# Government Can Stop Sale of Canadian Companies on Grounds of National Security



## GAP (9 Jan 2008)

Canadarm maker fetches $1.3-billion
JANET MCFARLAND AND WENDY STUECK Globe and Mail Update January 8, 2008 at 9:13 PM EST
Article Link

MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates Ltd., the company behind the iconic Canadarm, is selling its space and satellite business to a U.S. buyer, betting its future on the far more terrestrial but profitable world of real estate data.

Although best known as a manufacturer of space products for NASA, the company says its lower-profile software operations – which track land titles, insurance and mortgages – are faster growing and have greater global potential.

MDA said it agreed to sell its space and satellite operations to Alliant Techsystems Inc. of Edina, Minn., for $1.325-billion in cash, and said it will use most of the proceeds to invest in acquisitions in the United States, Europe and Canada to build its now core information systems business.

Based in Richmond, B.C., MDA has been Canada's premier space manufacturing company for almost 30 years and is a granddaddy of Vancouver's high-technology scene, whose alumni have gone on to start and run other noted Vancouver technology companies. MDA co-founder and former chief executive officer John MacDonald, who left MDA in 1998, has called the company “the epicentre of the Canadian space industry.”

Tuesday, Mr. MacDonald said the sale was the right decision, “but emotionally, it was very difficult for them.”

He said the space group needed a new owner to keep playing in the big leagues in the huge U.S. space industry. “There is more work to be done, but not in Canada. Canada's a small economy. You can argue until hell freezes over about whether Canada should be spending money on a space program.”
More on link


----------



## CougarKing (9 Mar 2008)

The possible sale/move of MDA to the States and its effects on the Canadian defense/space industry as well as on Canadian sovereignty, as one person stated in the article said, may not be a surprise to some of you, but it certainly continues to attract the attention of the House of Commons.


----------



## stevenstaples (3 Apr 2008)

We are arguing that Canada needs this satellite for national security reasons (see our legal opinion on www.rideauinstitute.ca). All concerned about our national security and the safety of CF personnel should put aside their differences and oppose this deal. 


Col. Pierre Leblanc (ret.) (former commander of Canadian Forces Northern Area)
(CTV Question Period)
March 23, 2008
"The Prime Minister talks about sovereignty - use it or lose it. And yet we have a tool that is excellent for Arctic surveillance, monitoring of our internal waters that are contested by the Americans and other countries, and now we're going to sell this asset to an American company."

Prof. Rob Huebert (Center for Military and Strategic Studies, Univ. of Calgary)
(Globe and Mail)
March 24, 2008
"We've never thought strategically and it just astonishes me that we're probably the only country that we know of with this type of technology, and we [don't] understand its significance,"

Calgary Herald 
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
“It is wholly Canadian technology, for which there is no substitute elsewhere. Given Canada's surveillance needs, this alone would justify every cent Canadians have invested in MDA.”

Steve Staples
sstaples@rideauinstitute.ca
613 565-9449


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2008)

A few factors, in no particular order of importance:

•	Mature companies change hands on a regular basis;

•	Technology companies tend to need the US DoD at least as much as it needs them;

•	The corporation (any corporation) has an overriding fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders; and

•	Contracts are enforceable, including those we may have with MDA if or when it changes hands.

 MDA *was* a jewel Canada’s R&D crown but our R&D efforts are best pursued in:

•	Universities – which do almost *all* the *R*esearch; and

•	Private companies – as often as not the *most productive* *D*evelopment takes place in *immature* (small, start-up) companies. As a broad generalization (which are most often wrong) large, mature companies do less and less R&D and focus more and more on production.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2008)

It is very interesting that Mr Staples now sees the need for enhanced defense expenditures, since there is little or no private market for building and operating RADARSATS.

What other critical national security issues need funding as well Mr Staples? Perhaps a fully manned, well equipped, general purpose military establishment would do the job and provide those national security measures?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Apr 2008)

> All concerned about our national security and the safety of CF personnel should put aside their differences and oppose this deal.



Mr Staples,

You will have to forgive me, given your posting history and TV/Radio/Newspaper interview style, of just being the least bit skeptical of your concern for the well-being of me and my compatriots.  Now, I don't think for a second that you actively wish any of us harm.  It's just that, you think you know better than everyone who has ever worn a uniform.  You positively ooze superiority over soldiers, sailors and airmen- all without any detectable training, education or experience in military or defence matters.  You are, of course entitled to your opinion, just don't expect me to give it much weight.

Now, to the matter at hand.  I feel like disagreeing with you, just as a reflexive response, but to be honest, I don't know enough about the deal, it's background or implications to offer an informed opinion.  See how that works?

Thanks for your time.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Apr 2008)

I am of the opinion, Steven Staples left his Army.ca account logged on and some Military supporter played an April Fool's joke on him and posted using his name.  

I actually see the sale of MDA to a US company as a serious matter of concern.  As this is the best technology of its type in the world, we would loose all control of it, as well as be limited to accessing it through another nations Military.  This would mean that it could likely be denied us, or censored.

A rather interesting predicament.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Apr 2008)

Where is the satellite control element located?  At MDA in Vancouver?  In a Government Office building somewhere?  In the US?

I don't know the answer to these questions.

 I am well aware that US security regulations apply to US companies and their subsidiaries- and that can have strange effects on technology and info transfer.  It is just not clear to me in this case how much concern about the sale is over-blown Canadian Nationalistic, I-hate-the-evil-Americans-and their-arms-merchants tm rhetoric and how much is legitimate concern about control over a satellite we paid a bunch of money for.  The "taxpayer funded" bit is a bit of red herring.  It would be like criticizing the sale of GM Diesel division of London to GDLS after we bought 651 LAVs from them.  We paid money, MDA delivered a service. A business transaction, not taxpayer largess.

Honestly, part of me wants to say "block the sale", but, I have to ask, what are the second and third order effects if we do?  Are they worse than the sale itself?  Don't know...


