Norway as an example?

Thank you for another vital and succinct piece - somehow Nikiforuk is able to develop a clear and poignant thesis in a way that weaves the multitude of horrendous, appalling facts with which we are confronted each day.

I have more of a question than a comment - can we look to Norway as a better model of a state that is able to manage its petro resources more wisely? Or is there really no example of a well-managed oil resource by any state?

To the author

I do admit there are issues with the oil sands, GHG emissions, water use, and land reclamation are just some of my personal worries, but I have some concerns with your argument.
You say Canada is a petrostate, that's fine but Mr. Nikiforuk why not travel to a real petrostate (you seem to like Saudi Arabia) and try and voice your concerns there? Something tells me their government would be a lot less tolerant of ANY freedom of speech not just government criticism. In a democracy interests are weighed in different ways, if we do not like how that is done we vote that government out. On May 2 the citizen's of Canada can make their choice, those in Saudi Arabia cannot.

You say all of Canada's oil wealth has been squandered not saved, apparently we have different understandings of the word savings or as I would call them investments. The Walter C. Mackenzie Health Science's Center (located in Alberta, a terribly dismal place) and the Edmonton Clinic (under construction) are two of the foremost medical research facilities in North America (not just Canada, North America.) The doctors and researchers that work in these facilities are paid by the Government of Alberta and through the Alberta Heritage Savings Medical Research Endowment. As you noted much of this is derived from oil wealth however both of these seem to me like a rather excellent expenditure of Petro-dollars to myself. Just as things like primary education, policing, child-care and so many other social programs are, perhaps that wealth isn't so squandered?

You rail the Harper government for a deficit accumulated during the worst recession in 50 years. I ask what would the other political parties have done? Spend as a way to counter-act the business cycle like Mr. Keynes instructed us to, exactly what Mr. Harper did do? In fact it would be a more sensible argument to remind people that Mr. Harper did not want to spend on a stimulus, which would have hurt Canada and Canadians exponentially harder than this deficit has. [OFFENSIVE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED CHARGES LEVELLED AT ANY TYEE REPORTER IS NOT ALLOWED IN THIS FORUM. ARGUE WITH THE FACTS NOT THE PERSON OR LEAVE THIS FORUM. -MODERATOR.] Yet, ridiculing elected officials families, pitting the regions of Canada against one another and referring to YOUR country as a petrostate helps no one.
You do a tremendous disservice to people living in actual petrostate’s who at this very moment are dying because their leaders would rather murder them than build hospitals. So cool the rhetoric for once, engage in actual debate so the issues related to the oil sands can actually be solved. Then perhaps your opinions will be taken seriously by those in power. But because I understand the activist modus operandi I won't be holding my breath.

Ps-Don't forget to vote on May 2, something, Lybian and Bahrainian citizens are dying to do.

Squandering the loot

I heartily endorse Andrew Nikiforuk's comment about Maggie Thatcher and the damage to Britain's manufacturing through squandering North Sea oil wealth.
I watched this entire process in dismay from my furnituremaker's bench and finally quit the UK for Canada.
What do I find here? The same, pretty much.
Britons en masse were bought off with quick profits from the brief oil bonanza and newly-privatised key industries: gas, water, electricity etc (there's not much British about their ownership now).
Banking and the City of London's 'invisibles' displaced manufacturing. Inflated money poured into property, skewing a whole economy.
The UK's been having a hard time lately -- but at least it now seems to be acknowledging that it got something wrong.
Canada now has an extra disincentive to work, with easy imports of cheap (but only for the time being) goods from emerging countries.
British people do vote in elections, though, and chatter loudly when their politicians take them for fools.
It's worrying that Canadians don't bother over-much.

Canada's Greatest Journalist: Nikiforuk

We are witnessing some of Canada's best writing in many, many years. This is a great privilege. And a burden as well. The truth is often a hard, hard thing to accept. In 2011 in Canada, it is worse then ever.

Canada is indeed morphing into a petrostate. Not even the Green Party has the gumption to state what Nikiforuk tells us. Our ruling elite are afraid. Very afraid. Of the oil cartel. Who can blame them.

Where do we turn for guidance in this freefall. Egypt? 1930's Canada? Tommy Douglas? Ghandi? Martin Luther King?

I wish I knew.

Excellent, excellent work. The Tyee should be very proud! Even during such a hard time as this.

Harper has it covered only problem it is with more lies!

With his man and top advisor Carson who dosen't have a problem with telling defrauding people but sees it as all in a day's work.
Harper has a energy plan and has Carson on the job as we speak.
Carson heads up a newly-created "think-tank" in Calgary, called the Canada School of Energy and Environment. The agency,a private corporation is funded entirely with a $15 million grant from the federal government.

Carson changes the mandate of the agency from that of a research institute to a centre devoted to spreading the word about the Alberta oil sands and helping the Harper government navigate the politically treacherous climate change issue.

No point asking the Prime Minister any questiions about the issue because all that comes out of that man's mouth is denial of any wrong doing.

I believe Harper has a energy plan only reason Canadians don't get to know it is if they did Harper would soon be without a job.

