It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


POLITICS: Half of Canadians Want Oil Industry Nationalized

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 10:37 AM
A Leger Marketing Poll was conducted between Aug. 24 and Aug. 31 (i.e. before the effects of Katrina on the oil market became apparent). 49 per cent of respondents wanted petroleum resources nationalized while 43 per cent said they would like to see the same fate for oil companies.
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.

Most of the respondents - 79 per cent - suggested they would like to see taxes on gasoline cut, although federal and provincial governments have made it clear that is unlikely.

Seventy-six per cent of respondents indicated they would like the government to intervene after recent gas hikes preceeding Katrina. Fifty-four per cent suggested they would like the government to fix the pump price.

Results of the poll are considered accurate within plus or minus 2.6 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Unfortunately due to the CBC strike and the events of the last week I'm unable to find any editorials on this important subject.

So what do you think?

Since oil is often referred to as a matter of national security should this kind of resource and it's profits be nationalised so that all may benefit?

Many countries do it.

Would Canada be labelled and treated as another "evil" Venezuela (or worse) Iran?

Should natural resources be nationalised?

Related News Links:

Related Discussion Threads:
Half of Canadians Want Oil Industry Nationalized

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 12:49 PM
Seems I can't vote on this submission.

Would if I could.

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:33 PM
I don't see why not. We simply can not let something that is as important for the stability and flow of the country be managed by people who are out for individual gains as opposed to long term stability.

I voted yes, and hope other Canadians will weigh in. However, I would suspect those in AB will feel different than I, who lives in ON.

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:36 PM
This is a touchy subject in the West.

The concern for those in the Eastern half of the country is that resources are a provincial responsibility and this would set a precedent. The Bloc is against this because they are worried about Ottawa taking over their hydropower.

I am undecided on this issue.

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:47 PM
No doubt Duzey, it is if you'll pardon the bad joke - A douzey of a problem.

It is hard to understand the politic's of this and could really blow up in our faces. I wonder if it could ignite some ill feelings in the west towards the east. As if that was ever a problem huh?

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:53 PM
Oil is far too important a resource to be left largely to the whims of private firms dealing with provincial or territorial governments. If there is anything to the Peak Oil debate, caution should be key, especially in light of recent NAFTA scraps and international interest besides America.

Not that I think our federal government is any more competent than the rest, just that a unified approach is needed.

King Ralph Klein, premier of Alberta, will hate this notion and be more like an erupting Mount St. Helens with the idea, but I don't care. There's oil 'north of 60' as well and we need to be smart about how it is to be drilled, refined and sold.

It'll also be interesting when the Chinese come to Canada to talk about our national resources in the next few days as well.

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:54 PM
Alberta is going to completely freak out, and Saskatchewan might too. Sask is trying to develop their oil industry and have a huge amount of natural resources. The NEP was extrememly unpopular out here.

And didn't we just sell PETRO-Can (aka Pierre Elliott Trudeau Rips Off Canada)?

I like Canada and I wants us to all stay together as one big happy dysfunctional family.

As for BC (the forgotten province), we're screwed no matter what happens. I'm pretty sure the maps in Parliament end at the Rockies.

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:54 PM
How is it a problem if a majority wants it in a democracy?

Or does democracy only apply provincially/locally?

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:01 PM
The problem, I think, is that our representation is not in line with the population. If it were a true referendum that would be different. But in a policy put through by the Feds, it will never be seen as representing the interests of the Western half of the country, since the House is dominated by Ontario. The Bloc will not vote for this, so the government would be well advised to wait until there is a majority again.

I just don't have a good feeling about this.

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:03 PM

And didn't we just sell PETRO-Can ...

The former Crown Corporation was initially put on the chopping block by Mulroney (If I recall correctly) and another big block of shares was sold under Chretien. I think we still own some shares but no many.

And yes in this age of peak oil we need to thread carefully with how we harvest and spend the profits of our resources as a country not just as a province.

A little off topic but related:

You do know that Canada is not allowed to sell less oil and gas to the US unless we reduce our consumption at home right? They've got a percentage locked in as long as NAFTA and the FTA remain on the books.

If softwood lumber is not reason enough to tear up NAFTA this sure is.

[edit on 9/7/2005 by Gools]

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:06 PM
I was under the impression that PET sold the oil and mineral rights to the US. Is this wrong?

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:07 PM
But your views are respected soficrow. Do you have any particular thoughts on this?


posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:14 PM
Ah, the NAFTA proportionality clause..... Even Mexico was smart enough to put a clause in that this does not apply during a shortage. :shk: I may be from West, but screw softwood, that proportionality clause regarding oil is by biggest problem with NAFTA.

I would have less concerns about nationalizing the oil if I was not convinced that we would be doing it to kiss up to the US, and be their 'oil buddies'. That, combined with NAFTA, makes me concerned. I like the idea of diversifying our exports and not being at the mercy of an unreliable trading partner.

My province still has an outstanding $300 million on the books for energy the US used but didn't pay for.

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:20 PM

Originally posted by intrepid
I was under the impression that PET sold the oil and mineral rights to the US. Is this wrong?

I'm really ignorant of the whole Trudeau NEP factual history. I am aware of the negativity but I don't know specifically why.

Anybody have some good sources on this period of history? Books, Documentaries, websites etc.? I'm finding a lot of stuff about the political fallout but very little of the facts.

This poll was done kind of "out of the blue".

I wonder who commissioned it?

It seems that without any mass media manipulation of the issue that there is already close to a national majority supporting this idea. Where will the media lead it?


posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:25 PM
Canadian oil should be run by the Canadian government. That way it will work just as well, if not better, than the government run health-care in Canada. Hold on a sec....I forgot to switch off the sarcasam before posting this.

