• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

blocking state owned takeovers...

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    blocking state owned takeovers...

    From Saturday's Globe and Mail

    The Conservative government is floating plans to block takeovers and investment from foreign state-owned firms should it detect a threat to Canada in the transaction, a move triggered by China's global prowl for acquisitions.

    The policy emerged quietly this week in the new economic plan unveiled by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

    Mr. Flaherty yesterday confirmed this concern about foreign-government firms, the same worry many Tories voiced from opposition benches in 2004 when state-owned China Minmetals Corp. made an unsuccessful bid to acquire Toronto mining firm Noranda Inc.

    The Finance Minister's economic agenda says the Tory government sees a need to draw up rules for the rare event where a foreign investment poses a threat to Canada.


    Experts say one prize Ottawa wants to protect is the lucrative Alberta oil sands, where Chinese state-owned companies have already made small inroads.

    “There may be rare occasions where a particular foreign investment might damage Canada's long-term interests,” Advantage Canada, Mr. Flaherty's economic plan, says.

    This policy surfaces after months of publicly souring relations between Beijing and the new Harper government and carries the risk of further alienating the two parties.

    The Tory economic agenda — which otherwise aims to attract outside capital — raises red flags about those foreign state-owned firms that have murky structures and corporate objectives. It doesn't single out countries of concern or identify assets it wishes to protect.

    “For example, foreign investment by large, state-owned enterprises with non-commercial objectives and unclear corporate governance and reporting may not be beneficial to Canadians,” the Flaherty economic plan says, adding Ottawa “needs a principle-based approach to address these situations.”

    This initiative arises as Canada-China relations are in a rut.

    Since it took office in February, Mr. Harper's government has reworked Canada's traditionally close relationship with China into a cooler and more distant one that sees the Tories taking a much more aggressive position on Beijing's human-rights record.

    Last week, while in Asia, Mr. Harper criticized China for its human-rights policy and offered strong comments on the jailing of Canadian citizen Huseyin Celil in China. He said he would not sacrifice human rights on the altar of the “almighty dollar.”

    Trade lawyer Lawrence Herman said China is clearly the chief country in mind in this investment-protection policy. He said it's hard to separate the initiative from the recent souring of the Sino-Canadian relationship. “I don't think you can untie the two,” he said.

    Still, he thinks Canadian business would support the Tories if they blocked investment from foreign state-owned firms that could be shown to threaten domestic interests.

    Greater Chinese inroads into the oil sands would certainly unnerve American policy makers, who always include Canada's tar-rich deposits in the equation when they discuss how the United States could achieve energy independence.

    Mr. Herman, with Cassels Brock & Blackwell in Toronto, said he believes the Tories are particularly sensitive about what happens to the oil sands because of their Western Canadian base.

    (At least two Chinese state-controlled companies, Sinopec Group and China National Offshore Oil Corp., have purchased small stakes in oil-sands interests.)

    Canadian officials say China isn't the only concern. They say that Ottawa would pay equal attention to state-owned takeovers from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran or Venezuela, for instance, and that bids for other types of assets would draw the same close scrutiny.

    The Tories say protecting “national interests” will be one of two goals in a review they're conducting of Ottawa's foreign investment rules, including the Investment Canada Act, which sets rules for screening takeover bids from outside the country.

    The debate about foreign government-controlled firms buying vital assets has already played out more extensively in the United States.

    A U.S. political backlash helped kill a 2005 bid by China National Offshore Oil Corp. to acquire Unocal Corp., a Houston-based U.S. oil and gas producer.

    This spring, Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates state-owned company, bowed to intense opposition from the U.S. Congress and abandoned its quest to run key American ports.

    An expert in Chinese-Canada relations said any move to restrict investment will prompt discussions with Canada's provinces, which own the resources the Chinese or others might be interested in buying.

    Yuen Pao Woo, president of the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada, said Ottawa and the provinces may have differing interests when it comes to investment from China.

