PUBLICATION: WINNIPEG FREE PRESS
DATE: 2005.07.05
PAGE: B1
SECTION: City

But did they have anything to say?

Paul Samyn Paul Samyn OTTAWA -- There are many ways to score the parliamentary session that was.
For Prime Minister Paul Martin, the fact his minority government is still standing was the best measure of success.
"If you take a look at it, it was a tumultuous session," Martin said last week as MPs headed home for the summer.
"I think that there were some 40 votes of confidence, all of which we won. And while the session certainly was one that drew a lot of attention, it was also a session in which a great deal was accomplished.

Fundamentally we got the job done.'' But in politics, getting the job done means talking, talking and even more talking. And when it came to talking, the country's top politician was far from the top talker. In fact, if words, not actions, are the litmus test we want to apply to the past session, then the prime minister was but 56th on the list of 308 MPs. All we got out of Martin in a session that started in October and dragged on until the end of June was 36,298 words.

Tsk, tsk variety By comparison, the No. 1 politician, at least verbally, was another Paul by the name of Szabo, who was good for 107,873 words. The Ontario backbench Liberal not only talked circles around the PM but was also 6,000 words ahead of the No. 2 talker, the aptly named Speaker of the Commons, Peter Milliken. Interestingly, most of Milliken's words
in this meanest of parliaments tended to be of the tsk, tsk variety, as he was forced to speak 2,164 times, usually in a vain attempt to bring order to the House of Disorder.

Now, don't go thinking that my office abacus is keeping a running word count. Instead, this numerical minority report comes courtesy of a new website, www.howdtheyvote.ca , which takes every and all parliamentary utterances recorded in Hansard and then turns them into user-friendly stats for each and every MP.

From his computer in Kamloops, Corey Horner has been running the non-partisan website, which he hopes will be a tool for political accountability by allowing voters to find out who said what, how often they spoke, how they voted -- and even when they were absent. Now, our MPs aren't paid by the word. And for Minister of State Claudette Bradshaw of New Brunswick, that's a good thing, because she apparently didn't open her mouth once during the past session.

I'm not sure how exactly a minister of the Crown can get away with keeping it zipped for nine months, but alas, her office couldn't be reached to comment on her lack of comments.

Tory Leader Stephen Harper is no closer to 24 Sussex Drive than he was a year ago, but he may take some solace in the fact that he nearly double-talked the prime minister, recording 63,464 words, good for 16th place.

Alas for Harper, the top-talking Tory was deputy leader Peter MacKay, whose 73,319 words took him to sixth place. With Belinda Stronach (No. 157) only good for 18,157 words, one would have to assume that MacKay did most of the talking when they were still both Tories in love.

Manitoba may only have 14 MPs, but with the likes of Pat Martin and Judy Wasylycia-Leis around, there should be no problem with the province's concerns being voiced.

Martin, the NDP MP from Winnipeg Centre, was the fourth-most-talkative MP on Parliament Hill, with 90,571 words on the record. Wasylycia-Leis, his colleague from Winnipeg North, was right behind him in fifth spot with 83,319 words.

Treasury Board President Reg Alcock may have the car and driver that come from being the province's cabinet minister, but in terms of his talkative colleagues, he ranked only seventh among Manitoba MPs with 26,091 words.

By comparison, Steven Fletcher, who can't stand in the Commons because he is paralysed, managed to speak 140 times to get nearly 39,000 words on the record. As for the quietest Manitoba, try Inky Mark (Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette) who spoke just 8,795 words.

So what are to make of this session by the numbers? At some level, it indicates a level of activity in the Commons. As speaking time is limited and Questions Period spots prized among opposition MPs, the more said the better. However, much of what is said in the Commons is rarely ever listened to. Once the 45-minute daily drama of Question Period is finished, the chamber is usually all but empty, leaving those who are speaking to spend much of their time talking to themselves.

Proving, once again, that talk is cheap.

PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2005.07.07
EDITION: National
SECTION: Letters
PAGE: A17
BYLINE: Roy Cullen
SOURCE: National Post

Gun registry works

Re: Gun Registry Is No Lifesaver, editorial, July 4.
I note that your editorial states that the statistician responsible for data -- concerning the decline in gun-related homicides between 1979 and 2002, and the overall utility of the firearms registry -- asserts that there cannot be a link to any single cause, such as gun laws. However, your editorial then ignored this caution and drew conclusions about what was causing, or not causing, the decline in this type of homicide. In any event, what we do know from the facts is that the gun control legislation is working.
Since December, 1998, approximately 14,000 individual firearms licences have been refused or revoked by Chief Firearms Officers across Canada. This is helping to ensure that those who pose a threat to themselves and others are no longer allowed to legally possess or acquire firearms and ammunition. The reasons for licence refusals and revocations include domestic violence, drug offences, mental health problems and other public safety concerns.
Law enforcement officers across Canada use Firearms Program licensing and registration information to help them do their jobs. Police, customs officers and other public safety officials use the Canadian Firearms Registry Online (CFRO) service approximately 2,000 times every day and have immediate, direct access to the service through the Canadian Police Information Centre. Since Program implementation in 1998, the CFRO has received more than 3.6 million queries. Firearms Program information is also used to help prosecute firearms crimes. In 2004, the Canada Firearms Centre produced 2265 affidavits to support the prosecution of firearms related crimes across Canada.
Long-term reductions in firearms crime and violence clearly parallel the implementation of enhanced firearms control measures in Canada over many years. For example, since 1995, the number of firearms-related spousal homicides has decreased by 8% and the number of firearms-related family homicides has declined by 25%. With the implementation of the firearms registry, we can expect these downward trends to continue.
As gun-related deaths decline, so are the costs of the firearms registry. Registration costs have declined from $33-million last year to just over $15-million this year.
The registry is proving its effectiveness in the fight against crime.
Roy Cullen, MP and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Ottawa.

PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2005.05.06
EDITION: National
SECTION: Canada
PAGE: A8
COLUMN: Ottawa Report
BYLINE: Cristin Schmitz
SOURCE: CanWest News Service
DATELINE: OTTAWA

Liberal MP admits he is 'kind of rednecky' about fighting crime

OTTAWA - Some Liberal MPs appear to be mimicing the Conservatives' "tough-on-crime'' platform. In a rare display at the House of Commons justice committee yesterday, Liberal MP Roy Cullen, the parliamentary secretary for Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan, criticized Liberal MP Paul Macklin, the parliamentary secretary to Justice Minister Irwin Cotler. "It's the first time in eight years,'' said Bloc Quebecois justice critic Richard Marceau about the spectacle of the assistants of two Cabinet ministers publicly contradicting each other on the merits of a government bill. Mr. Macklin was dutifully trying to shepherd through a clause-by-clause study of a bill to expand the DNA data bank. The government's hoped-for swift approval of its bill was stymied when Conservative justice critic Vic Toews tabled amendments that would further toughen the bill. Mr. Macklin spoke against the proposed changes, when Mr. Cullen stepped in. "Frankly I just don't buy the argument,'' he said. "I think Mr. Toew's amendment is a sound one and I will be supporting it,'' Mr. Cullen continued, describing himself as "kind of rednecky'' on giving police all the tools they need to fight crime.

PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen
DATE: 2005.06.11
EDITION: Final
SECTION: News
PAGE: A7
BYLINE: Cristin Schmitz
SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen

Fraser turns critical eye to RCMP forensic labs

Auditor General Sheila Fraser will investigate opposition allegations that the RCMP's forensic services are bogged down by delays and backlogs.
Ms. Fraser confirmed this week in a letter to John Maloney, chairman of the Commons justice committee, an audit will be launched into the RCMP's Forensic Laboratory Services "with a view to reporting to Parliament in the next 18 to 24 months."
The auditor general was responding to a May 12 written request for an independent
review from the Commons justice committee. Conservative, Bloc Quebecois and NDP MPs banded together last month in the justice committee to pass a motion over the objections of Liberal members.
The request for the review comes after the justice committee heard troubling testimony last May from two retired senior forensic officers, Gary Mcleod and David Hepworth, who contend the RCMP is wasting money in a backlogged and inefficient forensics system that had nearly 1,000 cases still pending as of last February.
Toronto MP Roy Cullen, parliamentary secretary for Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan, argued against the audit.
But he said outside the House of Commons yesterday, "If the auditor general focuses on value for money, and performance benchmarked against other jurisdictions, we are going to come out very, very well. But if she gets hung up on language around 'backlog' versus 'work in progress,' then I think we are all doomed, because it's not going to do anything for anybody."

