Skip to content

Enhanced scrutiny of foreign investments during COVID-19

Burtley Francis

In a statement issued on April 18, 20201, the federal government (through Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada) signalled that certain foreign investments into Canada will now face enhanced scrutiny under the Investment Canada Act as Canada continues to grapple with the impacts of COVID-19. The enhanced scrutiny comes as the national health and security of Canadians and the economy is now of paramount concern to the Canadian Government.

What transactions are subject to scrutiny?

The statement recognizes that in the current economic climate many businesses have experienced declines in their valuations, which may make them an investment or acquisition target for foreign investors.  Where the foreign investment has potential to introduce new risks into Canada those transactions will garner additional scrutiny, which will likely result in a detailed assessment and prolonged review periods. Transactions of particular concern are those involving foreign direct investments in the following circumstances:

  • In connection with the target Canadian business: the business is related to public health; or the business is related to or involved in the supply of critical goods and services; or
  • In connection with the foreign investor: the investor is owned by a foreign government; or the investor, even if it is an otherwise private entity, is assessed as being closely tied to or subject to direction from a foreign government.

This enhanced scrutiny will be applied once any of the above circumstances are met, regardless of the transaction value, and whether or not the transaction results in the foreign investor having a controlling interest in the Canadian Business.

How will this be applied?

Even prior to the issued statement, the federal government had the ability under its national security review powers to block a proposed investment, to allow an investment with conditions (which can be imposed pre- or post-implementation), or order the divestiture of a completed investment. This is unchanged. How the government exercises its national security powers remain somewhat of a black box, without much insight on the applied analysis of challenged investments. What the statement clarifies, though, is that there will be a particular heightened focus on investments involving public health and the supply of critical goods and services.

Unfortunately, the statement does not provide detail on what is captured within the scope of “critical goods and services”. However, guidance may be taken from the federal government’s published policy on critical infrastructure 2 which provides a list of 10 critical sectors, namely:

  • Energy and utilities
  • Finance
  • Food
  • Transportation
  • Government
  • Information and communication technology
  • Health
  • Water
  • Safety
  • Manufacturing

There may be additional consideration of provincial designations of industries or businesses as essential services as well. Even so, the statement leaves the door open for this higher review standard to apply to transactions beyond just those involving businesses active in Canada’s supply chains for essential medical supplies or personal protective equipment, which may otherwise have been implied by virtue of the statement being tied to the current COVID-19 pandemic.

How long will this policy be in place?

The duration of this approach to enhanced review is indefinite as it will apply until the economy recovers from the effects of COVID-19.

What does this mean for transactions going forward?

Even in light of the statement, the same financial thresholds for review and triggers for prescribed cultural businesses 3 under the Investment Canada Act continue to apply, and the majority of foreign investment transactions will likely be subject only to notification. While review officers are working remotely following personal distancing directives, they continue to accept and review notifications and adhere to the usual service standards and timelines.

However, this statement likely will result in more foreign investment transactions being subject to a higher level of review particularly where the Canadian business operates in a critical sector. Given the uncertainty in scope it is recommended that investors seek clearance prior to close (at least 45 days prior to intended closing date) even where ordinarily a post-closing notice would be allowed.4 In this way the parties will have certainty that the deal will not be challenged after it has closed.


1 https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ica-lic.nsf/eng/lk81224.html
2 The National Strategy for Critical Infrastructure is available at https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/crtcl-nfrstrctr/esf-sfe-en.aspx, together with guidance on designated essential services and functions (which are subject to amendment).
3 Cultural businesses include those involved in the publication, distribution or sale of books, magazines, periodicals, newspapers or music in print or machine readable form as well as businesses involved in the production, distribution, sale or exhibition of film or video products or audio or video music recordings.
4 The 45 day recommendation corresponds with the timelines under the Investment Canada Act, pursuant to which notice of any national security concerns must be raised within 45 days of the initial filing.


This article is provided for general information only. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Commercial Transactions/Agreements group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership articles and updates.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top