Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Prentice defends decision to kill takeover

KEVIN CARMICHAEL

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 1:01 PM EDT 09/05/08

Federal Industry Minister says Canada is still open for business after unprecedented move to block foreign takeover of Canadarm maker ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: A brave step by our future Prime Minister.
  2. TheWay ISeeIt from CALGARY, Canada writes: I think that this was both a courageous and necessary decision. As a general principle, the Conservatives are loathe to interfere in the market. It's a sound principle to follow as governments are notorious for getting it wrong. In this case, however, it was the right decision and consistent with the Harper government's policy to protect Canadian sovereignty in the North. It's wrong that MDA should feel they have to sell to a US firm to get market access in the US. Mr. Prentice is right to fight for Canadian access to contracts in other countries.
  3. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: There was no threat to Canadian sovereignty in this deal. The Conservatives buckled under to the nationalist lobby. That's all. Cost the shareholders (mostly Canadians) a bundle by quashing a deal they had voted 99% in favour of accepting.
  4. D G from Canada writes: Seems like a no-brainer to me.
  5. MQ9 Reaper from Canada writes: A common-sense decision to block the deal. Good on you, Mr. Prentice.
  6. jack sprat from Canada writes: Alisdair McLaughlin is right. Not only did they buckle but this will have a huge effect on new companies setting up here and companies here already relocating before their growth plans get whacked by the feds also. A devastating long term effect. The gov't gets access to data and images at no cost in return for the 400 million in taxpayer money and that part of the deal was remaining in tact. In addition, any country can by the data and images - this intervention did not block MDA from selling to anyone. Is the government willing to take this company over? Will they provide even larger subsidies to assist the company in continuing to grow? If so, what about other businesses, why not give them $500 million also? Where does it stop? this business will need massive support to survive as it is in a very high cost business and believes it needs US contracts to survive. It believes it must be there to get them. Will Jim and Steve help me get US business contracts? This does nothing to protect canada, it is pure politics and that is the only thing consistent with previous decisions of this government. Much larger deals have been done to take over canadian oil companies under this government...oil is not a nationla security issue? Or would the blocking of such a deal cost harper votes? There is no consistency here and that unceratinty alone makes it bad for any business in canada.
  7. jack sprat from Canada writes: Alisdair McLaughlin is right. Not only did they buckle but this will have a huge effect on new companies setting up here and companies here already relocating before their growth plans get whacked by the feds also. A devastating long term effect. The gov't gets access to data and images at no cost in return for the 400 million in taxpayer money and that part of the deal was remaining in tact. In addition, any country can by the data and images - this intervention did not block MDA from selling to anyone. Is the government willing to take this company over? Will they provide even larger subsidies to assist the company in continuing to grow? If so, what about other businesses, why not give them $500 million also? Where does it stop? this business will need massive support to survive as it is in a very high cost business and believes it needs US contracts to survive. It believes it must be there to get them. Will Jim and Steve help me get US business contracts? This does nothing to protect canada, it is pure politics and that is the only thing consistent with previous decisions of this government. Much larger deals have been done to take over canadian oil companies under this government...oil is not a nationla security issue? Or would the blocking of such a deal cost harper votes? There is no consistency here and that unceratinty alone makes it bad for any business in canada.
  8. Craig Scott from Republic of Newfoundland, Canada writes: jack sprat from Canada writes.............

    Jack the images produced by that satelite after it was sold would have been controled by the US government and they would have blocked the distribution of them, especially to us.

    The Canadian government is using this satelite to montior the Arctic and it will be a useful tool in our sovergnty fight over the north. Why would we have over that technology to the US who is disputing out claims.

    This was a good decision
  9. jack sprat from Canada writes: Maybe Jim could tell us what the net benefit for canada has been in the massive foreign takeovers that have taken place since harper-chavez got elected? Maybe even tell us how you calculate net benefit?

    Shareholders overwhelmingly approved the deal. Canadian shareholders included. This is pure politics and spin. Nothing more, nothing less. the effect, however, will begin being felt today as businesses face the prospect of the canadian government coming into their boardrooms. You are naive if you think that this will not have a very negative effect on the future of similar tech industries setting up or doing business in canada.
  10. Tony Mareschealle from Canada writes: Finally something good from the conservatives.

    Now what we need is a stronger nationalist lobby & position in Canda.
  11. jack sprat from Canada writes: Craig Scott, please show me where anyone said such access would be blocked. That is being used as spin to gain votes here, MDA said the no cost access would continue.

    Do you really belive the US gov't would block our gov't from seeing satellite images of the Arctic? Why? the US doesnt want Canada to see their massive buildup of arms and secret arctic training exercises? Gimme a break. The Arctic soverignty issue is about the undersea geography and how that lends itself to who owns what lands in the Arctic. this satellite does not provide such images.

