Canadians Open to Oil Nationalization

[Minstrel Boy]

Not that it's likely to happen, but still...

Canadians Open to Oil Nationalization

September 18, 2005

(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in Canada believe the federal administration should take control of the country’s petroleum supply, according to a poll by Leger Marketing. 49 per cent of respondents would agree with the government nationalizing Canadian oil resources, while 34 per cent would disagree.

In 1975, the Crown Corporation Petro-Canada was established. The motion to create a publicly-run Canadian oil company was introduced by the New Democratic Party (NDP) in 1973. At the time, the Liberal administration headed by prime minister Pierre Trudeau relied on the support of the NDP to remain in government.

In 1990, the government headed by Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney announced its intention to gradually privatize Petro-Canada, after cancelling the National Energy Program—developed by Trudeau—which proved extremely unpopular in Western Canada, where most of the country’s oil is produced.

Last year, finance minister Ralph Goodale said the government intends to sell its remaining 19 per cent stake in the Petro-Canada. 43 per cent of respondents would agree with the government nationalizing Canadian oil companies.

Polling Data

Would you agree or not with the government nationalizing Canadian oil resources?

Agree 49%
Disagree 34%
Don’t know 17%

Would you agree or not with the government nationalizing Canadian oil companies?

Agree 43%
Disagree 41%
Don’t know 15%

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/9007

[stepnw1f]

1. Excellent (nt)

[MrModerate]

2. Even with the loss of efficiency of a government-run utilty . . .

We'd make it up by eliminating the gouging. We should do it here.

And while we're at it, nationalize the drug companies. Even if that lowers the brilliant innovation that drug companies tout as the benefit of private enterprise, since they're all spending their brilliance developing cures for limp dicks, I still think it'd be a net win.

[DBoon]

7. So how does oil in the ground vanish when nationalized?

I always thought oil was created by geological processes, not market forces.

I admit I didn't read the article, but there is a difference between nationalizing oil reservoirs and nationalizing the pumps, pipelines and refineries.

Loss of efficiency? not sure that follows.

[MrModerate]

14. I don't know what the Canadians have in mind, but . . .

I'd take over the contracts with foreign suppliers, the producing wells, the development rights wherever, and the refineries. Individual stations would continue to be run by individuals, and station franchises owned by a single entity would be limited in number.

The inefficiency I referred to is commonly assumed when governments run utilities rather than private industry. Of course, private industry is seldom as interested in delivering product/service efficiently as they are in maximizing profit, so whatever efficiencies may be inherent in the private sector often don't show up as a benefit to the buying public -- just as a benefit to stockholders.

[BSDRebel]

22. yeah, really...

As long as nationalized corporations run with the same standards of vetting of employees, employee productivity, protocols, etc. that a private corporation uses, it shouldn't be less efficient. It's when the standards are relaxed and cronyism, nepotism, and other ills associated with political patronage come in, that the corporation goes under.

Nationalized corporations make sure the resources of the corporation are accountable to the people. That's how it should be.

Attack efficiency problems, don't attack the idea of nationalized companies per se. There is no magic to private corporations, just efficient and intelligent rules of business. Follow those that increase efficiency and discard those that contrast with social justice.

[Mikimouse]

3. I have to wonder how many of those 'disagree' votes...

came from Alberta. If Klein had his way it would probably be the 51st state by now.

[Psephos]

4. I say go for it. Nationalization has an unparalleled record of success.

History is full of examples of how turning over strategic natural resources to bureaucracies leads to efficiency, fairness, and innovation.

Right?

Peace.

[DBoon]

8. I get my electricity from a municipally owned utility

Odd, looks like the same 115 v 60 Hz as the private sector provides.

Those of us in the LA DWP service area survived the Eron/deregulation debacle quite well. Our reliable, boring, government owned utility gave us the same electricity for a stable price when the rest of the state got the "benefits" of free enterprise in the form of brownouts, blackouts, and huge price spikes.

