Chrétien to step down

[notyoueither]

It's the buggering of Albertans that was and is our concern.

[blackice]

I don't see how anyone could say it overall benefitted the nation more than it hurt it.

Becuase it did look at the facts as a nation not just Alberta.

maybe this was part of the plan all along?

No but it was partly to do with keeping the country here secure, and the Americans free hands off or natural resources at the time.

you've simply driven away billions of dollars of potential foreign investment.

Foriegn ownership of a countries natural resources is not such a good idea is it.

case study

The nep or the other policies Pet did. I think you are confusing the two.

It's the buggering of Albertans that was and is our concern.

All to clear, Canada can fvck themselves as far as you two are concerned.

[Asher]

Foreign ownership isn't such a bad thing, the world is getting to be such a globalized force, US foreign ownership in Canada shouldn't be such a critical threat that thousands of jobs are expendable simply so we can have a nice percentage so you feel more independent.

All to clear, Canada can fvck themselves as far as you two are concerned.

Ever heard of a thing called the Golden Rule?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by blackice

All to clear, Canada can fvck themselves as far as you two are concerned.

No. But you can.

[Loif]

Originally posted by blackice
Loif I think you missed the point I was making.

Please do elaborate on what you meant then because the way you worded it means that whoever Ontario votes for will win federal elections.

after edit: what is it with blackcie? Whenever he starts to slip a little in the debating department he resorts to calling people names and telling them to do things that are anatomically impossible.

[blackice]

I would like to address your continued comment on exploration dropping with the NEP Asher.

Look at the major players at the time 1973-1980 and what they invested.

Imperial (Esso) Foreign ownership, Revenue in the millions 4,211 Expenditure on exploration in the millions 178 Exploration spending per $100.00 revenue 4.23


Shell Foreign, Revenue in the millions 2,391 Expenditure on exploration in the millions 69 Exploration spending per $100.00 revenue 2.89

Gulf Foreign, Revenue in the millions 2,193 Expenditure on exploration in the millions 104 Exploration spending per $100.00 revenue 4.74

Texaco Foreign, Revenue in the millions 1,641 Expenditure on exploration in the millions 0 Exploration spending per $100.00 revenue 0.00

British Petroleum Foreign, Revenue in the millions 650 Expenditure on exploration in the millions0 Exploration spending per $100.00 revenue 0.00

Petro-Canada* Canadian, Public Revenue in the millions 525 Expenditure on exploration in the millions 311 Exploration spending per $100.00 revenue 59.24

Dome Canadian Private, Revenue in the millions 512 Expenditure on exploration in the millions 229 Exploration spending per $100.00 revenue 44.73

* Because Petro-Canada was not operational for the entire period covered, its figures are for 1977 to 1980. Source: Means calculated from figures in James Laxer, Oil and Gas: Ottawa, the Provinces and the Petroleum Industry (Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 1983), p. 195 (Table 3) and p. 196 (Table 4).

So you see Asher your wrong again in fact exploration went way up after NEP... Some of the things you say are honestly come by. As I said they did and still do teach these things out there but they are wrong...

Not only did it go way up as a result of the NEP but the companies investing the money were Canadian companies not foreign as would have us believe.

Now a small Canadian company's shares of operating revenue retained went from 74% before NEP to 102% after NEP.

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
I would like to address your continued comment on exploration dropping with the NEP Asher.

Look at the major players at the time 1973-1980 and what they invested.

So you see Asher your wrong again in fact exploration went way up after NEP... Some of the things you say are honestly come by. As I said they did and still do teach these things out there but they are wrong...

You're not seriously saying this, right? Somebody pinch me...

First of all, look at the dates for that. Then look at the exploration numbers. What point were you trying to make?

I say this because both of my parents worked in oil&gas exploration and both of them for major US oil companies at the time, and there was without a doubt a major cutback in US exploration. In fact, you've said it yourself as one of the major points of the NEP...

Now a small Canadian company's shares of operating revenue retained went from 74% before NEP to 102% after NEP.

102% eh?

[blackice]

Foreign ownership isn't such a bad thing, the world is getting to be such a globalized force, US foreign ownership in Canada shouldn't be such a critical threat that thousands of jobs are expendable simply so we can have a nice percentage so you feel more independent.

