Vass Bednar Calls for Clearer Rules on Canadian Corporate Control
October 19, 2026 | Economy, Canada
Canada needs clearer rules to ensure public money intended to grow domestic businesses supports firms controlled in Canada, policy researcher Vass Bednar says.
In an interview with Energi Media publisher Markham Hislop, Bednar argued that familiar branding and a Canadian business presence do not establish who ultimately controls a company. She said governments should distinguish between domestic firms and wholly owned foreign subsidiaries when designing support for Canadian businesses.
Bednar explores the issue in “Championing Real Canadian Companies,” her contribution to Reclaiming Canadian Sovereignty in a Ruptured World, edited by Bob Rae.
Canadian Branding Can Obscure Corporate Control
Bednar described her frustration with “maplewashing,” where businesses capitalize on Canadian identity even though their ownership has changed or become more complicated.
Her concern extends beyond consumer purchases. Governments also need to understand what they are supporting when programs promise to help Canadian companies grow.
“I think it’s very disingenuous for us to report back to Canadians that we are supporting Canadian companies when those Canadian firms are wholly owned foreign subsidiaries,” she said.
Hislop compared the debate to longstanding concerns about Canada’s branch plant economy, where local operations depend on decisions made by a foreign parent.
Foreign Investment Can Help Canadian Firms Grow
Bednar emphasized that accepting foreign capital should not automatically disqualify Canadian entrepreneurs from domestic support. Growing firms often need outside investment to commercialize technology and compete internationally.
Her proposed starting point is to exclude wholly owned foreign subsidiaries from the domestic category for programs intended to develop Canadian firms.
She wants Canadian companies to attract investment while retaining ownership and the ability to grow here. Selling businesses to foreign buyers, she argued, should not be confused with strengthening domestic capacity.
Government Purchasing Can Build Domestic Capacity
Public procurement can provide an early customer, revenue and credibility for businesses seeking to expand. Bednar argued that Canada should use that purchasing power more deliberately to develop domestic competitors.
The issue also reaches energy infrastructure. Hislop raised questions about how public investment distributes benefits among workers, governments and shareholders. Bednar connected that discussion to the broader risk of governments absorbing infrastructure risks while private investors capture rewards.
She also questioned the compromises Canada accepts in return for promised economic benefits.
“Historically, we’ve always kind of settled for scraps and called them spillovers,” she said.
Digital Dependencies Need More Public Debate
Bednar said Canadians need stronger domestic alternatives for digital services that businesses and public infrastructure rely upon. A service operating in Canada does not necessarily give Canadians control over the technology behind it.
She cautioned against assuming a change in American leadership would automatically resolve those dependencies.
The interview also examined how Canada debates industrial policy. Bednar warned that an emphasis on rapid decisions can reduce opportunities for constructive dissent and compromise.
Her closing advice was to scrutinize future federal spending: which funding should be reserved for genuinely domestic firms, and where should Canada support foreign multinationals employing people here?
For Bednar, the test is whether spending helps companies develop durable capabilities in Canada, rather than merely expanding a foreign supplier’s sales. That requires closer attention to ownership, control and the outcomes that public programs promise.