National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act

Sponsor

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

This enactment amends the Investment Canada Act to, among other things,
(a) require notice of certain investments to be given prior to their implementation;
(b) authorize the Minister of Industry, after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, to impose interim conditions in respect of investments in order to prevent injury to national security that could arise during the review;
(c) require, in certain cases, the Minister of Industry to make an order for the further review of investments under Part IV.1;
(d) allow written undertakings to be submitted to the Minister of Industry to address risks of injury to national security and allow that Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, to complete consideration of an investment because of the undertakings;
(e) introduce rules for the protection of information in the course of judicial review proceedings in relation to decisions and orders under Part IV.1;
(f) authorize the Minister of Industry to disclose information that is otherwise privileged under the Act to foreign states for the purposes of foreign investment reviews;
(g) establish a penalty not exceeding the greater of $500,000 and any prescribed amount, for failure to give notice of, or file applications with respect to, certain investments; and
(h) increase the penalty for other contraventions of the Act or the regulations to the greater of $25,000 and any prescribed amount for each day of the contravention.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-34s:

C-34 (2021) Law Appropriation Act No. 3, 2021-22
C-34 (2016) An Act to amend the Public Service Labour Relations Act and other Acts
C-34 (2014) Law Tla'amin Final Agreement Act
C-34 (2012) Law Appropriation Act No. 4 2011-12

Votes

Nov. 20, 2023 Passed 3rd reading and adoption of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act
Nov. 7, 2023 Passed Concurrence at report stage of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act
Nov. 7, 2023 Failed Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act (report stage amendment) (Motion 3)
Nov. 7, 2023 Passed Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act (report stage amendment) (Motion 1)
Nov. 6, 2023 Passed Time allocation for Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act
April 17, 2023 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-34 aims to modernize the Investment Canada Act by strengthening the government's ability to review foreign investments that may pose a threat to national security or economic interests. The bill introduces measures such as pre-implementation filing requirements, ministerial authority to impose interim conditions on investments, harsher penalties for non-compliance, and improved information sharing with international partners. While the bill has received broad support, concerns have been raised regarding the scope of the reviews and whether the bill goes far enough to protect Canadian assets, intellectual property, and economic sovereignty from hostile foreign actors.

Liberal

  • Modernizing Investment Canada Act: The Liberals support modernizing the Investment Canada Act to address changes such as technological advancements and foreign interference, especially concerning ownership of Canadian companies and assets. The aim is to protect Canadian industries and ensure investments align with Canada's best interests.
  • Protecting national security: The legislation is intended to allow rapid government intervention if foreign investment harms Canada's national security, adapting to the speed of innovation and addressing geopolitical risks. It aims to prevent hostile actors from exploiting Canada’s expertise and capacity for innovation.
  • Balancing economic growth: The Liberals aim to balance welcoming foreign investment with protecting Canada's economic interests and national security. The goal is to attract investment while safeguarding intangible assets like intellectual property and trade secrets, ensuring economic growth and job opportunities without compromising sovereignty.
  • Aligning with international partners: The amendments in Bill C-34 would better align Canada with international partners and allies by introducing requirements for prior notification of certain investments, the authority to impose interim conditions, and the ability to share case-specific information to support national security assessments.

Conservative

  • Inadequate to address threats: The Conservatives believe the bill does not go far enough to address acquisitions by hostile states. Members noted that it has been 14 years since the act was amended and that state-owned enterprises have become extraterritorial in taking over companies globally for their own economic interests. The Conservatives feel the bill is too limited in scope to address the new challenges of a globalized economy.
  • Missed opportunities identified: Conservatives believe the bill does not adequately protect Canadian assets, companies, and sovereignty. They proposed several amendments that were rejected, including modifying the definition of “state-owned enterprises”, listing specific sectors necessary to preserve Canada's national security, and exempting non-Canadian Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises from the national security review process.
  • Cabinet decision-making is essential: The Conservatives are concerned about removing cabinet from the decision-making process, as it eliminates regional perspectives and the breadth of experience from various ministers. An amendment was proposed to ensure that cabinet continues to play an active role in major decisions about foreign investment.
  • Acknowledges positive amendments: Conservatives highlight some amendments that were adopted, including reducing the threshold to trigger a national security review to zero for any investment by a state-owned enterprise and ensuring that items reviewable include acquisitions of any assets by state-owned enterprises. They also included ensuring a review if a company had previously been convicted of corruption charges.

