Elections
Will your party take steps to make sure the foreign purchase of Canadian companies does not cost Canadian jobs? If so, what will you do? If not, why not?
Responses to the question: "Will your party take steps to make sure the foreign purchase of Canadian companies does not cost Canadian jobs? If so, what will you do? If not, why not?"
In This Page:
16 Candidate Responses (top)
| Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale | ||
|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Anthony Giles | No | We would not interfere in any transactions between purchaser and seller. We need to be inviting foreign investment into Canada. Our party is all about letting people do what they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. We feel that if a person buys a business, they should have the right to hire or fire whomever they please. |
| Dave Braden | Yes | I would suggest that we buy from a country as much as they buy from Canada. |
| Jamile Ghaddar | Yes | Changes to the Investment Canada Act (ICA) are urgently required. Discussion on these changes is important to the working class and its allies. Rules regarding foreign investment are a significant element in asserting Canada's sovereignty. Sovereignty centres on control over the economy, politics and way of life. Fulfilling Canada's sovereign duty towards foreign investment means in part exercising effective control over that investment throughout its entire lifespan.
The global monopolies invest in Canada to make money. They do not invest in Canada to develop the economy or enhance the well-being of Canadians. This is not a subjective critique; it is recognition of the objective world in which we live. Monopolies invest in Canada for their own benefit. The social responsibility of the government is to ensure that those investments benefit Canadians and their economy. The global monopolies are not going to ensure that their investments benefit Canadians; that is not their aim, in fact, the two "benefits" express contradictory aspects of a social relation. The responsibility of monopolies is to their owners of capital, to ensure the investment benefits those investors. This could be characterised as a narrow aim and benefit. The responsibility of the Canadian government is to the people and their society, to ensure the investment benefits Canadians, their economy and the general interests of society. This could be characterised as a broad aim and benefit. The two benefits are not necessarily mutually exclusive under current conditions, if that were the case, what would be the use of any foreign investment. The unity of the aspects within the social relation demands that arrangements be worked out for mutual benefit. The opposition of the aspects within the social relation demands that the social relation be resolved into a new condition that does not require foreign investment. Reform of the ICA requires setting up a legal framework, an authority that allows the government to take up its social responsibility to guarantee that the investment benefits Canadians and their economy, that both the broad and narrow aims and benefits of foreign investment find some unity of purpose within a legal arrangement. Otherwise, the broad benefit of public right will be constantly overwhelmed by the narrow benefit of monopoly right because the dominance of power of the monopolies crushes everything in its path if not restricted through the legal will and authority of public right and an organised and effective Workers' Opposition. Broad benefit of public right versus narrow benefit of monopoly right The tendency under neoliberal globalisation is for governments not to act on behalf of their constituents to ensure that the sovereign country receives a broad benefit from foreign investment. Industry Minister Tony Clement made this perfectly clear when he said in Hamilton regarding the takeover of Stelco by U.S. Steel that once the three year period under the ICA finished, U.S. Steel was free to do whatever it wants with Stelco. A Cabinet Minister by law should not be allowed to say such a thing, as it denies the government's social responsibility to defend Canadians and their economy and ensure that the U.S. Steel foreign investment bestows a broad benefit on Canada in an arrangement with the narrow benefit of monopoly right. The government is abrogating its social responsibility to uphold public right. A reform of the ICA should publicly force governments to uphold their social responsibility to ensure Canadians receive a broad benefit from foreign investment during its life within the country, which includes importantly its windup. Left to their own devices, global monopolies do not allow a broad benefit to accrue to the host country. Neoliberalism is very clear on this point: monopoly right and its narrow benefit to investors trump public right and its broad benefit to