That doesn't answer the question. I'll give you a more specific example, because you would have been present in the department, I assume, for some of these decisions that have been made. That gives the power, but, as Mr. Fast said, it doesn't compel the minister to actually do anything.
As we know, Sinclair Technologies was bought by Norsat in Vancouver in 2011, and then Sinclair was subsequently taken over by Hytera. On that transaction in 2019, two years after this law was passed, the minister of ISED had the power in the existing act to do a full national security review—not a superficial one, but the full one—and to call on the Minister of Public Safety to do that review. That essentially state-owned Chinese company is banned in the U.S, because they're in the telecommunications business and they've been spying. From that full and detailed.... Yet, Minister Bains chose not to do that and allowed this to go ahead with a very superficial, “Oh, it's okay”. While the power is there in that definition, and subsequent definitions, it's not being used. The subsequent exposure of our industries to them, including the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency, which subsequently bought equipment from them, is a result of that lack of usage of the existing section. That's why we're arguing for strengthening both the definition of “state-owned enterprise” and some of the other provisions.
Why—and you may say it's a cabinet confidence, or whatever—if the power is there, is it not being used in that case? There are others, of course. The Tanco mine in Manitoba, Canada's only lithium-producing company, was bought by Sinomine without any.... The same minister chose not to have the national state-owned enterprise, Sinomine of China, which was acquiring our only lithium mine that was producing, go through a detailed public security. I would argue as well that in that benefit test under the act, ministers are choosing not to do this.