NDP

  • Supports updating the Act: The NDP supports updating the Investment Canada Act (ICA) to reflect changes since 2009. Members believe that the bill creates more tools to ensure foreign investments align with Canada's best interests and national security.
  • Focus on intellectual property: The NDP emphasizes the need to protect intellectual property in a knowledge-based economy, supporting amendments to capture potential investments or acquisitions by foreign actors. They argue that thresholds should consider the economic value of intellectual property to ensure sensitive IP is reviewed appropriately.
  • Weaknesses remain in legislation: NDP members express concerns about the government's willingness to prioritize corporate interests over Canadian interests, citing the Rogers-Shaw merger as an example. They suggest that changing the act is insufficient without the political will to conduct thorough reviews and reject investments that do not benefit Canada.
  • State-owned enterprises: The NDP argues that the act should mandate review of acquisitions by state-owned enterprises of companies previously reviewed by the ICA. They cite the example of Anbang's acquisition of Retirement Concepts and the subsequent seizure by the Chinese government as a reason.

Bloc

  • Supports bill overall: Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-34, which amends the Investment Canada Act to strengthen the government's ability to monitor foreign investments that could compromise Canada's national security. They see it as a necessary first step in an increasingly interconnected world.
  • Protecting Quebec's economy: The Bloc emphasizes the importance of protecting Quebec's economy from potentially detrimental foreign interests. They are concerned about the impact of foreign investment on Quebec's aerospace industry and intellectual property.
  • Coordination with U.S.: The Bloc recognizes that Bill C-34 aligns Canadian security policies with those of the United States. This alignment is essential for Canada to be included in the U.S. industrial modernization strategy.
  • Review threshold too high: The Bloc believes that the bill is incomplete and that the government needs to go further in scrutinizing foreign investment. They advocate for lowering the review threshold so that more investment projects are subject to review.
  • Need economic security: While national security is important, the Bloc emphasizes the need for economic security and long-term prosperity. They caution against the harmful effects of ill-advised foreign investments on the Canadian economy.

Green

  • Bill C-34 concerns: The speaker regrets the limited opportunity for the Green Party to participate in the debate on Bill C-34. There are concerns that cabinet decision-making is too discretionary and worries about foreign investments affecting national security and sovereignty.
  • Aecon takeover concern: The speaker raised concerns about the proposed takeover of Aecon, a large Canadian engineering firm, by a company from the People's Republic of China. They questioned the need for a national security review and highlighted the implications of the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA) with China.
  • Paper Excellence worries: The speaker is alarmed by the takeover of Canada's pulp and paper production by Paper Excellence, owned by an Indonesian billionaire. They question whether this poses a national security threat and express concern that the acquisition happened without a foreign investment review.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Report StageNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

November 6th, 2023 / 1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the member's speech, particularly because 30-year NDP House leader Stanley Knowles would not have been impressed with the NDP voting for closure and eliminating debate in the House once again.

Aside from that, this report stage debate is specifically about our amendment to the bill to return the cabinet decision-making process to the beginning and the end decisions on whether an acquisition by a foreign entity poses a national security review.

The hon. member's colleague from Windsor West has done some good work on this bill as well. Will he and his party be supporting our amendment at report stage?

Report StageNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

November 6th, 2023 / 1:30 p.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Mr. Speaker, I think there is something to be said for both methods, whether we simply require ministerial decision-making or we want it to go to cabinet. Having the minister being the decision-maker in this case adds some nimbleness to it, and there is something to be said about nimbleness and a quick decision. Some of these transactions are happening very quickly in the financial markets. We all know how quickly they can happen.

I have not been part of the committee discussions, so I do not want to presume to say where we will end up on this. However, I can see both sides to that story. I will wait to see what happens.

Report StageNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

November 6th, 2023 / 1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, I see that the NDP has once again decided to support a government gag order. I find this odd because, in general, the role of the opposition parties is to challenge the government. Their role is to try and determine whether the government is doing a good job, to ask questions, to try to improve things.

We get the impression that the NDP is just rubber-stamping everything that the Liberals come up with. I question the usefulness of having a party like that in the House of Commons, if it votes in favour of everything the government tables.

Is there any critical thinking happening at all on the NDP side, or are the New Democrats completely blinded by a fear of ending up in an election or holding the Liberals to account?

Report StageNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

November 6th, 2023 / 1:35 p.m.

