These are perplexing times for those of us who have long believed in open markets and free trade, and applauded the demise of the Foreign Investment Review Agency (FIRA) back in the mid-1980s.

This is because the business pages have been full of stories for months now about foreign acquisitions of major Canadian companies.

Outsiders have acquired Stelco, Dofasco and Algoma Steel - the three pillars of the domestic steel industry.

Foreigners have snapped up the mining giants Falconbridge and Inco, the big aluminum producer Alcan and the high-end hospitality company Four Seasons Hotels. Inevitably, we find ourselves asking: Can this be good for our economic well-being?

Definitely not, according to the left-leaning Council of Canadians and other self-righteous, self-appointed guardians of our political sovereignty and economic independence. They would undoubtedly be banging the drum for a political response if their case were not so manifestly hopeless given that our current prime minister and his cabinet have no intention of intervening.

Instead, they have raised a frightful hue about the "hollowing out" of the country's economy, our loss of control over strategic industries and the potentially dire consequences.

In an article posted on the website of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, former publisher and nationalist ranter Mel Hurtig writes: "Month after month, year after year, the long list of takeovers is appalling.”

He quotes two reliable sources to make his case. The Economist had this to say: "In many other countries, the sale of national heirlooms would spark fierce opposition. Not in Canada."

Hurtig delivers this thought from Peter C. Newman: "In all other developed countries, the economic elite defend their country's sovereignty, not only because it is in their national interest to do so, but because they are proud of their country and wish it to be more than a place where their children and grandchildren can best look forward to being serfs."

So, are we really heading for economic Armageddon? Are our corporate leaders really that blind?

Not quite, according to a report published in August by the Toronto-based C. D. Howe Institute. Authors Jack Mintz and Andrey Tarasov, who both teach at the University of Toronto's J.L. Rotman School of Management, note that, even with all the recent takeovers, foreigners control only about 25 per cent of our non-financial industries and that number hasn't changed since 2001.

Between 2001 and 2005, net inflows of foreign direct investment equaled 2.2 per cent of the country's GDP, a figure that puts us 46th out of 73 industrialized and major developing countries. By comparison, Canadian acquisitions abroad were equivalent to 3.8 per cent of GDP during the same period and, as a nation of global shoppers, we stood 13th of 73 countries.

Mintz and Tarasov reach this startling conclusion: "Since the mid-1990s, Canada's historical role as a net capital importer has changed dramatically to that of a net exporter of capital."

In fact, our companies have turned into voracious buyers outside our own borders. Colin Walker, managing director of Toronto-based Crosbie & Co., a firm that specializes in mergers and acquisitions, points out that the ratio of Canadian purchases abroad versus foreign takeovers here is in the order of 2-to-1 and it used to be 3-to-1.

Outside buyers tend to acquire big Canadian companies, which are generally not that big by international standards, says Walker. But their dominant position in our markets ensures that there will be large headlines and plenty of ink devoted to such deals.

Furthermore, most Canadians pay attention only to what is happening here and that means they're missing most of the story. "There's a huge amount of activity all over the world," Walker adds. "It's almost unusual for businesses to be sold domestically in any country. You look abroad for every deal, including companies that are small compared to the headline transactions."

Size matters in today's world, he adds, which is why so many companies are making acquisitions. Larger enterprises are more stable, less vulnerable to risk and they generally pay less for the capital required to invest in plant and equipment.

There are other advantages to mergers and acquisitions. They provide access to new technology, new markets, expanded products lines and better people.

Walker concedes that the loss of head offices means losing high-paying, good-quality jobs, but it's happening everywhere. "Talk to people in any major U.S. city," he says. "They're experiencing the same thing."

It is easy to sound the alarm about foreign takeovers and left-leaning, nationalistic Canadians have had lots of practice at that. They've been doing it since the early 1960s. Governments have set up royal commissions to address the issue and Pierre Trudeau brought in FIRA in the mid-1970s to allay such concerns.

Those days are long gone. Most Canadians now understand that the advantages of an open economy far outweigh any benefits that might accrue from protectionism and policies that restrict investment.

Furthermore, our companies are on a foreign shopping spree so we can hardly begin barring the door to our markets.

(D'Arcy Jenish can be reached at jenish@businessedge.ca)