Industry committee  There is a pre-filing requirement that's introduced. This rewording will, instead of carving out what section 15 does not apply to in section 11, specifying clearly what section 15 does apply to in section 11—namely, paragraphs 11(a) and 11(b). It will be made clear that investment that qualifies as requiring notification under 11(b) must notify under that provision even if there's a theoretical overlap with the requirements of the new proposed paragraph 11(c).

Industry committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. The proposed amendment to section 15 specifies that the investments that are subject to the new pre-implementation filing requirements that are described in clause 2(1) shall not be reviewable for the purposes of section 15, but section 15 will continue to apply to transactions referred to in paragraphs 11(a) and 11(b) of the unamended act.

Industry committee  The amendment introduces and adds proposed paragraph 11(c). What this does is it essentially clarifies the relationship between section 15 and section 11, because paragraphs 11(a) and 11(b) already exist.

Industry committee  It is at the minister's discretion, but yes.

Industry committee  We would understand the current definition to be sufficiently broad and wide to encompass a whole host of behaviours, including those that are influenced by government, and I would note, from our annual report, that we review those with frequency.

Industry committee  I can say that in the last year for which statistics were published, the investment review division contemplated 1,200 foreign investments into the country.

Industry committee  I wouldn't have those specifics. I would simply say that the rationale for the high number is a function of the fact that the definition is broad, including for the purposes for national security reviews.

Industry committee  A public example would be Aecon. I would also just point to our annual report which notes the number of state-owned enterprises that have been subject to investment reviews.

Industry committee  Mr. Chair, thank you for the question. I will not be in a position to speak to specific decisions on specific cases, given both the national security information at play as well as the fact that, as the member noted, they are cabinet confidences. The broader point I would make, however, is that while there's much consideration in many cases about whether or not a case proceeds from sections 25.1 to 25.2 to 25.3, it should be noted that all cases are subject to national security review.

Industry committee  The definition in the act says, “an entity that is controlled or influenced, directly or indirectly, by a government or agency”.

Industry committee  The definition extends to influence.

Industry committee  It is not that specific. It is broadly understood as influence.

Industry committee  Mr. Chair, I'm not in a position to furnish the committee with specifics on all of the trade practices of the WTO. I would simply note again that an entity that is controlled or influenced directly or indirectly by a government or agency referred to in the act would include such provisions.

Industry committee  I just want to make sure that.... One thing I articulated was understood, which was not that the subjectivity itself was potentially a cause for concern in terms of the value or the sentiment it expresses. What I was expressing was that the current definition—“an entity that is controlled or influenced, directly or indirectly, by a government or agency referred to in paragraph (a)”, which goes back to the definition—is sufficiently broad for the contemplation of the act, and the provisions in question are to define what an SOE is for the purposes of the contemplation of the act.

Industry committee  Once again, I want to emphasize how important it is for the department to have a definition that's broad enough to include many types of harmful behaviours without having to name them all. It's important for the minister to be able to consider all behaviours and measures in order to make effective and fair decisions.