Frank

It would be interesting to see some hard facts about the extent of foreign ownership in Canada and Canadian ownership abroad. Until you show that you’re just tilting (to the left) at windmills....
and, if the company is indeed “Canadian owned" at the present won’t the $33B be a boon for our economy?

Foreign ownership

For more info on foreign ownership, here's a link to Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_ownership_of_companies_of_Canada

There's lots of stats for you to peruse at the bottom of the article including a link to Stats Canada.

As for selling of companies being good for the economy, that's illogical. Few would agree that the selling of income-bearing assets is a great boon for Canada.

This is typical Soviet style

This is typical Soviet style collectivization with the use of imaginary capital created out of the air by some bank.

The holders of large amounts of worthless US Dollars are trying to get rid of them while some suckers will take it, and so acquire more real capital, like resources and gold, while they can. They're doing it slowly, not to cause panic, but the rising gold prices are proof of what they're doing.

One of these days people may just wake up to the sordid fact that so called "foreign investment" is a fraud, as it brings nothing to any country and no country needs it.

Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

Frank

The stats show that about 20% of Canadian corporate activity by total assets are controlled by foreign ownership. I don’t see how that is an issue. The concept that ‘millions of per hour” are pouring out of Canada and that leaves us at some kind of fiscal disadvantage just doesn’t wash……

Anybody who takes money, or

Anybody who takes money, or benefits from me leaves me at a disadvantage, unless I receive something worthwhile in return.

Money doesn't create jobs, because it is worthless until it can be converted into resources. Therefore "investors" who bring money so they can take out several, or thousands of times the values they bring in leave us poorer, because they don't bring anything, only take, and take.......

I have billions in money that doesn't buy a box of matches. By the time I was 21 I was living under the 5th monetary system and was starving, my wife under the 6th by 20, now both of us under the 6th and 7th, until this pile of garbage money becomes worthless, then we can try the Amero for our total exploitation and robbery from our pockets.

Ed Deak.

NLN

If you don't see anything wrong with the amount of money leaving Canada we'll just have to agree to disagree NLN. Because I certainly do see it as a major problem. But since we don't even agree that its a problem there's really no point in discussing how to fix it.

Interesting sidelight

A number of Latin American countries are considering pulling out of the World Bank and the IMF – both thoroughgoing failures – and not just because of Paul Wolfowitz.

We'd be far better keeping the proceeds of our commodity economy here in Canada and developing this country instead of permitting the returns to end up in foreign bank accounts.

Then increase the amount of direct targeted AID we give to other countries that need assistance becoming self-sufficient themselves.

The last 40 years absolutely prove that unplanned foreign direct investment only goes to places where foreigners can pocket direct and exceptional profits - usually at the expense of either the resources or the cheap labour markets in the countries where they invest. And guaranteed by the World Bank/IMF rules.

The EU has tended to take a different and much more successful development protocol when it works with its own members. One hopes Latin America can leverage their resources (which the First World will always want and pay for - just like our commodities) into better and more equitable pragmatic progress for their societies than has been the case for countries that have swallowed the US poison – countries like Canada.

In the EU, Western capital

In the EU, Western capital is flowing East, buying up the assets of whole countries, dislocating and disenfrachising locals and citizens.

Some 3 million farmers are expected to lose their lands is Poland. In Hungary, which has always been a major food exporting country, products that have been grown for centuries are now imported and Hungarians can't afford to buy land, houses and even apartments.

In short, the EU is just another "wealth creating", robbery racket for the international, carpetbagger mafia.

Ed Deak.

How?

How? Have government top the Alcoa bid? Nationalize all resource industries?

If Alcoa wants to buy Mr. & Mrs. Ordinary-Canadians shares for a nice profit, shouldn't they be allowed to sell them?

Remember when the Japanese were buying all the US real-estate? A couple of years later it all tanked and the US buyers bought it back at half price.

Incidentally, the plan would be to have joint head-offices. Not as stated in the article.

Sweet Deal:
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/business/story.html?id=54903736-92ee-4a6d-b6df-ba93d26449e4&k=70404

BC's OK too:
According to a regulatory filing, Alcoa plans to work with the British Columbia government and local communities to move forward with the US$1.8-billion modernization plan. In addition, "Alcoa believes that the combined company could accelerate the modernization of Kitimat by retrofitting it with improvements to the Soderberg smelting technology,"

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=8c8379ed-2cd8-42d6-ba32-25affbfacd7e

How about limiting the percentage of foreign equity ownership

That's a perfectly reasonable solution that keeps the head offices and the interests in Canada.