----------



## George Wallace (3 Apr 2008)

It boils down to the access to our own technology for satellite imagery and surveys if it is controlled outside of the country, and is denied us for some reason as FOUO by the US military.  

Where it is controlled from in Canada, is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and may be OPSEC at the very least.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2008)

Everything you need to know about the RadarSat2 ground segment, including control station locations, is here.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Apr 2008)

George Wallace: I'm pretty sure it was St Steve himself--see his comment at this post at _The Torch_:

RADARSAT-2: Sound and fury... 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/04/radarsat-2-sound-and-fury_02.html

If the Canadian government needs the capability, then it should buy it itself.  If the sale is blocked that effectively guarantees that MDA in the current situation will make no further such satellites for anyone.  So does the government create its own company for future work?  In any event the sovereignty-related capability really may be needed (if then) only a decade on, by which time RADARSAT-2 will likely be on its last legs.

And a more fundamental point: supposing the Government of Canada has the imaging capability and discovers a US  (not another country's) vessel doing  something we do not like; what does the government do?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Apr 2008)

More here.:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080403/Radarsat_080403/20080403?hub=Canada

To expand on my previous comment, note that RADARSAT-2 has only an expected seven-year life span, so it will cease operating before there is likely to be any significant maritime traffic in the Arctic that might raise sovereignty concerns for Canada. If Canadians want control of any further such satellites there is a simple answer: have the government buy MDA's space operations. And see how effectively and efficiently it can run things (there would seem to be no private Canadian interest in the radar satellite business). Simply preventing the current sale will do nothing to makes the business commecially viable in the future for MDA--unless, instead of an actual government purchase, there are continuous and probably large government subsidies.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Apr 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is the latest:



> Ottawa rejects space firm's sale to U.S.
> *No 'net benefit' for Canada if MDA Corp. is sold to foreign owners, Prentice says of unprecedented stand against Alliant takeover*
> 
> BRIAN LAGHI and CAMPBELL CLARK AND JOHN PARTRIDGE
> ...



I see two key points:

_”One Conservative MP, speaking on condition he not be named, said the sale had raised a surprising backlash among Canadians, who saw it as a point of pride being peddled to the United States — which might possibly use it against Canada's claim to Arctic waters.”_ and 

_”Without access to U.S. space contracts, which make up 81 per cent of international space programs, MDA cannot thrive, and international free trade does not exist in the industry, saidJanine Symanzik, president of SPATEA, the association that represents engineers and technologists at the Brampton plant. ”_

There is now a thirty day period during which ATK can make a “better” case. If the unnamed Tory MP is correct, however, no case, no mater how good, can win the case.


Edit: last paragraph of the _Globe and mail_ article updated from the _G&M_ web site.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Apr 2008)

Quote,
_One Bay Street financial analyst, who spoke only on condition his name not be used, criticized MDA for not immediately disclosing on Tuesday that Ottawa had rejected the ATK deal.
"How can you have a $1.3-billion transaction, which is what has supported the stock price, disallowed and not issue a press release?" he asked rhetorically. "I think that is absolutely unbelievable.
"If I had bought those shares yesterday, I would be miffed," he added._

Does anyone else just want to punch him/her in the squash? >

I, for one, am happy, albeit suprised, that this decision has been made.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Apr 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> _One Bay Street financial analyst, who spoke only on condition his name not be used, criticized MDA for not immediately disclosing on Tuesday that Ottawa had rejected the ATK deal.
> "How can you have a $1.3-billion transaction, which is what has supported the stock price, disallowed and not issue a press release?" he asked rhetorically. "I think that is absolutely unbelievable.
> "If I had bought those shares yesterday, I would be miffed," he added._
> ...



No, (s)he's 100% correct. Companies have a *responsibility* to publicly, even loudly, announce news that _might_ effect share price as soon as that information is known. MDA did a disservice to investors - bad management. Management's overarching duty, above all else, it towards the shareholders; MDA's management failed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Apr 2008)

Oopsy......I thought I read 'MND" not 'MDA".

I thought this person was blaming Mr. McKay.

Pay attention, Monkhouse


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Apr 2008)

I see one dilemma for government in this statement by Janine Symanzik, president of SPATEA, the association that represents engineers and technologists at the Brampton plant:



> Without access to U.S. space contracts, which make up 81 per cent of international space programs, MDA cannot thrive, and international free trade does not exist in the industry.



At $1.3± Billion MDA is not an especially big player in the global space industry but it may be an important *Canadian* company and, if its sale to a US firm is blocked, a Canadian company with _*some*_ claim for support from the Government of Canada which will have denied it a chance to grow and prosper in the USA.

How does Canada keep a space company busy if some substantial share of its market is denied to it by US laws? Do we put the CSA into the space *business* à la CNES? Do we start building a military space based surveillance/warning/control system, which, in my opinion, we need?


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an _on point_ *editorial*:

My emphasis added.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080411.EMDA11/TPStory/Opinion/editorials


> * THE RADARSAT-2 SALE*
> Canada holds on to a place in space
> 
> April 11, 2008
> ...



As people with an interest in national security we, Army.ca members, should share the _Globe and Mail_’s concerns.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is a contrary view by Terence Corcoran that focuses on the lack of focus in Canadian space policy and programmes and the distinctly anti-American bias evident in the most public opponents of he MDA sale:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=436521


> Canada's expensive buy-in into the space game
> *Forget national security, Ottawa is blocking MDA's sale for another reason*
> 
> Terence Corcoran, National Post  Published: Friday, April 11, 2008
> ...



