Nationalize the Oil and Gas industry

110 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

I agree that something needs to be done, but "nationalization of the tar sands" as it's being presented would be very divisive.

Cool. How about Alberta expropriating all tar sands exploitation? Forget about Ottawa. How would you feel about that? Or are Albertans determined that it should be a few greedy aristocrats, mostly foreign, who run the show? I very much doubt that.

Quote:

Certainly we can come up with a better solution than "let's nationalize energy resources in provinces other than mine, but let's not talk about nationalizing the energy resources in mine".

You're not listening, I think. I pointed to a party in Québec, with an elected representative who polls higher than any other party leader, which calls for nationalization of all energy resources in Québec. Do you have anything like that in Alberta or B.C. or Manitoba or Ontario or anywhere else? No, I thought not. If you think anyone in Québec is demanding the nationalization of energy resources outside its borders, you are seriously mistaken. I'm the only one I know who wants that, aside from Boom Boom.

Incidentally, Québec-bashing of Roscoe's variety is unacceptable here - he should be warned to stop, or leave.

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

Cool. How about Alberta expropriating all tar sands exploitation? Forget about Ottawa. How would you feel about that?

I am a bit unclear on what you mean by "expropriating all tar sands exploitation", but I have already said that "I would be in favour of the provincial government of Alberta 'nationalizing' the tar sands (if I were an Albertan) by taking over provincial control of the associated industries" in post #29.  If there are further steps that you feel could be taken by the Alberta govt in terms of reclaiming the public wealth stolen by the few greedy aristocrats, there's a very good chance that I'd be strongly in favour or those too.  I just feel that such a movement has to come from Alberta, not the federal government, if it is going to have any success at all.

Quote:

You're not listening, I think. I pointed to a party in Québec, with an elected representative who polls higher than any other party leader, which calls for nationalization of all energy resources in Québec. Do you have anything like that in Alberta or B.C. or Manitoba or Ontario or anywhere else? No, I thought not. If you think anyone in Québec is demanding the nationalization of energy resources outside its borders, you are seriously mistaken. I'm the only one I know who wants that, aside from Boom Boom.

My point was that people in provinces across Canada are generally quite uncomfortable with the idea of the federal government taking control of their resources.  I only brought up Quebec because that is where Boom Boom is posting from.  I don't think Alberta is any more comfortable with the federal government taking control of their resource industries than Quebec is.  Clearly Boom Boom understands this about Quebec.

Fidel

Alberta governments have helped big greedy oil companies to rip off the public in Alberta for many years. It's been one big-long rip off.

wage zombie

Yes.  It has one big long rip off.  And for the most part Albertans have been cool with it.

Unionist

Wage Zombie - after reading your post #52, and going back over the thread, I think you and I are not in much disagreement at all - if any. Sorry if I was looking for differences rather than points of unity here. I'll read more slowly and spend a little more time thinking...

 

pragmaticidealist

This nation business is a sticky issue as I think we all can agree on.  Unionist, I am not sure what kind of special rights you are referring to when you say self-determination.  If you are arguing that simply because the Quesbecois live in Quebec you somehow have special say over how your provinces resources are developed I think you are going to get a lot of pushback from the other provinces.  Simply because BC does not have a separate language or "culture" does not mean that somehow magically our resources should be administered by the feds while Quebec's shouldn't  I have no problem with recoginizing and preserving Quebec's cultures but to allow them to essentially conduct themselves as a separate country is a little ridiculous.  You said that if we did not recognize the nation-status of Quebec we could kiss Canada goodbye.  Well, frankly, if you do give these sorts of rights to Quebec you already have.  They may as well separate because for all intents and purposes they will act as their own country.

Fidel

I think we might see a kind of self-induced Balkanization and dissolution of the USSA before Bananada ever decides to bust up. Our corrupt stooges are so used to taking orders from Warshington that breakup of the country would have to wait until that colonial administrative order arrives at Sussex Drive by Fedex. And right now the Yanks have no real need to bust up the country or takeover the running of this colony. Blame our stooges for doing such an excellent job of keeping us economic serfs in line and cowering to the cult of impotence in Ottawa.

