Who should own Alberta's oil?

[kimmy]

Does that not support what I said?

Well, not exactly. Perhaps we're arguing two different things.

That's super!

However, it does nothing to refute the claim that Bay Street was nowhere in sight when the Alberta oil-patch was in its fledgling stages in the 1930s and 40s.

Actually, it does. New issues are capital raising ventures from Bay Street.

The point of this is that Canadian money went into the development of oil in Alberta not just American.

I will perhaps go back to earlier in this thread to where this portion of the argument originated, but here is my recollection: somebody from Ontario made the claim that without Ontario money, none of this would have happened.

Well, the counter-claim from Stampeder, and from a U of A professor interviewed on CBC in the 1970s, is that not only was American investment a bigger part of the puzzle, it also came at a more crucial time.

Nobody is denying that Ontario investment came during the "let's get paid" portion of building Alberta's oilpatch. There seems to be some question of whether Ontario investors were there during the more risky, speculative phase, however.

For what reason, I cannot imagine but it seems that some Albertans want to think that there was no Canadian content.

And "for what reason" followed from the same argument. For the reason that someone seemed to take a "we made you; you owe us" stance. But your own story confirms that Ontario investors got what they were owed and more; they seem to have received substancial returns on their investments.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

Kimmy!

The chip on the shoulder stylr does not become you. Everyone got rewarded for their investments as it should be. Who put in more money is irrelevant. The Americans put in more for their own purposes and the Canadian market, as I have already pointed out was not then big enough to raise all the momies needed.

Alberta has indeed been a net recipient from Ottawa since the beginning. That it was not called Equalization until 1957 means nothing. Would you rather not have the better formula than risk later some people saying that there was no largesse because it had a different name?

Ontario money and business was in Alberta before the 1960's. I am not going to research the participants now: I don't have that kind of time free. However, I know it was because, in business, I had connections with the oil patch. I would have liked to hear that professor at the time to straighten him out if what is suggested is what he was saying.

[stamps]

Ontario money and business was in Alberta before the 1960's. I am not going to research the participants now: I don't have that kind of time free. However, I know it was because, in business, I had connections with the oil patch. I would have liked to hear that professor at the time to straighten him out if what is suggested is what he was saying.

Staighten out a U of A professer? You truley are deluded...

[ticker]

Ontario money and business was in Alberta before the 1960's. I am not going to research the participants now: I don't have that kind of time free. However, I know it was because, in business, I had connections with the oil patch. I would have liked to hear that professor at the time to straighten him out if what is suggested is what he was saying.

Staighten out a U of A professer? You truley are deluded...

Ereka knows more the that professor after all his connections to buddies in the oil patch think the NEP was the best thing since sliced bread.

[Guest eureka]

Does that mean you have no argument to make?

[kimmy]

Kimmy!

The chip on the shoulder stylr does not become you.

I thought I was a model of restraint. I've been told before in forums that my messages sometimes come across a little too strong; if that's the case, well, I guess I'm sorry. I don't mean to sound hostile or aggressive or pushy or intimidating... but if my messages come across that way, then let me know and I'll try to be nicer.

Everyone got rewarded for their investments as it should be. Who put in more money is irrelevant. The Americans put in more for their own purposes and the Canadian market, as I have already pointed out was not then big enough to raise all the momies needed.

The comment that got people riled up was that Ontario money built Alberta's oil industry. And it's just wrong. Alberta's first commercial fossil enterprise was a gas plant founded by a man named W.S. Herron. He was forced to sell his operation in 1921 because he couldn't raise enough capital to purchase modern equipment. American Standard Oil bought his operation and reorganized it as "Royalite". And if you look through the history of Alberta's early oil industry, it's the same 3 names over and over: American Standard Oil and its subsidiaries Imperial Oil and Royalite. It was Imperial's involvment in gas wells in Alberta that ultimately led to the discovery of oil at Turner Valley in 1936, and Imperial again at Leduc in 1947.

If Bay Street investors jumped in with both feet once a major commercially viable reserve was proven to exist, then that's super. But nothing I've read so far contradicts the view that it was American money, in the form of Standard Oil and its subsidiaries, that made Turner Valley and Leduc happen.

Alberta has indeed been a net recipient from Ottawa since the beginning. That it was not called Equalization until 1957 means nothing. Would you rather not have the better formula than risk later some people saying that there was no largesse because it had a different name?