NDP

Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC

Mr. Speaker, if the member had been concentrating and looking at the past voting records in this Parliament, he could see the NDP voting against the government on a number of occasions. We are still strongly debating with the government on issues, and this bill is an example of that. We thought the bill did not come up to the standards we would have liked. We put forward several good ideas for amendments in this bill, and some were accepted.

We are always focused on improving the lives of Canadians and improving the field for Canadian businesses. That is what we concentrate on. When it is time to move on, it is time to move on. We see parties such as the Conservative Party do nothing but block everything. We have had three concurrence motions in the past week, which are just designed to waste time. We have to move along and get things done. This bill is very much needed, and we are happy to support its movement through Parliament.

Report StageNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

November 6th, 2023 / 1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, at report stage. I will get into the particulars of the bill shortly, but before I do, let me say that in a little more than an hour and a half, Liberal members across the way will have a choice. They can vote for our common-sense Conservative motion to axe the tax on all home heating, or they can do the bidding of their boss, the Prime Minister, and sell out their constituents.

These are Liberal MPs from Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia. We will see whose side they are on, because their colleagues from Atlantic Canada, including the member for Avalon, received an exemption for Atlantic Canadians on home heating oil. However, it seems that all other Liberal MPs are so useless that their constituents, including my constituents, Albertans, have received nothing. We will see whose side Liberal MPs, including the member for Edmonton Centre and the member for Calgary Skyview, are on very shortly.

With respect to this legislation, when it was presented in the House at second reading stage, it was a modest bill. It was, frankly, inadequate in terms of strengthening the foreign investment review process, which takes into account the net benefit for Canada, as well as national security considerations. However, the good news is that the bill has been significantly improved thanks to four Conservative amendments that were adopted at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, although opposed by the Liberals.

I would submit that the most important of those amendments is to require a mandatory security review for investments by foreign state-owned enterprises in which Canada does not have a trading agreement with the countries.

This legislation marks the first major revamp of the Investment Canada Act since 2009. It goes without saying the foreign investment environment has changed considerably in that time, with foreign bad actors, including Beijing, posing an increased threat to our security and sovereignty.

PRC firms work closely with Beijing's military and intelligence apparatuses to gain information about foreign companies, as well as to acquire their technology. Professor Balding, who testified at the industry committee in 2020, indicated that PRC firms are actually given a list each year of foreign assets to acquire, underscoring the threat posed by Beijing.

The fact that we have this increasing threat demonstrates that the Investment Canada Act is long overdue for an update. However, for the past eight years, the Prime Minister has been asleep at the switch, while Beijing has attacked our sovereignty, security and democracy on his watch.

Beijing has used its embassy and consulates to interfere in our elections and to target sitting members of Parliament for daring to speak up and call out Beijing's egregious human rights violations, including the genocide being perpetrated against Uyghur Muslims as we speak. This regime has set up illegal police stations to harass, intimidate and repatriate Chinese Canadians, and it is spreading disinformation on a mass scale to divide Canadians.

In the face of that, the response of the Prime Minister has been to do nothing, to turn a blind eye. Indeed, the only concrete measure that the Prime Minister took was to expel one Beijing diplomat, but only after he got caught for keeping the member for Wellington—Halton Hills in the dark about how he and his family were targeted by a diplomat at Beijing's Toronto consulate.

For the past eight years, Beijing has effectively been given the green light to acquire vast amounts of farmland. It has gained a foothold with respect to critical infrastructure and strategic resources, including minerals. Even worse than that, we have a government, under the Prime Minister's watch, that has refused to undertake national security reviews and has given the green light to Beijing-controlled enterprises to invest in Canada and acquire Canadian companies, to the detriment of Canada's national security. In so doing, it has also caused irreparable damage to Canada's reputation among our Five Eyes allies.

One egregious example of that, and I stress that there are many examples I could cite, was when the Beijing-controlled Hytera sought to acquire the B.C. communications technology company Norsat, which worked with National Defence Canada, Public Safety Canada and the Pentagon. Our U.S. ally said to put a pause on this takeover by Hytera, but the Liberal minister of the day, in his infinite wisdom, ignored the U.S. and gave the green light without any security review.

Last year, Hytera was charged with 21 counts of espionage by the U.S. This underscores the degree of recklessness on the part of the government to give the green light, not to mention the damage it has done to our reputation with our most important ally, the United States.