    #2
    "The Finance Minister's economic agenda says the Tory government sees a need to draw up rules for the rare event where a foreign investment poses a threat to Canada." - shame it hadn't been applied to Cargill, Tyson, and all the other US pirates in the past. Why pick on the Chinese?

    Comment


      #3
      Umm, because they are communists who don't give a rat's a__ about very much, including their own citizens well being?

      Pretty sure the current gov't wasn't responsible for the state of affairs in the beef business.

      Comment


        #4
        The usual redneck paranoia about the word communist. "Umm, because they are communists who don't give a rat's a__ about very much, including their own citizens well being?"
        Try substituting transnational/ American corporation instead and tell me if the outcome is any different.

        "Pretty sure the current gov't wasn't responsible for the state of affairs in the beef business." really? were the PC's not in power during the 90's when the Cargill and Tyson megaplants were built at High River and Brooks? These plants were built with a direct government subsidy of taxpayers money from the province of Alberta - yet the PC government claim there is no way they will be involved or fund the packing business a decade later to help producers survive the monopoly situation they have created. Of course they can still bend the rules to give another $1.5 million of taxpayer money to Cargill for their patty plant in Spruce Grove. Wake up and smell the coffee.

        Comment


          #5
          If you are saying that a communist regime is beneficial to it's own citizens, then why are you living in Alberta? China needs beef too, perhaps you should look into it if you think they are doing things right. Did you come here on the assumption that the gov't was going to protect you from the cradle to the grave?

          Are you also saying that there has been absolutely no benefit to having these large packing plants here? It is certainly not good that there aren't more up and running, but stop to think for a minute about the spinoff money that is currently flowing in this province because they are still operating. How did your calves do over the last few years? If you think you can do better than what the situation is right now then get to work and start your own plant! Quit whining that the taxpayers don't want to support you.

          How much subsidy money did they send you by the way?

          I had my coffee today and it smelled like reality and personal responsibility.

          Comment


            #6
            I'm not an advocate of communism or apartheid or any other "system" to control people. That's why I don't support being controlled by the transnational corporate monopoly. Your delusion is that you somehow operate on equal terms and in the same free market capitilist economy that Tyson and Cargill do. This is not the case - they are private companies that are heavily subsidised by our taxpayer dollars and work against the interests of both beef producers and consumers by virtue of their monopoly position.

            I actually moved to Canada to get away from a subsidised agriculture and operate in a true free market. The most disapointing thing I have discovered since coming here is that this free market economy does not in fact exist. I am not, and will not ever, be grateful for any good you perceive Cargill and Tyson are doing the Alberta economy or that of it's beef producers as they currently operate. Their contribution appears to me to be supplying a few minimum wage Walmart type jobs to destitute African immigrants, funded by ripping off Alberta beef producers to the tune of several hundred dollars value an animal in a rigged marketplace. I believe they don't even pay taxes in Canada. It is quite simply a system of resource exploitation by a foreign power no different to that of the colonial powers in the days of slavery.

            Comment


              #7
              Well I'm not going to defend Cargill or Tyson but come on grassfarmer...of course they pay taxes? And $15-$17/hr. is not slave wages...or Walmart wages? Be a bit fair?
              The packing industry is not some kind of Shangra-La? XL gets down and dirty...just like Cargill and Tyson? In fact I would suggest to you Canada Packers knew every dirty trick the American packers ever dreamed up? And they were owned by UK interests!
              And yet they were a good company to work for if you were an employee! They treated you right. Sorry just my opinion from working for them for close to 5 years when I was young. They put the bread on the table for my young family!

              Comment


                #8
                Cowman, the wage increase the Lakeside workers had to fight hard to get in 2005 was an increase of $1 per hour which brought the starting hourly production wage to $13. I said I didn't think they paid much tax, if any, IN CANADA.

                Here are some of their other fine achievements:
                Blood, Sweat and Fear, a recent report by Human Rights Watch, condemned Tyson for violating the basic human rights of its workers by allowing unsafe working conditions at many of its production facilities.