PUBLICATION: The Hamilton Spectator
DATE: 2005.04.23
SECTION: Local
PAGE: A01
SOURCE: The Hamilton Spectator
BYLINE: Jacquie De Almeida

$300M For Safer Ports; Hamilton chosen as hub of Great Lakes marine security plan

An RCMP patrol vessel based in Hamilton will protect our harbour, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway from terrorism as part of a $300-million marine security plan unveiled yesterday.
The proposed base for the 40-metre boat will be the Canada Centre for Inland Waters and will be staffed by the Canadian Coast Guard.
The boat -- one of four -- is expected to be in place by 2009.
It's one of several initiatives announced yesterday by government house leader and Hamilton East-Stoney Creek MP Tony Valeri at the Canada Marine Discovery Centre.
The five-year federal initiative -- originally announced in the 2005 federal budget -- is designed to enhance security of Canada's marine transportation system, particularly inland waterways and ports.
Under the plan, Hamilton is also a priority site for a marine security centre, which would serve as a base of operations for civilian and military teams responsible for detecting, assessing and responding to marine security threats.
Jeff Brookfield, vice-president of operations for the Hamilton Port Authority, praised the announcement and said it would fill in "a lot of the holes and gaps on the Great Lakes."
"At face value, it sounds like some of the initiatives we've been asking for for a long time, particularly with respect to the waterside security effort," Brookfield said. "We certainly don't have the resources to give waterside security the effort that it requires."
He said improved security would make Hamilton attractive to international traders and would also lead to greater expansion of port operations.
About 13-million tonnes of cargo -- mostly petroleum, iron ore and coal -- moves through Hamilton Harbour.
The high flow of traffic makes security a significant concern. The port authority recently received $130,000 from the federal government for security upgrades.
The announcement comes a year after the federal government released a $690-million national security policy that cracks down on terrorist threats on Canadian soil. The policy identified the marine sector as an important element to national security.
Roy Cullen, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, was also on hand for the announcement.
The $300-million plan includes:
* Establishing Royal Canadian Mounted Police emergency response teams in Toronto and Montreal to manage on-water terrorist incidents;
* Adding the four new patrol vessels to be crewed by the RCMP and the Canadian Coast Guard;
* Installing new communication equipment to improve federal interagency, on-water response;
* Implementing new technologies to screen incoming marine containers for radioactive materials;
* Enhancing the co-ordination of waterside security.
Valeri said the funding announcement confirms Canada's commitment to marine security and is the latest in a string of enhancements since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks in the United States.
The federal government has spent more than $9 billion to protect Canada's borders against terrorist threats. More than $930 million has been spent on marine security. About 110-million tonnes of cargo move between Canada and the United States via waterways and coastal ports every year.
Valeri said Hamilton was singled out because of the high volume of cargo traffic moving through the harbour and the need to get shipments to their destinations as quickly as possible.
"For higher density areas like the Golden Horseshoe, greater security co-ordination will help with the flow of transportation through this region. This will give greater confidence to Hamilton's marine shipping community that the traffic to and from will not face unnecessary delays," he added.
Valeri stressed security at Hamilton's ports is adequate. However, he said international partners look at the effectiveness of Canada's marine security measures and that they meet international standards, not only for vessels but for ports themselves.
"Where those vessels stop and unload cargo needs to have security standards in place so that there is no break in the link, and so it's important for us to meet that standard and that's what we've done," the government house leader said.

PUBLICATION: The New York Times
SECTION: Business/Financial
EDITION: Late Edition - Final
DATE: 2004.10.29
PAGE: 1
BYLINE: IAN AUSTEN
DATELINE: OTTAWA, Oct. 28

Chinese Plan to Buy Big Miner Stirs Canadians Left and Right

The China Minmetals Corporation is expected to make a formal bid for Noranda, Canada's largest mining company, next month. But just the announcement that it is interested in taking over Noranda has set off protests by both Canada's political right and left.
The biggest concern seems to be that China Minmetals is government-owned. While several government-owned companies in China, including Minmetals, have purchased foreign companies, those deals have usually involved small, privately held operations rather than a large, publicly traded corporation like Noranda.

