Time To Take Bring Foreign Investors to Heel

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Time for Canada to treat foreign corporations as if they work for us, rather than us working for them. The nation called Canada creates corporations legal and real and the nation's superior status to them needs to be expressed. They ought to be brought to heel for the greater benefit of Canadians.

Canada acts like a supplicant, like in the case of US Steel breaking promises regarding laid off workers. The word of corporations is meaningless, they must put up bonds for thousands or millions of dollars to back up their promises. And to clean up oil wells, mines and factories.


Ottawa must start playing hardball with foreign investors

Ottawa must start playing hardball with foreign investors



It's shocking government has to defend itself against foreign multinational



By Diane Francis, Financial Post June 18, 2010




The BP blowout fiasco and a recent Canadian court case involving U.S. Steel are cautionary tales for Canada.

The BP oil spill may end up causing billions of dollars in damage, and the U.S. government is coming down hard on the company and pushing the transnational giant into setting aside US$20-billion in escrow to compensate victims.

Also this past week, a Canadian Federal Court gave Ottawa permission to continue with its lawsuit against U.S. Steel over broken promises it made to Investment Canada not to lay off Canadian workers in return for permission to buy Stelco.
It's shocking that the Canadian government would have to defend its authority, sovereignty and constitutionality in its own court against a foreign multinational. U.S. Steel said the Investment Canada Act was not constitutional. The court said otherwise.

It's the latest example of why Canada and our provinces must stop being Queen's Scouts. We have a nice country here to do business, lots of resources, and we should be playing hardball with foreign investors. And backing up the agencies that extract requirements such as Investment Canada.

There should have been no avenue for U.S. Steel to attack our government's sovereignty or Investment Canada's authority. If that isn't the case, then more powerful legislation should be put into place. This is a very worrisome situation, especially in light of the eagerness of Ottawa to sell off anything to anybody from anywhere.

Which brings me to BP.

Resource extraction is well regulated in Canada by governments. Better than Louisiana's inept system. Miners must post millions to remediate lands after their operations end in most jurisdictions. No such requirement is the case in some provinces and offshore. Governments rely on insurance, but as the BP blowout situation shows, the insurers and corporations don't have a clue as to potential liabilities.

Here's what our governments should examine: Are millions set aside in case of a blowout by a foreign company in Canada offshore or onshore? Are we allowing operations without sufficient assets to undertake risky projects? Are we allowing players into Canada whom we cannot collect money from if they walk away, as happened recently in Alberta involving Chinese companies?
Here are a few suggestions for new rules:

- Investment Canada must be sacrosanct. Its authority must be upheld legislatively so that it cannot be attacked.

- Investment Canada must be tougher. For instance, U.S. Steel and anyone else getting permission to buy anything in Canada should have to hand over a performance bond so any legal or other costs (at home or elsewhere) will be defrayed and won't cost Canadian taxpayers a dime. The Stelco case is horrible: Canadian taxpayers will spend millions making a multinational do what it promised to do and compensate Canadian workers.

- Foreign investors should be allowed to buy Canadian assets or corporations only from countries where we have an extradition treaty, a tax treaty (to avoid tax evasion or transfer pricing shenanigans) and a right for Canadian workers, suppliers and customers to sue for damages and collect funds from that foreign country. If that eliminates lots of potential foreign investors, so be it.

- Finally, we should not allow any foreign entity to buy any Canadian assets in Canada unless Canadian investors can buy, and be protected, in their countries. I call this investment reciprocity, and it should be law in this country and others with the rule of law.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun






 

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
36
48
Toronto
Like Kevin O'Leary from the CBC investment show Lang and O’Leary says, "It's all about the money"

If government puts a lot of red tape for businesses to set up the foreign investors will pass the country by which creates a financial loss for the country.

In BP's case the checks and balances were in place but the government never bothered to follow up and trusted the company that safety checks were done.

In the Panama Canal a specially trained government worker will take control of the ship and bring it through the Canal and give control back to the Captain once the ship is through.

Businesses can't be trusted on the honour system for safety checks because of their need to cut corners.

The government has to step in and do the checks themselves.

When you ask foreign investors to put up too much money for bonds they will simple go elsewhere.

You notice that BP isn’t trying to plug the leak anymore because they have to pay for damages soon they will go belly up or bankrupt then no one will get any money.

The American government has to take control and plug the leak, they have the army corps of engineers and they have scientists that are the best in the world to solve the problem and it’s only a leak, just get Mike Holmes to fix it.
.
.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
The American government has to take control and plug the leak, they have the army corps of engineers and they have scientists that are the best in the world to solve the problem and it’s only a leak, just get Mike Holmes to fix it.
.
.
It is not only a leak, it is a hemorrhage.
We do not need greedy foreign capital to invest in Canada. We need to invest in Canada. Norway developed their own oil without foreign help and now everybody gets free medical and education from the proceeds. All that foreign investors do is bleed the country dry. The only benefits we get are jobs. Our social safety net is disintegrating because we have become a third world country that cannot even handle our own resources. That is just pathetic.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Like Kevin O'Leary from the CBC investment show Lang and O’Leary says, "It's all about the money"

If government puts a lot of red tape for businesses to set up the foreign investors will pass the country by which creates a financial loss for the country.

In BP's case the checks and balances were in place but the government never bothered to follow up and trusted the company that safety checks were done.