Once upon a time we even had a Canadian oil company that should have been kept to increase the refining capacity in this country so that we wouldn't be paying 27c a litre more than we ought to be paying and with the additional money just going direct into the majors pockets.

The point is, we HAVE the commodities and the damn foreigners NEED them. Why should they have our companies and the usurious profits too?

How long have you been a Canadian anyway R/Man?

You're right about that too Ed - I was just thinking of the policies within the EU - the kind of thing that led to the revival of Ireland, for example.

And R Man

If you followed the international news you'd know that Alcoa's move has geo-political aspects as well - ones which make your sanguine view about where the decisions are being made actually pretty funny.

Not that we'll get any help from the joke miesters in Ottawa of course. They've been sellouts for nearly a generation now anyway.

Frank

I’ll agree to disagree. Your inability to rationalize both sides of the ledger suggests that your position is ideologically driven any way.

GW

Why is it that gas in most EU countries is about $6.50 US per gallon and you complain that we are being ripped off?

NLN

I have absolutely no problem with high gas prices if the societies that charges them, like most nations in Western Europe, have:
(a) met or nearly met their KYOTO targets, and
(b) have a rational, efficient and affordable system of public transit, and
(c) the profits of the oil companies are in a logical and proportional relation to the cost of production - which they are NOT in this country.

Taxes and royalties are charged per litre, not in relation to price – Why do you think the Canadian oil producers are so profitable? It’s not magic. Furthermore, the majors have not increased refinery capacity in this country for something more than 25 years.
Simple.

NLN

My inability to what?

As for ideology, pot calling kettle black? You've never uttered a non-ideologically driven statement on this forum.

You simply state foreign ownership of key sectors of the Cdn economy is not a problem. Where's the non-ideology?

realisticman

So you're saying we don't have an option but to allow foreigners to profit from our resources? Or are you saying you don't think its a problem?

In any case, this is not a

In any case, this is not a "sale", but a hostile takeover, so nobody is expected to bid.

Basically a takeover of one sleazbag outfit by another.

Ed Deak.

Frank

You made these unsubstantiated claims so it’s reasonable to assume that your position is simply ideologically driven – Canadian ownership good, foreign ownership bad.

"We have the foreign ownership levels of a 3rd world country. And since so much of our economy is resource based there's no reason for it.
Just imagine how wealthy a place Canada would be if all those millions per hour weren't leaving the country in the form of repatriated profits."

In yesterdays Sun Harvey Enchin reported that from 2003-2006 foreign investors bought $210B worth of Canadian assets while Canadians bought $225B of foreign assets. Again, your ideological position isn’t support by the facts…….

NLN

The claims aren't unsubstantiated. One of Mel Hurtig's was the first book I read with those numbers in them and that was almost 15 years ago. The number at that time was stated as being 4 million dollars per hour and he got it from Stats Canada. Foreign ownership has been on the increase since then.

As for ideology, your position has no foundation. You simply state that foreign ownership is good. But you don't say why. Why not? If that's what you believe why not say why you think foreign ownership is good? I have said why I think its bad.

Harvey Enchin's number means what exactly in the context of this discussion? You put the number forward but had no argument. What exactly is your argument? You're always so shy about taking a position NLN, you lack the confidence to defend a point of view, you'd prefer to simply attack other people's views while never saying where you stand on anything.

Wiki

I said

From the Wiki article :

and

You disagree with what I said and think foreign ownership is good and that it doesn't matter that our levels of foreign ownership are akin to a 3rd world country.

But you don't say why.

Ideology

I have said why I think those levels of foreign domination are bad for us.

So in my opinion your inability or refusal to say why foreign ownership of much of our economy is good for us means your position is an ideological one because if it wasn't you'd have no problem stating why.

Ownership

Frank, I'm not sure. I'd like to see strong Canadian companies and head-offices in Canada too. Looking at the Alacan/Alcoa situation is complicated. Alcan started as a subsidy of Alcoa back in 1902. Only in 1945 did a US court rule that Alcan was absolutely separated from Alcoa. Over the subsequent years Alacan started joint operations and bought and sold many companies all over the world including the USA and some in Canada. Today Alcan shares are traded on the Toronto, New York, London, Paris and Zurich stock exchanges. This is truly a global company that is owned by people all over the world and has, over the years, bought foreign companies. This purchase by Alcoa is just another in a long line of transactions and is also the completion of a circle.

With businesses evolving as Alcan has it's difficult for me to say that at a certain moment in time the buying and selling of a specific company has to stop and it now has to based in a specific country.

Alcan bought many companies in Germany, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Japan, Brazil, the USA, etc. etc., should companies in those countries never be allowed to buy the company in return?

