Ottawa approves sale of B.C. retirement-home chain to Chinese group with murky ownership

[Ryan Strome]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/sec.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/no-pledge-to-create-new-canadian-jobs-in-anbang-deal/article34116476/%3Fservice%3Damp

 

http://globalnews.ca/video/3266422/rona-ambrose-grills-justin-trudeau-over-sale-of-health-care-facility-to-china

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/sec.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-approves-sale-of-bc-retirement-home-chain-to-chinese-group-with-murky-ownership/article34107591/%3Fservice%3Damp

 

Well I'm not in favour of this..

[-SN-]

Quote

"Anbang Asset Management is a B.C. company set up shortly before Anbang's bid for Retirement Concepts. It bears the same name as Anbang Insurance's overseas investment arm; and the B.C. company's sole listed director is a homemaker in Vancouver's Kerrisdale neighbourhood."

 

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, StealthNuck said:

 

Interesting isn't it?

[JM_]

This is the kind of reporting I really dislike. It hints at things sinister and ooh, its "Chinese" so it must be scary right?

 

Let me clear some things up for you, I happen to know some people at Retirement Concepts and also have a colleague in Shanghai who is looking at retirement issues over there. 

 

This is a sale of a private company. Its not a publicly run service, its not an "official" part of the healthcare system. Its a private, very expensive, retirement rental with varying levels of care you pay for. Our healthcare system is not at risk. 

 

This sale is about China, not Canada. What people over here don't realize is China has a much worse issue than we do in terms of dealing with their aging population. The one child policy has created a seniors crisis, there are 2 aging parents and just one kid to deal with it, and its creating a massive care problem there right now. My colleague in Shanghai is trying to look at ways to bring over the kinds of assertive technology we use here, things like home automation, which hasn't taken off over there yet so that's why I know about this issue. You never hear about it in our lazy media coverage. 

 

So Anbang is buying this to gain the knowledge of how to run a service like this and transport the ideas back to China, which has a market about 100X this size of Canada for aging in place. Its also critical that this be successful here in Canada, because they intend to promote the success of it here in Canada as a selling feature over there, so they have a vested interest in keeping things running very well here. 

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this other than the shoddy reporting.

 

 

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

This is the kind of reporting I really dislike. It hints at things sinister and ooh, its "Chinese" so it must be scary right?

 

Let me clear some things up for you, I happen to know some people at Retirement Concepts and also have a colleague in Shanghai who is looking at retirement issues over there. 

 

This is a sale of a private company. Its not a publicly run service, its not an "official" part of the healthcare system. Its a private, very expensive, retirement rental with varying levels of care you pay for. Our healthcare system is not at risk. 

 

This sale is about China, not Canada. What people over here don't realize is China has a much worse issue than we do in terms of dealing with their aging population. The one child policy has created a seniors crisis, there are 2 aging parents and just one kid to deal with it, and its creating a massive care problem there right now. My colleague in Shanghai is trying to look at ways to bring over the kinds of assertive technology we use here, things like home automation, which hasn't taken off over there yet so that's why I know about this issue. You never hear about it in our lazy media coverage. 

 

So Anbang is buying this to gain the knowledge of how to run a service like this and transport the ideas back to China, which has a market about 100X this size of Canada for aging in place. Its also critical that this be successful here in Canada, because they intend to promote the success of it here in Canada as a selling feature over there, so they have a vested interest in keeping things running very well here. 

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this other than the shoddy reporting.

 

 

How come this company is so shady? Who owns it? The U.S is not in favour of this company...

 

This very much is a concern in my opinion.

[JM_]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

How come this company is so shady? Who owns it? The U.S is not in favour of this company...

 

This very much is a concern in my opinion.

The US policy on China is 20 years behind the times. Working with China on investment in Canada, and vice versa, is going to propel us ahead of the US and help to diversify our economy. By playing into the fear mongering by Ambrose and some of the media all you're doing is lessening Canadian investment and growth. 

 

The company isn't "shady" its private. You don't get to see much information on private companies in Canada, or anywhere else for that matter. Its not like companies on the stock exchange where all director info is made public, that's why.

 

What are you so concerned about specifically? 

[Ryan Strome]

1 minute ago, S'all Good Man said:

The US policy on China is 20 years behind the times. Working with China on investment in Canada, and vice versa, is going to propel us ahead of the US and help to diversify our economy. By playing into the fear mongering by Ambrose and some of the media all you're doing is lessening Canadian investment and growth. 

 

The company isn't "shady" its private. You don't get to see much information on private companies in Canada, or anywhere else for that matter. Its not like companies on the stock exchange where all director info is made public, that's why.

 

What are you so concerned about specifically? 

The company's director is a homemaker..

 

Vancouver has so many homemakers coming from China, that must be the highest paying job in Vancouver, eh?

[JM_]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

The company's director is a homemaker..

 

Vancouver has so many homemakers coming from China, that must be the highest paying job in Vancouver, eh?

I've given you the reasons this makes sense, and you're till choosing BS. Why do you think that is? 

 

Private companies can do whatever they want re: directors. Are you advocating for a different system for how we run private companies in Canada? Or do you just not like the rules when someone from China is involved?

