David Emerson Wants More Foreign Ownership

Posted on Monday, March 21 at 13:00 by sthompson
Updating the figures in my book The Vanishing Country, during the same period of time, the foreign direct investment tracked by Investment Canada amounted to to an enormous $540.4 billion. Of that amount, 96.8% was for takeovers, and only a pathetic 3.2% was for new business investment. And David Emerson wants more of the same! Bear in mind that of the $540.4 billion, about two thirds to three quarters came not from outside the country but from our good old loyal, patriotic financial institutions, mostly our Big 5 banks, here in Canada. We have to say "about," because for unknown reasons, Statistics Canada stopped keeping track of such information. My estimates are based on historical figures. When we closed down the Committee For An Independent Canada back in 1981, foreigners were in control of about 24% of corporate revenue. It's now back at well over 30% and increasing. As well, about 37% of our largest 500 corporations are already foreign-controlled. To get a better grasp of what is happening in Canada (and only if you have a strong stomach) go to the Industry Canada site shown above, click on Decisions, and scroll through a couple of months of recent takeovers. It's truly disgusting. It's interesting to view all of this considering the Ipsos/Reid poll showing that 70% of Canadians say that they are concerned about the foreign ownership of Canada's energy resources (already over 50% in the petroleum industry and headed for a big increase), and considering other similar polls. And isn't it great that Petro-Canada, the CNR, Air Canada, Molson's, Labatt's, and Tim Horton's are all majority-foreign-owned? That's to name just a few. And isn't it great that over 125 Canadian high-tech companies have been taken over in the Ottawa area alone in recent years? As for David Emerson's claim of the rigorous screening of takeover applications, not one single application has ever been rejected. How the dim-witted people in Ottawa could ever accept the takeovers of Westcoast Energy or Connaught Laboratories (as but two of thousands of similarly egregious examples) is beyond all logical explanation (except the dim-witted one). Our deep integration sellouts keep saying that we don't have enough foreign investment and we should open up telecommunications, airlines, banking, book publishing, etc. and etc. and etc. Not enough compared to where? As a percentage of GDP we have three times as much foreign direct investment as they do in the U.S, and while we have dozens of industries majority-foreign-owned, in the U.S. THERE IS NOT ONE. So, just who are these people who want to continue and accelerate the sale of Canada? They are, of course, Tom d'Aquino and the CCCE, the big chartered banks led by the Royal Bank of Canada (sorry RBC), the big foreign oil companies, the so-called think tanks who are funded by all of the above - The C.D. Howe and Fraser Institutes, the IRPP (Chairman Bob Rae!), and that awful Allan Gotlieb's American-financed Donner Institue that passes out hundreds of thousands of dollars to Fraser, The Atlantic Institute etc. They are people such as John Manley, Gordon Nixon, Paul Tellier, Derek Burney, Michael Wilson, Wendy Dobson and other Brian Mulroney buddies. They are the whole crew who frequently visit Washington as though they officially represent the will of the Canadian people, while the public opinion polls show, poll after poll, year after year, that the vast majority of Canadians want nothing to do with their deep integration, NAFTA-Plus, Big-Idea, Grand-Bargain, truly disgusting treachery. Of course we also know that Paul Martin sides with Emerson et al. With his sure-to-be-apologetic mea culpa mind-frame, his upcoming meeting with Bush and Fox could be disastrous. We already know the American energy, foreign ownership, and military integration agendas. Too bad Martin doesn't have the courage to use our Canadian energy exports, our pipeline land corridors, etc., to demand an end to the grossly unfair American softwood and beef punishment of Canada. A 27% export tariff on oil, gas, uranium and electricity exports to the U.S. combined with notification of an Arctic pipeline slowdown would do the job nicely, and quickly. Mel Hurtig [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 21, 2005]

Contributed By


Article Rating

 (1 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:33 am
    David Emerson is one of the appointed spokesmen for the neocon
    tilted Liberal Party.Even if he understood.he is incapable of doing anything.
    Great explanation and update by Mel Hurtig who is on top of things and keeps us posted.
    Thanks again Mel,
    Robert G. Mac Donald.B.A.M.D.
    Canadian Patriot

  2. Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:38 am
    Remember when David Emerson talked about foreign ownership and a national energy grid? Well, this is the second time he's advocated for the opposite.

    Why? It must not be coming from him. They obviously told him to shut up.