    This is flawed logic and political spin. You are very naive to think otherwise.
  12. Devon White from Canada writes: I like how MDA then coincidentally got 109 million in government contracts.

    Certainly an unrelated occurrence.
  13. boris moris from Vancouver, Canada writes: This smells like a setup. Republican connected company is rejected as buyer for Canadian business icon and Harper Co. is seen to be 'Tough on Americans'. Great optics for easily brainwashed voters. Ditto for all the extra work that went into gettting the Canadian chef back from the (allegedly) evil clutches of Mexican justice.
    This is all cheap street theatre for those whose faculties for critical thinking are either atrophied or were never developed.
    It is a HUGE plus for Bush Co. to soften up Canada for US control even more than it already is. They can only do that to their satisfaction if they have a willing patsy boy at 24 Sussex...someone who would yank their children's gold teeth for a few extra bucks...someone fond of Gucci shoes or someone who is such a control freak they probably personally vet their environment minister's dates.
  14. jack sprat from Canada writes: The Reformers are now aligning with the socialists and nationalists. Who would have ever predicted that? Harper-chavez will align with all to get votes. Leadership by poll. Nice.
  15. Globe Insider subscriber content
    R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Looks good-feels good-BAD DECISION!
  16. G L from Canada writes: I'd suppor the Industry Minister's stance if the technology and intellectual property behind the Canada Arm actually belonged to Canada or MDA (as a Canadian company), but the fact is that the intellectual property was transferred way back when. NASA would never have contracted with MDA to develop the Canada Arm in the first place if it could not own the IP. MDA benefitted from the deal with more than a decade of service contracts to service the Canada Arm. What we have is a PR issue where Canadians feel protective of the Canada Arm because of it's name. In actual fact, the Canada Arm does not belong to MDA or Canada. It was developed and created in Canada, but it is owned by NASA. What exactly is the Industry Minister protecting here? I'm not entirely sure - unless it's Canada's capability to continue developing this type of technology. Still, companies like MDA can't continue to do business unless they have big customers like the U.S. Government. That's probably why the Canadian Space Agency has just awarded a massive contract to MDA. If the Canadian government feels they have the resources to support development, we don't have a problem. I wonder if we actually do have the resources to fund something like this on what appears to be a whim. Is there going to be another contract award to MDA when the four years of this current contract are up? The Industry Minister's actions ahve a much higher price tag than many people realize. I'm not sure what effect this will have on U.S. companies and the U.S. government's willingness to work with Canadian companies in this area given the Canadian government's intervention. We'll see how the cards fall. I understand why it was done (mostly public optics) and I don't disagree with the Canadian government's powers to intervene - in some cases it would be warranted... just not in this case.
  17. jack sprat from Canada writes: GL is right. the price tag is huge. Why would any tech company with interest in the US space or defence market ever set up or remain here now?

    Optics is what this decision seems to be about. Not policy or consistency. And that is bad news for all canadians.
  18. Doug Edwards from Rural, Canada writes: This is a strange decision. I am a small 'c' conservative but I am losing confidence in this government. They are all over the place on every issue trying to buy support rather than sticking to their values and keeping the support they already had.
  19. mike sty - from Canada writes: R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Looks good-feels good-BAD DECISION!
    ------------------

    A GOOD common sense decision by the best mp the cons have.

    MDA $40.65.......basing ones opinion on a stock price is very shallow
    How do you like your boy Prentice now??
  20. Alan Wong from Canada writes: ' jack sprat from Canada writes: Craig Scott, please show me where anyone said such access would be blocked. That is being used as spin to gain votes here, MDA said the no cost access would continue.

    Do you really belive the US gov't would block our gov't from seeing satellite images of the Arctic? Why? the US doesnt want Canada to see their massive buildup of arms and secret arctic training exercises? Gimme a break. The Arctic soverignty issue is about the undersea geography and how that lends itself to who owns what lands in the Arctic. this satellite does not provide such images.'

    If the US owns the satellite, who cares what MDA says? Their say would be limited to what benefits the US the most. If the US decided to charge money, MDA would buckle, and we would be left with the bill. Our claim over the artic is tenious at best - losing control of a satellite that is one of our only means of monitoring what's happening there is a blow to our claims. Don't think for a second if we win the undersea geography issue the other Countries will back off. Yes, this was a political action - but arctic sovereignty is a political issue. Looking at it through pure business lens will only benefit businesses - after all, the American Artic would still be open for business.
  21. jack sprat from Canada writes: Mike Sty - how explaining what is good about it. And maybe let us know how net good for Canada is calculated cause I need to use that calculation and evaulate some much larger takeovers your boy Jim let through.

