Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Industry Minister Tony Clement speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Nov. 18, 2010.

CHRIS WATTIE/Reuters

Industry Minister Tony Clement appears wary of making "strategic resource" a yardstick for measuring future foreign takeovers even though the Conservatives' political minister in Saskatchewan used this rationale to justify blocking a bid for Potash Corp.

Mr. Clement is preparing to clarify in a matter of days how he intends to interpret the legislation for screening non-Canadian takeovers in the wake of the Harper government's early November decision to turn down Australian miner BHP Billiton's unfriendly bid for Potash Corp.

The day after the rejection was announced, the Harper government put up Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, the Tory Party's point man in Saskatchewan, as the main spokesman to explain why Ottawa did what it did on an issue that had threatened to cost Conservatives seats in that province.

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Ritz used a much-watched speech in the Commons Nov. 4 to defend the decision as an attempt to preserve international clout for Canada. Potash Corp. is a dominant producer of a key ingredient in fertilizer that's much in demand around the world. "From a strategic standpoint, I think we have it in spades here," Mr. Ritz told Parliament.

The Agriculture Minister's statement suggested the Tories have essentially changed the rules for screening outside investment while reviewing the Potash decision because existing guidelines do not mention "strategic resource" as a reason for rejecting bids.

But Mr. Clement, who is eager to dispel the impression Canada is unfriendly to global investment now that the Tories have blocked two controversial foreign takeovers, noted Thursday he has not been using the word "strategic" to discuss investment screening.

"The facts of the matter are that 'strategic' is not mentioned in the Investment Canada Act. It's not a concept that has a home in the nomenclature of that particular piece of legislation.

"I myself have never used the word 'strategic,'" the Industry Minister added.

He said he based his decision solely on the "black letter of the law" found within the existing legislation.

Mr. Clement did not directly answer whether he felt Ottawa needs to designate "strategic resource" as a new criteria for reviewing future foreign takeovers.

Story continues below advertisement

"I think I will stand on my comment that it's not specifically mentioned in the act. The act has six fairly long clauses that deal with the factors through which one must assess a potential bid and I actually think that worked rather well in the BHP Billiton process."



Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies