Yes, fully agree.

I fully agree. This sell must be stopped now.

Foreign (ideologically hostile) ownership of vital national resources - hmmm who would be mentally pixalated enough to come up with that policy? Mulcaire? Boob Rae?

I am also uncomfortable with a foreign government who want to take over a $10 B Canadian asset, even if they are will to pay $15 B for it.

But Dianne Francis takes this way to far: "Canada must state clearly that all of its resource-related and infrastructure assets and corporations must be Canadian-owned and controlled and that no single foreign entity can own more than 10%, as is the case with Canadian banks."

Let all companies invest, foreign or not. This will let Canada develop our industries effectively. The way Canada limits foreign investment, and as Diane advocates limiting further, weakens existing Canadian companies because it prevents them from raising capital for expansion. It is why Blackberry can't compete with Apple.

Canadian politicians for the last fifty years have exhibited the "boy scout" attitude to international business, from Trudeau who admired the communist Leaders of the day,to Chretien,who was willing to shill Canadian companies to the PRC,to Martin who was willing to give his ship building contracts to the PRC,to Harper, who seems to have an inordinate amount of trust in the PRC to do business as any other civilized Country would.

I don't trust communist China,the PRC,period. They have a China first agenda,as they should,and will devour little boy scouts like Canada in a minute if it suits them. One commenter at the link says we should sell all our resource companies to them,take the money and invest in other businesses,then nationalize the Chinese owned resource companies.

Great idea, if we're interested in a shooting war we couldn't possibly win. And speaking of war, I read recently that there is great concern in the U.S. because China makes many of the electronic components of our weapons systems.

Maybe Canada isn't the only "boy scout" out there.

Bah. Canadians sell themselves cheap and quick. According to Xaviera Hollander, Canadian women don't even make good call girls, for that reason.

This is a questionable transaction for sure. Why would we let, in effect, the government of China buy a private Canadian company? It doesn't make sense, and the large premium they're willing to pay tells me China's flush with foreign exchange, so this may be part of a spate of acquisitions as Francis argues - and for what end?

These scale of foreign investments have to be analyzed on a case by case, not ideological, basis, rather than a rubber stamp vrs veto approach.

John Robson's take is even stronger than Francis':

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/07/28/dont-sell-nexen-to-communists

This deal should never see the light of day. Canada holds the oil card right now and they will buy from us no matter what we do; they need our oil - we have them over a barrel (pun alert).

This is a tough one for pain-in-the-ass libertarian purists like me! So, I'll just nibble around the edges on this.

Why should WE (we?) allow China to buy a PRIVATE company? Oh, you mean, it's not private then? We're gonna be like China then?

Francis is a MERCANTILIST. She looks at foreign investment as war by other means. In reality, protectionism,foreign trade and investment restrictionism are warlike measures.

Anytime you see the words "government" and "nurture" in the same sentence STOP. What follows will be stuff and nonsense. What will Diane's next column be about: incubating infant industries (which remain infants!).

SO, Canada is a small country that needs to NURTURE private companies? With what, Diane? More taxes, or out of the BIG GOVERNMENT CASH POT?
Canada is a small country without adequate capital SO, let's authorize federal dead-ender bureaucrats to decide who invests and how much?

This is not fair or relevant, but what the hell. Diane was a big Obama fan, as I recall. So, maybe not that astute, what?

Once again the Nationalist types come forth! What about the shareholders of this company, do they not deserve the $ gain of the shares? Do the screamers even know anything about this company? It is an international company with a major stake in Buzzard, the large producing well off the shores of G.B., whose price helps establish Brent. Large tracts of off shore leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Holdings in the middle East. They have technological skills in Frakking and deep sea drilling - skills the Chinese need to exploit their domestic assets. Alberta owns the oil in Alberta Nexen just has the extraction rights, and needs capital.

What MND said. I'll add that Franicis is a swirling vortex of imbecility. Do not read her it is hazardous to your brain. Terence Corcoran had a much better piece up stating that China's companies-even the state entities-are fairly benign and act largely according to free market principles. CSIS should keep an eye on them and that's a small price to pay for so much investment when it is so badly needed.

I agree with her argument on the basis of reciprocity and state-owned entities as there shouldn't be such monstrosities. I don't have a problem with foreign privately owned take-overs that come from jurisdictions that allow the same although tracking the origins of such capital might not be that easy.

Interesting that Francis likes and advocates their two child law but doesn't like their predatory state investment policies.

When a foreign govt owned company gets more than 10 to 15% ownership of a resource then yes we should examine and likely act on restricting more ownership. This deal might be 1/2 of 1% of the asset.

Francis ignores the fact that were it not for foreign investment there would be no oilsands industry - or an oil industry.

Lost in the discussion is any mention of who owns the resource and their say in the matter. Whatever happened to our property rights (we have them, even though they are not enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights).

Perhaps Dianne might think differently of a law that prevents her from selling her home to anyone who resides outside her postal code. Or selling her journalistic output to anything but the local community rag.

The hypothetical parochialism of my example may seem absurd, but it is simply an extension of the same principle espoused by Ms Francis.

Big Whoop. Most Canadians sold themselves out years ago,starting with electing Turdeau,then further leftards federally,and leftards provincially.If the import herself,Dianne,and any other whiners want sympathy,it's in the dictionary,right between sh1t and syphillis.

I do not read Dianne Francis anymore after her article about two years ago that there were 6 billion too many people on earth. She did not elaborate as to whether Stalin's or Pol Pot's remedy would fix the problem. She has drunk too much of the progressive koolaid.

me no dhimmi - I like your comments very much. Makes a lot of sense.
And Mikewa - same thing; makes sense.

Communist China has no respect for the rule of law, as demonstrated by Sinopec not paying their employees and ignoring health and safety rules other companies have to abide by.

Add in a direct export route to China (pipeline), and who's to say how much oil they're actually sending to China?

Ken Kulak: I'm with you. Francis has no credibility.

Me No Dhimmi: You're absolutely right. Francis' perspective on economics is skewed leftwards. She's a mercantilist.

Woodporter: Absolutely. Do we have property rights or not? It's like free speech. Free speech only matters when you say something that some people don't like. The concept of free speech restricted by personal responsibility and sensibility is complete hogwash. Property rights are the same. They don't really matter when you own an acre of swampland in the Yukon. They do matter when the property is deemed important by some schlep like Francis - that's when you need property rights.