Now, if we were to rev up an armed insurrection or just protests in the streets, Warshington might delegate such a task to the administrativeship in Ottawa even sooner. It's about pomp and ceremony and appearances with these modern day blue bloods and their lackies in Ottawa.

wage zombie

Unionist, thanks for looking back in the thread and I appreciate you mentioning it.  I could have been clearer about the slant I was taking.

This thread is not really about Quebec, self-determination, or asymmetrical federalism.  If people want to explore their understanding of those issues further it would be better done in another thread.

I think some of the actions that are a part of "nationalizing oil and gas" could be worth taking, by the federal government (and could only be taken by the fed govt).  I think other actions taken by the federal government could be divisive.  I think talking about "nationalizing the tar sands" is especially problematic.  I think talking about the fed govt "nationalizing" any specific industry or resource belonging to a specific province is going to trigger a defensive reaction.

We really need to do something about these tar sands though.

MegB

Roscoe wrote:

I thought this was going to be a realistic discussion -thanks to Doug and wage zombie for the brave attempt. Obviously the less realistic have taken the concept to heights even Trendy Trudeau never had the genius to envision when he embarked on the National Energy Plan to steal the west's resources.

So, the Quebec 'nation' wants to nationalise the energy resources of another nation (Canada) for the benefit of Quebec (and maybe Ontario and the Maritimes - but only if they are really polite to Quebec).

Great plan - go for it. Reinstate the Crow Rate and force those ingrates in the west to buy only Quebec cheese while you're at it.

The unique status of Quebec is not under debate in this thread, nor is it elsewhere.  It is legal fact.  This is a discussion of the nationalisation of oil and gas, and taking swipes at Quebec not only offends others, it is seen as an attempt to deliberately misdirect the flow of discussion.

Roscoe, you can choose to keep your part of the debate within the proper context of this thread, or you can opt out of the thread altogether.

Your choice.

Fidel

[url=Alberta">http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/28/david-berry-alberta-lets-... lets the air out of its life preserver[/url]

Quote:
The $6.6 billion currently in the sustainability fund no doubt sound simpressive, as does the $15-billion socked away in the decades-old Alberta Heritage Trust Fund. Certainly no other province in Canada is lucky enough to have such a cushion. But it will soon be down to $2.3 billion, and compared to other oil-rich jurisdictions, it is near-pathetic: Norway’s Government Pension Plan – Global (originally called The Petroleum Fund of Norway) was started in 1996 and is currently valued at US$512-billion; Russia has $142.5-billion split between two funds that were effectively founded in 2003; even Alaska’s Permanent Reserve Fund, started at the same time as the Heritage Trust, is worth $38-billion.

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/02/24/edmonton-alberta... projects $3.4 billion deficit[/url]

My-my, and we thought they were running Ontario like a banana republic. Sounds like they've had a long time kleptocracy out there in Wild Rose County.  And the highlarious thing about it is that they actually vote for those governments!

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I invite all commenters on this thread to read the Canadian Dimension article from 2006 which was the opening post of this thread:

 Why We Need To Nationalize Oil and Gas (from 2006) http://canadiandimension.com/articles/1879

The 'comments' section is interesting as well.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

My interest in this subject is getting the Tar Sands under central management through nationalization and that would include the mandate of cutting back on production and exploration and keeping the resource in Canada, as well as to start to clean up the massive mess the industry has made of the environment.  And it wouldn't happen, at any rate, without the general consensus of all the populations affected - the citizens of Alberta themselves, including the aboriginal communities grossly affected by the mess, through extensive polling  and a national referendum pushing the federal govt to  manage this resource in a better and ecological way with investments from the revenues to be put into renewable and alternative energies with the very long range objective of getting out of polluting tar sands production altogether - unless, by some miracle, tar sands production can be continued without undue impact on the earth's climate, and without further polluting the local environment. This is very long range, folks, and needs progressive people in power with a vision to see it all happen.

Slumberjack

Roscoe wrote:
Obviously the less realistic have taken the concept to heights even Trendy Trudeau never had the genius to envision when he embarked on the National Energy Plan to steal the west's resources.

Misplaced Generosity

This publication pretty much outlines who is actually stealing the west's resources.  Apparently for people like you, such arrangements between industry and their backpocket politicians exemplify the ideal breakdown in revenue distribution.  Under these schemes, the facts are clear that the resources do not actually belong to the "west."

