Talk:National Energy Program

Alberta as Province not Nation

This article, especially in its comparisons to Norway, seems to treat Alberta as Nation rather than Province within a Nation. The bias inherent in this position permiates the article and leaves it without context and balance - making the minority position (that of Albertans) seem like the majority position (that of Canadians as a whole). Though the dominant reaction to the NEP in Alberta is important to represent, it does not, in itself, represent the majority reaction of Canadians at large - nor does it represent a broad apolitical concensus on the effects (both positive and negative) of the NEP. A re-write with a more accurate balance of national effect and international/historical context would be much more useful to those wanting to understand the goals and consequences of the NEP. As it stands, little can be gleaned from the article beyond an Alberta perspective. --Dgw204 (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global Recession In 80-81

This article seems to ignore the fact that there was a recession triggered by the anti-inflation efforts of several central banks. It's like saying that the GST killed jobs without realizing that the bank rate had climbed by about five-hundred basis points during the same time frame. The whole article, in ignoring global economic conditions, suffers from a case of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Are there any studies that isolate the effects of the NEP or, for that matter, the long-term economic costs of the policy as divorced from the short-term economic costs of political retaliation by producers? (i.e. a capital strike) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.166.152 (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Prices 2008

Given that the current oil boom/bust we are witnessing is very similar to the one of the late 70s/early 80s (both accompanied by a global slowdown) I am thinking about examining and posting statistics for Alberta from this cycle for comparison.

Perhaps if the stats are similar that would show the NEP did NOT hurt Alberta, but if the stats aren't as bad perhaps that would show the NEP DID hurt Alberta.

Thoughts? DWiatzka (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea, and should be expanded to include Canada,especially in view of the stunning success of Norwegian policies which broadly mimic the NEP. I would argue the NEP was far ahead of its time, and the article needs to be elevated to high importance as I came her to compare current policies with what could of been if Canada had owned its energy and energy policy. It is important to remember the policy, once establishing Canadian ownership of energy, could easily have been tweaked to either incentivize development or increase government revenue depending on world oil prices. As it stands Alberta has done relatively poorly considering the value of resource depletion. Going into debt while simultaneously depleting it's resource asset, and failing to maintain it's heritage fund, and even defunding essential services to fund oil company tax cuts. The NEP mandated certain provincial returns at the wellhead, which need to be compared to todays returns. If Canada got revenue as well, and Alberta's revenue was higher, it is specious to argue that this is mandating provincial generosity. More like mandating Federal generosity, if this is the case.Inteluck (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Needed

This type of article should be kept as factual as possible. This topic is often a very devisive one in Canadian politics. Opinions based on partisan views should be restricted to discussion forums only.

The article is strongly biased to represent a POV. This quote: "However, as a result of the NEP unemployment in Alberta more then doubled going from 4% to 10%." is not supported by the reference, which does not mention the NEP. My suggestion is that the quoted text be removed. 24.80.187.34 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That comment has been removed.DWiatzka (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible NPOV

I admit to not really knowing much about the issue at hand (and as such, will not edit), however this line struck me as possibly NPOV:

Unlike the culture-focused movement for separation in Quebec through the Parti Québécois, the impetus for Alberta's separatist movement was largely of provincial economic self-interest during a time when the Canadian people and economy suffered greatly under the burden of inflated energy prices.

It's different in tone from much of the rest of the article and basically sticks out like a sore thumb. I'm not even sure why it's particularly relevant to this article; it seems like something that might better belong on an article about Western Canadian Separatism or something. Although I don't have a horse in this race one way or the other, it just seems needlessly inflammatory. -Kadin2048 (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Kadin2048. That statement has been in there forever and, while adding colour, seems out of context. Though I didn't add it I'll remove it. DWiatzka —Preceding comment was added at 20:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norway's Relevance

Seems some redneck Albertan revisionist is also trying to pull a fast one (please read comment below about Toronto Revisionist)

I am removing the piece talking about Norway. The question of how other economies performed during the NEP is valid, but there is neither neutrality nor reason in insinuating that the most successful oil economy during the time frame is an aggregate indicator of how all oil economies performed.

