Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I want to reflect for a moment and then perhaps propose a friendly subamendment to the amendment that might achieve the same intention but perhaps a bit more effectively or with more clarity. I might ask the officials to weigh in on what I propose.
It starts with saying that the amendment seeks to expand the jurisdiction to asset sales. Those asset sales are actually already covered in the bill as is. It may not be clear, and I think that's what the point of the proposed amendment is.
I just want to remind members that all acquisitions of IP assets are already subject to national security review under the ICA, whether the investor is a state-owned entity or not. The concern with the amendment is that it could be interpreted as actually narrowing the scope of this national security review for such asset acquisitions under the act.
The proposal, therefore, is to adjust the language so that we can really cement the interpretation in there: that any acquisition of an IP asset can be reviewed, regardless of who the investor is. The change I'm proposing is to add a new paragraph 25.1(c.1): “for greater certainty, the acquisition in whole or in part of an entity under paragraph (c) includes the acquisition of the assets of such an entity.”
I wonder if the officials have something to say there.