Alcan

R'man, actually I don't really care about Alcan or any other individual company. Perhaps saying "don't care" is too strong but what I mean is I care about the overall result, not the fortunes of any individual company.

Your opening line

is what I agree with. Alcan's can come and go.

However, I think its an important point that Canadian business is still dominated by foreigners as it was in our colonial days. Why don't the other countries in the G7 have the same levels of foreign ownership? What is it about Canada that prevents us from having the same levels of foreign ownership that other non-developing nations enjoy?

In my opinion there is a benefit to having the head offices and taxes of major companies located in Canada. So what is it about Britain, France, Germany and Italy etc that leaves so much of their economy in their own hands?

Colonial times

Perhaps its simply that we're not a real country and that we are in fact still a colony? The European nations were never a colony of anyone else. The US was but it became bigger and stronger than any other nation.

So perhaps the Canadian example to the world is that no matter how much water passes under the bridge a developing country will never have control of its own economy? Because the richer we get the richer the people that own our economy get too. Is it a cycle that can't be broken?

What benefit do Canadians derive from their resources when those assets are controlled by the same foreigners that need them? What benefit do we get when the resources and the profit from their extraction go to the same foreign countries?

China needs energy. They would like to own ours. Is it in the interests of the Canadian people when that energy and the profit from its extraction and the taxes on that profit all go to China?

If that's the premise - R/Man

And I think it is.

Then the current policies aren't getting us there.

In fact, they are making things worse than they were a generation ago.

Furthermore, as Ed points out, the whole 'foreign investment' thing is a sham anyway because no 'real' investment or enhanced productivity ever accrues to these takeovers anyway. They are just another expression of the laws of liquid capital sloshing around the globe to the advantage of the 2% of global capitalists who contribute absolutely nothing to the growth and maturity of this Canadian culture.

The best news in this area is the pending cock-up at the World Bank and the promise of a new Latin American institution being created in the South to actually 'serve' the needs of its citizens and NOT international cartels.

Here's an interesting link for you, on a slightly different, but not unimportant subject (from what I'd suggest even you would call an unimpeachable source)

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86305/c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor.html

Hmmm

I could think about that for a long time but, since I work for myself I have to work today and haven't the time to devote to the subject. I will say that it probably has to do with at least a few of the facts that make up Canada. Two centres competing; Toronto & Montreal (French power & anglo power); the lack of a national securities regulator, this makes it easier to list on the NYSE than on a Canadian one because of the multiple regulatory filings; regional favourism in awarding federal contracts, excellence is diluted due to political obligations requiring propping up less than stellar industries in remote or unsuitable areas; excessive government regulations, the banks were not allowed to merge and thereby become big players in mega-deals and consequently substantially shrank in world rankings and have become far less involved in big M&As (I've always felt that the Quebec card was prominent here, since Banque National would have gone from a mid-sized player to tiny, had the big-four become the Toronto based world-sized bigger two). [Note that when the feds put the kibosh on the merger with Royal the head of Bank of Montreal, Matthew Barrett, went to London and took Barclays to much bigger and better heights, including purchasing Juniper of the US from the neutered CIBC, to now the 4th largest financial services provider in the world.] etc. etc.

Cheers,

Never was much of a Matthew Barrett fan

So I'd say who cares.
You might want to refer to this little article from Maclean's:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0011915

Barrett was busy looking after himself; the notion that he left because of the failed merger is just plain nonsense.

You might also want to remember that Barrett was born in Ireland, started his career with the Bank of Montreal in LONDON and didn't even come to Canada until 1967. His leaving Canada had a lot more to do with his personal life, a failed marriage and a new woman, Ann-Marie Sten, from whom - you might be interested to know, he is now divorced.

Much ado about nothing, my view and a bad example of nothing in particular in the either the foreign ownership or the Canadian Nationalist world.

As for your other explanation, I think that one is entirely compromised as well.

Too bad you have to work on Sunday though.

My two cents on that

R'man, on the surface one could make your argument that Canada is over-governed and that's why we're more owned by foreigners than the Americans are. However, some of the other countries in the G7 are more over-governed than we are and are more guilty of regional favourtism and so on than we are.

The point about the banks not being allowed to merge a few years ago doesn't explain our high levels of foreign ownership before that.

Two centres, Toronto and Montreal, does make us different than Britain and France but does not differentiate us from Italy and Germany where you don't have one city as the economic and political capital above all others as you do with London and Paris.

In my opinion the one thing that is unique to Canada among the G7 is that we were the one that developed while still in a colonial stage. As we grow and prosper so do the foreign owned companies and individuals that own the key sectors of our economy. It seems to be very difficult for us to get ahead of that curve.

