Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!acton
From: acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Eastern Myopia
Message-ID: <874@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Dec-84 00:53:58 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.874
Posted: Sun Dec  9 00:53:58 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 20:42:30 EST
References: <854@ubc-cs.UUCP> <653@watcgl.UUCP>
Reply-To: acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton)
Organization: UBC CS, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 138
Summary: 


In article <653@watcgl.UUCP> dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) writes
the following in reply to an article of mine.
>The article that this references seems to show just a bit of paranoia.

At least if I am truly paranoid about the lack of concern shown for the West
by the politicians then I am in good company.  In the August 27th edition of
Time Mordecai Richler says the following of the west:

     "Out there, beyond the Rockies, they  look upon Ottawa as
      distant and uncaring.  The fulminating west feels, with some justice,
      that it remains an internal colony, the National Energy Policy's
      sacrificial goat."


On my comment about a lumber deal being worked out between BC and 
Indonesia the reply was:

>The net result would be a large loss of jobs in the textile industries.
>Isn't this evidence of western canada myopia?  :-)

From my point of view anything that results in freer trade is hardly 
myopia, failure to move towards free trade is truly long term myopia.
The textile industry has been protected and supported for years by the 
federal government.  Every time the government talks of changing this 
the textile industry lobbies the government and convinces them that 
with just a few more years of quotas and price supports they would modernize
and be able to compete with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, it never
happens and they just ask for more protection. It is about time we said
enough is enough and removed all trade restrictions, that would do more to 
force them to modernize then anything else. 

>It is easy to see
>how the politicians were thinking:  If they made the change you suggested,
>there would be a large number of people who blamed them (the politicians)
>directly for the losses of their jobs, and another (perhaps smaller,
>perhaps larger) group of people who might be slightly grateful that the
>government was benign enough to let the trade deal go through and thus
>create jobs.  No, wait, the people in BC would probably think that it
>was simply their due to be allowed to export the lumber, and thus wouldn't
>even be grateful.  So, it's pretty clear that making a visible change
>like this would have a largely negative political effect - lots of people
>hate you, a few are slightly grateful - and so there is the incentive not
>to make the change.  Why do you consider this specifically anti-west?

That was just the point, the decision was based solely on how many votes
somebody could save and had little to do with the merits for or against
letting the deal go through. So it appears that the basis for this decision, 
as you so readily point, was political expediency and such decisions can hardly
be in the best long term interests of Canada.  About exporting lumber, isn't
it our due to be allowed to export it?  The steel makers of Ontario think 
it is their right to be able to export steel in an unfettered manner to the US.
Now that the US is talking restrictions they are lobbying the government hard
to put pressure on the US to have Canada exempted from any restrictions. 
The government is of course obliging, all in the name of free trade.
Doesn't it seem only fair that similar treatment be afforded BC when it
tries to develop and sell its resources or does free trade only exist in
one direction, to other countries?  Actually, steel isn't a very good 
commodity to talk about with respect to free trade since the Japanese 
would be very happy to supply cheap  steel
to the BC market but they are prevented from effectively doing so by quotas
and tariffs. By the way, if Japanese steel is government subsidized, I still
think we should buy it, after all if the Japanese taxpayer wants to pay
part of the cost of the steel for me I may as well let them. 

>I claim that
>protecting an existing jobs is more important politically than creating
>a new one, for the reasons expounded above. 

Once again a decision based solely on political expediency and not what is
in the best long term interests of the country. 

>Let me ask you a question:  Who owns the western and artic oil?
>"Owns" in the sense of who has the right to benefit from being able to
>determine the price and taxation of that commodity?
>Is it a resource that belongs to the oil company, who should be free
>to see it any way they see fit with no interference or taxation by either
>provincial ,or federal government?  Or do the people of the province in
>which it is found have a right to some benefits, and thus are entitled
>to tax the production, set up Heritage Funds, and so on?  Or does it
>really belong to the people of Canada as a whole, and thus should be
>taxed and distributed for the maximum benefit of all?
>

One of my favourite topics the pricing of oil and natural gas. First off
as far as I know there are no commercially viable finds of oil in the arctic
(note the spelling), not that the oil companies haven't been trying. It seems 
that just about every time they drill a successful hole they find natural
gas instead of the oil they are looking for. My position is as follows. 
Natural gas and oil are resources just like coal, iron ore, uranium, 
asbestos and nickel etc.  The latter named resources are all under provincial
control as spelled out in the BNA Act. The act gives control of all the 
minerals and natural resources found in a province to the provincial 
governments. What is so different about oil and gas? Nothing except that
they are currently in high demand. About 15 years ago there was no 
question as to who owned the oil and natural gas because non-Canadian oil
was cheaper and eastern needs were filled by offshore purchases. The people
of western Canada used, without a government compensation tax, their own
more expensive oil. Now that the situation has reversed many people,
especially those not in western Canada, seem to think that the West should
sell *its* oil at prices considerably below the world market value. 
Thats right, our   oil,
the oil and natural gas contained within the borders of the western provinces
belongs to the citizens of those provinces. As such the citizens of the West,
as represented by their duly elected provincial governments, can set the 
pricing format for their resources however they see fit.  The proceeds will, 
hopefully, be used to the benefit of the majority of the citizens in the
province. I believe  that the oil and natural gas found in the arctic and in
non-inland waterways belongs to the federal government and as such I would
hope that they would manage it for the benefit of all Canadians.  If they
really wanted low oil and gas prices they could develop these reserves and sell
them at lower than world prices assuming the cost of deliverying the product 
would allow it. This would force the producing provinces to supply the 
oil at the same price or leave it in the ground. Governments really 
don't seem to be in the competitive market so it is more likely that they
would collaborate and fix prices then engage in a bidding war. 
My viewpoint that the oil and gas found within the borders of a province
belongs to the province is held by the western provinces and one must
assume partly by the federal government.  If you recall a couple of 
years ago the federal government had its eyes on natural gas revenues and was 
going to claim a royalty on natural gas.  The producing provinces 
strongly objected to this and launched an action in the Supreme Court
of Canada, the federal government quickly backed down. I think it is 
reasonable to assume that if the federal government felt that it had 
a leg to stand on it would have pursued the matter, given the amount of money 
they could have gotten for the sorely depleted federal coffers. 

One final question what have you got against paying fellow Canadians,
the producing provinces, the world price or nearly world price for oil?
We could just as easily leave it in the ground and let the rest of Canada buy
their oil on the world market at world prices. Some people seem to have a
really strong objection to money leaving Canada as profits to foreign companies
while at the same time they think nothing of sending Canadian money chasing
after world oil instead of keeping it in Canada. 

   Donald Acton

 I'll push my car a hundred miles before I buy gas from a Petro Canada 
 station.