Should Canada keep some companies Canadian?
On Cross Country Checkup: foreign takeovers
When the federal government put the brakes on the proposed takeover of Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, many cheered. Others shook their heads at the surprise intervention by a free-trade talking government. What was your reaction?
With guest host David Gray.
Toll-free number 1-888-416-8333 (works only during the broadcast)
What's at stake when Canadian companies are taken over by foreign buyers? Is economic nationalism good for the economy? Is it good for the country? Are some industries too important to allow them to be bought by foreign companies? How much politics and how much economics go into such decisions? Should Canada develop a clearer set of rules for foreign takeovers? What resources are 'strategic'?
*Note: Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan is not a wholly-owned Canadian company.
Somehow, in the last week, a pink rock most Canadians wouldn't recognize if they tripped over it on their driveway, has become the focal point of national unity.
Potash contains potassium, a key ingredient in fertilizer. And the short version is we've got it, and the rest of the world needs it. Saskatchewan is sort of the Saudi Arabia of potash. Reserves there could conservatively supply world demand at current levels for several hundred years. The competitive advantage, besides abundance and quality, is in where it is. The high-grade ore lies in basically flat beds, making it easy and relatively cheap to mine.
So when Australian mining giant BHP Billiton embarked on a 40 billion dollar hostile bid to buy the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, the business reasoning seemed sound. BHP is a global giant; a 240 billion dollar company. Companies that size need to swallow up high quality assets, like Potash corp, in order to grow. If buying the company helps put a stranglehold on controlling the price of the commodity, so much the better.
But then things started to go wrong for BHP. Some say they low-balled their initial bid. They misjudged the importance of getting local politicians onside. And then, Wednesday afternoon, the hammer fell. The federal government decided to do something they've only really ever done once before, and for different reasons. They said no. Which brings us to todays question: Was it the right decision?
Why would a federal government that has reviewed and said yes to 1600 foreign takeovers since 1985, make an exception this time? Why can a foreign company not buy Saskatchewan's Potash Corporation, when the fed's did nothing to stop the purchase of other iconic Canadian companies like Inco, Falconbridge, Stelco, Alcan, and Dofasco in recent years? Is it good policy, or partisan prairie politics?
Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall campaigned hard for months against the sale saying it would represent a loss to provincial coffers. He even got other provinces onboard: Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, and New Brunswick.
The sale somehow landed on the intersection of several fault lines in Canadian politics. Provinces lining up against the federal government, including the Conservative West. All the opposition parties were prepared to pounce on any hands-off policy one would expect from the Harper Conservatives ...an approach hinted at when the Prime Minister suggested there was no big deal in an American company being taken over by an Australian company. A not-too-subtle reminder Potash Corp is actually 51% owned by American interests, headquartered in Chicago.
So, when the federal government put the brakes on the deal, it surprised alot of people. In the House, it even prompted a rare moment of respectful and substantial exchange between the Prime Minister and NDP leader Jack Layton, when they both agreed the case reveals the need for guidelines on defining what is a 'strategic resource' and how to determine 'net benefits to the national interest.'
Some business critics say it's all on act of pure politics, a bending to a fervour of economic nationalism ...even though business leaders were split on whether this case is truly different ...and one that raises concerns for the national interest.
Is this deal different? What constitutes a "strategic resource"? What's at stake when Canadian companies are taken over by foreign buyers? Is this a case of economic nationalism? Are some industries too important to allow them to be bought by foreign companies? How much politics and how much economics go into such decisions? Should Canada develop a clearer set of rules for foreign takeovers?
And one more thing... what message did Canada just send to international markets? Canadian companies are buying up lots of companies in other countries ...will there be a backlash?
Lots of questions and to kick off the discussion we're asking: "Was it the right decision? Was the federal government right to block the sale of Potash Corp?"
I'm David Gray ...on CBC Radio One ...and on Sirius satellite radio channel 137 ...this is Cross Country Checkup.
- Don Martin
National affairs columnist for the National Post.
- Theresa Tedesco
Chief business correspondent for the National Post.
- Steve McLellan
CEO Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce.
- Jim Stanford
Canadian Auto Workers economist and author of Economics for Everyone.
- Roger Gibbins
CEO of Canada West Foundation.