                Tyson forced workers at its Jefferson, Wis. plant to strike from February, 2003, to January, 2004, after the company demanded huge wage cuts and catastrophic cuts to workers' health insurance and retirement plans. The strike ended when workers accepted a sub-standard agreement and Tyson has continued to take its hard bargaining stance to workers in the U.S. and Canada.

                Tyson is fiscally sound, with little or no corporate debt and soaring stock price, which increased 25% in 2004.

                In 2002, Tyson Foods earned a place as one of Sierra Club's "Ten Least Wanted." In 1999, they made the Corporate Crime Reporter's list of the nation's ten worst corporations.

                Tyson Foods is facing a national wage and hour lawsuit that charges the poultry giant with violating federal overtime provisions. The suit charges that Tyson fails to pay workers for all the time spent working on the line and time spent putting on and taking off required safety equipment such as gloves, hairnets, aprons, etc. The company could face fines of nearly $600 million in back pay to its employees.

                Tyson's demands to eliminate paid breaks for workers, reduce overtime pay rates, and gut contract protections forced UFCW members to strike against the company. The strike shut down operations at its Corydon, Indiana plant for over 2 months while workers picketed and won living wages and decent working conditions.

                Serious health and safety violations are rising at Tyson poultry plants - 46 serious violations in 1998, up from 17 in 1997. These violations indicate "substantial probability of death or serious injury."

                In 1999, seven Tyson Foods employees were killed on the job. No other poultry company reported fatalities this year only Tyson. In July, 1999, James Dame, Jr. and Mike Hallum fell into an open pit of decomposing chicken parts and suffocated from the methane gas at Tyson's Robards, Kentucky facility. On October 8, 1999, Charles Shepherd died from head trauma after a fall in the chiller room in the Berlin, Maryland Tyson plant. There were two fatalities at the company's Harrisonburg, Virginia poultry plant and two Tyson chicken catchers were killed during the summer, both from electrocution in chicken houses.

                Tyson was fined by $139,500 by Kentucky OSHA for confined space violations in the Robards plant and $22,000 by Maryland OSHA for violation of the lock-out standard at the Berlin facility.

                In February, 2000, Tyson's Henderson, Kentucky complex was slapped by Kentucky OSHA with a record-breaking $269,000 in fines from citations for 73 serious health and safety violations.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Ok...Tyson bad...communists good!??

                  Maybe we have learned some lessons grassfarmer...thus the concern.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Grassfarmer you are very good at chronicling the sins of corporate monopolies and the shameful acts of government that allow them to flourish.

                    Note though that it has been the many years of Liberal rule (I include Ralph in this)in this country that has facilitated the growth of corporate monopolies in our Canada.

                    The reason they are encouraged to operate with in OUR borders is because of the anti-combines legislation that exists in the U.S. but they operate unfettered here.

                    Outside of kicking them out and the state taking control what are the alternatives? Churchill said democracy is the unequal distribution of wealth and Communism is the equal distribution of poverty.

                    I think I have welcomed you before to move into Saskatchewan where this communist regime has stood in the way of commerce (capital punishment) at every opportunity that it can swing its influence and in the process has ****d the rural areas with the highest property taxes in the country so as to subsidize the urban areas where they get their support.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      So Ralph's world has been a Liberal regime? I think you are confused.
                      I am well aware that Canada's lax anti combine laws are what allow these monopolies to operate here but not in the US. "Outside of kicking them out and the state taking control what are the alternatives?" Answer: proper anti competition laws that are enforced, it has happened elsewhere.

                      If you think Saskatchewan is a communist regime I suggest you broaden your horizons and maybe travel to a communist country - then you might know what you are talking about.

                      I do not support communism in any shape or form as I stated in the previous thread.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Confused not at all...Ralphs world is alot more "liberal" than it was in Alberta 35 years ago!


                        Prairie Centre Policy Institute
                        Weekly Commentary

                        WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE October 27, 2003

                        Title: Capital Punishment?

                        If Saskatchewan is to grow and be prosperous, it must be capable of attracting private investment capital. And you don't have to be an economist to know that it is virtually impossible to attract investment when you keep biting the hand that feeds you.

