With all the controversy sparked by Prime Minister Trudeau’s recent trip to China, there is one critical issue that cannot be overlooked: the need to stop the takeover of major Canadian industries through direct investment in Canada by the Chinese government through state owned enterprises (SOEs).

There is a very limited role in the Canadian economy for any government-owned and subsidized enterprise that competes directly with the private sector. One only needs to recall Air Canada, Petro Canada and currently the CBC. When it comes to foreign governments and domestic assets that have a strategic sensitivity, Canada needs to be clear and consistent about its investment boundaries with other countries. This is particularly true when the investment has a national security component.

As it now stands, in terms of the asset value of investments, total investment from China in Canada now exceeds that of the U.S. At the same time, the thresholds for review under the Investment Canada Act have been altered to make such deals easier to approve. Not only that, the strategic nature of those investments is a disturbing departure from past practice.

There is no clearer example of the need for urgent action on this front than the pending $1.45 billion sale of construction giant Aecon to China’s state-owned construction giant, CCCI. Even if you don’t know Aecon by name, you almost certainly have used an Aecon-built road, bridge, airport or power plant. Aecon built the CN Tower, Vancouver’s SkyTrain and the Halifax Shipyards.

This proposed acquisition is slated to happen just as Canada’s heavily touted infrastructure upgrade program launches. If Aecon is acquired by CCCI, profits from this taxpayer-funded initiative to build and improve the means to enhance Canada’s economic competitiveness — to build our communities for generations to come — would go directly to the government of China.

What the trip to China clearly highlighted was that Beijing does not share our government’s agenda on progressive values and is not interested in enhancing worker protections and labour standards. This does not bode well. What the trip to China clearly highlighted was that Beijing doesshare our government’s agenda on progressive values and is not interested in enhancing worker protections and labour standards. This does not bode well.

In the words of columnist Diane Francis, “China’s corporations are state-owned enterprises, or client corporations, and accede to the wishes of the Politburo …

“China’s track record in Canada is abysmal and includes a request to the Supreme Court of Canada, by a Chinese engineering giant a handful of years ago, to exempt it from our laws after it breached safety violations and ignored our courts following workers’ deaths. The Court refused to hear the case. Fines were never paid.”

We dodged a bullet. The court might not be so wise and far-sighted the next time.

Approval of the sale also would mean muting the significant economic multiplier effect of infrastructure investment across the country. According to a recent study published by the Broadbent Institute, GDP rises by $1.43 for every infrastructure dollar spent, 9.4 jobs are generated for every million spent, and 44 cents of every dollar invested by government is returned in tax revenue.

When these things click into place, businesses become more productive and competitive and real wages rise, providing a higher standard of living. But who benefits if Canadian investment goes to Beijing?

Given how little was accomplished by the much-anticipated trip to China, there is a heightened risk that the Liberal government will now be tempted to exhibit “goodwill” by expediting a takeover that in no way offers a “net benefit” to Canada and, in the future, would funnel investment and opportunity away from our shores.

What the trip to China clearly highlighted was that Beijing does not share our government’s agenda on progressive values and is not interested in enhancing worker protections and labour standards. This does not bode well for its entry into our highly regulated system.

A construction company owned by the Chinese government, furthermore, is more likely to use steel and other essential materials imported from Chinese government-owned steel mills. China is one of the most unrepentant dumpers of steel in Canada — a factor that has driven Canadian steelmakers into bankruptcy more than once.

As Parliament breaks for Christmas recess, the one gift this Liberal government can give all Canadians is the gift of integrity and security — by refusing to approve CCCI’s takeover of Aecon.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.