[Ryan Strome]

2 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

I've given you the reasons this makes sense, and you're till choosing BS. Why do you think that is? 

 

Private companies can do whatever they want re: directors. Are you advocating for a different system for how we run private companies in Canada? Or do you just not like the rules when someone from China is involved?

I don't think it should have been approved for various reasons and the links I posted point out many of those reasons. If you choose not to read the links then fine..

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I don't think it should have been approved for various reasons and the links I posted point out many of those reasons. If you choose not to read the links then fine..

Yes, and what I've provided you with are you know, facts. Those links simply allude to things that aren't real. By saying things like 'why don't we know more about the director...' is total garbage reporting. Anyone who's formed a company in Canada, anything from a sole proprietorship to a large company, knows that private information about directors is not publicly available and doesn't have to be. You can also appoint anyone you want to and pay them $1 per year if you'd like to. None of that matters or is wrong in any way. People appoint their wives and kids all the time to be "directors", its been going on for 100 years. 

 

I'm really tired of conservative fear mongering. Oh, better be scared of Muslims. Watch out for "shady" Chinese too right? If the conservatives get their way we'll be scared of 1/2 the world. 

 

These stories on this are garbage and lazy. There's no reason to stop the sale whatsoever. 

[Ryan Strome]

11 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

Yes, and what I've provided you with are you know, facts. Those links simply allude to things that aren't real. By saying things like 'why don't we know more about the director...' is total garbage reporting. Anyone who's formed a company in Canada, anything from a sole proprietorship to a large company, knows that private information about directors is not publicly available and doesn't have to be. You can also appoint anyone you want to and pay them $1 per year if you'd like to. None of that matters or is wrong in any way. People appoint their wives and kids all the time to be "directors", its been going on for 100 years. 

 

I'm really tired of conservative fear mongering. Oh, better be scared of Muslims. Watch out for "shady" Chinese too right? If the conservatives get their way we'll be scared of 1/2 the world. 

 

These stories on this are garbage and lazy. There's no reason to stop the sale whatsoever. 

Agree to disagree.

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Agree to disagree.

No this isn't an alt-fact situation. There are all real, normal and logical reasons for this deal and the information that is public or not public. 

[Ryan Strome]

1 minute ago, S'all Good Man said:

No this isn't an alt-fact situation. There are all real, normal and logical reasons for this deal and the information that is public or not public. 

Look it is a concern for many hence the coverage on it. You are acting like because you agree with it then it's perfectly fine. 

[JM_]

25 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Look it is a concern for many hence the coverage on it. You are acting like because you agree with it then it's perfectly fine. 

But the concerns are all based on bad coverage. I've seen various reports suggesting that BC is allowing a sale of part of the healthcare system, which is ridiculous, or its somehow dubious because we "don't know" much about the directors of a private company. Well, thats the legal system we've always had. To suggest that these people or this sale are somehow shady because they are following the rules we've always had is just plain wrong, and i think you realize that. 

 

Its fine to have questions or concerns, but at least have them on facts or on the same level playing field as with other private companies. 

[Gurn]

Maybe this homemaker is a Chinese Muslim transgendered person? How can this sale be allowed to happen if my speculation is being speculated, by me, about?

[Fateless]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

Agree to disagree.

What actual facts do you have to support your position on this? @S'all Good Man gave many objectively observable facts along with support for his argument, whereas you just keep saying "WELL THE ARTICLE SAID X" when he has already pointed out why the article is wrong. 

Support your position and give reasons why its actually a viable position. If you can't do that, then why hold that position in the first place? Debates are about defending your point, and if you can't, then you should be open-minded enough to admit that maybe you were wrong and willing to look at alternatives.

[Ryan Strome]

1 hour ago, Fateless said:

What actual facts do you have to support your position on this? @S'all Good Man gave many objectively observable facts along with support for his argument, whereas you just keep saying "WELL THE ARTICLE SAID X" when he has already pointed out why the article is wrong. 

Support your position and give reasons why its actually a viable position. If you can't do that, then why hold that position in the first place? Debates are about defending your point, and if you can't, then you should be open-minded enough to admit that maybe you were wrong and willing to look at alternatives.

I understand his point, I don't agree with these takeovers. Just like I opposed Chinese purchases into our energy industry. 

[Lancaster]

It's bad optics at the director's occupation is "homemaker".  I mean, imagine if it was Aquilini listed his occupation as "homemaker", a lot of red flags will be noticed.  

When one of the top people in the company has their occupation less than accurate, the potential shadiness might have a trickle down effect.  

 

As for Chinese investments.... it's a global economy, so there's nothing wrong with them investing in Canada.  I'm assuming there's some minimal standard for operations of retirement homes in Canada, so as long as they're followed, there isn't any problem.  Even some regular Canada owned/operated retirement homes in Canada were in the news for poor conditions, etc.  

 

Only companies and industries related to high levels of technology and/or those related to national security should be off-limits to the Chinese (there was one that was green-lighted just recently though). 

[Fateless]

24 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I understand his point, I don't agree with these takeovers. Just like I opposed Chinese purchases into our energy industry. 

I'm still waiting for the "why" portion to your statement. Why do you not agree with the "takeovers" as you described it.

[Tre Mac]

dp