Are we selling our sovereignty to China?

[Scotty]

I wonder how many Canadians, who have always been at least a little restless at the degree to which our corporate sector has been owned by the United States, know to what degree Chinese companies have been investing in Canada's resource sector. The difference, of course, is that Chinese companies are all owned by the Chinese Communist Party. And while the American capitalist corporations have often been accused of putting their own financial interests ahead of anything else, there's just no doubt whatsoever when it comes to Chinese state corporations. It's what's good for China that matters, not what's good for anyone else.

To that end, China has bought up large chunks of the forestry sector, and, surprise surprise, we are now shipping far more raw logs overseas than every before. In fact, the numbers have gone up tenfold in just the last year. Canadian sawmills are shutting down because forestry companies - now owned by China, want to ship the logs to Chinese sawmills instead.

Over the last few years China has been radically increasing its ownership of the oil and gas industry too. Small wonder Chinese money is heavily involved in the plan to develop the Enbridge pipeline to ship raw bitumen to China for processing. Now I support shipping oil to China and Asia, but I'm very much against shipping bitumen ANYWHERE. It ought to be processed here in Canada, just like the logs. And the more I read about the proposed pipeline route the less I like it. It seems to me a more southerly route which would not take tankers through dangerous waters would make far more sense.

Of course, that's sense for US. As far as China and Chinese owned companies go the sensible thing is to go the cheapest route, because fears of oil spills along someone else's coast just aren't relevant.

This is how companies operate when they're owned by another nation, and don't mistake the influence they wield here. The more of our resource sector China Inc. buys up the more our governments will bend their knees to them.

Canada is at the brink of what is probably the most radical shift in energy and foreign policy since Pierre Trudeau and Mitchell Sharp engineered the ultimately doomed “Third Option” 40 years ago, which was all about reducing our economic reliance on the United States. This time around, everything is happening quite suddenly. There has been no debate of any consequence at all – not in the House of Commons, not in the Senate, not in the proceedings of a Royal Commission. Certainly not in the news media.

China buys our forests and oil fields

[GostHacked]

Not just China. Two major mining operations in the city I grew up in, were both Canadian owned companies. Now Falconbridge, and INCO are both owned by foreign entities.

Big trend to buy up natural resource companies in Canada from abroad.

[guyser]

The difference, of course, is that Chinese companies are all owned by the Chinese Communist Party.

I had to stop there since this is grossly inaccurate.

Manufacturing in China is largely privately owned.Lost of private industry in China.

[eyeball]

We should have had a clue about the direction Canadian officials were heading with regard to China when Canadian internet security experts helped China build its Great Firewall back in Chretien's day.

Some of China's internet cops may have become more sophisticated with Canadian help. Brian Thiessen, of the Justice Institute of British Columbia was part of a recent trade mission to sell Canadian security expertise to China. The institute includes computer studies in its training for Chinese police officers.

"We're definitely not teaching them how to stop freedom of speech. I'm sure that they... perhaps they may want to apply that. I don't know. What we're teaching them is how to investigate crimes on the internet," Sgt. Thiessen says.

Source

Investigating crimes Like speaking freely?

You know the adage, free trade with China is supposed to make them more free like us but the ongoing manner in which power and wealth is being concentrated in our country and our government's incessant preoccupation with security suggests how far China has been rubbing off on us.

Harper's government is every bit as radical as Chretien's when it comes to selling out our values and our heritage. Without these what's the point of even worrying about our sovereignty?

Edited January 17, 2012 by eyeball

[eyeball]

I had to stop there since this is grossly inaccurate.

Manufacturing in China is largely privately owned.Lost of private industry in China.

Let me guess, mostly owned by corporations based in the west?

[guyser]

Let me guess, mostly owned by corporations based in the west?

I do not know.

I know a few people who have factories there , the commute is a bitch but they like the profits they get.

[eyeball]

I know a few people who have factories there

Don't we all?

[guyser]

Don't we all?

Actually didnt think many would . But ok.

[guyser]

Let me guess, mostly owned by corporations based in the west?

Apparently not.

China lost 300,000 private businesses in the past couple years according to a site I read the other day. I would assume almost all those to be Chineses owned.

