Mississauga: Couple asked to take down Canadian flag

A Mississauga couple were asked to take down the flag they have on a tree in the front yard of their home, for the past three years. It appears the flag has upset or "offended" someone.

"Rose Whittemann and Richard Field put up the flag about three years ago, but only recently received a message from the company that manages their housing complex, saying they would have to remove it.

"Our landlord received a letter claiming that we've either offended or upset somebody by having the flag," Whittemann said.

The company said if the couple did not remove the flag, maintenance workers would take it down and they would be charged a $200 fee. Whittemann and Field relented."

Source: CTV Toronto

I find it outrageous that someone can become upset, offended or in any way have their panties bunched up in a knot over our nations flag and an act of support and patriotism. I find it even more upsetting that this couple was bullied into taking it down and threatened with it's removal by maintenance workers at a charge of $200., if they didn't comply.

As an act of support, I would like to ask everyone to fly their Canadian flags and send us a picture of it to add to our Oh Canada album. Please include the city ( and other information you might want included e.g. photographer etc...)

Happy Canada Day

This house has come to be known as the "Canada House" and is located at 1004 Lincoln Ave in Windsor, Ontario. The home is owned by Dan Beaudoin who designed and painted the house himself. It is a great display of Canadian patriotism.

Video of "The Canada House" appeared in the online edition of the Windsor Star, June 30th, 2009. This man's house is incredible and a must see. Enjoy!

If you have photographs that showcase Canadian patriotism, we would love to include them in our gallery.

Congratulations Mr. President

Today I witnessed the making of history.
The inauguration of the 44th president of the United States of America and with it, the promise of a new beginning for America and it's northern neighbour, Canada.

"Starting today we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America"

President Barack Obama,
Inaugural speach
Tuesday, January 20th, 2009

Congratulations President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama

Is Corporate Canada Being Hollowed Out?

Mergers and acquisitions
Is corporate Canada being 'hollowed out'?
Last Updated May 27, 2007
CBC News

The recent spate of foreign takeovers of familiar Canadian companies has turned up the heat on a familiar debate in this country — whether such takeovers are desirable, and if not, what should be done?

The federal Liberals have called for a three-month moratorium on approvals of all foreign takeovers of Canadian firms. The federal New Democrats have called for an emergency debate on the issue. The governing Conservatives, pointing out that there are conflicting views on this subject, promise to review Canada's competition policies.

And it's not just politicians who've been weighing in. Union leaders and public policy groups of all stripes have also made their views known. So, too, have some of the biggest names in Canada's business community.

Gord Nixon, the CEO of Royal Bank, raised his takeover concerns during his recent address to shareholders at the bank's annual meeting. "We have not only seen the disappearance of major Canadian household names, but the loss of Canadian presence in industries where we have long had traditional strengths."

Dominic D'Alessandro, the CEO of Manulife Financial, worried in his address to shareholders that "we may all wake up one day and find that as a nation, we have lost control of our affairs."

Not so fast, says Don Drummond, the chief economist at TD Bank. He wrote in a recent op-ed piece that "the facts don't warrant the hysteria that the Canadian economy is being sold out."

As part of his argument, Drummond cited a recent study done by the Institute for Competitiveness & Productivity, which called the hollowing out argument a "myth." It acknowledges that some of Canada's corporate stars have indeed been bought out, but argues that Canada has created many more global leaders. To give a sense of the debate, here are excerpts from the Institute's report, as well as from the address by Manulife's CEO.

The following is an excerpt from an address to shareholders given May 3, 2007, by Dominic D'Alessandro, president and chief executive officer of Manulife Financial Corp.

'I believe that ownership matters a lot' I'd like to touch upon … the extraordinarily large numbers of Canadian companies that are being acquired by foreign interests.

In 2006, more than 100 of our public companies were taken over, and the list includes some of the oldest and most well-established companies across a broad spectrum of industries, everything from hotels to retailing, to metals and mining. And the trend continues.

I sometimes worry that we may all wake up one day and find that as a nation, we have lost control of our affairs.

I think we ought to have a vigorous debate about the extent to which it matters whether or not ownership of our economy resides in Canada or elsewhere. As you probably all know, I believe that ownership matters a lot. It matters not only for economic reasons but, more importantly in my opinion, for our own sense of self esteem and pride in our country.

