National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act

This bill is from the 44th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in January 2025.

Sponsor

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now 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 amending the national security review process for foreign investments. The proposed changes include requiring prior notice for certain investments, granting the Minister of Industry more authority in the review process, increasing penalties for non-compliance, allowing interim conditions to be imposed on investments, facilitating information sharing with international partners, and introducing new provisions for protecting sensitive information during judicial reviews. While the bill intends to strengthen national security and align Canada with international allies, concerns have been raised regarding the scope of the changes and the potential impact on foreign investment and economic growth.

Liberal

  • Modernizing investment review: The legislation represents the most significant update of the ICA since 2009 and is required to adapt to the current geopolitical landscape. The goal is to review and modernize key aspects of the act, while ensuring the framework to support needed foreign investment remains strong and open.
  • Bolstering national security: The bill seeks to ensure Canada remains a top destination for foreign investors while also protecting national security. This includes updating policies to improve transparency, addressing investments originating from hostile states, and introducing a voluntary filing mechanism for investors.
  • Enhancing review efficiency: Proposed amendments aim to make the national security review process more efficient. Measures include granting the Minister of Industry the authority to extend reviews, updating penalties for non-compliance, and enabling the imposition of interim conditions on investments.
  • International cooperation: The bill would allow Canada to share case-specific information with international counterparts to protect common security interests. This collaboration is vital for addressing investors active in multiple jurisdictions seeking sensitive technologies.

Conservative

  • Supports the bill in principle: The Conservatives will vote in favour of Bill C-34 at second reading, viewing it as an improvement, but plan to seek considerable amendments at the committee stage.
  • Focus on China's influence: Much of the debate is about the People's Republic of China and state-owned investments in Canada, particularly those that may contravene national security interests or harm the Canadian economy and workers.
  • Strengthen national security: The party believes that the bill should give the Minister of Industry more time and authority to assess foreign transactions that might compromise national security, as well as make more severe the penalties for violating the Investment Canada Act.
  • Addresses gaps and loopholes: The Conservatives believe the bill does not address the sale of assets of companies, the record of the current government regarding China's takeover of important assets, or the need for automatic review of state-owned enterprises from authoritarian or hostile countries.
  • Recommends lower threshold: Members are seeking amendments to move the threshold for state-owned enterprises to zero, requiring the minister and the department to review all proposed investments, and to include a provision to list countries that are not advantageous or are a threat to our economy.
  • Need for cabinet involvement: The Conservatives want to ensure that when a decision is determined to be a net benefit, or not, or when the research comes back and says it is a national security interest, or not, that the issue should always go back to cabinet for discussion before the final decision is made.
  • Need a Made-in-Canada strategy: The Conservatives propose a made-in-Canada strategy that ensures our resources, IP, people, and talent stay in Canada and are protected.

NDP

  • Amendments to strengthen the bill: The NDP will be bringing amendments to Bill C-34 at committee to address weaknesses in Canada's outdated competition law. They hope to receive support from other parties to strengthen the bill.
  • Screening non-democratic governments: The NDP is calling for additional security screens for investments from non-democratic governments. They will also be seeking an amendment to address the issue of private equity firms buying up iconic Canadian companies with unknown ownership.
  • Transparency for taxpayer-funded companies: The NDP believes there should be full disclosure and public review when a Canadian company that has received taxpayer money through tax credits or innovation support is taken over by a foreign company. This would provide transparency and accountability for the use of public funds.
  • Protecting Canadian innovation: The NDP is concerned about Canadian taxpayers' money going to corporations that then move innovation out of the country. They believe the bill should address this issue and ensure that Canadian innovation remains in Canada.

Bloc

  • Supports national security focus: The Bloc supports the bill's focus on national security. They believe the bill improves oversight of investments that may be injurious to national security.
  • Bill doesn't go far enough: The Bloc believes that the bill does not do enough to protect Quebec's businesses and economy. They argue that the government has missed an opportunity to strengthen Quebec's business network and prevent resources from going offshore.
  • Threshold too high: The Bloc criticizes the high threshold for investment reviews, stating that 99% of foreign investments are automatically authorized without review. They propose lowering the threshold to prevent the transfer of intellectual property and talent to foreign companies.
  • Need economic security too: The Bloc argues that the bill's focus on national security neglects the gradual loss of control over the economy. They advocate for another bill to modernize the entire Investment Canada Act, emphasizing the importance of economic security alongside national security.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

February 17th, 2023 / 1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, according to the latest data released, last year, there were 1,255 foreign investment projects totalling $87 billion. Only eight of those projects were reviewed. With this bill, that number would increase to 24, which is barely 2% of foreign investment projects. Does my colleague think that is enough?

