NEP/RAPE of ALBERTA

[rbacon]

It has been 25 years since the Commie Ass Kisser with the support of Ontario and Quebec tried to destroy Alberta. Let us as Albertan's never forget and never forgive those of us that they destroyed. Tomorrow marks the 25th anniversary of a day that will live in infamy in Alberta.

Oct. 28, 1980, is the day the federal Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau introduced the National Energy Program as part of its first budget after the 1980 general election.

Virtually overnight, the taps on Alberta's then-booming economy started turning off.

While it's true "a rising tide raises all boats," so too is the opposite. When Alberta's fortunes sank, so too did Canada's.

As a result of high oil prices in the late 1970s, Trudeau's aim for the NEP was threefold: A larger Canadian ownership of the oil industry, greater self-sufficiency and the redistribution of wealth from the upstart West to Central Canada, where Liberal fortunes lie. Instead, he only succeeded in slaying the goose that laid the golden egg.

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein had just been elected mayor of Calgary when the NEP was announced.

At first, he says, the damage seemed minimal, even though by 1981 the number of oil wells in Alberta dropped to 7,186 from 9,188 in 1980.

"I went from being a kid in a candy store in 1980 when there was some concern about the NEP but people thought oil would stay at an all-time high and that they could survive with a two-price system, but then in 1983 when the price of oil fell there was devastation overnight," recalls Klein.

"Calgary looked like Beirut. There were a multitude of cranes in the sky and they stopped cold. The buildings remained half-built for years and years.

"Thousands upon thousands of people in the private sector lost their jobs, their homes, their cars, their dignity, some even took their own lives," Klein says. "It's still very fresh in many Albertans' minds."

Scobey Hartley, a fixture in Calgary's oil and gas industry since he moved here from Texas in 1958, says his memories of that time are still raw.

In 1981, at the age of 50, Hartley and his wife, Sissy -- along with their four grown children -- watched everything they had built and worked so hard for evaporate like a mirage.

"The federal government started taking the lion's share of the revenues and interest rates went to 22%. We were capitalizing interest and trying to see our way around the corner and you get to the point where you're not servicing your debt."

That's when the banks came calling.

"Fortunately, I had some good assets," says Hartley.

Ironically, Hartley had to go into even further debt to help dig his way out of his debt hole.

He and Sissy owned a quarter section of prime land in Springbank, where he kept horses and 30 head of cattle. He wanted to develop the land, subdivide it and sell it.

"I remember when I asked the fella at the bank to lend me another $250,000 he looked at me with shock and said: 'pardon me?' " Hartley has a good chuckle over that, but says without developing that land, debt would have swallowed him up.

According to Gail Radford-Ross, of Radford Ross Research in Calgary, an estimated $100 billion to $120 billion "was confiscated" from Alberta as a result of the NEP.

"The pre-NEP debtload of small oil companies was 74%," says Radford-Ross. "That rose to 102% during the NEP."

Hartley knew many colleagues who, even after selling everything, were left with enormous debts they had to repay.

"In that sense, I felt very fortunate that I came out even with no debt."

He's also grateful for the support he got from his cohorts.

Friends and family from Texas wondered why he stayed in a country with a government that acted more like communists than capitalists.

As signs out of Ottawa make it look like NEP II might be coming down the pipe, many Albertans are wondering why this province stays in Canada, too.

"We won't let them do this to us again," vows Hartley.

The rest of Canada should consider it a fair warning.

[Guest eureka]

Actually, Trudeau and his government, imposed the NEP as a wedding anniversary present to me. He wanted me to have my share of the $100 billion or so to help me through the devastating recession that was hurting all of Canada and the world. He did not understand that he was throwing the world into deep economic difficulties.

That makes as much sense as your copy of a supposed commentary on the NEP - which I have read before.

