The Investment Canada Act refers to “acting under the influence, directly or indirectly, of such a government or agency”. I feel that covers what I'm talking about.
You yourself referred to a firm as partly state-owned. None of those firms that are associated with China are outside the Chinese regime. There has to be a recognition that when you're dealing with countries that have that particular system, which is utterly incompatible with our own in terms of a civil space and a state space and a societal space, they all should be considered state-owned. Maybe we should change the definition to—