I certainly don't argue that Alberta was a recipient of support in the early years. Has anybody argued that in this thread?

I do take issue with the phrasing here: "Alberta has indeed been a net recipient from Ottawa since the beginning." What exactly are you saying? If your claim is that over the 99 years of its existence, Alberta has received more from confederation than Alberta has contributed to confederation, I'm highly skeptical. I understand that Alberta received federal funds during the first 59 years. However, Alberta's contributions *to* federation over the past 40 years have been immense, and I have no doubt that they far outstrip the money received during the first 59 years.

Ontario money and business was in Alberta before the 1960's. I am not going to research the participants now: I don't have that kind of time free. However, I know it was because, in business, I had connections with the oil patch. I would have liked to hear that professor at the time to straighten him out if what is suggested is what he was saying.

Well, the argicle is here:

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-378-2139/p...berta_oil/clip5

"Where was Bay Street? Where was Montreal, when we needed them [in the 30s and 40s]?" He explains that during the dirty thirties, Toronto companies turned down oil men looking for investment capital, forcing Alberta companies to partially sell out to Americans.

and you can watch the video to get the context of his remarks.

If you want to "straighten him out", you can probably get ahold of him. Dr. Pratt is still active as an energy analyst, and has written a number of books on industry in Alberta.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

Kimmy:

If that is what has riled people, then take it up with whoever made the comment: don't make it an attack on what I am saying. Why I suggest that there might be a chip on your shoulder is just for that reason> You are not attending to what I write but jumping beyond and attributing things I clearly do not say to me. That is a sign of anger getting the better of you.

Be as forceful as you like: that is my debating style, too.

I have maintained that Alberta was a net recipient up to 1964. I said nothing about the period since then. I said that there was also Ontario money in the Oil patch before the 1960's: significant amounts: There was. I have never said that Americans companies were not the largest participant: they were. That is to be expected just as foreign money was the largest contributor to American industrial development in the early days of American develpment.

I have also pointed to the large number of independent Canadian junior oil companies that were operating in the patch since early days. Most have been swallowed by American companies since then.

As for the professor, where does does he think Bay street and Montreal were in the 30's and 40's. There was no money anywhere for speculation in those days. There was a depression and a war that took all Canada could handle.

I will read his article and contact him if there is anything there worth the effort.

There is another side to the Alberta advantage. How many immigrants have there been to Alberta since the days of prosperity began. How much money did they bring with them? What skills and education obtained at the cost of other provinces are involved? How much business and how many Head offices moved there from Montreal in the 70's: moved not because of Alberta's attractiveness but because of Quebec's language legislation. What was that worth to Alberta?

I suspect the answer would be many billions of dollars. Possibly an amount that makes the contribution to Equalization look puny.

I really find all this rather ridiculous and a reflection of the over-decentralized natiure of Canada. Where else in the world is there such a beggar thy neighbour attitude when the neighbour is of the same nation and, often, of the same family?

I suspect

[ticker]

Does that mean you have no argument to make?

Kimmy & stamps are doing a fine job I could repeat them if it would make you happy. I saw things like that cbc clip a few years ago but i will let kimmy take the credit for it.

[playfullfellow]

How much business and how many Head offices moved there from Montreal in the 70's: moved not because of Alberta's attractiveness but because of Quebec's language legislation. What was that worth to Alberta?

I don't really get what this has to do with this thread, I must have missed the connection somewhere. Yeah, this has been good for Alberta but has nothing to do with our resources. If it was in these companies best interest to move to Alberta, well, good for them and also good for me. They could have just as easily moved to any other province but I guess they figured that Alberta offered them the most. But this also is good for the ROC, we have secure jobs, increased income tax payments, less people on welfare, less people on EI.

One thing I see missing in this thread is that no one remembers the grunt workers who actually risked life and limb to bring in these early wells. There were a lot of Alberta men and boys that struggled to bring about this boon. What about all the families that have lost loved ones to this industry, I guess they dont count since they didn't invest money in it.

There is another side to the Alberta advantage. How many immigrants have there been to Alberta since the days of prosperity began. How much money did they bring with them? What skills and education obtained at the cost of other provinces are involved?

If these other provinces offered well paying jobs, lower taxes, more jobs, I doubt that they would have left their home province. What difference doea it make what the cost is to other provinces? This is Canada and we have the freedom to live where ever we want to. If this jobs were in Sakatchewan, Manitoba or Ontario, then the people would move there. How many people moved East in the 60's and 70's because the better paying jobs were there? That cost the provinces too.

