First of all, I think there's some value in identifying or defining what you mean by “strategic”, but I think to do that you have to have a strategy, right? So it has to be strategic within an overall industrial policy strategy, and I think that's lacking.
I think the Red Wilson report, if I remember correctly, wanted to replace the net benefit test with the national interest test, which I think is even vaguer than the net benefit test. I would move in the opposite direction, make it clearer, strengthen it, and make it more precise and make it publicly accessible.
Another aspect of the recommendations of that report was the notion of onus, burden of proof. That committee recommended reversing the burden of proof, so you assume that all investments are good and it's up to the government to determine. I would disagree with that. We've seen this trend in the regulatory field--Mr. Hart knows it well--where, for example, when companies introduce a harmful chemical, the onus is on the regulator to prove it is harmful, rather than on the company to prove it is.