------------------->
Nationalize the Oil and Gas industry
Mon, 2011-03-21 12:09
#1
Boom Boom
Nationalize the Oil and Gas industry
Mon, 2011-03-21 12:20
#2
Boom Boom
CBC Poll (2005): almost half of Canadians want oil industry nationalized
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2005/09/05/leger_gas_poll20050905.html
excerpt:
The Canadian Press said Monday a Leger poll suggested 49 per cent of respondents want petroleum resources nationalized while 43 per cent said they would like to see the same fate for gas companies.
excerpt:
Quebecers were the strongest supporters of resource nationalization at 67 per cent, followed by residents of the Atlantic provinces at 53 per cent, Ontarians at 45 per cent and British Columbians at 42 per cent.
Forty per cent of respondents on the Prairies and 36 per cent of Albertans were in favour.
Mon, 2011-03-21 12:25
#3
Boom Boom
Facebook Group: Nationalize The Gas Industry
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2421786014
excerpt:
Let politicians know this is a real issue. You're not alone. A poll done by the Canadian Press two years ago showed that 49 per cent of Canadians wanted the Oil/Gas Industry nationalized. And that was two years ago, I'm sure as prices have risen so has that number.
Source of poll: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/09/05/leger_gas_poll20050905.html
(this group appears to be inactive, but could be re-started if folks show an interest)
Mon, 2011-03-21 12:55
#4
Can anyone locate Norway on the globe map?
Mon, 2011-03-21 12:57
#5
Boom Boom
Why We Need To Nationalize Oil and Gas (from 2006)
http://canadiandimension.com/articles/1879
excerpt:
Naturally, in order to cut back drastically on U.S.-bound exports, let alone nationalize the industry, it will in turn be necessary to abrogate NAFTA. In our November/December Dimension editorial, we set out some more reasons for giving notice.
All very fine and well, you might say — but just how would a nationalized oil-and-gas industry deal with the current crisis differently?
In the first place, in a nationalized scheme, unexpected price fluctuations can be more easily buffered by the state. The beneficiaries will be those whose livelihoods depend upon the availability of oil and gas, rather than the big energy companies.
A nationalized industry can also be both mandated to conserve energy and ordered to divert money into R&D for sustainable alternatives. It will have no fears about competing with its own new energy-saving products. Moreover, a state-run industry can weigh the benefits and costs of exploration against the interests of citizens, instead of merely return on investment.
Granted, this is a made-in-Canada solution for what is in reality a world-wide energy crisis. But we hasten to add that other countries — Venezuela, for example — are offering their own solutions. Clearly Canada must stand with other nations against the U.S. solution — an endless series of wars in the Middle East and other oil-producing regions to maintain an iron grip on the world’s increasingly scarce supply of oil.
"Shut down the tar sands," NDP candidate urges:
http://oilsandstruth.org/quotshut-down-oilsandsquot-ndp-candidate-urges (from 2008)
Layton calls for halt to tar sands approvals:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080907/election200... (from 2008)
Government must take responsibility for tar sands pollution:
http://www.ndp.ca/press/government-must-take-responsibility-for-tar-sand... (from 2010)
And... I'm not sure who these people are, but the Socialist Project _in 2008_ wrote:
- Climate change is the most hotly contested issue in this election. As a recent Socialist Voice article showed, there are only minor differences between the five major parties. None of them favours the radical cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that scientists are calling for.
- None of the parties calls for shutting down the massive tar sands projects in western Canada, the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country: the parties disagree only on the scale that should be permitted. When NDP candidate Michael Byers declared that the projects should be “shut down,” he quickly drew a rebuke from party leader Jack Layton.