Some could say it was a conflict of interest

Rumor is the Conflict Commissioner is rarely on the job, apparently she just may be in conflict with her job. Who knows, not the Conflict Commissioner that is for sure.

Harper's father

Can someone point me to the evidence that Harper's father was an Imperial Oil Executive? There is very little info online and all I see is that he worked as accountant for them.

Thanks

stalking Nikiforuk

I have lived in the oil patch for decades. I know people who had severe health break downs, children with chronic respiratory problems, seen stats on birth problems, heard anecdotes from or about people who have had run ins with the oil and gas extraction industry. I followed the Ludwig story, and, more recently, the Encana bombings. I have seen what happens at Oil and Gas Commission to ordinary people. I know two instances of people who had to go over 800 k away to even get legal representation to help them out with a beef with the industry, and I've seen what the overwhelming legal response of the industry is to people who complain. And I have seen lots having to do with the labour relations in the oil and gas industry.
So when I read something by Nikiforuk, or when he comes through on a speaking tour, I think of the stories about the auto industry's response to Ralph Nadar, back in the 1960's.
I figure, surely the oil and gas industry has a pr firm stalking this guy where ever he goes, when ever he goes online. Surely they have a prepared script that pops up whenever anything by Nikiforuk is published - especially on message board type media like this.
I guess that one way to spot this is to notice the names that pr people choose to use. Some names cry out 'astro turf pr here.'
Also, some times the script contains references to things that are nowhere in the original passage by (in this case) Nikiforuk.

There are likely more, and better ways to spot this kind of thing.

@ Democratic Canadian

First of all, a little accuracy would be nice.

You write: "You say Canada is a petrostate..".

But what Nikiforuk actually said is this:
Canada, (is) an emerging petro state....

There is a big difference and he makes a perfectly valid comparison (which you choose to ignore) with another 'democratic' state that got itself into exactly the same kind of problems Canada is beginning to experience.

Perhaps you missed the reference to Margaret Thatcher's United Kingdom. There are also significant parallels with what happened there when that country became infected with the Dutch Disease.

This doesn't mean that hospitals (especially in low royalty Alberta) won't get built - what it does mean, in all likelihood, given current tendencies that - several years down the road - that Canada (and Alberta) will have spent blown the asset and have little or nothing to show for it...

Unlike Norway, where the state has retained ownership and control of the asset AND used those resources for the good of the whole nation, the profiteering in Canada is all being done by multinational corporations.

Exactly the same folks who've infected single resource nations all over the world with the Dutch Disease.

Here's a reference to a little more reading since you don't like Nikiforuk:
http://www.economie.uqam.ca/pages/docs/Beine_Michel.pdf

I'll simply quote something from the last two paragraphs, you can read the rest yourself...

"The substantial appreciation of the CAN/USD between 2002 and mid-2008 has been
followed by a sharp depreciation of about 20 percent in the last quarter of 2008. Over the
same period, the price of oil and the other commodities got back to very low levels.

The recent developments illustrate well why the Dutch disease should be taken into account to understanding the evolution of the Canadian economic structure and the future of its wellbeing. As pointed out at the beginning of this paper, the Dutch phenomenon becomes a disease if the manufacturing sector does not come back when the resource boom is over.

Had Alberta’s resource boom lasted for 100 years, the appreciation of the Canadian
currency and the shrinking of its manufacturing sector might have been viewed as an optimal market adjustment with limited role for government intervention. In contrast, Alberta’s resource boom is already part of history, the Dutch phenomenon may have already become a disease that challenges economic policy. ...."

And, please note that this paper was written in 2009, before the run up of the dollar and the huge recent increase in foreign investment in the Tar Sands.

We may still get the odd hospital and research facility - but that won't make up for the negative effects of putting all our eggs in one basket.

Which is, I'd say, the real point of Nikiforuk's work - here and elsewhere.

Manufactured exports from

Manufactured exports from Canada are far, far more valuable than oil and gas exports.

In 2006, Mining, Oil and Gas Extraction figures are $33.46 billion.
Transportation Equipment alone is $79.43 billion. Paper and Wood Products is $28.9 billion. Wholesale Trade is $50 billion.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/65-506-x/65-506-x2008001-eng.pdf

No they're not...

Most of that stuff is in and out (auto trade)- we'd have a huge balance of payments problem if you took out the petrol poison - furthermore, as Nikiforuk and the authors above point out, the relative importance of manufacturing is steadily declining from a high after WW 2 to what it is today - in fact, from 2005 to 2009 it has declined as a pct of GDP by 2% - which is huge.

Nikiforuk's point is that Canada is an emerging petro state and the authors of the article cited above show exactly WHY that's the case.

And you have NO argument - Canada, as a large number of economists have observed, is well on its way to becoming another casualty of the Dutch disease.

In fact, all you have to do is look at the number of pages of ad copy in every Canadian periodical over the course of a month to see exactly how frantically the Tar Babies are spinning.

And it'll get worse if these idiots manage to overcome the Americans resistance to the Keystone pipeline.

Oh, OK.

I'll advise StatsCan that they're all wrong.