    Harper-Chavez. Welcome to canazuela.
  22. Mike smith from Canada writes: Comeon, this was not a bad decision after all. We have been far too subservient in selling our firms out to foreigners who just use them and throw them out.

    Canada is the easiest country in the world to buy firms.

    Did you guys have a short memory or what? US even blocked access to 3com that no one cared about, ports buyout, even an oil company buyout from foreigners.

    There is a reason why the net benefit clause is there in the Govt act.
  23. sam slick from Canada writes: Reverse the role> Ask yourself if the US would sell any of their so-called high tech stuff to a foreign country. Would they even sell so called hoem security assets like oil refineries to foreign countries. They don't mind foreign countries buiding refineries and then buying them. Sorry, theyalready own the foreign oil.
  24. Able Bodied Man from Canada writes: Mr. Prentice announced his intention to scotch the sale last month, ...
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What does that mean? He poured Scotch on it?
  25. Walt O'Brien from Boston, MA, United States writes: As a Yank and Canadophile (Level Three Offender :>), I resent the US industrial sector's heavy-handedness in respect to anything that resembles issues obviously related to Canadian sovereignty, especially as the USA tried unsuccessfully to invade Canada four times (if you include the takeover attempt of Newfoundland/Labrador). I've pals in the Lord Strathcona's Horse who talk about Priority One, and I am very pleased with Mr. Prentice's decision. As a real Yank--which means I am always telling other people what to do whether they want or need to hear it--youse guys oughta tell us to 'take off, eh?' a bit more often in other areas. It's neither conservative nor liberal to defend one's sovereignty, it is only common sense. I have handled licensing of ITARS shipment of Canadian military goods from Canadian manufacturers going offshore to Europe and Asia before, and it sickens me that even those transactions have to be cleared and approved by Washington, D.C. I don't want Canada to be the fifty-first state. It's the only place nearby I can go to for a break (short of hiding out in an obnoxious elitist 'let them eat cake' gated community) from the racism, irrational class structure, draconic management structures of the companies I work for here, the ghettoes and the crime which characterize contemporary America and, I believe, always shall.
  26. Able Bodied Man from Not VICTORIA Island, Canada writes:
    Humour aside, what about the $ hundreds of millions of Canadian taxpayers' money that went into this? How is it of benefit to Canada to put all that money into the stockholders' pockets unless the taxpayer amount is paid back to the people of Canada?

    We can be sure the US would have serious concerrns about selling the assets of NASA or Boeing or Lockheed. Besides, MDA did not develop Radarsat for NASA.
  27. mitchell roy from calgary, Canada writes: This action shows why Canada will remain a back water country and a second rate economic power. And it shows why there is no use starting,buidling or owning a company in this country.

    mitchell
  28. Able Bodied Man from Not VICTORIA Island, Canada writes: Mr. Prentice announced his intention to scotch the sale last month...
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Globe & Mail. If you don't change the word 'scotch' I will launch a suit against you for damages for an inappropriate comment which casts negative connotations upon a nationality and/or race.
  29. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Not the Alliance from In my opinion, The Harper Gov't is Incompetent, but it's always somebody else's fault., Canada writes: I like Prentice - think he's a good man with a good head on his shoulders - WAY preferable as leader to Harper. He was once a real conservative in the traditional Canadian sense too. That's what makes this interfering decision so strange. Why not nationalize the company rather than throwing it a $109 mln bone? Wouldn't that be the next step for these so called 'conservatives'? Hey, it's only taxpayer money!
  30. M D from Canada writes: Good move. We can continue to develop technology and simply sell the outputs to the USA as needed. If USA doesn't like that, well, go develop your own satellites. This came very close to being Avro Arrow II.
  31. Doctor Jimmy and mister Jim from Canada writes:

    Thanks to about $500-million from taxpayers, MDA built and launched Radarsat-2, a state-of-the-art observation satellite that can see through clouds and nighttime cover.

    There have been concerns about whether Canada would still have priority access to Radarsat-2 images from the country's northern regions.

    Radarsat-2, MDA is involved in the Canadian Forces' Polar Epsilon project, which would provide the military with up-to-date, all-weather images of the country's oceans and Arctic region.

    The US refused to launch Radarsat-2 and it was launched on a Soyuz vehicle from Russia's Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Who's to believe that once in the Americans hands what priority if any would Canada's requests have. Alliant, the purchasing company does 100% of its business to the US military. Weapons of mass destruction. (Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, best in the world state-of-the-art observation satellite that can see through clouds and nighttime cover, to the US military.....connect the dots folks) Keeping this in OUR hands will go a long way to protecting OUR sovereignty and slowing the US of A militarization of space. From my understanding there are over 2,000 people employed there. These are not burger fryers or fast food assemblers. Very highly skilled and trained people, jobs that attract people to Canada, jobs for our highly trained young people, jobs of the future. Half the purchase price of MDA has been Canadian taxpayer funded, 50%of this company belongs to Canadians it should stay with Canadians.

