Mixed Signals: What Recent Developments Tell Us About Canadian Foreign Investment Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even though Canada enjoys a high level of inward investment by comparison to many developed countries, its national regime is frequently criticized as restrictive. Some recent developments in Canada seem to suggest a new interest on the part of the federal government in developing more effective domestic and international rules for foreign investment and in breaking down some of the historical barriers to inward investment in Canada. The government frequently makes public statements emphasizing the “openness” of Canada to foreign investors. The steps actually taken to date, however, are not unambiguously supportive of a liberalized investment regime. In fact, the effect is decidedly mixed. This article surveys these recent developments, including changes over the past few years to the cornerstone of Canada’s domestic regime for foreign investment, the Investment Canada Act, to adopt guidelines for the review of foreign investments by state-owned enterprises, and to introduce a special national security review as well as more aggressive enforcement of the Act, including the first refusals of foreign investments since the Act came into force in 1985. The article concludes that the overall effect of recent developments is to diminish unnecessarily the attractiveness of Canada as a destination for foreign investment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".