Blindingly stupid question here: How much of the 'Canadian' oil patch is Canadian owned? Does it make any difference? I remember years ago when the Canadian oilmen had to go to the US to get funding for their operations since the Upper Canada bigots wouldn't even look at a man in a stetson let alone invest in his business.

What she is advocating is the wealth of Canada should be restricted to the Montreal-Toronto old money, union pension funds e.g. Ontario Teachers and provincial funds such as Quebec's Caisse. They are the only ones in Canada with deep pockets for such massive asset sales. The shallow pool will limit the price paid for the asset and keep the oligarchy in a privilged position. Sweet deal for them; bad for the sellers of the asset.
Is China on some secret mission to dominate the globe? Maybe. Or maybe they are ensuring access to resources for their future economic growth. Is there these same natural resources in China? Don't know but it will take decades to find and develop the resources if they do in fact exist. Better to buy existing resources around the world. One thing for sure, it will ensure sales of our natural resources to China for the next few decades.

The lib-retardians can go F**K themselves.

Allowing a communist imperialist potentially agressive foriegn nation to hold an inordinate share of Canada's most important resource is the equivalent of suicide.

Libertrians and Liberals are cut from the same cloth. Anything goes as long as *!I"M OK!!!*

The lib-retardians can go F**K themselves.

Allowing a communist imperialist potentially agressive foriegn nation to hold an inordinate share of Canada's most important resource is the equivalent of suicide.

Libertrians and Liberals are cut from the same cloth. Anything goes as long as *!I"M OK!!!*

this is the one thing i am against EZRA LEVANT ON !!

this is the one thing i am against EZRA LEVANT ON !!

this is the one thing i am against EZRA LEVANT ON !!

Some countries sell their soul for investment by the Chinese or any other power. This sort of reactionary bilge from Francis is talk of a nation without confidence.

Let China buy Nexen.The cash will go to investors who wil use it to develop other companies or industries which could have greater potential for growth.

It blows my mind that people stil talk this way.

Some countries sell their soul for investment by the Chinese or any other power. This sort of reactionary bilge from Francis is talk of a nation without confidence.

Let China buy Nexen.The cash will go to investors who wil use it to develop other companies or industries which could have greater potential for growth.

It blows my mind that people stil talk this way.

Folks,there's no need to post two or three times to make your point. We get it.

China is our friend, we should sell the whole f'ing Country to them,they're nice people!

Except for the ruling elite of China,who aren't.

I don't like,or trust communists,whether the name is Trudeau,Obama,Mulcair,or the PRC.

I don't like,or trust communists...

Me either, they're partners in this pipeline project. Any guesses how much royalty free oil will flow through it?

Deal with crooks and you will be burned...

Not to mention the ethical oil argument will be gone...

As I said above,Francis is a 'Merican import. She is also a Huffington Post contributor.Her "finacial" creds equate to her being able to say "want fries with that?".She is just PO'd that Canada is doing waayyy better then her Zero led country.
And we can sell our assets and resources to anybody we damn well please.Her only true bitch is it ain't going to Morontario or Queerbec,but to the eeevvvillll west(read AB).As soon as she said "colony",you know her true feelings.
Hey Diane.You want our oil so damn bad back in Chigaco,help vote out the Zero.Or won't your political masters at the NP and DC let you say as much?
Failure's a beeyotch,suck it up,buttercup.

The rules of business like the rules of war ... are essentially that there ar no rules.

Why should the Canadian government prevent a hostile foreign interest from gaining control over a domestic resource? Because whether or not you like to think of it in these terms ... this IS WAR.

Giving your opponents any advantage is treasonous surrender.

Let CNOOC develop their own damned resources or continue to meddle in the mideast to gain advantage.

And we can sell our assets and resources to anybody we damn well please.

Sure we can. Getting paid is another matter. We're still owed billions for wheat 'sold' to another communist country.

The issue of the Chinese state oil comnpany's effort to take over Nexen is simply resolved:

Yes, private companies can take over private companies in Canada, but as the Canadian state deosn't own companies, nor can other Nation States.

Therefore, the Chinese government takeover of oil comapnies in Canada are not allowed.

One tiny bit of trivia. Nexen has oil plays across the globe. Yes they have assets in Western Canada but they also have plays in the North Sea, Africa, and Central America.

It might be a good idea to place mineral rights into those things in the preserve of canadian owned entities.

If the Chi-coms (for example) want to buy the rusting hulks of sewing machine factories in Ontario, sure, have at 'er. We can build more of those if required. But the mineral rights are different and should be maintained as national securities.

I'm not one for protectionist sentiment, so this feels quite odd to me.

Until China becomes a normal trading country like Germany, or UK, or Japan meaning they halt the piracy, the state sponsored economic espionage, state industries, easy access to capital for pet industries,etc.,they will be treated as China treats all other nations. That means, until China shows perfect reciprocity, and lets foreigners buy, say CNOOC, they can forget access to the companies that are crown jewels. They can buy the oil, but they can't buy the security of owning the fields, or technology.

Another bit of trvia. Nexen was origanally Canadian Occidental, or CanOxy, a subsidiary of the Ameican-owned Occidental Petroleum. CanOxy bought Wascana, which was born as a result of the privatization of SaskOil, the state-owned oil company started by the Sask NDP in the 1970s.

In the early 2000s, CanOxy wanted to separate itself from the now-minority Occidental ownership. As part of the re-branding, they asked employees to submit potential names of the new company, and they ended up wth Nexen, which is what their marketing consultants suggested.

Anyways, this was an American company which became a Canadian one, bought out a former Crown corporation, and now is about to be bought by the Chinese.

I'm not entirely sure where Diane Franicis fits in the history of the company I listed above, but I'm sure sheplayed a critical role in its development. Otherwise, why would she take issue with the purchase of company from one country by another country?

this IS WAR.

Only in the fevered imagination of area sinophobes. China has shown no aggression towards Canada at all.

I'm not sure whether or not I agree with her.

On a related note though, should foreign nationals be allowed to purchased unlimited amounts of property in Canada? Here in Vancouver we have many, many streets where 10% - 50% of the houses are empty most of the year - because they're owned by foreigners who don't live there. Is that healthy for the community?

"....lets foreigners buy, say CNOOC,..."