[Black Dog]

It's impossible to talk of the N.E.P without talking about the drop in world oil prices. The latetr mad ethe imapct of the former all the greater, but to assign the decleine of Alberta's fortunes soley to the NEP is a bit myopic.

"I went from being a kid in a candy store in 1980 when there was some concern about the NEP but people thought oil would stay at an all-time high and that they could survive with a two-price system, but then in 1983 when the price of oil fell there was devastation overnight," recalls Klein.

[Toro]

It's impossible to talk of the N.E.P without talking about the drop in world oil prices.

And its why governments shouldn't get involved in the ownership of businesses. The Liberals were so dead sure that oil was going to $100. But it didn't.

[Leader Circle]

Actually, Trudeau and his government, imposed the NEP as a wedding anniversary present to me. He wanted me to have my share of the $100 billion or so to help me through the devastating recession that was hurting all of Canada and the world. He did not understand that he was throwing the world into deep economic difficulties.

That makes as much sense as your copy of a supposed commentary on the NEP - which I have read before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He did not understand, so that makes it all ok!

Back to Trudeau-mania!

He was a Liberal screw up and there's no getting around that! Kinda like the one we have in Ottawa right now!

[Guest eureka]

It just might be time for some of the truth of the NEP to be laid out instead of the repetitions of the lies of Klein and the Albertan mischief makers.

Just for a atart, let's begin with the purposes of the NEP.

1. It was designed to give Ottawa a larger share of the windfall to the energy producing provinces - all producers and potential producers.

2. It was intended to Canadianize a foreign owned and controlled oil region.

3. It was an attempt to attain self succiency for Canada and to encourage exploration in the North and offshore.

It succeeded in these goals to a degree though the windfall was short lived. It was partly the reason for Newfoundland's "luck" and for Sable Island.

The collapse in world prices was in no way connected to the NEP and Alberta's temporary misfortune was the result of that and the worst recession - world-wide since the Great Depression.

Peter Lougheed called the agreement "good for Canada and good for Alberta.

Ottawa was subsidizing energy costs in Central and Eastern Canada and Alberta benefited from those subsidies at the expense of the rest of Canada.

Just for a start!

[Minimus Maximus]

OPEC may have been the entity which put the noose around Alberta's collective neck, but NEP was the one which kick the chair out from our collective feet.

If lady luck would have resulted in the oil deposits being found in Quebec or Ontairio instead of Alberta then we never would have had NEP to begin with.

[Yaro]

OPEC may have been the entity which put the noose around Alberta's collective neck, but NEP was the one which kick the chair out from our collective feet.

If lady luck would have resulted in the oil deposits being found in Quebec or Ontairio instead of Alberta then we never would have had NEP to begin with.

Yes we would have, probably early, and it would have stayed. It’s the delusional Western attitude that somehow the world is slanted against us that makes people who have lived in both places ignore us. BC seems to be the home to the Canadian counter culture as we just simply seem to disagree on everything just for the sack of it and Alberta is home to the countries smallest intellects.

[Guest eureka]

It is a myth (or a lie) that oil rigs streamed South because of the NEP. They left because of the world glut of oil. They did not go to greener pastures either since the Texas oil patch was equally devastated - without an NEP other than the one that has always been present in the USA as in all other producing countries.

The glut of oil coupled with the severe recession was responsible for the shutdowns.

All over Canada, conditions were as bad as Alberta. In fact, during the years of the NEP, Alberta's job creation rate was approximately double the National average. The jobs lost claimed by some Albertan politicians and commentators with a sel-interested agenda are a lie. They were only marginally caused by the NEP.

The Albertan oil industry was built on the backs of Canadian consumers through the National Oil Policy instituted by the Diefenbaker government. Under that, Albertan oil was given a monopoly to the Eastern Ontario border. Before, much of that area (most of Ontario) had access to cheaper sources. That was a subsidy from Ontario to Alberta amounting to several billion dollars. Ontario was required to use high cost Alberta oil instead of dirt cheap oil from the Middle East and Venezuela.

