Talk:National Energy Program

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alberta as Province not Nation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Global Recession In 80-81 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Oil Prices 2008 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed.  That comment has been removed.DWiatzka (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Editing Needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible NPOV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Norway's Relevance 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Impact on West 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Impact on the non-Oil producing provinces 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What did the NEP even do? 

message: 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 - 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)
thread_title:  'Ever Since'  

message: 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.
* http://books.google.ca/books?id=NdYFO2GGkooC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA33#v=onepage&q&f=ture
* http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=J1ARTJ0005618
* http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3549850?sid=21105190788361&uid=3737720&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739392
* http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3550777?sid=21105190788361&uid=2&uid=3739392&uid=3737720&uid=4
* http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp144-e.htm
* http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp144-e.htm>
* http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1946&dat=19850608&id=KyAyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=36UFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4911,4256194
* https://www.bankruptcycanada.com/PersonalInsolvencyGuide.pdf
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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble archiving links on the article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Price of oil

message: it should be deleted and rewritten from scratch.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.80 (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is just a bunch of reform party propaganda 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Urban Myth: Premier Peter Lougheed Stopped oil sands development.