Canada Investment Summit foreign investment risks
Every day, we need to deal with what I see as double agents, treason, and national security threats coming from our own government — although, in my view, it increasingly resembles a foreign-occupied government.
Look at the ethnic composition of the Liberal Party. Look at how people outside Canada can participate in aspects of Liberal Party leadership politics. Look at the policies that critics regard as anti-white and anti-Canadian.
What about woke politics and liberalism, and what about the national security threats?
The Dominion Voting Systems controversy and allegations surrounding electronic voting systems deserve scrutiny rather than silence. How do we trust a government when people believe it lacks integrity and is increasingly at war with its own citizens?
Canada Investment Summit Foreign Investment Risks: Trust and Verify
Sovereign-state government entities have enormous financial resources and can engage in currency wars, industrial competition, enterprise competition, cultural conflict, economic warfare, and even trade wars.
Yet the answer is apparently: let’s do more business with them.
Let’s risk giving away our future rather than developing domestic investment. What a great idea.
That is precisely why Canada Investment Summit foreign investment risks deserve much more public discussion. Attracting capital is one thing; protecting Canada’s long-term economic interests is another.
Private corporations, investment firms, and banking entities also need scrutiny. Look at the list. Some may represent legitimate national-security concerns for Canada, Canadian industry, and domestic enterprise.
And, no doubt, there are plane loads of money available for acquiring valuable assets — including what I call “captured state assets.”
Not truckloads, remember. We already saw what happened with the Freedom Convoy of 2022.
What exactly are captured state assets?
What happens when someone else effectively owns or controls the infrastructure, resources, companies, or institutions upon which your country depends?
This is where foreign ownership of Canadian assets becomes more than an economic question. It can become an issue involving strategic infrastructure, resources, political influence, and ultimately Canadian economic sovereignty.
How does that translate into the real world?
These are the kinds of questions Canadians should be asking when discussing foreign investment in Canada, national sovereignty, investment, government power, and the possibility of divided loyalties.
The COVID era also raised enormous controversies surrounding government power, public-health policy, censorship, biotechnology, and civil liberties. Critics continue to describe what happened in much darker terms, including allegations involving bioweapons, psychological operations, censorship, and deliberate harm.
Those are extraordinary claims and should be treated as such — but governments also should not expect public trust without transparency.
Foreign Investment and National Security in Canada
Construction, engineering, and manufacturing are much more interesting, productive, and mutually beneficial areas in which investment can ideally be deployed.
That is where we should be concentrating.
Not technocracy.
Not an expanding surveillance state.
We need productivity and prosperity — real goods and services — rather than endless extraction, pollution, wars, disease, suffering, and death.
We need to become considerably more civilized.
Foreign investment can also represent national-security risks. The same applies to excessive dependence on debt-created Treasury bonds and international capital markets.
This is why the relationship between foreign investment and national security in Canada should be at the centre of any serious discussion about attracting hundreds of billions of dollars in outside capital.
Why aren’t these risks discussed more seriously?
Either our political leadership fails to recognize them, or it has accepted an economic model that increasingly transfers Canadian wealth, assets, and sovereignty elsewhere while politicians continue talking about protecting Canada.
Canada, Immigration, and Canadian Economic Sovereignty
Canada’s immigration and multiculturalism policies also deserve serious scrutiny, particularly when population growth exceeds the country’s capacity to provide affordable housing, infrastructure, health care, employment, and other essential services.
People should be able to debate immigration levels, multiculturalism, demographic change, and national identity without being threatened, censored, or automatically labelled racist.
Europe demonstrates what can happen when governments lose public confidence in their immigration policies and then attempt to suppress criticism rather than address legitimate concerns about crime, integration, housing, employment, and social cohesion.
Canada has similar credibility problems.
Meanwhile, Canadians trying to start businesses, purchase homes, finance ideas, or build domestic industries often struggle to obtain capital while enormous amounts of money flow through international financial systems and into Canadian assets.
That imbalance deserves examination.
Canada has become an extremely expensive country in which to live and build a family.
Housing, food, fuel, vehicles, insurance, property taxes, and general taxation consume enormous amounts of household income.
At the same time, Canada has lost enormous amounts of domestic manufacturing capacity.
Made in Canada Manufacturing
So much for “Made in Canada.”
Currency competition and industrial warfare from China, combined with decades of Canadian government policy, have resulted in stores being filled with imported products — particularly goods manufactured in China.
Ontario also suffered enormous manufacturing losses over previous decades. Free trade contributed to the restructuring of Canadian manufacturing as companies moved production elsewhere.
Try starting a major manufacturing operation today.
It isn’t easy.
If Canada is serious about rebuilding its economy, Made in Canada manufacturing should be a national priority rather than an occasional political slogan.
And people wonder why Canadian economic nationalism is returning.
You think these things aren’t connected?
They are very connected.
Destroy manufacturing capacity, weaken domestic industry, increase debt, allow essential assets to deteriorate, and eventually someone proposes privatization as the solution.
Then comes the fire sale.
“Oh, too bad. We’re broke. We need to privatize.”
Where’s the sign-up sheet?
Apparently, selling everything is supposed to solve the debt problem.
That isn’t nation-building.
The Fundamental Problem: Debt-Created Money
The problem, at a very basic level, is that we have debt-created money.
During an earlier period of Canada’s central-bank history, we had Graham Towers, the first governor of the Bank of Canada.
That era represented a dramatically different philosophy of nation-building and public finance.
