I've been letting the debate go on, but I think I will respond to Monsieur Vincent.
Ms. Nash did give me notice of this motion ahead of time, and I certainly appreciate that and the questions she's getting, because I'm getting many of these questions as well.
When I had the meeting with the clerk and the researchers on Monday, my question was whether the motion was in order. My initial reaction was that the motion was not in order. The clerk informed me that the motion, from a procedural point of view, was in order, but the researcher said that from a substantive point of view, there were some serious problems with it, in the sense that under the Investment Canada Act, the minister cannot speak to any proposed sale. The minister cannot even acknowledge there is a proposed sale; the minister cannot even talk about a hypothetical sale. That's how restricted the minister is in terms of what he can say, so I asked the researchers to give me some information to guide me as chair.
We do have Mark with us here, who has prepared a document. Unfortunately, it's in English only, so I'm not going to distribute it to the committee. Perhaps Mark can speak to it, but my understanding is that if the motion is passed as is, I don't even know if the minister could technically come to the committee or if he would come, because anything he does or says cannot even hint at anything with respect to this possible commercial transaction. That's how limited he is by the Investment Canada Act.
I'm just offering that to try to be helpful as chair. If Monsieur Vincent wants to ask Mark any more specific questions from a legal perspective as to what the minister can talk to and what he can't talk to, Mark, could you respond to those?
Monsieur Vincent.