Ottawa Rejects Sale of Company

[Rovik]

I have to give a thumbs-up on the govt. for this, but I also have the kudos to the NDP for pressuring the govt. and bringing this into the public eye. Seems like, once again, it's the NDP providing an effective oppostion while the Liberals are once again, lost in the clouds.

[August1991]

Certainly the last GST cut strangled revenue and left little room for personal and corporate income tax cut which *would* have acted as a stimulus on the economy.

In macro terms, a tax cut is a tax cut. They all provide *stimulus*. Frankly though, I simply want to see smaller government spending and this government's last budget, despite being a minority, managed to project smaller spending than economic growth. That's better than spend-crazy Dion/Rae would do.

All other things being equal (as is the case in your example above) then yes, give the money to a Canadian rather than an American. Why? Because we are talking about the CANADIAN government. We can let the American government support Americans.

Uh, I don't want to go off topic but isn't that discriminatory, in a way?

You feel that it's fine to take my money and give it to some rich Canadian but it's wrong to take it and give it to some poor American (or Haitian).

Anyway, I thought MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates was one of the evul corporations (likely with many American shareholders). Why do you want to take my money and give it to some rich fatcats again? (David Lewis called that "corporate welfare".) With logic like yours bk59, it's no wonder that you think it's perfectly fine to give my money to rich Canadians rather than poor Americans.

Maybe the reason this question is a joke is because people see no problem with giving control of Canadian hi-tech companies to foreign companies. We do not have the defense industry here that the US has - and that is probably a good thing. But that does not mean that we should have no hi-tech R&D capabilities owned, operated & controlled by Canadians.

Please define "Canadian" in your phrase.

I personally think keeping this company as a Canadian company is a good thing.

Ditto.

MDA is chump change compared to Alcan, Inco or Falconbridge. The government decided it could afford to sacrifice this particular deal in the name of politics. In any case, the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan is the big sharedholder getting 'screwed' here and they don't have any business complaining after the regulators approved their idiotic leveraged buyout of BCE.

*Giggle*. The Canadarm and an Arctic satellite mean that this one is in the news. Optics, optics.

----

I can see the logic of subsidizing research or paying for a satellite to observe the far north. But if that's what we're doing, then I think we should get the biggest bang for the buck. If we are just giving out free money then I would prefer to give to someone worthy. I cringe at the idea that "any" Canadian is worthy simply because he or she is Canadian. That's a form of racism, no?

As to the national security aspect, if this were a Chinese or Russian firm, then I could possibly understand the argument. But this is the US - a civilized democracy with which we share a continent and ultimately the same security interests. If the Americans want to know about it, they're going to know about it because it's in our interests to tell them.

IMV, this placed called "Canada" involves far more than some corporation making technical doodads. Canada is far more than the federal government.

Edited April 10, 2008 by August1991

[Leafless]

Except that a lot of these jobs are in Ontario and BC, not Quebec. This is also not a case of tax payer funds "supporting" the company. Tax payer money was not simply given to the company.

Tax payers funds were given to the company:

Relating to RADARSAT-1 and 2 alone.

Many Canadian taxpayers might be surprised if not dismayed to learn that they have, in effect, been subsidising various U.S. wars by providing the American government with this advanced satellite technology. The design and production of RADARSAT-1 and -2 have cost Canadian governments about one BILLION dollars. About 90% of RADARSAT-1's $620-million price tag was publicly funded, while about 83% of RADARSAT-2's $525-million cost was paid for by Canadian taxpayers. ( Read more: "The Growing Costs of RADARSAT-1 and -2.")

http://activistmagazine.com/index.php?opti...&Itemid=143

Star Liberal candidate Marc Garneau, former head of the Canada's Space Agency who supported retaining MDA, will no doubt benefit Liberal fortunes in the future relating to this support.

[jdobbin]

In macro terms, a tax cut is a tax cut. They all provide *stimulus*. Frankly though, I simply want to see smaller government spending and this government's last budget, despite being a minority, managed to project smaller spending than economic growth. That's better than spend-crazy Dion/Rae would do.

Every budget the Tories have out forward projects smaller spending and then spends way past that. You know that. What you don't know is if a Dion-led government would be even worse.

The evidence is that Liberal governments since the 1990s have had an excellent record of reducing spending, reducing taxes. Dion was part of those Liberal governments.

And a tax cut is not a just a tax cut. No economist will say that. They will tell you repeatedly that there is a better stimulus from a reduction in income taxes than a reduction in consumption taxes. I think you know this as well even if you are reluctant to admit it.

I wish the right wing would stop blowing smoke on how the Tories are not spending at rates far beyond what Chretien and Martin did.