- The (NDP) party avoids policies that would offend Canada's business elite. A call to nationalize the oil industry and use its profits for social and economic improvements, as Venezuela is doing, could win broad support. Similarly, it could demand the nationalization of companies that threaten to close operations when profit rates decline. from:
http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/bullet143.html
Mon, 2011-03-21 13:10
#6
Boom Boom
NDP Socialist Caucus Resolutions for the 2009 NDP Federal Convention
7. Nationalize Big Oil and Gas
Whereas giant oil and gas corporations in Canada have reaped billions in profit, while despoiling the environment, and ignoring the urgent need to invest substantially in making the shift towards a new green energy efficiency;
Therefore Be It Resolved that the following be added to Section 1.2 of the Policy booklet: "The NDP will actively campaign for nationalization of the energy industry, under workers' and community control, to guarantee domestic supply and to furnish the basis to rebuild industry, and to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, especially in renewable energy and mass public transit."
Mon, 2011-03-21 15:58
#7
Interesting. I don't have time to read now but do the Nationalistas intend to pay for the assets and how do they intend to raise the capital to develop this brave new world?
Mon, 2011-03-21 16:02
#8
Interesting. I don't have time to read now but do the Nationalistas intend to pay for the assets and how do they intend to raise the capital to develop this brave new world?
Surely you jest.
The nationalists have been paying for the asses for centuries. As to how we braise the capitalists, just wait and see!
Mon, 2011-03-21 16:41
#9
It's a constitutional toughie. The federal government can nationalize all the oil companies it wants but the actual resource still belongs to the provinces. And what is it being done for? If it's for a National Energy Policy-type arrangement where a lower domestic price for oil is established with oil "have" provinces only being able to sell some fraction of production at the world price, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland will all howl - and have a reasonable point in doing so. Paying for it is another big problem. Market capitalization for the 10 largest oil companies in Canada is something in excess of $250 billion. We'd need to buy half of that, so we're looking at $125 billion. I can certainly think of much better things to spend that much money on.
The benefits just don't seem to justify the cost assuming it's politically possible at all.
Mon, 2011-03-21 16:42
#10
Boom Boom
Thanks, U. As you noted, the oil and gas industry has been subsidized - I think it's to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, and, further - corporations across the country have received hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks - which they don't even need!
That 2005 CBC poll showed almost half of all Canadians want the industry nationalized - I believe that number would be much higher today. This is something the NDP should embrace and campaign on.
Mon, 2011-03-21 16:44
#11
Boom Boom
It would be done to keep oil in Canada instead of being shipped south; it would be done so the feds can have control of cleaning up the tar sands, and it would be done to channel resource revenue into green energy alternatives. Did you bother to read the links I posted?
Mon, 2011-03-21 16:47
#12
The feds can have control of cleaning up the tar sands. They just have to enact the environmental legislation to do so. If we want to channel resource revenue into green alternatives it's far easier just to tax it. Keeping oil in Canada raises the problem I mentioned with the oil-owning provinces and by creating a lower price domestically undermines the economic case for alternatives.
Mon, 2011-03-21 16:52
#13
well i think there is some interest in keeping prices high, to discourage over consumption. So the national company could buy the resource from the provinces...just that as opposed to having the profits privatized they would become part of public wealth, i guess.
for me they key is that instead of subsidizing private profit, we'd be subsidizing something that would put money into the public coffers and could be used to fund a transition to cleaner energy, as opposed to some billionaire's 20th mansion, etc. Cause realistically, building clean energy infrastructure is going to cost billions or trillions and that money must come from somewhere!
Mon, 2011-03-21 16:54
#14
Boom Boom
And, besides, nationalization is the anti-imperialist route!
Mon, 2011-03-21 17:01
#15
CBC Poll (2005): almost half of Canadians want oil industry nationalized http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2005/09
Quebecers were the strongest supporters of resource nationalization at 67 per cent...
It would be done to keep oil in Canada instead of being shipped south; it would be done so the feds can have control of cleaning up the tar sands, and it would be done to channel resource revenue into green energy alternatives. Did you bother to read the links I posted?
What do you suppose the appetite in Quebec would be for nationalizing Quebec's hydroelectric industry? It would be done to keep power in Canada instead of being shipped south; it would be done so the feds can have control over the amount of environmental devastation caused by excessive damming, and it would be done to channel resource revenue into green energy alternatives.
What do you think, would Quebec go for that?
ETA: Remember, nationalization is the anti-imperialist route!