If the money we pay in taxes was spent wisely, then I doubt any of us would have any decent argument against Ottawa taking more. Right now we can't say that the money is spent wisely. The amount of money left over after equalization payments are taken into account is miniscule to Canada as a whole but keeps Alberta business viable. This means we have job security and a steady flow of income taxes. It also means that we, as Albertas get to enjoy being the first Canadians to be tax free each year by almost a week. Now that makes me happy, I just wish it was a few more weeks earlier .

[Guest eureka]

It is relevant because Alberta would not have possessed the economic conditions and population to make the moves feasible if it had not been for the oil. There has, by the way, never been a reverse movement of any great moment.

You might not have noticed that the basis of my arguments is also "what difference does it make; this is Canada." Prosperity should be shared and serendipitously wealthy provinces should not object to helping the less fortunate ones.

[playfullfellow]

You might not have noticed that the basis of my arguments is also "what difference does it make; this is Canada." Prosperity should be shared and serendipitously wealthy provinces should not object to helping the less fortunate ones.

I have no problem with that but Alberta already does pay a huge amount of money through equalization payments to the tune of around 10 billion per year right now. That is around 10,000 dollars for every Albertan that goes somewhere else. What about all the income taxes we send to Ottawa because our wage levels are pretty decent right now? What about capital gains taxes because things are worth more right now? They also go to Ottawa. We have 2 provinces that contribute to equalization payments, the rest receive. Aside from Quebec briefly and BC lately, Ontario and Alberta are the only net contibutors since 1967 ( may not be the exact year). Why is Alberta not allowed to enjoy it's prosperity now? Why shouldn't I enjoy paying less taxes? Maybe if some of the other provinces had more business friendly governments, then they might also grow financially.

[Guest eureka]

I believe the 10 billion figure is total, not just Alberta. I could be wrong and don't want to research it.

What provinces do not have business friendly governments. My recollection of the "have-not" provinces is of a desperate?effort over the years to attract business. Even Quebec with its left wing governments has not been antipathetic to business in any way that I know of. I bring in the loss due to language legislation because Quebec lost 40% of its Head Offices to Ontario and Alberta between 1973 and 1979.

[cgarrett]

i think this is, quite simply, a great idea.

[kimmy]

Kimmy:

If that is what has riled people, then take it up with whoever made the comment: don't make it an attack on what I am saying.

The comment I'm referring to is the one that Stamps quoted when he revived this thread:

In the heady exploration days of the 60's and 70's, the money to float and grow all those exploration companies was coming from Ontario. In those days, the people and expertise came from Ontario and overseas - not Alberta.

That was from somewhere earlier in this thread, and I think it was your words.

I think that myself and a number of others took the tone of this message as: "We made you." If we've misinterpretted the message, then I guess it's an error in communication, but you have to concede, the statement left lots of room for misunderstanding.

That is why we've been talking about the early years, not the 1960s-70s era that you prefer to discuss. I think the information that's been presented-- and you've agreed as much-- disproves the notion that "you" (meaning Ontario, Bay Street, Central Canadian money) made "us" (meaning Albertans who enjoy a comfortable standard of living as a direct or indirect result of the oil industry.)

Now, if we're arguing against something that you didn't mean to express, then I guess it's been a misunderstanding, but I think you'll concede that the tone of your original comment contributed to our interpretation of it.

Why I suggest that there might be a chip on your shoulder is just for that reason> You are not attending to what I write but jumping beyond and attributing things I clearly do not say to me. That is a sign of anger getting the better of you.

"Not attending" to you? Am I a maid now?

I shall attend to your main points of late:

* Alberta received equalization money prior to 1964.

My response is: I agree. And?

* Central Canada money was present in the Alberta oil patch.

My response: ok. You've agreed to my main issue on this front, which is that American investment in Alberta was the key factor. Let's leave it at that.

* We should ask ourselves why Canadian oil businesses have been bought out by larger American companies.

My response: I dunno. Same reason that smaller Canadian businesses in other industries are bought up by larger American competitors? I'm sure you're itching to talk about this issue, so let's have it.

As for the professor, where does does he think Bay street and Montreal were in the 30's and 40's. There was no money anywhere for speculation in those days. There was a depression and a war that took all Canada could handle.