Edited April 11, 2008 by jdobbin

[Who's Doing What?]

Not true! Both the USA and Britain wanted to buy the Arrow and all the plans and paperwork. Dief's people flatly refused.

I think I'm gonna have to dig through my library again and get some quotes. When I do, I'll start a new thread if anybody's interested.

I for one am looking forward to it.

[M.Dancer]

Not true! Both the USA and Britain wanted to buy the Arrow and all the plans and paperwork. Dief's people flatly refused.

I think I'm gonna have to dig through my library again and get some quotes. When I do, I'll start a new thread if anybody's interested.

I am interested. I think you will have a hard time finding any letters of intent.

[bk59]

Uh, I don't want to go off topic but isn't that discriminatory, in a way?

You feel that it's fine to take my money and give it to some rich Canadian but it's wrong to take it and give it to some poor American (or Haitian).

Anyway, I thought MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates was one of the evul corporations (likely with many American shareholders). Why do you want to take my money and give it to some rich fatcats again? (David Lewis called that "corporate welfare".) With logic like yours bk59, it's no wonder that you think it's perfectly fine to give my money to rich Canadians rather than poor Americans.

It is not even remotely discriminatory. It is not the Canadian government's job to help American companies or citizens. That is why the US has its own government. We are not talking about foreign aid here. We are talking about hi-tech companies, research & development tax subsidies and foreign control of Canadian companies. By what possible logic do you think it is better for the Canadian government to give money to American companies & citizens? With attitudes like that it is no wonder people say that Canadians have no national identity or pride.

We are also not talking about rich Canadians and poor Americans. As a side note, Alliant is hardly poor. In fact, this has nothing to do with rich or poor or fatcats or "corporate welfare". Many hi-tech companies get R&D tax subsidies to make research more affordable. This benefits the entire economy, from the people being employed in these fields to those who benefit from the technology once it is brought to market. All developed nations do this. At least all developed nations who want to actually compete in a hi-tech, global economy. This is not corporate welfare, any more than any other corporate or personal tax break should be considered welfare. The other money that has gone to the company is from the government purchasing goods or services. Again, this is not corporate welfare, but in fact is how the government always purchases goods or services - with money. No one is just giving "your money" to some "rich Canadian".

I can see the logic of subsidizing research or paying for a satellite to observe the far north. But if that's what we're doing, then I think we should get the biggest bang for the buck. If we are just giving out free money then I would prefer to give to someone worthy. I cringe at the idea that "any" Canadian is worthy simply because he or she is Canadian. That's a form of racism, no?

No, it is not racism. The Canadian government is there to serve Canadians. It is not there to distribute Canadian tax dollars to the world at large.

Subsidizing research and paying for goods & services is exactly what we are doing. The ownership and control of the company is a valid consideration when determining who is "someone worthy". All other things being equal, it makes more sense for the Canadian government to want that money to stay in Canada and not go to foreign companies.

As to the national security aspect, if this were a Chinese or Russian firm, then I could possibly understand the argument. But this is the US - a civilized democracy with which we share a continent and ultimately the same security interests. If the Americans want to know about it, they're going to know about it because it's in our interests to tell them.

Both Canada and the US are civilized democracies which share a continent and have many of the same security interests. Fine. And yet no one thinks it strange that the US puts in place huge restrictions on foreign ownership of hi-tech companies, particularly those which work on, or have the potential to work on, anything related to national security. Yet when it is suggested that Canada should also look to keep a domestically owned and controlled industry on the same terms, people seem to say "Oh don't worry. It doesn't matter if an American firm buys the company. They're our friends." They may be our friends, but we have the talent and ability to have a Canadian industry. Why should we just sell that off? No other country in the world has such an apathetic attitude about their hi-tech / national security industries.

[eyeball]

Ottawa Rejects Sale of Company

Good. I don't think Canada should be in the business of providing any super-rogue with any kind of technology that can be used for military pursuits.

"It appears that people around the world tend to look negatively on countries whose profile is marked by the pursuit of military power,"

Link

You can count me amongst these.

I don't think we've heard the end of this either. This is about optics, I don't think Ottawa really cares too much about what people like me think or how much military power the US pursues but I'm thankful for this decision nonetheless.

[bush_cheney2004]

Good. I don't think Canada should be in the business of providing any super-rogue with any kind of technology that can be used for military pursuits.

Oh, you mean like Canadian purchases of laser guided bombs, or GPS guided Excalibur howitzer rounds, or infrared imaging and targeting systems, or night-vision equipment, or ROVs, or tactical aircraft, or heavy and medium lift transports, or....

Gee, it seems that even the CPP invests in the companies that provide technology to "any super-rogue"!