    ---
    The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

    - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, The Iraqi Informat

  3. by Kish
    Tue Mar 22, 2005 2:33 am
    I think I am missing something here. If two-thirds of the $540 billion foreign direct investment comes from domestic sources, than how can it all be foreign direct investment? Presumably then the level of foreign direct investment would be $180 billion.<br />
    <br />
    In fact, I would take issue with the $540 billion figure. Statscan does measure foreign direct investment, and at the end of 2004, foreign direct investment in Canada amounted to $367.9 billion (<a href="http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050316/d050316a.htm">http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050316/d050316a.htm</a>).<br />
    <br />
    On the topic of international investment flows, the same report from statscan notes that Canadian investment abroad is $438.4 billion. In other words, Canadians invest more outside of Canada than foreigners invest inside of Canada. This means that we own more of the rest of the world than they own of us.<br />
    <br />
    I did take a look at the decision record that was referenced in the article, and I will be able to keep my lunch down. Among the evil transactions: ING Insurance Company of Canada (its home warranty business), Toronto, ON has been sold to American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, North York, Ontario, CDA (USA). Am I to be upset if the subsidiary of a Dutch form (albeit located in Canada) is sold to an American firm? How about the sale of Milwaukee Electric Tool (Canada) Ltd., Scarborough, ON to A&M Industries S.a.r.l., Luxembourg, LUX (HKC)? Am I really supposed to loose sleep if an American controlled firm located in Canada is sold to Hong Kong-controlled interests located in Luxembourg? Were there supposed to be Canadian bidders for the Milwaukee Electric Tool company?<br />
    <br />
    Canada is a successful country and despite these Chicken Little predictions of our imminent demise, we can compete among the best in the world. What about the success of RIM? What about the success (yes, success) of Bombardier, which was able to buy Lear jet a few years back. Lets not forget our dominance of the US culture sector (Norman Jewison et.al.).<br />

  4. Tue Mar 22, 2005 2:39 am
    Canada would be doing MUCH BETTER if we were not the most foreign owned nation on earth. Yes we do well, but not nearly as well as we could be otherwise. To smooth over the obvious with "should I cares" does not change the real world reality and circumstance we find ourselves in.

    Mel is pointing out - for as bad as it is now - it is about to get a whole lot worse. When you hang by a thread - it eventually breaks.

  5. Tue Mar 22, 2005 2:50 am
    Yeah but corporations pay little tax now.

    As for movies, the market in Canada is 50 billion, and much leaves the country due to the foreign ownership of distributors such as Pararmount owned Famous Players, Odeon Films and Cineplex Odeon, and AMC.....

    ---
    The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

    - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, The Iraqi Informat

  6. by Kish
    Tue Mar 22, 2005 3:26 am
    That’s my point. We are not the most foreign owned nation on earth. In the United States, for instance, foreign direct investment amounted to $US 2025.30 billion (or $2.4 trillion Canadian) in 2003 (<a href="http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2004/intinv03.xls">http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2004/intinv03.xls</a>) … quite a bit larger than the paltry amount of foreign direct investment occurring in Canada.<br />
    <br />
    There are some very real things that threaten the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Canada (such as the ability to project any influence over the North West Passage). The sale of Milwaukee Electric Tool Ltd. is not one of them.<br />

  7. by Kish
    Tue Mar 22, 2005 3:38 am
    The market for movies in Canada is closer to $125.7 million. (<a href="http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040628/d040628b.htm">http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040628/d040628b.htm</a>). Much of it stays in Canada due to the Canadian distributors Alliance Atlantis and Lions Gate Films.

  8. Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:31 am
    I wonder how much of that supposed Canadian
    investment abroad is actually the foreign owned,
    Canadian industries investing abroad. It might be
    financially beneficial to be investing abroad from
    Canada.

    And are we sure it is not Canadian branch plant profits
    going back to the US HQ? (Perchance without paying
    taxes here?)

  9. Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:19 am
    "We are not the most foreign owned nation on earth." Sorry but you are very wrong. No other industrialized first world nation has more foreign ownership than Canada. No other nation like us has a majority of its largest industries dominated by foreign players. That is FACT. It DOES matter. The very fact that xyz America company in Canada gets sold this year to abc European company only goes to show that there are hardly any Canadian companies left worth buying that have not already been gobbled up in previous years.

    This expansion they are talking about will allow foreigners to buy up whatever last vestiges of industries/companies that escaped earlier trade deals.

    If it comes down to deciding losing sovereignty over the far north or seeing millions of Canadians five years from now freezing every winter because of the price of natural gas (due to the guaranteed clause amounts), I would take warm and feed over the artic thanks. We should not have to ever make such a choice but those choices are being forced upon us. BTW - the Artic is being enforced - it was just announced last week that exercises were taking place up there. Did we get any announcements that the 60% clause will be overturned in times of extreme shortage or price hikes? Nope and we never will either with mealy mouthed responses to it.

