Nationalize oil firms, almost half of Canadians say


mrmom2
+1
#1
Montreal — Almost half of Canadians wanted to see their petroleum resources and their gas companies nationalized as fuel prices hit record levels, a new poll suggests.

The Leger Marketing telephone survey of 1,500 people was conducted between Aug. 24 and Aug. 31, the bulk being done before the devastating effects of hurricane Katrina were felt.

Gas prices have jumped around 25 cents a litre since the storm that battered the U.S. Gulf Coast.

On Monday, for example, prices in Montreal and Halifax averaged $1.38 a litre but the regulated price in St. John's, Nfld., was $1.48. In Toronto, prices stood at about $1.35 but were also seen at around $1.22.

Advertisements





Western drivers tanked up for between $1.08 to $1.13 in Edmonton and between $1.07 to $1.14 in Calgary.

In the Leger poll, which was provided to The Canadian Press, 49 per cent of respondents wanted petroleum resources nationalized while 43 per cent said they would like to see the same fate for gas companies.

Quebeckers 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 Columbia at 42 per cent.

Forty per cent of respondents on the Prairies and 36 per cent of Albertans were in favour. Among those opposed, Albertans led the way at 49 per cent followed by British Columbians at 39 per cent.

Quebec led in support for nationalization of oil companies, with 61 per cent in favour, followed by the Atlantic provinces (46 per cent). Alberta was most opposed at 59 per cent, followed by the Prairies (49 per cent), B.C. 46 per cent and Ontario, 41 per cent.

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 preceding Katrina. Fifty-four per cent suggested they would like the government to fix the pump price.

Twenty-six per cent of respondents blamed the gas companies for pre-Katrina price spikes followed by 18 per cent pointing the finger at oil-producing countries.

However, 63 per cent of respondents said pre-Katrina gas price hikes had not affected their fuel consumption. Twenty-five per cent said they were using less gas.

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

Katrina cut a swath of destruction along the Gulf Coast more than a week ago, shutting down nine Gulf Coast refineries. It disrupted gasoline pipelines to the Midwest and East and stopped 90 per cent of the oil production in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Gulf is responsible for around 30 per cent of U.S. crude production and one quarter of its gas. A large portion of U.S. oil imports also arrive at Gulf Coast ports. Prices at the pump soared and continued to climb
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#2
Yeah...I've been arguing with neocons about this for about a week now...

They're not too happy about the prospect...the big babies...
 
no1important
#3
I saw a couple really arrogant Calgarians whining on the news the other night. Saying they "should be protected from increase oil (and gasoline)prices because they have so much of it" and that "the rest of Canada is jealous of them". Seems to be a common theme from certain people in Alberta. They think they are better than the rest of us.

I think they are scared sh*tless that oil will be nationalized.

But the political landscape is slowly changing in Alberta anyways, Klein lost a few more seats last time, Edmonton is going Liberal quicker than say Calgary.

Hell 36% of Albertans believe petroleum should be nationalized. So I say within 20 years the political landscape in Alberta will be quite diferent.

edited to add- my 2000th post. Only took 2.5 years. Jan 9, 2003 is when I signed on.
 
mrmom2
#4
Way to go no 1
 
ottawabill
#5
Ohh I can see it now as public gas servants go on strike and none of us will get gas.

Honestely though this poll is a knee jerk reaction to the price of oil. Even if the gas companies were nationalized to would have no effect on the world price. We would still pay 2.30 a litre and maybe more with the non productive nature of Gov. companies...Been on an Air Canada flight lately..you really want that service at the pumps???
 
PoisonPete2
#6
I've been an advocate for a nationalized energy industry since I saw the 7 Sisters hold the world to ransom in 1973/74. These oil companies lie, cheat and steal. They deserve nothing less then to be driven out of existence. Yet, in Canada, we can't even come up with a National Energy Policy. Our government puts phony policies in place (like FIRA) and then do nothing cos they are in the pockets of the American Politicians who are in the pockets of big oil and big pharma. We need a major change in our stockpile of politicians. Where is Tommy Dauglas and his ilk??
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by PoisonPete2

Where is Tommy Dauglas and his ilk??