[eyeball]

Oh, you mean like Canadian purchases of laser guided bombs, or GPS guided Excalibur howitzer rounds, or infrared imaging and targeting systems, or night-vision equipment, or ROVs, or tactical aircraft, or heavy and medium lift transports, or....

Gee, it seems that even the CPP invests in the companies that provide technology to "any super-rogue"!

Its the shits isn't it?

Today however even if for just a moment, Ottawa HAS helped to blunt US efforts to dominate the planet so...the world is a better place.

[August1991]

We are also not talking about rich Canadians and poor Americans. As a side note, Alliant is hardly poor. In fact, this has nothing to do with rich or poor or fatcats or "corporate welfare". Many hi-tech companies get R&D tax subsidies to make research more affordable. This benefits the entire economy, from the people being employed in these fields to those who benefit from the technology once it is brought to market. All developed nations do this. At least all developed nations who want to actually compete in a hi-tech, global economy. This is not corporate welfare, any more than any other corporate or personal tax break should be considered welfare. The other money that has gone to the company is from the government purchasing goods or services. Again, this is not corporate welfare, but in fact is how the government always purchases goods or services - with money. No one is just giving "your money" to some "rich Canadian".

Sorry, it's corporate welfare. I keep hearing that the Canadian taxpayer has invested in this MDA and if an American company buys it, then we will lose our "investment". IOW, we gave money to the current shareholders of MDA and have no claims on it. Some call that a transfer, others call it a subsidy but I call it, as David Lewis did, corporate welfare.

As to your argument that "many hi-tech companies get R&D tax subsidies to make research more affordable", that's interesting. Do you think taxpayers should subsidize RIM or Bill Gates or Bell or Ted Rogers? Your argument is frightenening because you use terms like "hi-tech" and "R & D" and suddenly that justifies taking money from my pocket and giving it to somebody else who is richer than me.

In your mind, this is perfectly justified because you want to give my money to a "Canadian" and that makes it OK. Your contention that the Canadian government "protects" me in this way is bizarre. I get my pocket-picked and you claim that's good for me.

The beneficiaries of this little scam are the shareholders, managers and perhaps some employees of MDA. They are not poor people. I would prefer that my tax dollars go to people who deserve them.

I am not opposed to having government help people out. I am even willing to have government buy satellites to observe the Far North. I'm not against government subsidizing research and development. In each case though, I hope it is clear who is getting my money.

Your argument amounts to the knee-jerk reaction of a superficial nationalist. When people use the "helping a critical sector of the Canadian economy" argument, I keep an eye on my wallet.

No, it is not racism. The Canadian government is there to serve Canadians.

Is that not racist? Can the Canadian government prefer Canadians over non-Canadians? That's discrimination, no? Edited April 12, 2008 by August1991

[bk59]

I'm not against government subsidizing research and development.

Everything you said above this line says that you are in fact against government subsidizing research and development. You characterize this as corporate welfare, which you are supposedly against. You can't say that you are in favour of R&D subsidies except when you actually give the money to a real company like MDA.

As to your argument that "many hi-tech companies get R&D tax subsidies to make research more affordable", that's interesting. Do you think taxpayers should subsidize RIM or Bill Gates or Bell or Ted Rogers?

Yes, I think taxpayers should subsidize "RIM or Bill Gates or Bell or Ted Rogers" under the right conditions. There is nothing inherently evil, immoral, suspicious or discriminatory about any of this. If those companies undertake research that will benefit the economy, and the only way to make that research initially affordable is through a tax credit, then they should get the credit. There are obviously limitations and conditions that must be met. There is not unlimited money for this. Only certain activities should qualify (making a new version of the Blackberry is not research & development - the research should be new research). But the criteria should not simply be the size of the company or your conceptions about which corporations are evil. It should be about the R&D.

Your argument is frightenening because you use terms like "hi-tech" and "R & D" and suddenly that justifies taking money from my pocket and giving it to somebody else who is richer than me.

No offence, but chances are any corporation engaging in advanced R&D will be richer than you. I know they are certainly richer than me. But I am not waving the words "hi-tech" and "R&D" as magic wands. You are so focussed on the idea that someone might be richer than you that you miss the whole point. It is about the R&D, not the personal characteristics of who is engaging in the R&D.

The beneficiaries of this little scam are the shareholders, managers and perhaps some employees of MDA. They are not poor people. I would prefer that my tax dollars go to people who deserve them.

If you support government subsidizing R&D then the people who deserve them are people just like MDA. How rich they are personally makes no difference to the question of which company and which activities should get the money.

Is that not racist? Can the Canadian government prefer Canadians over non-Canadians? That's discrimination, no?