Edited January 17, 2012 by guyser

[Scotty]

I had to stop there since this is grossly inaccurate.

Manufacturing in China is largely privately owned.Lost of private industry in China.

There speaks massive naivety. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese companies and corporations are owned directly by the Chinese government. None of the rest of the larger ones can operate without government partners, and all of them are 100% subject to the directives, orders, wishes and desires of the Chinese government.

If, for example, the US government told an American company in Canada to do something drastic, the company could tell the US to get stuffed. Even if a law was passed - no easy thing in the US - there could be legal challenges, and it would all be out in the open.

In China, any company, any corporation, would jump to obey any government directive, even one which is not publicly admitted to exist. A single phone call would change that companies operations overnight.

As we can see from the following cite, virtually all core corporations are state owned enterprises.

At some (disputable) point in the mid-2000s, the reform process was reversed entirely and SOEs began to wax again. The reversal can reasonably be dated to late 2006, when the State Council formally set aside the core of the economy for SOEs

T]he State should solely own, or have a majority share in, enterprises engaged in power generation and distribution, oil, petrochemicals and natural gas, telecom and armaments. The State must also have a controlling stake in the coal, aviation, and shipping industries.... Central SOEs should also become heavyweights in sectors including machinery, automobiles, IT, construction, iron and steel, and non-ferrous metals.

This omits state dominance in banking, insurance, and the rest of finance, media, tobacco, and railways. This was a daunting list, representing a wide swath of the economy set apart for state distortions. The reversal was codified by Wu Bangguo, second in the Party hierarchy, when he listed privatization with other intolerable developments.

The Fall and rise of Chinese State Owned Enterprises

[guyser]

There speaks massive naivety.

Not on my point.

When one opines in error such as....

The difference, of course, is that Chinese companies are all owned by the Chinese Communist Party

...and gets schooled that no such thing is true , changing the goalposts to make it seem like you meant something else , words such as 'core companies' or some such is a bit much.

You could just say you were wrong , you know, cuz you were?

Hundreds of thousands of Chinese companies and corporations are owned directly by the Chinese government. None of the rest of the larger ones ....snip....can operate without government partners, and all of them are 100% subject to the directives, orders, wishes and desires of the Chinese government.

If, for example, the US government told an American company in Canada to do something drastic, the company could tell the US to get stuffed. Even if a law was passed - no easy thing in the US - there could be legal challenges, and it would all be out in the open.

In China, any company, any corporation, would jump to obey any government directive, even one which is not publicly admitted to exist. A single phone call would change that companies operations overnight.

As we can see from the following cite, virtually all core corporations are state owned enterprises.

At some (disputable) point in the mid-2000s, the reform process was reversed entirely and SOEs began to wax again. The reversal can reasonably be dated to late 2006, when the State Council formally set aside the core of the economy for SOEs

T]he State should solely own, or have a majority share in, enterprises engaged in power generation and distribution, oil, petrochemicals and natural gas, telecom and armaments. The State must also have a controlling stake in the coal, aviation, and shipping industries.... Central SOEs should also become heavyweights in sectors including machinery, automobiles, IT, construction, iron and steel, and non-ferrous metals.

The reversal was codified by Wu Bangguo, second in the Party hierarchy, when he listed privatization with other intolerable developments.

The Fall and rise of Chinese State Owned Enterprises

All of which is likely true, but the point was that private business is alive and living in China. May not be all well, but it is alive.

Edited January 17, 2012 by guyser

[scribblet]

I do have a concern about China owning so much but my question is, are they breaking any laws, or do we need to write new legislation limiting foreign ownership more than it is limited now. Legislation was changed to enable the gov't to stop a take over it it was a threat to national security, otherwise I'm not clear on what our foreign ownership rules are, and if they have been broken. So rhetoric and partisanship aside - is this legal and if so can we stop any of it.

I do wonder if some of the negativity surrounding this is a lot of hype and rhetoric, if not, then how do we stop it now.

I understand China has been buying up land in Africa and other places as they will need more agricultural land in order to feed their own people.

[guyser]

I understand China has been buying up land in Africa and other places as they will need more agricultural land in order to feed their own people.