Yeah, I'm right here Dude...but goddammitall, no one will vote for me...
 
Ten Packs
#8
Wonderful idea: we paid hundreds of millions for Petrocan to be created out of BA, British Petroleum, and others. Then we (or at least Canadian investors) paid even more, when it was privatized and sold off.

Now we get to pay for it A THIRD TIME???

Right.....
 
Reverend Blair
#9
Your right, we shouldn't have to pay for it. Let's just go ahead and sieze the assets. (I better say that I'm just kidding before some dim-bulb neo-con wannabe takes that out of context)

The sale of PetroCanada made absolutely no sense though. Having a government-owned energy company would have been an ideal way to introduce alternative fuels.
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#10
The Story of Privatization in Canada According to Hansard:

Quote:

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make on the issue of privatization. There is one story I like to tell about privatization that for me says it all. It has to do with the privatization of the Manitoba telephone system which was done by a Conservative government. It said that it would never do such a thing and then did after it was elected. Many friends of the government made a lot of money by buying cheap shares and having them escalate in value.

The story is about a phone located on the perimeter highway in Winnipeg. The phone was placed there for people whose cars broke down or who had some kind of emergency or whatever. As long as the phone was publicly owned it was fine because it was cross-subsidized and was available as a public service. It was there to serve a public need.

As soon as the Manitoba telephone system became privatized and shareholder value became the guiding principle of that corporation, rather than a public service all phone stations were evaluated. The company felt that phone did not pay because it was only used 75 to 150 times a year. Boom, out went the phone. To me this says it all.

With privatization comes a value system. Only those things which are profitable for shareholders are to be valued. Things that at one time under a different ethic and a different form of ownership served other needs, other than the profit strategies of the corporations and the needs of shareholders, were put in place. With privatization we see the disappearance of these things.

It is true with railways, airlines and telephone companies and it will be true with water if we allow our water system to be privatized. Water is the next thing on the hit list of global corporate privatizers. We make no apologies for having been against this trend when it first began and we are still against it.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague raised this issue. I had the opportunity in my comments but I had so many other things to say that I never got to it.

The situation he talks about with the Manitoba telephone system is one of the most despicable things the Conservative government in Manitoba did. We had a viable telephone operation that was beneficial to the whole province and people in my riding.

I have a very remote riding. Some 27 communities do not have all weather road access. A number of communities had a few phones and most often they were pay phones. MTS came in and that is where the pay telephone story comes into play.

The school and the nursing station got a phone and one other phone went in. These were not pay phones. The only pay phone in town was pulled out because there were now three other phones that everybody could run and use. That is the type of approach taken when profit is the only motive.

One of the partners in that process is now the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar. There was an open sale of MTS. The people of Manitoba ousted the Conservative government directly as a result of the sale of MTS because they were not happy about it.

It increased the cost of phone service on an ongoing basis. The cost of a phone has been increasing. The service is far less than it ever was. We had by far the best phone system in the world. Now there are problems after problems. MTS does not put any money back into the service. It is willing to sell it at whatever the rates and does not put the money back in. It is definitely a big issue.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will take only a few minutes. I know the government is anxious to bring this to a close. The hon. member for Churchill said that the privatization of MTS was the most dastardly thing the Conservative government of Manitoba had ever done. That reminded me of an even more dastardly thing that was done by the Liberals when they came to power in 1993. I am referring to the privatization of Canadian National Railway which was perpetrated by the Benedict Arnold of transportation, the hon. Doug Young. We are forever grateful to the member for Acadie—Bathurst for removing that political scourge from the House of Commons.

Mr. Yvon Godin: He is a lobbyist now for CN.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Now he is a lobbyist for CN. I am sure he is doing quite well. I do not know what the ethics counsellor thinks of that. I suppose he passed through the required time of cleansing and everything is being done by the rules, however inadequate those rules may be.