Canadians, their economy and society. What are some of the features necessary for a sovereign Canada to receive a broad benefit from foreign investment at this time in history? First, a sovereign country needs wages, benefits and pensions to be high enough to satisfy an established standard of living (a rising standard of living in developing countries) and to allow the local economy to function and successfully circulate goods and services. The workers' claim on what they produce or the service they provide comes into direct conflict with the claim of the global monopolies, which is generally taken out of the economy and distributed to its foreign investors. The conflict of claims on the added-value Canadians produce or make available from providing services underscores the necessity for public good faith negotiations between the collective of workers and the monopoly to find an acceptable arrangement that could be said to be mutually beneficial. If the monopolies use their position of dominance to force an arrangement that serves only |
| Nancy MacBain | Yes | Yes, the NDP is committed to ensuring that foreign investment translates into quality Canadian jobs. As outlined in our platform, we'll strengthen the Investment Canada Act by:
* Reducing, the threshold for investments subject to review to $100 million; * Providing explicit, transparent criteria for the "net benefit to Canada" test, with an emphasis on the impact of foreign investment on communities, jobs, pensions and new capital investments; * Requiring public hearings that allow for community input into decisions on both the assessment of "net benefit" and conditions to apply to the investment; * Ensuring public disclosure and enforcement of all commitments undertaken by potential investors. |
| Peter Ormond | Yes | Yes, the Green Party believes in reviewing foreign purchases to ensure that Canadian interests - including jobs - are not compromised. In Hamilton, we've seen how former Stelco employees have been locked out, bullied, and pensions jeopardized. Meanwhile, corporate profits at head office soar. |
| Hamilton Centre | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Lisa Nussey | Yes | Changes to the Investment Canada Act (ICA) are urgently required. Discussion on these changes is important to the working class and its allies. Rules regarding foreign investment are a significant element in asserting Canada's sovereignty. Sovereignty centres on control over the economy, politics and way of life. Fulfilling Canada's sovereign duty towards foreign investment means in part exercising effective control over that investment throughout its entire lifespan.
The global monopolies invest in Canada to make money. They do not invest in Canada to develop the economy or enhance the well-being of Canadians. This is not a subjective critique; it is recognition of the objective world in which we live. Monopolies invest in Canada for their own benefit. The social responsibility of the government is to ensure that those investments benefit Canadians and their economy. The global monopolies are not going to ensure that their investments benefit Canadians; that is not their aim, in fact, the two "benefits" express contradictory aspects of a social relation. The responsibility of monopolies is to their owners of capital, to ensure the investment benefits those investors. This could be characterised as a narrow aim and benefit. The responsibility of the Canadian government is to the people and their society, to ensure the investment benefits Canadians, their economy and the general interests of society. This could be characterised as a broad aim and benefit. The two benefits are not necessarily mutually exclusive under current conditions, if that were the case, what would be the use of any foreign investment. The unity of the aspects within the social relation demands that arrangements be worked out for mutual benefit. The opposition of the aspects within the social relation demands that the social relation be resolved into a new condition that does not require foreign investment. Reform of the ICA requires setting up a legal framework, an authority that allows the government to take up its social responsibility to guarantee that the investment benefits Canadians and their economy, that both the broad and narrow aims and benefits of foreign investment find some unity of purpose within a legal arrangement. Otherwise, the broad benefit of public right will be constantly overwhelmed by the narrow benefit of monopoly right because the dominance of power of the monopolies crushes everything in its path if not restricted through the legal will and authority of public right and an organised and effective Workers' Opposition. Broad benefit of public right versus narrow benefit of monopoly right The tendency under neoliberal globalisation is for governments not to act on behalf of their