Standard Oil certainly had the money; their investment resulted in the discovery of oil at Turner Valley in 1936 and at Leduc in 1947.

There is another side to the Alberta advantage. How many immigrants have there been to Alberta since the days of prosperity began. How much money did they bring with them? What skills and education obtained at the cost of other provinces are involved? How much business and how many Head offices moved there from Montreal in the 70's: moved not because of Alberta's attractiveness but because of Quebec's language legislation. What was that worth to Alberta?

I suspect the answer would be many billions of dollars. Possibly an amount that makes the contribution to Equalization look puny.

Isn't this kind of outside the scope of this discussion, though? Vancouver and Toronto also have very high levels of immigration, with no oil industry to speak of...

Certainly, poor policy made by the governments in Quebec and Victoria has resulted in businesses and jobs relocating to Alberta. That might be indirectly related to Alberta's oil wealth, but as you mention, other factors are present as well.

I really find all this rather ridiculous and a reflection of the over-decentralized natiure of Canada. Where else in the world is there such a beggar thy neighbour attitude when the neighbour is of the same nation and, often, of the same family?

I'll just mention that this attitude goes both ways... for every person saying Alberta pays too much, there's somebody else saying Albertans didn't do anything to deserve this prosperity. August's rational for starting this thread more or less boiled down to "well, Albertans are getting pretty arrogant", as I recall.

[playfullfellow]

I believe the 10 billion figure is total, not just Alberta. I could be wrong and don't want to research it.

I stand corrected on this point. That is in fact the total or pretty close to it. But of this 10 billion, Alberta will pay close to 9 billion. The rest will come from Ontario. So we can say that Alberta pays close to 90% of equalization payments now. Rumours have it that the feds will try to increase that by another billion next year but Ontario may have to pay another 3-4 billion. This is not fact but just some of the things I read. I guess we will be able to tell after Oct 27. I don't mind researching, makes for a better debate.

What provinces do not have business friendly governments.

What province has no sales tax? What province gives tax incentives for businesses to start? What province has the lowest income tax levels? What province has a slush fund set aside for a rainy day? What province is just about debt free ( and this is a stretch because they only count currently owed debts, not debts that dont mature for a few years). Are these all not incentives for a business to move to a place that has a business friendly government. I do agree that a lot of companies left Quebec because of their biased language laws but that is not Alberta's fault.

[Guest eureka]

And sometimes I feel like the milkman!

I had been referring to the junior exploration companies that were floated and financed out of Toronto - those that have disappeared now into the American maw. So, I guess there was a misunderstanding.

Standard Oil may have had the money but who else did in those years? Development of the patch did not take any great shape until after the war and Depression. Still, when it did take off, Canada was a small capital market and in no position to undertake many such undertakings. At the same time, there was resource development all over Canada. Uranium, Iron Ore etc. and Industrialization. Money came from everywhere. Much of this has also fallen into American hands: much was discovered by smaller Canadian companies who could not finance the projects in Canada.

Alberta did receive federal help until 1964. I do not see why you think this is of no consequence when the complaint from Alberta is that it now contributes disproportionately. Surely a nation exists for all its parts. and all contribute according to their relative positions. Ontario has never received Equalization or the equivalent and, for most of its history, was by far the largest contributor to aid.

When we consider movements of people and business in Canada, there is not a real comparison. Many provinces have immigration and benefit accordingly. It was the movement of Canadians and Canadian business to Alberta that is a unique situation. Alberta has benefited immensely at the expense of other provinces in that way.

There are, I agree, people who say Alberta did nothing to deserve its prosperity, but we don't pay attention to those do we? August was right though. Albertans are getting pretty arrogant. Which will run out first: the oil or the water?

[Guest eureka]

What province indeed has all those wonderful advantages, and why? All provinces give tax incentives and have many strategies. Alberta, at the moment, is in the best position to attract with money although not much better than Ontario which has a lot of other things going for it and will soon overtake Alberta again.

Perhaps even Nefoundland will get there with its abundance of resources. Where will Alberta be then when all those who are earning your high standards return to their roots.

[playfullfellow]

Alberta did receive federal help until 1964. I do not see why you think this is of no consequence when the complaint from Alberta is that it now contributes disproportionately. Surely a nation exists for all its parts. and all contribute according to their relative positions. Ontario has never received Equalization or the equivalent and, for most of its history, was by far the largest contributor to aid.