A couple of points:

First: I agree with Corcoran that, absent some huge changes in Canada’s national science and space policies and programmes, MDA’s shareholders are being condemned to the destruction of their assets in order to satisfy the ignorant, knee-jerk anti-Americanism of the economically illiterate majority;

Second: There’s nothing wrong with Minister Prentice’s _first person_ language. He is taking _ownership_ of the file – simultaneously shielding he PM from criticism from he US administration and strengthening is own leadership position in the Conservative Party of Canada; and

Third: While it is (sadly) true that Canada abandoned its (very tentative) rocketry programmes back in the ‘70s, we were a space pioneer – we became the third _space-faring_ nation when _Alouette_ (designed and built by the Defence Research Telecommunications Establishment (DRTE) (now the Communications Research Centre thanks to a power grab by Trudeau’s Communications Minister Gérard Pelletier in 1973) was launhed in 1962 – and we remain an important _space-faring_ nation today, despite inept government policies that, consistently, sacrifice the national interst on the alter of the _pogey_ and our “sacred trust” social programmes.


----------



## Flip (11 Apr 2008)

I know it's usually bad form to disagree with the smart kids in the class, but sorry Edward.



> First: I agree with Corcoran that, absent some huge changes in Canada’s national science and space policies and programmes, MDA’s shareholders are being condemned to the destruction of their assets in order to satisfy the ignorant, knee-jerk anti-Americanism of the economically illiterate majority;



I gotta' disagree.

As a small technology business owner I have had a front row seat to the "musical chairs" of foreign  buyouts.  I've seen many of my colleagues and friends suddenly find themselves unemployed when the technology enterprize (many supported with public money) they work for gets acquired and run into the ground or simply disbanded. As this history has repeated itself over and over in the past 25 years, I have a very hard time believing in a happy outcome if MDA were sold.

We've had a large number of these repeats of history in Edmonton.
And it has NEVER benefited Edmonton or my business.

I'm not Anti-American in the least.  I just don't like how corporations handle technology assets.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> I know it's usually bad form to disagree with the smart kids in the class, but sorry Edward.
> 
> I gotta' disagree.
> 
> ...



With respect, I cannot see how blocking this sale benefits MDA's shareholders. As far as I know - and *I may well be very wrong* - MDA doesn't have any irreplaceable technology that the US must have. It needs the US market more than the US needs MDA. In that situation, if MDA's access to the US market is limited, as MDA's CEO suggested it will be, then 80% of its potential market is gone. That cannot be good for business. Life would be better for MDA's shareholders if there was a Canadian space science/technology programme that would provide a steady stream of contracts, but there isn't.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Apr 2008)

Maybe I'm missing something, or don't truly understand what's going on here.

If the US truly wants and needs this high flying spy cam, why don't they just buy one from the company.

If they don't want to do that, my other thought is that they were going to buy the firm, close the company and shelve the techology, to protect their own interests.

Am I being too simplistic? Or do I need to wrap the tinfoil tighter.

My other bother is, that after all the caterwalling from the left about the sale. The CPC agrees, stops it and then the liberal mouthpiece Mop & Pail complains about the CPC doing exactly what the outspoken nationalists wanted. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## Bane (11 Apr 2008)

I think the rub here, as was already mentioned by some, is that if RADARSAT 2 is so important to Canada's security why was it built and owned by a private company.  This is what happens to private sector assets; they get bought and sold.  This should have been from the outset a wholly government owned piece of hardware with options for the Fed's to sell image data to the private sector, not the other way around.  This, of course, is all clear with the magic of hindsight.  I believe, as it was mentioned in several news articles, that MDA has one month respond on the ruling and offer counter arguments/proposals, it is possible that RADARSAT will be taken off the table while the rest of the deal proceeds as was intended.  



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> My other bother is, that after all the caterwalling from the left about the sale. The CPC agrees, stops it and then the liberal mouthpiece Mop & Pail complains about the CPC doing exactly what the outspoken nationalists wanted. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


I don't think this is simple a lefty-righty issue and to characterize it as such is not really useful in any way.  The government shot itself in the foot a bit in on this one; they have allowed many top tier Canadian firms to be scooped up by international buyers without so much as a peep (fine, they are private firms).  All of a sudden they turn protectionist for a relatively minor (money wise) deal.  With all do respect to them they were put in a very tricky situation and it was unlikely that this was going to turn out with everyone hugging. 

      As to why they wanted to buy the space ops part of MDA.  My guess is that they wanted the capacity to build R2 like satillites or some of the specific technologies that went into it, not just the ownership/capacity of one SAT.  With that, a simple purchase of MDA would be seen as easier and cheaper than a greenfield investment, you also swallow a potential competitor at the same time.  I'd imagine Alliant's thinking is the same logic that drives most M&A, and not tinfoil hatty.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ...
> If the US truly wants and needs this high flying spy cam, why don't they just buy one from the company.
> 
> If they don't want to do that, my other thought is that they were going to buy the firm, close the company and shelve the techology, to protect their own interests.
> ...



According to ATK and MDA, or at least what I think I heard (read) ATK and MDA say, ATK wants to become a bigger player in the US space field and the fastest, easiest way to do that is to buy MDA - which already is a player. MDA has some technology (patents) that ATK needs; simple as that. My guess is that ATK would, fairly quickly, 'hollow out' MDA.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 Apr 2008)

I believe, but could well be wrong, that one of the issues was potential loss of the _data_ to be provided by RADARSAT should it be taken over by a US company.  Given American institutional xenophobia about things security-related, this was a real danger, IMHO.  I've seen enough "no foreign" US caveats in my time to know how it works.

MDA is also a defence contractor and let us not forget that.  If the shoe were on the other foot, do you think that the US government would permit the purchase of a major American defence contractor by a Canadian company, particularly if that contractor provided sensitive security data?  I don't think so, and it makes the accusations of "unfair" stemming from Minnesota politicians seem rather hollow and contradictory.


----------



## Flip (11 Apr 2008)

> With respect, I cannot see how blocking this sale benefits MDA's shareholders. As far as I know - and I may well be very wrong - MDA doesn't have any irreplaceable technology that the US must have.