Mon, 2011-03-21 17:39
#16
Well the conservative party was big on publicly owned and controlled utilities here in Ontario for the longest time before the arrival of Mike Harris and "the ideology". I think Canadians could easily be convinced of the benefits for owning and controlling our own power generation and distribution. It's proven that handing things off to private enterprise is a lot more expensive for the public. Neoliberalism is inherently undemocratic as was its predessor, laissez-faire capitalism. It's why they refuse to make their privatization and deregulation agenda very clear to the public. And then the public is left to wonder why cost of living skyrockets and unemployment remains "stubborn" for years on end.
Mon, 2011-03-21 17:53
#17
It's a constitutional toughie. The federal government can nationalize all the oil companies it wants but the actual resource still belongs to the provinces.
All the federal parliament has to do is to declare these "works or undertakings" as being "to the general advantage of Canada", and that puts an end to provincial control. Example - the Canada Wheat Board Act.
And what is it being done for?
To pretend we have a country, rather than a conglomeration of foreign bloodsucking oil barons who cosy up to provincial politicians and plunder our national wealth for their own filthy greedy ends.
Or words to that effect.
The benefits just don't seem to justify the cost assuming it's politically possible at all.
You think we can't afford to buy our own resources at cost? Do you know how much profit these oil barons make?
Mon, 2011-03-21 17:59
#18
What do you suppose the appetite in Quebec would be for nationalizing Quebec's hydroelectric industry? It would be done to keep power in Canada instead of being shipped south; it would be done so the feds can have control over the amount of environmental devastation caused by excessive damming, and it would be done to channel resource revenue into green energy alternatives.
What do you think, would Quebec go for that?
ETA: Remember, nationalization is the anti-imperialist route!
Very poor example. Québec will decide, on its own, how to manage its resources. We nationalized hydro almost half a century ago. And Québec solidaire has heard Boom Boom's voice clearly, and incorporated not only nationalization, but democratic management, of all energy resources into its [url=http://programme.quebecsolidaire.net/contributions/2-_ecologie_et_4-_agr....
Mon, 2011-03-21 18:36
#19
You don't think Alberta feels like it will decide, on its own, how to manage its resources?
Do you think other provinces are buying energy from Quebec at cost?
Mon, 2011-03-21 18:43
#20
The feds can have control of cleaning up the tar sands. They just have to enact the environmental legislation to do so. If we want to channel resource revenue into green alternatives it's far easier just to tax it. Keeping oil in Canada raises the problem I mentioned with the oil-owning provinces and by creating a lower price domestically undermines the economic case for alternatives.
I agree. The feds could nationalise the oil and gas revenues as per what several other countries have done including socialist Norway and Venezuela. There is no need to send the troops in to takeover the oil fields. As Putin said about it a few years ago, they simply raised overall federal tax rates on natural resource exports through perfectly free market mechanisms. It's what the Khodorkovsky scandal is all about. The west is still saying, basically, that the Russians were supposed to allow the oligarchs and their European and American friends to bribe members of the Duma into letting them off the hook for higher rates on oil and gas exports. Here we don't prosecute rich tax cheats who are friends of the party similarly. If the ordinary slob in Canada or the US doesn't pay taxes legally owed to the feds, they are supposed to and usually go to prison. ie. John Q. Public, Al Capone etc. Today, corporate tax evasion is encouraged by the Harpers and their predecessors since Mulroney. This is in addition to the massive corporate welfare programs to prop-up profitable oil and gas companies and other foreign based industries operating in Canada.
Mon, 2011-03-21 18:43
#21
I think public ownership of resources as well as resource processing industries is a great goal and should be pushed for. But I don't see how this can be done at the federal level as opposed to the provincial level.
The position that some provinces should be expected to cede control of their energy resources to the federal government while other provinces should not be expected to do so does not seem like a strong, realistic, or fair position to me.
Mon, 2011-03-21 18:47
#22
The position that some provinces should be expected to cede control of their energy resources to the federal government while other provinces should not be expected to do so does not seem like a strong, realistic, or fair position to me.
