Industry committee  Mr. Chair, I would note two important factors. One is that the wide definition and the standardized definition of SOE currently within the act allow for a consideration of a number of questions of importance that the member has raised under the existing definition of state-owned enterprise as a function of the act, and thereby allow the minister the capacity to be able to consider that.

Industry committee  It's hard to give you any examples because the act has been applied in a national security context. It's impossible for me to cite you a specific case. I would note that the minister has taken steps to oppose investments by state-owned enterprises or businesses that didn't identify themselves as state-owned enterprises.

Industry committee  I don't want to focus on one case or another. I simply prefer to describe the minister's overall record and the act as regards prevention as well as the way the minister uses the act to block foreign investments or to mitigate the risk they present. That includes investments by state-owned enterprises and organizations that the department views as state-owned enterprises, even those that aren't included in the statutory definition.

Industry committee  Thank you for those questions. Two or three important aspects should be considered here. First, the member has referred to efforts by other countries to exclude organizations or corporations in a specific sector. It's important to note that these legislative measures, including England's Telecommunications Act and the approach of telecommunications in Canada, are geographically neutral.

Industry committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. The existing definition of state-owned enterprises in the ICA, as I noted, already allows the government to review investments that involve SOEs that would be headquartered in such a country, without setting out subjective parameters. Obviously, one can imagine that when one sets out parameters like “democratic rights and freedoms are not recognized”, there is a degree of subjectivity, to which recognition or non-recognition may be called into question.

Industry committee  We believe that the current definition of “state-owned enterprise” in the act is sufficiently broad to capture the kinds of corporations in question. In fact, that's why they get reviewed at such a much higher rate than other investors.

Industry committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would raise a few additional considerations and one to maybe reiterate. Currently, already under the act, as I noted, in sections 28 and 26, the minister has the capacity to deem an investor a state-owned enterprise, notwithstanding the fact that they don't self-identify as such.

Industry committee  Specific to the ICA, I'm not in a position to furnish the committee with examples of China calling this into question, in part because our existing act is actually geographically neutral and has been interpreted as such. Our definition as it currently stands within the act does not call out a specific country, notwithstanding the fact that we use it routinely in cases incorporating specific geographies.

Industry committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question and for offering the opportunity to raise some considerations that are highlighted through the amendment. I would raise two sets of considerations specific to this amendment for the contemplation of the committee. One is that the existing definition of state-owned enterprises within the Investment Canada Act already allows the government to review investments that involve state-owned enterprises that would be headquartered in a country such as the one the member describes, without setting out parameters—arguably subjective—that would raise a number of concerns with respect to our trade obligations.

Industry committee  The Constitution lets us work with the provinces and territories in the realm of their jurisdiction, which includes the capacity to incorporate.

Industry committee  I think that again I'm going to make the important distinction between the fines that are levied against the corporation versus the fines that are actually attributable to the individual directors and officers of the corporation. The $5,000 is consistent with all of the other penalties levelled against the corporation in the act.

Industry committee  The commitment has been that the registry will be free and that it will be searchable. It does two things that are important for the purposes of ease. One is that it adopts the beneficial ownership data standard—the international standards for the collection of information related to beneficial ownership—which means that the way we collect the information is interoperable with the information that's collected by our international counterparts and by provincial counterparts, should they adopt the international standard, which is increasingly common.

Industry committee  Each province and territory—and the federal government, obviously—offers the opportunity to incorporate in their jurisdiction. To date, the two provinces that have adopted beneficial ownership registries largely conform to almost identical capacities in terms of what they ask of the individual corporation.

Industry committee  The object of Bill C‑42 is somewhat different. Trade agreements are normally reached between governments and concern taxes or free trade. Instead, this bill concerns the directors and officers of business corporations. Directors and officers have a positive duty to name the human individual at the end of the chain.

Industry committee  It's not a complication; it's a requirement. In Canada, incorporation is a provincial and territorial matter as well as a federal government matter. It's a shared jurisdiction. A bill such as the one before us requires that all system stakeholders take the same approach. You're only as good as your weakest link.