I think the rub is, Shareholders are not the only stakeholders.  In a free and fair marketplace foreign ownership is fairly benign - but the field has always been tilted and without a "Canada first" attitude we can disadvantage ourselves unnecessarily when dealing with "America first" or "China first" trading partners.

I suspect that the point of the acquisition is more about eliminating a competitor than how unique the technology is.  We see this in oil related technology circles all the time.  A small start up shows great promise and is bought out, only to have the R&D department be closed or relocated to Houston or somewhere.  Purchasing market share or reducing technical uncertainty are part of the strategy too.

To assume that the market will take care of our interests if we just leave it to it's own devices is a little naive in my opinion and I think we have placed a little too much expectation in the goodwill of others. 



> In that situation, if MDA's access to the US market is limited, as MDA's CEO suggested it will be, then 80% of its potential market is gone.



MDA hasn't always been a defence contractor - And I think this comment highlights the split between how business people and technology people see the world.  To me, MDAs value is not limited too the stock value of it's existing business in it's current markets. To me, MDA's value can be related to what that body of people can accomplish in current and future markets.

To put it another way, In my own business the revenue is small and earnings have been growing but slowly.  If I had a venture-cap partner (who would naturally demand control) he would likely determine the sale of my building would provide him a tidy return and I could go flip burgers.
Or he could wait..........My interests are best served by staying in business.  I doubt he would see the point of  taking the longer view.

Just my civvie perspective. $.02


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2008)

I think Teddy Ruxpin's point is the key one, but: see this technical note on the ground segment which shows that the key TT&C (tracking, telemetry and control) and satellite stations are all in Canada (Richmond, Prince Albert, Saskatoon, Gatineau and St. Hubert). It is pretty hard for the US to control the data when it is being downloaded into Canadian sites.

MDA’s responsibilities are towards its shareholders. If the Government of Canada wants to be one all it needs to do is buy in.

If MDA is to survive as a space company (it’s not really much of a defence contractor, in my opinion) then it needs access to space markets. If it cannot access the US market then it must find enough work to survive and prosper in the rest of the world. There isn’t much purely Canadian work right now. But: I believe Canada needs a space based, non-geostationary orbit based, surveillance, warning and control system – which will need to be renewed every seven to ten years – that’s enough work to keep a company bigger and better more capable than MDA busy enough to make good profits for a long, long time.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (12 Apr 2008)

Posted with the usual disclaimers.

All I have to say is, "It's about time someone stood up and said NO" to the selling of all our technology to foreign buyers!

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080410%2fradarsat_prentice_080411

 [quote*]Industry Minister Jim Prentice said Friday that decisions about foreign takeovers will now be viewed with the goal of ensuring that Canada retains sovereign control of its technological toolbox. * 

Speaking in St. Hubert, Que. at the Canadian Space Agency, Prentice offered his clearest statement so far on how business will be done. 

"We need to own our technology and the intellectual property that comes with it,'' the prepared text of his speech reads. 

"If we do not do this, we will not reap the benefits of our work and our investments; we will not build for the future in a way that keeps us at the forefront of innovation in a knowledge economy." 

The speech came one day after Prentice rejected a deal that would have seen Canada's largest space technology firm sold to an American arms maker, saying the proposed deal wouldn't provide net benefits to Canada. 

Prentice has sent a formal rejection letter to Alliant Techsystems Inc. (ATK), a U.S. company that has been trying to purchase a division of MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates, the Canadian firm responsible for the Radarsat 2 satellite, Canadarm, and the space robot Dextre. 

Prentice told ATK the sale will not be allowed unless the company can offer new and compelling information. 

Officially, ATK has 30 days to come up with the evidence. But Prentice's speech on Friday made it sound like the decision was final. 

Prentice undertook efforts this week to tighten the regulations around foreign takeovers. And he said he would apply a "national security test" that would ensure companies with foreign ownership would be required to operate under the same standards as those that are domestically owned. 

A foreign competition panel has also been established under Lynton Wilson, former head of BCE Inc. The panel has a tight timeline, commissioned to report on the issue of foreign takeovers by June 30. 

The government seems determined to put a stop to the trend that has seen once-proud Canadian companies bought out by U.S. investors, such as Inco, Falconbridge and Hudson's Bay Co. 

But some who are directly affected by Prentice's decision to block the sale felt his speech Friday was short on good news for workers whose jobs may have depended on the deal. 

Robert Quintal, CAW local president for MDA, told CTV's Mike Duffy Live he wanted to hear the government commit to ensuring MDA remains competitive. 

"We were hoping to hear there would be a reasonable amount of money spent from the Canadian government into providing business for MDA and work -- new developments, new projects. And some sort of guarantee that the amount of money the Canadian government spends on space in general is adequate to keep the employees employed, basically," Quintal said. 

Janine Symanzuik, of the employees' association at MDA's Brampton, Ont. facility, agreed Canada's space industry requires an investment to remain competitive and sustainable. 

"The U.S. is 81 per cent of the world's space budget and we believe that to have access to those opportunities we need this sale to go through," she told Mike Duffy Live. 

On Friday, Prentice extolled the strength of Canada's space industry, especially the value of Radarsat-2 -- the satellite owned by MDA. Prentice said it will help protect Canada's claim over the Arctic. 

If the U.S. deal were to go through, critics have warned, Canada could lose control and access to that technology, which Prentice said produces clearer, faster images and can "survey an area more precisely, which makes it a superior tool for tracking ships navigating our waterways." 

Even opposition critics have applauded the unprecedented decision. 

"When the Canadian taxpayer puts $445 million into a satellite that launches on Dec. 14 and the company seals the agreement to sell it to the Americans on the next business day, that's an extraordinary case,'' Liberal industry critic Scott Brison told The Canadian Press. 

"As well, the satellite was developed to protect Canadian sovereignty (in the North) that the Americans don't recognize, so to sell it to the Americans would be perverse." 

*But not everyone agrees. Jim Ramstad, a Minnesota congressman representing the area where ATK is based, told The Globe and Mail he was troubled by the move. 

