I want to make a comment on Mr. Rae's earlier comments that it appears the Canada Pension Plan could consider the provisos in this bill when it does forms of investment. With that, I just want to point out that the way I am reading this, it is not a suggestive bill, it's an instructive bill. When we look at section 10 here, it's very clear that it's not only “shall take into consideration the provisions”, but it “...shall ensure that the assets are not invested...whose activities have been found...to be inconsistent with the guidelines...”.
So it is absolutely not suggestive; it's instructive. And that creates huge problems, I would imagine, because then you have to determine whether that corporation is in compliance or not.
And furthermore, when we go back to the issues under the other instructions on the bills, where the corporations have a determination of frivolous or vexatious responses within eight months, the minister has to provide reasons for this determination and publish these reasons. So there is even a reverse onus on the minister to not only give clarity to whether a company is in contravention, but also to publish reasons for that clarity. I would think that in itself would be very onerous to try to do.
Mr. Andrews, within eight months you might have some frivolous and vexatious accusations. What happens to a business in an eight-month period? And is that enough time for a business to determine whether they just want to fold? You related one example of one business that gave up the ghost on it. How many other businesses are going to decide--let's say the Canada Steamship Lines of the Canadian mining industry--to pick up their tools and relocate to Barbados? How much of this impact is there going to be on the Canadian mining industry?