Industry committee  I'll start. One of the things the government requires in this process is the provision of information up front in terms of what's required to start the process. However, more importantly, if a transaction is subject to a review, as that continues there is often a back-and-forth between the investor and ISED, for example, where questions are asked and answers have to be given.

Industry committee  Certainly the identification of the sectors.... My initial remarks were really directed at that, so if you're interested, you might want to take a look at it.

Industry committee  I'll start. I think the reality is that for those of us who have been involved in these reviews for some time, there is a degree of international communication that already goes on in the review, at least on the national security side. A lot of that is particularly acute when it's an investment that engages the interest of the Five Eyes.

Industry committee  I will answer your questions in reverse order. Although we have had this process since 2009, I would say that, in comparison to the U.S., for example, at least in my experience—and my colleagues may feel differently—our process is probably a bit more black box in terms of communicating concerns.

Industry committee  The guidance on this has already come from the federal government, so we already have a policy that basically restricts, if not prohibits, inbound investment from Russian entities, at least under the Investment Canada Act rules. There are a bunch of other sanction regimes that also govern that, but Russia is an immediate example.

Industry committee  Thank you for letting me correct my view that the process was wacky. It is not wacky. It is a choice that the U.K. legislature has made because they believe, I believe, that national security issues can arise in the review of domestic transactions. I'm not really aware of the other circumstances for why they have done that, but it is a very different approach than what we've chosen to do here in Canada.

Industry committee  I can't comment further on the thinking of the U.K. government on that.

Industry committee  If I can follow up on that, one jurisdiction that I think gets a lot of attention in Canada for regulatory policy is Australia. Like Canada, Australia was fairly early in the game in examining inbound investment from an economic screen and then later from more of a national interest or national security screen.

Industry committee  I think it's a step. If you take a look at how we approached this pre-2009, that stuff was clearly not covered by the review requirements. We have added a test that is designed to allow more flexibility in the type of investments that the government is allowed to scrutinize. At the moment, I think it is still the case, as I read the bill, that it requires certain threshold structures to be in existence before the review requirement can kick in.

Industry committee  First of all, I'm going to focus my comments on national security, not on net benefit, because the amendments that we're really talking about here are focused on the national security test. I think you raise a very good question. Actually, the question, for example, with respect to Quebec's own significant involvement in the EV chain and critical minerals means that Quebeckers have an interest, as they should, in ensuring that foreign investment rules apply so as not to scare away legitimate investment and to protect the position of the Quebec entities that are involved.

Industry committee  That's a very good question. When we refer to the situation we have now, we have to cut ourselves a bit of slack. I think the reason the government wanted those technologies and areas to be taken broadly was that we had to look at all of the potential relevance of that to determine whether there was a national security issue.

Industry committee  I think it is absolutely the case that we want the ability to revise that list frequently. I think the only counter-argument to it is that if you revise it too frequently, it reduces certainty for investors. I'm sure it's one reason that, for the CFIUS process and the U.K. process, they review on a multi-year basis, as opposed to every year.

Industry committee  I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question, please?

Industry committee  I've advised foreign technology companies on transactions that were not subject to the Investment Canada Act and some that were.

Industry committee  I cannot say right now. I don't know.