Nationalize the Oil and Gas industry

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 - 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...

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 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.

@ Slumberjack

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

DP

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.

Boom Boom wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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).

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.