Québec has its pension plan. Alberta does not. Québec runs employment insurance with respect to maternity, parental, and paternity leave. Saskatchewan does not. Québec collects its income tax entirely separately from the federal tax. New Brunswick does not.
Québec is a nation (all parties agreed to that in parliament, remember?). No other province is.
The NDP's official position is one of asymmetrical federalism (see Sherbrooke Declaration). Time to prove it.
In any event, who says that if people don't talk nicely to each other, they can't negotiate an agreement instead of just pulling rank on each other?
Mon, 2011-03-21 18:58
#23
I agree with Fidel. There is life afta NAFTA.
Mon, 2011-03-21 19:01
#24
NAFTA. Anything nationalised after NAFTA would make provincial governments wide open to a NAFTA sue job. The feds are the only ones capable of renegotiating (or abrogating if it comes down to a trade war) NAFTA for the sake of creating a national energy policy written by and for Canadians in the interest of Canadians.
And it's why the federal NDP was pushing the Martin Liberals to create a national daycare program fully funded by Ottawa. That way US and Australian big box service providers could not argue legally whether or not daycare is a federally funded national service, or IOWs, off limits to private enterprisers and big business.
Mon, 2011-03-21 19:02
#25
I'll just say again, it doesn't seem like a strong, realistic, or fair (ie. convincing) position to me. Our opinions clearly differ.
I agree that talking nicely to each other is the best way to interract. However I feel like your post #21 could be taken as an example of "pulling rank" (ie. different expectations for provinces that are nations vs provinces that are not).
Mon, 2011-03-21 19:11
#26
I agree that talking nicely to each other is the best way to interract. However I feel like your post #21 could be taken as an example of "pulling rank" (ie. different expectations for provinces that are nations vs provinces that are not).
I just wanted to remind you that the NDP stands for asymmetrical federalism, and the Bloc clearly has its position on the issue, and all federal governments have, in practice, negotiated asymmetric deals.
If you want to take the view that Québec is a province like any other and should be treated that way, you will have to kiss goodbye both to Québec, and to Canada. I kind of thought everyone understood that, whether they agree with it or not.
Having said that, yes, we can agree to disagree.
Mon, 2011-03-21 19:14
#27
Well, as a resident of PEI (highest electricity rates in North America by far and one of the lowest average income), we would certainly prefer some help from the nation of Quebec rather than the profits they make from selling to the US Eastern Seaboard. If Alberta oil is expected to stay in Canada at cost, shouldn't Quebec (and Labrador) power?
Mon, 2011-03-21 19:14
#28
If you want to take the view that Québec is a province like any other and should be treated that way, you will have to kiss goodbye both to Québec, and to Canada. I kind of thought everyone understood that, whether they agree with it or not.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
Mon, 2011-03-21 19:17
#29
If you want to take the view that Québec is a province like any other and should be treated that way, you will have to kiss goodbye both to Québec, and to Canada. I kind of thought everyone understood that, whether they agree with it or not.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
Sorry, WZ, obviously I misunderstood this:
However I feel like your post #21 could be taken as an example of "pulling rank" (ie. different expectations for provinces that are nations vs provinces that are not).
Yes, I do have different expectations for provinces that are nations vs. provinces that are not. One of them is the unilateral right to self-determination. That's not a right which British Columbia has.
Mon, 2011-03-21 19:32
#30
If you want to take the view that Québec is a province like any other and should be treated that way, you will have to kiss goodbye both to Québec, and to Canada. I kind of thought everyone understood that, whether they agree with it or not.
Having said that, yes, we can agree to disagree.
I'll have to search around for possible past threads, because this looks like it could be a discussion on its own.
Mon, 2011-03-21 19:38
#31
Oh please oh please give BC that right.
Mon, 2011-03-21 19:42
#32
So if British Columbia, or more likely, Alberta, were to have a referendum on whether to pull out of confederation, and they voted yes, you would support, what exactly? Sending in the army? Telling Alberta that if it wants to have a referendum on pulling out of Confederation, that it needs to to meet certain requirements decided by the federal government?
