Slashdot Mirror


Canada Blocks Sale of Space Tech Company To US

Dave Knott writes "The Canadian federal government has blocked the $1.3-billion sale of the space technology division of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates to Alliant Techsystems, a major US defense contractor. Industry Minister Jim Prentice is quoted as saying he is 'not satisfied' the sale will be a net benefit for Canada. MDA is Canada's leading developer of space-based technology, including the famous CanadArm and the recently installed space station robot Dextre."

33 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Ha ha ha! by Van+Cutter+Romney · · Score: 5, Funny

    Suckers!

    Now we have maple syrup, caribou, ice hockey AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY!!

    --
    Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
    1. Re:Ha ha ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I say the Canadian Gov should use CanadArm brand new finger to show what they think of the deal to the US.

    2. Re:Ha ha ha! by evil+agent · · Score: 5, Funny

      Damnit, why didn't you guys try this hard to keep Celine Dion, too?

      Oh, wait, I know why...

      --
      End transmission.
  2. Net benefit? by Xelios · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is the sale of a Canadian company to US interests ever a net benefit for Canada? I've lost track of the companies that used to be Canadian owned, even a part of Canada's national identity (Tim Hortons), that have been sold off to make a penny.

    --
    Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    1. Re:Net benefit? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is the sale of a Canadian company to US interests ever a net benefit for Canada? I've lost track of the companies that used to be Canadian owned, even a part of Canada's national identity (Tim Hortons), that have been sold off to make a penny.

      Don't feel bad. We can make the same claim, like this:

      How is the sale of an American company to Chinese interests ever a net benefit for the U.S.? I've lost track of the companies that used to be U.S.-owned, even a part of America's national identity, that have been sold off to make a penny.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Net benefit? by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...even a part of Canada's national identity (Tim Hortons)... Huh?
      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    3. Re:Net benefit? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How is the sale of a Canadian company to US interests ever a net benefit for Canada?

      Why exactly should it have to be a net benefit for anyone except McDonald, Dettwiler, and their associates (i.e. whoever the owners of the company may happen to be)? What right exactly does the government have to stop a sale like that? Is "ownership" one of those American concepts like "free speech" that the Canadians don't care for these days?

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    4. Re:Net benefit? by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One possible reason: because they paid a lot of money to US shareholders for that wasn't worth that much? I.E. Net inflow of cash exceeds the value of what was purchased.

      Now the proceeds from the sale can be used to invest in other interests.

      Or in the case of mergers: the merging was presumably done because it was in the companies' shareholders best interests.

      There are shareholders are in the US. Increased profits to shareholders is a benefit to the US-based shareholders. And to the US government who will get to collect the taxes from the eventual dividend increases and the eventual capital gain resulting from US-based shareholders selling shares (that have increased value as a result of what happened to the business after it was sold to a chinese company).

    5. Re:Net benefit? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, this is the Harper government. They would probably consider the sale of entire provinces to be a net benefit for Canada simply because it might make the US happy.

      Depends on the province. The ROC (Rest of Canada) would probably vote to sell Quebec to the US, but the US already has too many people who "refuse to speak english like God intended them to." Besides, Americans are still pissed off about our tricking them into taking Celine Dion.

    6. Re:Net benefit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative


      I believe federal regulations require any sale about $295mil to foreign entities be approved. A similar mechanism is likely in place south of the border (e.g., IBM sale to Lenovo, US ports sale to Dubai Inc(?)). It would be foolish to not analyse very large sales to foreign countries.

      MDA was/is heavily subsidized by the government.

      MDA owns/controls RADARSAT II which surveys the north which is a contentious issue. Transferring ownership could have massive future implications for land or waterway claims especially if the new owners block access to the satellite.

      ---- I haven't paid much attention but those are the minor bits that I have gathered.

    7. Re:Net benefit? by B3ryllium · · Score: 4, Informative

      They were wholly-owned by Wendy's Corporation for a few years. Just recently spun off into their own entity.

    8. Re:Net benefit? by pokerdad · · Score: 2, Informative

      Please tell me you have your tongue planted firmly in your cheek when you say that a beer brewery, a donut shop chain and a hockey team are part of Canada's national identity.

      I wish that were true, especially in light of the fact that some of the companies I mentioned became part of our "national identity" basically through telling us that they were. Here's a break down...

