Thank you for those questions.
Two or three important aspects should be considered here.
First, the member has referred to efforts by other countries to exclude organizations or corporations in a specific sector. It's important to note that these legislative measures, including England's Telecommunications Act and the approach of telecommunications in Canada, are geographically neutral. Consequently, they allow governments to exclude actors that are high-risk suppliers, as does the definition of “state-owned enterprise” in the Investment Canada Act, which is both technologically and geographically neutral.
Second, the definition of “state-owned enterprise” set forth in the Investment Canada Act is broad enough to allow the minister to use the provisions, now that they exist, to exclude or allow investments made by state-owned enterprises. This doesn't require the application of sections 26 and 28 given the leeway that the definition provided in the act affords. The problem caused by the inclusion of aspects that may be subjective or are defined in a non-standard manner puts Canada at risk of being perceived by other countries as harbouring prejudices. That's why the definition remains broad and states no specific geography. It doesn't mention any non-standard aspects, such as harmful behaviours, because they are now defined in the act.