Connect with us

Business

Hudson’s Bay Bid Raises Red Flags Over Foreign Influence

Published

5 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Scott McGregor

A billionaire’s retail ambition might also serve Beijing’s global influence strategy. Canada must look beyond the storefront

When B.C. billionaire Weihong Liu publicly declared interest in acquiring Hudson’s Bay stores, it wasn’t just a retail story—it was a signal flare in an era where foreign investment increasingly doubles as geopolitical strategy.

The Hudson’s Bay Company, founded in 1670, remains an enduring symbol of Canadian heritage. While its commercial relevance has waned in recent years, its brand is deeply etched into the national identity. That’s precisely why any potential acquisition, particularly by an investor with strong ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), deserves thoughtful, measured scrutiny.

Liu, a prominent figure in Vancouver’s Chinese-Canadian business community, announced her interest in acquiring several Hudson’s Bay stores on Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (RedNote), expressing a desire to “make the Bay great again.” Though revitalizing a Canadian retail icon may seem commendable, the timing and context of this bid suggest a broader strategic positioning—one that aligns with the People’s Republic of China’s increasingly nuanced approach to economic diplomacy, especially in countries like Canada that sit at the crossroads of American and Chinese spheres of influence.

This fits a familiar pattern. In recent years, we’ve seen examples of Chinese corporate involvement in Canadian cultural and commercial institutions, such as Huawei’s past sponsorship of Hockey Night in Canada. Even as national security concerns were raised by allies and intelligence agencies, Huawei’s logo remained a visible presence during one of the country’s most cherished broadcasts. These engagements, though often framed as commercially justified, serve another purpose: to normalize Chinese brand and state-linked presence within the fabric of Canadian identity and daily life.

What we may be witnessing is part of a broader PRC strategy to deepen economic and cultural ties with Canada at a time when U.S.-China relations remain strained. As American tariffs on Canadian goods—particularly in aluminum, lumber and dairy—have tested cross-border loyalties, Beijing has positioned itself as an alternative economic partner. Investments into cultural and heritage-linked assets like Hudson’s Bay could be seen as a symbolic extension of this effort to draw Canada further into its orbit of influence, subtly decoupling the country from the gravitational pull of its traditional allies.

From my perspective, as a professional with experience in threat finance, economic subversion and political leveraging, this does not necessarily imply nefarious intent in each case. However, it does demand a conscious awareness of how soft power is exercised through commercial influence, particularly by state-aligned actors. As I continue my research in international business law, I see how investment vehicles, trade deals and brand acquisitions can function as instruments of foreign policy—tools for shaping narratives, building alliances and shifting influence over time.

Canada must neither overreact nor overlook these developments. Open markets and cultural exchange are vital to our prosperity and pluralism. But so too is the responsibility to preserve our sovereignty—not only in the physical sense, but in the cultural and institutional dimensions that shape our national identity.

Strategic investment review processes, cultural asset protections and greater transparency around foreign corporate ownership can help strike this balance. We should be cautious not to allow historically Canadian institutions to become conduits, however unintentionally, for geopolitical leverage.

In a world where power is increasingly exercised through influence rather than force, safeguarding our heritage means understanding who is buying—and why.

Scott McGregor is the managing partner and CEO of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Carney’s budget spares tax status of Canadian churches, pro-life groups after backlash

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Canadian pro-life charities and churches retain their tax-exempt status in the 2025-26 budget, a reversal attributed to public and political opposition to earlier proposals.

Canadian pro-life charities and churches will not lose their tax exemption under the Liberal Party’s newly presented fall budget despite earlier threats.

On November 4, Liberal Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne presented the Canadian federal budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26 in the House of Commons that included no mention of stripping pro-life organizations and churches of their tax exemption.

“Campaign Life Coalition is breathing a sigh of relief that churches and pro-life organizations were not stripped of their charitable status in the (Mark) Carney Liberal budget released today,” Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) communications director Pete Baklinski said in a statement sent to LifeSiteNews.

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, before last Christmas, a proposal by the all-party Finance Committee suggested legislation that could strip pro-life pregnancy centers and religious groups of their charitable status.

The legislation would amend the Income Tax Act and Income Tax. Section 429 of the proposed legislation recommends the government “no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations.”

The bill, according to the finance department, would require “registered charities that provide services, advice, or information in respect of the prevention, preservation, or termination of pregnancy (i.e., destroying the unborn)” to disclose that they “do not provide specific services, including abortions or birth control.”

Similarly, Recommendation 430 aims to “amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.”

Canadians quickly responded to the recommendations, warning that it would mean the end of many pro-life organizations and the vital work that they do to help mothers in need.

Likewise, Conservative MPs and clergy alike condemned the suggestion to tax churches that provide essential services to Canadians.

“This is a victory for religious freedom and for the Canadian values of helping the vulnerable, offering a compassionate hand, and being present to those in crisis,” he declared.

“The Liberal government was right to listen to ordinary citizens and faith leaders and ultimately reject these outrageous recommendations,” Gunnarson continued. “Thanks be to God, Canada lives to see another day without a dark cloud of persecution hanging over religious and pro-life organizations.”

 

“This victory belongs to the concerned citizens across Canada who took the time to sign a petition or write a letter to their MP or the Finance Minister,” he said. “This proves that when enough people speak out, good things can happen.”

Currently, the budget is under Parliamentary review, as Liberals lack sufficient votes to pass the legislation. Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre has declared that his party will not support the budget. The Bloc Québécois have also pledged opposition and the New Democratic Party (NDP) is considering supporting the budget.

Continue Reading

Business

The Liberal budget is a massive FAILURE: Former Liberal Cabinet Member Dan McTeague

Published on

CAE Logo

Prime Minister Mark Carney tabled his government’s long-overdue budget yesterday and took the same approach as his predecessor – spend, spend, spend.

Canada’s deficit is now a staggering $78 BILLION. To make matters worse, Carney doubled down on the industrial carbon tax.

Dan McTeague explains in his latest video.

Continue Reading

Trending

X