It was a travesty. I remember when we had a publicly owned Canadian National Railway infrastructure from coast to coast. It was operating on business principles but nevertheless from time to time could do things that served the needs of particular communities or regions.

Now we have that same Canadian National Railway, no longer worthy of that name, which is becoming more and more of an American railway. It merged with the Illinois Central. There are more and more American senior managers coming up and running the CNR according to American railway principles.

Who really owns the CNR? Up to 60% of its shareholders are Americans. We had a vast public infrastructure paid for over the years by the Canadian public which was turned over for a very cheap price to what are now American shareholders. We no longer have control of that enormous piece of transportation infrastructure.

It was part of the common wisdom of the country and of parliament for years that given the size of Canada transportation was a critical thing the government had to have some say in. Through the privatization of the CNR and through their relaxing of the regulations that used to attend the regulation of railways we now have a toothless organization. Whatever Paul Tellier wants Paul Tellier gets. Whatever the CPR wants the CPR gets.

Some members may remember when we had a Canadian Transport Commission that could actually make railways do things they did not want to do because it was in the public interest to do them. The CTC could prohibit them from doing things that were harmful.

When the history of Canada is written it will probably be in the past tense and will focus on the major decisions that led to the country's disappearance. Today we hear the Toronto-Dominion Bank saying that in 10 years we will be American dollarizing our economy. When the history of Canada's disappearance is written, the Liberal government of the day and its minister of transport, Doug Young, will figure prominently in its demise.

It is the most shameful thing the Liberals have ever done. There are Liberals over there who cannot say so, but many have told me privately that it was not one of the high points of their political life. They did what not even a Conservative government would do.

Even during the Mulroney years the Conservatives did not have the nerve to do what the Liberals did. They might have thought or fantasized about it, but they did not have the nerve to actually commit such a foul deed. That was left to the Liberals.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, by speaking about my predecessor, Doug Young, my hon. colleague has given me the opportunity to tell a little story and make some comments.

As the hon. member has said, Doug Young left politics in 1997. In the fall of 1998 he was quoted in the Telegraph Journal as saying he had privatized CN himself and that it was now the best client he had ever had. This was Doug Young, a Liberal minister on the other side of the House. That same article quoted him as saying he was one of the directors who had privatized the four lane highway in New Brunswick. There again he was making millions of dollars on the backs of New Brunswickers.

They sold CN to the New Brunswick East Coast Railway and we lost a bridge in Bathurst, New Brunswick, about 10 months ago which had been owned and maintained by CN. The federal government had also been involved with the bridge. It was on one of the busiest streets in Bathurst and now everyone must go around it. This has forced businesses to close. We lost CN in Bathurst because of privatization. The government has simply washed its hands and said it has nothing to do with it.

I have a question for the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona. He has had more than 20 years of experience in parliament and has seen privatization coming all along. I am sure he has seen other cases where Liberals were involved in privatization after leaving politics. Does he wonder whether they are doing it in the best interest of Canadians or the best interest of their own pockets?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that newly privatized companies, not just in Canada but around the world, are rife with former government officials. They tend to move into sectors which have been privatized and are doing very well in terms of shares, stocks, contracts or whatnot. None of that is necessarily illegal but it does raise questions about what the agenda really is.

There are plenty of examples, both provincial and federal, which arouse the well founded suspicion, shall we say, that while it is done partly out of ideological fixation it is also done to serve the interest of certain friends of the government who are doing the privatizing.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, we have a problem right now because of our very low dollar. The business of the country is for sale at bargain basement prices on the international market, so it is a problem indeed. One thing the bill deals with is privatization, and I believe it includes elements of the Petro-Canada deal.

