Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

The Commons: Who loves ya, baby?

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, October 21, 2010 6:58pm - 0 Comments

The Scene. As he made his first intervention, Michael Ignatieff insisted on staring down Stephen Harper’s empty chair. Perhaps it’s to the point now that the Liberal leader sees Mr. Harper’s dismissive mug wherever he looks. Perhaps he simply found the green felt of the House seats a soothing sight to gaze upon.

His question this day had to do with the potential sale of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Incorporated to BHP Billiton Limited and all of the national, economic and social implications within and around that transaction. “Mr. Speaker,” he said, “yesterday when the Prime Minister was asked about the possible sale of Potash Corp he basically shrugged his shoulders and said ‘Australia, America, who cares?’”

In full, the Prime Minister had said, “This is a proposal for an American-controlled company to be taken over by an Australian-controlled company.” Whether Mr. Harper was shrugging at the time, I do not remember. But given that he is given to shrugging reflexively at almost all propositions, it is certainly a distinct possibility.

“He does not get it,” Mr. Ignatieff ventured. “This would be the largest resource takeover in Canadian history and it would have huge implications if Canada were to lose control of a key natural resource. It would impact on headquarters location, impact on jobs and impact on provincial revenue.”

That said, a question. “When will the government stand up and say no to this deal with Potash Corp?”

John Baird, rising on behalf of the Prime Minister (and apparently the Industry Minister, seated directly beside Mr. Baird), refused to commit to any such time limit on a decision the government will no doubt not be interested in explaining even after it has been rendered.

“The Minister of Industry will continue to follow all of his obligations under the Canada Investment Act,” Mr. Baird informed the House. “We will only approve any takeover that is in the net best interest to Canada. That is something we take very seriously. This country can depend on the Prime Minister standing up and doing the right thing.”

Mr. Ignatieff tried again and Mr. Baird took the opportunity to lament for all of the occasions on which a Liberal government had failed to block a foreign takeover of a Canadian company—not of course that Potash was necessarily a Canadian company and not of course that Mr. Baird’s government would be committing to blocking the purchase were it determined to be.

The crudest response to Mr. Ignatieff’s questions in this regard was by now no doubt obvious, perhaps even inevitable. And though for a moment it seemed no one would dare say it, after a third and final question from the Liberal leader, Mr. Baird could apparently not contain himself.

“I am pleased to talk about the Liberals record on foreign takeovers,” he said. “I think they had a foreign takeover of the Liberal Party just last year.”

The Conservative side loudly expressed its delight at this and, returned to his seat, Mr. Baird smirked with great self-satisfaction. Across the way, Mr. Ignatieff rolled his eyes. One could surely spend a great deal of time considering the relative offensiveness of the insinuation. But, as always, one must first debate to what extent it is worth taking seriously the words that are produced by members of this cabinet.

If it was cute lines that were the order of the day, the Liberals were lucky to have slotted Scott Brison second. “Does Canada not deserve better,” he said, turning to the government’s budget projections, “than a finance minister who cannot add and a Prime Minister who can only divide?”

This was an old bit from the Liberal side, but Ted Menzies was willing all the same to stand and pronounce himself insulted on behalf of the entire country. “Mr. Speaker, it is always sad when we hear the opposition cheering on someone talking down the Canadian economy,” he moaned.

On the Potash file, it was next Jack Layton who sought reassurance from the government side. Mr. Baird offered not only that, but also math. ”I should remind the member,” the government House leader said of Potash, “that about 51% of the stock is held by foreigners and 38% of the stock is held by Americans.”

This distinction between foreigners and Americans—especially after the insinuation that a Canadian who returns from the United States is somehow foreign—was perhaps an odd one. But here one should refer up a few paragraphs to the asterisk applied to cabinet ministers of this government.

“Mr. Speaker,” Mr. Layton shot back, “the largest percentage of stock, the majority of the board of directors and the resources themselves are Canadian.”

The NDP leader managed then to pronounce shame on both Liberals and Conservatives alike. Mr. Baird clung to the high road.

“This government will do that when it is required,” he said, “and I can say to my friends in the NDP that they can count on the Minister of Industry and its hard-working public servants to do the right thing for this great country.”

When the Liberals tried next to suggest—for the second day, this time even more regrettably than the first—some sexist disparity between the dispatching of Helena Guergis and the continued presence in cabinet of Christian Paradis, Mr. Baird barely even broke stride.

“Whether it is the great contribution of the Minister of State for Seniors, whether it is the great contribution of the Minister of Labour, whether it is the great contribution of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services,” he sang, “this government has a lot of powerful, strong women who do a great job for Canadians each and every day and they always stand up for Canada.”

That this government has so passionately clutched the nation to its bosom, it is a wonder the nation has only ever been willing to return a third of its love in kind.