      • Laura Secord - a chocolate company; its sale to the US was largely considered an outrage because the founder choose to name his company after the girl whose actions saved (the british colonies of) Canada from invasion by the US in 1812.
      • Molson - a beer company; there are some legitamate reasons why it might be part of our national identity - it is North America's oldest brewery, but those historical reasons have nothing to do with why people were pissed off; basically for years Molson had being running tv spots that said nothing about their product, but instead were patriotic messages (Joe Canada being the worst of these)
      • Tim Hortons - a donut company; unlike the previous two, it didn't really try to be patriotic, it just was uber successful; perhaps the biggest reason it has been seen as a national symbol is that depite the influx of American brands such as Starbucks, Tim Hortons has remain the most popular brand in the country (though not in all regions). It likely didn't hurt that its named after a hockey player, and its spokesman is a hockey player too.
      • Montreal Canadians - a hockey team; while I agree its pathetic, is it really surprising that a nation of hockey lovers would consider the most successful pro hockey team in the country, that is named after the country, would be considered a patriotic symbol? Heck, I've never liked the Habs, and my stomach turned a little when I heard about their sale.
      • Hudson Bay Company - a department store chain; this one actually is legitamate. HBC didn't start out as a department store chain, but rather as a fur trading company, and their efforts in northern and western Canada are largely resposibly for it being settled in a timely manner; many of the major cities in western Canada were founded by HBC as fur trading posts.

      Perhaps the only thing more pathetic than the fact we identify ourselves as a nation by these companies is that this list was just the ones who sold out; there are plenty more that have not; Canadian Tire is probably more a source of patriotism than any of the companies I named before.

  3. Re:If they want to sell and cant? by Van+Cutter+Romney · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, if it were that simple we'd be moving companies to every frikkin' place we see opportunity, wouldn't we? Companies need regulatory approval before they can merge. This is more strictly so if they are defense contractors because you don't want other countries knowing your military secrets.

    Heck, Google and DoubleClick needed approval from both US and EU Regulatory authorities before they could merge. That's because even though they are US based countries, they operate all around the world.

    --
    Help a man when he is in trouble and he will remember you when he is in trouble again.
  4. Real Reason by ArIck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This was the 'real' reason for lack of sale:

    We at Canada have a policy of selling any weapons to rogue states. That is why when everyone was busy selling arms to states at war we Canada stayed at the fringes. Now, we believe the actions of the US government and its policies are detrimental to the democratic progress. We believe they could either lead to external aggression (most likely) and internal repression. Thus the Canadian government has decided not to sell the space technology to the United States.

    P.S: US please dont take this seriously, we still love you, eh.

    1. Re:Real Reason by shma · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just think of the damage the US could do with the Canadarm. That's right... GIANT WEDGIES FROM SPACE!

      --
      I came here for a good argument
    2. Re:Real Reason by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hmm, last time the US and Canada had a war, didn't Washington DC get torched? ;)

  5. Well, they had a tin ear for public relations... by rbrander · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except for the one valid complaint that the government had helped this company along with a lot of support, I don't think anybody's even pretending that this is a justified intervention in the free market. (Whether Canadians have ever bought a US company that previously received lots of US government grants, contracts and other support, would be interesting; I'd be surprised if it *hadn't* happened, though).

    But alas, it was tin-eared in the extreme to announce this just as Dextre was being installed and everybody's nationalistic pride in the company was at a peak. We've been smiling with pride every time a shuttle image showed the flag and name on the CanadArm for 20 years or so; and Dextre, another order of magnitude more impressive a technology, had us all rubbing our hands with pride and glee.

    Then the owners do their best to give everybody an image of them saying "Thanks for the free help, suckers! We're selling out and off to Brazil with your cash!" This result was then predictable.

    If they'd waited a year or two, perhaps couched it in terms of allowing the company to go on to greater achievements through partnering, maybe tossed out a few promises of continued location in Canada and all Canadian jobs totally safe (promises you can always break a few years later, it's not like PR is legally binding), they could have gotten away with it.

    Now, they can't wait a few years and try again because the issue's been raised and the media will hype it up again unless they wait at least 10 years. And this was, by the way, our *Conservative*, pro-business party. Any chance of a future Liberal government allowing this one is much dimmer still.