Sorry, WZ, obviously I misunderstood this:
However I feel like your post #21 could be taken as an example of "pulling rank" (ie. different expectations for provinces that are nations vs provinces that are not).
Let me clarify--I wouldn't expect any province (nation or not) to willingly cede control of their resources to the federal Government. Perhaps that control could be ceded through negotiations, but I would expect the price tag to be high. I have not made any argument against asymmetrical federalism.
I would be in favour of tougher environmental laws imposed by the federal government upon the tar sands, but that is a different question.
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.
I can't help but notice that those arguing for the nationalization of the tar sands by the federal government are from Ontario and Quebec.
Mon, 2011-03-21 19:45
#33
Boom Boom
To address the question of 'fairness', certainly a lot of polling and discussions and negotiation have to happen on the subject and a degree of consensus has to be reached, and this all takes a great deal of time - years - not months or weeks. The CBC poll I linked to is from 2005. I suspect a larger percentage of the Canadian population (including Alberta) are more open to nationalization today than they were six years ago, given the environmental catastrophe that the Tar Sands have imposed on Canada and the world, for one thing. There are obviously other good reasons to open the subject.
Mon, 2011-03-21 20:10
#34
I would be in favour of tougher environmental laws imposed by the federal government upon the tar sands, but that is a different question.
According to free market economics, if we want less of something, then tax it. Raising taxes on anything will result in less of it. And vice versa if we want more of something.
The problem with Alberta or BC alone applying that strategy is that the currently neoliberalized Canadian economy prevents them from raising taxes on big profitable businesses operating in Canada which are mostly foreign owned and controlled. Without a national energy policy, provinces are pretty much left to their own devices when it comes to investing in job creation and spending on infrastructure and education. And big business says if the taxes are too high, then they will move to another province or even out of the country. That's when we need a strong federal government to call them on their bluff and make a stand against marauding capital. Fascists like their supranational corporations big but governments small in order to bully them better. Neoliberal ideology implemented at the federal level is a good fit for that kind of narrow corporatist agenda.
Mon, 2011-03-21 20:16
#35
Boom Boom
Fidel and Unionist: thanks for your comments - awesome, as always. 
Mon, 2011-03-21 20:29
#36
Northern Shoveler
So lets start by taking the first step, repealing NAFTA and all the other corporate trade agreements. Of course we would need to educate the people of Quebec and Alberta so that we don't have a repeat of the NAFTA election where a third of the voters managed to form government by virtually sweeping all the seats in those provinces. Go for it Unionist convince your neighbours that NAFTA should be repealed.
As for the thread drift. Do the people of Quebec have any right to talk about what rights people in another nation should have in relation to separating from their nation? A supplemental question is which "nations" get to decide what other groups of people joined by geography and culture are merely provinces or have met the exalted nation status?
I respect the right of the residents of Quebec to determine their future but Unionist you seem to believe some of our "cultures" are second class settler cultures compared to your exalted settler nation.
Mon, 2011-03-21 20:45
#37
Well I should probably disagree with myself on a few points regarding my intepretation of free market economics. As American Michael Hudson says about it, the US once had a 90 percent income tax rate on highest incomes after the 1913 tax law. And with higher corporate tax rates in 1950s-60s-early 70s US and Canada, economic growth rates were higher than today under low tax regimes.
It's interesting, I think, to note that Henry George, whose ideology then was the anti-thesis of socialism, advocated that they didn't have to nationalise the land to take it over. He said that all they had to do was tax away the surplus income of rent and usury and un-earned income going to the wealthy(and have less of that kind of thing) and allow wages to rise. High prices and high cost of living work against highly productive and efficient economies.
According to the classical economists since Smith, Mill and the likes of Henry George, if you increase living standards of workers, productivity increases. And that's basically what's happening in China and Asian countries like Singapore etc. Never mind that wages are lower there than here, those workers are living better with more income and becoming healthier and are therefore more productive than they could have been while desperately poor. Personal savings rates in China etc are amazingly high. The point is, says Hudson, is that well paid labour undersells poorly paid and lowly educated labour. The situation in China and other countries is not what our politicians let on. It's not just cheap labour in those countries - it;s rising standards of living that also contributes to high productivity among workers in Asia. Meanwhile they still try to blame unions here for driving up labour costs. Our own capitalists are not telling us the full story behind their cheap labour exploits in Asia.