The hon. member who just spoke will recall that it was a number of years ago that Petro-Canada was created. I do not know whether he was in the House at the time. As part of the bill we are now divesting ourselves of Petro-Canada. I would like to know whether the hon. member supported a nationalized oil company at the time and whether he supports the part of the bill that would now get rid of it. How far would he take the nationalization of these industries? Would he encourage Canada to gain control of all its major oil companies? How far would he take it?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to divest the last vestiges of government ownership in Petro-Canada. If the member knew his history he would know that the NDP was instrumental to the formation of Petro-Canada. It was one of things the NDP leader, David Lewis, and his caucus pressed for in the minority parliament of 1972 to 1974. Petro-Canada came into being shortly thereafter and perhaps even during the life of that minority parliament the groundwork was laid for it.

We had always felt it was a good idea to have a publicly owned oil corporation but we were not always happy with the way the Liberals ran it. Over time the Liberals gave public ownership a bad name. All too often they saw it as an opportunity for patronage rather than a chance to do something better than could be done by the private sector.

One of the problems we therefore had, along with others who saw a role for public ownership in certain sectors, was that the Liberal Party of Canada gave public ownership a bad name. It became something we wanted to defend in principle but not always in practice.

We still think a measure of public ownership in the oil industry would be a good idea. That is why we have opposed the privatization of Petro-Canada. However Petro-Canada was not created through nationalization as the member suggests.

 
Ten Packs
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Your right, we shouldn't have to pay for it. Let's just go ahead and sieze the assets. (I better say that I'm just kidding before some dim-bulb neo-con wannabe takes that out of context)

The sale of PetroCanada made absolutely no sense though. Having a government-owned energy company would have been an ideal way to introduce alternative fuels.


One-word-answer:

Cash-grab.

(Ok - one HYPHENATED word.)
 
Reverend Blair
#12
I think it's more than a cash-grab, Ten Packs. Martin cut his teeth working in the energy industry. He's got lots of friends there.

It also played well in Alberta, where he was hoping to gain seats and definitely wanted to save the ones he had. Remember how cozy he was with Klein for a while?

Also, energy stocks were on the rise and profits were going up, so it was a long-term source of money.

I don't think anybody but a handful of Liberals and a couple of Conservatives know the whole story, but there was more to it than a simple cash grab.
 
PoisonPete2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Reverend Blair

Your right, we shouldn't have to pay for it. Let's just go ahead and sieze the assets. (I better say that I'm just kidding before some dim-bulb neo-con wannabe takes that out of context)

The sale of PetroCanada made absolutely no sense though. Having a government-owned energy company would have been an ideal way to introduce alternative fuels.

Answer - you were sounding like my favourite Venezualan for a minute. I think you are right. We should not have to pay for it. The Canadian taxpayers have already paid for the full infrastructure of the integrated oil distribution system through an overly-favourable tax system. We paid all of the capital costs, 105% of well development, hell we even paid for the loss of reserves (oil depletion allowance) for having them pump out the oil. In other words the major oil companies have robbed Canada blind (or stupid) and they have been allowed to take huge amounts of cash out of Canada with low (or no) tax backs. Then they are not even held responsible for the detrimental environmental impacts. They get to pay token fines. My god, Sears paid more for 2 false advertizing instances than these guys have paid in total for abandoned fields. Nationalize the industry, jail the executives and lets not have any of this "pay for it a third time" crap. Then you have bozos like Klien, who are shills for these companies and have little concept of the true value of what they give away for chump change.
 
Reverend Blair
#14
You'll never sell that to the Liberals or Conservatives in the current political climate though, Pete. The guys running things are the privatisers, not the nationalisers. There's also provincial powers to take into consideration...it isn't just Alberta that will fight it, but Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, and likely BC. Even Manitoba could go the either way since the big find in Virden.

Where I think we should emulate Chavez is insisting that we keep more of the money. The deal Klein swung in Alberta is a joke...Canadians (because the feds subsidize the industry as well) pay all of the costs and take all of the risks. Albertans keep a relative pittance, and Canadians get no direct return whatsoever.
 
Jo Canadian
#15
 
Ten Packs
#16
"Nationalize the industry, jail the executives and lets not have any of this "pay for it a third time" crap."