Slumberjack

wage zombie wrote:
Yes.  It has one big long rip off.  And for the most part Albertans have been cool with it.

Because central Canada has been so thoroughly demonized by their corrupt politicians, that they prefer to be ripped off by the energy industry than retain profits so massive as to not only be of benefit to themselves as far down the road beyond what the eye can see, but everyone else as well.  They'd rather witness year after year government operating deficits being piled upon their backs than trouble industry's politicians with their own needs.  Apparently, the independent cowboy mentality isn't so independent after all.  They can't seem to shake themselves out of the sheeple conditioning long enough to see that they're being fleeced.

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
My-my, and we thought they were running Ontario like a banana republic. Sounds like they've had a long time kleptocracy out there in Wild Rose County.  And the highlarious thing about it is that they actually vote for those governments! 

They prefer it that way.  Apparently it sits better in the gizzards out there to have politician crooks conspire with their foreign owned energy giant chums to steal it all.

Roscoe

wage zombie wrote:

Thanks for kudos Roscoe, but I am turned off by your Quebec-bashing.

Sorry you think its Quebec-bashing. For the record,I believe Quebec can determine its own future in its own way. If they wish to separate from the rest of Canada, feel free.

My comments are actually, Quebec-mocking and any jurisdiction or entity that feels compelled to seize the west's resources in order to save the western idiots from themselves can expect the same.

What is really at play here is eastern envy at both the west's wealth and its growing political clout.

Roscoe

Slumberjack wrote:

Roscoe wrote:
Obviously the less realistic have taken the concept to heights even Trendy Trudeau never had the genius to envision when he embarked on the National Energy Plan to steal the west's resources.

Misplaced Generosity

This publication pretty much outlines who is actually stealing the west's resources.  Apparently for people like you, such arrangements between industry and their backpocket politicians exemplify the ideal breakdown in revenue distribution.  Under these schemes, the facts are clear that the resources do not actually belong to the "west."

Ah the Parkland Institute. Good stuff.  "People like me" are not in favour of giving resources away. Neither are we in favour of being condescended to by envious easterners who think they know better than the western idiots. The Constitution Act agrees.

Slumberjack

Roscoe wrote:
Ah the Parkland Institute. Good stuff.  "People like me" are not in favour of giving resources away. Neither are we in favour of being condescended to by envious easterners who think they know better than the western idiots. The Constitution Act agrees.

See what I mean everyone, by the thorough demonization of central/eastern Canada. And I believe you are indeed in favour of giving away your resources and revenue to the profit grubbing crooks in industry, or else you'd spare at least a few words against the ongoing wholesale theft of your 'western' resources, aided and abetted by your respresentatives out there, instead of going on at the mouth about easterners apparently wanting to steal what's already been stolen.

Slumberjack

Personally I believe we could put the army to better use than invading and bombing other nations, by having them appropriate the nation's natural resources away from the crooks so that it can be used instead for the betterment of Canadian society as a whole.  It's clear that the people of Alberta have proven themselves incapable of properly managing it for their own benefit anyway.  Someone should step in and rescue them from themselves.  Maybe send one of the Quebec regiments.

Doug

I think it's really up to provinces to nationalize themselves - otherwise it's just going to be seen as a federal resources grab. That said, it would still be extremely expensive and it's easy to see why people might opt for other ways to use public funds. Much simpler just to tax the oil companies or increase royalties.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

From the Parkland summary:

"But tar sands development has very serious environmental and climate consequences, and Albertans need to ask themselves whether receiving such limited revenue from this unbridled 'gold rush' model of tar sands development is the most desirable way to manage their natural wealth."

That part that I bolded  seems to have been forgotten.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

A link that talks about the Parkland report:  Albertans face deficits while oil industry prospers

excerpt:

Calgary (29 Nov. 2010) - Despite an Alberta deficit now forecast to reach $5 billion this year, a new report from the University of Alberta's Parkland Institute reports that provincial residents have foregone tens of billions in potential revenues as a result of excessive cuts to oil and gas royalties paid by energy companies.

 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Nationalization of the oil and gas industry would benefit Alberta by giving a fair return on their resources written into the agreement, better than what they're getting now, while at the same time benefitting the entire country by cutting back on production and cleaning up the mess, reducing the impact of the tar sands on climate change,  and using a portion of the royalties for investment into green alternative energy. No more of this ridiculous privatization of the profits and socialization of the losses.

