I would build on that by saying that in this case the company that's doing the acquisition, Zijin Mining, is a state-controlled company, and that should have automatically triggered a national security review, in my view. I would tend to focus, in terms of the legislation—the guidelines—mostly on state-owned enterprises, whether they're from China or anywhere else, but particularly from China because of China's dominance in critical minerals and also because China has used that dominance, not only in critical minerals but through demand in its own economy, to exert coercion and leverage over other countries. Therefore, we have a specific concern with China's behaviour.
As I said in my opening statement, I think that state-owned enterprises or state-controlled firms, particularly those from China, should automatically trigger national security reviews, and certainly in this case one should have been conducted, in my own view.
We know that state-owned and state-controlled enterprises have unfair advantages over private firms, such as Canadian firms that have to compete in the marketplace for capital. They have access to cheap capital. They have access to subsidies. They are under the influence of the government and the regime, which has its own strategic priorities and, therefore, can influence how those assets are employed.
For a number of reasons, I think that's justifiable. Thanks.