This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Inteluck (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
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?
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?
What would the NEP have done to Canadian ownership & participation in Canada's oil industry?
What were the general goals of the NEP? (increased self-sufficiency, security of Canada's oil supply, etc?)
How does the $16 billion in Alberta's Heritage Fund compare with similar funds elsewhere, such as Norway and Alaska?
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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.
- - 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)
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)
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).
Okay, some Toronto-centric effete eastern urban fiction has crept into this article (2008-04-03), so let's discuss it:
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)
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)
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 IITalk to my owner:Online 14:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
it should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.80 (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
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)