In addition, some of the political critics have raised questions about the Chinese company's commitment to environmental protection. In the province of Quebec, Bloc Quebecois politicians are concerned that Minmetals will move ore processing to China. And Stockwell Day, a member of Parliament from the Conservative Party, has said that Minmetals' labor practices need to be scrutinized.

David Kilgour, a Liberal member of Parliament, said that if one commercial company was taking over another, "nobody would bat an eyelash." But, he said: "This is a branch of a government department in China. I had two town hall meetings last week and everyone said, 'No, don't do it."'
Noranda is the world's largest zinc producer and is ranked ninth in copper. It owns 60 percent of Falconbridge, a leading nickel producer. Minmetals, based in Beijing, is a former metals trading company that now controls mines, iron and steel operations. A deal would represent a shift by Minmetals from simply purchasing resources abroad to acquiring the Western companies that produce them.

On Thursday, Derek G. Pannell, chief of Noranda, said the due diligence process by China Minmetals was nearly completed. In a conference call with analysts, Mr. Pannell said that any deal with Minmetals was unlikely to close before the first quarter of 2005.

The proposed takeover of Noranda, which is expected to be valued at more than 6 billion Canadian dollars ($7.4 billion), comes at a sensitive time for the Canadian government. The country's relatively new Liberal government needs support from opposition parties to maintain power. But not only are politicians from all those parties criticizing the takeover, they have been joined by several Liberals, including Mr. Kilgour. At the same time, the Liberals have made improving trade and economic ties with China a component of their economic program. Any move to block China Minmetals, advocates of the Noranda takeover say, would undermine that goal.

"We expected some negative reaction," said Denis Couture, a spokesman for Noranda, which is based in Toronto. "But we were surprised at the number of people who reacted negatively."

"The Chinese are going to invest several billion dollars to conclude this transaction. They don't want to risk that investment and they don't want to risk their reputation as they're going to want to make more transactions like this in the future."
But critics said they would be more comfortable if Minmetals was privatized first.

"What's the business of a government in operating a natural resources company?" said Roy J. Cullen, another Liberal member of Parliament who was once the vice president of a forest products company when it was owned by Noranda. "Is there a net benefit to Canada in this? Personally, I need some convincing."

Minmetals announced its intention to make an all-cash bid for Noranda last month. The bid is endorsed by the company as well as its major shareholder, the conglomerate Brascan, based in Toronto. Like all major foreign takeovers, the proposal will undergo a review by Industry Canada, the government agency that oversees such deals. All such reviews are conducted in private to protect corporate information.
Mr. Kilgour and others are critical of that system, contending that the agency largely rubber-stamps the deals it reviews. Because the agency does not report what deals it rejects or what deals are withdrawn, there is no way to confirm independently its power or effectiveness.
Mr. Kilgour is working with members of other political parties to demand that the government establish a special subcommittee of Parliament to investigate the merger.

To date, the government has fended off most questions about Noranda by noting that no formal offer has been made. Industry Minister David Emerson, however, has said that his department will consider China's human rights record in any review, although he has also emphasized the importance of economic links to China.

Last week, Mr. Emerson told reporters that the unusual nature of the takeover meant that it would probably be discussed in Parliament. He declined, however, to commit himself to establishing a special committee to review the deal, saying only that he would consider the idea.
Stanley H. Hartt, the chairman of Citigroup Global Markets Canada, which is advising Minmetals, said the negative publicity would not stop the Chinese company from proceeding with its bid.

Mr. Hartt, who was chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, the former Conservative prime minister, also dismissed criticism of the takeover as a creation of the editorial pages of The National Post, a politically conservative newspaper based in Toronto. Much of it, he said, will vanish when Minmetals discloses the terms of its bid.

"I don't think this thing has legs at all," Mr. Hartt said. "A lot of this hand-wringing is speculation upon speculation. This is a commercial company, not a political arm of the Chinese government."

PUBLICATION: GLOBE AND MAIL
IDN: 042950218
DATE: 2004.10.21
PAGE: A4
BYLINE: JOHN IBBITSON
SECTION: Column
EDITION: Metro
DATELINE:
WORDS: 648

Is Canada preparing to shift line in the sand?
JOHN IBBITSON Some Liberal MPs are concerned by the debate under way within the upper reaches of the federal government over whether Canada should tilt its Middle East foreign policy in favour of Israel.

