Heads

Recently I wrote a piece on how Peter Julian changed the NDP narrative with his budget filibuster.

In this article, I attempt to describe the federal Conservative narrative.

Real-Time Narrative

If the NDP owns the narrative of and for the people, as I argue in my previous post, then the Conservatives are feverishly attempting to own what I want to call the real-time narrative.

In a nutshell: The latest (last) 'thing' that was said or written is the truth and that anything said or written before no longer exists (or even existed in the first place).

It no longer exists because this new X, Y or Z has been put on the table. The narrative is the only good for the moment the words are being said. The narrative has no past and no future - just a perpetual present tense.

Proclaiming that X is Y and then that X is Z and that Y never existed is a time-consuming and onerous task.

It means being in a perpetual war with reality, because reality has a past and a future, not just a present. Unfortunately for Canadians, we live in the reality with which the Conservatives have waged war.

How to Spot Real-Time the Real-Time Narrative

• Interrupting and overtalking on political panel TV shows - literally grasping at the narrative over other panelists by talking over them and usually denying what is being said and then saying the opposite.
• The repetition of talking points during interviews when the questions change
• Prepared statements sent to media instead of MPs or spokespeople (and the media seems only to happy to read the prepared statement as if that is good enough for a political panel)
• Not taking questions from the press but delivering speeches during scrums
• Direct contradictions of statements made in the past (F-35 anyone?)
• Arguing ad infinitum on social media with anyone who dares question the narrative
• Blaming the media when the narrative runs aground or afoul

Implications of the Real-Time Narrative

• No election promises need to be kept
• The electorate remains confused about what is actually happening
• Anything goes as long as it is said at some moment

Omnibus Bills

The omnibus bill is a good manifestation of the real-time narrative. If the narrative is 'in the moment' then the omnibus bill is the best way to cram as much as possible into that moment. It is a real-time event that affects hundreds of pieces of legislation simultaneously.

Omnibus bills also allow the Conservatives to do things that they never said they'd do, but because it is in the bill it automatically becomes something they said they'd do (but they just never said it before, which doesn't matter). They have said it now, in the moment, in the bill, and that's what counts.

Conclusion

This real-time narrative is confusing, maddening and saddening. It takes so much effort and requires so much obtund obedience by the Conservative MPs and spokespeople that it cannot be maintained indefinitely.

Remember: If you only have an eye to the present, you will not be part of the future.

Why Corporate Canada Should Act Voluntarily on Mark Carney's Imperatives

The Bank of Canada made some strong statements to Corporate Canada about it's $600B in unused 'dead' cash. Stop sitting on your cash piles, Carney tells Corporate Canada. From that article:

There is $600-billion in unused cash being held by non-financial companies in Canada. Cash hoarding has grown steadily since the financial crisis, as firms feel the need to retain large cash reserves in the face of uncertainty in the global economy.

 “If companies can’t figure out what to do with it, then they should give it to shareholders and they’ll figure it out,” - Mark Carney

“This is dead money," - Mark Carney

Having the head of Canada’s central bank make such blunt statements about the need to deploy that cash could be a game changer, said Mr. Madani.

“Now that Mark Carney has taken it to the next stage, maybe shareholders will take more notice,” he said.

And I love the last sentence: But he said that, at the very least, it shows that the bank is prepared to “escalate the language at least or the pressure, to try and push Canadian companies into action.”

These comments are definitely chastizing and confrontational. Mark Carney is essentially telling Corporate Canada that reducing the cash hoards they have is necessary to a strong economic recovery. Dead money needs to be resurrected. Reducing their reserves and injecting money into the economy can boost Canada's economic profile. It puts more money into the hands of more people who are more willing to spend that money. It means more jobs, as promised by Corporate Canada in return for low taxes.

The last sentence puts the comments into context: the Bank of Canada cannot tell Corporate Canada what to do. It can 'escalate language' but that's about it.

They Know That We Know That We Need Them and They Know We Know It

This is where it gets awkward. Corporate Canada has been called out. You're too stingy! You need to return money to shareholders! You can save the economy by reducing your dead cash piles! Why are you killing money? Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope.

So the next move is Corporate Canada's.

So what can Corporate Canada do?