One part of the deal is to list CNOOC on North American exchanges. Then you "nationalists" can do your bit of foreign ownership and take the risks that go with it, just like Nexen shareholders did - in foreign oilfields.

What, scared to do so? Then that is why this country is such a sh!thole for people willing to take a risk. Stick to GIC's, they're your level on investment illiteracy.

No Robert W, it's not healthy.

I'm not real comfortable suggesting that foreign investment be shut down, but it would soon change all that if the Chi-coms started buying up land and exporting so much that it affected our food prices. It's one thing to buy a factory, another to buy the land / mineral rights.

Robert - you might like to put that question to Vancouver real estate agents and the cash these people bring into Canada, right into their pockets. As long as they pay their city taxes on those properties, what's your beef? Would you support a ban on Albertans buying vacation property in the Okanagan as well, because they only live there part of the time?

Yawn.

Foreign ownership is a big empty bogeyman tailor-made for neurotic nationalists.

Chinese ownership of Nexen signifies much less than it would appear.

Canada is a sovereign state and, in the final instance, like any sovereign state, can exercise its right to nationalize foreign-owned companies at any time should it feel they somehow constitute a threat to our national interests.

"As long as they pay their city taxes on those properties, what's your beef? Would you support a ban on Albertans buying vacation property in the Okanagan as well, because they only live there part of the time?"

Sssh...

The way the premier of BC has been acting lately, that might be her next bright idea...

JIM >

"...like any sovereign state, can exercise its right to nationalize foreign-owned companies at any time should it feel they somehow constitute a threat to our national interests."

Yea well having the Chinese go along with that later on after the fact can be a whole different matter.

I'm reminded a little of the British Empire owning Irish properties and commodities in the 1800's. Worked out well for the Canadian, Australian, and US labor markets, not so well for the Irish in Ireland.

LAS you're an idiot.

China has shown no aggression towards Canada at all.

Was there some kind of a Trojan dragon? Or just the horse, so far?

If anyone is naive enough to think China has shown no aggression towards Canada at all, they should google "China Canada cyber attack".

Nexen isn't owned by Canada anymore then the keyboard I'm typing this on is owned by Canada. Its owned by Canadians, there is a difference. Last time I checked Canadians where free and conservatives didn't support the government dictating to them.

Nexen holds mineral rights in Canada for both oil/gas as well as oilsands. I could be argued that Alberta shouldn't sell those rights to foreign countries, but those minerals belong to the people of Alberta, not Canada. But if the people of Alberta are getting their fair royalties for the resource and its developed under the same rules/regulations, what difference does it make?

Tell me why shouldn't the shareholders be able to realize a profit on their investment? Are the Chinese going to move the oil out of Alberta in secret without paying for it? Find ways to drill for it without employing Canadians?

Wouldn't the northern gateway pipeline be a bigger threat to selling out our resources to the Chinese?

I wish Canadians would invest in thier own Nation

'Scuse me, but what difference does it make if China "owns" Nexen, a multinational company. Most of Nexen's assets are not even in Canada. In fact, the company's principal Canadian properties are a working interest in an oilsands development and a 27 story office building in Calgary. Tempest in a teapot, as Alberta still owns the oilsands resource and will continue to reap the benefits from its exploitation.

To those commentators suggesting that mines and oil be out of bounds to foreign investors, I would suggest a little knowledge of history. Without foreign seed money, which the anally obstructed capitalists of Montreal and Toronto were loth to provide, there'd be no Sudbury, there would have been no Cominco and there'd certainly no Alberta oil industry. Anybody for an agrarian Canada?

Are the Chinese going to move the oil out of Alberta in secret without paying for it?

Who reports the amount exported? You seriously think incompetent bureaucrats can't be fooled?

Find ways to drill for it without employing Canadians?

They're already using foreign workers. Slaves, more like it, since they don't pay them...

To those commentators suggesting that mines and oil be out of bounds to foreign investors...

Equating foreign investors to the communist chinese, that's a bit rich...

Zog >

Of course the guy that just got caught recently selling Canadian/ NATO military secrets to the Chinese was just doing business with a friendly foreign investor.

Posted by: LAS at July 29, 2012 3:30 PM

"in the fevered imagination of area sinophobes."

Oh, big surprise here we go. Whenever you disagree with someone and can't think of anything else to say attach the suffix "phobe" to a word and scream it.

F**k you LAS. You're an idiot.

Diane Francis is arguing for nationalizing provincial resources.
Pierre Trudeau wouldn't have said anything different.
It's doesn't matter who we sell them to as long as our workers harvest the resources and we get paid hard currency for them.

Until we process our raw resources into value added finished products it doesn't matter who buys, at least China is using the resources.

Imagine if George Soros bought these resource companies so that he could lay off Canadian workers and shut them down?
Would Diane Francis say "At least an American bought them." Eh?!

This is a tough one for me, but I don't trust Diane Francis' opinion on anything. She is definitely not one of us. She is a nanny-stater social engineer type.

It's doesn't matter who we sell them to as long as our workers harvest the resources and we get paid hard currency for them.

Hard currency? You kidding? More like cheap crap that doesn't work taken in trade. Or bought on credit and never paid for, like another commie country.

Go ahead and pick nits, fiddle,
What have you got to say about nationalizing resources(which belong to the people of the several provinces) and the possibility that the harvesting of them could be idled if we wait for some western nation to show up as a customer?

I don't like commies, but the alternative customer is who?

What have you got to say about nationalizing resources(which belong to the people of the several provinces)...

I say get the resources out of the hands of gov't all together, so politicians can't play politics with them.

All resources should have been in the landowners hands all along. Then we aren't 100% tied to the ideology of the day.

"Canada is a sovereign state and, in the final instance, like any sovereign state, can exercise its right to nationalize foreign-owned companies at any time should it feel they somehow constitute a threat to our national interests"

Oh, sure. Because THAT strategy worked wonders for Cuba, didn't it? And there'd be no blowback from the international community, or reverse actions taken on canadian companies in china, would there?

THINK.

Would the US permit chinese takeover of vital defense-based industries? Hardly; for years they even prohibited export of high-tech CNC equipment to iron-curtain countries, until Toshiba flouted the restriction in 1987.

I'm not sanguine with entering into any agreement with the chicoms, and if it IS necessary, then permit them a minority stake in a natural resources company, but not controlling interest. Gee, if - according to foreign policy experts like LAS - this makes me a "sinophobe"... guess I am.

mhb23re

People should read the article before commenting.