Carolyn Parrish, that perpetual gadfly in the Liberal caucus, reportedly raised the issue with Prime Minister Paul Martin during yesterday's caucus meeting. She received a stony non-answer in response.

Ms. Parrish is not alone. Some Liberals are worried that any shift in Canada's Mideast policy could jeopardize their chances in the next general election. Others promote a more pro-Israeli line for exactly the same reasons.

According to Statistics Canada, 348,000 people, or 1 per cent of this country's population, identify themselves as Jews. But just as they make a disproportionate contribution to the arts, sciences and business, so, too, Jews exert significant influence on Canadian political discourse. It is fair to say that Canada's historically strong support for the state of Israel is influenced by the efforts of the Canadian Jewish community on Israel's behalf.

When asked about their ethnicity, 347,000 Canadians identify themselves as Arabs, almost the same number as those who identify as Jews. (When the question is posed in terms of religion, 580,000 Canadians identify themselves as Muslim, compared to 330,000 who consider themselves Jewish.) Historically, however, Muslim or Arab Canadians are less affluent, less organized and less influential than their Jewish counterparts.

But that could be changing. Recent events have galvanized and politicized the Canadian Arab and Muslim populations. Bill C-35, Canada's anti-terrorism legislation, is seen by many as unfriendly to Canadian Arabs, who are more likely to be targeted for profiling by customs officers, police and the security services. Canadian Arabs were particularly incensed by Ottawa's failure to protect Maher Arar from deportation to Syria by the U.S. government, a move that led to months of torture.

Many Muslim Canadians are also deeply unhappy with the Liberal government's efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.
Any pronounced shift in favour of Israel over the Palestinians could rebound on Liberals in ridings with large Muslim populations, who traditionally vote Liberal. (It is the genius of that party to be able to attract the lion's share of both the Jewish and Arab vote.) For example, Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North) has a significant Muslim constituency in his suburban Toronto riding. When it comes to Mideast policy, he prefers to see Canada continue its traditional role of honest broker.

"I'm not aware of any change in policy, and I'm not sure it would be a wise move," he said in an interview yesterday.
International Trade Minister Jim Peterson, on the other hand, has long argued for an open debate about Canada's current Mideast policy and whether it needs to be changed. There also happens to be a significant Jewish population in his Willowdale riding.

As to whether a possible shift is on the table, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew had this to say: "Canada's policy remains anchored in our support for international law and our desire to play a constructive role in support of all parties' efforts to reach a fair and lasting settlement of their dispute." You can parse that one for yourself.

The Conservative Party generally takes a pro-Israeli stand in Mideast affairs. The NDP essentially mirrors the Liberal position, although some detect a pro-Arab bias in its platform. The problem for all political parties is that satisfying the militants on either side of the debate is impossible without surrendering all sense of balance.

If the Liberals do decide to shift toward a more pro-Israeli stance, they may succeed in shoring up support among the Jewish constituency. The question they must ask is what price they might pay among the growing Muslim community as a result.


PUBLICATION: Vancouver Sun
DATE: 2004.10.08
EDITION: Final
SECTION: News
PAGE: A12
BYLINE: Peter O'Neil
SOURCE: Vancouver Sun
DATELINE: OTTAWA

Opposition parties attack proposed Noranda takeover: China's Communist government looking at $7-billion purchase of mining giant

OTTAWA -- The federal government should review the Investment Canada Act to ensure there are provisions to deal with, and potentially block, the proposed $7-billion takeover of Canada's largest mining firm by a company owned by China's Communist government, the House of Commons was told Thursday.

New Democratic Party trade critic Peter Julian and two Liberals, Liberal MP Roy Cullen and Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette, joined on Thursday a group of parliamentarians from all parties who are attacking the proposed acquisition of Noranda Inc. by China Minmetals Corp. But Industry Minister David Emerson, the minister responsible for the act, gave no indication Canada's laws will be changed to deal with one of the more unusual transactions in Canadian corporate history. "Foreign investments in Canada, foreign acquisitions, are reviewed by the minister of industry, and we will continue to do that," Emerson told MPs in his first statement to Parliament since the former Canfor Corp. chief executive won his Vancouver Kingsway seat.

