Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


A potash/Investment Canada followup blogpost.

Just as a follow-up afterthought to my blogpost of yesterday, I do agree with Mr. Taylor that the Potash decision is political; the only reason it was done is the same reason for every other flip-flop this Conservative government has done – to try and preserve Conservative electoral fortunes. In this case, it was done to save 13 seats in Saskatchewan. This time however, it rubbed a few of the base the wrong way (though I still see some of the loyalists taking issue with Taylor at his own blog for his stance.. which is interesting).

I of course part issue with him over Investment Canada: since Brian Mulroney created it to replace the Foreign Investment Review Agency, which was viewed as too nationalist/interventionist, it has been very Senate-like in its approach to rubber-stamping foreign investment/deals since 1985 – by both Liberal and Conservative governments. This is only the 2nd such rejection in over 2000 reviews, I think, and even this one may still be temporary, if BHP decides to give the government more bribe money as it were.

I’m no nationalization advocate, but I do think more then just rubber stamp cursory examinations should take place with this body.


1 comment to A potash/Investment Canada followup blogpost.

  • Redrum

    Agreed, they should review & overhaul the Act & process. But what’s bugging me was seeing the Cons. act like they’re the uber-responsible ones cuz they’ve turned down that, um, one deal (involving MacDonald Dettwiler)…. as though it was _their_ idea to do so, as opposed to caving to the pressure then, too, of the Cndn people’s — and the Opp. parties’ — outrage at selling the pride & patriotism as well as the money of the Canadarm we invested so much in, as well as the national security issues involved.

    www +

    www +

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.