Francis is NOT recommending nationalizing resource companies.

Me No Dhimmi, she's also not recommending Mercantilism, and you can make a very strong Libertarian argument in Francis' favour.

Right wingnut logic: letting a fori\eign government own our natural resources is good; nationalizing a small part of our natural resources (ie. Petro Canada) is a horrible thing and the end of capitalism.

Surprisingly, a good point...

MDH, Mikewa and Oz said it all. Most of the rest in this thread is protectionist drivel no different that Pierre Trudeau and the nationalist protection racket.

Now for those of you willing to block this, are you willing to pony up the money to buy Nexen at a matching bid? If not, then just like potash, you're robbing the shareholders.

john, you lost any credibility as soon as you had to rely on insults rather than logic for an argument. Another sad victim of leftist reasoning methods.

SDH, "...and you can make a very strong Libertarian argument in Francis' favour."

That's an interesting claim. I would much like you to state it. Unless we get a rational position on this, your "no" side is stuck with morons like john.

Of course, the resources are already effectively nationalized, being under control of the provinces, representative of the Queen. A commie set-up to start with...

Now for those of you willing to block this, are you willing to pony up the money to buy Nexen at a matching bid?

I could give a damn about nexen and their shareholders. Enriching the enemy is treason.

The fact that a lot of people are taken in by communist propaganda doesn't change that. And no different than leftists who say the Islamists are nice people who would never hurt us.

Some kind of cognitive dissonance going on to say nationalizing companies is bad, then advocate selling to a government.

The Chinese need to maintain about a minimum 7% growth rate or risk "domestic stability issues" and they're willing to pay a premium to secure the required inputs. I don't see the problem here, other than the fact that they're a bunch of godless commies who are continually trying to steal our tech. But whatever, that's a separate issue. Foreign direct investment is good, protectionism is bad mmmkay? Please bring cash, chi-coms.

Reciprocity...mmmhhh...but that goes against the current liberal politically correct multicultural dogma;

Only white nations should bend over backward for non-white nations,
Only white nations must open our doors to legal and illegal immigrants and open our land to foreign investors.

It would be RACIST to ask for reciprocity

according to our liberal friends who know so much better than little me...........

Canadian Friend >

The left doesn’t care as much about WHO so long as SOMEONE has a boot on their throat, better yet their neighbors throat.

Equal opportunity tyranny and poverty, that is the unspoken motto of the useful idiots for the global elitists who sell themselves as Liberal Progressive's.

Sovereignty and Nationalism only count for those that live in tyrannical regimes, they of course typically happen to be non-white nations.

The conservative advocates of "globalism" are beyond stupid people. What is really pathetic about their case is that they actually believe they'll benefit from this eventual socialist globalist dream.

cgh - the no side is pretty uniformly arguing no because they feel benefits are less than costs for the proposed Nexen sale because Chicoms are the ones doing the buying, which is a much different set of issues than the Potash Corp. sale, which should have gone through, as the sale was to BHP, not a corp that ultimately may be a tool of a foreign gov.

PO'ed -

CNOOC may be NYSE listed to get access to US investment.
UNOCAL was NYSE listed, and CNOOC failed to win it.

BTW, UNOCAL shareholders got the same offer from Chevron as was offered by CNOOC, in the end.

People need to ask, would they like to see 30, 40, 50% of the industry in Chinese hands, as an approval on this sale will probably bring more and more Chinese offers.

The conservative advocates of "globalism" are beyond stupid people. What is really pathetic about their case is that they actually believe they'll benefit from this eventual socialist globalist dream.
~Knight 99

Dream?
Let's talk about the here and now.
Who is the customer if not the ChiComs and how does it hurt the ChiComs if we kill the golden goose of our productivity by refusing to sell to the only customer who wants to buy?

Starving them doesn't fill our stomachs.
They have other sellers, where are our other buyers?

Please answer, I'd really like to know what you think the alternative is.

Who is the customer if not the ChiComs and how does it hurt the ChiComs if we kill the golden goose of our productivity by refusing to sell to the only customer who wants to buy?

Selling them oil is one thing. Letting them control both ends of the deal is another.

Is that healthy for the community?

I don't know and since 'the community' does not have rights it is moot.

People here can keep hyping the China threat all they want. It is not Canada's job to indulge your fear.

The best way to peace is to give China a stake in us. Who goes to war with a customer? Global trade and investment = peace.

There ya go, enslave us to the communists. Enslave us to the needs and wants of others. Any slave can live in peace...

SDH, "...and you can make a very strong Libertarian argument in Francis' favour."

That's an interesting claim. I would much like you to state it.

Governments shouldn't own private companies.

enslave us to the communists. Enslave us to the needs and wants of others. Any slave can live in peace...
~fiddle

Nationalize our provincial resources, Mulcair becomes PM, provinces can't quit Confederation with their resources because they belong to Ottawa now...

"I fully agree. This sell must be stopped now."
~Quebecois NDP separatiste at July 29, 2012 11:30 AM

Gee the KeyBake EndeePee Separitist troll agrees wit chew.
Congrats.

Did you know that the NEP(National Energy Policy) was actually an NDP idea?
Yes, really.

Governments shouldn't own private companies.
~SDH

Apart from the fact that PetroCan wasn't a private company after Trudeau's NEP got done taking over all the private companies that combined to make up PetroCan(if a government now owns it, ipso facto it ain't private), what is worse: nobody working which makes the nation weaker immediately or everybody working in the resource industry which make the nation stronger and possibly the nation's long term enemy stronger too?

Where/who I ask once more, gainsayers, is the alternative customer?

Dear PO'ed et al:

I can envision 5 courses of action for Vancouver wrt real estate:

1. Do nothing - ie. keep the status quo.
2. Add a significant property tax surcharge for those who the home is not their principle residence.
3. Same as #2, but with an exemption for BC residents.
4. Same as #2, but with an exemption for Canadian citizens.
5. Forbid ownership to all non-Canadians.

Note: There is precedence for #4.

Once again, I'm not saying I have a specific opinion as to which course of action is best but I do know that it's not healthy to have a sizable amount of the real estate in my city empty much of the year.

Well I place as much store in Francis' opinion as I do Heather Malice....

PRC policy is that foreign investors are welcome IF they find PRC partners and only have a minority interest. This brings in investment and technology. Probably prudent.