                        A healthy private sector and business friendly environment are often the first things the private capital market looks for when allocating their investment dollars. They tend to shy away from Saskatchewan, where investment funds are often allocated by the government rather than the market. Investors don't like it when politics replaces return on investment as the basis for allocating funds. The problem with government intervention is you end up with investment projects that often reduce rather than enhance wealth because resources are wasted on political boondoggles like Spudco, mega bingo, the land titles registry and other such expenditures that seem to be favoured by the current NDP administration.

                        No where is the effect of government intervention more evident than in the Western Canadian oil patch. For years we've been told that Alberta is wealthy because it has oil and gas. And, as you can see from the attached map, that statement appears to be absolutely true. The oil and gas fields do stop abruptly at the Saskatchewan border. The question is, however, do they stop because: a) that's where the oil and gas ends; or, b) the industry does not want to
                        invest in Saskatchewan.

                        Obviously, it's investment and not the resource that ends at the border. In fairness, I must point out there is a difference between the geological formations of the two provinces. As a result, the sweet light crude oil found in Alberta is worth more and costs less to recover than and the heavy crude found in Saskatchewan. But, that is not necessarily the main cause for the cut-off along Alberta's eastern border. According to industry insiders, the real culprit is Saskatchewan's Oil and Gas Conservation Act.

                        This Act gives the minister responsible absolute power over the oil and gas industry. It states, in part, that the minister has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters pursuant to this act. It also says the minister may reconsider any matter that has been dealt with and rescind, alter, amend, suspend or confirm any decision or order made, approval granted, or permit or license issued. Furthermore, there is no appeal from an order or decision of the minister and all decisions, findings and orders pursuant to this Act are final and conclusive. They are not reviewable in any court of law, and no decision, finding or order of the minister shall be restrained by injunction, prohibition or other proceeding or be removed by certiorari (appeal to a higher court) or otherwise by any court.

                        Now, Minister Cline has stated he would never use this power and I believe him. But, I'm not a big investor either. It has been widely reported that many of those who do have the capital and desire to invest purposely avoid Saskatchewan. The reasons for this are closely related to the perception that public policy in this province is largely :lriven by a long-standing contempt for capitalists and private sector investment. Success is a dirty word and we don't want any of that here. This anti-business attitude was ignited by the 1933 Regina Manifesto, which created the CCF



                        along with their now infamous declaration that they would not rest content until capitalism was eradicated. Fuel was added to the fire when the CCF joined with the labor unions to form the NDP. It was in full fury when a Saskatchewan NDP government nationalized the potash industry by expropriating private property. And, this sentiment is not exclusive to New Democrats. Given its political history, no wonder investors are more than a little reluctant to put their money in Saskatchewan.

                        I read somewhere that any government that destroys capital markets will pay a severe price for their folly. thats Capital Punishment?

                        AI/an Evans


                        Allan Evans is a marketing consultant and Business Manager for the Prairie Centre Policy Institute. .Where Do We Go From Here" is a feature service of the Prairie Centre

                        Comment


                          #13
                          IBC you may be right sask is asking for a better deal and why would investors go there if they can get the same in alta for nothing.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Personally I don't think Alberta is getting as good a deal on royalties as we should?
                            Not sure what the other candidates in the PC leadership race are saying but I know that Ted Morton has said its time for some changes in how oil companies deal with individuals and the province? An increase of the $500 entry fee(since 1980) is one area he is calling for?
                            Believe it or not some oil companies are ready for some changes as well...and it isn't "pay less"! Quicksilver(CBM) CEO has told a popular local consultant that the fact is they are running into a lot of problems signing surface leases...because the province is so backwards in its pricing rules! He told this consultant that he should flood the Surface Rights Board with cases...to get some much needed changes to the compensation figures!
                            He says Quicksilver has no problem competing at a higher compensation level....bottom line is they need to get those wells drilled!

                            Comment


                              #15
                              good for Ted.....he should get my vote next saturday for that, among other things.

                              Comment

                              • Reply to this Thread
                              • Return to Topic List
                              Working...