The chinese are well aware of ownership rules. Do nthey play fair? Well, not really and not all the time.

The chinese buying up land in Africa is or should be, how we measure the joy of getting into bed with them.

From what I know, the africans who sold out to the chinese are wishing the whites still owned the land.At least they werew given something , education and meds but now the chinese are....heres your pay now go home.

[Scotty]

Not on my point.

You didn't really have a point other than to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. You and a few others seem to make a hobby out of fighting determinedly to prove points which are almost entirely irrelevant to the general direction of a discussion. It's like you go through text not to learn anything, but to look for something you can contradict, and then try to make that the point of discussion, regardless of how unimportant that point is.

All of which is likely true, but the point was that private business is alive and living in China. May not be all well, but it is alive.

And how does that impact the thrust of my actual point, which is that we are selling out out resources to companies controlled by the Chinese government? Even if a few of those companies are actually privately owned (though as we've seen, the oil industry is entirely controlled by state owned enterprises) even private companies are ultimately 100% controlled by the Chinese government.

Do you have any actual opinion on THAT?

[Michael Hardner]

I understand China has been buying up land in Africa and other places as they will need more agricultural land in order to feed their own people.

That seems strange to me. They have farmland now that is underutilized don't they ?

[Scotty]

I do have a concern about China owning so much but my question is, are they breaking any laws, or do we need to write new legislation limiting foreign ownership more than it is limited now. Legislation was changed to enable the gov't to stop a take over it it was a threat to national security, otherwise I'm not clear on what our foreign ownership rules are, and if they have been broken. So rhetoric and partisanship aside - is this legal and if so can we stop any of it.

Certainly it's legal. And certainly we can stop it. Recall that when the Chinese were making a move to take over Potash Corp the government decided (Under enormous pressure from Saskatchewan) that wouldn't be in Canada's best interest. And recall the skullduggery of the Chinese surrounding that effort, which included breaking into Canadian government computers.

Given the Chinese themselves don't allow foreign ownership in any number of areas they can hardly complain if we restrict foreign ownership over key sectors such as oil and forestry, or at least put tight restrictions on what that foreign ownership can do here.

[TimG]

I thought this headline is funny given the thread: Foreigners love us! They still love us!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/markets/markets-blog/foreigners-love-us-they-still-love-us/article2305581/

Foreign direct investment is a fancy name for "Foreignors buying Canadian assets like stocks". It is generally considered to be a good thing.

Edited January 17, 2012 by TimG

[guyser]

You didn't really have a point other than to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. You and a few others seem to make a hobby out of fighting determinedly to prove points which are almost entirely irrelevant to the general direction of a discussion. It's like you go through text not to learn anything, but to look for something you can contradict, and then try to make that the point of discussion, regardless of how unimportant that point is.

At times I like to skewer when someone makes a mistake of arrogance, not an innocent mistake though.

You start your post with 'wondering what CDN's think about chinese buying up some of our industry and it automatically becomes foreign owned property'. Thats a false premise to start with.

I pointed out the falsehood, no more no less.

And how does that impact the thrust of my actual point, which is that we are selling out out resources to companies controlled by the Chinese government? Even if a few of those companies are actually privately owned (though as we've seen, the oil industry is entirely controlled by state owned enterprises) even private companies are ultimately 100% controlled by the Chinese government.

Do you have any actual opinion on THAT?

Its a false premise. Some of the money coming is priovate investment from private chinese business'

[Scotty]

At times I like to skewer when someone makes a mistake of arrogance, not an innocent mistake though.

A mistake of arrogance? In other words, you like to 'skewer' anyone you think has made any kind of mistake, however small and unimportant, that you can jump on.

In other words, you're a bully who boosts his sagging sense of self-importance by attacking people on line.

Gotcha.

Now I remember this conversation from an earlier occasion, and remember what you are.

I've never had anything but contempt for bullies, and so I think you belong in my ignore file before I tell you what I really think of your ilk and wind up in trouble with the moderators.

[Scotty]

I thought this headline is funny given the thread: Foreigners love us! They still love us!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/markets/markets-blog/foreigners-love-us-they-still-love-us/article2305581/

Foreign direct investment is a fancy name for "Foreignors buying Canadian assets like stocks". It is generally considered to be a good thing.