Mon, 2011-03-21 20:54
#38
I don't see how a government could get elected on it in the first place considering the controversy and costs involved - and if it did, it's hard to see how it could accomplish much else. We need to be investing in the alternatives to oil, anyway, not sinking public money into it.
Mon, 2011-03-21 21:12
#39
Boom Boom
As I've indicated, polling would be involved. And, investments into green alternatives are a big part of the package.
Mon, 2011-03-21 21:14
#40
I would refuse to takeover the means of production owned by supranationals based in foreign countries, too. Energy nationalism would be a better alternative, at least as far as oil and gas is concerned. Shift taxes off of labour income and on to unearned income and land. But then we'd have to pursue some economic agenda other than real estate bubbles, homelessness, and bubblenomics in general. Christ, there are even [url=http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/wwf_homeless_polar_bear?size=_origi... Polar bears[/url] panhandling on the streets these days. It's ridiculous.
Mon, 2011-03-21 21:24
#41
Boom Boom
Something needs to be done, and fast - the Cons are planning to expand tar sands production far beyond what we see now, and they are already the most destructive projects on planet earth.
Mon, 2011-03-21 22:07
#42
Albertageddon. They should make a movie about it and tell the whole world. "It came from the tar pits"... Bwbwbwa, I'm scared already. I'll need a hot cocoa before bed now.
Mon, 2011-03-21 22:09
#43
Boom Boom
I thought James Cameron would do a documentary - he flew over the tar sands to see for himself.
Mon, 2011-03-21 22:21
#44
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.
Mon, 2011-03-21 22:37
#45
Thanks for kudos Roscoe, but I am turned off by your Quebec-bashing.
Mon, 2011-03-21 22:45
#46
Something needs to be done, and fast - the Cons are planning to expand tar sands production far beyond what we see now, and they are already the most destructive projects on planet earth.
I agree that something needs to be done, but "nationalization of the tar sands" as it's being presented would be very divisive. You are talking about polls...why do you think it is that support for this is lowest in Alberta?
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". It's not about Quebec, it's about a principled, defendable solution to the problem of the tar sands.
Mon, 2011-03-21 22:55
#47
Boom Boom
I agree that something needs to be done, but "nationalization of the tar sands" as it's being presented would be very divisive. You are talking about polls...why do you think it is that support for this is lowest in Alberta?
As I mentioned, that was a 2005 poll, and I suspect Alberta support (36% in 2005) has increased - as a way to finally get a handle on the environmental catastrophe/disaster in their own province.
Mon, 2011-03-21 22:56
#48
Have you been West of Quebec lately?
Why do you think aupport is lowest in Alberta?
Mon, 2011-03-21 23:00
#49
Boom Boom
Are you dense? I said it was a 2005 poll. I doubt Albertans want to be the scourge of the earth much longer.
Mon, 2011-03-21 23:04
#50
No I'm not dense. You've said it was a 2005 poll, and you suspect that support has increased. I'm asking you what that suspicion is based on (ie. if you have been out west). Is it anything more than a hunch?
I'll answer my own question. I think support is lowest in Alberta because Albertans viewed the question as a resource grab by the federal government. My suspicision is that this has not changed much, if at all.
Mon, 2011-03-21 23:18
#51
I respect the right of the residents of Quebec to determine their future but Unionist you seem to believe some of our "cultures" are second class settler cultures compared to your exalted settler nation.
Oh, I said something about someone's culture? You'll have to remind me where.
The people of Québec constitute a nation. The people of Ontario do not. This isn't a small matter. It implies various legal rights - like Québec's unilateral right to self-determination - a right that Ontario does not have, referendum or not. Nor does Toronto. Or Montréal.
Recognition of these realities is necessary to having a country.