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

February 17th, 2023 / 1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Mr. Speaker, no, it is not enough. We need to get it down to zero dollars.

This is the virtual signalling that we have from the Liberals. Every day they talk a big game, but when they actually introduce something that is supposed to counter or to do what they have talked about, it does not. That is the most frustrating thing about being here in Ottawa. They are all talk and no action.

Here is an example where we could actually strengthen our country, through this, to make sure that purchases from foreign state enterprises are scrutinized. For whatever reason, the Liberals do not want that scrutiny. One must ask why. Why would they be hiding from the scrutiny that would come from having that transparent process, where every transaction, not even just over a dollar amount but anything more than zero, would trigger the net benefit analysis? I hope our colleagues in the Bloc would support us at committee to strengthen these measures.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

February 17th, 2023 / 1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands seems to be confused around what the bill is about.

It is about the issue of national security and doing national security reviews of takeovers. There is a long record of the government not approving national security reviews for takeovers, such as Hytera, which was charged with espionage in the United States; the Tanco Mine; and many others, and having the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency actually buy equipment from those entities.

The security issue of state-owned enterprises and interference in our country's economy and elections is what the issue is all about. I would like to give the member an opportunity to clarify a little more what the member for Kingston and the Islands seemed to be so confused about.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

February 17th, 2023 / 1:15 p.m.

Conservative

Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Liberal members are confused at all. They know exactly what they are doing. They are helping a foreign state actor influence our economy and now our elections. To that point, we have an example.

In 2020, the Department of Foreign Affairs awarded a contract to the Chinese-based company Nuctech to supply X-ray equipment to, of all places, embassies. This is not a mistake. They are doing this on purpose. The only reason why this would be taking place is to let a foreign state actor into our embassies, to scan documents and articles going into embassies across the world. This is not incompetence; it is by design.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

February 17th, 2023 / 1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Kody Blois Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I even quickly put on a tie because I was a little disappointed with the comments from the member for South Shore—St. Margarets in relation to the suggestion that any member of the House would somehow be involved with undermining Canadian democracy or the Canadian economy to any extent.

I do not know where it is exactly in the procedural rules, but I think that would perhaps be a little unwarranted. I am wondering if you might be able to address that comment.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

February 17th, 2023 / 1:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont

We are getting into debate. I will confer with the Table, but I do not think that is a point of order.

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

February 17th, 2023 / 1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, the world has changed in recent years. It is a reality that all people in this place need to confront themselves with on behalf of their constituents. What I mean by saying that the world has changed is that there are more state actors or other countries that are becoming increasingly hostile to the interests of our country and our constituents.

As this is happening, we need to remind ourselves that our duty in this place is to protect our national sovereignty so that our constituents have bright, prosperous and safe futures, free from persecution, free from the influence of other nations that do not share our country's values of freedom, liberty, personal opportunity and diversity. These are all things we have to work really hard to maintain.

Maintaining and defending Canada's national sovereignty is a big job. There are a lot of different aspects. There is maintaining our national defence and our defensive capacity. The government really has not done a good job of that, frankly.

What we are debating today is whether we have adequate protections for our economy, in terms of protecting our national sovereignty.

When we think about hostile nation-states wanting to exert influence on our country, sometimes we are tempted to think about that problem in really Hollywood-like terms, with planes coming in and invading our country. We have, in recent days, had incursions into our airspace, which sort of proves my point further.

One of the big ways our national sovereignty has been threatened is by the lack of a legal framework and tools that prevent hostile state actors from influencing our economy in negative ways.

What I mean by that are things like being able to purchase major components of Canada's natural resources, particularly critical minerals like lithium, or even hostile state actors being able to own intellectual property on really important things for protecting national sovereignty in the future like, let us say, quantum computing.

We have a duty in this place to ensure that, with respect to nations that do not share our values but, in fact, show hostility, aggression and a desire to erode Canada's sovereignty, we put in place safeguards to prevent them from doing so.

What I think this Liberal government has done with this bill is to try to distract Canadians. They are trying to say “oh, here is a bill that might do some things”, but it really does not get to the heart of the fact that, as I have said, the world has changed and that, given that, we need to have very strong protections to ensure our sovereignty is protected. It needs protection in terms of hostile state actors influencing our economy or, in fact, even taking resources, intellectual property or other things back to their nations that could, in turn, be used to threaten our country and the people we all represent.

