The Stel Salaried Pensioners Organization wishes to thank The Hamilton Spectator for permission to post the following article published in the August 30, 2007 edition
Firm sell-offs stir debate
The Hamilton Spectator
(Aug 30, 2007)
The problem with heated debate is that the heat often obscures what's important. Public discussion about the sale of Stelco to U.S. Steel, first reported by The Spectator's Naomi Powell on Monday, is a case in point.
If you've been following the debate in the blogosphere and more traditional theatres, you know the arguments are broadly drawn on two extremes.
One, let's call it the nationalist side, argues this is another in a long list of sell-offs that are hollowing out corporate and industrial Canada. According to this side, we're being sold off piece by piece, and soon will be little more than a branch plant for U.S. and other multinational corporations. The North American Free Trade Agreement opened the door and successive governments have moved farther down the road opening our economy to foreign investment to an alarming degree.
There's much to dispute about the nationalist argument. It paints Canada overall as a victim of globalization, and the facts don't support that. It suggests we're somehow more afflicted than other jurisdictions where creeping globalization has had disruptive effects. The very same concerns being voiced here about businesses such as Stelco are being heard across the United States, where American firms are being bought up by non-U.S. interests, some of them Canadian.
But most of all, the nationalist argument ignores reality. If, in some act of political extremism, a Canadian government decided to step away from globalization, it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny under international law. The domestic economic and international consequences would be disastrous. In the case of Stelco, this position also fails the reality test in that it suggests the status quo was a better option for the company's future than being sold to U.S. Steel. Anyone who's lived through Stelco's recent tribulations knows that's not true, either.
The other side of this debate is not without its own flaws. The unfettered globalists argue all this, and more. They say the fact that Canadian head offices are increasingly located in foreign countries doesn't matter, and that anyone concerned about foreign ownership need only buy shares in the multinational, hence increasing Canadian ownership a share at a time. Canadian companies that can compete, such as Research in Motion and Bombardier, should do so, and those that can't will and should be gobbled up by bigger companies that can cut it.
But where is the line in the sand, if there is one? Surely some degree of domestic ownership is necessary to ensure national self-determination. Surely we don't want all corporate decision making removed from the Canadian context. If unfettered globalism is the answer, shouldn't historically protected sectors such as banking, media and transportation be opened up as well?
There are no simple answers. But it's a safe bet that the questions need to be asked and debated, hopefully with a little less heat and extremism than is currently at play.
Editorials are written by members of the editorial board. They represent the position of the newspaper, not necessarily the individual author.