Welcome to Cuba, 1959.... it's worked real well for them, hasn't it?
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#17
While I must admit, I'm not entirely equipped to forecast the socio-economic ramifications of nationalizing the oil industry, I stil think it would be better to have the oil revenues in country, rather than in the hands of foreign owned multinationals that will send the revenues offshore...

As the good Reverend had mentioned earlier, a lot of R&D into alternative energy could be paid for with those revenues...do you think the oil companies are going to do that?

I'm not looking to turn Canada into Cuba-north, I'm just thinking that with that kind of revenue generation, and political capital, we could regain some of the sovereignty that our nation's leaders had sold off over the past 40 years...
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#18
Taking over the oil and gas companies could come back to bite us too, as we would have to deal with the ivory tower boys in government. At present there is a second solution for the short term. Put energy fuels under the energy commission with a set price for Canadian fuel, and have a second price for export.
Since we a being told there is a crisis, perhaps the price should be pegged to ensure all income levels can afford fuel and then ration it like they did during world war two. In the long term we have to decide what is best for all Canadians, and that would likely mean, government taking over the sale, and distribution of Canadian fuel resources.
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy

At present there is a second solution for the short term. Put energy fuels under the energy commission with a set price for Canadian fuel, and have a second price for export.

Isnt' that exactly what the NEP was meant to do...the plan that Albertans claim raped their province so savagely?
 
Jo Canadian
#20
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#21
Albertans are always bitching about something, this country must come before any one province in an emergency, or crisis.
I see it this way, if these people are jacking up the price because, there is a shortage of fuel, or there is a disruption of service, that constitutes a crisis that threatens the well being of Canadians as a whole, therefore it is a Federal responsibility, to ensure that we all have accress to fuel at reasonable prices. If there is no crisis, or shortage then the oil people are ripping us off, and that is reason enough to have the Feds take action.
It should also be noted that prior to l947, when oil was first discovered in King Ralphs Kingdom, Alberta was a have not Province and other parts of Canada shared their wealth with Albertans.
 
Vanni Fucci
Free Thinker
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy

It should also be noted that prior to l947, when oil was first discovered in King Ralphs Kingdom, Alberta was a have not Province and other parts of Canada shared their wealth with Albertans.

Oh that is noted quite often around here Grumpy...but the Albertans' rejoinder will run along the lines that they've payed that back a hundred times over...big babies...
 
PoisonPete2
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Ten Packs

"Nationalize the industry, jail the executives and lets not have any of this "pay for it a third time" crap."

Welcome to Cuba, 1959.... it's worked real well for them, hasn't it?

Answer - fearmongering to maintain the status quo? Maintain a servile attitude toward America and maybe the U.S. won't beat us up? Cuba 1959 was the overthrowing of an extremely corrupt American backed regime that held on to Cuba for 60 years. Complete with Death Squads and torture. Castro got rid of the Mafia control but those criminals were in bed with a lot of American politicians. Including Nixon. Thus, freeing his people from a crushing oppression won Castro the ire of the U.S. and shortly an economic blockade. This just shows what a bunch of Aholes the Americans are. There are a lot of other countries to trade with. The Americans have proven time after time that they not worthy of trust.
 
Numure
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by ottawabill

Ohh I can see it now as public gas servants go on strike and none of us will get gas.

Honestely though this poll is a knee jerk reaction to the price of oil. Even if the gas companies were nationalized to would have no effect on the world price. We would still pay 2.30 a litre and maybe more with the non productive nature of Gov. companies...Been on an Air Canada flight lately..you really want that service at the pumps???

Air Canada isnt a crown compagnie...
 
JomZ
#25
But, its treated like one. Government payouts to buoy the company through its times of turbulence (a little airline humour). Monopoly collapses don't go overwell for shakey economies
 
Karlin
#26
I would not have even mentioned it, for fear of the backlash. To see that HALF of Canadians want a nationalised oil industry gives me great hope!!

Quote:

It would be the greatest social advancement in Canada's modern history.