"I find the blocking of the MDA takeover by the Canadian government outrageous. It's a slap in the face from one of our closest allies," Ramstad told The Globe. * 
Paul Cellucci, former U.S. ambassador to Canada, told Mike Duffy Live he feels it's premature to cancel the deal. Cellucci said he's confident a compromise could be reached that would benefit all the parties involved. 

[/quote]


----------



## CougarKing (12 Apr 2008)

Duplicate thread, since subject already covered below:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/71783.0.html

Mods, please merge.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Apr 2008)

So- now that the Gov't has created a stranded Canadian market for the space industry, a multi-billion dollar spending package on space technology bought from MDA and a few other Canadian companies should be forthcoming any day now to keep them in business, right?

Right?


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2008)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So- now that the Gov't has created a stranded Canadian market for the space industry, a multi-billion dollar spending package on space technology bought from MDA and a few other Canadian companies should be forthcoming any day now to keep them in business, right?
> 
> Right?



That’s it; exactly right!

But see this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=440245


> Support, but no cash for space
> *Prentice On MDA*
> 
> Jan Ravensberge, Canwest News Service  Published: Saturday, April 12, 2008
> ...



All aid short of help will be forthcoming, it appears.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Apr 2008)

Yes.  Far better to slowly kill MDA than let those stinky Americans own it...   :


----------



## Kyu (20 Apr 2008)

From today's Userfriendly comic :


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2008)

Even a broken clock is “right” twice a day so, now and again, even Prof. Michael Byers must be “right.” Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an example of that phenomenon:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080423.wcomda23/BNStory/specialComment/home


> * Commentary*
> Space fallout: We need an explicit security test
> *In the post-9/11 world, foreign investors want our rules to be clear*
> 
> ...




Prof. Byers has missed one key issue: trade, including trade policy and “tests” does not belong in the _Foreign Affairs_ domain. We need to return Trade and Commerce to the Industry domain – as it was, explicitly from 1969 until 1983. It was, maybe still is fashionable to play _let’s pretend_ ‘realpolitik’ and assume that we are a cheerfully  mercantilist state – that’s not true. We are a _laissez faire_ economy in a confused world – an unhealthy mix of old fashioned mercantilists, protectionists and laissez faire free traders.

But, he is right in saying that we can and must establish clear, defensible ‘tests’ of the _national good_ in trade and investment matters. Even laissez faire free traders are entitled to protect themselves but they need to do so in an open and honest manner.

Being a lawyer, Prof. Byers cannot resist going a step to far. We do not need  “an independent body to review foreign takeovers expeditiously and provide reasoned recommendations.” We already have too many of them. The Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce could rule, advised by his own, expert civil servants, and explain his rulings clearly.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Apr 2008)

E.R. Campbell: Quite.  I almost fell off my chair after reading a piece by the good professor that did not leave me seething.  But I don't see that ever happening with his evil twin, Steve Staples.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/12/prof-byers-self-psychotherapy.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/conference-of-defence-associations-vs.html
http://www.rideauinstitute.ca/site/c.doIELOOuGnF/b.3348215/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is MDA’s response:

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=483007


> MDA sale ban would cost Canada jobs
> 
> Nathan VanderKlippe, Financial Post
> 
> ...



There is a precondition, I think for a _spacefaring_ nation – and Canada is one of the pioneers in that field – to have (a) _national champion_ company (companies): a _*national*_ space programme.

I think there are some military requirements in the surveillance, warning and control domain.

Just as it is conventional wisdom amongst engineers to say that “you cannot manage what you cannot measure,” so should it be for politicians, bureaucrats and soldiers to say “you cannot control what you cannot see” and the way we ‘see’ our vast, lightly populated territory and the contiguous waters and the airspace over both is from space – specifically from satellites in non-geostationary orbits.

Meeting that requirement, *if* politicians, bureaucrats and solders agree that it is a valid requirement, would be a neat, Canadian ‘fix’ for MDA’s dilemma.

(You may recall that some satellites are put in orbit about 35,000 km above the earth where they orbit the planet at the same speed as the earth rotates thus being ‘parked’ above a point on the ground – on the equator, actually. The problem is that the _footprint_ of these satellites ends, for Canada, at about Eureka (80o13’ N/86o11’W) and there is a bunch of Canada beyond that footprint.)


----------



## Flip (1 May 2008)

ER!
Now we agree!

A Canadian, "Canada First" space program would be exactly what I would want to see.

An desirable alternate would be a change in US law to allow for CANADIAN suppliers.
I would prefer not to reward Americans for this particular law by selling off MDA.

As Canadians we do have seperate intersets and something to offer in world of technology.
Better to offer what we have on our terms.


----------



## a_majoor (1 May 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is a precondition, I think for a _spacefaring_ nation – and Canada is one of the pioneers in that field – to have (a) _national champion_ company (companies): a _*national*_ space programme.



I don't normally disagree with your points, but what you are suggesting is dangerously close to the protectionist cult of corporate welfare that gave us such "national champions" as Bombardier



> I think there are some military requirements in the surveillance, warning and control domain.



You are absolutely correct there, but in the absence of a well defined and well funded Canadian program to do so, there is no need to hamstring MDA. Indeed, the real danger is the best and brightest who work at MDA will migrate to real companies which are able to offer challenging and ongoing projects, leaving behind a hollow shell which will not even be able to meet the goals you suggest. (The claim that we are preserving intellectual property is irrelevant, you need an actual intellect at the wheel to make it function. The loss of critical skills due to the team disbanding and atrophy will cancel out any perceived benefit from holding on to the files; technologies which can be replicated in any event by competitors who have an eye on the prize). 



> (You may recall that some satellites are put in orbit about 35,000 km above the earth where they orbit the planet at the same speed as the earth rotates thus being ‘parked’ above a point on the ground – on the equator, actually. The problem is that the _footprint_ of these satellites ends, for Canada, at about Eureka (80o13’ N/86o11’W) and there is a bunch of Canada beyond that footprint.)