Unless you'd prefer that I write an opinion piece on some oil countries that pretty much destroyed themselves over the 1980-1986 time frame to balance it both ways, but this article seems as divisive and partisan enough already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.73.110 (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I am NOT a "redneck Albertan revisionist" (a comment which exposes both your prejudice and rudeness). Born and raised in Toronto (St Joseph's Hospital on the Lakeshore) and a huge fan of Trudeau. I set out to determine once and for all for myself whether or not the criticisms of Trudeau's NEP were bogus or not. I must confess that I have found the facts show that the program helped Canada BUT it was very hard on Alberta and had adverse effects upon the province's economy. If you have facts that prove otherwise - _post them_. As for Norway, the question was raised in the discussion group re: other economies and whether ALL oil based economies experienced a collapse during the NEP years. The insuation has always been that it was absolutely unavoidable for ALL oil based economies to escape the collapse Alberta experienced. Norway's story *disproves* that claim. The research which was done was prompted by the discussion here. If you have something to offer which contradicts these facts then please post it before you tear out someone else's hard work and simply write them off as being "redneck Albertan revisionists". Further, if you're going to behave this way at least have the balls to sign your work and stand behind it. In the meantime, I am putting the section re: Norway back in. DWiatzka (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

while it is true there were very hard economic times during the NEP era, I suspect it would be impossible to separate out the effects of the huge increases in interest rates from the effects of the NEP. As it stands now, the petroleum sector royalties are only 10% of provincial revenues, and 6% of jobs in Alberta. For the 60 Billion dollars- or 1.5 times the total revenues of the province- removed from the Albertan natural resource base I would argue the minimum royalties mandated by the NEB would have been good for Alberta once global oil prices rose and interest rates fell. I suspect, but more research is needed, that the NEB was blamed in the West for the global low price of oil which made oilsands non-viable and very high interest rates which caused house prices to fall and peoples mortgages to double and triple. This is what caused the "hardwood floor" story. The Norway experience is crucial to help compare what a nationally managed, hi-royalty, highly regulated industry model looks like. Other countries have ruined themselves at the same time, but not using Norway's model. Comparisons between the current state of affairs in Alberta and Norway, along with projections of the effects ofg the NEP should expanded.

Inteluck (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DWiatzka, I've just made some structural changes to the Impact section, including assigning more strength in argument to the ill-effects on Alberta. I've done my best, but after reading this discussion page, you guys are surly more qualified than I in content. Just wanted to tell you the goal of my changes was structural and I do not want to promote a POV more so than the evidence provided allows. Thanks, //Jon Robertson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.219.162 (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

What was the implication of the NEP on ordinary Albertans? I've heard stories of people riping out their hardwood floors and just abandoning their houses because it was so bad. What other things happened?

I've heard those stories too70.75.22.190 (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term used at the time was "Dollar deals." People lost their jobs, couldn't maintain their mortgage, so they "flip it" to another buyer for the price of one dollar. Very quickly, bank lobbyists got this illegal-ized.

What happened to the oil/gas industries in other countries of the world (such as Mexico) at the time of the NEP? Could the recession in Alberta have been misattributed to the NEP?

Good question. The oil dominated export economy of Norway saw terrific growth 1980 through until "... oil prices fell dramatically from December 1985 onwards" - http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/grytten.norway . I'll see about integrating this into the article. DWiatzka (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would the NEP have done to Canadian ownership & participation in Canada's oil industry?

The NEP gave its newly created Petrocan a twenty-five percent "back-in" to any project it wished to take. Twenty-five percent of Hibernia is, ... a lot.

The 25% was an "interest on the lease" and the royalty rate was increased from 10% to 25% to provide revenue to subsidize eastern Canada's oil^[1]. I'm still trying to figure out what "25% interest on a lease" translates into - some kind of mortgage like payment on the assessed value of the resource lease?DWiatzka (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What were the general goals of the NEP? (increased self-sufficiency, security of Canada's oil supply, etc?)

Slap an obstreperous and hostile province around, currying favour with voters who did vote for your party?

That information has been added to the intro.DWiatzka (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the $16 billion in Alberta's Heritage Fund compare with similar funds elsewhere, such as Norway and Alaska?

As of April, 2007 the Petroleum Fund of Norway had $317 billion in it. It is forecast to reach $522 billion by the end of 2009. That's more than $100,000 per Norwegian. The Alaska Permanent Fund was worth about $40 billion as of July 13, 2007, despite paying out annual dividends to every Alaskan. The Alberta Heritage fund is chickenfeed by comparison. RockyMtnGuy 03:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is Canada's current energy security strategy? Is it better for Canada than the NEP was? How does it compare with the energy strategies of other countries in the world?