What doesn't compute is that voting Canadians seems not to realise that voting either Liberal or Conservative is a vote for the "corporate" side. to some degree, they have been tricked into Left and Right politics, when the real thing they want is not either.

Lets take it a step further than just nationalising the oil industry. Add in energy, communications - everything we all use anyways and have no business being in the "marketplace" due to monoploy and conglomerate. No personal choices need to be accomodated like with food [which we all use too], so these "basic staples" of modern life SHOULD be publically supplied.

When you think of it, nationalising basics would cause the cost of living would go wayyyy down due to 'savings' in several areas:
No competition
No advertising
Steady measured increases in technological advances instead of throwing out all the old phones every two years.

Looking at socialist nations - which I truly believe Canadians really are at heart - that have nationalised these things, we see it is possible. Much better results would be seen in those nations if "American" forces were not working hard against the successess of socialist nations.

Karlin
 
dumpthemonarchy
Free Thinker
#27
With the price of oil rising, why should MNCs hog all the profits and put next to nothing into alternative fuels? The oil companies are not energy companies, meaning they are not willing to look at other forms of profitable fuel. Why should they, the US Geological Survey recently placed Canada second after Saudi Arabia last year in world oil reserves. We moved up by magic from 20th. Amazing.

Ralph Klein recently mouthed that Alberta spends enough billions on Confederation. Perhaps Albertans will change their tune when gas is $2 a litre and everyone wants relief. Which will be lower taxes or nationalization I think.
 
Vitamin C
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Karlin

When you think of it, nationalising basics would cause the cost of living would go wayyyy down due to 'savings' in several areas:
No competition
No advertising
Steady measured increases in technological advances instead of throwing out all the old phones every two years.

Karlin

Explaint to me how reducing competition could lower prices? The problem with today's economics is that there is not enough competition. When companies get too big they are able to decimate competition and control the markets...

We need a government willing to nurture and ensure competition and capitalism.

The reason people today are unhappy with the way our economies are going is the same reason people are scared of communism.

They are both situations where there is an all-powerful force that controls without question how the markets work.

The problem is we need MORE competition!
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#29
Its not a case of nationalizing everything, its a case of controlling who owns the industry and who controls access to the supply.
We have used rationing before in time of war, to ensure we all get what is required to survive in our society.
The good of the nation and the Canadian people must come first, before dividends, and a steady supply to those who don't live in Canada. I say one price for Canadians and a much higher price for those of other countries. But Canadians must have first access to their own resourse. As for Albertans, Ontarians, Quebecers and Britiish Columbians, well we have been bitching ever since we got a coat of arms, and an official piece of land on the map.
Remember the Atlantic Provinces, they have found oil and gas too off their coastal regions and soon they will be paying us for using the name Canadian as well. This is all one country and things ebb and flow we should all quit whining and get on with being a nation.
 
dumpthemonarchy
Free Thinker
#30
The oil companies should continue to develope the public resource that is oil, because they are more efficient. However, their desire to be private should be limited. They will make their %10 ROI, but the gov't royalties will take the excess for the good of the Cdn public. The public should not bear the brunt of high oil and gas prices while oil companies and shareholders reap the immense profits.


The gold bugs are talking about the relationship between oil and gold at:

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials...erg042205.html

A French report states that oil might be $380 per barrel in less than ten years.

Will oil strike $380 a barrel by 2015 ?
By Adam Porter in Perpignan, France
April 21, 2005

A report prepared by energy economists at the French investment bank Ixis-CIB has warned crude oil prices could touch $380 a barrel by 2015.

Analysts Patrick Artus and Moncef Kaabi said in the next 10 years demand for oil will outstrip supply by around 8 million barrels per day (mbpd).

"If one takes into account the level of previous oil shocks such as in the 1970's, we don't think a price level of $380 per barrel is out of the question," they said. END.


There is oil, but we are at the end of CHEAP OIL.
 

Similar Threads

15
190
Nationalize Canadian oil reserves!!!!
by Socrates the Greek | Jul 5th, 2008