I do not think this bill is adequate at all. I want to talk about why, and what the government should be doing to protect our sovereignty, in terms of these economic measures.

Right now, if a state-owned enterprise, a company that is owned, in part or wholly, by another government, another country, wants to buy, let us say, a mine or something like that, that transaction should be subject to a review, both in terms of national security and in terms of whether this transaction is in the best interests of Canadians.

What this bill wants to do is take away the weak, inadequate process that exists right now, and instead of having it go through a cabinet process, where there are people from across the country, different portfolios, different lenses, looking at this, to put all that power into one minister.

I have a big concern with the government, given what it did with SNC-Lavalin. When the Prime Minister was confronted with a cabinet minister who did her job and said, “Whoa, I am not doing this”, he just shunted her aside and replaced her with a minister who was more acquiescent.

I am very hesitant to give the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, power here. Let us say he is under the influence of other nations or under lobbying influence, as we saw in the SNC-Lavalin scandal. If he is faced with that type of pressure again, I do not think he has the chops to stand firm in the best interests of Canadians because he has proven otherwise.

With this bill, the fact that issues would not go to cabinet waters down the process, which should be of grave concern to all Canadians. Certainly an amendment should be considered to remove that process. They should go to cabinet. I cannot understand why they would not.

The other thing to note is that because the world has changed, we know there are countries and state actors that employ this type of capital, like state-owned enterprises, to try to purchase major parts of the Canadian economy. There is a really high threshold in terms of dollar value for what would trigger a review under the current process. For certain countries, I feel that threshold should be zero.

There are some countries that we know are acting against the interests of Canadians and are arguably challenging our sovereignty. Any time those countries want to buy up some of our critical resources or critical intellectual property, there should be an automatic national security review to review whether this is in the best interests of the country. Then parliamentarians and the government can show accountability to our constituents and show that we are not just letting countries be hostile to our country by buying up parts of it. I think that threshold should be zero, and it should be amended in this bill.

There should also be a list of countries that have shown aggression and hostility to this country or to our allies so that they automatically get a review. If they are on this list, there is automatically a review for this type of transaction. That should also be an amendment in this bill.

The other thing to note is that the bill talks about just looking at acquisitions of companies. It is not looking at the acquisition of assets. What do I mean by that? I know there have been a lot of concerns about certain countries that have been hostile to Canada buying up farmland in Canada or buying up critical mines that produce things like lithium. This is of course a substance used in really important things like batteries. It is a really rare earth mineral, and it is important we retain sovereignty of it. If these hostile state actors are trying to avoid scrutiny by our government through a back door, there should be an asset review.

I want to circle back to why I do not think power should be consolidated in the hands of the minister. This week, our Ethics Commissioner said in an article, “The act has been there for 17 years for God’s sake”. He essentially talks about the Prime Minister, the cabinet and a lot of members in the Liberal Party not having a moral compass to know what is right and wrong, not holding the cabinet to account and letting this leader continue.

This is why the bill needs to be amended. There is too much power concentrated in a group of people who think they can get away with things that are in their best interest. When we are talking about maintaining national sovereignty, we need more safeguards and not less for these types of economic transactions.

In closing, I want to talk about what my colleague from Saskatchewan said. This morning, there was a report that said the Chinese Communist Party was directly influencing elections here in Canada. Our sovereignty is under threat, and we should be ensuring strict safeguards. We should be acknowledging the world has changed and that our constituents deserve greater levels of protection, and should be looking at how assets might be produced or taken from Canada and potentially used against us in the future.

I am worried that because this bill does so little and waters down the fiduciary authority of cabinet to look at these transactions, we are putting ourselves in a more precarious position as opposed to a stronger position, particularly given the ethical lapses of the government and particularly given the inability of the Liberal backbenchers to stand up and hold their ministers, who give contracts to their friends, to account. The Prime Minister has had two ethics violations. How is he still the leader of their party? Because of the lack of moral compass the Ethics Commissioner talked about, there need to be amendments to this bill.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

February 17th, 2023 / 1:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont

As much as we really like having people join us in the chamber, they cannot applaud or react to what is happening on the floor of the House of Commons. However, I thank them for joining us here today.

The House resumed from February 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

March 31st, 2023 / 12:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Mike Morrice

Is the House ready for the question?

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

March 31st, 2023 / 12:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

March 31st, 2023 / 12:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Mike Morrice

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

March 31st, 2023 / 12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

March 31st, 2023 / 12:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Mike Morrice

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, April 17, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

March 31st, 2023 / 12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if you canvass the House, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at the start of Private Members' Business hour.