Canada’s monetary and financial system changed considerably over subsequent decades, including major developments during the Pierre Trudeau era and Canada’s increasing reliance on bond markets and international finance.
Today, Prime Minister Mark Carney certainly understands sophisticated monetary systems, Treasury reserves, international banking, sovereign debt, and investment.
So why don’t we have a much broader discussion about debt-free money and national reserves?
Why only gold?
Why not strategic oil reserves?
Why not other strategic national assets?
Why insist so heavily on debt-created Treasury bond financing rather than examining alternative monetary structures?
Why compound interest?
Why not simple interest where appropriate?
Why borrow when a nation can create productive wealth?
Why don’t we build better investment infrastructure for ordinary Canadians?
Why destroy manufacturing infrastructure and then attempt to rebuild it through foreign investment in Canada?
Why tax Canadians heavily and then travel elsewhere looking for investment money?
Why treat foreign capital like royalty instead of developing loyalty toward Canadian citizens, entrepreneurs, nationalists, and people willing to build things here?
Why should Canada surrender authority to supranational institutions when doing so conflicts with Canadian economic sovereignty?
These questions are directly related to the larger debate over Canada’s economic future.
A Made-in-Canada Alternative
There are potentially much better routes to investing in Made-in-Canada infrastructure, including ideas I’ve developed through Capital Vault Incorporated, the CVIx Continuum, and the concept of Canada’s ultra-nationalist billionaire — someone from a small town with big dreams and lots of ideas for entrepreneurs and enterprise.
What about Intergalactic Securities & Management Corporation and the Sovereign Continuum?
This represents a radically different direction from selling off the country.
A great deal of work, time, thought, organization, and vision has gone into these concepts.
The objective is to create something that entrepreneurs and enterprises can use to acquire financing and investment.
Made in Canada.
Why not?
Why ignore nationalist and ultra-nationalist solutions while promoting internationalist models that can result in foreign ownership of Canadian assets, surrendering control, weakening nation-state sovereignty, and even privatizing public assets at discounted prices?
Surely we can do better.
And we will.
The question is how far the government is prepared to go.
There is enormous money involved, yet we rarely have a serious national debate about the ability of Canada’s monetary institutions to support productive domestic investment.
Canada also has provinces with enormous economic power and resources.
We should be talking about new wealth generation and nation-building rather than constantly assuming that selling assets or borrowing internationally is the only answer.
That is what Canadian economic nationalism should ultimately be about: building productive Canadian capacity, financing Canadian enterprise, protecting strategic assets, and ensuring that investment benefits the country over the long term.
We need better people in government.
We need better people in investment and finance.
And we need everyday Canadians to step up and invest — even if it’s only a small amount — in businesses, projects, technologies, and industries that genuinely interest them and benefit the country.
Many hands make light work.
Build Something Better
We don’t need more treachery.
We don’t need technocracy.
We don’t need slavery, poverty, hunger, disease, sickness, endless despair, depression, and death.
We need optimism.
We need courage.
And we need people to actively become part of the solution — a nation-building solution for the Ultimate Canadian Century.
What I find particularly strange is that while Canada is experiencing serious conflicts with the United States, Canadian leaders are simultaneously inviting some of the biggest American investment firms in the world to invest here.
Everyone is then expected to cheer about the great success.
But what happens when more wealth is extracted?
What happens when more assets are sold?
What happens when more resources are transferred or control is acquired?
And what exactly do Canadians receive in return?
Those questions are fundamental to any serious examination of Canada Investment Summit foreign investment risks.
Canada’s Resources Should Build Canada
Look at the fiasco surrounding bitumen.
Canada exports enormous quantities of raw or minimally processed resources when those same materials could potentially support much higher-value manufacturing at home.
Bitumen and petroleum feedstocks can become the basis for countless industrial products.
Why aren’t we doing more of that here?
What about expanding Canada’s oil and petrochemical industries?
That’s another area I’ve explored at intergalactic-securities.ca because there aren’t nearly enough ambitious Canadian options being discussed.
How can a private company envision something more advanced than governments sitting on enormous petroleum wealth?
Why not build another refinery?
Why not build downstream industries?
Why not manufacture more high-value products here instead of simply exporting raw resources?
Expanding Made in Canada manufacturing would allow more of the value from Canada’s natural resources to remain inside Canada instead of exporting raw materials and buying finished products back at higher prices.
If political leaders are too busy arguing about leaving oil in the ground, selling assets, separating provinces, or pretending independence will mysteriously solve every problem, they are missing the bigger picture.
Lots of people want Canada’s resources.
Lots of international interests would happily acquire valuable pieces of the Canadian economy and its natural resources.
That is why foreign ownership of Canadian assets, particularly strategic assets and resources, deserves careful scrutiny.
That isn’t nation-building.
Canada needs people with an actual national vision.
These are the wrong people to have in power if their only economic strategy is to divide it, raid it like an investment banker, chop it up, and sell it.
Anyway, that’s enough for one night.
There is far too much going on — and there will be more awesome news tomorrow.
Coming Next
You Wouldn’t Believe What the Ultra-Nationalist Is Doing Next…
Canada’s Investment Summit: Everyday Economic Nationalism for the Citizen
Comeau Aerospace Inc. and the $250 Billion Ultimate Flying Machine Adventure
The Sovereign Continuum: Debt-Free Currency & Zero-Tax Private Investment
How to Own Nothing and Be Happy With Nuke-Proof Asset Protection
How Strategic Risk Management Can Build and Protect an Awesome Portfolio
