Thanks, Joël.
I really appreciated the public safety critic's intervention. I have appreciated her advocacy from afar, but we haven't had an opportunity to work together.
I read the media reports and shared concerns. I saw that the government acted quite quickly to suspend the contract, so I was a bit surprised when we got the 106(4) letter because I was wondering how it was an industry consideration.
When I look at the motion, there's only one witness on that list who is relevant to this committee, and that's the industry minister. At the end of the day, as I understand the connection to the industry committee here, it's a 2017 transaction pursuant to the Investment Canada Act, and that would be what we would look at here.
Colleagues ought to know if they are unfamiliar with the industry committee that we have studied the Investment Canada Act, not only in general in a previous Parliament—and we tabled the report February 2021—but also specifically in relation to a transaction where a mining company was acquired by a company that had a large ownership by a state-owned enterprise in China, so we have looked at this specific issue in relation to the Investment Canada Act on more than one occasion.
I guess I'm struggling with how this is really an industry consideration, given that the public safety critic is here because it's a public safety issue. I don't mind studying this issue as a general principle, but I hope to visit the public safety committee to study the issue and not have the public safety critic visit the industry committee to study it.