- BHP's PotashCorp bid rejected for now
- PotashCorp bid could trigger law change
- Wall says thanks to Clement
- The 'net benefit' of foreign takeovers
- PotashCorp sale could cost Sask. billions
- The case against selling Saskatchewan's Potash Corp, by Don Newman
- Timeline: How the bid is unfolding
- Tories' raw Potash politics slams Canada's door shut to investors, by Don Martin
- National Post editorial board: The wrong call on Potash
- John Ivison: Conservatives lose their principles in Saskatchewan
- Ottawa blocks BHP bid, by Terence Corcoran
- Potash ruling puts conservative principles to shame, by Stephen Taylor
- Ottawa's BHP betrayal, by Stephen Bartholomeusz, Business Spectator, Australia
- Owners should get final say, by Theresa Tedesco
Globe and Mail
- Potash ruling casts doubt on foreign takeovers
- Ottawa rejects takeover of Potash, averting battle with Saskatchewan
- Ibbitson: Potash rejection a triumph of politics over principle
- Mr. Clement has much to explain
- Potash decision surprised BHP, by Eric Reguly
- Agriculture Minister expands on BHP rejection
- Potash ruling casts doubt on foreign takeovers
- The Potash decision: 'A truly stupid move' or a 'victory'? by Michael Babad
- Agriculture becomes the next big thing, by Eric Reguly
- BHP willing to revise its Potash offer
- Economic chauvinism in 2010? Barking mad! by Michael Bliss
- Potash: The deal that didn't have to die
- So everyone wants a piece of our fertilizer company. Does that make it strategic?
- Tories to seek review of investment act
- Potash is an emotional issue in Saskatchewan, by L. Ian MacDonald
- Ottawa should allow potash deal
- Potash mess is political, not strategic, by Jay Bryan
- Potash takeover: Doing 'the right thing'
- Potash decision is about politics and cartel pricing, by Thomas Walkom
The Institute for Research on Public Policy: Policy Options
I believe that all resources, be they water, gas, oil, potash or whatever belong to all Canadians as a birthright and there is no excuse whatever for auctioning them off to foreigners.
If we develop them slower and more carefully that is a good thing as their value will only go up over time and the extraction technologies will improve so less damage will be done.
Vancouver, Britsh Columbia.
It is about time that our government protects Canadian interests and stops selling us down the river time after time to let foreign corporations rape our country by exploiting the natural resources, poisoning our rivers and ground water and then leaving the mess for the Canadian taxpayers to clean up.
Medicine Hat, Alberta.
There never ever was any sale or deal in the first place with BHP buying POT shares at the bidded price of $US130 because POT shares were, and still are, trading above US$140 and POT shareholders were already not going to accept the bidded price of $US130. Despite the mainstream media's efforts to make it seem like the federal government blocked some sale or deal, there was no sale or deal to block. And BHP management or someone else can still make a higher bid. So, in effect, the federal government did not really do much of anything at all.
Natural resources all need better control. There is nothing that industry does that shows that private does it better. It only costs more and benefits very few. We have been lately told that the potash industry is worth more than 4 billion dollars. If that is the case, then why do we not still own it?
Garibaldi Highlands, British Columbia.
In your introduction, you asked "What message does it send to the rest of the world when Canada blocks the sale of Potash Corp to BHP Billiton?" In your next sentence you stated that Canadian companies are routinely involved in foreigh takeovers of their own. Please give me a single example of a Canadian company taking over a foreign company where the takeover was anywhere near the US $40 billion figure that BHP Billiton is bidding for Potash Corp. As for my opinion on this topic in general, I can honestly say that the rejection of this takeover by the feds is one of the very few decisions taken by the Harper government that I support.
We need a bill to permit resale of closed mine property and associated mineral permits. This would force would be purchasers to not buy to shut down the competition. We have experienced far too many mines sold, then shut down, in order to raise commodity values. Also this mine's product is a component of affordable food world wide. If the sale were to proceed it could lead to more starvation in the third world. We can't risk that.
Moncton, New Brunswick.
The short answer is yes,it was the right thing to do. While the reaction of Michael Ignatieff and others was political, it is a fact that Potash is one of the most strategic resources there is, with an input to making food that cannot be replaced. Our country needs to guarantee a domestic supply in perpetuity. The decision to block the sale on its own, however, does not go far enough. The company should be gradually, respectfully, re-nationalized. When the Devine government left Saskatchewan bankrupt in the 80's, the Romanow government was forced to sell the company. Times have changed and its time to make this resource really work for the people of Saskatchewan. I dare Brad Wall to do not the conservative thing but the right thing!