1. They can just do what the Bank of Canada asks of them. This would seem the greatest win for everyone involved. They save the economy, more wealth is spread around, maybe manufacturing gets a boost, makes the government look good, good Corporate Canada public relations opportunity. There is really no downside to this option.
2. They can make no change in their hoarding. Just ignore the Bank of Canada and it'll go away. Any escalation of language is going to come across as challenging or begging. It's doubtful the government will make changes to the way it taxes Corporate Canada, and I'm unsure of how interested the government is in getting into a fight with its greatest ally. Bad PR, government will appear as either impotent or aloof, everyone will ride it out and the general grumbling will go away for a little while. It'll probably resurface around the election.
3. They're open for business for the right price. They know Canada needs them, and it's all just business after that. What costs what. We'll give this much money for this X Y or Z. This is a disastrous public relations nightmare for everyone involved, the political fallout will be unpredictable but severe and it will be scrutinized by the media at every turn. I do not recommend this option, Corporate Canada.

I'm not a prognosticator, but I just don't see the first option happening. I don't see everyone (human and corporation) just getting along for the benefit of the entire country. Call me a pessimist but there's really no chance of this happening organically. It would be a Renaissance for Corporate Canada, and that also seems unlikely.

I think that ignoring it until it goes away is a possibility. There might be a couple of failed propaganda campaigns (the phrase 'dead money' conjurs up images that are propaganda-proof). Corporate Canada can ride it out, eventually they'll get some message with a little traction, but I question what will happen to its relationship with the government of Canada. This has limited fallout for the government - Corporate Canada takes more of a PR hit if this happens, but it will come back during the federal election.

I don't want to believe that patronage would be exchanged for cash injections, but we can't rule it out in our scenarios. The government has hitched all its wagons to the economy, and it needs Corporate Canada to get with the program well before the next federal election. Corporate Canada pays low tax rates:

For the other corporations, the net tax rate is decreased as follows:

• 19% effective January 1, 2009
• 18% effective January 1, 2010
• 16.5% effective January 1, 2011
• 15% effective January 1, 2012

As you can see the corporate tax rate has dropped 4% over the last four years. I pay between 15-26%. So these Corporations pay low taxes and now they're hoarding money. They're not playing nice in the sandbox with the government by not reinvesting money but rather sitting on it as a cash reserve. A 4% decrease in net tax rate over four years should be worth something, like promised job creation. But it appears at this point it is not really enough, since they are not really holding up their end of the bargain of job creation. So what more do they want?

Conclusion

The Government of Canada and Corporate Canada are fighting through the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada has called out Corporate Canada, very publicly, to do a bunch of specific things.

And so now all eyes are on Corporate Canada. It is their move. I urge you once again Corporate Canada, act in every Canadian's best interest and reduce your reserves voluntarily and be the champions of the day. Do not ignore this and do not try to use this to your advantage through schemes.

 

The Mathematical Gamble of the New Regina Stadium

I'm not a proponent for a new stadium in Regina. We have other needs right now as a city, such as housing and water treatment, which demand money and should trump the glitz of a new stadium.

The stadium is being touted as a roof-ready $278M stadium, meaning it won't have a roof but will be built with a dome in mind.

I want to talk about the mathematics provided to rationalize the facility fee.

From a CBC article: Deal signed for new stadium in Regina by 2017

• $80 million grant from the province of Saskatchewan
• $73 million from the city of Regina
• $25 million generated by such things as naming rights, to be coordinated by the Saskatchewan Roughriders Football Club
• $100 million loan, from the province, to be paid down over 30 years through a $12 per ticket facility fee tacked onto each football game or any other event at the new stadium

And $0 from the Federal Government, just to confirm they are not involved.

$12 Facility Fee to repay $100M loan

Alright, let's get our numbers ready:

• $100,000,000 loan
• $12/ticket/event fee
• 33,000 seats
• 30 years to repay the loan
• Prime interest rate (now) = 3.00%

I found this loan calculator online (there are thousands) and so I plugged in our numbers:

As you can see, each month according to this loan calculator using the prime rate, the City would be required to pay back $421,604.03 every month, paying a total of nearly $52M in interest.

A sell-out event would generate $396,000 (33,000 X $12). This means that the new stadium would have to host 1.06 sellout events per month for the next 30 years.

Another way to look at it is the stadium needs to sell 35,134 tickets per month to be able to repay the loan. And those tickets are going to be $12 more than before.

12.72 sellout events per year

While this doesn't seem like a lot, given that there are ten Rider games in a year, there are still two-three additional sellout events required per year, or a minimum of 60 non-Rider sellout events over 30 years (assuming the Riders continue to sell out each game over 30 years).

This works out to about 381 sellout events in total, over 30 years, with 300 of 381 assumed to be Rider games (30 years X 10 Rider games per year).

