Industry committee  I will speak to the three pieces, as I understand them, in turn. On 21 days versus 45 days, to be candid with the committee, 21 days is unrealistic. The time frame to adequately evaluate a notification under the act, analyze whether it should be reviewed for net benefit for public interest, consult with provincial and territorial stakeholders and then perform the necessary work to obtain an order in council—and for anyone who has ever done that, it's not the easiest or quickest process—the 21-day timeline is highly unlikely.

Industry committee  We have taken a look at the report. I think the goal of that particular function in the CFIUS regime is to provide heightened transparency for the purposes of the investor in terms of the degree to which the process is understood from their perspective. Our regime doesn't exactly mimic CFIUS in many ways, but I would say there are a number of transparency measures we have put in place, including annual reporting that has been continuously improved in terms of both the degree and the understanding of what we're reporting on.

Industry committee  Involuntary or voluntary?

Industry committee  We just put in place the mechanism in August, so we don't have enough span of time yet to be able to determine that. Obviously, the pre-notification measures that are placed within this bill heighten a number of those we would hope to necessarily see as voluntary and actually make them mandatory.

Industry committee  Mr. Chair, I appreciate the question. One goal of the continued work on economic security is the heightened knowledge and capacity across the entirety of the ecosystem, including other levels of government that intersect and engage with partners. That's at the root of lots of the work that's under way with research security, trying to ensure there is a much stronger base of knowledge for all parties within the system about the ways in which they're intersecting with foreign investors and with national security and economic security concerns.

Industry committee  I'd offer a couple of comments. One, obviously, is that the current statement and guidance that we have on critical minerals are, in fact, attempting to ensure that the overall approach to the overall development of the industry is cognizant of the national security considerations at play and that it is setting out the broad framework that should guide key decisions in terms of not only the establishment of foreign direct investment but also the overall establishment of the critical minerals value chain within the Canadian context.

Industry committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. As noted in previous testimony, foreign direct investments from state-owned enterprises are subject to review under the national security provisions of the act. They are also subject to net benefit if they meet the threshold test. This amendment obviously seeks to look at that threshold.

Industry committee  I would compartmentalize the question into two parts. One, investments into Canada from foreign actors are reviewable under the national security provisions regardless of threshold. There is no threshold. This also includes, as I noted, intangible assets and a portion of a given entity or organization.

Industry committee  I'll be honest, Mr. Chair, that our reading of the amendment is not aligned with the description that was just provided in the second portion. On the first portion, yes, this would allow the director to provide information about wrongdoings. That, to our estimation, can already be shared with the relevant provincial authorities for corporate wrongdoings, and that is the provincial police.

Industry committee  Perhaps, Mr. Chair, the member could reread the sentence. I understood that they would now be subject to federal penalties. If that's not the case, I'm....

Industry committee  I thank the member for the question. From what we know of the effects of this bill, it would make provincially incorporated companies corporations for the purposes of the Canada Business Corporations Act. I have difficulty understanding this, because of the many aspects of the Canada Business Corporations Act that distinguish the federal regime from that of the provinces and territories.

Industry committee  It is currently the situation, with Corporations Canada, that a residential address for service cannot be a postal box, except in cases where the jurisdiction is only served by a post box. That is for the purposes of protecting individuals for whom a rural route or a post box is the only means by which to address service.

Industry committee  Yes. New paragraph (c.2), as it stands now would, at least from an implementation perspective, sow confusion, because I don't know what it's asking for. If it's asking for the name of the corporation that the individual of significant control is investing in, that's how you get to it in the registry.

Industry committee  The obligation on the registry is to provide the natural person at the very end of the chain. It is not to provide the corporation that has individuals who have significant control. It's the natural person who controls that. Otherwise, you could end up in this endless loop, where corporation one is owned by two, which is owned by three, which is owned by four and by five.

Industry committee  It would list the individual with significant control at the very end of that. Let's imagine that “Mark Schaan Inc.” was a conglomerate, and I was owned by 900 affiliate companies, but the ultimate controller of that organization was Mark Schaan. I would put “Mark Schaan”. If it was ultimately owned by a grouping of individuals, if there's a collection of natural persons actually at the back end of that, I would list the collection of natural persons.