On our end, we rely on best practices. Again, based on what we've seen, it's mostly the United States that will create lists of sanctioned entities that can no longer do business and impose much more burdensome document disclosure requirements.
Of course, in our view, Canadian authorities should play a much larger role in building this apparatus not of oversight, but rather of risk management, in a more comprehensive way. If public organizations linked to public pension funds are making investments on Chinese soil, naturally we want to make sure that we can compel those companies to produce much more comprehensive due diligence reports, monitor the local activities of certain companies, and know who their suppliers, partners and customers are.
Of course, from our perspective, Canada can't go as far as extraterritoriality but it should still force Canadian companies that want to invest to ensure that they comply with certain practices, even if it means adopting a much more restrictive model, such as that of the Americans, where lists are established. Canada should not necessarily be afraid of producing such lists. Canadian authorities could be as proactive as the Americans have been under Donald Trump. Canada could compile a list of the companies that it knows have problematic partners or supply chains. It would be like saying that those companies can no longer do business in certain places or that they could no longer make investments in certain places. It's very restrictive, but it's based on best practices, and that's pretty much where we are today.
Again, we're talking about the country just south of Canada and therefore its direct trading partner. Canada could draw a lot of inspiration from certain measures taken by the U.S. government to kind of reshape the way in which certain Canadian institutions or companies are going to be able to invest in certain countries or territories with authoritarian regimes, for example, whether it's China or other countries.