Why did Pierre Trudeau enact this? What was his motivation? Peak Oil?

- His motivation was to destory the Province of Alberta because they didn't vote for his party.

-- Keep in mind wage and price controls were 'in vogue' in the 1970's and early 1980's, both in Canada and in the U.S. While these methods do not work in the long term to solve economic problems, they were still very popular with the leadership of both countries.

-haha. His motivation was that he believed the NEP to be the right course for Canada. The guy was pretty much a socialist....if only we still had him... -Not Actually Vladimir Lenin 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet everyone who ever talks about him says he was so intelligent, so quick witted, yet he was stupid enough to misunderstand basic supply and demand effects on prices and availability? This is not rocket science.

As documented in his recent biography, Citizen of the World, Trudeau was a big fan of fascism and command economics. Later in life he lamented his support of fascism as a youth, but he was still enamoured of command economics. He strongly believed in state intervention and was heavily involved with Quebec unions and (ironically) the federal NDP before joining the federal Liberals as a candidate. He sincerely thought the NEP was the best thing for the majority of Canadians and, given his many years studying economics including years at the London School of Economics studying under one of the most prominent socialist economists of the age, Harold Laski, he was undoubtedly aware that there would be consequences for Alberta. DWiatzka (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I also found the original purposes and methodology of the NEP a little hard to glean from the article. If anyone feels like rewriting it, you would be doing us all a favour. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the issue.--Ishmael N. Daro 02:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishmaeldaro (talk • contribs)

Impact on West

Suggest deleting the quotation from Jen Gerson's Lougheed obituary. The link no longer exists and when I read at the article on newspapers.com, it does not contain the quoted section. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/95942218/blue-eyed-sheikh-dead-at-84/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothsapex (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What proof is there that the policy had a severe effect on the economy in the west? Deleting Unnecessary Words 21:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, need some sources on immigration, housing starts, jobless rates, whatever.70.75.22.190 (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stats re: housing, bankruptcy rates and how another similar oil centric economy (Norway) during the NEP years were added to the article. The percentage by which housing prices in Alberta dropped was 2 to 4 times more than the other regions of North America (other regions 10%-20% drops, and Toronto prices remained relatively stable; Alberta dropped 40%). Bankruptcy rates for Canada peaked at 50% above 1980 levels yet in Alberta they peaked at 150% despite the price of oil still being historically high. At the same time as the NEP Norway was kicking ass economically thanks to oil, yet Alberta was tanking. The argument that Alberta suffered worse than other parts of Canada during the NEP years because of a so-called collapse in oil prices does not hold water given that the prices during those years were still historically very high. The argument that it was because oil sands extraction was too costly also does not hold water because Alberta's oil production during the NEP was overwhelming conventional oil, not heavy oil. If Alberta's woes were due to the global recession, one would have expected similar housing price drops and similar bankruptcy rates as the rest of the Country and the States, yet the facts show those rates were worse in Alberta. If Alberta's woes were due to dropping oil prices, then one would have expected similar oil based economies to have suffered similarly, yet Norway, a very similar economy, actually enjoyed good economic times. Researching this article I hoped to dispel the perception that Alberta was hard done by (I'm an easterner, a Canadian "nationalist" if there is such a thing and grew up a fan of Trudeau) but I've actually convinced myself that Alberta *was* hard done by. Trudeau it seems made what he thought was a tough choice for the betterment of the nation while thinking "damn the consequences". I think Canadians will be best served if we accept this as being the truth of the matter.DWiatzka (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Did you even read the article? If you suck $100 billion out of any economy, you will destory it.

I read the article and if found the $50 to $100 billion figure that Alberta lost poorly referenced. The article that's referenced at abheritage.ca merely mentions "scholars" as the source of the information without references.Pillowtalkbaby (talk)

Over the years a number of university professors have analyzed the federal transfers of money out of Alberta to the other provinces as a result of federal energy policies. It's a favorite topic of economists. I added a citation for one of them to the article. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on the non-Oil producing provinces

I will be working on gathering specifics re: the impact of the program on the parts of Canada which were not oil producers during those years. Presently the article is only focusing on the negative impacts upon Alberta and part of the discussion of the program needs to be about whether or not the program did what it was supposed to do - be an overall boon to the nation despite any pain it may have caused to the minority. DWiatzka (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far this article provides a much too limited view of the NEP. There needs to be much more effort in showing the effects NATIONALLY. My Economics professor argued that the NEP prevented Canada as being as hard hit as other nations. While I don't know if this is true, it is worth pursuing the national effects. It doesn't make good sense to discuss the effects on Alberta ad nauseum, without a balanced view of the overarching effects on Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.112.106 (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What did the NEP even do?