  10. Tue Mar 22, 2005 6:40 pm
    There's an old saying that a bank will lend you any amount if you can prove that you don't need it. The same applies to foreign investment,which is a deadly left over from the gold standard, limited money creation days for the sole purpose of exploitation and extortion of the wealth of other countries. Today the deregulated banks can create any amount of capital and transfer the liabilities on governments and societies at large. Foreign investment with money created from the air is the biggest con job in history, because the money is created against assets and not bank reserves, which today are virtually non existent. This permits the banks in certain countries to create more and more capital against their own loans, which are accounted as assets and collaterals to take over the control of other countries under so called free trade rules and the WTO. The WTO, World Bank and IMF are criminal organizations set up to colonize the world into the hands of corporations. Canada never needed a penny of foreign investment and today it has become an outright fraud to get comtrol of our resources with the perceived power of imaginary money. When a country has assets against which an investor, or bank, can create capital, that country needs no foreign investment, because it can create its own capital against its own resources, or other assets, just as businesses can create capital against their own assets in the form of loans. If you have assets, you don't need foreign investors. All money creation is in effect a liability on society with globalization permitting the spreading of this liability on others. As far the profits of multinationals, even of Canadian corporations, are concerned, we have no idea what they are, because the payments and funds can be paid into accounts in tax shelter countries, like the Cayman Islands, or Singapore and no government has the right to look into those accounts. Even with NAFTA, we have no reciprocity agreements to inspect the accounts of US or Mexican multinationals operating here, neither have they. In other words, the whole system is a bloody racket out of control and anybody who agrees with its continuation is either a nutcase, or criminal. Including the majority of our federal and provincial politicians and especially our universities, where the garbage of neoclassical economics is being used to brainwash students with, working on the intellectual level of the nazi Rosenberg religion. Rosenberg was hanged. I don't wish the same on our economists and politicians, but a few brooms handed out to them would do a world of good. If corporate lobbyists, like Harper, or Manley ever get into power, we can kiss Canada goodbye.
    Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.

  11. Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:39 pm
    There are many arguments on both sides of this issue, and since I do not have reliable figures at my disposal, I will not venture into the numbers game. I am much more concerned with how the economy operates, and what it provides for "ordinary" Canadians, mostly workers, but also retirees, students, small businesses and the needy. That's what's really important, not who "owns" what.

    If a foreign corporation or individual profits mightily from its presence in Canada, we should demand that ALL Canadians receive substantial benefits. Otherwise, why allow it? This means much higher real wages, vastly improved public pensions, an unemployment insurance system that protects all unemployed regardless of circumstances, defined benefit pensions for corporate workers mandated by tough laws, the end of the health care privatization scam, etc.

    No one would care if we privatized everything, as long as the the same number of people (or more) could find good jobs at the same or better wages, and the same services remained universally available. It's the idiotology and the greed, not the ownership, that causes the problems.

    The reason many rail against foreign ownership is because these new owners tend to impose the ugly business models and philosophies of their own countries on Canada, and claim that they cannot survive here without them. Our compromised neo-con governments buy into this lie with relish, and its always the "ordinary" folk who have to accept less and pay more, in order to guarantee the huge profits of these foreigners.

    I believe that everybody should be welcome in Canada, provided that they play by our rules and contribute. If they don't, no matter how enticing they appear, in the end we don't need them, and they do us much more harm than good. Right wingers splutter about socialism and discredited ideas and the past and blah, blah, blah. But this is not Russia and that's twittering, nattering nonsense. Worse still, its a lie. It's time
    we recognized it as such. The society of more for the few and less for the many should not be welcome here.

    We in Canada are ENORMOUSLY FORTUNATE. Our good fortune was built on sharing and decency. We would be the greatest fools of all time if we let it slip away to raving dog-eat-dog greed for nothing. These are our issues. Who owns the buildings or the plants, or even where the products or profits go doesn't matter nearly as much.

  12. Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:46 pm
    I must have been misinformed. However, Figures I have heard must have included the economic activity that comes with writing, producing, directing, shooting movies in Canada. If we had a vibrant industry here, then we COULD be generating massive billion dollar profits.....but that is theoretical.

    We buy 19 billion worth of cars with no R & D until the recent GM plan.....transfer prcing is also a problem.

    ---
    The midget, Bush, and that Rumsfield deserve only to be beaten with shoes by freedom loving people everywhere.

    - Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, The Iraqi Informat

  13. Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:24 pm
    Property is the temporary control of energy, which also includes resources. Public control and ownership of economic factors and facilities is extremely important, because without ownership democratic decision making for the public good is lost. The best example is Argentina, where wild deregulation and privatization of public services etc. resulted in the country's bankruptcy, leaving little to the citizens, while the multinationals were taking benefits out of the country. Now, when things are improving through the reacquisition of public control, 26 multinationals are suing the government at the WTO for "loss of profits", while the country was lying half dead. They weren't expropriated anything, but their profits were down while people were destitute. As under WTO and NAFTA rules, e.g. Chapter 11, profits take precedents over lives, they may just get their way. The same applies all over the world, where water, sewer, energy has been privatized on WB an IMF orders, prices went sky high, causing illness and poverty, but the people have not right even to complain. The gowing poverty and environmental destruction within the USA shows where the loss of public control of services and energy can lead to.
    Ed Deak Big Lake, BC.

  14. Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:30 am
    The real question is why do Americans invest in Canada and Canadians invest elsewhere? For one thing, Chapter 11 of NAFTA gives foreign owned companies a bit more security. It is more than that. It has to do with lower taxes, higher subsidies, cheaper labour, loser environment and health and safety standards, and even the idea that "the grass always grows greener on the other side of the fence." What it usually does is make those who are wealthy enough or who can command the highest credit to get much richer. What is wrong with it is that it makes many, many more ordinary people poorer.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.



Latest Editorials

more articles »

Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news