The $100 billion revenue loss to Alberta claimed by Klein is about the most reprehensible lie possible. It is pure mischief: I would say grandstanding if any of the Alberta crowd disputed it: but they don't. They seize on the figure for a gullible provincial electorate. The NEP lasted only four yearsand, if ANY was due to the NEP, it could only be a small fraction of that. The NEP did not lessen Albertan sales: they impacted the profit margins.

[Toro]

It succeeded in these goals to a degree though the windfall was short lived. It was partly the reason for Newfoundland's "luck" and for Sable Island.

With oil at $60 and nat gas at $12, those projects would have gone ahead anyways. Perhaps not on the same time scale, but the incentive is there right now, with or without government tax credits, to get at those deposits.

Peter Lougheed called the agreement "good for Canada and good for Alberta.

Then why did he fight it so hard?

[Minimus Maximus]

Eureka, Thank you for your reply, you have made some exellent points but are also everybit as miguided about NEP and its intent as most Albertan's.

First, Marc Lalonde admitted himself in David Kigour's book "Uneasy Patriots" that the purpose of NEP was not as you have mentioned above, but that it was an attempt to eliminate what the feds saw as a fiscal imbalance between Alberta and the federal gov't. I would call this a cash grab, plain and simple. No mentions of doing what is best for Canada as a whole, just the greed of Ottawa rearing its ugly head.

Next, I would like to point out that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against the legality of the NEP in 1982. Resouces are owned by the provinces, not the federal gov't. This has resulted in a backlash against the Liberal's and the federal gov't which still exists today here in Alberta.

Lastly, the Liberal party of Canada has done more to destroy national unity than any other party in Canadian political history. NEP in the west and Adscam in Quebec have been dismal failures in all ways. This country is becoming more and more divided along geographical lines and Liberals can find the nearest mirror if they wish to point fingers in the general direction of blame. With that said I find that based on pure party platform the Liberals are my party, yet come election day they will not get my vote due to their collective history of destroying Canadianism in my backyard and their failed attempts at bringing Quebec into full partnership in confederation.

[CamTheCat]

This is a very informative thread. Thank you all for your posts.

Cameron W

[Guest eureka]

Why did he fight so hard, Toro? That is a direct quote. Actually, Lougheed fought only the first proposals: his statement came after the agreement between Alberta and Ottawa.

[Guest eureka]

I don't think I would put too much stock in Kilgour's book, Minimus. Curiously, Lalaonde was on a panel discussion on TVO a week or so ago. His answer to that was more on the lines of what I posted. Yes, the fiscal imbalance was an issue but it was a smaller part; trumped by National security and the international situation.

Oddly, I don't recall the SCC's decision, but it could not rule against the NEP. It may have ruled against some application but the federal government has the right to tax as it sees fit. It also has an overriding power to ensure national security. There is even a case to be made that oil is not a Provincial monopoly in degree since it does not always respect provincial boundaries. That may be a weak one but it is possible.

The Liberal Party has not helped the cause of National Unity: mostly because its responses to threats have been misguided: that goes for Trudeau's actions, too. To say that it is worse than others is a long stretch though one wing, the Martin camp has not helped with its support for Meech Lake.

By far the worst offender is the Mulroney Conservative government. Meech Lake was designed to end Canada as a country and to turn it into a loose federation of near autononous entities. Charlottetown was the same. The Liberal Party saved us from those with the help of a few brave Provincial stalwarts who put country ahead of Province.

If the NEP and Adscam have hurt the cause of unity, then it says more about the ignorance of the public and the power of provincial interests than it does about either of those.

The NEP was in the national interest as I have proposed. Adscam was designed to promote unity and its mismanagement, and the activities of some rogues should not detract from that. The response of Quebeckers only serves to show how alienated from reality the people of that province are. After 40 years of separatist propaganda and Quebec federalists keeping the culture of victimhood alive in order to gain greater fiscal and Constitutional powers, it is not surpriising.