The Stats. Ethics, 10 questions. Foreign investment, six questions. The economy, four questions. Infrastructure, three questions. Natural resources, trade, education, the military, the public service and foreign affairs, two questions each. The seal hunt, employment, the United Nations, science and tourism, one question each.

John Baird, 14 answers. Ted Menzies and Chuck Strahl, four answers each. Tony Clement and Ed Komarnicki, three answers each. Christian Paradis, Peter Van Loan, Peter MacKay, Andrew Saxton and Deepak Obhrai, two answers each. Gail Shea and John Duncan, one answer each.

Bookmark and Share
  • Dot

    Potash Corp was once a Sask crown corp. The solution is clear. if Brad Wall's Sask Party thinks this is now a strategic resource, simply outbid BHP Billiton and buy it back.

    • Orson Bean

      Exactly. All these people moan and whine about Potash being taken over by a foreign entity. Yet none of them are willing to step up to the plate and outbid BHP.

      And you're absolutely right about Brad Wall — why doesn't he put his government's money where his mouth is? Usually I've had a lot of time for Brad Wall, but he just seems to be doing a lot of whining and finger pointing on this file. It may be ok politics, but practically speaking it accomplishes SFA.

      • SunshineCoaster

        Recall that it was a conservative government that sold off this valuable company in an effort to avoid a deficit they had created by reducing taxes and spending wildly.

        • Orson Bean

          I'd have to defer to you on the background leading up to the original sale of Potash Corp shares to the public. I'm aware of the fact that it used to be a Crown Corporation.

          It's certainly true, though, that once you sell a significant stake in a company to public investors, you've sort of crossed the Rubicon and potentially put the company in play, as is currently the case with Potash Corp.

          One thing I'm not specifically aware of is whether there is anything in Potash Corp's constating documents (e.g., its articles of incorporation or bylaws) preventing or inhibiting a foreign takeover. I'm assuming there are no such restrictions, otherwise I assume we would have heard about those in the press coverage. But that would have been one possible alternative when they did the original Potash Corp IPO — put those restrictions in.

          • Dot

            OB, I think I recall you are a lawyer of sorts. Got a q. One concern that Wall expressed was that, with the takeover of Potash by BHP, they may opt out of the Potash cartel, which would reduce Sask's tax/royalty revenues.

            i thought cartels were illegal, well, in terms of US law anyway (anti-combines?). I'm thinking about the uranium cartel of the 70's (also a Sask stronghold)

            Got any take on this?

          • Orson Bean

            Well, I'm not a competition lawyer, so I'm pretty much an amateur when it comes to that. I did take it in law school. I believe the situation is that cartels, combines, anti-competitive behaviour, etc., are all prima facie illegal domestically. That's all under the jurisdiction of the Competition Act. But I think it's a lot fuzzier when you're talking about international cartels, which is what Canpotex (the Potash marketing cartel) is, and which is what OPEC is.

            And I think the conventional analysis distinguishes between "private cartels" and "public cartels". The former are illegal and subject to competition laws, the latter (being cartels in which a government or governments are involved in order to create and/or enforce the cartel) are generally, or often, not illegal (depending, of course, on the legal regime and jurisdiction under consideration). That may be what's going on with Canpotex, but that's just my guess.

          • Dot

            Thx

      • madeyoulook

        That's because the moaning and whining, if successful, will lower the purchase price of the company by limiting the competitive pool of bidders.

        Protectionism. Wiping away value for centuries. Now there's a slogan.

        • Orson Bean

          Oh, there are lots of ways to lower the purchase price and deter potential bidders — aside from moaning and whining.

          And, of course, there's the outright blocking maneuver (under the aegis of the Investment Canada Act), which I gather the federal NDP favours (quelle suprise). And are we to assume that Brad Wall and the federal Liberals favour that option as well?

          I guess the face-saving solution for the feds would be some sort of "made in Canada" solution, but homegrown entities just haven't been willing to step up so far.

  • hollinm

    Wherry what happened. Yesterday you said the PM shrugged. His mug? Do you honestly have any sense of balance. The Libs hurl accusations and you have nothing to say. Its only the Conservatives that appear to deserve your scorn. Pitiful really.
    Emily now it is your turn. What happened? You weren't the first to comment. Losing your touch?

    • Emily

      Actually, I was having dinner. Is that allowed?

      • Anon

        We'll let it slide this one time. You'd better be on the ball tomorrow, though! For the first comment on tomorrow's Beyond The Commons, I suggest the following zinger:

        "More proof that the Harper Conservatives are intellectually bankrupt. LOL. Worst PM ever!!!".

        Guaranteed you'll get at least twenty thumbs up from your adoring fans, including me!

        • Emily

          LOL I've never gotten 20 thumbs up….20 down perhaps, but never up.

