Bill C-34

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act

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.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was really getting into it. It was an exciting moment. There was some enthusiasm on the other side, which I think led to further confusion. It is a fault across the board, and we can all take a little blame. I am in the winding-up phase of my speech, and I apologize for any confusion.

To conclude, the collaborative efforts during the industry committee have ensured that we would meet these goals, which is why I believe that this bill, as amended, should be adopted and referred to the other place. We are confident that, with Bill C-34, Canada would encourage positive investment without having to compromise on our national security, getting the best of both worlds.

I thank the INDU committee for all of its work. All of the committee members did outstanding work to get us to a place where, I think, we will have all-party support when we finally vote on this bill.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to ask questions of this member, whom I know well. He is a great human being. The member can put that in his campaign commercial.

I am sure, or at least I am hopeful, that the member will be a member of cabinet. Does he not think that some of these national security decisions, opposed to just being decided by the minister, as per the bill, should go in front of cabinet so the people of St. Catharines, for example, could have a say?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I shared an office together for about a year as articling students almost 20 years ago, which is an awful thing.

I am sure good ministers will always consult with their fellow cabinet members, but keeping this to a couple of ministers allows us to be nimble and allows ministers to conduct a review in the most expeditious way, ensuring not only that there is security but also that business transactions and investments continue to happen.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his enthusiastic speech today, and I greatly appreciate the love we are seeing in the House.

In the opening of his speech, he characterized this bill as bold, although I have heard from our Conservative colleagues that it is not going far enough and is only a small step in the right direction. Could he comment again on the collaborative process at committee and the putting forward of amendments to make this bill as strong as it could possibly be?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not at the committee, but I do know that Conservative amendments were brought into the bill.

It is the role of opposition parties to say that the government is not going far enough or is going too far, which is often where we find ourselves. However, I think the committee has struck the right balance. This is a good step forward and a bold step forward to bring us in line with our allies and ensure that Canada continues the incredible track record of foreign direct investment.

The Minister of Innovation was quite excited today about Canada being third in foreign investments, and I know he does incredible work on a daily basis. This would help Canada continue to succeed into the future.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, being part of the committee, I know there was a collaborative approach.

New Democrats have been raising this issue since 2003, when China Minmetals was buying Canadian natural resources. Unfortunately, the Liberals have a track record of selling our natural resources, whether it be to Inco, Falconbridge or Stelco. A whole series of our natural resources and natural resource industries have been lost.

I would like the member to reflect on whether the Liberals regret selling Petro-Canada for a significant loss in the market at that time, when it was okay for the Chinese state government to own Canadian natural resources but it was not okay for Canadians to own their own natural resources. What do the Liberals think about that as we go forward, given their past record of missed opportunities to protect Canadian companies and natural resources?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little worried that the member overestimates how old I am. I think the things he is talking about happened when I was in high school. I am not sure how to respond to that.

I do know that the government is committed to national security efforts. That is what this bill is about. The hon. member can talk about decades in the past. We are committed to the future. We are committed to ensuring that Canada is there, that our security investments are protected and that we thrive into the future.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to the modernization of the Investment Canada Act.

As many who are following this debate know, this act was last revised in 2008, so this legislation represents the most significant update to the act since that time. It would ensure that we can address changing threats that arise from foreign investment and would do so while our government continues to welcome foreign direct investment.

As my colleague before me stated, we are rising in the ranks of foreign direct investment, but at the same time, we are also facing global threats unlike ones we have ever faced before. This is a really appropriate time for us to get in line with other allies of ours and update our act to make sure we are keeping Canadians safe as a whole.

Speaking of Canadians, the other day, a young adult in my riding wrote to my office. He is a first-year political science student. He wrote to me about concerns with foreign interference, and some of what he said was quite interesting. He proposed three different areas in which the Government of Canada could do better in order to make sure we are safe from foreign interference threats.

He wrote to me about the recent statement made in this House about Hardeep Singh Nijjar's murder. However, he went a lot further than just this instance and talked about our democracy as a whole and what we should do to protect it now. He said that we are seeing very bold covert operations taking place in our country, whether it is disinformation campaigns, hacking, political manipulation or espionage. All of these things are rising, and there are concerns regarding the traditional boundaries of espionage. He says, there is a shift toward more overt and covert interference in international affairs by state players.

