Secondly- it IS hard to grasp what has been happening, so let me resort to a metaphor...
Suppose you decided to put the contents of your house up for sale- and, because of pressures by buyers, you agreed to sell them at bargain basement prices. Let's say you have a couch in your living room. Someone offers you $20 for it. It's a ridiculous price. But YOU say: "Okay." Bit by bit the furniture (Manufacturing sector) is sold off- real cheap! Soon there's really nowhere to sit, no table for supper, no bed to sleep on, etc. But, anyway, you still have the floor for all that...
You run a number of businesses- (some of them quite large!) out of your studio space. You let many of them (14,000?) go for a song, so as not to offend anyone. Let's say, because of your shrewd 'free trade' bargaining, that only 60% of the use of your stove, fridge, & electrical outlets, water, & gas (Energy Resource Sector) go. Oh well. You still can use them 40% of the time- so long as the energy lasts.)
Yes its a silly metaphor. No homeowner IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would ever do such a thing! Well would they? Let's call your house 'Canada House'.
In the end (coming soon!), what will you have left?
-Merely a hollow shell: an empty house. No need really needs to 'take it over'. Why bother? It's either been emptied of value, or the value has been secured.
Doubtless you will consider this metaphor alarmist. You wondered at the beginning of your program whether Canadians should be 'alarmed' by any of this. Mel Watkins didn't answer you directly. You certainy won't hear any complaints from the buyers! They're quite happy with what amounts to the Canadian contents giveaway.
Everyone, by the way, has been in on the 'kill': America has bought up some 60% of the 14,000, but France, Germany, the UK, etc. have gobbled up most of the rest.
And now, of course, there's China. That'll be the finishoff.
But of course it's unfashionable to talk about it. We are to do- and do do- what we are told. Gone are the days of an independent Canada. You said it yourself: any Canadian leader who would DARE to talk about 'Canadian Nationalism' would be laughed out of the House of Commons. Why? Not because he wouldn't be right- but because the spin has made it appear otherwise (i.e., people like me are 'flakey wing nuts'.) Exactly what prospective buyers would prefer: no real resistance or 'problems'.
Perhaps you might consider having another Mel on your progam about this subject- You know- Hurtig? Or is this best-selling Canadian author, recipient of the Order of Canada, etc., who, by the way, speaks for the majority of Canadians, another 'wing nut'? I guess that would make most of us out here 'wing nuts'... What's wrong with this picture?
Why don't you give Mel a call?
Yours truly,
John Riddell
Stumble It!
I don't really see the criticism of Enright--it was Mel Watkins who was a bit weak, but even he said that in the future anything is possible, and that his grandkids were economic nationalists.
I think Mel Watkins is simply a tired old man, but if you want to bug Mr. Enright, make sure you send him the comparative statistics between the G-8 countries, pertaining to foreign ownership.
Also, is it just me or is globalization a ruse for imperialism? Europe has sent jobs to other countries, and is cutting prgrams, but it seems that this foreign ownership is only tolerated in Canada at such hige levels for the most part.
Perhaps globalization is not enough to explain what is happening?
---
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter --
Winston Churchill
Its the same thing when people talk about the interest we're paying on the Canadian debt, but don't mention the interest we're making on loans given to foreign nations.
How imbalanced is the picture -- the REAL picture?
G
---
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men" - George Orwell
John Riddell
I also do think he was right when he said that foreign-ownership doomsday predictions by people like himself were off, because as long as we have free elections, we have SOME political independence.
I also think the 14,000 companies figure is a bit ridiculous, because many of these companies were not Canadian creations, but franchises or Canadian-operated branch plants. The Massey-Harris type companies were few and far between.
---
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter --
Winston Churchill
---
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter --
Winston Churchill
---
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men" - George Orwell
1. The point isn't how many companies we're buying and how many foreigners are buying as an absolute number and comparing them. You can't make a comparison like this; the proper way to compare it is what the percentage of foreign ownership (particularly of key industries) is allowed in each country. To be sure, Canada allows riduculously high numbers. For instance, our energy industry is almost 100% foreign owned now whereas before the "free investment agreement" it was perhaps along the line of maybe 50 to 60% foreign owned. Same goes for mining and lumber.
2. No matter how many foriegn companies Canadian ones buy it does not make up for the jobs lost and profits sent outside the country, not to mention the investment dollars that Canadian companies should be putting into this country. As a matter of fact, the companies most likely to be buying the foreign ones already outsource most of the data processing, payroll processing, and accounting work to foreign companies (mostly American). Canada used to have a vibrant data processing industry that was predicted to grow to 2010 and beyond until the rules were changed and allowed this work to be sent outside the country. The companies who pushed for this were mostly American companies because they wanted to use the data processing their companies had set up in the US.
3. As we hand over more and more of these key industries to foreigners we lose more and more control over our economy. If our industries are dependent on foreign money, they can threaten to pull their money out if we try to change the rules to protect our citizens. A perfect example of this is in New Brunswick where foreign lumber firms are engaging in clearcutting and have thrown thousands of woodsman out of work in favor of machinery for clearcutting in a province that has one of the highest unemployment rates. I just saw a documentary the other night about this where a huge Finnish lumber corporation who is doing the above has threatened to pull out if the rules for clearcutting are changing. This is despite the fact that in their own country they would all be hugely fined and thrown in jail for doing this (they interviewed a forest manager who works for this Finnish company who made this statement), as it turns out that in Finland they have rules that strictly prohibit clearcutting any land areas greater than a few hectares.
4. Interest that we receive from foreign debt we hold does not make up for our borrowing at home. First of all, when we loan to other countries it is at low interest rates since it is mostly loans to third world countries. Compare this to our debt, which basically since 1975 when we stopped borrowing from the Bank of Canada has been borrowed at or very close to bank interest rates. This was the major contributor to our amassing a debt which at its peak was over $700 billion, the other major factor being the fact that government has been busy handing out tax cuts to corporations and wealthy individuals thus leaving this country without sufficient funds to properly run this country.
5. Foreign companies have no commitment to the advancement of this country and the well-being of its people other than taking out our raw resources, which in many cases is shipped back to their home countries where they are used to create high quality jobs for their citizens. Can there be any policy that is more stupid than this?
Could there be anything more stupid than this? You ask. I've searched the world over. I can't find anything more stupid. I'll give you a quote from William Hixson''s book, "It's Your Money!":
'The very idea that a government
that can create money for itself
allowing banks to create money
that the government then borrows
and pays interest on
is so preposterous
that it staggers the imagination.'