Where/who I ask once more, gainsayers, is the alternative customer?

That's hypothetical right now. The problem with the leftist indoctrinated is that they can't bring themselves to trust free enterprise to devise a solution.

We don't need communist assistance to build this country. Never have, and never will.

Especially allowing them control of both ends of a trade deal. That's total madness.

Conservatism used to be about independence and taking control of ones own destiny. Interdependence with communists is not a conservative trait.

Oz >

“They have other sellers, where are our other buyers?”..............“Please answer, I'd really like to know what you think the alternative is.”

Yea, I know it sounds difficult to many, but we have our own “junk” to make instead of off-shoring all of our manufacturing and technologies (Less what “they” blatantly steal of course). Like those none existent jobs that we need to import the rest of the third world to do that apparently we wouldn’t do if they actually existed anymore.

Any of these third world crapholes are nothing without us; they wouldn’t be near the threats (commercially or militarily) that they are without our humanitarian interventions and technologies. We give away our wealth and make ourselves dependant to despotic third world countries like China. Yes I’ve been there many times, a despotic craphole once outside of the mimicked western facades enjoyed by their gangster nouveau riche.

Canada is a "sovereign state", a "nation state"! Don't make me laugh. It's neither it's PET's Canuckistan ASSR (Associate Soviet Socialist Republic), while Harper's doing a good imitation, Putin he ain't.

fiddle >

"Conservatism used to be about independence and taking control of ones own destiny."

fiddle, you said it!

Today’s so called "conservatives" trashing the so called "liberals" is a perfect cliché of “the pot calling the kettle black”.

Talk about losing our way as an independent sovereign society built on free will and individual determination. Everyone should cut their wrists and give it to the Chinese, Islamist or whoever is more deserving of the world’s abundance. It apparently ain't us anymore by the looks of it; we apparently died as a deserving society a long time ago.

What a bunch of sellouts and losers.

There are people in Calgary that are all beside themselves being happy that Chinese government is buying canadian free enterprise company.

Think about it, Chinese communists are buying a canadian company that is important in what it owns and produce.

If it was a bunch of Chinese business people, wholly independent of the government of China, it may not stink as much. Though what "businessman" in a communist state is not beholde n to the same.

Are you kidding me?

This appears to be a foot in the door. Remember, the foreign state can demand all sorts of things of the canadian government disguised as business decicions.

Harper should establish a law that states that no foreign government its agents or surrogates cannot in absolute terms own and run a company in Canada.

Not oil, not wheat, not hair pins, not beer or anything else.

If the the canadian company goes bancrupt, so it is.
If there is value in it there are other companies that will snap it up piece by piece.

If you thing that Chinese communists are being charitable, perhaps you should look at buying some waterfront property in Florida.

On the other hand,

once the communist government of China takes over, the pipeline to the west coast should be a cake walk as some would say.

The opposition of socialists, the environ-mentalists and other such would melt away like snow in July.

If only we could sell them the CBC...

There are people in Calgary that are all beside themselves being happy that Chinese government is buying canadian free enterprise company.
Think about it, Chinese communists are buying a canadian company that is important in what it owns and produce.
~Lev at July 30, 2012 12:56 AM

The Chinese Li family have owned 71% of Husky Oil since the early '80s through Hutchison Whampoa Ltd.
Yes, Husky Oil based in Calgary, one of Canada's largest Oil companies.

In 1987, the Li family expanded overseas, taking a 43 percent interest in Husky Oil. Since then, Husky Oil ownership has shifted to 46 percent ownership by Li and his family, 49 percent-owned by Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. and 5 percent by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

Chinese interest in Canadian oil and gas is nothing new.

The Chinese Li family is not Chinese communist government, though they probalby rub shoulders.

Hey, you wanna sell, go ahead.

Now understand that it is a figure of speach so don't get uptight.

There are those that would sell their mother for a few pieces of silver, suppose that would be an agreeable transaction.

Those that claim that foreign investment is wrong, are wrong.

When it comes to foreign government that is controlled by communists and runs dictatorship, kills their own citizens, one would say that it's not ok.

As mentioned before you wanna sell your mother for few pieces of silver, go ahead.

The:
"Now understand that it is a figure of speach so don't get uptight. "

was and belongs at the end of the comment, don't know how it moved up.

Oz >

"Chinese interest in Canadian oil and gas is nothing new"

Oh well , guess we should all go to sleep now?

I heard the Hell Angles have been selling crack to your kids, relax though it's been going on for awhile now.

Hilarious listening to KnightCap and Fiddle lament that conservatism used to mean 'independence', and that the only way to restore this is to tell Canadian businesses they can't make deals with Chinese companies.

Chinese companies = Chinese government.

It's actually kind of sad that home-grown Canadian businessmen either do not have the capital (unlikely) or the interest to buy up this company. I would suggest that the disinterest is from a mixture of union organizing, really strict environmental laws, hassles with the green activists and/or natives and the myriad of petty laws foisted on any company by the Federal Gov't, the Provincial Gov't and possibly municipal gov't nearby...In other words, the only way to stay within the lawful regulations set up by our own respective gov't is if the owners are willing to spend millions/hundreds of millions or even billions to ensure that they are in compliance with all the regulations (after they've bought the company)...who has the money for that? Only a superpower requiring strategic resources it doesn't have enough of would go to those lengths--a business man trying to make maximum profits would be turned off by it.

LAS >

"....the only way to restore this is to tell Canadian businesses they can't make deals with Chinese companies."

LAS you have never been right about anything you have ever written an "opinion" on. Your position alone should have most SDA commenter who knows this running in the opposite direction.

Go eat some Chinese play toy lead LAS, when you grow up you may understand the actual problem.

Small c: not so. The collectivist morons arguing here are largely the same bunch who were arguing against the sale of potash as well. Go back and check the thread to see the idiocy that some of these spouted then.

And they can’t even keep their story lines straight. We have this priceless gem from fiddle:
“Of course, the resources are already effectively nationalized, being under control of the provinces, representative of the Queen. A commie set-up to start with...”

Well, if it’s all a commie setup anyway, why do you care? What you want is to impose your own commie set up on someone else’s.

And then there’s this:
“I could give a damn about nexen and their shareholders. Enriching the enemy is treason.”

