Analysis : Canada takes hard line on natural resources, no matter the cost

OTTAWA Sat Oct 20, 2012 5:45pm EDT

Petronas advertising boards are seen near the grandstand ahead of the Malaysian F1 Grand Prix at the Sepang circuit outside Kuala Lumpur April 7, 2011. REUTERS/Tim Chong

Petronas advertising boards are seen near the grandstand ahead of the Malaysian F1 Grand Prix at the Sepang circuit outside Kuala Lumpur April 7, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Tim Chong

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada signaled a tough line on control of its natural resources with its surprise rejection of a Malaysian bid for gas company Progress Energy Resources Corp., putting concerns about state-owned firms above fears of damaging an already dented international reputation.

In a ruling with huge repercussions for CNOOC Ltd's proposed $15.1 billion takeover of Nexen Inc, Industry Minister Christian Paradis said the C$5.2 billion ($5.3 billion) bid by Petronas would not be of "net benefit" to Canada.

Although Paradis gave no reasons, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is facing legislators unhappy with the idea of doing business with China and also of letting foreign state-owned enterprises buy Canadian energy assets.

The decision - announced at three minutes to midnight on Friday and missing the deadlines for all Canadian newspapers - surprised senior officials in the government and was a painful reminder to markets of how Ottawa vetoed BHP Billiton Ltd's proposed takeover of fertilizer maker Potash Corp in late 2010.

After the Potash decision the government spent many months trying to reassure markets that Canada was still open for business. That effort continues today.

Yet for all the talk of attracting investment, some firms are clearly less welcome that others, particularly state-owned enterprises such as Petronas and CNOOC, which critics complain do not play by market rules.

"We've joined a list of countries in which a lot more resource nationalism is being practiced ... starting with Potash, muscle had started to be exercised a little bit," said John Manley, a former industry and finance minister who now chairs the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.

"And I think that's something that is not a total disaster but it does cry out for some clarification so investors know what they're dealing with," he told Reuters.

Fund managers and arbitrageurs expressed frustration that Ottawa did not explain the decision.

Harper's chief spokesman, Andrew MacDougall, declined to comment, but noted that Petronas has 30 days to make changes to the bid.

Although Harper is secure - his party has a majority in the House of Commons and the next election is three years away - he is acutely sensitive to political criticism and has cited opinion polls opposing the CNOOC move.


The official opposition New Democrats, who say the CNOOC bid must be blocked, decried what they said was an opaque process for studying foreign takeovers.

"There will be serious implications if they keep making things up on the back of a napkin. Investors will lose confidence ... . This is no way to run a large economy," said Peter Julian, the party's natural resources spokesman.

One senior North American financial professional told Reuters that the Petronas move was "very bad for Canada. This is shocking ... . The tone out of the Harper government is not good."

Harper has to ensure Canada can attract hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign investments for the energy patch while placating his Conservative caucus, where suspicion of China is widespread.

"One obvious explanation is that this could be a step for Ottawa to increase the role of the state and to begin doing fairly regular interventions," said Wenran Jiang, a senior fellow at the Asia-Pacific Foundation and an energy adviser to Alberta, a province with huge energy reserves.

"It might be a way to make the rejection of Nexen look easier, saying 'We already rejected a Malaysian takeover' ... but in both cases the rejection (would) need to have convincing reasons," he told Reuters.

Canadian legislators are also unhappy about what they say are the problems facing Canadian firms in China, such as red tape and restrictive regulations.

Government officials have repeatedly stressed that they want to see more reciprocity from China, and the Petronas decision could be a way of exerting pressure on Beijing to make life easier for Canadian firms.

"The Canadian government is sending a message that if you want to get into Canada, you're going to have to make sure that it's beneficial to Canada. That's not necessarily, in my view, a bad thing, especially when it comes to strategic resources," said Martin Pelletier, portfolio manager with Trivest Wealth Counsel in Calgary.

"But we also have to balance that with the need for capital to develop those resources because the public market just isn't there at the moment to provide that capital to Canadian companies," he said. ($1=$0.99 Canadian)

(Additional reporting by Jeffrey Jones in Calgary; Editing by Christopher Wilson)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (3)
Numb3rTech wrote:
I support Canada in this issue. If anything, the United States should be more interested in assisting Canada since we share a common ground. We all need energy independence and a surety that this is done in a very environmental fashion.

Oct 20, 2012 4:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
WJL wrote:
Anyone who thinks that America and other governments do not support their companies in international business deals is naive. Just look at the Middle East where military operations are constantly conducted to secure business for American and European business interests. Morever some of these companies are a lot bigger than so called state owned companies in emerging nations.

Oct 20, 2012 4:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
rgbviews wrote:
We in Canada must protect our children’s futures and this means having Canadian control of our natural resources. Whether it’s oil, water, minerals, or forests, we must assure depletion at rates which meets the needs of all Canadians and sale of any excess production at fair market rates. Whether it’s Malaysia, China, or the USA, they are simply part of the market.

I take exception to Romney’s comment in the last debate saying we must strive for “North American” energy independence, as he implied the US has claim to our Canadian resources.

Oct 20, 2012 9:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.