As bad as that is, one would think that after a company such as Hytera was facing 21 espionage charges in the U.S., it would be enough for the government to decide not to do business with Hytera. However, one would be wrong; it was not enough for the current Liberals. Eight months later, the Liberals gave the green light for a contract with the RCMP to sell technology to protect sensitive RCMP communications equipment for espionage from a subsidiary of none other than Hytera, a company charged with 21 counts of espionage. One cannot make this stuff up. It is scandalous incompetence with real national security implications.

In 2020, to make it appear that he was actually taking Beijing's interference seriously, the minister of industry announced a policy of enhanced scrutiny for investments from foreign state-owned enterprises. No sooner had he announced the policy than he disregarded it, giving the green light to another Beijing state-owned enterprise to acquire a mining company that operates the largest lithium mine in Canada. Now, all that lithium is controlled by Beijing.

In closing, let me say that when it comes to protecting Canada's national security from authoritarian states such as Beijing, the government cannot be trusted. The good news, however, is that this bill would require the reckless government to undertake the security reviews that it should have taken but did not. On that basis, it is a much stronger bill going forward, thanks to the Conservatives and no thanks to the Liberals.

Report StageNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

November 6th, 2023 / 1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's speech. Perhaps he could explain further the extent to which the government has failed to take Canada's national security seriously and necessitated this. The review is long overdue and the threat environment has changed, but this bill, if passed, would in some ways force the government to do things that it ought to have had enough sense to do in the first place.

Could the member comment?

Report StageNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

November 6th, 2023 / 1:45 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is going to force the government to do what it needed to do and had not done before by lowering the threshold from $512 million to zero with respect to investments from foreign-controlled enterprises. This is a government that announced a policy. The minister announced a policy in 2020. What good is a policy if the policy is not followed? That policy had no teeth and the minister was not sincere about seeing it through, so this bill is an improvement.

I will say that there were other amendments that Conservatives supported but these Liberals opposed, that would have gone a long way to strengthen the bill, including the fact that Beijing acquires companies and investments, sometimes through third party entities. We have supported an amendment that would have allowed for a proper review where those assets were then sold to a Beijing or other foreign state-controlled enterprise. The Liberals voted against it.

Report StageNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

November 6th, 2023 / 1:45 p.m.

NDP

Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am not a part of this committee but my colleagues do a really good job of passing on information around what is happening. I am wondering if my colleague can speak a little bit more around the amendment that was put forward by the NDP to clause 8, which speaks to the importance of reviewing a foreign investment or takeover to consider the intellectual property whose development was funded in part, or in whole, by the federal government and to issue remedies to retain the benefits in Canada. My understanding of this was that it was to ensure that the effect of the investment on the use and protection of personal information of Canadians is at the forefront of this legislation.

I am wondering if the member can speak to this amendment and share a little bit further information around the importance of protecting the personal information of Canadians.

Report StageNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

November 6th, 2023 / 1:50 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Mr. Speaker, in short, Conservatives fully supported that amendment around IP. It is an amendment that would have strengthened the bill but the Liberals did not support it. They did not support that amendment and they did not support our amendments.

As far as the Bloc Québécois goes, I believe the Bloc opposed the amendment. I would say in regard to this bill that the Liberals have been soft on national security issues and standing up to the likes of hostile states such as Beijing. By contrast, the Bloc has not been much better. It has been all over the map and completely incoherent.

Report StageNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

November 6th, 2023 / 1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to respond right away to my Conservative colleague, who is criticizing us for not supporting their amendment to Bill C‑34.

The Bloc Québécois did not support the Conservatives' amendment to Bill C‑34 because it was too broad. It was so broad that it included just about every investment not originating with one of the Five Eyes countries, the Commonwealth allies or certain major countries in the world. Unfortunately, my colleague may not be aware of this, but Quebec accounts for 40% of European investments in Canada. The amendment would have discouraged a whole lot of investments.

We suggested another solution. We suggested lowering the review thresholds, which had been raised so high that we ended up with a net benefit review threshold of $1.7 billion. In 2015, that figure was about $300 million. Why has the review threshold skyrocketed like this, and why do the Liberals seem to think that is okay?

I would like to know if the Conservatives are okay with it too.

Report StageNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

November 6th, 2023 / 1:50 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue of undertaking reviews, the amendment that Conservatives put forward was specifically targeted at countries that we do not have trade agreements with. For those countries that we do have agreements with, and that includes the European Union and most European countries, that automatic review would not apply.