"The government of Canada has an unassailable record of human rights." Julian said more than 11,000 Canadian firms have been sold to foreigners under the Liberal and Conservative governments since 1984.

"There's nothing easier than getting a green light from Investment Canada for an acquisition." Cullen also criticized the legislation, saying Industry Canada's division that reviews takeovers should be abolished as a money-saving effort if all it does is rubber-stamp takeovers.

He said China Minmetals, because it is driven by an authoritarian government's interests rather than typical corporate interests, could make mining production decisions that artificially drive down prices to the detriment of Canada and the benefit of China, where demand for metals and minerals is soaring.

Cullen said he's not advocating the return of the old Foreign Investment Review Agency (FIRA), which took a harder line on takeovers before being abolished by former prime minister Brian Mulroney in the 1980s. "We live in this global economy. China's actually a huge player in the world economy, so we have to be careful," he said.

PUBLICATION: National Post
DATE: 2004.10.14
EDITION: National
SECTION: Financial Post: Comment
PAGE: FP15
BYLINE: Roy Cullen
SOURCE: Financial Post
NOTE: The Hon. Roy Cullen, MP, a past Noranda vice-president, isParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

China will run Noranda in its interest - not ours

The proposed takeover of Noranda Inc. by China Minmetals Corp., a Chinese state-owned enterprise, is, I submit, not about human rights practices and labour codes in the Peoples' Republic of China.

While I respect the concerns of others on this theme, the reality is that if the developed countries of the world applied this benchmark to all of our trade and investment relationships, I am afraid we would fall short in many other instances. By way of contrast, I am a supporter of engagement because I believe that a strong economy in countries like the Peoples' Republic of China will be the fertile ground for the development of more progressive social policies in those countries.
So why shouldn't our government approve this takeover?

The somewhat unique characteristic of this takeover is that China Minmetals Corp. is a state-owned enterprise. For me that raises a whole new set of questions.

Is it appropriate for a government to take control of any operating company -- in particular one outside its own jurisdiction? Is this one of its core businesses? What does it know about mining? What does it bring to the table? How can any synergies be realized?

This acquisition is designed to meet a policy objective of the national government in the Peoples' Republic of China. One can only presume that, given the current high cost of commodities like minerals and metals, its desire is to "backward integrate" and acquire control and ownership of this element of its raw material supply chain. To its credit, the economy in the Peoples' Republic of China is growing at an incredible rate. A consequence of this is the current upward price pressures on oil and other commodities (good news for Canada!).

If Noranda is acquired by China Minmetals Corp., will the company be managed in an environmentally sustainable way and in interest of all Noranda stakeholders (e.g. Noranda workers, communities where Noranda operates, the citizens of Canada, other Noranda shareholders, etc.)? I believe it is naive to think that the government in China and China Minmetals Corp. will be "hands-off" in the management of Noranda. That is not their style.

If China owns and controls Noranda, won't it be tempted, within the bounds of international trade laws and Canada's own transfer pricing tax policies, to offer differential pricing for the sale of metals and minerals to strategically important operations in China? Who knows what its game plan is? Count on it, though, to be very well thought out and very shrewd.

My concern is that while this acquisition might be in the public interest in China, it is less clear to me what the benefit is for Canada.
Interestingly, in the 1980s, the Japanese government orchestrated an oversupply of metallurgical coal to feed Japan's struggling steel mills, by partnering and investing in the northeast coal project in British Columbia. Guess what -- an oversupply puts downward pressure on prices! Is that the goal of the Peoples' Republic of China for metals and minerals? If so, how does that align with Canada's interests?

Industry Canada's Investment Review Division will allow a takeover to proceed if it provides a significant benefit to Canada. It has yet to veto a major takeover of a Canadian company. Perhaps that is because every takeover has been in Canada's best interest. I am not so sure, and even less sure about this one. Industry Canada should have a very close look at this proposed acquisition.

Like most Canadians, I am a strong nationalist in that I take great pride in our national culture and heritage and in our national institutions. I understand the need, however, to be pragmatic in recognizing that we live in a global economy and, in general terms, we need to encourage the flow of international trade and investment. It is also clear to me that Canada's relationship with the Peoples' Republic of China is a very important one.

These facts, however, shouldn't blur our pursuit of Canada's over-arching public policy interests. Unless other facts come to light, this takeover should be rejected on that basis.