Will Ottawa’s rejection of the Potash Corp. takeover hurt the Canadian economy? - Macleans.ca

Will Ottawa’s rejection of the Potash Corp. takeover hurt the Canadian economy?


Filed under:

Will Ottawa’s rejection of the Potash Corp. takeover hurt the Canadian economy?

  1. The idea that canceling one deal will lead to our doors being clsoed to foreign investment is silly.

  2. We're a small quasi-socialist orientated country requiring a lot (sometimes too much!) of government oversight. The Canadian government should never abnegate this overall responsibility.

  3. "If You've eaten today, Thank a Farmer", "A Nation that can not Feed itself can not Long Survive", In a world that is still heading toward Massive Overpopulation with at least 2 of the Worlds largest Religion forbidding Birth Control to their people. Farm resources may well become the most valuable commodity in the world over the next century. A resource that we can ill afford to loose control of.

    This was a good choice for Canada no matter what the reason for it. Net benefit – Absolutely!

    • the threat of overpopulation is vastly overblown. the numbers we are experiencing is just a bubble (baby boomers), that is soon to pop. and when it does the population will stabilize.

  4. I doubt the potash industry will disappear overnight. The need for fertilizer around the world is so critical whoever owns the mines will not go broke. Better to have Canadian owned industry than foreign in any case.

  5. We need to retain ownership in profitable, large scale commodities. Let's not sell off all of Canada's money making ventures. This reminds me of the stupidity of selling Hwy. 407 and to add insult sold without safeguards!

  6. Its about time the government protect some of our natural resources, and keep them in Canadian hands Then we can be sure that everything is done above board and no artificial shortages occur just to drive up the price. Our agricultural system is dwindling more every year from framers giving up because they can't make money. And foreign ownership of a farming resource would not have Canadians futures in their agendas.

  7. Never mind the terminology (quasi socialist) keep in mind today's world and it's competetive nature ( when one country elbows out the another).
    Natural resources of the country (socialist or capitalist all the same) should be " NATIONAL", since it is a national resource and treasure. The country as a whole benefits from it.
    Paul.M., Thornhill

    • Canada still gets the royalties and the employment. It is irrelevant who owns the equipment and does the extraction. Or would you rather all the work be done by government employees and get half the production for twice the cost?

      • Sure Taxslave, never miss an opportunity to vilify Public Servants.

        • If the shoe fits…

        • "Public Servants" do a fine job of vilifying themselves.

      • what are you smokin must be bad stuff for saying that

  8. In the past many political leaders have drummed up political support by stoking nationalistic fever. In this case Harper didn't even have to try. While I favor neither Harper nor Ignatieff, I can't help but asking the question: Are we all becoming dummies?

  9. When the Con's killed the income trust's for Canadian's they put Canada up for sale and the world obliged us. Why quit the hollowing out sell-off with potash when we've done it too our oil companies. Too bad. Potash would've made a great trust with decent dividends.

  10. It's called screw the west. A game Ottawa has played since confederation. Along with this Prentice screwed B.C. out of a much needed copper mine that had already passed B.C. environmental approvals because of a few fish.
    If Canadians are so concerned about foreign takeovers why do they not buy shares in these companies instead of whining?

  11. I wonder how many of the people giving their opinion have had anything to do with foreign business either through investments or purchases or sales. Personally I have no idea whether the decision will hurt or not but I do believe our decision could well be unprofessional as the world has a right to know what to expect. If we expect the world to open their doors to our business we better be prepared to be equal.

  12. The deal for Potashcorp should have been between the shareholders of Potashcorp and those of BHP Billeton. Quite frankly, the governments of both Canada and Saskatchewan should butt out. How much of a tax take is enough for Canada's rapacious, wealth-destroying government juggernauts? I think that Canada's polite statism has, and will, cause many, many companies to seriously consider whether it is worth doing business in this country. Does anybody bother to ask: Why are Canadian companies so vulnerable to takeovers by foreign companies? Canadian companies are taxed and regulated so heavily that their potential for growth is suppressed to the point of being takeover bait. Potashcorp was created as a crown corporation from mines that were nationalized, that is, taken by force, in the 1970s by Saskatchewan's ultra-socialist NDP government. This blocking of the BHP takeover sends the alarming signal that those statist sentiments still lurk beneath the surface here.

    • Ottawa did the right thing. Look at the mess foreign takeovers have caused. Inco, Falconbridge, Stelco, what a nightmare! From a purely business point-of-view, it was the right decision.

      IT WAS THE EASY AND ONLY DECISION and that is why you are so pissed off because you wanted to line your pockets, well too fu**ing bad.

  13. Hey, He -Who-Calls-Himself-"The Intellectual",
    If you think "the threat of overpopulation is vastly overblown", try looking at India or China, indeed all of East Asia…and even Africa. Your so-called 'Baby Boom bubble' is mostly a western phenomena, so perhaps the numbers of people in the West will eventually stabilize….but even then, when? Even with one birth per women (which isn't happening in most countries), it would take four generations before the number of births come to equal the number of deaths….and you haven't even considered the negative economic and human consequences of the world's aging demographies.