[Psephos]

9. I get my electricity from a muni utility too.

I like it, because it's local people, responsive to local needs and oversight.

Which is exacly opposite what happens during nationalization.

Big corporations and big government are not so different from each other. Why is it so hard to understand that the aggregation of control of resources into the hands of a big organization, public or private, will lead to corruption and inefficiency? This is the the single biggest lesson of history: power corrupts, and the more that power is concentrated, the more it corrupts. It is written in our genes.

There is no way to avoid corruption, only to minimize it. Spreading ownership, rather than concentrating it, dilutes power.

These are my opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

Peace.

Edit: added a line

[DBoon]

11. You gotta point there

nt

[Psephos]

12. You had a point there with Enron, too.

Maybe the best answer is to strengthen government's oversight role, and provide better incentives to the bureaucrats who implement that oversight, to counterbalance their susceptibility to political pressure or under-the-table influence. Meanwhile, prevent any one company or oligarchy of companies from accumulating dominance over a particular market or resource. In theory, that's what we're supposed to have, more or less...in practice, well, it just goes to show the difference between theory and practice, I guess.

Meanwhile, fortunately we both can keep enjoying the local electrical service... :-)

Peace.

[reprobate]

16. If I could make some suggestions, this is what I'd do to corporations:

First, since there is no way to punish corporations for activities that are antithetical to the public good, I'd re-institute the corporate death penalty. This penalty in the past would revoke the corporations charter, making the organization in effect, dead.

If this were done, the assetts of the corporation could be offered for bid to any group that wanted it, the proceeds to be divided amoung the stockholders. The resulting loss in value to the stockholders would assure that they kept a much closer watch on the governance of the corporation.

Second, under current rules and with few exceptions there is no reason for management to feel any personal responsibility for their actions. I would remove the corporate veil that protects them.

Third, and maybe most important, remove the concept of "corporate personhood" from the dictionary. This is the thing that corporations to buy politicians and thereby control the government.

Do these things and you'll return the control of the nation to the real owners: the people.

[CatholicEdHead]

5. So, when do we invade or overthrow Canada?

It seems that we prefer to invade or overthrow any country that nationalizes their oil (e.g. Iran in 1950's, Venezula attempts with Chavez, etc...).

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Commiadiens?

:sarcasm:

No, let's just let a few people get rich on OUR resources!

[Maple]

10. Can't happen I'm afraid

It's privately owned, and also dealt with under NAFTA.

Not to mention that Alberta would have hysterics.

[lovuian]

13. Nationalization would create shortages!!! They do need to

protect against gouging!!!

[Bigmack]

15. My tiny TSA ....

is in Fidelity Canada Fund, which is mostly gas and oil. It has done VERY well. I hope they don't nationalize, but I think it would be better for them if they did.

I'm a simpleminded guy, and to me the natural resources of a country belong to the people, not to whoever grabs it first and yells "Dibs!"

[aquart]

17. Is eminent domain applicable to energy resources?

If not, what about RICO?

[hogwyld]

18. Agree

I think they should nationalize as should we. We could cap the prices for the working class, eliminate some a**hole ceo's making 60,000,000, have public oversight, eliminate the cash cow for the pukes. What's not to like?

[TrogL]

19. Let's see the breakdown by province

What do you bet support's higher in Ontario, which is rapidly becoming a have-not province.

[TahitiNut]

21. And support would be harder to find in Alberta.

:shrug:

[TrogL]

24. Well Duh

I'm still seeing bumper stickers for Alberta separatism even though Ralph ruled it out.

[redqueen]

20. Great numbers.

Gives me hope for the future.

[NorthernSpy]

23. I'm all for it!

Some people here will likely cry foul. But those are the same people who didn't mind at all that tens of thousands of the poor and vulnerable were left behind in New Orleans to face the storm alone.

I will consider it my calling in life to make sure that such people are plagued with a lot of bad news from now on. So by all means, bring on the nationalization of oil!

For a start...