The article has vague allusions to what the NEP actually did. Maybe someone could add what it did and why that was opposed by the West? As far as I understand it (and this is why I don't edit the text) it wrestled control over the oil sands away from Alberta and to Ottawa, which promptly prevented foreign companies to invest / control the oil sands.

Actually the oil sands had barely begun at the time of the NEP. The big impact was on conventional oil production since that was the vast majority of Alberta's production at the time. It did not wrestle control from Alberta but it did make it an unattractive place to invest because of price controls, increased tax rates and new requirements re: Canadian ownership percentages. The profitability of producing oil during the time of the program was reduced so many wells were shut down to wait for the program to be discontinued. Many mid to small size Albertan businesses suddenly saw demand for their services disappear as the big players stopped new investments and discontinued projects which were in progress. DWiatzka (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I think the intent behind this was that the Government wanted to make sure that the oil would be available to Canada if necessary. - - Why was it so unpopular in Alberta? Because it prevented any investment into Alberta (who heavily was into the oil and natural resources business). - - Even today (in 2005) you can see that, be it in Edmonton or even Fort McMurray (I was there today), you can still see that somewhere around 1981 everything was frozen and only now it seems to be coming back.

Hello I am a grade 12 history student and am currently researching this article for my semester project. To the question why Pierre Trudeau established the NEP was simply for the fact that he wanted a more ( sorry ) communist approach on the spreading of resources that were being harvested in large amounts in the west. Though the money that was being pooled out of the west hurt the growing refineries/businesses and the fight against Americanism ( manifest destiny ), the east was in need of this money and this as well, in turn, allowed the french ( quebec ) referendum to slow down and settle allowing them to realize what mistake they could be making by dismantling from Canada itself. Truedeau was a great man, and even though bad at economics, knew what to get and how to get it done.

As with most things in economics the key is scarcity of resources. Oil rigs, like any other commodity, is a scarce resource. In enacting the NEP Trudeau increased the expenses related to drilling in Canada. This lead to a number of rigs leaving Alberta for more profitable jurisdictions. It exacerbated the effects of the economic downturn of the early 80s. Had the NEP not been in place the effects of that downturn in Alberta would not have been so severe. Schoeppe 00:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "a number of rigs leaving Alberta for more profitable jurisdictions." In reading the article, I was surprised that this issue was not discussed at length. I am not sure if it was even mentioned.

It was not just "a number of rigs." I was in Calgary and quite young during the NEP years, but the one issue I remember, as being very important to my friends with connections to the oil industry, was that exploration had essentially stopped, and the unemployed drilling rigs were moved, in great numbers, to the U.S., where they were used for exploration there. My friends were outraged by the huge loss of jobs in Alberta, as the Albertan drilling crews were without work, and those who invested in the Alberta exploration industry were quite suddenly left with the collapse of their investments. The impression I have been given over the years by those I know in this industry, was that the loss of those jobs and that sector of the investment economy in Alberta was what led to the sharp loss of real estate property values and to the sharp increase in bankruptcies. Please emphasize these events in the main article.

