Castanet

Hurtlander wrote:

rustled wrote:The federal governments have a responsibility of oversight here, and we have a responsibility for ensuring they're doing what they're elected to do. So perhaps we should be concerned, but about what, precisely?

rustled wrote:It's not enough to tell us we, too, should be concerned. Perhaps we should! But we're not sheep. We want to understand why.

Why don’t you contact MP Cathy McLeod and ask her yourself precisely what we should be concerned about, she is after all the person that brought this to our attention.
I thought the article was self explanatory, but it’s not my job to decipher it for you.

I'm not the one setting off the alarms. The news story does not require deciphering, by anyone. I see our governments working on our behalf, and I understand their concern about Anbang: it's being investigated. Sounds to me like the problem with that company has been watched (by folk like Cathy McLeod) and is being dealt with by the appropriate government, as it should be. Meanwhile, she's working to ensure proper oversight of Aecon. She's not saying there is a concern with Aecon: she's saying the current government needs to do its due diligence to see IF this is a concern.

So on the basis of the news story, I've absolutely no reason to question Cathy McLeod, although I could simply thank her for staying on top of this on our behalf, fulfilling some of her many responsibilities as an opposition MP.

Yes, we should be keeping an eye on whether or not the current government is doing its due diligence as required on our behalf. That's true of all international investing.

What I don't understand is the OP's alarmism around the issue of Chinese investment in our economy. She feels we should be very concerned, apparently more concerned about Chinese investment with any other country's investment in our economy. And yet she really cannot explain how much investment we're talking about, how that compares to other countries' investments, what's at stake with the Chinese investments that make them particularly worrisome, or what the risks related to Chinese investment, specifically, actually are.

A simple "we should be concerned because they are Chinese" may be enough for you to share her level of concern, but surely you can see that others may not, on the basis of that alone, be prepared share this heightened level of concern.

Snman wrote:Cactusflower, jhunter answered your question regarding the other valid point for me. I am not sure if you thought I was poking fun at you when I said "Hmmm, was it a seniors facility?" but I wasn't. Further, I see no need to be facetious with me with a comment about your 'wooden computer' or whatever it was. I don't recall saying anything to you about that. I was trying to have a reasonable discussion here but if you are going to assume that everyone is out to ridicule you or question your opinion then all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say wth. I guess you have the upper hand. Sheesh.

Judging by some of the submissions since yours, it's quite obvious who has 'the upper hand', and it's not me. And I wasn't referring to you when I mentioned the 'wooden computer' comment. That was submitted by one of the usual CF-bashers. I apologize if it sounded like I blamed you for it.

BTW, I'd like to thank everyone who considered the source of the link I provided.

Cactusflower wrote: But, the point is that foreign STATE-OWNED corporations are taking over Canadian companies, and if you're not concerned about that, you certainly should be.

Why?

Cactusflower wrote:. That was submitted by one of the usual CF-bashers.

.

Rather than "CF Bashers" I prefer to call these people "truth providers".

Cactusflower wrote:

Snman wrote:Cactusflower, jhunter answered your question regarding the other valid point for me. I am not sure if you thought I was poking fun at you when I said "Hmmm, was it a seniors facility?" but I wasn't. Further, I see no need to be facetious with me with a comment about your 'wooden computer' or whatever it was. I don't recall saying anything to you about that. I was trying to have a reasonable discussion here but if you are going to assume that everyone is out to ridicule you or question your opinion then all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say wth. I guess you have the upper hand. Sheesh.

Judging by some of the submissions since yours, it's quite obvious who has 'the upper hand', and it's not me. And I wasn't referring to you when I mentioned the 'wooden computer' comment. That was submitted by one of the usual CF-bashers. I apologize if it sounded like I blamed you for it.

BTW, I'd like to thank everyone who considered the source of the link I provided.

Alright CF. No problem.

Here's an article written by Jack Mintz in the Financial Post that might explain why we should be concerned about Chinese SOEs taking over our companies:
http://business.financialpost.com/opini ... ese-dragon
(There's nothing racist about it.)

Cactusflower wrote:Here's an article written by Jack Mintz in the Financial Post that might explain why we should be concerned about Chinese SOEs taking over our companies:
http://business.financialpost.com/opini ... ese-dragon
(There's nothing racist about it.)

All right, thanks for linking to something that wasn't funded by George Soros. So my question to you is - why are you so passionate about hating on the Chinese? What did they ever do to you?

GB: So my question to you is - why are you so passionate about hating on the Chinese? What did they ever do to you?

I think using the term "hate" as someone's motivation for an opinion on economic discussions is glib. I can't speak for cactusflower but all we as Canadians should expect is reciprocity in foreign trade. The article posted by cactusflower makes this point.

RECIPROCITY
A successful trade deal with China requires a reciprocal bargain in foreign investment: the rules for Canadian investors over there must be no stricter than what Chinese firms face here, and vice versa. It’s only fair. Why would we negotiate an agreement that gives rights to another country but not your own? And the lack of reciprocity can fuel political opposition to trade deals, as a recent U.S. study to be published in the British Journal of Political Science reports.

Poindexter wrote:
I think using the term "hate" as someone's motivation for an opinion on economic discussions is glib.

I agree. In this case though, hatred of the Chinese hasn't been reserved just for SOE discussions. There appears to be a pattern here, and it's not pretty.

The Green Barbarian wrote:I agree. In this case though, hatred of the Chinese hasn't been reserved just for SOE discussions. There appears to be a pattern here, and it's not pretty.

I can't speak to that and will let you be the judge. I'm more interested in your opinion on whether the current arrangement between China and Canada, with regard to foreign investmentment, is reciprocal and in Canadian's best interest.

Poindexter wrote:
I can't speak to that and will let you be the judge. I'm more interested in your opinion on whether the current arrangement between China and Canada, with regard to foreign investmentment, is reciprocal and in Canadian's best interest.

I've talked to many who have done business with China, and from that real world experience, I would have to say "No".

The Green Barbarian wrote:I've talked to many who have done business with China, and from that real world experience, I would have to say "No".

I agree.

Poindexter wrote:

The Green Barbarian wrote:I've talked to many who have done business with China, and from that real world experience, I would have to say "No".

I agree.

This is what I call a 'gotcha' moment.

Cactusflower wrote:
This is what I call a 'gotcha' moment.

Or an "integrity" moment, as I told the truth. I could have lied and said no, but I told the truth. That's what happens when you tell the truth, you don't have "gotcha" moments, like you seem to have every day, due to you constantly falling into lie traps. I know there are concerns with doing business in China for Canadian companies, but I still don't see an issue with them buying AECON, retirement homes, or selling bitumen to them. As long as there are regulations in place, these companies could be owned by martians for all I care.

I can see if you have no clue how the real world works, and have never actually attempted to run a business, that this would be a binary discussion. It isn't.

The Green Barbarian wrote: I know there are concerns with doing business in China for Canadian companies,

Is it possible that I just found common ground between Cactusflower and GB?

So this is what it feels like to be Edith.