Report StageNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

November 6th, 2023 / 1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C‑34 at third reading stage. I feel like I am going back in time because even though I am not a member of the committee that studied Bill C‑34, I had the opportunity to speak to it at second reading. That was on February 8, if I am not mistaken. I find it fascinating to see what has changed in the bill between February 8 and now, or rather, what has not changed in Bill C‑34.

At the time, we said that it was an interesting bill that would enhance security, for example in terms of foreign investments in sectors where we feel that national security might be jeopardized or in danger. We said that we agreed.

However, we also said that we should take the opportunity to examine another thing while studying Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, which includes a mechanism for initiating a study or review of an investment when it exceeds a certain threshold, in order to determine whether the investment is of net benefit to Canada. That is what Bill C‑34 says. We thought we should go a little further than just considering the issue of national security and also question the effectiveness of this legislation in terms of protecting our head offices.

When a foreign entity comes to Canada and says that they want to buy a certain brand or company for a lot of money, and when that purchase would have an impact on our entire supply chain, our infrastructure, our habits and our competition system, one of the first things we should instinctively do is look at whether it is a good investment or not. Unfortunately, that was not included in Bill C‑34 at the time. It is still not in Bill C‑34 today. There are mechanisms, but they are weak. They are extremely weak.

Back when I was elected in 2015, the review threshold was set at $300 million. That was okay, because at least some reviews were being done. Maybe it might have been better if it were lower, but a threshold of $300 million would already capture many businesses. The government could say that a review would be done to see if allowing a foreign business or investor to buy a business worth $350 million, $400 million or $600 million would be of net benefit to Canada. I thought it was a good thing. There was a baseline.

The problem is that, since the Liberals took office, the threshold has jumped. Today, it is no longer $300 million. It is $1.7 billion. I challenge anyone in the House to go search online and find a Quebec business worth more than $1.7 billion. There really are not many. There are maybe a handful, no more than 10 for sure.

In theory, a wealthy investor, or several wealthy investors, from any country in the world could swoop in and buy everything, or nearly everything, and the government would not make a peep because each of the transactions is less than $1.7 billion. According to the government, that would not be a big deal. That is the reality of this government's laissez-faire attitude. What is worse is that the government has exacerbated the situation over the years, saying that things are fine that way.

In Quebec, we take the notion of national interest to heart. It is important to us. However, in a self-proclaimed postnational state like Canada, nobody even knows what a nation is anymore. How can the government know what is in the national interest if it does not even know what a nation is?

The problem relates to a significant difference between the economies of Quebec and Canada. It may be an underlying factor in the government's non-response or hands-off approach to this issue. Canada has a branch-plant economy, which means that, naturally, a foreign company that sets up shop in Canada will often have a Canadian head office. The company will do all the buying, but it will keep a head office in Canada and manage its Canadian interests from there. It might well belong to someone who is 1,000 kilometres outside the country, but that is no big deal because the company still has a small head office here. Where is the head office usually located? It will be located in Toronto, not in Montreal, Quebec City, Shawinigan or Boucherville.

That is sad because many entrepreneurs in Quebec are working hard to build a strong ecosystem. We decided to build an entrepreneurial economy, rather than the type of branch-plant economy that is part of Canada's vision, if it even has one.

The Bloc Québécois has a constructive vision. We simply want to know what is happening. We want investments to be reviewed. We are not saying that we are against investment, but we want to at least know whether an investment is in our interest before it is authorized.

I am very disappointed. The fact that the government is not even thinking about this is problematic. The government does not even want to know whether investments are in our interest or not. If the transaction is less than $1.7 billion, the government closes its eyes, signs on the dotted line and everything is good. That approach is not working and, unfortunately, we are going to have to resolve that problem. If Canada does not want to solve this problem within the framework of the Canadian Confederation, then an independent Quebec will certainly be able to solve it when it has all the tools at its disposal to make its own decisions.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

November 6th, 2023 / 4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

This bill would improve our ability to respond to changing circumstances that affect Canada's economic well-being and to remain vigilant in upholding our national security. More specifically, I want to focus on how our government's efforts to modernize the Investment Canada Act would help protect the intangible assets of Canadian businesses, which are the cornerstone of economic growth in a 21st-century economy.

As all members are fully aware, intangible assets, such as intellectual property, trade secrets and data, are of immense importance to our economic vitality and prosperity. As such, our country and other open economies are increasingly being targeted by hostile actors, which pose a threat to our national security, continued economic well-being and prosperity.