Can this consequence also not be made towards provinces that become financial dependant on equalization payments due to their own fiscal decisions? I am refering to BC here who used to be a well off province till the NDP wiped the cupboard bare. Saskatchewan has little to no industry aside from agriculture and their own social programs keep them cash strapped. Manitoba has tried for many years to find it's niche in Canada but struggle with a lot of debt. Ontario is manufacturing rich and industry rich. Quebec, well they don't want any English industry there anyways. The Maritimes have been so used to getting hand outs that it is hard to break the habit. They are trying of course but the Liberals just keep bribing them.

Of course Canada should be looked at as one nation as a whole but Quebec has made this impossible. We have a very definitive line drawn within our borders and it will be almost impossible to get rid of it. Canada could be one of the richest, most successful countries in the world because of our resources and our red neck attitude could see us achieve such goals. Where the heck would Canada be as a whole if it wasn't for the success of our resource developement? The only thing we would have is our ag industry and a lot of that is in a shambles too now. If we did things your way, we would see the resource industry in Alberta put into shambles and the Alberta economy ripped to shreds. No thanks, we saw enough of that in the 80's.

[playfullfellow]

Perhaps even Nefoundland will get there with its abundance of resources. Where will Alberta be then when all those who are earning your high standards return to their roots.

I am not here to belittle anything you say. I truly hope that the maritimes get their resources and Ontario will recover one day but when? For now, Alberta is doing good, why can't you feel good about that? Alberta is not perfect but it is a pretty good place to live. I am a transplant to here but this is where I make my home now. This is where I like to raise my family just like you chose to live where you are. People will go where the work is, no doubt in that. But we are stuck with a situation where we basically have 10 small countries inside of one big one and each one figures they are getting screwed one whay or another.

[August1991]

August's rational for starting this thread more or less boiled down to "well, Albertans are getting pretty arrogant", as I recall.

I have been to Alberta several times in my life and I worked one summer in Edmonton.

I would never describe Albertans as arrogant. IME, they are the opposite of urban snobbish.

IMV, Albertan "cool" is a tough criteria. Rural decency and an ability to clean a carburetor - or at least to know what a car battery looks like - combined with the ability to tell the truth without saying anything.

[Guest eureka]

I know you are not belittling what I say and I try to adopt that approach with everyone except , and except, and except. I even suffer fools and I suffer terribly in the discussions.

When will Ontario recover. It has recovered after years of the neo-libs There is still a way to go however, hte forecast GDP groth for Ontario next year is 3.6% compared to Alberta with 3.9%. In the current year, Newfoundland led the pack

I am not so sure that the NDP is responsible for B.C's decline. I was there between 1980 and 1984 when the province was a basket case under Social Credit and a couple of semi-literate premiers. It was then that I had my first run-ins with the Fraser Institute and its determination to run the country into the ground. Walter Block, as I recall was its chief economist. He was pushing for private healthcare even then. Bennett thought of Block and Walker ( the Newfie head) as economic deities.

I agree that we are 10 squabbling jurisdictions. Each one is telling its citizens that it is getting screwed while knowing that it is not. Most, not all, want more from the federal government: more taxing power and less of the federal government acting in Canadian interests. It is only the money that the federal government can control that maintains Canada as a country. Every provincial premier who cries "fiscal imbalance" should be hanged for treason.

A better answer to any province that becomes a recipient of Equalization due to its own wrong headed policies, in my opinion, is to take away from them the power to do harm. The federal governmentcould do that after Confederation but has lost the power though many boneheaded decisions of the Privy Council and, later, through local demagoguery. However, that fiscal problem has been rare.

I don't buy the common argument against Equalization that the Maritimes have become dependent; welfar cases. The whole of the Maritimes has tried, perhaps too hard, to break the cycle and to develop a stronger economic base. Newfoundland under Smallwood is perhaps the most notable example. The efforts have been disastrous since the terms of trade have changed.

Nova Scotia, at Confederation, was the most prosperous province but its forests have gone its shipbuilding has gone. Containerization and the seaway have diminished Halifax as a port.

Newfoundland was not so desperately poor before Confederation. Its principle industry, Cod, has been destroyed by the neglect of Canada. Its huge iron ore resources have lost out to cheaper Brazilian and other sources. It gets little benefit from its significant oil production - a few jobs and local supply needs only.

Every "have-not" province has a similar story to these.

I don't believe that Canada can be a prosperous country because of its resources. Not until it takes back control of its economy. Some years, economic analysis - I forget by whom - described Canada as a country "in gentle decline."

