Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Just to go back to some of the concerns that have led to calls for strengthening the Investment Canada Act, something that captured national attention, which has already been mentioned, was when there was a proposed takeover of the Potash Corporation, and the minister made a decision to block that takeover.
Subsequently, very shortly afterwards, there was an NDP motion put forward in the House of Commons. I want to quickly read it. This was in 2010, and that motion reads:
That, in the opinion of the House, since the recent takeover bid for Potash Corporation raises concerns about the adequacy of the foreign investment review process under the Investment Canada Act (ICA), the Government of Canada should take immediate steps to amend the Investment Canada Act to ensure the views of those most directly affected by any takeover are considered, and any decision on whether a takeover delivers a “net benefit” to Canada is transparent by: (a) making public hearings a mandatory part of foreign investment review; (b) ensuring those hearings are open to all directly affected and expert witnesses they choose to call on their behalf; (c) ensuring all conditions attached to approval of a takeover be made public and be accompanied by equally transparent commitments to monitoring corporate performance on those conditions and appropriate and enforceable penalties for failure to live up to those conditions;
That motion was adopted unanimously in the House of Commons. That was two years or a year and a half ago, maybe. Clearly, these changes have not lived up to the motion passed by the House of Commons.
In your opinion, if there were hearings where members of the public were able to express their opinions, people from a community that might be affected, people who work in a given workplace, would such a change strengthen the Investment Canada Act?