    Contact your MP and make your views known that you want this important technology to remain in the hands of Canadians.
    ----------------------

    Thankyou all for contacting your local MP and keeping this important technology in Canadian hands, our perseverance paid off. Now its up to our elected MP's to pressure the americans to honour the free trade agreement and not claim national security as a defense for closing the border.
  32. Able Bodied Man from Not VICTORIA Island, Canada writes: Mr. Prentice announced his intention to scotch the sale last month...
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the word 'scotch' were replace with 'jew' or 'german' or 'muslim' you can bet there'd be hell to pay.
  33. Able Bodied Man from Not VICTORIA Island, Canada writes:
    Thank you Doctor Jimmy and mister jim for an excellent post.
  34. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Steve D from Canada writes: G L from Canada writes: 'I'd support the Industry Minister's stance if the technology and intellectual property behind the Canada Arm actually belonged to Canada or MDA (as a Canadian company), but the fact is that the intellectual property was transferred way back when. ...yadda yadda.'

    You are missing teh point. It was Radarsat that was the complication, not the frickin arm.
  35. Bob Duvan from Toronto, Canada writes: The Harper crowd turning nationalistic? I smell a rat.

    There must be something on the horizon that will be very distasteful to Canadians so Harpy is trying to prepare the ground for it. The one that has already happened is the export of raw bitument to the US. The other thing about we haven't heard much lately through the Canadian media is the question of the gas pipelines. There used to be big concern about the Alaska route preempting development of the the Mackenzie Valley alternative which in turn is key to developing Canadian resources in the far north.

    It's been pretty quiet about it lately but there has been plenty of news reports of activity on the Alaska pipeline including a Canadian company as key participant - a friend of the Harper crowd, per chance ????
  36. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Steve D from St. John's, Canada writes: Able Bodied Man from Not VICTORIA Island, Canada writes: 'Mr. Prentice announced his intention to scotch the sale last month...
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the word 'scotch' were replace with 'jew' or 'german' or 'muslim' you can bet there'd be hell to pay.'

    As future occupants of the place, I and the rest of us evil conservatives find your derogatory use of the word 'hell' inflammatory. My greatest fear and potential torment is that when I get there I will find Prime Minister Dion and a united Liberal party will be in power; of course only if it first freezes over.
  37. J L from Canada writes: The decision by the government and Minister Prentice to prevent the sale of MDA and It's TECHNOLOGY to a foreign buyer was applauded by the majority of Canadians.Minister Prentice has said that his decision and the governments would be on the basis of whether this sale of the company in question and more importantly the TECHNOLOGY that went along with it,to a foreign buyer would benefit CANADA. He clearly thought it did NOT.This,for those of us old enough to remember brings back memories of the sale of the AVRO ARROW and it's TECHNOLOGY decades ago to a foreign buyer and authorized by our then government.That sale set our Avation Industry back decades and some to this day claim it has never fully recovered.One has to wonder what may have been, if the then government had made the same decision that our current government and Industry Minister has made on the MDA Sale.It is of note that this is the first such refusal by our government ever.
  38. Bill Tweezer from Canada writes: Maybe MDA should be trying to get access to US goverment military contracts instead of selling out. Best decision ANY canadian goverment has taken in a very long time .
  39. Laura Passenger from Cloverdale, Canada writes: Underneath all of the grandstanding, posturing, and emotional rhetoric being spewed from both sides of this on-going debate, there are some real concerns with Radarsat-2 being included in the assets up for sale that are unique to this situation. And before the naysayers get all up in arms to claim this isn't so, I'd suggest they take a long hard look at the current US Satellite laws in place and read the fine print. I am not an expert in the US Land Remote Sensing Policy Act, or the Canadian Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, so if anyone out there is an expert in either of these, perhaps they could weigh in on the discussion. But, from what I read, it does appear that if ATK were to take ownership of Radarsat-2, there could potentially be serious implications for Canada, particularily in the north. And for anyone who thinks the US is not concerned about what Radarsat-2 may, or may not reveal, might I remind you that when Orbital ( a US company ) owned MDA, the US government would not allow them to launch the Satellite, because it was deemed a threat to US national security. For this reason, the satellite was launched from Russia. What makes anyone think their attitude has changed? And why do you suppose that is? Perhaps our government looked at the laws in place more closely, and realized there were loopholes big enough to drive a truck through and that they would not be able to have the control that both MDA and ATK may have believed they would have. It seems to me, that if RSAT-2 had been removed from the table, the sale of all of the rest of the systems divisions of MDA would have been a foot-note, at best, on the financial pages. All of this apparent new-found interest in supporting the space industry in Canada is little more than face-saving. GL mentioned that the CSA '...just awarded a massive contract to MDA.' This is not a new deal that just popped up, but old money that was budgeted for long ago. Much more needs to be done to save this industry here.
  40. Globe Insider subscriber content
    G. Veneta from Canada writes: BRAVO! This was the right decision.
  41. Rabid Senses from Good gawd, a latte-swilling Westerner, Canada writes:

