Building Barriers
Canadian government considers new policies to restrict foreign investment.
November 30, 2007 at 07:00 PM
6 minute read
The world is hungry for Canada. At least that's what the statistics on foreign direct investment suggest. In 2006 alone Canada witnessed an influx of nearly $450 billion in foreign investment, up about $40 billion from the year before. And though the numbers aren't in yet, 2007 looks like it might be Canada's best year yet.
But all this foreign investment has some Canadians worried about risks to their national security. What concerns them the most are acquisitions orchestrated by state-owned foreign entities. Driving the fear are suspicions that these entities aren't disclosing their intent behind the acquisition targets–many of which have involved Canadian energy and mining companies.
Leading the charge on this front is Canada's Minister of Industry Jim Prentice, who oversees foreign investment deals. In an October speech before the Vancouver Board of Trade, Prentice called for regulations that would raise the level of scrutiny on some foreign takeover bids. “I will examine the need for guidelines on takeovers by state-owned enterprises,” he said.
Most experts now believe it's inevitable that Canada will pass some kind of law in 2008 to address Prentice's concerns. Nobody, though, knows what the final legislation will look like.
“The view of the legal community in Canada is that no one wants to go backward by putting more restrictions on foreign investment so that we look protectionist,” says Michelle Lally, partner at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt in Toronto. “The exception to that is this whole issue that has arisen regarding foreign takeovers by foreign state-owned enterprises.”
Fear of Foreigners
Canada currently has no laws on the books that restrict foreign state-owned enterprises or foreign companies from acquiring Canadian companies based on national security concerns.
The only authority the Canadian government has to restrict foreign investment is through the Investment Canada Act. Under this law the government can
scrutinize deals involving a foreign acquirer to determine whether they provide a “net benefit” to Canada.
“What comprises a net benefit is really very general economic criteria such as positive effects on employment,” says Julie Soloway, associate at Blakes, Cassels & Graydon in Toronto. “No investment under that statute has ever been rejected.”
But now Canadians are rethinking the safety of such an open-door policy–especially when it comes to foreign state-owned companies.
“People are concerned that they might have noncommercial objectives, which then leads to scrutiny over the transparency and reporting standards of such deals,” Soloway says.
Deals involving China are garnering the most attention. With a population topping a billion and a quickly ballooning economy, China has aggressively hunted for natural resources beyond its borders. One of its prime targets recently has been Canada.
China's interest in Canada began in 2004 when China Minmetals, a state-owned metal producer, tried to acquire Noranda Inc., a nickel and zinc mining company, for $7 billion. That deal caused a wave of concern that a crucial segment of Canada's resources would fall under foreign control. That concern eventually resulted in the deal's demise. Since then, there have been numerous Chinese investments in Canada, most notably in Canada's rich oil deposits, where China's three state-owned oil giants–Sinopec, the China National Petroleum Corp. and China National Offshore Oil Corp.–all hold some ownership.
“When China was poised to buy Noranda, everyone ran around like the sky was falling,” says Finn Poschmann, director of research at the C.D. Howe Institute, an independent Canadian public policy think tank. “That was Canada's wake-up call.”
Hollowing Out
National security isn't Canada's only concern, though. Some Canadian executives are worried this fast-paced foreign investment environment could lead to what they have dubbed a “hollowing out.”
“When people mention the 'hollowing out' effect, they mean they're worried that foreign investors will buy Canadian companies and take the head offices and all that goes with the head offices, including accounting, legal and high-level jobs, and take that abroad,” Soloway says.
Most experts say these concerns are baseless. Statistically foreign investment in Canada has had no negative effect on the number of domestic high-level positions. Still, Canada's top CEOs are establishing a game plan just in case.
In October the Canadian Council of Chief Executives released the results of its six-month review of Canada's marketplace, concluding that whether or not the “hollowing out” effect is real, the Canadian government must act to keep high-level managerial jobs in Canada.
“Our work on the mergers and acquisitions issue suggests that the federal government's competitiveness strategy should emphasize three policy priorities,” said Thomas d'Aquino, CCCE's CEO, in October in a statement. “Canada needs significant tax cuts for people and business. We need a thoughtful and thorough review of competition policy and foreign investment rules. And we must redouble efforts to strengthen our relationship with the United States in order to keep our shared border open and efficient.”
There's a chance Canada's government may heed some of these recommendations. In July Maxime Bernier, minister of foreign affairs, and Jim Flaherty, minister of finance, compiled a panel of experts to review possible changes to the Investment Canada Act and Competition Act. “The [Competition Policy Review Panel] wants to determine the extent to which the laws are working and whether they need to be brought up to date,” Soloway says. “It doesn't have the power to revise the laws, but it can issue recommendations.”
Little Change
Whatever new regulations Canada's government decides to implement to give the government more oversight of foreign investments, most experts say these new laws or any changes to existing law will have little effect on U.S. companies.
“Practically speaking this will not have a tremendous impact on U.S. companies because they are not state-owned authorities,” Soloway says.
“Also, a lot of our foreign investment comes from the U.S., and I can't imagine that would raise any kind of national security concerns.”
The government will likely announce specifics about the new regulations within the next couple months. Until then, foreign investors shouldn't worry too much.
“It might seem like Canada is trying to establish new barriers to investment, but for a huge majority of investors this is not going to be a big issue,” Soloway says. “Canada is very much open for -business.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250