Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question and for offering the opportunity to raise some considerations that are highlighted through the amendment.
I would raise two sets of considerations specific to this amendment for the contemplation of the committee. One is that the existing definition of state-owned enterprises within the Investment Canada Act already allows the government to review investments that involve state-owned enterprises that would be headquartered in a country such as the one the member describes, without setting out parameters—arguably subjective—that would raise a number of concerns with respect to our trade obligations.
Furthermore, the act also already allows the minister to deem an investor a state-owned enterprise, even if it does not self-identify as such. In section 26 and section 28 of the existing Investment Canada Act, the minister has the authority to deem an investor to be a state-owned enterprise, notwithstanding the fact that an investor might not purport as such.
The second consideration I would note is that the current foundational element of the act is that it is technologically neutral and geographically neutral, allowing the minister the capacity to fully consider state-owned enterprises and not encumber potential trade irritants or look to be prejudicial to a particular geography, which would be in violation of our international accords. A definition that would introduce such parameters could be viewed as such and would potentially give rise to concerns for Canada in the international arena.
Those would be the considerations that I'd flag.