  6. canadas on strike by drfrog · · Score: 2

    no doubt aboot it

    --
    back in the day we didnt have no old school
  7. Pfft... rogue state by OMNIpotusCOM · · Score: 3, Funny

    Would a rogue state has a cache of nuclear weapons at its disposal? Would they have a leader who acquired his mantle against the will of the people and assumes all power, all the while actual elected officials are powerless to stop? Do rogue states invade soverign countries for no particular reason and overthrow their government?

    You show me a country with those qualifications and I'll show you a rogue state!

    -1 flamebait, +2 insightful, +1 funny... take that mod!

  8. So I guess that means by sokoban · · Score: 2, Funny

    They're not our fwiends, buddy.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    1. Re:So I guess that means by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm not your buddy, guy!

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  9. Re:If they want to sell and cant? by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, it's not the company's choice. They've received a LOT of funding from the Canadian government, as did their predecessor.

    It's the same as the sale of US ports to outsiders.

  10. Re:Well, they had a tin ear for public relations.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The issue is not with Dextre or the CanadArm. The issue is with Radarsat 2, which contains sensitive technology which is used by the Government of Canada to monitor and assert our claims of sovereignty over the Arctic.

    Claims which the Government of the U.S. doesn't recognize. The fear is that if the technology and control of the tech is sold to a U.S. company, the U.S. government will be able to control what the Canadian Government sees - allowing, for instance, U.S. warships to use the Northwest Passage without informing the Government of Canada.

    It has very little to do with nationalistic pride, and more to do with national security. Ask yourself, would the U.S. Government allow a company that developed and operates the spy-satelite network to be sold to a foreign power? It would never happen. Hell, you can't even export anything that uses encryption in the U.S. - which you can do in Canada.

  11. divergence of interest... by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Forget that this is precious high technology that can, and has had spin-offs in the past.
    Forget that Canada produced the world's first digital telecommunications satellite. Forget all the jobs and knowledge that will gradually melt south of the border. forget it.

    It's much more basic than that. There is a long-time border dispute with the americans, we think the waters between arctic islands are Canadian waters, the US claims they aren't. The Americans have nuclear submarines, we don't. Now with the ice melting, http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=8df15e06-e40d-42da-b42e-61c0d0713260

    there is a navigable channel shaping up that could take weeks off the time to ship from asia to europe. and there's oil up there, http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2006/01/arctic-circle-canadas-not-kidding.html
    too.

    One of the main uses of RADARSAT for Canada is to replace aerial reconnaissance for Ice forecasting. they can, I imagine, spot submarines as well, since the Americans, supposedly our closest ally, refused to launch them. So they were launched on Russian vehicles.

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071025164751AAOF6Ur

    http://www.studentsonice.com/blog/?p=79

    We like our arctic, it is ours. We'd like the tax revenue from any oil that is pumped out of there. we'd like the revenue from a major shipping lane, so declaring it international waters is a problem for us. We can't afford to build nuclear submarines...

    So it would be pretty @#%$@^%@ stupid to sell this company to a US arms manufacturer, which is, at the very least, clearly beholden to the US government for contracting.

  12. Re:Well, they had a tin ear for public relations.. by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I call b.s. This isn't just a publicity problem, this is a real-politik problem.

    This is about arctic sovereignty and billions in future tax revenue. This isn't a political issue. No political party has ever turned down the prospect of future tax base.

    RADARSAT II, which the americans pointedly refused to launch, is what we use to patrol our artic waters. Giving the Americans, the keys, the plans, and the ability to just delay things to death is beyond stupid from a strategic perspective.

  13. Re:Why did the US buy Canada's robots? by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because even the US doesn't have infinite funds, so when they went begging for help with the shuttle, Canada said, just like Americans would: sure, we'll help, but we want the economic benefits at home. so we built the arm as our contribution to the shuttle program, and now dextre as our main contribution to the space station.

  14. Re:Well, they had a tin ear for public relations.. by JohnWiney · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is a bunch more to this, which never seems to make the press coverage. Radarsat2 was originally to have been a US-Canada partnership. But then the US realized that it would provide the kind of coverage of the US that the US now has of other countries - something it decided was unacceptable. The US withdrew, refused to supply some key components, and refused to provide the launch. The satellite was redesigned to use alternate components, and launched on a European rocket. So now the US is trying an alternate approach to recovering control of the situation.