Working for yourself = no time off

hey, I gotta work on Sunday too for the same reason as R'man :-)

Doesn't stop me from posting though.

Much ado about nothing, in YOUR view-West

Well, that's your view. Fact is he worked for B of M for 30 years and at Barclays they went on to become 4th in the world. His personal life is of no concern to me but here we are talking about corporate world leaders and he led one. Since we live in a capitalist state big banks ARE important.

He started his banking career in the London office of the Bank of Montreal (BMO) in 1962, and moved from London to Canada in 1967. In 1976 he left BMO for a 9-month period when he joined the Royal Bank of Canada, but returned to the Bank of Montreal after this brief period. By 1987 he had become President and Chief Operating Officer. In 1990 he was elected Chairman of the Bank of Montreal, where he worked for more than 30 years.

He returned to Britain on joining Barclays on 1 October 1999 as Group Chief Executive. (The move followed a proposed merger of the Bank of Montreal with the Royal Bank of Canada being turned down by the competition authorities: "I'd be fibbing if I said that it was not a blow at the time.") He is widely credited with giving Barclays greater confidence and more of a sense of direction, after several years of management mishaps. He then became Chairman of Barclays, in 2004, and retired on 31 December 2006, succeeded by Marcus Agius.

Securities regulations are also a big deal.

SO what's your point?

He's no Canadian hero.

In fact, I'd call him a Canadian of convenience. I think there are a lot like him in the business community. Folks like Barrett who never met a microphone they didn't love.

Still paying obeisance to the old British Empire mercantile mythology I’d say.

In my view he's just another sell-out who stayed as long as it was convenient and then headed for somewhere else because he thought it would make him a bigger celebrity.

Reminds me a lot of a certain Lord Black who, after cheating and stealing the pension funds of many Canadian workers to whom he ought to have had a higher fiduciary duty he decided he could steal a little more in England and that the British aristocracy would help him combat his own personal insecurities.

I’m Not too interested in Barrett’s or Black’s of R/man’s crocodile tears. These people are what's wrong with this country.

I could care how big the sandbox they play in is.

It's just another example of folks massaging their egos at other people's expense.

I want banks with 'confidence'? Actually no! They just play to the egos of other outlaws.

Moreover, the thumbnail bio, why'd you bother?

Still not actually reading I guess.

Brilliant West!

Once again you've managed to steer a decent discussion away from its topic and launch again into a nasty tirade against an individual. This time a man who gave 30 years of his working life to this country and was well liked by both the employees and the board. A guy with some charisma and financial success (despised by you, West, for these characteristics). Reminds you, you say of a, "cheating and stealing", Conrad Black. I wonder if he'll sue you! God you are so bloody bitter!

As for the bio, I felt it was necessary data since you, West, had splashed irrelevant personal info and poo-pooed the moving to London as to have anything to do with federal government thwarting of bank mergers, when Barretts quote, and the Macleans article seem to disprove.

What we were discussing was large Canadian companies and the banks have shrunk proportionally to other banks in the world since the feds put the kibosh on mergers. The characters are only relevant in this instance since one went on to create the 4th largest financial institution in the world. Same subject we were on about, remember?

Got any ideas West? Want to bring back FIRA?

Sorry R/Man - not guilty

I write something about a third party you brought up and you attack ME!

But I’ll accept your apology for personalizing this discussion unnecessarily.

You're the one who brought up Matthew Barrett as an avatar for the successful Canadian businessman who leaves Canada for fame and fortune elsewhere.

If you'd wanted to actually debate the issue of foreign ownership you could have - no one was stopping you.

Peter Munk would have been a better example but I suppose you're aware of his reputation as an ugly Canadian in some of the countries where Barrick's reputation isn't quite as pristine as it on Bay Street.

I didn't say a single word about Barrett that wasn't true and if you know anything about Barrett you know it too. If you're not aware of the circumstances surrounding the way Conrad Black obtained control of Argus Corporation then I think you need to do a little more research on that subject though.

As I said big - when it comes to banks - isn't better. In fact it almost always isn't.

I'd love to bring back foreign content rules - we never should have gotten rid of them.

Foreigners do not have Canadian's best interests in mind. That's why they're foreigners.

I welcome anyone who wants to come to Canada and live, work and invest here with open arms.

And I'm more than sanguine when guys like Lord and Lady Black decide they like Great Britain better and leave. What I don't respect is people who, like Black, come crawling back when his high stakes gambles don't pay off. I understand his wife even removed the chandeliers that were sold with his town house in New York City. Sadly (for the Lord and his Lady) the sale proceeds got scooped up by the court. I wonder how that news will sit with his old ‘friends’ in the City of London.

In for a penny, in for a pound - and vice versa.