One interesting footnote is satellites can be in "inclined" equatorial orbits. Seen from the ground, the satellite will make a "figure eight" pattern in the sky every 24 hours, crossing the equator at the same point and thus observing both the northern and southern hemispheres. Other types of orbits are possible, perhaps the most useful being the very eccentric orbit pioneered by the former Soviet Union where the satellite was timed to reach maximum altitude, visibility and dwell time over the target area and minimum altitude on the opposite side of the world. 

Of course all this is moot without the desire to do so, the will to make it happen and the ability to react to the data such satellites (or other means of surveillance like UAV's or Canadian Rangers) provide.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I don't normally disagree with your points, but what you are suggesting is dangerously close to the protectionist cult of corporate welfare that gave us such "national champions" as Bombardier
> 
> You are absolutely correct there, but in the absence of a well defined and well funded Canadian program to do so, there is no need to hamstring MDA. Indeed, the real danger is the best and brightest who work at MDA will migrate to real companies which are able to offer challenging and ongoing projects, leaving behind a hollow shell which will not even be able to meet the goals you suggest. (The claim that we are preserving intellectual property is irrelevant, you need an actual intellect at the wheel to make it function. The loss of critical skills due to the team disbanding and atrophy will cancel out any perceived benefit from holding on to the files; technologies which can be replicated in any event by competitors who have an eye on the prize).
> 
> ...



I don't think we are disagreeing.

There's nothing inherently wrong with _*national champions*_ so long as there is sufficient useful work, which they win on a fair, businesslike basis, to sustain them. There is none, or, at least very little, in Canada today so you are right, we should not hamstring MDA by subjecting them to the death of a thousand cuts.

If we want to control our territory, contiguous waters and airspace then we need to be able to 'see' it all - all the time. But, at the current rate of growth, around 2% per year, year after year, *the defence budget will be unable to sustain the current forces in being* - there is not enough money for what we have now, there is none for new capabilities.


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 May 2008)

Bad decision:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080509.wradarsat0509/BNStory/Front



> Hours after issuing his final veto on the proposed $1.3-billion sale of MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates' space division to an American defence contractor, Industry Minister Jim Prentice said Friday his government will work hard to gain full access to U.S. markets on behalf of MDA and other Canadian firms.
> 
> *“Lack of market access should not be a reason for Canadian firms to move to other countries or for Canadians to sell their business to foreigners,”*  [emphasis added--but it may well be an unpleasant reality] Mr. Prentice said at a news conference.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (9 May 2008)

How it will end:

1. One branch of the American Military or Intelligence will realize that a RADARSAT would be just the thing to meet their needs.
2. US Aerospace companies will scramble to create some version of the technology. MDA may be approached for patent rights, but radar is radar, so most companies will be able to create a comparable system without infringing on any patent or technology rights. MDA is unable to enter the competition since they are not a US company and have difficulty ramping up to meet ITAR and other restrictions.
3. US RADARSAT becomes operational
4. Some future Canadian government decides a RADARSAT of their own would be nice
5. MDA is underbid by an American Aerospace firm, "our" satellite is a dumbed down version of the one used by the CIA, NSA, US Navy, NOAA or US weather service, and launches uneventfully from Vandenberg AFB. 
6. MDA declares bankruptcy and closes.


----------



## George Wallace (9 May 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> How it will end:
> 
> 1. One branch of the American Military or Intelligence will realize that a RADARSAT would be just the thing to meet their needs.
> 2. US Aerospace companies will scramble to create some version of the technology. MDA may be approached for patent rights, but radar is radar, so most companies will be able to create a comparable system without infringing on any patent or technology rights. MDA is unable to enter the competition since they are not a US company and have difficulty ramping up to meet ITAR and other restrictions.
> ...



How it will end?

Well, there are some flaws in you statements.  Lets see what happens if we change a word or two.

1. One branch of the American Military or Intelligence will realize that a RADIO would be just the thing to meet their needs.
2. US Aerospace companies will scramble to create some version of the technology. MDA may be approached for patent rights, but radio waves are  radio waves, so most companies will be able to create a comparable system without infringing on any patent or technology rights. MDA is unable to enter the competition since they are not a US company and have difficulty ramping up to meet ITAR and other restrictions.
3. US RADIO becomes operational
4. Some future Canadian government decides a RADIO of their own would be nice
5. MDA is underbid by an American Aerospace firm, "our" satellite is a dumbed down version of the one used by the CIA, NSA, US Navy, NOAA or US weather service, and launches uneventfully from Belarus as previous ones were. 
6. MDA declares bankruptcy and closes.


It isn't the Radar spectrum or Radio spectrum that is in question.  They will never change, and everyone on the planet who wants can utilize them.  What is in question is the Hardware and Software developed to use these Waves to make a "Product" that is useful for a client.


----------



## a_majoor (12 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It isn't the Radar spectrum or Radio spectrum that is in question.  They will never change, and everyone on the planet who wants can utilize them.  What is in question is the Hardware and Software developed to use these Waves to make a "Product" that is useful for a client.



Since MDA Canada will have few options or resources available to exercise or extend its intellectual capital, they will gradually fall out of currency. This is the same as putting real capital in a mattress; even a bank account generates some interest and more aggressive investments of capital have the potential to generate much greater return on investment.

