Canada’s Foreign Direct Investment Challenge: Reducing Barriers and Ensuring a Level Playing Field in the Face of Sovereign Wealth Funds and State-Owned Enterprises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent takeovers – and attempted takeovers – of strategic resource companies have renewed concerns that some of Canada’s prized corporate players are falling into foreign hands. However, data shows that Canada has not been a significant attractor of multinational investment, lagging behind a number of developed and developing nations. Indeed, since the mid-1990s, Canada has been a net exporter of capital in world markets, as foreign direct investment by Canadian companies far outpaced the inflow of foreign capital. Rather than being hollowed out, we are hollowing out other countries. As a general policy, Canada should reduce barriers to foreign direct investment and welcome our growing role in international markets. As many studies have shown, foreign direct investment brings significant net benefits to the Canadian economy, including knowledge transfers, new management, better wages and productivity. Only in limited circumstances, such as in the case of protecting Canada’s national security, should Canada block foreign takeovers of Canadian companies. In the interest of neutrality and minimizing economic distortions, takeovers of Canadian companies by foreign sovereign wealth funds or state-owned enterprises should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. When state-owned enterprises have similar commercial objectives and operate on a level-playing field without financial support by state owners, they could also provide net benefits to the Canadian economy. One important area that requires further consideration is with respect to the tax-exempt status of sovereign wealth funds and state-owned companies. Canadian tax treaties should be reviewed to ensure that Canadian withholding taxes maintain an even playing field among private and state-owned businesses operating in Canada.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".