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 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?

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 26th, 2023 / 4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I like the parts of my colleague's speech where he says that sovereignty is not for sale and other such things, but that we must not block appropriate investments. I understand the argument.

I would like to know what he thinks about the importance of protecting strategic investments in small business innovation or land ownership, for example. This issue has not been discussed in much detail yet. Some foreign countries are buying land. Farmland comes to mind, but it is not only farmland. There is a speculation problem in this regard.

Does my colleague agree that we should study the issue and try to limit foreign access to our land?

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 26th, 2023 / 4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that any investment that promotes innovation in Canada is always welcome. A question will only come up if that innovation affects national security. If there are any speculative investments, like the purchase of agricultural land just for the sake of holding it, they too should be looked into. At the end of the day, the ownership of limited and productive resources does constitute a national security threat.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 26th, 2023 / 4:35 p.m.

NDP

Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about breaking up large corporations that have limited the competition happening in Canada. My partner from the NDP was speaking about many of them recently, whether it was Target taking over Zellers or Lowe's taking over Rona. Does the member believe that this is a good idea for Canadian consumers?

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 26th, 2023 / 4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, fundamentally, the idea of breaking up private sector companies just because they have gotten large may not be great for the limited market that Canada enjoys. However, more competition in every sector is required and should be encouraged. That is my position.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 26th, 2023 / 4:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the importance of trade agreements and foreign investments. When we look at Canada and the number of trade agreements it has achieved over the last number of years, I like to think that has made Canada open to foreign investment. That is one of the reason we need the modernization of legislation. What are his comments on that?

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 26th, 2023 / 4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is exactly right. The 15 trade agreements we have signed with 51 countries, covering 61% of the world's GDP, show the world that Canada is an attractive place for foreign investment.

We want to attract foreign investments that are strategic, that promote innovation and that provide high-quality jobs in Canada. We are always open to that. However, this particular bill focuses on investments that affect national security.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 26th, 2023 / 4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-34 and the final amendments to it. I want to outline briefly, as many others have done, but with my own spin, details on the context of Bill C-34.

We have to look at the economy as it is today, both in Canada and around the world. Twenty or 30 years ago, or even a decade ago, the economy was much different than it is today, both in Canada and around the world. Economies were winning in the 1950s and 1960s if they had a manufacturing base. That was the primary driver of the economy. It was the new economy of the day, as we moved from an agriculture economy to a manufacturing economy.

This has radically changed in the last decade. We have moved to an economy that is largely based on intellectual property. Knowledge is truly power in today's economy. It will determine who are the winners and the losers in the future economic growth of the world.

The 1950s, the 1960s and even the 1970s were characterized by a Cold War, both economically and geopolitically. On the one hand, the Soviet Union was advocating for a centrally planned economy ruled by an authoritarian regime, and on the other hand, the other power, the United States of America, called for a free market system, a system that empowered people around the world to hit their maximum. Our economies and frameworks were built around that.

The challenge today for Canada is that too often our legislation, our frameworks and even our mindsets in certain instances are still back in the sixties, seventies and eighties. We need to adopt a framework. I am pleased the government put Bill C-34 forward, but in some ways it is the exception that proves the rule. When we look at major pieces of legislation, the major frameworks required, unfortunately Canada is falling further and further behind.

If we look at the Income Tax Act, nearly every other OECD country has had a major reform to its taxation regime in the last 40 years. Canada has not. The last time Canada had a major income tax reform was back in the 1970s when the capital gains tax was brought forward. We are not modernizing. We are not keeping up with the rest of the world.

Even Bill C-34 is a dollar short and a day late in many instances, because in some cases the horses are already out of the barn. We have talked about a number of examples, including the lithium mine, which was just rubber-stamped by the government. We have had examples of predatory state-run companies that have walked into our market, purchased our goods and left, with us smiling all along the way. As Canadians, we have to not be afraid to stand up for the Canadian economy and for our fellow Canadians.

We have precious resources, and when I say “resources”, I am sure many members' minds go to our natural resources, which are critical. However, we have a resource that is far more valuable than lithium, gold, platinum or other natural resources we might have. We have the intelligence and ideas of our young and our workers across this country from coast to coast. Right now, we do not have an effective regime to allow those people to be successful here in Canada. We see far too often that our best and brightest, instead of growing great Canadian companies, are taking their ideas abroad, often to the United States of America but also to Europe and other countries, where they are given the opportunity to fully promote and exploit their ideas. We are lacking the intellectual property framework that allows Canadians to be successful.

In Canada, from coast to coast to coast, including in the great province of Quebec, we have some of the best ideas in the world. The difficulty is the transition of those ideas into a commercially viable product. We have resources, which might be gold, lithium or the ideas generated by the great Canadian workforce, and those ideas and resources are among the best in the world and are incredibly valuable. However, what happens far too often in Canada is that we just let them go away, whether it is a lithium mine being sold to state-owned enterprises or our ideas.