Again as Taki vainly tries to point out to you NOT back then and not at that time..

Please do elaborate on what you meant then because the way you worded it means that whoever Ontario votes for will win federal elections.

CA will win in the west, PC in Ontario but doubt if Harris is in they will get much in the west or Quebec or the East coast. That leaves a lot of room for Liberals and a very interesting election.
Now this should be clear to a guy who's party did well with a guy who was liked in his province no? Seemed to go right over his head.

after edit: what is it with blackcie? Whenever he starts to slip a little in the debating department

Slip a little do explain...

he resorts to calling people names and telling them to do things that are anatomically impossible.

By singling me out in this area is rather shallow...

Notintellegenteither shouldn't you be getting to bed? Daycare starts in a few hours, you don't want to miss Barney do you?

[Asher]

I think this is a good read for you (and Tingkai): http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~carman/courses/nep.html

Just one tiny quote from it:

The third goal of Canadianization was the most controversial. Its primary purpose was to increase Canadian participation in the oil and gas industry by reducing foreign ownership and gaining Canadian control over large foreign owned firms.10 To do this, the NEP would restrict permits for production in Canada to only those companies with at least 50% Canadian ownership. Moreover, grants would be given out to Canadian firms in a program called the Petroleum Incentives Program (PIP). The PIP would give out subsidies to oil and gas firms based on their percentage of Canadian ownership. All firms would also be required to purchase Canadian goods and services for oil and gas production and exploration. This aspect of the National Energy Program would leave Ottawa in complete control over the industry. Crown corporations such as Petro Canada were labeled to take a more active role in this industry and a special tax was to be created to help Ottawa purchase foreign-owned firms. A Crown Interest provision was also introduced which calls for any company holding an oil or gas lease, whether Canadian or foreign owned, to pay 25% interest on the lease to Ottawa.11 The controversial part of this interest provision was the fact that it applied to both future and current developments. Developments that were already discovered, but not in production would still be subject to the interest.

The US took its strongest stance against the third policy goal of the NEP, Canadianization. They felt not only did items such as the PIP grants and the purchasing of Canadian goods and services discriminate against US firms, but it more importantly violated international standards concerning foreign investment as set out in the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT). Canadian suppliers of goods and services would be favored and the principle of national treatment would therefore not be applied. The US government regards "the principle of national treatment as an absolute prerequisite for a stable international investment regime."12 Canada, it advocates, did not fully take into account its obligations under the GATT and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) which clearly outline the role of national treatment. A fear existed that Canadianization may spill across the border into the US or set a precedent for discriminatory treatment of foreign investors in other Canadian industrial sectors. The US also strongly disagreed with the Crown Interest provision and its retroactive nature. Essentially, they felt that Canada was changing investment rules in the middle of the game.13 The US argued that this provision would lessen the value of holdings for existing shareholders and that it should not be applied to lands not yet in production. The Crown Interest itself could not be properly argued by the US because it applied to both Canadian and foreign firms. Once again, the NEP's third goal did not take into account the interests of the US and furthermore, in this instance failed to comply with previous international agreements. More emphasis was placed on the national interests of Canada than that of joint interests with the US.

[blackice]

You're not seriously saying this, right? Somebody pinch me...

No about thirty or more firms and other experts I have counted so far did. Write the author tell him about your dad.

First of all, look at the dates for that. Then look at the exploration numbers. What point were you trying to make?

The one you missed

I say this because both of my parents worked in oil&gas exploration and both of them for major US oil companies at the time, and there was without a doubt a major cutback in US exploration. In fact, you've said it yourself as one of the major points of the NEP...

Yes foriegn exploration was cut back so was everything else, the gobal economy did most of that.

102%

Source: Energy,Mines and resources Canada, Do Governments take Too Much? An Examination of pre and post NEP Fiscal Regimes (Ottawa : Government of Canada, 1982), p.20 (Table 13)

Maybe you have a better source to disprove this post the link please.

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice
No about thirty or more firms and other experts I have counted so far did. Write the author tell him about your dad.

The author is a student at the University of Regina, somehow I don't think she'll know more about it than someone who was part of the nitty-gritty first hand.

Yes foriegn exploration was cut back so was everything else, the gobal economy did most of that.