Slumberjack

No worries Boom Boom.  Albertans will eventually get it at some point down the road, once the resources have been depleted and all that's left of the province is a smoking hole in the ground and a provincial treasury so far in the red that they'll be wilder than the roses about it all.  But by then it will be too late for any of that.  The bandits will be long gone.

6079_Smith_W

Boom Boom wrote:

From the Parkland summary:

"But tar sands development has very serious environmental and climate consequences, and Albertans need to ask themselves whether receiving such limited revenue from this unbridled 'gold rush' model of tar sands development is the most desirable way to manage their natural wealth."

That part that I bolded  seems to have been forgotten.

This amusing east-west spat, and its assumptions about power and ownership aside...

the federal and provincial governments have all the power they need to do something about those problems without nationalization. 

When I still lived in Manitoba there was a huge proposed forestry project which was held up by one small bridge. It required federal approval because crossed a waterway which, like all waterways, is under federal jurisdiction.

Nationalization might... MIGHT... be a good idea in theory, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

And the Wheat Board is a marketing board - which is only in place in the west. They don't own the farms or the wheat, and when it was working properly it was largely controlled by the farmers themselves, not Ottawa. Still is, enough so that Harper hasn't been able to shut it down.

And frankly, if Alberta's oil and gas (and Saskatchewan's, NWT's, BC's and Manitoba's) is going to become a crown, they should be provincial crowns, like other energy resources. After all, as outlandish as the notion that the Alberta government is going to take over the industry is, it's a bit more realistic than the federal government going through the political and constitutional hoops it would need to do so.

And if the question is limiting environmental damage, there are other, more appropriate tools at hand. And more equitable return? Seems to me some people are trying to do just that by urging an increase in royalty rates.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I want to see some new polling among Albertans and the ROC before I get despondent, though. Laughing

6079_Smith_W

@ Slumberjack

The provinces already own the resources. They just have to be impressed upon to act like it.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
The provinces already own the resources. They just have to be impressed upon to act like it.

Good one! Smile

Slumberjack

DP

Slumberjack

6079_Smith_W wrote:
@ Slumberjack...The provinces already own the resources. They just have to be impressed upon to act like it.

Energy corporations are calling themselves provinces now?

6079_Smith_W

Slumberjack wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:
@ Slumberjack...The provinces already own the resources. They just have to be impressed upon to act like it.

Energy corporations are calling themselves provinces now?

No.... I'm serious. Those companies only have access and control because the provinces give them licenses to do so.

Slumberjack

You're just too funny man.

Slumberjack

Boom Boom wrote:
I want to see some new polling among Albertans and the ROC before I get despondent, though. Laughing 

Yes, because when life gets you down, there's nothing better than a brand new polling thread to turn cloudy days into rays of sunshine.

6079_Smith_W

Slumberjack wrote:

You're just too funny man.

Most of my friends think so too, thank you for noticing.

On this issue, I also happen to be telling you the truth. I think about 10 percent of oil and gas holdings in Alberta are privately owned, and that is only because of a grandfather clause on land which was given to (and later sold by) the CPR. 

The vast majority of it is owned by the province (not sure how this applies to First Nations). The companies may be foreign-controlled, but they only have access to the resource because the province contracts it out to them.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Back to "why" (from the link in the OP):

 

To achieve a genuinely workable, long-term solution to the issue of rising oil and gas prices, we need two things: The first is a massive and immediate shift into transportation systems that save on energy consumption. We need big and multiple injections of funds into public transit systems and railway infrastructure.

The second is big and multiple injections of funds into the development of alternative energy sources. We cannot continue our drug-like dependence on fossil fuels indefinitely.

Of course, all this will involve hundreds of billions of dollars of investment. To raise this kind of money, there is only one conceivable funding source: the oil and gas producers themselves.

We will have to draw upon the huge profits being extracted from consumers every day from the sale of petroleum and natural gas.

And the only way we are going to do this — the only way we can take control of the mega-profits needed to fund this energy revolution — is by nationalizing the oil and gas industries. We will have to ensure that their huge surpluses are held in the public sphere.

How will this massive takeover be financed? By exchanging long-term government bonds equivalent in value to the worth of the industry.