The United States has a much larger intellectual, technological and financial resource base than we do, and lots of systems which are conceptually similar to RADARSAT, J-STARS and AWACS are two simple examples and much of the technology developed for Ballistic Missile Defense is also applicable (imagine using these sensitive sensors and processing algorithms in space and pointing towards the Earth to see what I am getting at), so the argument that MDA has some sort of unbeatable advantage only applies if the MDA team is continually working and launching satellites, which I think we all agree will not be the case.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 May 2008)

The USA (NRO) has had radar (SAR) Lacrosse intelligence satellites for quite some time:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/lacrosse.htm



> It is difficult to assess the resolution that could be achieved by this radar in the absence of more detailed design information, but in principle the resolution might be expected to be better than one meter. While this is far short of the 10 centimeter resolution achievable with photographic means, it would certainly be adequate for the identification and tracking of major military units such as tanks or missile transporter vehicles. However, this high resolution would come at the expense of broad coverage, and would be achievable over an area of only a few tens of kilometers square. Thus the
> Lacrosse probably utilizes a variety of radar scanning modes, some providing high resolution images of small areas, and other modes offering lower resolution images of areas several hundred kilometers square. The processing of this data would require extensive computational power, requiring the transmission to ground stations of potentially several hundred mega-bits of data per second.



Sure beats RADARSAT-2.  More:
http://www.satobs.org/spysat.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## stevenstaples (6 Jun 2008)

*MDA sale caused unlikely alliance of opponents * 
Esprit de corps military magazine. June 2008, Vol 15 Issue 5. p 12.
by Steven Staples 

Members of the Canadian Forces have a lot to celebrate in the government’s decision to block the sale of a large part of Canada’s space industry to a U.S. firm last month. The government’s intervention ensured that crucial satellite technology, vital to the conduct of CF missions at home and abroad, will remain in Canadian hands. 

On April 10, 2008, Industry Minister Jim Prentice announced that he would use his authority under the Investment Canada Act to disallow the acquisition of the MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. (MDA) space division by U.S. arms maker Alliant Techsystems (ATK). 

The $1.3 billion deal would have handed over to ATK ownership of the iconic Canadarm and Canada’s remote sensing radar satellite RADARSAT-2, a satellite that can take very high resolution images of any place on Earth through clouds or even at night.  

“I don’t get it,” proclaimed a clearly perplexed Daniel Friedmann, CEO of MDA, after being grilled by Members of Parliament concerned about the deal. Indeed, MDA completely underestimated the amount of controversy the sale would generate when, in January this year, it was announced, and began to move through the government’s approval process for foreign take-overs of Canadian firms.

Looking back over the debate of the past few months, one can feel some sympathy for MDA, given the rather unusual positions taken on the deal by those inside and outside government. 

First, let’s consider opponents of the deal. The sale of MDA’s space division to ATK was opposed by an unlikely group of people: MPs from all parties, editorialists, former military leaders, employees, scientists and space experts, nationalists and peace advocates.

The Rideau Institute, for instance, which has been accused of being “anti-defence” by Jack Granatstein and others, argued that the sale should be opposed on the basis of national security. 

“The sale of MDA assets to ATK will seriously weaken or defeat Canada’s ability to achieve the objectives of the Remote Sensing Space Systems Act which are explicitly to ‘ensure national security, the defence of Canada, the safety of Canadian Forces, Canada’s conduct of international relations, and Canada’s international obligations,’” I wrote to Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier in March. 

UBC Professor Michael Byers is a frequent critic of defence policy. Writing with Liberal Industry Critic Scott Brison in the National Post, Byers argued, “What could be more important to Canada’s national security than our ability to monitor all of this vast country, especially in emergencies? What foreign investment could be of less net benefit to Canada than selling our eyes?” 

Second, and just as unusual as defence policy critics decrying the loss of sovereignty and defence capability, traditionally small government, free-enterprise Conservative Party members were urging that the government block the sale.

“It is a waste of your money and a betrayal of the public interest,” Calgary MP Art Hanger wrote regarding the hundreds of millions of tax dollars invested in RADARSAT-2 that would be lost through the sale. “It’s about time Canada stop playing the nice guy at the expense of our own security and sovereignty – not to mention our own research and development capacity.”

The prospect of losing control of Canada’s premier land-monitoring satellite was untenable for the government. Blocking the sale conflicted with the Conservative Party’s traditional free enterprise principles, but the satellite played a key role in fulfilling the government’s priorities of defending Canada’s national security and Arctic sovereignty. 

Third, and more unusual still, was the silence from organizations and commentators who typically advocate strongly for maintaining and greatly expanding defence capabilities. There were no opinion articles in the Globe and Mail from Jack Granatstein, and no press releases from the Conference of Defence Associations. Even the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, which is always concerned with improving relations with the White House, said nothing.

The political significance of this decision is hard to overstate. It ranks among the most important decisions made by the Canadian government, including the decisions not to join the U.S. missile defence system or the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Minister Prentice’s decision marks the first time that a minister has used the Investment Canada Act to prevent a foreign take-over of a Canadian firm. Out of 10,000 foreign take-overs since 1985, nearly 1,600 have been reviewed and approved. None have ever been denied – until now.

Supporters of Canada’s space industry and capabilities are now rallying to win more government attention and support to their cause. Canadians have been reminded how important our satellites are for our national interests; now it is up to the government to respond in kind. 


_Steven Staples is President of the Rideau Institute on International Affairs, an independent research, advocacy and consulting group based in Ottawa. He is a researcher, writer, frequent commentator on defence matters, and author of Missile Defence: Round One (Lorimer: 2006). _


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jun 2008)

And our friend completely missed the point that preventing the sale of MDA simply means the design team and skillsets will either atrophy with disuse or leave Canada, rendering the entire "national capabilities" argument moot.

Once again, it does not pay to try to arm wrestle the "Invisible hand" of the market.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jul 2009)

The much publicized RIM “bid” for NORTEL’s wireless division gives Industry Canada a new dilemma.

The _jewel in the crown_ is NORTEL’s LTE technology that *may* be the “solution” to many of the would-be 4G service providers. Whoever owns 4G *may* do very, very well in the next few years.

It is a bit much to say that 4G is _Canadian intellectual property_ but there is no doubt that NORTEL – including many, many people in NOTREL’s Ottawa campus – pioneered it. Certainly, some of LTE is uniquely Canadian and Canadian taxpayers, indirectly (through R&D tax breaks), contributed to it.