Instead of grounding those works in a framework where those individuals can make the most of them, people feel that they cannot make the most of them in Canada because we do not have intellectual property. There are ideas like patent boxes and other tax reform ideas that could have been implemented yesterday. They are not partisan ideas. They have appeared in both Liberal and Conservative, and maybe even Bloc Québécois, platforms, and they just make sense, but we need to get a move on. We need to modernize, but unfortunately the government is slow to act. Even Bill C-34 is very modest and moderate movement. It was with the pushing of some great Conservative members on the committee that we were able to be a bit more aggressive, such as by reducing the cut-off for a national review from $512 million to zero. We have to look at the world not as it was, but as it is.

Another key element that has changed since the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s is that then, we had the Soviet Union. It had state-run enterprises, but for the most part they simply did not engage in trade with the west. The need to protect our local economies and our national economies from the Soviet Union was limited, because it really did not trade with us very often. That is completely different from, diametrically opposed to, what the People's Republic of China, the regime in Beijing, is accomplishing. It is engaged in trade throughout the world and with Canada, and aggressively so. We have to acknowledge that, and the bill starts to do so, which is good. It is very different, when we have a company coming to our shores to invest and do business, if it is a privately owned company really motivated by one thing, as most companies are: profit. That is not a bad thing in my opinion. The NDP might disagree.

There are other companies that are state-owned enterprises. Their goals and targets are often much more obscure and vague. They are sometimes looking to promote an authoritarian regime within our own country, to have power and to take charge within our economy. We have to acknowledge the reality of state-owned enterprises and the differences and challenges they pose for our economy. While Bill C-34 is a step along the way, we still see a number of challenges going forward with respect to protecting our national security.

Canadians cannot be afraid. We are good people. We are nice, polite people, and there is no doubt about that. Even the member for Kingston and the Islands is. I will throw that in there, as a good, polite Canadian. We cannot be afraid to put our elbows up a bit in a respectful way to protect our economy and our national interests. We simply can no longer allow our ideas, which I believe are the most valuable resource we have, or our natural resources to simply flutter away. What happens is that those natural resources and ideas get combined outside our shores into commercially viable products, and we end up paying billions of dollars that could have been Canadian. That is a huge issue for us because we are lacking productivity in our country.

We have the lowest per capita GDP since the 1930s, and productivity is based on a three-legged stool. One leg is technology. We talked about the issues with that. We have to look at ideas such as patent boxes and putting in frameworks to protect our intellectual property. The second leg is capital. We need to be able to attract and invest capital. The third leg is people, and like I said, we need to make sure we keep those great young minds from coast to coast to coast right here in Canada, so they can contribute and build our country into the great country it should be.

With that, I look forward to the members' questions and comments.

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

October 26th, 2023 / 4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, it was quite interesting to listen to the speech by the hon. member. He talked about the movement from an agriculture-dominated economy to a manufacturing-dominated economy and then to the intellectual-property-dominated system that we are in. He also mentioned critical minerals. In fact, The Globe and Mail recently ran a story titled “Canada Wants To Be a Global Leader in Critical Minerals. Why Is Australia Eating Our Lunch?” Most of the companies in the critical mineral sector are now foreign-owned. Maybe soon, 100% of them will be.

I want to ask the honourable member this question: In the changing, multipolar scenarios in the world, and with the need for more self reliance, should we look again at the entire way we promote local industries manufacturing minerals? Is it time to take a new look at these things?

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 26th, 2023 / 4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for us to have a discussion, both on Main Street and on Bay Street, and also here in Ottawa, about the future of the economy, because things are changing rapidly with the rise of artificial intelligence and other technologies. We need to have those discussions, and there is an opportunity for Canada to be ahead because we do have great critical minerals and natural resources, but most importantly, we have great minds and great workers here in Canada who deserve for us to be a leader in the world.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 26th, 2023 / 4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, because he highlighted the positives of Bill C-34. The United States, the Americans, thought of us as a sieve, and they were right. Now, Bill C‑34 fills in the holes, particularly in the review process, which is basically a copy of what is being done in the United States. They are likely to take us more seriously now.

However, we are saying that Bill C‑34 focuses solely on national security. Should we not be focusing on economic security as well?

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 26th, 2023 / 4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the question is whether we should focus, in general, on economic security. Absolutely we should. I know that no one says the word “COVID” anymore, but I am going to dare, as a politician, to say it. I think COVID really proved to us the challenges that occur, when bad things are happening in the world, if we do not have supply chains that come from our allies, but more importantly from ourselves. Economic and national security are things we should be discussing and looking at to make sure Canada is in the best possible place in the coming years and decades.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 26th, 2023 / 4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about people wanting to invest in Canada, there are many issues that do come up. One is actually the carbon tax and what it does for competitiveness. A few minutes ago, we heard that the Prime Minister made a big announcement that he is actually going to suspend the carbon tax on home heating oil for three years. What does my colleague think about that?

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 26th, 2023 / 4:50 p.m.

An hon. member

Make that relevant to the bill.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization ActGovernment Orders

October 26th, 2023 / 4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will. We are struggling economically. We are struggling productivity-wise. We are facing down the barrel of potential stagnation, and the carbon tax is not helping. It is good that the Prime Minister acknowledged that, but he has got to be desperate now. This is his primary legislation. He is flipping and flopping on the carbon tax. Our leader, the hon. member for Carleton, is holding a huge axe and is ready to cut the carbon tax, and I cannot wait until he does.