    This is a matter of FREE MARKET/LAISSEZ-FAIRE versus STATE INTERESTS.

    And let us be honest: they will almost always be incompatible.

    However, a 'free market' ideology is an important machination in the success of any Western industrialized, democratic country's economy.

    At the same time 'state interests' are an imperative consideration with regards to a country's security, access to information, and sovereignty.

    Both are important. But run up against one another they are simply incompatible. In this case the reasons were well measured and, as it probably should be most times, state interests trump the free market.

    Sorry, but state borders are a paradigm above and beyond the everyday workings of a free market economy.

    The USA exercises their state interests EVERY TIME over free market factors and considerations. Think about it. Unless you are a bleeding continentalist with little care for Canada's own path then this should make sense to you.

    (Notice that not once did I use the term identity, either cultural or social.)
  42. Buzz L from Toronto, Canada writes: Once in a while the government actually does something good
  43. S H from woodbridge, Canada writes: When governments try to dictate the deicisions that made by share holders democratically, we are sending a very bad message to international investors: stay away, the shareholders and the boards don't have the final say on things.

    It is never good to mess with market force and never will be.
  44. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    D G from Canada wrote:
    Seems like a no-brainer to me.

    Yes D G,
    The Tories specialize in no-brainers .............
  45. Rabid Senses from Good gawd, a latte-swilling Westerner, Canada writes:

    Ah yes, Allistair McLaughlin,

    But you are shooting from the hip as though you were an investor yourself. I'm not assuming you are, so don't worry. I do see your point.

    However, you are only considering the 'free market' part of the equation. Since when and where did any state in the modern era give itself up to that one-sided laissez-faire philosophy? Sure, it might be something that the most festering of free market economists aspire to, but then their considerations have probably been more private, as with the source of the private funding for their research as they are almost never associated with a public institution.

    No, you need to consider state interests vs. the free market. Almost always the state interests trump.

    If you doubt this the countless precedent has been set with no other than the most successful capitalist free market country in the world's history, and, incidentally, the potential partner for MDA in this whole affair.

    Do think a little more about it.
  46. J L from Canada writes: Laura Passenger from Cloverdale Canada-Well Laura your particially right the Space Industry will require some ASSISTANCE.from the Government but might I suggest they go to the private sector for the majority of their funding.Your not the first frustrated Liberal supporter to bring up the OLD MONEY and IT HAD BEED BUDGETED FOR routine.Yes indeed Laura it was old money from 1995 just sitting there and Oh Yes budgeted for. it sat and sat and sat, We could have We would have we certainly should have BUT DIDN'T.Thus the nickname Mr Dithers. a sad legacy for a solid busnessman who just couldn't make up his mind and get the job done.Our current PM is just the opposite you may not like what he's doing but he's surely getting the job done.and he is rightly taking the credit.for this file and many others that the previous two governments just didn't quite get around to doing .It's one thing to budget for. and other to pass into law and make it actually happen.Which is exactly what our current government has done and is doing.with OLD and new money
  47. Rabid Senses from Good gawd, a latte-swilling Westerner, Canada writes:

    'Shareholders!'

    'the poor shareholders!'

    'oh no the shareholders . . .'

    OH PLEASE!

    This group got into bed with a company which apparently received upwards of almost 85% (!!!) of its funding from the Canadian government.

    Paid for by Canadians.

    Or taxpayers.

    Or whatever or however you guys think of ourselves these days.

    The point is that these 'shareholders' have been buoyed by an OUTSTANDING amount of Canadian taxpayer investment from which to position their company.

    They know, or at least they should have the foresight to know, that this company deals with a product akin to intellectual property that confers a lot of difficult considerations regarding Canada's state interests were it to change hands.

    I'm sorry, but that is a consideration they need to have made earlier and all of us have to make now.