6079_Smith_W

@ BoomBoom #82

Not to say the government shouldn't get further into the oil and gas business, but the companies are not the only conceivable funding source.

If the provinces hiked royalty rates to an equitable level and put more stringent environmental controls in place they could do exactly the same thing. Plus they have the power to do that right now without laying out any cash or changing any laws.

I think trying to take over all the oil and gas companies in Canada ( There are a few of them, and do you include the Co-op with the rest of the evil bastards?) is more a political dream than a practical idea. I see a short walk into a deep pit of quicksand, myself.

Fidel

And before CUSFTA-NAFTA, Canada had mandatory energy reserves for in cases of national emergency, like running out. There are no mandatory reserves of oil and gas for Canada anymore.

And this should really make us weep for Canada. Mel Hurtig wrote:

"If Alberta begins to run out of natural gas, Ontario will run short, Quebec will be out of luck, Saskatchewan and Manitoba will have to face freezing Prairie winters, but, incredibly, we will still have to supply Americans with two-thirds of our production from across the country." 

Mexico refused to sign similar mandatory resource sharing clauses. Mexicans were real sharp about that. And I believe a similar proportion of our annual oil production is guaranteed to corporate America, too.

Scary thing about natural gas is that Canada supplies the North-Eastern States with natural gas. And the Winter before last, it was barely enough for Americans in those states as they import from other natural gas exporting countries. And we sold them something like 50% of Canada's total gas production that winter. It wasn barely enough!

Economists say that what can not continue forever will stop. I think the writing is on the wall for our energy-intensive and ineffecient old world economies.

Slumberjack

With all the sheep though, we'll be well positioned to capitalize on the switch when the sweater export market takes off.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Fidel wrote:

And this should really make us weep for Canada. Mel Hurtig wrote:

"If Alberta begins to run out of natural gas, Ontario will run short, Quebec will be out of luck, Saskatchewan and Manitoba will have to face freezing Prairie winters, but, incredibly, we will still have to supply Americans with two-thirds of our production from across the country." 

 

From my link in post #70: "...The sun is slowly setting on Alberta's conventional oil and gas sector. The vast majority of our province's oil and gas has already been produced. More than 90 per cent of the province's commercially viable oil and almost 80 per cent of its natural gas is gone..."

Doug

Boom Boom wrote:

How will this massive takeover be financed? By exchanging long-term government bonds equivalent in value to the worth of the industry.

 

Posting Canada's first $200 billion deficit. Terrific. How is this government supposed to get re-elected? Ever.

wage zombie

Boom Boom wrote:

To achieve a genuinely workable, long-term solution to the issue of rising oil and gas prices, we need two things: The first is a massive and immediate shift into transportation systems that save on energy consumption. We need big and multiple injections of funds into public transit systems and railway infrastructure.

The second is big and multiple injections of funds into the development of alternative energy sources. We cannot continue our drug-like dependence on fossil fuels indefinitely.

Of course, all this will involve hundreds of billions of dollars of investment. To raise this kind of money, there is only one conceivable funding source: the oil and gas producers themselves.

Again I ask, why doesn't the Federal government also consider seizing Quebec's hydro resources?  That would also provide a lot of money for these things.  Do you expect that Quebec would be ok with the federal government seizing its resources?  I mean, if the big thing is finding money to pay for stuff?

Why do you think Albertans would be ok with the federal government seizing the tar sands?  Do the responses in this thread imply that?

You think that support in Alberta for the federal government seizing their resources has increased.  Is this based on having been to Alberta since 2005?  Is it based on having talked to Albertans about whether they think support has increased?  Do you see the inactive facebook group as a sign of a nationalization movement with healthy momentum?

From what I can tell, you think support for nationalization in Alberta has increased because you'd like it to b so.

Albertans will strongly resist any attempts to seize the resources to protect Albertans from their poor decision making.  If Alberta was able to think rationally about this then we wouldn't have the tar sands.  Of course, the idea that the federal government has any inclination to stop increasing production doesn't seem to fit our current political reality.

You keep mentioning how this is a long term process.  If it's going to take 10-15 years to nationalize then it'll be too late.  We need to do something about this now, not ten years from now.