New Westminster, British Columbia.
Canada needs to protect and control it's own resources. As for the Conservatives, they occasionally surprise us. Butit's not over yet. Is it a trick?
Myna Lee Johnstone,
Saltspring Island, British Columbia.
I believe that the government's decision has nothing at all to do with our country. Like so many other things, it seems so contradictory to what the Progressive Conservatives claim to hold as beliefs. Less government interference? I think this is all about votes and trying to gain some advantage in the west and with like-minded people who still view our country as being capable of running well without involving other countries and the people from them. Canada has no problem with Canadian companies getting involved in business in the world. It is pure and simple politics. Conservatives could care less. It's about votes.
Sioux Lookout, Ontario.
I am currently working for Vale which was INCO before the takeover and have worked for Falconbridge. I can tell you from both observation of the other companies and my experience within my present company that allowing foreign takeovers is not in the best interests of anyone except the short term benefit of the shareholders. The Falconbridge takeover resulted in almost complete shutdown of the head office and more recently the copper smelter and zinc plant in Timmins which has resulted in the loss if at least a 1000 jobs in Ontario. The Vale takeover of INCO has resulted in a complete change in the way business is run because the Vale core business is iron ore and they are trying to run the Company the same way as they operate in Brazil which makes us very inefficient.
I would think it is about time these people we elect start looking at protecting vital Canadian Natural resources. If our resouces fall into the hands of offshore companies and out of our or any Nations control, then are we not endangering our own being? I say tighten up the rules in favor of ones country, as it stands right now, too much control is in the hands of the greedy. Canada is being exploited by a business community that feeds off the working poor.
Cole Harbour, Nova Scotia.
A business correspondent has stated that we need investors to develop our natural resources. I would like to point out that in Saskatchewan, we don't wait for "investors"; Saskatchewanians historicaly have worked together to get things going, Examples of this is SaskTel, SaskEnergy, and SaskPower. If not for these Crown Corporations we would probably be freezing in the dark with no one to call as "investors" could not see a profit in providing these services to such a physically large provice with a small population.
Free markets, when it comes to Canada's resources should not be left to business and corperations. The people of Canada should be deciding. We will totally be at the mercy of corperations and business.This is wrong. Look at the tar sands. If they must produce this oil and gas at least we could implement higher fairer royalities. Alberta and Canada are getting robbed on the royalties from these foriegn companies.
For those who think that Potash Corp should be sold, where do you draw the line? Should we sell our water supply? Should Manitoba sell its hydro?
It was the correct decision, not only for Canada, but for the world. With globalization, there is a trend towards an increasing number of mergers with fewer and fewer large corporations owning more and more. One of these days, perhaps, if the trend continues, there will be one corporation which will own everything and in turn will be owned half and half by China and the U.S. Perhaps then we'll appreciate the benefits of controlling our own resources. I'm only half-joking.
Victoria, British Columbia.
In Brad Wall's now-famous speech, he talked of having talked with Peter Lougheed who asked him "who owns the resource", to which Mr. Wall replied "the people of Saskatchewan". So Ms.Tedesco and Brad Wall have different ideas about just who the owners are.
Vancouver, British Columbia.
It didn't take long (42 minutes) for someone to trot out the Conservatives "hidden agenda". As you stated to this caller "what is wrong with a political decision". It seems no matter what the harper Conservatives do some see the monster under the bed every time. And people accuse the political right of fear mongering.
I believe it was Sir Francis Bacon who wrote; "A man who has a wife and child has given hostages to fortune." If we rework this analogy with regard to a vital natural resource I think the implications and conclusion should be obvious. The merchant in this case could eventually become the beggar.
Absolutely right not to sell. Who would buy anything if they thought it would not increase in value. If sold, then foreign shareholders would forever reap the benefits and use these benefits in their homeland. How does that fit in with governments telling us to spend our way out this recession? Spend what if the profits are going overseas? Didn't the same situation occur when Britain controlled India? France with parts of Africa? How did their control help those nations? How is India doing now without control of the English? Doesn't our own PEI do the same with sale of their land to non residents?