Since when are we at war with China? In fiddle’s delusional mind perhaps. But robbing shareholders IS theft no different than any communist nationalization or outright theft of property. What fiddle and the rest don’t understand is that the shareholders of a company are entitled to do with their property what they wish. These gormless morons bleat a good line about the lack of property rights in the Canadian constitution and then trample all over property rights when they don’t happen to like what someone else is doing.

Fact is, just this once, LAS is right. Saying no to the deal means the government telling Canadian business that it can’t do business with China. And all the shrieking hysterics from Knight and the rest of his little cesspool of racist chauvinists can’t hide it.

Favill: Canada is a small country. It has never had the amount of venture capital required to develop the oil sands by at least an order of magnitude. This is potentially high risk stuff, and that kind of money in the amounts required necessitates foreign sources.

Since when are we at war with China?

Asked and answered.

For all those who support the sale, but are against Canada nationalizing natural resources, why is it okay for the Chinese government to own Canada's natural resources,
but not okay for the Canadian government?

SDH - you left out this important bit of data:

"Highly placed sources tell CBC News the cyberattacks were traced back to computer servers in China.

They caution, however, that there is no way of knowing whether the hackers are Chinese, or some other nationality routing their cybercrimes through China to cover their tracks."

I commend cgh's observations and analysis. We aren't at war with China, and Canadian shareholders have the right to sell their shares to whomsoever they wish.

Again, me no dhimmi also has, in my view, an accurate conclusion. Francis is a mercantilist who considers that foreign investment is an act of war. No. The world economy functions as a global network.

As for China being communist - heh, I'd say it has become more and more capitalist as the west, using such recent examples as the UK, the US, Europe etc have become more socialist and focused on big government control.

SDH, Canada's natural resources are, and always remain, under the ownership of the Crown exercised by the provincial governments. The Crown does not sell its rights. It leases access. This is a fundamental difference which you have to understand to make any sense of some of the drivel in this thread.

The Crown retains its sovereignty over natural resources, always. Who is granted the lease is essentially irrelevant.

ET, I would only note that cyber attacks are not defined or considered as Acts of War. Otherwise there would be bombs falling on Teheran and Tel Aviv even as we speak.

Cgh >

“Since when are we at war with China?”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/01/05/obama-acts-to-counter-china-military-threat/

Google: China spying on Canada, and Canadian Navy officer accused of spying for China.

Of course it would be undiplomatic even racist to suggest that there are always ongoing tensions and hostilities with China and the west. Remember to feel sorry for the poor disenfranchised occupiers of Tibet and murderers of +60 million of its own citizens. If you choose not to believe it, you don’t need too, enjoy the bliss.

Selling off Canadian interests to the Chinese is more brain-dead than Libyans selling off commercial interests to Italy & France. Selling them oil is one thing, a little like the US/ Saudi relationship, but giving them a stake in ownership is another matter entirely.

Your also welcome to your racist finger pointing and rant's against me, I could give a rat’s ass what someone like you think’s. I've been to China plenty of times and have done direct business with CNOOC both in Beijing and their Office’s in Yan’An North Central interior. I've seen their operations firsthand.

You’re simply a mouthpiece that believes LAS knows what he’s talking about, now that is hilarious.

ET, would you expect the government to explicitly state that the Chinese owned their networks? and had hacked into numerous other Canadian networks?
Note I also left out the Chinese government denied responsibility, 'cause I don't believe that either.

cgh, if I rephrased the question to state:
"...Canada nationalizing natural resources companies, why is it okay for the Chinese government to own companies that hold mining leases,
but not okay for the Canadian government?"

Knight, dress it up however you want, all you are doing is justifying theft. Your usual defence of property rights is revealed as a hypocritical lie. There's no practical difference between you and Stalinism. You are precisely part of the problem as to why it is so difficult to attract venture capital in Canada.

When favill asks why there's a shortage of capital in Canada, all I need do is hold you up by the scruff of your neck and say, "Here's your reason."

SDH - cgh has answered your comment about cyber spying between nations - and that includes Israel, Iran, the US, the UK, China, Russia and etc. They are not acts of war.

As cgh has pointed out, Canada, with its small population, has limited investment capital to develop its resources. Therefore, it must attract foreign capital. This does not mean that such investors can flout Canadian law. The US under Obama rejected any participation in developing the oil sands.

And references to China being communist are irrelevant, for capital investment in foreign lands can't be communist. Again, China is rapidly becoming less socialist than the West.

Knight99 - I don't see the point of your comments about 'murderers of 60 million' and so on. Such views could apply to doing business with Russia, Germany, the US (eg the civil war, the natives), with Spain (the Spanish Inquisition), with France (the Vichy govt)..and so on.

CGH >

"....all you are doing is justifying theft. Your usual defence of property rights is revealed as a hypocritical lie."

Yea I don't hear about you giving your car, home, and other property rights away. No need to defend them you’ve given it all away.

"....all I need do is hold you up by the scruff of your neck and say, "Here's your reason." - CGH

Now there was your best line, believe me in all sincerity when I say that you would never have me by the scruff of the neck, not ever.

So enough about me, let’s look at you for a change, a sellout communist sympathiser hating anyone not considered a Liberal loony loser while crying "racist" at the drop of a hat along with every other moon-bat troll that doesn’t like an opinion that does not sell out their nations wealth and sovereignty.

Niiiiice, and we who actually care about our great nations built on the freedoms and ingenuities of our forefathers who despise murderous totalitarian states should be listening to YOU? LOL I think not.

If only we could sell them the CBC...
Posted by: marco at July 30, 2012 1:29 AM

I would love to see the CBC dissapear but...

The CBC is already a bunch of communist elites who look down on us simple villagers and who distort facts and then call it news to better brainwash us ( or at least try to )...

ET >

“I don't see the point of your comments about 'murderers of 60 million' and so on.”

Yea ET, I don’t think I need to go on about who China actually is today. Either your being intentionally deceptive, or naive, or incredibly ignorant. Whatever the case, comparisons between a defeated Stalinist Russia, or Nazi Germany, and China’s current diplomatic global face is weirdly out of place. Do you need a fresh kidney or something?

Anyway, aside from CGH’s obvious misdirection’s, racist finger pointing, and attempted tough guy cyber bullying, I did not ever state on this thread that we shouldn’t or couldn’t sell products to whoever has the cash to pay for them. I said that we should not sell China direct investments providing them with any ownership.

