Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would raise a few additional considerations and one to maybe reiterate.
Currently, already under the act, as I noted, in sections 28 and 26, the minister has the capacity to deem an investor a state-owned enterprise, notwithstanding the fact that they don't self-identify as such. The definition of state-owned enterprise that is already comprised within the act, which is jurisdictionally neutral, does allow for us to continue to identify state-owned enterprises and subject them to the SOE provisions of the act. That is why SOE investments are routinely reviewed under the act and are done so at a higher rate, actually, than are private investors.
With respect to issues of international prejudice against potential geographies, I would note two things. One is that in many cases with respect to a state-owned enterprise, or as it relates to cases before the ICA, it's an affiliation with an investor who was actually not from said SOE. In fact, the investor we often see that is the potential party to a Canadian transaction is actually a member in good standing of the WTO and a respected trading partner, an ally, who potentially has an affiliation with respect to an SOE as part of a broader set of investments.
We do need to be wary of the degree to which highlighting or specifically calling out a country in the act, as opposed to allowing the existing discretion to the minister, may actually deem us to be prejudicial to an investor. There have been a number of cases in which retaliatory action has been taken by countries with respect to investment decisions as well as broader actions against them within their economy.