It may surprise some of you to hear me express misgivings about foreign ownership given that our own company has successfully invested — and been welcomed as an investor — in so many countries around the world. My concern is not rooted in any chauvinism or in any antipathy towards foreign investment. Far from it. I happen to believe that globalization is a very positive development and that trade and investment across borders is to be encouraged. Canada benefits mightily from being "open for business" and we mustn't do anything to change that.

Manulife president and CEO Dominic D'Alessandro listens to a question during the company's annual general meeting in Toronto on May 3, 2007. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press) My concern stems from the fact that the world is awash with capital and that the consolidation trend in many industries will inevitably continue. We are a small country with a relatively small population. Canadian companies typically aren't of a size to be global players. All too often, decisions affecting the future of important firms and the communities that they sustain are made solely with a view to the short-term financial consequences. I find it particularly bothersome that so many of our natural resource companies — which I would argue represent unique and irreplaceable assets — are now owned elsewhere.

I know that I am touching upon a very delicate subject here and that for many people, particularly some economists and other "big picture" types, any suggestion that the "markets" should be other than totally unfettered is an anathema. I appreciate, too, that even under the best of circumstances, our ability to shape our destiny will always be in question. But, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, or at the very least, debate the matter.

So what are some actions that we might consider taking? Well, what if we were to consider the feasibility of adopting ownership restrictions for certain sensitive sectors of our economy that would be similar to those that now apply to our financial institutions? After all, I would argue that it is a demonstrable fact that public policy regarding the ownership of our banks and insurance companies has served the country well; there is no shortage of competition in the financial services sector and the services available to Canadians are as comprehensive and as affordable as exist anywhere in the world. It is also a virtual certainty that absent the ownership restrictions all of these institutions, that we are all so proud of, would be owned elsewhere. Might it not be the case then, that such an ownership policy could be usefully extended to other sectors of our economy?

Securities regulation is another area where some useful debate could be undertaken. Many feel that Canada now has the most bidder friendly environment in the world and that this may not always be in our country's best interests. Under our rules, shareholder rights plans — also know as takeover defences or "poison pills" — fall away after a very short 60 or 90 days, leaving the target company's board with far too little time in which to explore alternatives.

On announcement of a bid for control of a Canadian public company, financially savvy buyers have the virtual certainty of knowing that a change in control transaction is highly likely to succeed, absent competition or anti-trust issues. These investors quickly acquire significant amounts of the target company's stock. The result is that for all practical purposes, the board is left with no choice but to accede to a takeover.

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/mergers/hollowed-out.html

The ABC's of Offshoring

Offshoring is in a sense an extreme form of outsourcing, applied in the context of globalization. Outsourcing refers to a decision by a company to have some activities conducted outside the company – activities that are necessary to its operations, but not considered strategic or related to its distinctive strengths.

The concept of offshoring can be understood more or less narrowly. In the narrow sense, offshoring refers to the transfer of production capacity from a site within a country to a site in another country, and then importing for national consumption the goods and services that had previously been produced locally. Offshoring must not be confused with the relocation of companies and the location of production and investments abroad. Companies are relocated when the production site is moved to another country in order to be closer to that market and sell the product there. As for the location of production abroad, this is a form of foreign investment. The present paper interprets offshoring in the narrow sense of the word only.

Offshoring is actually a very old practice, which economists refer to as the specialization of labour. However, improvements in the transport of merchandise, the development of free trade, access to qualified and cheap labour, and above all the huge growth in telecommunications have accelerated offshoring so much that it now includes trade in services and has become one of the cornerstones of the global economy. Some observers have even gone so far as to say that offshoring is simply a new form of international trade.

The specialization of labour is now increasingly becoming a kind of “vertical” specialization by country for each stage of production, and this trend will increase in the future. This specialization has already seen the emergence of companies devoted to a specific stage of production, and the existence of international companies that locate different stages of production in different countries.

Frédérique Sachwald(5) has noted that the fragmentation of production processes is characteristic of modern economies. Instead of specialization in a product within a given country, we now have specialization at each stage of production within a given industry. This fragmentation has grown since the 1980s, and emerging countries are now gradually increasing their ability to perform increasingly complex tasks, including design and some development work. In short, offshoring increasingly goes hand in hand with globalization.

source: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0459-e.htm

Team Canada is Gold

Congratulations Team Canada on your fifth straight championship win
Thanks for bringing the gold home and good luck in the 2010 tournament in Regina and Saskatoon.

We're proud of you on the ice and your heartfelt rendition of our national anthem, "woo" and all!