Only a true dullard would not comprehend that vast Chinese ownership has the potential to lead to some form of governance and occupation over time. Australia is already starting to feel some regulatory demands from mainland China due to its vast selloff of mining interests.

China is a big powerful totalitarian military empire thanks to our technologies, stolen or otherwise. They are building plenty of nice humanitarian Aircraft Carriers to carry all that state of the art stealth technology they stole to go spread joy and lucky Chinese happiness around the world I suppose. Ever think they may end up off the coast of Australia one day protecting some Chinese mining interests very similar to what US aircraft carriers are doing in the Gulf?

Apple still needs to put up suicide nets in its Chinese sweatshops to keep the cheep labor retraining costs down.

I mean where are people’s heads? This thread is a ridiculous display of what a soft, decadent society of losers we’ve become.

knight 99 - where are cgh's 'racist' comments? I have no idea what you are referring to here.

You don't define, clearly, 'what China is today'. The way I see it, China is an emerging economic giant. Its communism infrastructure is gradually dissolving as its population moves more and more into a capitalist economy. I don't understand why you see this as a problem. Most Chinese have only one focus: money. Oh, and getting brand name goods. That's valid for Chinese in the West as well as in China.

I don't see the slippery slope that you suggest, which is that IF China invests in X, THEN, it will attempt to control the nation in which X exists. I think the era of mercantilism is over; we are a global economy and I don't think that any one nation can exert an imperial political or economic control.

Plus, I don't subscribe to the 'Yellow or Red Peril' imagery of China. It isn't as totalitarian as you suggest; it is too large and diverse for such a unified control - and the psychological result of such size and diversity is localization (and yes, local power fiefdoms and corruption).

What is interesting is seeing how a population that has always been decentralized in practice (economically, ethnically, linguistically) and only vaguely acknowledging an abstract far-off central power (the dynasties as well as communism) will slip into capitalism far more easily because of that decentralized reality.

ET >

"where are cgh's 'racist' comments?"

CGH @ 11:24am - "And all the shrieking hysterics from Knight and the rest of his little cesspool of racist chauvinists can’t hide it."

ET @ 4:30pm - "Most Chinese have only one focus: money. Oh, and getting brand name goods. That's valid for Chinese in the West as well as in China."

LOL - and I’ll bet their sneaky little buggers as well!

Where's the amazing race policeman CGH when we need him now? Oh yea, It’s only racists if the viewpoint comes from someone with an opposing opinion, whether they brought up race or NOT. So let’s go back and find “Knights” racist comment in the thread, hmmm zip, nada, nothing. Why am I talking with you people is the real question?

As far as "I don't see the slippery slope that you suggest", of course you don't, that is why you'll argue your theoretical viewpoint to death, regardless of China's human rights records and historical atrocities that have apparently seamlessly disappeared from their political landscape. Must have been all the Western Leftist hug your communist neighbor propaganda that magically converted China into the little sweatshop utopia that we all admire today.

If ET didn't read it in an academic book, it isn't true. Totally brainwashed into believing communitarianism = free enterprise. In fact, she doesn't even know what communitarianism is.

The. Book of Daniel foretold the mixing of the iron and clay. Iron curtain countries and our free enterprise ways.

So true, that the love of money is the root of all evil.

fiddle >

“If ET didn't read it in an academic book, it isn't true.”

Now, now, in ET’s defence @ 4:40pm “....It isn't as totalitarian as you suggest; it is too large and diverse for such a unified control”.

She obviously didn’t read Mao’s little Red Book........carefully enough.

knight - for me to say that most Chinese are focused on money isn't racist! After all, that would mean that any generalization about the beliefs and behaviour of any people would be defined as racism! Is it racist to say that most Americans believe in freedom of speech?

You haven't provided any evidence to support your basic theme that 'China is a totalitarian empire that will attempt to take over our nation if it invests in it...'

The US 'historical atrocity' of legal slavery does not mean that it, now, as a nation, must be rejected.
The Canadian internment of Japanese people, who were Canadian citizens, during the war, does not mean that it, now, as a nation, must be rejected.

So, we'll have to disagree on this issue.

fiddle -Where did I say that communitarianism means free enterprise? I'm not familiar with communitarianism but I assume that you've read some, ah, books on it. And I assume that you've read some, ah, books on free enterprise, and thus, can compare the two. No? You haven't read anything on these belief systems? Your knowledge of them is genetically innate? Hmmm.

You seem to have no empirical grounds to your comments, you never provide any hard data and no theoretical grounds; the only references you ever make are to the bible. Hmm.

Knight - I've read Mao's book. So what? And I've read the classics of Chinese thought - all in the original, if you are interested - and again, so what?

Your view of China and mine are totally different. I think that communism, as an infrastructure, is operationally impossible in any group larger than 30 people - and therefore, Mao's book exists in words. I prefer reality, and think that the reality of China in the world is not a clone of Mao's rhetoric.

"The US 'historical atrocity' of legal slavery does not mean that it, now, as a nation, must be rejected.
The Canadian internment of Japanese people, who were Canadian citizens, during the war, does not mean that it, now, as a nation, must be rejected."

Typical leftist false equivalence. China still is a totalitarian dictatorship. We aren't.

China is a big powerful totalitarian military empire thanks to our technologies, stolen or otherwise.

- said Knight 99

Mostly stolen. Evidence of this abounds.

And that only confirms we should not lower our guard.

As for ET, a lot of people here confuse good writing skills with good reasoning or good arguments; they are hypnotised by the nice wrapping but fail to notice the lack of substance.

I usually skip over her comments as she says one thing one day and the opposite the next, but always in impeccable English...

ET >

“for me to say that most Chinese are focused on money isn't racist!”

Well you’ll need to confirm that with CGH, I didn’t bring up race at all and was labeled a racist for simply disagreeing with him. I think your extended comment “....That's valid for Chinese in the West as well” would put you in the racist category with CGH (only if you were in disagreement with him of course). Thankfully I don’t throw those stones, merely pointing out the hypocrisy and the idiotic throwaway rationality you had aligned yourself with.

“You haven't provided any evidence to support your basic theme that 'China is a totalitarian empire....” – ET

I guess your awaiting some sort of published academic theses to validate anything I have to say. I’m afraid that if you can’t see the totalitarian police state that China is today, and the Empire that it’s becoming, there really is no more to say. BTW, how many children do you have? My guess is that it’s not one state mandated child. If you want to know more about China’s current state of political prisoners including religious persecutions, death squads that harvest organs from “on-site medical/ execution vans” there is a plethora of On-line research you could do (not in China mind you).