Of course, I do not believe these painful outcomes were due to Central Canadian malice against Alberta, or that Trudeau intended to hurt Alberta. The drop in the world price of oil removed the context in which the NEP could function successfully. Trudeau's intent was to provide energy sector security to Canada, and killing the industry in Alberta certainly could not serve that purpose. But that is what happened, and it happened on his watch, so he is still blamed here, and federal Liberals are unelectable here. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To simplify as much as possible: In the late 1970s the price of oil was artificially inflated by OPEC. Canadians were paying these artificially high market prices. The NEP was designed to provide Canadians with lower priced oil that was more in line with it's "true" value. The crtiticisms occur whereas, Ontario's manufacturing base was the most reliant and the most hurt by an inflated oil price, and oil producing provinces (principly Alberta) in the West were forced to sell their oil at below market prices. The idea was that it didn't make much sense to cripple Canada's manufacturing industry with an artificially high bubble in oil prices when we had our own oil reserves that would be much cheaper. Hope this helps Rizla 20:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an oversimplication. Actually, the crisis was precipitated by the Iranian Revolution, which caused the world's second largest oil exporter to cease exporting. This caused a global supply shortfall and a sharp spike in prices. It was complicated by the United States, which introduced a gasoline rationing system which badly misallocated supply to places where demand was not and caused service stations in major US cities to run out of gasoline while large amounts of gasoline were sloshing around rural areas. TV images of this panicked Canadian consumers (who were not at all at risk of running out since Canada could just cut back exports to the US) and caused demands for the government to do something. However, the federal government had a political problem in that Alberta oil only went as far east as Ontario. Quebec and the Atlantic provinces were dependent on oil imports and if they had simply frozen the price of Canadian oil, the price differentials would have resulted in the Ontario refineries putting all the refineries in Montreal and points east out of business. Since most of Liberals' political support was in Montreal and points east, this didn't work for them. As a result, they crafted the NEP to equalize prices at a low level across the country by taxing exports and subsidizing imports. However, the system had holes in it you could drive an H2 Hummer through. Biggest of these was the fact that the Alberta government had enough control over oil production to break the NEP, and took steps to do so. Alberta ensured that Ontario was well supplied while cutting back exports to the U.S., thereby avoiding a domestic supply crisis while causing major financial hemorrhaging in Ottawa. In addition, the NEP assumed the price of oil would go up to $100 per barrel, but the high world price eventually pulled a lot of non-OPEC oil onto the market, Iran came back on production, and the world price went down to $10 per barrel which wrecked the financial model of the NEP. As a result, the federal government, which had spent billions subsidizing oil imports and drilling for salt water in the Arctic Ocean, got very little back in the form of revenues, and instead of the promised cheap gasoline and tax revenues to spend on social programs, Canadians got expensive gasoline and massive government debt. Thus after a government change the NEP went the way of the dodo. This is the short version, I can elaborate if you want. RockyMtnGuy 03:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent post RockyMtnGuy. Now if we could get the anonymous folks to be a little more constructive... ;o)DWiatzka (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RockyMtnGuy, while you seem to be knowledgeable you also have a bit of a revisionist view of history. The cold hard fact is that OPEC did in fact artificially raise oil prices. I am not arguing that Trudeau did not have political motives, but your summary does not do this controversial issue justice. Being from Alberta I happen to agree that the NEP was poor economic policy, but Wikipedia is not the medium for personal belief. Let's stick to the facts, so as not to fringe on rewriting history. If you are as confident as you seem in your "facts" write into the article with adequate citations and address all sides of the issue. (Anonymous) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.112.106 (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Ever Since'

To mention the idea that 'ever since' the NEP the liberals would only wi a few seats and then refer to often shut outs is fine. I believe that the continuing feeling against the liberals in AB is in significant part due to the NEP. However a poll reported July 1st, 2005 in the Globe and mail about Canadians knowledge of history found that of the Albertans who answered only 21% could name it as the policy that brought the slogan: Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark. 21% of Canadians OUTSIDE the maratimes could identify the Bricklin (compared to 7% of Canadains outside Alberta for NEP, and 44% of Maritimers for the Bricklin also:3000 Canadian pages for google search Bricklin New Brunswick and 21000 for search: NEP Alberta, and none of the first ten on Bricklin say:So hated is the Bricklin in New Brunswick that it has become firmly entrenched in the province’s psyche, an epic chapter of biblical proportions in New Brunswick’s 100 year[1] - dated September 2005, two months after the poll was done). If we refer to ever since and shut outs shouldn't this be mentioned? Alternatively we can drop the references to 'ever since' and 'shut out's which 'often' occur. Either or is fine in my view, but not both. It would appear there is continued anger against real historic grievances, but when people fight long enough they often forget what they were originally angry about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jethro 82 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Impact on Western Canada - revisionist history

Okay, some Toronto-centric effete eastern urban fiction has crept into this article (2008-04-03), so let's discuss it:

Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed stopped development on several oil sands projects.[10] No he didn't and that's not what the cited reference [10] says. In fact, it was the international oil companies that pulled the plug on the projects. I know because I was part of the plug-pulling process. The night the NEP was announced, we plugged the new numbers into the economic models and reran the economics on all the projects. (The particular giant multinational I worked for had four giant supercomputers sitting on hot standby in the US for that purpose.) Then, at 08:00 the next morning, all the managers sat down with computer printouts, picked up the phone, and canceled every project that didn't show a profit. That was almost all of them. It only takes a few hours to cancel a few billion dollars in projects.
Given that oil sands production was not yet technologically or economically feasible, the gesture was largely symbolic. Not only was it feasible, it was being done. The Suncor plant had been in operation for several years, and at those prices was highly profitable. The Syncrude plant was under construction and would also make a profit. The problem was in all the other projects on the drawing boards, because the economics on those went negative under the new tax system (see pulled the plug, above)
He went on national television to announce that oil shipments to the rest of Canada would be cut, forcing the federal government to import more expensive oil to compensate. No he didn't, he cut back exports to the US. The sinister result of that was that the Federal government could no longer tax the exports to subsidize oil imports into Eastern Canada, so it ended up having to subsidize them by taxing consumers, which ruined the whole concept of "cheap oil" from their perspective. Trudeau couldn't just control the price of Canadian oil, because all the refineries east of Ottawa used imported oil and would have gone had to charge much more for gasoline than Ontario refineries - including the six refineries in his home town of Montreal.
After negotiations between Trudeau and Lougheed, the NEP was revised so that the price of so called "new" Canadian oil (discovered after December 31, 1980) would eventually rise to the world price but existing "old" oil would still be capped at 75% of the world price.[11] Yes, but that's not what happened in real life. Instead of going up to over $75/barrel, the world price of oil fell to around $10/barrel by 1990. This again ruined the whole concept from the Federal perspective, since (in addition to bailing out the Eastern refineries) they had to bail out the banks who had loaned money to the Canadian oil companies (enough to bankrupt most of the Canadian banks). This resulted in both gasoline prices and interest rates being higher in Canada than in the US, which was not the original intention at all.

The reason I included that in the article was to show that, although there were some highly touted negotiations, the price of oil was still capped and, since exploration basically came to a standstill, the "old" oil was still held back to only 75% of world prices. So the negotiations were not the big breakthrough they were touted to be.DWiatzka —Preceding comment was added at 19:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this interpretation isn't really NPOV, since I wasn't really an uninvolved observer, but at least it isn't fiction. RockyMtnGuy (talk)

—————————————————————————————

"Given that bankruptcies ... it is possible the NEP had a negative effect in Alberta." POSSIBLE? I would suggest that there is more than just a hypothetical possibility that the NEP hurt Alberta. This should be changed. If one wants to make the case that the rest of Canada was saved from more serious problems at the expense of Alberta, fill your boots, but to only concede the POSSIBILITY that Alberta was hurt is pretty skewed. Bob Herold, Calgary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.55.228 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob. I phrased it as "possible" since I was pretty much convinced that while I could lay out all the facts one by one my summary would have been deleted immediately if I hadn't used the word "possible". I began researching this topic because of my interest in Canadian history and quickly realised it is a subject for which there will always be disagreement. I have tried to lay out the facts so that everyone can make up their own mind. Given the facts I would agree with you that there is a correlation. Yet, even though I had only said "possible" and endeavoured to put as much fact into the article with as little of my own opinion as possible people have been ripping the article apart and leaving it in a shambles (the anonymous contributors in particular). I was born in the east and grew up a huge fan of Trudeau (just finished his biography Citizen of the World - great book) which is a big part of my interest in this topic. Sadly I must say that, while I'm sure he had great intentions, the facts do not bear out the conclusion I was hoping to reach. The facts say (to me at least) that the program did, in fact, hurt Alberta. I hope the article provides enough facts for people to make up their own minds. DWiatzka —Preceding comment was added at 19:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of problems with this section. It is full of original research and some pretty shaky correlations. Beginning with the bankruptcies section, for example, the source doesn't separate alberta from the prairies, it does not give percentage as portrayed in the article, so I can only assume the author calculated these themselves. Additionally, the relationship with bankruptcies and the NEP seems totally assumed - if you look at other time periods, bankruptcies in the prairies rise sharply above canadian levels at many other points, like the late 80s and the mid nineties. Secondly, it does not take into consideration the sharp decline in oil price from the 1981 peak to 1985. Saying they are "above historic levels" is disengenous because what is important is the decline during this period.