I believe that holds today. On the world scale, over the past twenty five years or so, Canada has been one of the poorest performing countries in economic growth. Occasionally we have a good year or two but growth has been low over all averaging less than 2% annually.

In my opinion, the blame for that lies squarely in our position as a "branch-plant" economy of the United States-mostly. We no longer get the investment: we no longer have the R & D that is essential for productivity and prosperity. The brain drain is greatly exaggerated and its causes have been harnessed to the political purposes of the Right wing.

The drain, where it happens, is not for lower taxes. It is for opportunity. Opportunity that Canada could provide if we owned our own economy.

I suggest that "if we did things my way," we would have a far more innovative and successful economy: we would have a fairer society: and we would kep ou rbest at home.

[kimmy]

Standard Oil may have had the money but who else did in those years?

The issue was not why a large US firm invested money in Alberta and why Canadian investors didn't. Merely that that's what happened. If Canadian capital had opened up for Mr Herron in 1920, maybe he wouldn't have had to sell out to Standard Oil. Things might have happened very differently. But, that's not how things unfolded.

Alberta did receive federal help until 1964. I do not see why you think this is of no consequence when the complaint from Alberta is that it now contributes disproportionately.

Of course Alberta contributes disproportionately; a glance at the figures will bear that out. The argument would be whether Alberta contributes an unfair amount. Others may be saying that, but I won't argue it on their behalf.

When we consider movements of people and business in Canada, there is not a real comparison. Many provinces have immigration and benefit accordingly. It was the movement of Canadians and Canadian business to Alberta that is a unique situation. Alberta has benefited immensely at the expense of other provinces in that way.

My family uprooted to move to Ottawa during the late, lamented high-tech boom. At the time, engineers and IT people were being hired and brought in at a frantic rate, sometimes without even job interviews, sometimes without even fluency in either official language. At the time, being in telecommunications was a licence to print money, just as oil is right now. Maybe once upon a time in Canada, fish, furry hats, silver, and gold were the same. People have always followed opportunity. I don't know how Alberta's oil growth stacks up historically against some of the other booms that have moved people around the country. But I don't think there's anything wrong with people moving. In the grand scheme of things, it's probably the best thing for the country. Maybe Newfoundland and rural Saskatchewan have lost a lot of young workers, but for the country as a whole, which is the best use of human capital? Having them home and under-utilized, or earning a good wage and building a vital industry? "Whole Country Guy" ought to appreciate the principle.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

I do appreciate the principle but it is not the atgument. The benefits to Alberta have been hugely in its favour. No province has ever received the inter-provincial migration that Alberta has: no province has ever benefited to that extent.

[kimmy]

And? I don't see a problem.

"Petty Regional Guy" might be upset when people leave one province for another; "Whole Country Guy" ought to appreciate that it's for the best. "Macro-Econ Guy" would probably suggest that moving employees out of fisheries and agriculture and into energy is the more efficient use of Canada's human capital and ultimately benefits us all.

I am not so sure that the NDP is responsible for B.C's decline. I was there between 1980 and 1984 when the province was a basket case under Social Credit and a couple of semi-literate premiers. It was then that I had my first run-ins with the Fraser Institute and its determination to run the country into the ground. Walter Block, as I recall was its chief economist. He was pushing for private healthcare even then. Bennett thought of Block and Walker ( the Newfie head) as economic deities.

The rest of this message is things I'll reflect on and consider, but I don't wish to respond to it. I did want to hit this one point, though.

I was in BC with my dad in 1998, when he was working a contract there. The exodus of jobs from BC to Alberta (I believe 10,000 jobs a month was claimed at one point) was very much an issue in the media at that time. What was causing it? What could be done to change it?

I heard an interview with an American businessman, which went pretty much like this:

"When I got off the plane in Edmonton, I was met by the mayor and a representative of the provincial government. We were driven to a hotel where we had lunch, and then I was introduced to somebody from city hall who talked about competitive real-estate prices and tax and utility rates. Then I met somebody from a college who talked about designing a custom training program for new employees.

"When I got off the plane in Vancouver, I was met by a go-fer, who introduced me to an environmental protection officer who wanted to know how much pollution my plant would make. Then I was was taken to somebody from the provincial government who told me how many visible minorities I had to hire.

"So where do you think I decided to build my plant?"

-kimmy