The failed attemptsto bring Quebec "into full partnership in Confederation" can hardly be layed at the Liberal's door. There were no such attempts since Quebec is already a full partner. The attempts were to keep Quebec as a "full partner."

The faliure was one of preventing the further deterioration of the partnership agreement. I think that aim was preferable to the aim of what purports to be a Conservative solution of turning partnership into a relationship of nodding acquaintance. The NDP is also to be faulted for that - which is why I cannot vote for that party.

[Minimus Maximus]

Eureka, great response! While you and I may be walking on the same side of the road, we are veering off in slightly different directions.

You were pretty much bang on concerning the SCC ruling, it was not against the NEP as policy but did rule that,

"the federal gov't has no right to tax provincially owned oil/gas wells".

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-378-2141/p...berta_oil/clip7

I could not find the ruling on SCC's website but this should suffice as proof that there was a ruling concerning provincial rights vs. federal rights in respect to taxation of provincially owned resources. Hence the illegality of NEP.

I agree with your take on the fact that all political entities in Canada have to shoulder some blame in the problems with increased regionalization. I see the de-centralization of federal responsibility as a positive direction to follow to quell these issues, so I do accept that the Charter must be opened and reworked to reflect the regional differences which always seem to be threatening to tear us apart as a country.

BTW, I would like to address a previous comment concerning the fact that during the recession in the 80's it was not only Alberta which suffered economic hardships. I don't, in any way, mean to diminish the pain and suffering which occured in other provinces. It was a world wide recession and NEP was definitely not the cause of the economic issues faced by all regions in Canada, it was just bad policy which continues to affect federalism in the west today.

I currently work along side many who were the individauls that made decisions to halt projects which were currently underway in Alberta in the 80's. The recession and falling oil prices had a great deal to do with their decisions (this is something that many Albertan's are loathe to admit, I can only shake my head in confusion at this fact), although there is a general concensus that the radical change in Canadian policy made many skittish to forge ahead with projects which would have went ahead regardless of the economic woes the recession had created, and in fact many stayed away until the dissollution of the NEP was complete.

[fellowtraveller]

The three thrusts of Trudeau, his guiding policies throughout his political career:

-socialism

- central control, a strong federal government

-bilingualism and biculturalism

The introduction of the NEP blends perfectly into all three. Screwing Alberta provided the seed money for all the social programs so beloved by Liberals, affordable or not. It put Alberta in its place, a clear and strong message to the provinces. And it funded Quebec, which about that time had moved from a have to a have-not province. Perfect.

Mr Trudeau never disguised his contempt for Western aspirations and the NEP was just the most visible manifestation of that. In truth, he didn't give a stuff about Quebec aspirations either, but had to play the peacemaker because too many seats were at stake there.

[BubberMiley]

If you're an Albertan before you're Canadian, I can see why you would be so opposed to equalization and NEP. But if you're Canadian first, Canada's resources are Canada's resources. Even the U.S. has a strong central government. Check out their smooth, creamy Interstates.

[tml12]

If you're an Albertan before you're Canadian, I can see why you would be so opposed to equalization and NEP. But if you're Canadian first, Canada's resources are Canada's resources. Even the U.S. has a strong central government. Check out their smooth, creamy Interstates.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Built by a Republican government no less.

[kimmy]

If you're an Albertan before you're Canadian, I can see why you would be so opposed to equalization and NEP. But if you're Canadian first, Canada's resources are Canada's resources. Even the U.S. has a strong central government. Check out their smooth, creamy Interstates.

But as many in these parts proudly point out, Canada is not the United States. In Canada, administration and revenue from resources is allocated to the provinces by the constitution.