      • hollinm

        Emily….of course but with the frequencies of your postings I thought your computer was attached to your hip. Hope you had a good dinner.

    • So, by logical conclusion are your comments not equally pitiful because you are the opposite and fail to heap scorn on your fellow Conservative brethern?

      • I just realized that "brethern" isn't a word. That's illogical. Still, I think it's logical that hollinm stinks and Emily rocks. Yay logic!

        • Yes, in my haste i clearly meant to write brethren. Silly me. I must be some latte sipping elite or something…

  • madeyoulook

    “Mr. Speaker,” he said, “yesterday when the Prime Minister was asked about the possible sale of Potash Corp he basically shrugged his shoulders and said ‘Australia, America, who cares?’”

    Bravo, Mr. Ignatieff. You just allowed Helicopter Harper to actually score a bonus point in favour of free markets and free trade.

    “Mr. Speaker,” Mr. Layton shot back, “the largest percentage of stock, the majority of the board of directors and the resources themselves are Canadian.”

    Mr. Layton (MYL shoots back), the resources themselves will still be Canadian. The workers gathering it up for sale will still be Canadian.

    • tedbetts

      #1: The PM was caught in another lie for no reason but political expediency. This is a Cdn owned & controlled company. If Harper wants to argue for a free market – which I frankly would agree with – then make it. Why the @#%& does he always feel the need to lie to protect himself from criticism?

      #2: Do the Conservative feel that Brad Wall and all of Saskatchewan is somehow not standing up for Canadians? That Wall is doing something wrong for Sask and Canada?

      #3: Are the workers gathering it up for sale actually Canadian right now? I don't know one way or another. Weak point by Layton regardless.

      #4: I do know though that management is Canadian and located in Canada. How long that would be the case after a foreign takeover is a legitimate and fair point to make. I happen to think the benefits of foreign investment generally outweigh that concern, but Harper's dismissal of this concern as held by the Premier of Saskatchewan, Saskatchewanians, and most those more socio-economically progressive is unfortunate. This is a great opportunity for him to stand up for something, and explain why, and move the country forward. Instead? Lies to protect himself, and typical ducking of the issue.

      • madeyoulook

        Re your #1: I will not pore over the shareholder list with national flags and a pie chart, because I frankly don't care whether furriners own shares in Potash Corp anymore than the Japanese should care whether my RRSP mutual fund owns 1.4% of Toyota.

        Re your #2: Does it surprise anyone that provincial premiers engage in protectionist pettiness to score political points? If yes, take a gander at Charest's despicable recent move on the Montreal metro order.

      • madeyoulook

        Re your #3: How can the workers not be Canadian? The potash is here. I realize most Canadians would rather cash their EI and welfare cheques than pick strawberries (Buenos dias, all you non-Canadian fruit collectors out there on Canadian farms), but I somehow doubt this applies here.

        Re your #4: I agree with you on the benefits of foreign investment, and I hope Harper ultimately agrees with both of us. So yes, it is a great opportunity for something like: "Free trade and free investment has brought substantial prosperity to any country intelligent enough to permit these benefits, and no shortage of peace between trading nations. Nothing here tells me we should be so dumb as to roll that back."

      • BGLong

        For what it's worth .. probably not much … the company is managed out of Chicago.

        • hollinm

          Don't tell ted betts. That would destroy his argument. Foreigners own 51% which includes 38% being Americans. By the way 8 of the 15 senior executives work out of Chicago. However, ted never wants the facts to get in the way.

    • austinso

      the resources themselves will still be Canadian. The workers gathering it up for sale will still be Canadian.

      Why yes…so while we can pat ourselves on the back for all the revenue we gather from unskilled labourers and the extravagant spending that will no doubt stimulate the economy, we'll be happy to buy back that fertilizer from these foreign companies at 10x's the cost, because that's just the beauty of free trade.

      CPC's Canada: proud to be Third World.

      • madeyoulook

        If 10x the cost is the prevailing market rate, why should we pay any less, whether the company was Canadian-owned or foreign-owned?

        And if 10x the cost is the going rate, why don't you set up your own company to compete with this evil foreign company employing hewer-and-drawer Canadians, undercut them at 9x cost, and make a proud-Canadian-nationalist fortune?

        Third world. Pffft.

  • Orson Bean

    I'm just wondering: is John Baird the least photogenic person on the planet?

    I'm wondering if they have competitions for that.

    Or, alternatively, does Wherry keep some photo archive solely dedicated to really unflattering pictures of John Baird?

    • Dot
    • Stewart_Smith

      Actually I kinda admire the stealth nature of John Baird the person versus John Baird in photographs. I mean go back to the photo above and tell me would you ever have guessed John Baird's secret.

