Industry committee  The example you gave of the lobster could have happened with a non-state-owned enterprise. Ultimately, it's a competition issue. You basically have a company that has bought a bunch of companies and taken control of the supply chain and now somehow is managing a section of it in terms of a monopoly for its own benefit.

Industry committee  No, I understand.

Industry committee  The issue—and I've said this in other instances—is that sometimes the ownership itself is not the problem. It's the risks associated with that ownership. Obviously, on national security grounds, people will say, “A state-owned enterprise that buys a lobster company or the freight forwarding is not really a national security issue,” although maybe in Nova Scotia it might be considered national security, and I respect that.

Industry committee  As far as I'm concerned, as I have already said, I wonder whether critical minerals represent a threat to national security. It isn't clear. If we compare a mine owned by Chinese interests to a mine owned by German interests, does it pose a threat to national security? That isn't necessarily the case.

Industry committee  No, you're absolutely right. National security can be defined very broadly. Ultimately, national security is whatever the government says it is. We saw that early during the Trump administration, when all of a sudden tariffs were imposed on our steel and aluminum, because of national security.

Industry committee  Thank you. My opening remarks and subsequent answers to questions obviously raised the issue of what business activity is in relation to material assets or technical information. As I mentioned at the outset, focusing on business activity and separating it to some extent from the assets and the technical information I find is problematic in the current bill.

Industry committee  I don't know. You would have to ask the drafters. I think in part this is how the Investment Canada Act is built. It's focused on the entity and the business activity, and not so much on assets—except that now it's no longer just about an investor buying into a company or an enterprise.

Industry committee  That is a good question. In general, it is up to the government that issues the tender to take into account things that might represent a threat to public security, whether national or regional. In the case of a public tender for rebuilding subway cars in Toronto, the public security aspects do need to be taken into account.

Industry committee  In a way, I'm using the terms that are set in the bill. Obviously, “intellectual property” covers a lot of ground. Ultimately, what matters is that.... Again, if we're talking about national security, it should involve the investment review people, but they should certainly talk to the people at CSIS.

Industry committee  Right now, certainly, for a lot of transactions, my understanding is that it is automatic. I think, again, it depends on what the nature of the acquisition is. For instance, a state-owned company that buys a mine.... It's in the ground. You can't easily move it outside Canada.

Industry committee  My comment in terms of what is strategic, and going back to my testimony from 2020, is that again it was more in the context of a threat to national security. I think what you're referring to is more on the net benefit analysis within the Investment Canada Act. Obviously, to me, you're absolutely right that competition should be part of that analysis.

Industry committee  I think we should. Obviously, there is the Competition Bureau, which is the agency responsible for these things. However, if we're looking at foreign acquisition, competition should be part of the analysis. Certainly, it is in some sectors, such as the financial sector. If we had a major international bank or other investors, that would be one of the concerns we might have.

Industry committee  Thank you for your question. I think so. The fact is that now we're not just talking about buying stuff. We're talking about buying, sometimes, very sophisticated technology—

Industry committee  Thank you, Mr. Masse. Certainly with where we are now, and then including this bill, I think the CFIUS process remains much tougher than what we're seeing here and what we have currently in terms of protecting national security. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with it. I think the fact that it has zero transparency and does create uncertainty is a problem.

Industry committee  I can't comment because I don't know the details, but given Lowe's lack of success after acquiring Rona, we might doubt that it has been beneficial. Of course, the question is whether the same obligations still exist since the acquisition of Rona by an investment fund. As I said, since I don't know the details, I am not in a position to say whether the undertakings given by Lowe's were honoured and whether they have been maintained by the investment fund.