Consequently, our government is taking timely action to respond to evolving threats to our economic well-being and national security. Foreign investment certainly fuels innovation and assists businesses to succeed and grow. However, I want to emphasize that we should not compromise when safeguarding Canada's economic interests. As members will note, we should be laser-focused on striking the right balance between attracting foreign investment to help Canadian businesses grow and remaining mindful of the need to protect our intangible assets and intellectual property.

Highly innovative Canadian companies are at the forefront of developing new technologies, such as quantum computing, biotechnology, medical devices and innovative clean energy. Attracting investments to actualize innovation is complex and challenging, yet the safety and protection of Canadians is our government's number one priority. Canada must have a robust and flexible tool kit to protect Canada's interests from national security threats, which come in many forms.

We heard from multiple witnesses on this topic in the context of hearings arranged by the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Those witnesses shared their expertise to highlight that hostile state and non-state actors are increasingly pursuing strategies to acquire goods, technologies and intellectual property for uses that are incompatible with our national interest and economic outlook.

We also heard witnesses signal how foreign investment can be a conduit for foreign influence activities that seek to weaken our long-term economic prosperity. Around the world, foreign investment regimes are getting finetuned to better incorporate national security considerations. Our international partners are taking action to respond to shifting technological and geopolitical threats by amending their investment screening regimes.

The U.S. overhauled its foreign direct investment laws in 2018 by adding new types of transactions to government review. For the first time ever, the U.S. also mandated notifications in transactions involving critical technologies. These regulations came into effect in February 2020.

Similarly, Australia updated its regime in January 2021 to grant its government the discretion to require mandatory notification for transactions with a national security dimension. The same can be said for the United Kingdom, which introduced a new stand-alone regime for national security and investments in January 2021.

The U.K. established a mandatory obligation to secure clearance for transactions where control of a business was acquired in 17 sensitive sectors, to be secured before the transaction is completed. The U.K. also introduced legislation that allows the government to impose interim orders while the review is being conducted.

I reference such changes in the U.S., Australia and the U.K. to make a simple point: Canada's national security review authorities under the ICA have been in place since 2009. Quite often, changes introduced by our allies are meant to ensure that they catch up to where we already are. Given our track record, Bill C-34 is the latest in a series of actions our government is taking to make our regime more robust, responsive and flexible.

I would remind members that in March 2021 we updated the national security guidelines to advise that investments involving sensitive personal data, sensitive technologies and critical minerals, as well as investments by state-owned or state-influenced investors, would face enhanced security. The next step came in 2022 when we issued a new policy for review of foreign investments originating from Russia.

In 2022, we also introduced a new voluntary filing mechanism for investors intending to obtain greater regulatory certainty with the same statutory deadlines as a mandatory filing. In addition, we now have five years to review and adopt measures regarding an investment in the absence of a voluntary filing.

As members can see, Bill C-34 is just the latest effort to ensure Canada's foreign investment review regime represents the gold standard. Fundamentally, our government believes that an effective investment review regime must adapt to changing world dynamics and business practices. To respond to the evolving and accelerating threat environment, now is the right time to modernize key aspects of the ICA.

Bill C-34 would better align Canada with our international partners and allies. One of the ways our regime would align more closely with allies includes introducing the new requirement for prior notification of certain investments. This particular amendment would ensure that Canada has greater oversight over investments in certain sensitive sectors, especially when they give investors material access to assets and non-public technical information, such as cutting-edge intellectual property and trade secrets, once the investment is finalized. It would enable the government to prevent potentially irreparable damage. Investors would have to provide notice of the transaction within the timelines specified in the regulations.

A second important change is that it would provide our government the authority to impose interim conditions on an investment during the course of a national security review to prevent potential national security injury taking place during the time the review is being conducted. Another amendment would allow Canada to share case-specific information with international allies to support national security assessments.

Finally, the ICA includes a provision to allow for closed material proceedings. As such, the act would introduce new rules that would allow for more effective judicial review of national review decisions by allowing the use of sensitive information, while also protecting such commercially sensitive information from disclosure. Ultimately, these significant amendments would ensure that Canada's tool kit evolves and adapts to the changing global threat landscape.

It is for these reasons that I believe the House should support this bill and these new amendments. Where national security is concerned, we should never hesitate to take decisive action.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

November 6th, 2023 / 4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about some of our allies. He spoke about Australia and the U.K. and how they are moving toward our system of examination of these matters on an international basis.

Does he have any information whether those two very important allies actually have a process where one minister determines whether one gets past a security review in those countries? Frankly, that is the worst part of this bill. Can he comment on that, please?