Should that make Tony Clement do for RIM/to NORTEL what Jim Prentice did to MDA? RIM sure hopes so. The very *threat* of government interference may be sufficient to drive either Nokia Siemens or MatlinPatterson out of contention or drive the bankruptcy courts to delay or revise the process.

It appears to me that the same _nationalist_ sentiments – never too far below the surface when Canada/US issues are involved – may drive the politics again. For many, many Canadians anything is better than “selling out” to Americans. That, far more than any business or legal considerations, may be the “driver” here. Tony Clement need not move too soon; he can, at the arbitrary stroke of a pen, disallow any sale, no matter which courts approved it, on _national security_ grounds.

--------------------

*Mods*: could we re-title this thread as *“Government can stop sale of Canadian companies on grounds of National Security”*? That will allow us to discuss MDA and NOTREL in the same thread.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is the latest on the Nortel/RIM saga:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ericsson-makes-plans-but-rim-wont-give-up/article1231786/


> Ericsson makes plans, but RIM won't give up
> *BlackBerry maker again calls on Ottawa to intervene as Swedish telecom company gains larger toehold in North American LTE market*
> 
> Karim Bardeesy and Paul Waldie
> ...



I don’t know what two (one American, one Canadian) bankruptcy courts might decide to do if RIM argues that it was unfairly excluded from the bidding and its offer provides the best value for creditors – what bankruptcy courts aim to accomplish.

I am sure that the government “regulators” (AKA Stephen Harper) will be bombarded with petitions – some from powerful Tory insiders – to block the sale on _national security_ grounds.

One might wonder how LTE, or most other Nortel patents, might be matters of _national security_ but I can assure readers that it (national security) is a huge “blanket” which can be used, in international law, as a major and bomb-proof *protectionist* measure. Our good friends and neighbours to the South use it constantly to restrain trade in a manner that would be quite improper if anything but “national security” was invoked.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is a pretty fair assessment of the Nortel situation:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/28/john-ivison-intervention-argument-is-as-bankrupt-as-nortel.aspx


> John Ivison: Intervention argument is as bankrupt as Nortel
> 
> July 28, 2009
> 
> ...



There is another, political, factor: Ontario vs. Québec. Nortel is, for a wee while more, an Ontario company. Its head office is in Toronto and its Canadian, wireless, R&D is in Ottawa. Ericsson Canada’s HQ is in Montréal, so is its (very small) R&D facility. Ontario wants to keep those good, high paying R&D jobs in Ottawa; Québec would love to move them to Montréal.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2009)

See: here for some background.

According to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ the government’s problems (and the Liberal Party’s opportunities to capitalize on them) are growing:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-guidelines-for-state-owned-investors-get-first-test/article1271106/


> Ottawa guidelines for state-owned investors get first test
> *PetroChina's $1.9-billion investment in Athabasca Oil Sands is not expected to meet much resistance*
> 
> Shawn McCarthy
> ...




This is not the same as the government’s duty to review some acquisitions to ensure that they have “value” for Canada.

The so called Sovereign Investment (and/or Wealth) Funds are ways for governments, rather than corporations, to “invest.” There is considerable worry, especially in the USA, about them. They are popular in Asia and are used by such capitalist bastions as Singapore.

American “worries” about Chinese “investments” in Canada are another delicate problem. It is, *probably* good politics and *certainly* good policy to welcome increased Chinese investment, even by government controlled entities, despite some US reservations. In fact, the occasional bit of harshly expressed _angst_ from _America First_ers is “good” for whichever Canadian political party (government) is on the receiving end.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2009)

More on the China/oilsands issue, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/chinas-move-into-oil-sands-irks-washington/article1272498/


> China's move into oil sands irks Washington
> *Alarm bells are sounding in the U.S. capitol over PetroChina's $1.9-billion investment in Alberta projects*
> 
> Shawn McCarthy
> ...




If, and it’s still a very BIG IF we are going towards a fall election then Ms. Bartholomew’s “suggestion” that _”Ottawa should subject the proposed investment to a thorough review that would include sensitive national security issues”_ is almost a 100% guarantee that the sale will go ahead with only the most cursory review. Most Canadians are, broadly, anti-American and they love nothing more than to _”pull the eagle’s feathers”_ when that can be done without fear of reprisal.

Giffin gets it. The proposed deal is not, in and of itself, a “big deal” and it might, finally, provide a wee tiny bit of logical thinking in Washington – something that has been sadly lacking for nearly 20 years.

_Caveat lector_: I have a pretty long record of advocating a sharp _turn_ in Canadian foreign policy – away from Europe and towards Asia. I do not regard China as a *military* threat to the West, in general, and to America in particular. I know some (many?) US officials want to make China into a threat but, in most cases, the real “enemy” they are battling is in Washington and it consists of people who want to cut budgets for defence projects that “need” a big, sophisticated “competitor” like China. I am, additionally, a philosophical free trader. I oppose trade restraints, including those based on “national security” grounds. I thought the government’s decision to block the sale of MDA, for example, was entirely unjustified and, mainly, was a reaction to the “knee jerk anti-Americanism” (of too many “ordinary” Canadians) that drives too many decisions made by Canadian governments.


----------



## GAP (2 Sep 2009)

Well your comments yesterday regarding the US sitting up and taking notice has come to fruition.....was it not Japan/China that was investing heavily in infrastructure inside the US not more than a decade ago? Strange how that works....it's OK for us, but not you....


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Feb 2017)

MacDonald Dettwiler back in the news--will gov't do anything?


> MacDonald Dettwiler to buy satellite imagery firm DigitalGlobe for $3.1-billion
> ...
> DigitalGlobe’s satellites supply high-resolution images to its customers such as the U.S. Department of Defense and companies including Facebook Inc. and Uber Technologies Inc...
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/macdonald-dettwiler-to-buy-digitalglobe-for-about-31-billion/article34126606/
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------