Who are the shareholders in this company? Who is actually making money?
I think on balance we should have allowed the market to determine the outcome of the bid, and relied on our laws and regulations to provide for the interest of Canada. There should be no difference between having foreign or domestic owners if we have a robust enforcement of laws and regulations reflecting our economic and environmental concerns.
Will a successful hostile take-over force the people of Saskatchewan to sell their 49% of the company's share and future earnings?
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
I first once totally agree with the governments decision to block the sale of Potash Corp to foreign owernship. The comment that was made if BHP wanted to go into Russia to increase the production of Potash there ok, but what would happen in Canada? We need to understand that Potash is a finite resource but in light of that we need to ensure that the technology within Canada increase to ensure that we are competitive on the global market. The majority of Canada's export is based on finate resources so what happens when when all of finate resources have been depleted. Along with the selling of finite resources we should also be establishing a plan for R and D to ensure that Canada is competive in the future when we have no more natural resources to export.
Black Diamond, Alberta.
Our federal politicians, especially those on the conservative side, have been kowtowing to American interests for ages and this deal was probably quashed because the U.S. interests needed the help to hold onto the company.
Nanaimo, British Columbia.
You keep talking about Potash being 51% US owned. My understanding is that it is 51% internationally owned. The US holdings amount to thirty sometyhing percent.
Absolutely, it was the right decision but for the wrong reason. For starters, the price was ridiculously low but, more importantly, we should control and extract more from all of our natural resources. It's time for a change. Thanks to its important but relatively modest fossil-fuel reserves, tiny Norway has become a real player on the world stage - a global icon in education, health-care, technical innovation, prosperity and international generosity. Having wiped out their national debt and accumulated a slush fund of over $450 billion to carry them forward when their resources are depleted, Norwegians are proud masters of their own destiny and lead the world on the UN's Human Development Index.
Canadians, despite our huge reserves of fossil fuels, iron Ore, and world class deposits of Potash, Uranium, Nickel/Cobalt/Copper (Sudbury Basin) Gold, Diamonds and many other mineral riches - all in great demand - are still incapable of keeping our fiscal head above water. This year, we will add a largest ever deficit of fifty-six billion to our national debt, which already exceeds half a trillion. What a bunch of simpletons we have become. Our Norwegian friends are shaking their heads in disbelief.
Mont Tremblant, Quebec.
What is at issue here is not just this recent potash issue, but the subject of corporations owning natural resources globally. The IMF and World Bank have been forcing Third World countries to privatize natural resources including water. Canada, in this regard, is treated as a Third World country. Those resources should always be owned by the people of those countries and private corporations could be allowed to bid on various aspects such as extraction, refining, transportation et cetera.
Canada's resource corporations have been taken over by foreign corporations to the point where we have few Canadian companies left in the resource sector. While we elect governments whose ideology is that business runs everything more efficiently than governments Canadians will continue to lose control of our oil, gas, water, potash and all other resources to global corporations mainly based in the US. We've been brainwashed by these huge corporations for decades that businesses and private property are the cornerstone of democracy. But as the very conservative economist, Joseph Schumpeter, wrote: 'Private property is no more sacred than the divine right of kings."
There is a big difference between "American ownership" where there are many owners, and control by one shareholder.
I'd like to make 3 points relative to the BHP offer and subsequent ruling from the federal government.
1. Nationalism (masking parochialism) is the reason many callers have cited for there support of the government decision. As the PM rightly stated: This is an offer from an Australian company to an American company. Our "water rights" will not be affected unless someone can figure out a way to ship water economically from Prince Albert to Ayers Rock.
2. In a similar "vein", the unmined potash would remain in Saskatchewan even if Potash Corp. is sold. It will remain under the control of the government of that province.
3. Lastly, I would like to form an analogy. Suppose you own the Tim Horton's down the street. An resident of a neighbouring town takes a liking ot your store and makes an offer to buy your store. Before you can make any decision, your town council says "No way - our Timmie's is way too important to our way of life to have it owned by a foreigner." How many people listerning to this program would agree with the council's decision? This is a question of property rights - the rights of the Potash Corp. shareholders. Will they be compensated for their losses?