    Should rules be re-written or reviewed. Perhaps. But I just don't see the shareholders as being screwed since WE gave them a cup filled almost to the brim to begin with!
  48. Ob Server from Canada writes: This is a poor decision made for the wrong reasons. If its' so important for Canada that MDA stay Canadian then Canada should own it not the shareholders. This doctrine is too old and tired to be of any use except to advance a political agenda. It stinks and like all crappy decisions, the public and the shareholders pay for it. And as for Prentice being a future PM....God forbid. He's just Harper's henchman, nothing more.
  49. Rabid Senses from Good gawd, a latte-swilling Westerner, Canada writes:

    Ob Server from Canada writes: ... [This decision] stinks and like all crappy decisions, the public and the shareholders pay for it.
    _____________________________

    Wow!

    'the public and the shareholders pay for it'

    The public and the private together in the same domain with the same interests???

    Do you not even realize how philosophically absurd your equation is???
  50. Ob Server from Canada writes: Rabid.....My equation is only absurd when people like you do not take the time to read and understand it. I'll break it down for you: The government axes the deal thereby giving it to the shareholders and simultaneously announces a $109Million contract that will be paid out of the public purse (you and I) without the benefit of any tendering. How do you know its a good deal and fairly priced?? Do you get it now?
  51. Able Bodied Man from Not VICTORIA Island, Canada writes: Ob Server from Canada writes: Rabid......... How do you know its a good deal and fairly priced?? Do you get it now?
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tell us Ob, is it that your only interest is the money? That Canada's owning its own information about its own frontier is of no value?

    Recently a Saudi Arabian company bid on taking over several ports in the United States. The US government said, No way. It compromises security and sovereignty.

    Sio... all you so-called Canadians who are opposed to the decision... is it only about the money?
  52. Randy D from Canada writes: This once more will pander to the anti-American crowd but insofar as business is concerned simply doesn't pass the smell test. There seems to be a number of people with far more intimate knowledge on this situation than I who believe this has far less to do with sovereignty than with politics. Should that be the case it just thickens the border. I honestly don't know which is correct but I do know after the trust debacle what were once our closest friends arre becoming as leery about us as a large part of our population is towards them. To compare this to the Americans refusal to have a company from a Muslim country run their ports is laughable. The anti-American crowd won't see it that way but it is reality.
  53. Able Bodied Man from Not VICTORIA Island, Canada writes: Steve D from St. John's, Canada writes: Able Bodied Man ...writes: ...you can bet there'd be hell to pay.'

    As future occupants of the place, I and the rest of us evil conservatives find your derogatory use of the word 'hell' inflammatory. ...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sorry Steve. Please accept my humble apology and insert the word 'Toronto.'
  54. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Given that this enterprise is a Canadian star achiever and it wanted to sell the Canadarm to raise funds for new ventures, Canada must ensure that MDA is provided with the funds it needs to expand as it wishes. Even if Canadians have to foot the bill, which seems unlikely given its stature, it should be funded. It is difficult to imagine a more worthwhile venture and I suspect the company would be an instant hit if it went public and shares could be purchased.
  55. Ob Server from Canada writes: Able Bodied....The deal you refer to was with Dubai not Saudi and the dynamics were much different. You cannot compare the two. The ports issue in the US got canned because it became a national security issue although that is still debatable. The MDA deal poses no national security threat so in my own view, the government has no place dictating whether it gets done or not. This decision was entirely political and thats what I and many other investors, including yourself, were you a shareholder, would object to.
  56. The Oracle from Caiman Islands, Canada writes: The pregnant wig attemps again to look tough.
  57. Donalda Williams Clogg from Canada writes: Mr.Prentice should be congratulated and thanked for this important decision. The more important Canadian companies remain in Canada the better for Canadian interests. This is promising for future situations such as this.
  58. Rabid Senses from Good gawd, a latte-swilling Westerner, Canada writes:

    OB,

    Truth be known, I'm actually unsure who 'people like [me]' are, supposedly the ones that can be defined with pronouns only.

    Here's the thing with regards to ownership ---> Are we to assume that the near 85% of the funding provided by the Canadian government (hence, taxpayers or the public . . . just so we're sure) has simply been amortized over the years that it has somehow hypothetically transferred into the hand of the shareholders only, thus making it only a private claim to a private company?

    You might find a few here who are dissuaded by that.

    With regards to the tendering I share your concern as that now becomes purely a free market consideration; however, SO LONG as it remains within Canada's borders.

    However, the first issue is state interests and a private company tendering what has been mostly a publicly-funded project relating to security, information gathering, etc. (an intellectual property). Once Canada decides that it cannot leave state lines then I agree it becomes a public issue. However, the two are at once separable and related only after our government makes the decision to step in (apparently at the will of Canadians, whether they view this as their taxpayer reaction or their sovereign reaction).

    It's confusing not nowhere as simplified as you make it.