      (!nagev si eh)

      • madeyoulook

        (!nagev si eh)

        Really? Wow. I guess I now get why he is so grumpy on the floor of the House…

        • Crit_Reasoning

          It's context-dependent. He may be grumpy on the floor of the House, but stick him on the dance floor and it's a whole different story.

          • Claudia Lemire

            We need to get him some delicious Alberta beef : )

  • albertaclipper

    "As he made his first intervention, Michael Ignatieff insisted on staring down Stephen Harper’s empty chair. Perhaps it’s to the point now that the Liberal leader sees Mr. Harper’s dismissive mug wherever he looks"
    ***********************************************************************
    No. He's just looking at a chair that he'll never occupy unless he sneaks in during the summer.

    • Emily

      Actually he was pointing out the chair was empty….like Harper

      Iggy could have been PM long ago but he turned down a coalition

      • hollinm

        Emily….how pray tell would Ignatieff have led the coalition. He along with Rae and LeBlanc (remember their news conference) supported Dion as leader of the coalition and PM. Do you believe that the party would still have turfed Dion after he became PM? Do you think Dion would have voluntarily left? I seriously doubt it. So tell me how would Ignatieff have become leader of the coalition? Was there another coalition attempt that we have not heard of?

      • Claudia Lemire

        The coalition would have not survived!

        • http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

          hypotheticals that we wont ever know.

  • BGLong

    I'm not sure that being identified as a "Canadian" mining company should necessarily be
    a source of great pride anyway …
    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/877438…

    It's all a bit farcical. Recall a few months back a corporation (Abitibi?) headquartered in Montreal and with
    substantial assets in Canada was able to jawbone a NAFTA settlement out of the gummint because it
    was registered in (where else) Delaware. Corporations are legal constructs with their separate legal
    systems and to expect them to behave as "national" entities … unless they are nationalized entities …
    is delusional.

  • Meany

    Gawd.
    Why doesn't Wall offer to buy 30% of the company, get some pension plans to buy 21% of the company, and call it a day.

    • Orson Bean

      Exactly. He's behaving like an armchair quarterback, not a leader.

  • Anon

    Thanks, Emily! This Inter-Nets stuff is so new-fangled. I'm always grateful for wikipedia links because I have no idea how to look things up on my own.

    • Jan

      Just go to the google window – type in anything you want and put wiki after it. They have almost everything it seems.

  • motor

    why is baird responding to questions

    can the ministers not answer for themselves

    where is the accountability

    • Reverend_Blair

      Can either Baird or Clement even find Saskatchewan on a map? Can Harper?

      • It's a fair question at this point…

    • Joh

      The question was directed to the PM….Baird, as house leader, represents the PM. Any more question?

      • Peter

        Joh, you miss the point. Very Canadian of you.

  • Harpers Gut

    Anyone else think that if John Baird died his hair blond, he'd look like Hans Grosse in the original Wolfenstein?
    http://i.fokzine.net/upload/100707_174027_Hans-Gr…

  • f4hq

    If the role were reversed and a solid Canadian firm stood to capitalize on a foreign resource, would you call them to task? Populism may help you in the polls Mr. Ignatieff but it wont help you in the election. Western civilization is built on free markets and the process under way in this takeover is one of the foundations of that principle. I am a proud Canadian and I see this issue as one that isn't. Business is business.

  • Style

    Aaron, the 51% that is foreign includes the 38% that is American. You can work that out pretty easily, especially after Jack Layton adds that the largest share of the company is held by Canadians. If it were 51% foreign plus 38% American, there'd only be 11% that could be Canadian. All Americans are foreigners, not all foreigners are American.

  • http://cdntaxlie.blogspot.com JOHNS_VIEW

    Baird finally said it. Americans are not lumped in with foreigners. Must be the reason why the Conservative Party could accept a bribe and have it not considered as an act of treason.

  • L S

    It is quite obvious Jack Layton & Michael Ignatieff have not their homework . Potash Corp head office is now in Chicago run mostly by Americans, This is foreign. BHP will move the head office to Saskatoon Sask. Moving the operation home will create more Canadian Jobs. The Yanks are making the most noise through non-thinking MP's

  • L S

    BHP brought much revenue to the NWT as they have been mining diamonds there for the past 11 years. Canada now exports diamonds, the incoming revenue is a big + for us. Moving Potash Corp back to Saskatchewan will be a financial PLUS for all.

  • Peter

    Saskatchewan remembers what it was like to be poor. It wants to hold onto control. They have had quite enough experience with banks and outside control.

  • chet

    In case non-partisan readers here wonder about the genesis of the smears the leftists on this site heap upon those who they dissaggree with, look no further than the guidance offered by the blog host himself:

    From the first paragraph:

    "Harper's dismissive mug."

    At least the veil has been removed from this seething partisanship.

    • Jan

      Stop whining, chet – it's pathetic.

From Macleans