Given the Norwegian example given by a previous caller, perhaps an NEP (or a Provincial energy program) would have been a good idea and would in fact be a good thing for Potash. It has certainly been very successful for the Norwegians (2nd richest country in the world)
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
As I understand it Potash Corporation is not American owned. It's Foreign owned. American ownership is roughly 38% and offshore ownership is roughly 13%. Potash mining does not use excess water. I think there is only one mine of many which uses solution mining. Potash Corporation's corporate office is located in Saskatoon with 9 out of 12 directors being Canadian. (The operational office is located in Chicago.)
I just heard the comments from your former colleague, Theresa, and I wish I had a pen to note down the points she made in favour of so-called business. The main issue is "common gooods", that is, public assets versus private goods. Most people may not realize that the benefits of the public assets are shared by the all the people while the profits from privatized assets are mainly and directly shared by the shareholders who constitute a very small part of the community as a whole. In fact, when Theresa mentions business, she is really referring to the very very wealthy which excludes the vast majority of the people. Also, she is using sophistry when she says that we need private financiers and investors. Well, we seem to have money for warmongering, for bailouts, etc. I see what's happening as a vicious cycle with increasing power and sovereignty going to the corporate and financial sectors and our policies and regulations incrementally shifting towards serving the plutocrats and the corporate domain. I have been in Canada for well over forty years and I love our people and this beautiful country of ours. I wish Canadians would wake up and restore their lost sovereignty. The prevailing model, mainly imported from our southern border does not serve humanity in general, never mind Canadians.
All this chest thumping about a corporate backlash over the feds stepping into the potash deal is nothing more than posturing. What most folks forget is that corporations are all about their fiscal statements and there is not one of them that would not sell their souls if it was a profitable move. In essence, corporations are as needy of their "fiscal fix" as any street corner junkie johnsing for their dope. Therefore we do not need to worry about a backlash. If one corporation digs in its heels about a deal with a Canadian resource they can go look elsewhere because there are a dozen more waiting in the wings to take their place.
Gabriola island, British Columbia.
This issue was a no-win for Harper's conservatives. If he approved the deal, he would be going against the will of the people of Saskatchewan, and would be doing them extraordinary harm. If he negated the deal, he would be alienating his right-wing base by engaging in what many would consider "government interference". A disaster for him, either way. What this issue points to clearly for me is that pure laissez-faire Capitalism is not always, and is very often, not in the interests of the Canadian people and our economy. The far-right would have us believe the myth that government involvement in economic issues is universally wrong.
Good economic policy, which includes regulation, still says "we're open for business". Poor economic policy, which includes deregulation and hands-off government, says "We're open for exploitation". We have enough riches and resources to offer in our country that we don't need to resort to opening ourselves to exploitation in order to attract investment. Conservatives keep forgetting to mention that the reason our economy came through the recession as strongly as we have is because of the increased levels of government regulation in Canada as compared, say, to the United States.
Fredericton, New Brunswick.
Yes it was the right move. We cannot give or sell off resources, for little or no benefit to Canadians, but it happens anyway. We should only be selling value added products. We should not be selling logs we should be selling wood products. Potash is no different we need to invest as Canadians and sell products not raw materials. We had Petro Canada and it was making money. They went and sold it. Petro can should have been the developer in the Tar sands and employing Canadians. There would be less unemployment levels if we sold products and not raw material.
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Everything in Canada should not be up for sale. Water and hydro electric generation are only two of many. There are some decisions with regard to business that should not be left to business. Like " war is too important to be left to the Generals." Canada, like Australia, have small economies are and too easily manipulated to serve the needs of business. And the needs of business are profits. The decisions made by organizations may in fact be to the detriment of ordinary Canadians. How we can see this as a cold-blooded business decision is beyond me. Canada is not a branch operation of some international company. This leads to complexity in the ownership of said businesses and needs to be thought through a lot more.
Galiano Island, British Columbia.
What's this I'm hearing how business knows how to manage anything, much less strategic resources. Do people really have no memory of NorTel, WorldCom, Enron, 360 Networks, etc. etc (the dot com/con mismanagement) and this is only a smattering of the grossly mis-managed high tech. collapse. Now we have had the world wide collapse of the investment banking industry due to gross miss-management, Tell me again the virtues of corporations and how they look out for their share holders interests.