    It is as I said above: once a matter of intellectual property for matters of security, information gathering, etc. is considered for export then it unequivocally becomes a matter of state interests. You need only look at the USA, the biggest baddest and most awesome example of capitalism in world history, to understand that they always exercise state interests.
  59. Able Bodied Man from Not VICTORIA Island, Canada writes: Ob Server from Canada writes: Able Bodied....The deal you refer to was with Dubai not Saudi and the dynamics were much different. You cannot compare the two. The ports issue in the US got canned because it became a national security issue ...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So... My mistake. Dubai is Saudi Arabia but with bigger hotels and fewer fanatics. It is an even less likely threat, yet the US canned theri deal for national security reasons. While the mechanix may be different the issue of national security reamins and trumps shareholder issues.
  60. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: jack sprat from Canada writes: Do you really belive the US gov't would block our gov't from seeing satellite images of the Arctic?

    Um..yes.

    Why?

    Because we are not American. Even their closest allies are under scrutiny.

    the US doesnt want Canada to see their massive buildup of arms and secret arctic training exercises? Gimme a break. The Arctic soverignty issue is about the undersea geography and how that lends itself to who owns what lands in the Arctic. this satellite does not provide such images.

    This is flawed logic and political spin. You are very naive to think otherwise.

    Dream on, dreamer.
  61. Able Bodied Man from Not VICTORIA Island, Canada writes: Ob Server from Canada writes: ...The MDA deal poses no national security threat so in my own view, the government has no place dictating whether it gets done or not. This decision was entirely political and thats what I and many other investors, including yourself, were you a shareholder, would object to.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In YOUR view? How quaint of you. In my view as a taxpayer, and therefore a shareholder, I am in favour of the decision.
  62. Tom Erdman from United States writes: Bill Tweezer from Canada writes: Maybe MDA should be trying to get access to US goverment military contracts instead of selling out. Best decision ANY canadian goverment has taken in a very long time .

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Canada - 'It's not in our best interests to sell a high tech company to a foreign buyer.'

    US - 'It's not in our best interests to allow foreign companies to work on sensitive government contracts.'

    It works both ways. I wish MDA luck in finding enough work in Canada to keep them afloat, because that will probably be their only market. Every country that has a space program of any consequence also has their own industries that need support. NASA and the ESA may contract out a a few components here or there but that will probably be it. If you want to have a domestic high tech space industry, you have to put up the money to support it and not expect other counties to financially prop up your industries at the expense of their own.
  63. M Poland from Canada writes: Sovereignty trumps all--therefore a good decision Doctor Jimmy has the rights of it [see above]--holy cow, I actually am agreeing with Veneta! [must be Friday] Able-bodied man--you confuse scotch [the breath of life] with Scots [the people from Scotland. Anyone who uses the term scotch to describe people is sadly mistaken; and their threatened court cases shall vanish like Liberals after an elusive brown envelope.
  64. Dean The Machine from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I am in full belief that we should hang onto our technologies. We have been shafted in the past with our Aerospace Industry (the Aero). This dream, was allowed to die on the vine and cost us jobs for our economy and brain drained away potential technologies that not only would of benefited Canada but the world.
  65. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: Doctor Jimmy - good post! jack sprat - I think you're just a disgruntled shareholder. Selling a company integral to our national security to a foriegn buyer is extremely short sighted. But it seems that's the Canadian way - sell your future for a short term financial gain. I applaud our government for blocking this sale!
  66. George Duncan from Canada writes: Prentice can defend his decision all he wants but he cannot justify it. The shareholders are the owners and it is their right to decide what they wish to do with this entity. If Prentice wants to sell an asset he own such as his house it is for him to decide whether he wants to and can sell it. He is suggesting it would be satisfactory for a third party out of the blue to block the sale of his house! This is rubbish and cannot be justified.
  67. sam slick from Canada writes: mitchell roy from calgary, Canada writes: This action shows why Canada will remain a back water country and a second rate economic power. And it shows why there is no use starting,buidling or owning a company in this country

    If EXXON were to buy the oil sand of Canada I guess you would agree.
  68. mitchell roy from calgary, Canada writes: This will only give insentive to those with ambition to do business else where. Canada has a self image problem that will never be resolved.Canada as a country fear and loaths those who are sucessful, and those with the ambition to become successful.

    But in the end it is this country who will suffer because of the lost of talent and future tax doller becuase of our short sightedness.

    Able Bodied: Enjoy your Mcjobs.
  69. Brian L from Canada writes: The sound of footsteps you hear is every aeronautical engineer or entrepeneur educated and resident in Canada walking across the border to their new job or to fund their new venture. God knows, they won't get rewarded for their effort in Canada.