I have similar concerns with the housing section and the federal transfers section. Mainly that this stuff is pretty amateurish original research. I think there is a lot of evidence out there that the NEP hurt Alberta's economy and there should be valid sources available for this, from academic journals, etc.. not original research by an anonymous wikipedia editor.

The article, IMO still needs a lot of work, and actually seems worse than when I looked at it a year ago. The overview of what the NEP actually did, how it was implemented, and the politics behind it is way to superficial.Rizla (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rizla,

Re: bankruptcies - I did not calculate anything myself. Please see the second reference to that Statistics Canada research paper which refers to Figure 4-2 Incidence of bankruptcies — Prairie provinces, 1980 to 2005 on page 12. That figure breaks out the Alberta numbers which peaked at 15 per 1,000 from 6 per 1,000 in 1980.

I have added details re: the program as enacted in the MacEachen budget.

The studied cited re: federal transfers per capita specifically correlates between the national energy program and a disproportionate level of transfers out from Alberta. http://www.iseee.ca/files/iseee/ISEEEResearchReportNov1805.pdf That study states that Alberta "...clearly has made a far larger net fiscal contribution over the 42-year period than one would expect given its relative income position. Much of this unfairness can be traced to the extraordinary transfers associated with energy policies during the 1970s and 1980s." That study then goes on to state "When a similar diagram for more recent periods is constructed it is apparent that there has been a significant reduction in this inequity." See page 5 and also see Figures 1 and 2.

That study re: federal transfers and energy policy is a university paper so I am at a loss when you call it "amateurish".

Re: prices - prices were very high for the year 1980 - 1985. 1986 is when the prices truly crashed. Yes the highest year was 1980, but they only nominally declined until the sharp drop in 1986.

Presently, I am eagerly awaiting volume 2 of John English's biography of Trudeau. He has access to the Trudeau archives which include all of Trudeau's meticulously maintained personal letters, diaries, etc. It is with great hope that volume 2 will provide many answers and insights into Trudeau's years leading up to and during the NEP time period. This will address your desire for more information re: the political context and thinking around the program. I know Trudeau studied under the renowned socialist economist Harold Laski at the the London School of Economics, so I would expect his papers to indicate his thinking re: the NEP was influenced by Laski's teachings.

Cheers, DWiatzka (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ “The National Energy Program: Canada and the United States” Carman Neustaedter, University of Calgary. March 2001. <http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~carman/courses/nep.html>

Trouble archiving links on the article

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Price of oil

Can someone with the knowledge fix up the Price of oil section? The heading says price of oil, but the section compares the price of petroleum in Canada with the price of gasoline in the USA. Oil, petroleum and gasoline are three different things. Király-Seth (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this article is just a bunch of reform party propaganda

it should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.80 (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Energy Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150204021703/http://www.junewarren-nickles.com/history/article.aspx?id=8191 to http://www.junewarren-nickles.com/history/article.aspx?id=8191

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Myth: Premier Peter Lougheed Stopped oil sands development.

I am calling BS on the statement that, "Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed stopped development on several oil sands projects in response to the unpopular NEP.[21][22]". The references say nothing of the sort, so it is WP:Original research. Someone is trying to promote an Eastern Canadian urban myth. I was working for a giant American oil company at the time, and in reality, it was the oil companies that pulled the plug on development.

The night the Canadian government announced the NEP, we fired up 4 of the largest computers in the world at our 80 story head office in Chicago, reran the economics on all our Canadian projects, and the next morning at 8:00 AM all our managers started calling suppliers and cancelling orders. It was nothing personal or political, it was just that our computers told us we were now going to lose money on all of our Canadian projects, so we cancelled all of them. We had already lost all of our Iranian oil fields in the Iranian revolution, so it was just same old same old for a giant multinational oil company. The politics were similar but fortunately no people were killed in Canada.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources for estimated economic losses

Both the intro to the article and the last paragraph under Revenues mention estimated revenue losses of between $50 and $100 billion. The article cites two sources - 32 and 33. the first source mentions these numbers but doesn't cite any source or study for them. The second source refers does mention either number. In passing in mentions a fear of the transfer of income and wealth out of the province such as under the NEP. That source does not provide a source for that statement. Are there any sources (academic or economic studies, etc.) with empirical data to back up these claims?24.78.129.47 (talk) 24.78.129.47 (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] “The National Energy Program: Canada and the United States” Carman Neustaedter, University of Calgary. March 2001. <http://pages.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~carman/courses/nep.html>

[1]