constituents to ensure that the sovereign country receives a broad benefit from foreign investment. Industry Minister Tony Clement made this perfectly clear when he said in Hamilton regarding the takeover of Stelco by U.S. Steel that once the three year period under the ICA finished, U.S. Steel was free to do whatever it wants with Stelco. A Cabinet Minister by law should not be allowed to say such a thing, as it denies the government's social responsibility to defend Canadians and their economy and ensure that the U.S. Steel foreign investment bestows a broad benefit on Canada in an arrangement with the narrow benefit of monopoly right. The government is abrogating its social responsibility to uphold public right. A reform of the ICA should publicly force governments to uphold their social responsibility to ensure Canadians receive a broad benefit from foreign investment during its life within the country, which includes importantly its windup. Left to their own devices, global monopolies do not allow a broad benefit to accrue to the host country. Neoliberalism is very clear on this point: monopoly right and its narrow benefit to investors trump public right and its broad benefit to Canadians, their economy and society. What are some of the features necessary for a sovereign Canada to receive a broad benefit from foreign investment at this time in history? First, a sovereign country needs wages, benefits and pensions to be high enough to satisfy an established standard of living (a rising standard of living in developing countries) and to allow the local economy to function and successfully circulate goods and services. The workers' claim on what they produce or the service they provide comes into direct conflict with the claim of the global monopolies, which is generally taken out of the economy and distributed to its foreign investors. The conflict of claims on the added-value Canadians produce or make available from providing services underscores the necessity for public good faith negotiations between the collective of workers and the monopoly to find an acceptable arrangement that could be said to be mutually beneficial. If the monopolies use their position of dominance to force an arrangement that serves only |
| Michael James Baldasaro | Yes | Yes. Neither I nor my Party will form the government, that much is obvious. However, I can promise everyone one thing and that is, that I will urge that every purchase of Canada be combined with an agreement thereto which would be rigorously prosecuted. The so-called-big parties that talk the talk but, in the end, have to walk the Party Line and as history evidenced. Few will cross the line to think Independently. |
| Hamilton East-Stoney Creek | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Bob Green Innes | Yes | The Canadian Action Party intends to promote jobs in Canada by undertaking a critical review of the entire NAFTA and free trade systems which seem to have morphed into conduits for siphoning wealth into secrecy bound tax havens such as Delaware and the City of London. For example Google, of do-no-evil fame, uses the Irish Sandwich and Double Dutch technique.
Not only is there extreme anger in our ranks over such things as National Treatment Clause and Chapter 11, which arguably diminishes our ability to protect our natural and economic environments, but there is no doubt that the playing field is tilting dangerously toward complete corporate abdication of any responsibility toward the jurisdictions in which they operate. Please sign my petition to end or isolate tax havens. Whether such jobs end up in Hamilton depends on whether the city can become more competitive, relative to its neighbours. While the fact that Hamilton has shouldered more than it's share of social services and other public entities should be redressed, I believe that Hamilton must work diligently on management problems that are beyond the purview of the Federal Government. Further, while CAP has no policy on the matter, my own belief is that the unnecessary and ill timed Pan Am Games, and any similar undertakings should be canceled forthwith until such time as the global financial problems have been resolved, our recommended Monetary System Reform has been implemented and other pressing priorities have been dealt with, such as fixing the education boondoggle which sees too many new grads hobbled by excessive student debt. The entire practice of the federal government trying to control everything through funding only serves to disconnect the taxpayer from the equation. |
| David Hart Dyke | Yes | I will work to ensure that control of Canadian companies stays in Canadian hands. The track record of U.S. Steel, Vale Canada and other giant multi-nationals that have gained control of Canadian corporations has not been good for Canada. And the federal government has been missing in action while these companies sneer at agreements they signed in order to buy their "little piece of Canada". |