  15. It's not over yet by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    They get to take another kick at selling out in 30 days, when they report back to the Minister. If the press hadn't got hold of this, it would already be a done deal.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  16. Re:Ok by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Informative

    The US doesn't block this kind of thing on sovereignty grounds -- although to be fair it may be because the current administration doesn't understand that US sovereignty has any geographic limits...

    I call bullshit. See what would happen if Lockheed Martin tried to build their new fighter planes in a different country. Or sell off their satellite division to another country. It would go over like a lead balloon in a wind storm. Of course that wouldn't happen, the U.S. would never let companies sell off that kind of technology to another country.

    Note that there is a historic sensitivity in Canada to selling off to other countries or otherwise dismantling high tech companies. Especially when said companies that could place the country in a very competitive place, economically and in a technical sense. Canada severely shot itself in the foot before... the pain just subsided over the past decade or so.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  17. Re:Well, they had a tin ear for public relations.. by wigaloo · · Score: 4, Informative
    There's more.

    The construction of Radarsat II was mostly funded by Canadian taxpayers through the Canadian Space Agency and gifted to MDA. The financial details are given at http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/resources/publications/rpp-2008-annexes.asp. It is not chump change we are talking about: $421.6M (expected).

    MDA is the 800 lb gorilla in the Canadian space industry. In addition to building the Radarsats, Canadarm and Dextre, MDA also built the MET station and lidar (laser radar) system that is on the Phoenix Mars Scout which will land on Mars this May 25. Losing MDA would be akin to the US losing Lockheed Martin. It could quite possibly destabilize the whole Canadian space industry, and so the Government was right to intervene.

    Of course, there are reasons why a sale was made in the first place. The Canadian Space Agency's budget has been stagnant for years, and this has had a big impact on MDA. Hopefully the Government steps up and reinvests in Canada's space industry again given that they prevented the sale alternative.

  18. Re:Well, they had a tin ear for public relations.. by going_the_2Rpi_way · · Score: 3, Informative

    Absolutely. The U.S. disputes Canadian sovereingty in the high arctic. The U.S. also disputes Canadian sovereignty over national resources like oil and softwood lumber. Taking our raw resources without letting us cut trees into lumber or refine the oil ourselves (and the associated jobs) is not a good indication the U.S. 'likes you guys' as much as they 'like your resources'. Heck, you even want Canadian freshwater for frig's sake. Open up NAFTA. Go ahead. See what happens when you actually have to bid on that oil. Remember AVRO? Of course you don't. So here's the fear: a U.S. company gets ownership of Radarsat2, and the U.S. government prevents them from selling real-time images of the high north that show U.S. boats navigating the northwest passage or otherwise violating what Canada considers to be sovereign territory (territory, by the way, that the US also considered to Canadian-sovereign until the probability of large oil and other reserves became evident). Countries don't have friends, as we are so often told by your diplomats, they have interests. Selling Radarsat-2 is clearly not in our interest. Also, selling a finished, successfully launched and proven technology paid for by Canadian taxpayers in a finished form that is literally just coming online (and about to pay dividends) makes no sense at all.

  19. Re:Ok by gobbo · · Score: 3, Informative

    It`s not just about sovereignty, first of all, and it isn`t a strictly private company: the canadian taxpayer subsidized this program, something like a billion dollars (real numbers are unclear). We just don`t want to be ripped off.

    Considering that it`s the little friendly nation next door with a small military and tons of resources, yer damn right we should be worried about our sovereignty; we`re subject to a flood of media, business purchases, and political pressure by the elephant to the south. USA farts, we notice.

    One of the biggest threats to our sovereignty right now is surveillance by your institutional conspiracy theorists, the spooks. Selling off our surveillance tech won`t help.

  20. Re:Ok by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah and contrary to what a lot of folks in the U.S. think, Canada lost more jobs to the U.S. than the U.S. did to Canada when free trade came in. Jobs that moved to states like South Carolina and Arkansas, where the labour laws are more lax and the pay way less. Then they lost the jobs to Mexico. Mind you some jobs skipped going to America and went right to Mexico. And Canada lost a lot of control over their own oil and natural gas supply. So let Obama or Clinton cancel NAFTA if they get elected. Canada can get a better deal for its oil and gas then... retain more rights on its own resources.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.