So you are OK with the Canadian government giving health care to Americans? You would be OK with the Canadian government spending Canadian tax dollars to improve American infrastructure such as roads and highways? This would solve your racism / discrimination problem, wouldn't it? You see how this is ridiculous? The Canadian government is there to serve Canadians. So in the context of subsidizing R&D, it is preferable to subsidize Canadian companies, not foreign companies. While it is true that foreign owned companies in Canada can still get these subsidies, I see nothing wrong with saying that the Canadian government should encourage a homegrown and self-sufficient approach to R&D and hi-tech companies. Every other country in the world does it. Why should we be different?

[August1991]

Yes, I think taxpayers should subsidize "RIM or Bill Gates or Bell or Ted Rogers" under the right conditions.

In all honesty, under what conditions do you think that it is justifiable to take money from my pocket and give it to Ted Rogers? Is that what governments should do?

So you are OK with the Canadian government giving health care to Americans? You would be OK with the Canadian government spending Canadian tax dollars to improve American infrastructure such as roads and highways? This would solve your racism / discrimination problem, wouldn't it?

One hears often that we should not discriminate and not be racist. And yet, our governments discriminate between Canadian citizens and non-citizens.

Canada is like a family eating in a very expensive restaurant. One child at the restaurant table complains that a sibling received a bigger piece of cake. The father intervenes and says (like you bk59) that in this family, we are fair. We share.

Meanwhile, outside the restaurant, there are hungry people with no food at all staring through the window at this family discussion. bk59, according to you, sharing stops at the family table. The people outside the restaurant don't matter because they're "not Canadian". (I called this discrimination and even racism.)

----

bk59, I don't mean that we should share our wealth with everyone in the world. I think rather that you should reconsider your ideas of sharing and discrimination.

Edited April 14, 2008 by August1991

[bk59]

In all honesty, under what conditions do you think that it is justifiable to take money from my pocket and give it to Ted Rogers? Is that what governments should do?

First, subsidizing R&D does not mean giving money to Ted Rogers. You can misrepresent the issue all you want, but giving tax subsidies to companies for R&D is not the same as handing big wads of cash to an individual.

Why don't you just say that you don't support the government giving tax breaks for research & development? You say you support it, and then go on (misguided) rants about how the government is taking money from your pocket and giving it to rich people.

One hears often that we should not discriminate and not be racist. And yet, our governments discriminate between Canadian citizens and non-citizens.

OK, let's use your logic here. The American government gives tax breaks to Americans who are richer than you. You, a Canadian, go to the American government and demand money. When they deny you, is that racist? You seem to think that they owe you something. They don't.

Canada is like a family eating in a very expensive restaurant. One child at the restaurant table complains that a sibling received a bigger piece of cake. The father intervenes and says (like you bk59) that in this family, we are fair. We share.

Meanwhile, outside the restaurant, there are hungry people with no food at all staring through the window at this family discussion. bk59, according to you, sharing stops at the family table. The people outside the restaurant don't matter because they're "not Canadian". (I called this discrimination and even racism.)

I have never said that non-Canadians "don't matter". But back to your analogy that has almost nothing to do with the topic of subsidizing R&D and wanting to keep at least some hi-tech companies controlled and operated in Canada...

So it is now Canada's responsibility to eliminate every single problem in the world? That seems a bit unfair to Canadians doesn't it? I mean, shouldn't governments take primary responsibility for their own citizens? Why should one government take responsibility for citizens of another state?

When talking about issues like poverty and hunger Canada should, and does, give foreign aid. Obviously Canada should also deal with these problems domestically as well... but of course that would help Canadians and I'm sure you can find a way to call that racist.

If you want your analogy to actually make sense then we are not just dealing with one family at a table. We are dealing with a restaurant full of tables, each with a family. Does Canada have the responsibility to go to the American table, or the English table, or the Japanese table, and give them the food that the Canadian family paid for? As I said, Canada should give foreign aid to those less fortunate tables, but that does not mean that Canada should give up all of its food.

But to make things totally clear... we are not talking about poverty and hunger issues. We are talking about subsidizing research & development. That is a domestic decision designed to help the Canadian economy. Other countries can implement their own policies on R&D and economic stimulus. It is not our job to do this for them.

bk59, I don't mean that we should share our wealth with everyone in the world. I think rather that you should reconsider your ideas of sharing and discrimination.

Actually, you do seem to be advocating sharing Canadian tax money with everyone in the world. To you anything less is racist. I have no problem with my ideas on sharing and discrimination in the context of tax subsidies and R&D. Canadians pay Canadian taxes. Canadians should get those tax subsidies. Anything else is foolish economic policy (at best). And certainly not racism.