| Gord Hill | Yes | Yes, Yes, YES! We would make every effort to keep companies Canadian. Foreign ownership of Resource companies would be limited to a minority share. We would look for and develop financial vehicles such as income trusts that would allow Canadian Owner Developers to pass their companies on while benefiting fairly through the sale of them. Companies would not be sold outside of Canada for the sake of the sale - as in the case of Alcan, Inco, Falconbridge, Dofasco,who were viable and held great market share. These companies could grow from within or together. In the case BHP Billington buying The Potash Corporation they were stopped - they should have never been allowed to start and where the Potash Corporation holds the largest market share in the World a dominate position (a reason given for many Canadian companies saying that they had to sell because they did not hold a dominate position.) WE have allowed BHP Billington to buy major Potash mining rights in Saskatchewan. I personally do not see the difference between the two. Potash Corporation now may have its position whittled away, along with a fair profit stream that provides income and benefits to Canada. In the case of Stelco major questions should have been asked about US Steel's reasoning and how would it work it into their marketing plans. The contract should have had stipulations regarding the building of new plants within the same market area and All foreign purchase contracts if successful must have monies intrusted that can be held immediately if the contract is not upheld and a given number of days to correct the situation. ALL Foreign Purchases of a set amount or of a patented product must be to the Benefit of Canada and every effort made to provide the assistance so that foreign ownership is not required. Canadians are great at Inventing and Developing Products we need to be able to GROW and KEEP THEM. As there is only a small amount of us Canadians comparatively to the rest of the World and taking into consideration many jobs are outside of manufacturing - there is only a small number of jobs required, to get our people working - Lets Get Going! |
| Greg Pattinson | No | Anyone who has taken a fist year economics course knows that protectionist policies are detrimental to Canada's economy. Weather it is a foreign or domestic acquisition that "costs Canadian jobs" it removes inefficiencies in the Canadian economy. When inefficiencies are removed in one area of the economy, people have more money to spend, and other areas of the economy grow, creating more jobs than were initially lost. |
| Wayne Marston | Yes | I have responded to two questions together, as the solutions are inextricably linked. No program to rebuild Canada's manufacturing base will succeed unless policies are in place to insure that Canadian materials are used in the production of Canadian goods.
Take steel, for example. The NDP will implement policies to promote the use of Canadian steel wherever steel is used in manufactured goods in Canada-in shipbuilding, automobile production, and so on. There are over 50 small, steel related firms in Hamilton, and they will benefit enormously from the NDP plan to reduce the small business tax rate. We will also extend the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance for eligible machinery and equipment acquired before 2016. As part of our plan to promote small business and jobs, we will as well introduce a Job Creation Tax Credit that will provide up to $4,500 per new hire. We will likewise continue funding projects such as the metallurgical research currently being undertaken at the McMaster Innovation Park. With more and more R&D being undertaken locally, businesses are more likely to locate and/or remain in Hamilton. As for foreign investment, last November the NDP tabled a motion to amend the Investment Canada Act. We believed then and believe now that the Investment Canada review process is too secretive and has failed to ensure incoming direct investment is, in fact, in the interest of Canadian workers. The NDP motion does away with much of the secrecy that currently surrounds the takeover approval process, and would allow more transparency by requiring public hearings on the bids and public disclosure of the government's reasoning for bid approvals. |
| Wendell Fields | Yes | Changes to the Investment Canada Act (ICA) are urgently required. Discussion on these changes is important to the working class and its allies. Rules regarding foreign investment are a significant element in asserting Canada's sovereignty. Sovereignty centres on control over the economy, politics and way of life. Fulfilling Canada's sovereign duty towards foreign investment means in part exercising effective control over that investment throughout its entire lifespan.