I actually can see nationalization as a possibility.  But if it happens, I don't think it will be the result of a long, well-planned, coordinated electoral and legislative process taking a decade.  I think if it does happen it will happen overnight, because of some catalyst that completely changes the way that people think about natural resources.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
If Alberta begins to run out of natural gas, Ontario will run short, Quebec will be out of luck, Saskatchewan and Manitoba will have to face freezing Prairie winters, but, incredibly, we will still have to supply Americans with two-thirds of our production from across the country.

 

I'll be for our own good, though... right? I mean, then we'll pretty much be forced to ride a bike, heat with biomass, use extra blankets and so on. It'll be just the kind of motivation we need. 

 

 

Slumberjack

Well, for that to happen, you'd need someone to start speaking honestly at the provincial level about the absurdity of once again lurching year after year into deficit, while the provincial health care and education system is crumbling around them.

Ripple

Well, this sort of fits here and it's the first I've heard about it:

[url=Atomic">http://www.theprovince.com/news/Nuke+sale+called+risky/4481874/story.htm... Energy of Canada crown corporation to be sold[/url]

Quote:

The Conservative government's decision to sell off its nuclear agency may put Canada and other countries at risk, the association representing its engineers warned Monday.

...

The government plans to split the Crown corporation in two, selling off the division that builds and markets Candu reactors.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

SJ, How about sparing the paternalistic tone and look after your own house? 

What province do you live in, without deficit, and where health care and education are in perfect order? Maybe you should lobby for Ottawa to turn its own province back into a territory before telling people out west that we don't know how to govern ourselves.

...if I read your argument correctly. 

In short, as bad as the Alberta government is, I am sure Ottawa would manage to screw it up just as bad if not worse (adn with a much heftier price tag) if they tried to take over the show.

 

Roscoe

Slumberjack wrote:

Roscoe wrote:
Ah the Parkland Institute. Good stuff.  "People like me" are not in favour of giving resources away. Neither are we in favour of being condescended to by envious easterners who think they know better than the western idiots. The Constitution Act agrees.

See what I mean everyone, by the thorough demonization of central/eastern Canada. And I believe you are indeed in favour of giving away your resources and revenue to the profit grubbing crooks in industry, or else you'd spare at least a few words against the ongoing wholesale theft of your 'western' resources, aided and abetted by your respresentatives out there, instead of going on at the mouth about easterners apparently wanting to steal what's already been stolen.

I'm not 'demonising' central/eastern Canada, I'm defending western interests from the covetous glances of unwelcome suitors.

You chaps have a nice chat about 'nationalising' other people's stuff but don't forget your pension fund and mutual funds  are very likely a party to "the ongoing wholesale theft".

Have a nice day, the eeevil western demon has left the building. I just noticed Rebecca's advice and will take door #2. I see no good outcome of this pretzellogicfest.

wage zombie

Roscoe wrote:

You chaps have a nice chat about 'nationalising' other people's stuff...

This gets right to the heart of why this won't go anywhere.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Why can't Alberta nationalize its own resources? A revenue sharing system between the provinces (equalization payments) is already in effect.

6079_Smith_W

Catchfire wrote:

Why can't Alberta nationalize its own resources? A revenue sharing system between the provinces (equalization payments) is already in effect.

Exactly. 

Though it would be the companies, since the province already owns the resource. And it would be difficult, since a lot of them are big internationals. But there is no reason why the province couldn't mandate a controlling interest in any resource company doing business there, like the feds do with airlines and other things.

I know SaskPower has already organized some of its power and wind projects in partnership with businesses (unfortunately moving the wrong way, but it is evidence that it can be done).

MegB

Sigh.

SJ, you're clearly on a roll, but you're starting to piss people off.  Give over on the West-baiting, okay?

Everyone else who is using this thread to play east-west politics, get a room!

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

NAFTA clearly states that americans oil companies own rights to the percentage of oil and gas resources that we are currently selling them no matter whether they are running out or not.  So if I am not mistaken unless NAFTA is repealed the US companies have first call on around two thirds of the resource.   

Unionist we can debate Quebec exceptionalism some other time but I would like to know from you whether or not the people of Quebec are for or against free trade.  It was my understanding that at least initially it was seen as a positive by the majority.  

6079_Smith_W

Unless NAFTA is cancelled or renegotiated. 

It's a trade agreement, not a bill of sale, and though all parties may act like it, the Americans don't own any of that resource.

Pages

Topic locked