Would Canada allow Iran to take over any aspect of our Uranium industry? I think not. That is the extreme, but not exceptional, with respect to the difference between investment and control. The very definition of a banana republic is a country that says we are unconditionally open for business.
Victoria, British Columbia.
Jim Stanford makes sense; Canada has historically not been very good at taking advantage of its dominance in certain resources eg nickle. What would have happened if we'd insisted that the processing of the resource had to be done in Canada?
In response to your question of the day, I think the government did the right thing to block the sale of the potash resource. Can't think when I last agreed with anything the Conservatives did and I don't really care why they did it as long as a Canadian resource is protected for Canadians. I wonder how long our governments will have this option. There is a free trade agreement in the works between Canada and The European Union. If this agreement goes through, we won't have a say in what happens to our resources - potash, oil, water, etc. We need to protect our resources. They belong to Canadians - not to investors. Do we really want to have to buy potash from foreigners in order to farm here in Canada? I live in NB. We import our oil while the west exports to the US. The only winners are the corporations.
Quispamsis, New Brunswick.
Just to clarify the point about the government's decision regarding the Potash Corporation: what I think the callers were trying to say is that the "political" decision being made by the minority government was made in order to help them get a majority in the next election, after which their "hidden agenda" will be able to be expressed with impunity and they would then reverse this action and make the opposite decision, at the first opportunity. The point is that the government is being dishonest with the voters, specifically to get their votes on false premises and that they will only show their true intentions once they have a majority government.
Falkland, British Columbia.
I subscribe to a number of investment newsletters. One of their criteria for investing is how investment friendly a political jurisdiction is. The actions of both our federal and provincial governments has cast a huge black mark on our reputation for accepting foreign investment. The point has been made that it should really be up to the current shareholders as to the disposition of the company. I the sale was to proceed, what are the shareholders going to do with their newly found liquidity? Reinvest it! For those who believe strongly in potash, many will buy shares in the other potash companies. However, most will reinvest in what they feel is the best opportunity investing in Canada can present to them. On top of that, the governments will both benefit from taxation on the profits generated by this sale. As for protecting strategic materials, then perhaps something like the rare earth elements which China is currently rationing might qualify. Otherwise, our leaders are following the wrong path.
Vernon, British Columbia.
As someone who studies international investment agreements and the history of Canada's policies on foreign investment I have found your program very interesting. I am not sure you are asking the right question. More interesting to me is the broader issue about foreign based acquisitions of major firms in Canada. There have been growing concerns about high profile takeovers in recent year. These include firms that ignored undertakings they made to Investment Canada. In addition to the high profile takeovers of 2006 , other deals involving foreign state-owned enterprises (from China, Norway and the UAE) investing in resource sectors in Canada posed challenges as have the high profile attempted takeovers of technology intensive or strategic corporations. These included the attempted takeover of Alliant Techsystems, the owner of the Radarsat2 Satellite, by a US-based firm Macdonald Detwiler. After a well-coordinated public campaign and opposition outcry the Conservative government was forced to intervene and stop the sale. The act was alwasy intended to set up some dynamic that does allow for bargaining and ultimately political intervention.
In 2007 the Conservative government also added amendments to the Investment Canada Act which included a national security review of takeovers. Some observers see this adding a very open ended set of criteria to the process which may reverse the liberalization trend or at least allow for the politicization of controversial transactions. Now, a proposed investment may be subject to national security review even if it does not exceed the threshold for the net benefit review, whether the investment is proposed or already implemented, and even in cases in which a minority interest is acquired in a Canadian business (i.e., where there is no acquisition of control of a Canadian target). As in the case of other countries, there is no definition of what could be "injurious to national security," and there is a distinct possibility that the test could be used to target certain types of sovereign investment
The government has articulated guidelines as part of its security assessment for state owned enterprises which focus on transparency, disclosure, evidence of a Canadian presence in corporate management and governance, and distance from control of foreign governments - an effort clearly undertaken to address domestic concerns while reassuring potential foreign investors. The reality is that many countries intervene strategically in the case of major acquisitions. There is not a lot of data that shows that firms base investment decisions solely on the presence or absence of these type of rules. The United States has used national security to protect sectors and stop takeovers. China continues to attract investment and operates in a far less transparent and predictable manner in comparison to Canada
Concordia University College of Alberta,