The global monopolies invest in Canada to make money. They do not invest in Canada to develop the economy or enhance the well-being of Canadians. This is not a subjective critique; it is recognition of the objective world in which we live. Monopolies invest in Canada for their own benefit. The social responsibility of the government is to ensure that those investments benefit Canadians and their economy. The global monopolies are not going to ensure that their investments benefit Canadians; that is not their aim, in fact, the two "benefits" express contradictory aspects of a social relation. The responsibility of monopolies is to their owners of capital, to ensure the investment benefits those investors. This could be characterised as a narrow aim and benefit. The responsibility of the Canadian government is to the people and their society, to ensure the investment benefits Canadians, their economy and the general interests of society. This could be characterised as a broad aim and benefit. The two benefits are not necessarily mutually exclusive under current conditions, if that were the case, what would be the use of any foreign investment. The unity of the aspects within the social relation demands that arrangements be worked out for mutual benefit. The opposition of the aspects within the social relation demands that the social relation be resolved into a new condition that does not require foreign investment. Reform of the ICA requires setting up a legal framework, an authority that allows the government to take up its social responsibility to guarantee that the investment benefits Canadians and their economy, that both the broad and narrow aims and benefits of foreign investment find some unity of purpose within a legal arrangement. Otherwise, the broad benefit of public right will be constantly overwhelmed by the narrow benefit of monopoly right because the dominance of power of the monopolies crushes everything in its path if not restricted through the legal will and authority of public right and an organised and effective Workers' Opposition. Broad benefit of public right versus narrow benefit of monopoly right The tendency under neoliberal globalisation is for governments not to act on behalf of their constituents to ensure that the sovereign country receives a broad benefit from foreign investment. Industry Minister Tony Clement made this perfectly clear when he said in Hamilton regarding the takeover of Stelco by U.S. Steel that once the three year period under the ICA finished, U.S. Steel was free to do whatever it wants with Stelco. A Cabinet Minister by law should not be allowed to say such a thing, as it denies the government's social responsibility to defend Canadians and their economy and ensure that the U.S. Steel foreign investment bestows a broad benefit on Canada in an arrangement with the narrow benefit of monopoly right. The government is abrogating its social responsibility to uphold public right. A reform of the ICA should publicly force governments to uphold their social responsibility to ensure Canadians receive a broad benefit from foreign investment during its life within the country, which includes importantly its windup. Left to their own devices, global monopolies do not allow a broad benefit to accrue to the host country. Neoliberalism is very clear on this point: monopoly right and its narrow benefit to investors trump public right and its broad benefit to Canadians, their economy and society. What are some of the features necessary for a sovereign Canada to receive a broad benefit from foreign investment at this time in history? First, a sovereign country needs wages, benefits and pensions to be high enough to satisfy an established standard of living (a rising standard of living in developing countries) and to allow the local economy to function and successfully circulate goods and services. The workers' claim on what they produce or the service they provide comes into direct conflict with the claim of the global monopolies, which is generally taken out of the economy and distributed to its foreign investors. The conflict of claims on the added-value Canadians produce or make available from providing services underscores the necessity for public good faith negotiations between the collective of workers and the monopoly to find an acceptable arrangement that could be said to be mutually beneficial. If the monopolies use their position of dominance to force an arrangement that serves only |
| Hamilton Mountain | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Marie Bountrogianni | Yes | In principle, I am very committed to laws that ensure that foreign take-overs of Canadian companies preserve Canadian jobs. Industry and trade policy should be geared toward creating real, lasting work opportunities for Canadians. |
| Stephen E. Brotherston | Yes | We could start by actually following the investment rules currently in place and applying a measure of common sense.
|
| Niagara West-Glanbrook | ||
| Candidate | Brief Response | Full Response |
| Stephen Bieda | Yes | It is essential that we have clear laws that ensure that foreign acquisitions of Canadian companies maintain or grow Canadian jobs. Government should take a more strategic and transparent approach to foreign investment in Canada.
I would also like to add that once the government has determined that a foreign company has breached the terms of an Agreement (ie. U.S. Steel) the company should lose the privilege of having the terms kept public disclosure. |
Response Summary (top)
| Brief Response | Count | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 14 | 87.5% |
| No | 2 | 12.5% |
| Maybe | 0 | 0.0% |
15 Candidates Have Not Responded (top)
| Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale | ||
|---|---|---|
| David Sweet | ||
| Hamilton Centre | ||
| Annie Tennier | ||
| David Christopherson | ||
| James W. Byron | ||
| Hamilton East-Stoney Creek | ||
| Bob Mann | ||
| Brad Clark | ||
| Michelle Stockwell | ||
| Hamilton Mountain | ||
| Chris Charlton | ||
| Henryk Adamiec | ||
| Jim Enos | ||
| Terry Anderson | ||
| Niagara West-Glanbrook | ||
| Bryan Jongbloed | ||
| David Heatley | ||
| Dean Allison | ||
| Sid Frere | ||