$173M primarily to the Regina taxpayer

The cost of this stadium is falling fairly squarely upon the taxpayers of Saskatchewan, and in particular Regina.

The City has to generate $73M for its contribution, and from the Regina 2012 Budget:

Since cities have limited ways to increase revenue, tax increases are necessary for growth, maintenance and rising costs.

At least I know I'm on the hook for $73M over the next X number of years, along with other Reginans. But beyond that, the $100M loan repayment is also foisted upon attendees of the new stadium events, which will primarily be Reginans, although not exclusively of course.

Public meeting - today!

There is a meeting about the stadium today (after they got everyone hyped about it).

Conclusion

Regina taxpayers are paying for the new stadium, from both ends of the pipe - taxes and fees. For 30 years, maybe more. It is a pretty big gamble and Reginans are the VLT machine in this case.

I'd be more willing to pay more taxes to improve water quality or quality of life for impoverished Reginans. But a stadium is something I'm not sure I want to pay for until I'm 70 years old.

Turns Out There Are Bad Jobs After All - And We're Keeping Them For Canadians

A few months ago I blogged about the changes to EI and 'appropriate' work. Jim Flaherty said, and I quote: "There are no bad jobs."

Turns out there are bad jobs

Turns out there are bad jobs, as defined by the government, at least for foreign workers.

From the National Post:

Just when I was starting to feel Jason Kenney was on a roll, he decides to stop allowing employers to hire strippers, escorts and massage parlour workers from outside Canada.

There are bad jobs and those jobs are strippers, escorts and massage parlour workers. At least for foreign workers - on the grounds that they will be exploited and trafficked. Canadian women can still engage in these legitimate professions.

Nothing to see here

Let's begin with the fact that these are legitimate professions in legitimate industries that have legitimate businesses. There is nothing inherently illegal about the industry, the professions or the professionals. Like any industry, there are those within it that would exploit and abuse the system, the employees and the clientele, but they are a persistent element in all industries, including natural resources, construction, mining and banking. If the government were truly concerned about exploitation, there are plenty of bigger fish to fry. But none of those fish pander to the right-wing base like these fish do.

Lots to see here

From the same article above: “Why would we grant visas to girls that we have a strong suspicion are going to end up under the thumb of a criminal gang being exploited and trafficked?” Mr. Kenney says. “We’re not going after the women — we’re protecting them from what they might not know will happen to them when they get to Canada.”

Consider the implications that the government "has strong suspicion[s]" that employers of strippers, escorts and massage parlour workers are "criminal gang[s]" that traffick in women. In fact, their suspicions have led them to simply eliminate the mere possibility that these women will ever be exploited. Is the government concerned that Canadians will be exploited?

It seems as though the government believes that by removing the foreign 'commodities' in human trafficking, that the human traffickers will suddenly give up and move on. The traffickers apparently will be so stymied that they won't consider trafficking in domestic commodities or funneling in foreign commodities in high-risk schemes.

Consider this: If there were only good massage parlours, escort services and strip clubs, there would be no need to deny anyone entry into that profession. There would be good jobs at good strip clubs. And yet in order to curb human trafficking, the government has seen fit to remove a small sub-section of the humans and not the traffickers.

The implication of this move by the government is that there are not any good massage parlours, escort services or strip clubs, which once again panders to the more orthodox Conservative base.

Economy and indulgence

Canada has money, or least parts of Canada have money. And disposable income is often spent on the indulgences of excess and debauchery. Where there's money, there's indulgent ways to spend it.

The point is that these jobs will be filled, regardless of who fills them.

Band-aid solution

It seems that this is a strange band-aid solution that will ultimately harm more Canadians, if the logic can be followed. Because the economy is attempting to stay the course, there are going to be more indulgences because there is more disposable cash. This is the nature of the beast. And so more women will be required for these types of professions.

If the government is truly concerned about exploitation, then crack down on the exploiters, not the victims. Not only does this further stigmatize legitimate professions and industries, but it also highlights the very definition of nanny state: We know better than you what's best for you. You can thank the government later.

Jurisprudence

These industries have been found guilty and must prove their innocence. This is not the Canadian way, or at least it wasn't until recently.

This is a moral attack on professions considered immoral by a Conservative government that knows better than you and will use its moral compass to ensure you are protected from yourself, as long as you're not Canadian. This attack will play well with the more conservative base, as it reinforces their views on an industry that they would rather see removed from the Canadian landscape.