If you better understood the significance of China’s new Aircraft Carriers from a military standpoint along with their technological military buildups you may also have a different perspective of this loving “emerging economic giant”.

I will agree with you on one point, “.....UK, the US, Europe etc have become more socialist and focused on big government control.” Which of course makes today’s China seem far more loving and cuddly than it might have otherwise. That is not because China has become nicer totalitarians; it is because we are becoming more like them.

If “they” killed off +60 million American’s, and then impoverished and propagandized a few generations, they’d be allot more compliant and easier to control as well.

If we actually saw one fair and democratic election in China we could honestly say they are moving in the right direction. Until then there is no reason to sell them controlling interests in anything of our own. Want to sell them a little milk and some spare motor oil, fine.

canadian friend (aka who?) - heh, your comments are mere opinions without actual evidence. Piffle.

The easiest thing in the world is to offer an opinion, as you have done, without evidence or logic. Is that how you operate?

Technology is never, ever, confinable to its inventor. If you take a look at history, it was simply impossible to prevent the diffusion of, for example, the invention of fire, of the plough, of horse stirrups, the invention of printing, of gunpowder, of glass lenses, of the germ theory of disease, of antibiotics, of computers, of the Internet, of cell phones.

To consider such diffusion as 'theft' is naive and ignorant of our human species and how we live as such. Ever heard of 'the information society'?

knight - to generalize or use a stereotype (Chinese are interested in money) is not the same as racism! If I were to say, as so many do, that 'Canadians are nice', is that a racist opinion? Or a generalization?

If I say that Italians are excitable - is that racism or stereotyping?

And there's no need to insult me by denigrating my academic background. Is your knowledge innate?

I certainly agree that China is not democratic in our sense of a multi-party open election. China's elections are 'in-house' so to speak, within the party. This is rather similar to the way China was always run (by the elite mandarins). In effect, this is a two-class system, but the middle class is rising in China in economic power. Political power must follow.

ET >

“...to generalize or use a stereotype (Chinese are interested in money) is not the same as racism!”

Relax already; saying that most blacks love to eat watermelon and fried chicken isn’t racist either, I understand.

“there's no need to insult me by denigrating my academic background” – ET

No insult intended, where am I to go with your incessant demand for proof that is everywhere. I can only assume you require some sort of professionally written paper to understand the material, you didn’t really clarify. To state that China is a totalitarian regime building an excessively large military might, coupled with an aggressive global resource expansion, is common knowledge to most. If you can’t accept those easily searchable facts, what am I to assume?

Anyway, here is an interesting summary to start with:

http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=298

Honestly, anything I’ve criticised China about is well researched knowledge. To pretend that they *the Chinese government is someone else kinder and gentler is disingenuous to say the least. Why anyone claiming to be of rational mind who loves freedom and liberty would defend China’s bid to have controlling interests of any kind in our resources or economy, is simply OUT OF THEIR MIND.

It would help for a little clarification from PM Harper.

At the start of the proposed Potash takeover, Harper said that the bid was a "proposal for an American-controlled company to be taken over by an Australian-controlled company."

That was a subtle, yet nicely clear statement of principle, without igniting an unnecessary bonfire on a naturally sensitive issue. Unfortunately, that clarity, of course, was negated by the final rejection of BHP's bid by the government.

If Harper had ok'd the Potash, sale, as was right, he could now easily nix the Nexen sale without inflaming concern of foreign capital seeking a return in Canada.

This episode is a good example of how politician's search for a politically expedient solution, rather than working on principle, always stores up problems for the future that no pol is clever enough to serve around.

Whatever comes out of this, I hope all the strongly pro, and strongly anti folks in the country write letters, and call their MPs with their opinions. People who hold strong positions are way too passive, and that's what all the bad men in politics know, and endlessly exploit.

If people argue, and post, but don't tell the political class what they want done, they've largely wasted their energy. They'll know, if you communicate.

ET throws plenty of insults at me in one comment, then right in the next one complains Knight has insulted her.

As I said, she says( or does) one thing ( it is ok to throw plenty of insults ) and then the opposite of it( it is wrong to insult ).

And apparently she has never heard of copyrights and patents.

Pathetic.

Canadian Friend >

Yea well, you need to take ET’s comments/ criticism in stride, I wouldn’t take them too personally.

Listen carefully to her very last comment and absorb the reality of her worldview–

“I certainly agree that China is not democratic in our sense of a multi-party open election. China's elections are 'in-house' so to speak, within the party...” - ET

Yea, not unlike the cozy Nazi Party of 1940, no?

Anyway, once you catch on, you don’t need to get your nose out of joint too much on a few little ET criticisms, they shipped intellectual superiors like her off by the millions. The next time around will be no different.

Personally, I think China is being very nice, they're offering more than top dollar (backed by gold) to buy Nexen, and are just taking advantage of what "western capitalism" has to offer. They have their ducks a row so to speak. Now it's up to Canadians to get our whatever in a row and decide if we want to sell our resources at top dollar or be told by another country what we are going to do with those resources. Remember resources are items for sale to whoever can afford them outright or negotiate the ownership of them in some other manner!

One more thought..the last time you bought or sold something at a garage sale, did you care whether the buyer was a communist, if he/she was wearing yellow or green pants...probably not! You were just happy that you sold what you had for sale and that person paid you the $$ you requested!

Threadspinner >

"You were just happy that you sold what you had for sale...."

Like selling a known felon a gun?

There’s nothing like society losing its moral compass.

The point to the thread was not about selling a product to China, it's about selling the farm that produces the product.

When a foreign government owns enough of your real assets, it owns your ass. If China was Switzerland I doubt many would worry as much. The fact that China has a long historical record of human atrocities that remain a part of their governing policies today, should make people pause to think whether or not they should be allowed to potentially have control over your life. It's not complicated.

Ok, hands up all those who used a Chinese-made computer or handheld device to post here about totalitarian China.

The point to the thread was not about selling a product to China, it's about selling the farm that produces the product.

Knight ,

I was going to say " it does not matter so much who we sell Canadian lumber to, but it does matter who owns Canadian forests"

In other words I agree with you completely,

but why some can not see what the problem is...is beyond me...