I'll add that this is similar, I understand, to my presentation on the last one, but from the perspective of.... When the minister was here at one of the meetings, I said, you know, not all ministers are created equal, regardless of party. Some, perhaps, aren't as diligent as the current minister in that role. I know he has put out more stringent guidelines for some of these areas, particularly the critical minerals area. Clearly, the current minister is looking a little more rigorously at it than, perhaps, previous ministers. Still, those things are in guidelines, not in law.
With “shall”, the idea that he is required to have this in both net benefit review and national security ensures that the Governor in Council—cabinet and the minister himself—has the utmost detail available in making the final recommendation to cabinet or the final decision, to make sure the net benefit and security interests of our country are well regarded and well protected when there is an acquisition.
I believe this is essential. I think it's proven that ministers are not necessarily, in some instances, following the due diligence the public would expect. They may be getting advice from the department. The official process is, “Okay, we've done a first-level assessment and it looks okay” or “The Minister of Public Safety says it's okay” or “We don't think it's an issue on net benefit”, even though we don't have—not to mix bills—a real beneficial corporate registry that can give us clarity about the concentration levels of companies within particular industries or areas. As I have mentioned earlier, the fisheries department doesn't know who ultimately is the beneficial owner of a licence. It can't tell, on the west coast, for example, whether or not Jimmy Pattison has 50% ownership of all licences. The Competition Tribunal says that it shouldn't be over 30% in any industry, as we know from our discussions around Rogers and Shaw.
I know this seems a little circular, but I think it's incumbent upon us to make sure that whoever the minister is—ministers and governments change—the due diligence is done and that a minister has the full depth of information available to them, from all the security experts or competition experts in corporate concentration and net benefit analysis, before making that final decision, in certain circumstances, to ensure our interests are well protected.
I think the problem with the language of “may” is that it may be a minister who is not as diligent. They may be so in some circumstances, but it's left to chance and the vagaries of who will occupy the office. It has nothing to do with the current government. I could make the same argument about some people in the preceding government, too, who held this job. I'm sure the officials would never be so impolitic as to share their views on the long list of previous ministers and their diligence on some of these issues.
This takes the guesswork out of whether or not this happens, as well as the situation where we have, in Parliament, members of Parliament coming hard at the government of the day, questioning why it did not do this or why it didn't go in depth. It happened in the Tanco case, and it happened in the case of Hytera. I wasn't around at the time of the Nexen oil sands purchase, but I know Mr. Masse was. At least, I understand from him that he raised some of these issues in the House.
This would protect a minister, to a large extent, from making, perhaps, an error after the fact and being subjected to questioning about the decision without the proper information handed to them. They can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Once it's approved, it's done. It's over. You can't go back. Having more information is only a good thing in this process. It is more certainty for ministers and governments to have more information in making that final decision.
As I understand the process, if there is viewed to be a national security issue or a net benefit issue out of that review, the minister, under the Investment Canada Act, has to go to the Governor in Council with a recommendation. The Governor in Council, for those who are watching and don't understand, is the cabinet. The minister has to go to cabinet to get agreement on the decision or recommendation he's making if there's an issue with the net benefit review or the national security review.
In my days when I had hair, I sat in the back as a staffer in cabinet meetings, so I saw some of that debate behind the curtain. Certainly, from my years at executive and board tables in the private sector, I know that in the decision-making process, a more robust and better decision is always made when you have a lot of people around the table with varying backgrounds who can give their opinion—not just the opinion of a single person, like the minister. That's why it goes to cabinet, to have those discussions, because while the minister may think that it is or isn't an issue, there may be a different perspective, such as a regional perspective or other perspectives from different backgrounds around cabinet. Quite often, the decision that comes out of cabinet may be a little different from what went in. However, it will never go there for that debate if the information and the depth that we're asking for here isn't there and, therefore, is not going to the minister to make sure that he or she has the full benefit of everything possible in making that recommendation.
It seems like a small change, from “may” to “shall”. I thought it should be “will”, but the lawyers told me we don't put that in the act. We don't use “will” to say that the minister will do something. Saying “the minister shall do that” is essentially “will”, apparently. The chair is a lawyer, so he knows this better than I do, but “will” is apparently not a word you use in acts.
I would encourage all members around the table to think about that and to say why we would not want the minister to have the full breadth of expertise and information before him at the highest level of detail that we can get in this government on an acquisition on national security and net benefit.
In case you get a lazy minister—really, there are some lazy ministers—he may not really read the brief, may not do the due diligence in looking through all the documents and may not spend the time with officials to fully understand what this acquisition is about and what's happening. Therefore, the government, taxpayers and industry are exposed to things that we shouldn't be exposed to. One of the guarantees, I guess, against a lazy minister is turning “may” to “shall”.
I would ask you to support us in this proposal to protect us from lazy ministers and to make sure that all of the information that is possibly had is available to that minister, whether they are diligent or less diligent, going forward.