The Fraser Institute says Canada's health care system is inferior to countries that offer a parallel, private medical system. The Fraser report comes just days after delegates at the Canadian Medical Association meeting endorsed private health insurance.

The report finds Canada has the fourth-lowest number of doctors per one-thousand people and the seventh-worst life expectancy.

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:52 PM
The people and equipment are already there. Or are you saying they will quit their jobs if their paycheck comes from the Treasury rather than Exon?

There's no reason a Crown Corporation can't be run as efficiently as a private corporation.

The comparison you make is not applicable.

Our health system is not a Crown Corporation it's an administrative nightmare (and a source of provincial v. federal fights) gobbling up valuable resources. I've always said that the answer was cutting the fat in the right places - they waste so much money it's not even funny.

BTW the Fraser Institute ranks right up there with the Heritage Foundation.
They are one of the major groups pushing for privitazation of the health system and will undoubtedly make their views heard on this poll.

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:00 PM
I'm with the majority on this one - and don't trust the Fraser Institute at all.

I suspect that if Canada doesn't nationalize her natural resources, they will be up for grabs through NAFTA and the FTAA. Right along with her water, which already is being sold, albeit a bottle at a time.

Nationalize. Keep the power, and the wealth, for the people, not the multinational predatory corporations.

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:11 PM

Originally posted by dbates
The Fraser Institute

Want's to sell Canadian interests out to the USA... ultra-right wing drivel.

The report finds Canada has the fourth-lowest number of doctors per one-thousand people

Maybe true, but every country is having problems finding enough doctors. Sitting just north of the Brain Vacuum doesn't help, the Braindrain does show signs of reversing though

and the seventh-worst life expectancy.

Ok... is this compared to other two-tiered systems or overall because I find that very hard to swallow. I know for a fact it's higher then US life expectancy.

The Canadian Medical Association doesn't speak for the people of Canada, last time I heard most of the populace values the Canada Health Act very highly.

Some might even say that the CMA speaks for the Drug companies and private hospitol chains in the USA.

Believe it or not but setting up a two-tiered system will suck even more human resources from the Public system creating Class based healthcare(which is just another form of Class-Warfare). If our rich and spoiled want to pay for their healthcare go to the US.

There's no reason a Crown Corporation can't be run as efficiently as a private corporation.

Damn straight, look at the LCBO and The Beer Store.

EDIT: Another note...if our gov't would get off it's ass and figure out a way to utilize the thousands of foriegn medical professionals who immigrated to Canada but cannot work due to red tape and lack of reconized credentials our system would be allot better.

[edit on 7-9-2005 by sardion2000]

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:20 PM
Of course there are at least two sides to this.

I certainly wish the US owned oil collectively, and sold leases to the best (price and cleanliness) developer.

One of the negatives of free enterprise is redundancy. As in forty brands of toothpaste at the supermarket. And four gas stations at every intersection.

But it also means better supply systems, and "competitive" pricing.

In the US, our problem is not access to crude. The crude market has multiple owners (of mineral rights) multiple developers (of wells) and multiple dealers (buyers, sellers, and speculators at NYMEX.) The problem for US has been refining capacity which, through environmental regulation, has been so tightly controlled as to become a "state-dictated" market. For instance, there has not been a new refinery built in US since 1976.

Even after Katrina, the US crude supply is back to about 75% of demand, which is saying a heck of a lot. The refineries in the rest of the country didn't even notice the supply problems in Nawlins, because of the redundancy of free enterprise, suppliers in Oklahoma and TX stepped up to the opportunity. Isn't it funny, that a week after Katrina, crude prices are back where they were before she formed in the Atlantic?

On the other hand, gasoline prices have headed nowhere but up . . . . because the state has not allowed any free-enterprise (redundancy) in US's refining capacity.

So what could this mean for Canada?

Just that, in letting the govt. "streamline" operations, you also take redundancies out of the sytem--and redundancies are what let you survive shocks.

Also, governments usually tax a cash cow until it no longer produces. Then, a central govt executive "cuts a deal" and the people get nothing, while the autocrat is building a new palace. Yes, I'm thinking of Saddam and the Emir of Kuwait. But it also applies to the previous government of Venezuela. The present guy is having trouble building his infrastructure, since no one wants to move equipment to Venz that will end up being nationalized anyway.

I guess, in general, I would want a flat tax paid on each barrel extracted, and leave the rest in private hands. As long as it equals something like, 1 barrel deposited into a trust for every 10 pumped. Then, the public would be protected from changing value of the currency, and the price would even out as the total oil sold was padded by 10% (representing the government's sales).

Of course, that'd never happen, since the fat-bottomed politicos couldn't "wheel and deal" while fleecing corporates, the public, and the landowners.

You know, don't you, that the politicos have just as much fun fleecing the corporate barons as they do ripping off the taxpayers, don't you? In America, they called it a "windfall profits tax," and it drove most of the US oil companies out of business, leaving only the biggest and meanest to survive. . . .

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 03:24 PM
I'll be the next person to say The Fraser Institue is hardly an unbiased observer in the matter. They are a privately-funded right-wing think tank, and they have been railing on about healthcare for years. Nobody in Canada listens to them much anymore.

I've used this comparison before: Citing the Fraser Institute re national healthcare is akin to quoting a report on tax-cuts for the wealthy commissioned by an anti-poverty group. Not even remotely unbiased.

Back to the topic at hand:

The only thing I remember positively about the NEP was that Canadians had lower gas prices. If we could still do this, I might move slightly in favour of the plan. I think that we aren't allowed to do that under NAFTA anymore. Anyone know more on this? I'm at work so I don't have all my notes here.

[edit on 7-9-2005 by Duzey]

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in