-k

[Albertabound]

If you're an Albertan before you're Canadian, I can see why you would be so opposed to equalization and NEP. But if you're Canadian first, Canada's resources are Canada's resources. Even the U.S. has a strong central government. Check out their smooth, creamy Interstates.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Built by a Republican government no less.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A National Defense priority under Eisenhower.

[tml12]

If you're an Albertan before you're Canadian, I can see why you would be so opposed to equalization and NEP. But if you're Canadian first, Canada's resources are Canada's resources. Even the U.S. has a strong central government. Check out their smooth, creamy Interstates.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Built by a Republican government no less.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A National Defense priority under Eisenhower.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are right. Anyone who has driven on a U.S. interstate will notice the blue sign with the stars that says "Eisenhower (sp?) Interstate System." And I do believe it was a U.S. national defense priority.

[Montgomery Burns]

Trudeau was a socialist, so of course he wanted to stop those "uppity" Albertans who dare to work hard and believe that they should have some kind of reward for doing so. Socialists are all about class envy..."he/she is doing too well". We all know what Trudeau thought of Westerners--his infamous middle finger salute said it all.

Moreover, Marc Lalonde admitted that the NEP was mainly about politics. The more successful Alberta became, the more people would move there (Alberta's population has exploded and it now at 3.25 million) and that would give Alberta more power (seats) in the country. The socialist Liberal party under Trudeau couldn't have that--those Albertans are kinda 'Murican-like".

Notwithstanding that the Canadian Constitution says natural resources belong to the provinces, not the feds. Anyone who dismisses this has nothing but contempt for the Constitution.

[Guest eureka]

Do you enjoy making yourself a laughing stock with your ridiculous diatribes? Do you enjoy ruining any discussion with bringing it down to your fanatical absurdities?

[speaker]

Trudeau was a socialist, so of course he wanted to stop those "uppity" Albertans who dare to work hard and believe that they should have some kind of reward for doing so.  Socialists are all about class envy..."he/she is doing too well".  We all know what Trudeau thought of Westerners--his infamous middle finger salute said it all.

Moreover, Marc Lalonde admitted that the NEP was mainly about politics.  The more successful Alberta became, the more people would move there (Alberta's population has exploded and it now at 3.25 million) and that would give Alberta more power (seats) in the country.  The socialist Liberal party under Trudeau couldn't have that--those Albertans are kinda 'Murican-like".

Notwithstanding that the Canadian Constitution says natural resources belong to the provinces, not the feds.  Anyone who dismisses this has nothing but contempt for the Constitution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know what the constitution actually says, but I'm pretty confident that the resources within Canadas borders, or our ocean limits are Canadas resources. In short Canada may grant authority to the provinces to manage and tax resources but that does not limit Canadas ability to do the same if it is in Canadas interest to do the same.

To grant ownership to the provinces would be like giving individuals exemption from government expropriation..... Lord, a province could sell itself to the highest bidder rather than simply selling off it's resources, Canadas resources, the people of Canadas resources to whomever shows up with a bit of coin in his pockets.

The provinces are undoubtably grateful that our Federal politicians are so wrapped up in themselves that they don't seem to notice that our kids heritage is doing a disappearing act..

[tml12]

Trudeau was a socialist, so of course he wanted to stop those "uppity" Albertans who dare to work hard and believe that they should have some kind of reward for doing so.  Socialists are all about class envy..."he/she is doing too well".  We all know what Trudeau thought of Westerners--his infamous middle finger salute said it all.

Moreover, Marc Lalonde admitted that the NEP was mainly about politics.  The more successful Alberta became, the more people would move there (Alberta's population has exploded and it now at 3.25 million) and that would give Alberta more power (seats) in the country.  The socialist Liberal party under Trudeau couldn't have that--those Albertans are kinda 'Murican-like".

Notwithstanding that the Canadian Constitution says natural resources belong to the provinces, not the feds.  Anyone who dismisses this has nothing but contempt for the Constitution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The NEP was about keeping your friends close and your enemy's resources closer!!!