Oh really?
So why was the US government so pissed off? Why were US firms so up in arms that they lobbied the government to do something about it? Why did the US threaten to rewrite the AutoPact over it?

Canada muscled US firms out of Canada and companies didn't exist with the capacity to replace them, which is why it was economically so bad for Alberta. The hostile takeover attempts by Canada on foreign owned companies didn't exactly go over well either.

102%

Source: Energy,Mines and resources Canada, Do Governments take Too Much? An Examination of pre and post NEP Fiscal Regimes (Ottawa : Government of Canada, 1982), p.20 (Table 13)

Maybe you have a better source to disprove this post the link please.

I can see the figure, and I also saw the sharp drop in about 4 other fields in that chart. Next time you can show the link to the PDF, since I found it myself. Citing the bibliography from the link to make it look like you did the research is academically irresponsible.

[blackice]

Asher read it a long time ago, whats your point?

There are more complete studies done and better ones that deal with the entire picture not just that aspect of it.

[Asher]

Look blackice, why don't we just give it a rest. You're not changing my opinion, I'm not changing yours, and this is getting hopeless.

We'll agree to disagree and leave it at that, okay?

[blackice]

The auther is a student at the University of Regina, somehow I don't think she'll know more about it than someone who was part of the nitty-gritty first hand.

I guess the source for the information is once again with the wave of your wand dismissed.

Oh really?
So why was the US government so pissed off? Why were US firms so up in arms that they lobbied the government to do something about it? Why did the US threaten to rewrite the AutoPact over it?

You have to understand the timelines and the dynamics of the world political arena at the time. Taki and I keep trying to get you to understand this aspect.

Living next to you," Trudeau told an American audience in a speech to the National Press Club in 1969, "is like sleeping with an elephant; no matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." It was a colourful description of Canada's position in North America as the bilateral tensions that had plagued Canada-U.S. relations in the 1960s spilled over into the 1970s and 1980s. Trudeau and American President Richard Nixon, who met for the first time in 1969, did not like each other, though Trudeau did respect the President's intelligence and admired his chief foreign policy adviser, Henry Kissinger.

Trudeau was too much of a pacifist and a leftist for the Americans, some of whom considered him little more than a communist. He did nothing to change this perception when he said, during a visit to the Soviet Union in 1971, that the overwhelming American presence posed "a danger to our national identity from a cultural, economic and perhaps even military point of view." The Americans were amused neither by the comment nor by the locale where it was delivered.

As usual, however, the United States loomed far more dramatically on the Canadian horizon than the reverse. This was too clearly illustrated by Nixon's mistaken belief that Japan, not Canada, was the United States' largest trading partner. Nor did Nixon think of Canada when he attacked a U.S. balance of payments crisis in August 1971 by slapping a surcharge on imports. This measure profoundly threatened Canadian trade and employment, and the damage would have been magnified had the Auto Pact been cancelled, as very nearly happened.

The magnitude of the crisis prompted Trudeau to visit Nixon in December to plead Canada's case. Helped by Kissinger, he was successful. But the elephant's twitch had nearly been devastating.

The United States was apparently growing tired of giving Canada special treatment to protect its economy, especially while Ottawa seemed anxious to withdraw bit by bit from NATO and the American alliance system. During his visit to Ottawa in 1972, Nixon declared that the special relationship between Canada and the United States was dead. "It is time for us to recognize," he stated, "that we have very separate identities; that we have significant differences; and that nobody's interests are furthered when these realities are obscured." While the United States recognized Canada's independent existence and concerns, Canada could not expect to continue to receive exceptional treatment.

Canada muscled US firms out of Canada and companies didn't exist with the capacity to replace them, which is why it was economically so bad for Alberta.

And where was Alberta? Seems like a nice industry to get started also look at the time lines by 1973 Canadian owned companies filled the gap nicely. Now look at the benifits to Alberta today because of it. All those linkages are now major Albertan companies an exports. Man look at the big picture...

The hostile takeover attempts by Canada on foreign owned countries didn't exactly go over well either.

Countries? When Ok really while the Americans were doing it all over the world including in Canada.....Unreal.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Asher
Look blackice, why don't we just give it a rest. You're not changing my opinion, I'm not changing yours, and this is getting hopeless.

We'll agree to disagree and leave it at that, okay?

Please?