In the Panama Canal a specially trained government worker will take control of the ship and bring it through the Canal and give control back to the Captain once the ship is through.

Businesses can't be trusted on the honour system for safety checks because of their need to cut corners.

The government has to step in and do the checks themselves.

When you ask foreign investors to put up too much money for bonds they will simple go elsewhere.

You notice that BP isn’t trying to plug the leak anymore because they have to pay for damages soon they will go belly up or bankrupt then no one will get any money.

The American government has to take control and plug the leak, they have the army corps of engineers and they have scientists that are the best in the world to solve the problem and it’s only a leak, just get Mike Holmes to fix it.
.
.

It is about a clean environment too. Do we want oil slicks on the west coast? Can we drink oily water? Can we eat seafood that is oily? When someone says it's all about the money, he means, "Bleep off, show me the dying people eating tainted seafood. The media shows none, so it doesn't happen." You can't eat money or oil.

Oil wells pollute groundwater. Shouldn't oil companies be forced to clean up the messes they have made? Otherwise taxpayers have to pay.

It's all about allowing aggressive corporate psychopaths to dominate our lives and being told it is for our own good. Trust us they say. Not a good strategy. So make them pay.

In a turbulent world, Canada is an oasis and those cleanup bonds have to big to work properly. Otherwise, drill in Venezuela or Russia. Oh, you can't. Ha ha haha hahahahahaha ha ha ha ha ha.
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
In BP's case the checks and balances were in place but the government never bothered to follow up and trusted the company that safety checks were done.


This is what happens in Canada too. Hopefully a painful lesson has been learned in the US and Canada won't have to experience it first hand.

Businesses can't be trusted on the honour system for safety checks because of their need to cut corners.


Its not so much a "need" as a willingness. They are recovering 25 000 bbls/day or so from this well leaking in the Gulf right now. For a producing well thats $1,875,000 per day at a $75/bbl market price (the spot markets are all a bit above that). However, cutting the corners makes the profit margins that much larger and the MBAs and other bean counters constantly push for it to the point that engineering and production people sometimes feel compelled to take stupid risks in the name of cost-cutting: thats the real problem with the energy industry right now and its all the way through from the multinationals to most of the small independents. But yes the bottom line is they can't be trusted and need gov't regulation and inspection.

When you ask foreign investors to put up too much money for bonds they will simple go elsewhere.

Thats where we need to be more hard-line. Our commodities are in demand or people wouldn't be coming from all over the world to access them. We're not obligated to give them away but our gov'ts are obligated to get the best deals they can and institute standards to preserve and protect the rights and property of our citizens.

You notice that BP isn’t trying to plug the leak anymore because they have to pay for damages soon they will go belly up or bankrupt then no one will get any money.

Wrong. They are drilling a relief well but it won't be ready for another 5-6 weeks or so. BP is a HUGE corporation. The $20 billion remediation and compensation fund will hurt them but they won't end up broke over this, not by a long shot. This just means their yearly numbers will end up hosed.

It is about a clean environment too. Do we want oil slicks on the west coast? Can we drink oily water? Can we eat seafood that is oily? When someone says it's all about the money, he means, "Bleep off, show me the dying people eating tainted seafood. The media shows none, so it doesn't happen." You can't eat money or oil.

You may not be able to eat oil but the fact is that it allows us to eat. How do you think all the food you eat is transported to the store you buy it from? How do you think it is planted, fertilized, and harvested? What do you think MAKES the fertilizer? Where do all the plastics in your home, including the vacuum sealing wrappings of the food in your freezer, come from? The issue is about harvesting the resource in a responsible manner because we damned well know it is possible to do so and still remain profitable.

Oil wells pollute groundwater. Shouldn't oil companies be forced to clean up the messes they have made? Otherwise taxpayers have to pay.

There are a number of industries and contaminants that pollute groundwater: do you care to shut them all down as well? If you're honest, the energy industry's biggest crime would probably be the amount of ground water they use, not pollute. And I can't speak for other jurrisdictions but yes, when oil companies in Alberta make a mess, unless they actually do go broke ( a rarity but possible), they are liable for the costs of the clean up.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
In the Panama Canal a specially trained government worker will take control of the ship and bring it through the Canal and give control back to the Captain once the ship is through.
.

That also happens to every ship that comes in to dock or leaves a dock in Canada, by the way.
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]You may not be able to eat oil but the fact is that it allows us to eat. How do you think all the food you eat is transported to the store you buy it from? How do you think it is planted, fertilized, and harvested? What do you think MAKES the fertilizer? Where do all the plastics in your home, including the vacuum sealing wrappings of the food in your freezer, come from? The issue is about harvesting the resource in a responsible manner because we damned well know it is possible to do so and still remain profitable.

There are a number of industries and contaminants that pollute groundwater: do you care to shut them all down as well? If you're honest, the energy industry's biggest crime would probably be the amount of ground water they use, not pollute. And I can't speak for other jurrisdictions but yes, when oil companies in Alberta make a mess, unless they actually do go broke ( a rarity but possible), they are liable for the costs of the clean up.

Hey, I'm the peak oil guy here, we eat lots of oil. I am aware of how important oil is to our comfy existence. And since we have this precious national resource we have to really take care of it in the public interest, not just the private one.

I think shareholders should be prepared to eat less to preserve the environment and they should have tough rules to clean up their messes. These super laissez-faire guys want the government to clean their messes up? Give me a break.