There are circumstances where it is welcome, where it helps keep a company in business, or allow for its expansion, for example. Money coming into the country can certainly help the economy. On the other hand, where it approaches a certain level where economic decisions are being made in other countries, especially by other governments which affect Canadian industry it can cause a lot of issues. Then too there's concentration. If ten companies from ten countries buy ten oil producers across Canada that's one thing. If one company in one country buys them all that's something else, and most especially when that company is actually the government of China.

As I noted with regard to the forestry industry. It was in China's best interest for our lumber companies to ship raw logs to China for processing, and buying up lumber companies certainly made that more feasible -- at a cost to Canada of scores of sawmills shut down here.

[guyser]

A mistake of arrogance?

Yes

Its arrogant to post something that is , for the most part , completely false and base or build a premise from there.

Thats why I posted..."I stopped right here" Why bother going further? Its already false in the first two or three sentences.

[TimG]

It was in China's best interest for our lumber companies to ship raw logs to China for processing, and buying up lumber companies certainly made that more feasible -- at a cost to Canada of scores of sawmills shut down here.

Well, I would prohit the export of raw logs as long as China places restrictions on the export of rare earths they will have no way to complain.

[Guest Derek L]

Over the last few years China has been radically increasing its ownership of the oil and gas industry too. Small wonder Chinese money is heavily involved in the plan to develop the Enbridge pipeline to ship raw bitumen to China for processing. Now I support shipping oil to China and Asia, but I'm very much against shipping bitumen ANYWHERE. It ought to be processed here in Canada, just like the logs. And the more I read about the proposed pipeline route the less I like it. It seems to me a more southerly route which would not take tankers through dangerous waters would make far more sense.

First thing………All oil companies are multinational and transcend national boarders………Aramco (Saudi company) has built in China one of the world’s largest, most modern, refineries.

Second thing…….it’s more efficient to refine the raw crude/bitumen closer to the end user, then tranship all the finished grades of various fuel oils, diesel, kerosene and petrochemicals etc separately……What you propose would require multiple pipelines and a drastic increase in tanker traffic.

Third thing…….What other West Coast port would you choose to terminate the Enbridge line? The Trans Mountain pipeline (and expansion) already terminate in the lower mainland………Would you build another pipeline to the South Coast and further increase shipping traffic there? Kitmat already has large port facilities for ALCAN and a pipeline through Northern BC will allow an increase of growth in Northern BC’s oil industry.

Who cares if the end product is refined in Houston or China? American and Chinese currency and market share are both good……..

Edited January 18, 2012 by Derek L

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well Scotty I think that you need to look inward and see what you can. In my view you have to back the truck up all the way the First World War. While we were not watching, our lands and resources were frittered away, and guess what? We are supposed to be happy about it! You know what else? We were!!!

Okay, let me explain myself here. What some will call sovereignty some will call development. You can hire someone to do it for you or you can do it yourself. At the turn of the last century we either lived in cities and worked there or worked on the farm. This nation is wealthy beyond dreams, in terms of natural resource wealth. Raw material, we have plenty of. What we did not have and did not need before the war was industrial expertise. Well, we lacked more than that but in essence we lacked the means to convert raw material into industrial production. The reality is the nation was developed with foreign capital and foreign expertise. This is not to say that we developed nothing by ourselves, but the big corporations that had the means were able to take advantage of this industrial void in Canada. The Americans have spent trillions of dollars on Canada, or at least American companies have.

So here we are suggesting that since now the Chinese want a share of the pie that something is wrong! WTF.....

[Scotty]

Okay, let me explain myself here. What some will call sovereignty some will call development. You can hire someone to do it for you or you can do it yourself. At the turn of the last century we either lived in cities and worked there or worked on the farm. This nation is wealthy beyond dreams, in terms of natural resource wealth. Raw material, we have plenty of. What we did not have and did not need before the war was industrial expertise. .

We lacked expertise and we lacked capital. But that isn't the case now. And I'd suggest that if external capital investment is needed we can do better than a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chinese Communist Party.