    Economic nationalism for idiots 101. Or in this case, government by idiots for idiots.
  70. nick oliver from halifax, ns, Canada writes: if this really is a threat to further foreign investment as some on here would have us believe, would it be too much to ask to find a better example than a private company that was built using $400 million of taxpayer dollars? this company has built technology that is designed to service the needs of govt, with govt money, but govt shouldn't be allowed to interfere because foreign investors might get scared away? gtfo.
  71. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: nick oliver from halifax, ns, Canada - good post. I think it's sad that business in Canada seems to be all about the short term gain at the cost of long term advantages. But I guess for those posters above, money is more important than Canadian soveriegnty.
  72. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: M Poland from Canada writes: Sovereignty trumps all--therefore a good decision Doctor Jimmy has the rights of it [see above]--holy cow, I actually am agreeing with Veneta! [must be Friday] Able-bodied man--you confuse scotch [the breath of life] with Scots [the people from Scotland. Anyone who uses the term scotch to describe people is sadly mistaken; and their threatened court cases shall vanish like Liberals after an elusive brown envelope.

    No. The Oxford states that Scotch is an adjective variation of Scottish or Scots. It is not appreciated by Scots but it is legitimate. You are sadly mistaken. Learn English.
  73. Joel Girard from Calgary, Canada writes: Able Bodied Man from Not VICTORIA Island, Canada:

    It's not a racist statement. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scotch
  74. Bill Tweezer from Canada writes: Tom Erdman from United States writes:

    It works both ways. I wish MDA luck in finding enough work in Canada to keep them afloat, because that will probably be their only market. Every country that has a space program of any consequence also has their own industries that need support. NASA and the ESA may contract out a a few components here or there but that will probably be it. If you want to have a domestic high tech space industry, you have to put up the money to support it and not expect other counties to financially prop up your industries at the expense of their own.

    MDA is in no financial trouble what so ever. They can go on selling images to other countries for 15 million dollars a pop. Everyone knows ATK wanted the tech they said so themselves, once they bought it how many employees would be able to work on american military contracts? none. The only thing that kept this deal from going through was the American Law. Give us boeing's space division and we will give you MDA's and call it even.
  75. Kevin Desmoulin from Toronto, Canada writes: One good decision that I can totally agree with.
    Canada and Canadians first, no more boy scouting and living in the shadow of the U.S.
  76. Rachel .. commenting from Hollywood North, Canada writes: What happened to the National Enquirer type articles?

    I thought G&M prefers ministers with biker chicks type stories.

    Or ministers that go Ga-ga over foreign secretaries of states

    Or French presidents that touchy feely over Canadian Gov generals.
  77. Rain Couver from Canada writes: To all those who oppose the government stepping in and scuttling the deal for MDA to be bought out, it actually makes perfect sense. Indeed, the company has an obligation to its shareholders, but it has an even greater obligation to the stakeholders.

    Canada contracted MDA to build a satellite. The Canadian government, with our tax money, spent about $500 million to build a piece of technology. MDA has to be accountable to its clients, in this case, the Canadian people. Trying to sell a piece of technology that is partially owned by the Canadian people is even more disgusting than greedy shareholders lamenting the slight decrease in value of their stocks, as if the company owes them more than the clients. As a client of MDA, by virtue of being a Canadian citizen who pays taxes, suck it up, buttercup!
  78. sherry smith from Canada writes: Bar none, the best comment on this topic is Dr. Jimmy and Mr. Jim's. I agree with you totally, my friend and it was the first thing I thought of when this possiblity reared it's ugly head. Canada is more than just 'shareholders'. It's people who don't like where American Foreign Policy has gone in the world, who don't like the direction Canada is going supporting it, ATK is the largest producer of WMD's which kill so many and pollute the lands they land in, even those who are innocent like Iraq. I am not Anti-American and my many friends who live there feel the same as I do about this current administration and what they have done. We said NO to the Missile Defense System, but I beleive they will keep on trying to bring it in, one way or the other. What's happened to Canada. We don't need to carry their water, we need to protect our own. Period. God Bless America, and Canada too. What happened to Nuclear non-proliferation, and banning cluster bombs and similar WMD's. It doesn't seem to be winning them any Wars in the ME, now, does it. How Draconion this World remains for all the so called Intelligence supposedly existing. Dubai shelters folks like Haliburton and the major contractors to the Military who have become so obscenely rich there is no words for the amount of blood shed required to become that way.
  79. Wes Coaster from Victoria, Canada writes: The US killed the Dubai Ports deal because they saw it as not in their national interest. This is no different.
  80. Uncle Fester from The Old Rome, Ont., Canada writes: meanwhile we are farming our economy out to Asia

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.