Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If sections 26 and 28 of the act are so well drafted as they stand, can you cite us any examples where the minister had to interpret and apply them? Can you also give us some examples where the minister had the necessary authority to assert that a business came from a country unfavourable to Canada? Do you have any specific examples of that?
In recent years, we've seen many instances of Canadian businesses, particularly in the telecommunications and technology sectors, that have been excluded from business dealings in the United States. Is there a discrepancy between our present act and American legislation, for example? Would that be because the minister didn't want to apply sections 26 or 28 and to make his own decision without the definition of “state-owned enterprise” being changed? A change to that definition is in fact being proposed as we speak in order to improve it or at least to include in it something we consider is an improvement. That's my first question.
My second question concerns the entity. As we interpret its definition in this bill, an entity is a business that has its headquarters in a foreign state in which basic democratic rights and freedoms are not recognized. Do you consider that problematic? Could it give the minister a reason to decide whether that entity or business could or couldn't do business in Canada?