Interestingly, he writes that countries like China, Russia, Iran and India are assembling economic blocs and seem to be more open to taking chances to further their geopolitical objectives. He further says that although covert operations on Canadian soil are not new, Canada is a desirable target due to its advanced economy, technology and abundance of natural resources. He says it is concerning that these problems are converging and that foreign actors can profit from Canada's defining characteristics by taking advantage of our society's openness and variety. It is in our communal responsibility to confront these threats, and we must work together to stop foreign meddling from undermining the core values of our country.

He continued to talk about strengthening cybersecurity and safety measures regarding actors who seek to take over our resources, which we have seen. There has been concern when it comes to agriculture and infrastructure as well. I thought it was very interesting that a lot of these things tie in.

It is an important time for us to be taking these types of measures to make sure we continue to protect Canadians, Canadian interests and our economy at the same time, doing it in a transparent way as we continue to have more and more free trade agreements with countries around the world. Since our country has more agreements, especially those signed by this government, than any other country in the world, we need to make sure we also have the safety nets in place to make sure that, through these agreements, we do not increase our chances of risk.

This bill is an extremely good effort, and I was excited to see that, through the committee process, many amendments were made to further strengthen this legislation. The Conservatives and the New Democrats have all had input. From the speeches I have heard in this House, it looks like we may differ slightly, but there is core support to make sure that this legislation passes, keeps Canadians safe in the future and continues to increase the economic prosperity of this country.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place and debate the important issues faced by Canadians, specifically, those good people who sent me here from the beautiful constituency of Battle River—Crowfoot in east-central Alberta.

If I could, since this is the last sitting day prior to Remembrance Day, I would like to quickly reference a couple of things. I hope I have the latitude to do so.

Today, I met with Harold and Mike, who are members of Persian Gulf Veterans of Canada. It was an interesting meeting, where I had the opportunity to hear from these two distinguished retired servicemen about how they are not considered to have fought in a war in their time in service to our country. I wanted to acknowledge this specifically here today; an appropriate commemoration, truly, would be to ensure that those who served in our country's armed forces, especially during times of conflict, are acknowledged accordingly. I wanted to acknowledge that before I get into the substance on Bill C-34, because I do not think I will have a chance to do so otherwise before Remembrance Day. Of course, all of us in this place honour the sacrifice made by so many.

We join into debate here on Bill C-34, which is a bill of seven parts that addresses a host of issues in relation to amendments to the Investment Canada Act. In particular, I would like to highlight a few things today.

I listened with great interest this morning, and to previous debates, and I have participated in previous discussions related to the bill. I wanted to ensure that aspects of this are—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is the hon. member going to be sharing his time?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I was going to get there, so I appreciate that.

I will take this opportunity to let the table know that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the new and very capable member from Manitoba, the member for Portage—Lisgar. He came in with big shoes to fill, maybe not big in size, but big shoes to fill in terms of his predecessor, the Hon. Candice Bergen. I look forward to splitting my time with him.

Getting back to the substance of Bill C-34, we have before us a bill that addresses aspects of what has become an increasingly problematic circumstance globally at a time when there are specific demands associated with the global investment climate that have put many of our supply chains at risk.

Of course, we saw the practical workings of this during COVID, with respect to supply chains and things that many Canadians took for granted. We always expected to be able to see things like toilet paper on grocery store shelves, yet we saw during COVID that the supply chain system and the numerous aspects of that were challenged. There were pressures that resulted in things like grocery store shelves being empty.

We saw things like a shortage of microchips. This meant there was a shortage of a whole host of things that many people would not have associated with microchips, from vehicle manufacturing to other things.

This has a specific relevance to Bill C-34. When it comes to foreign investment, we have to ensure that, as a nation, as a G7 country, we get it right in all aspects of how we permit, specifically, state-owned enterprises in the larger context of foreign investment happening in our country. I do not think anybody in the House would argue that there certainly is investment needed and that Canada should be a destination to invest, a destination for capital. We have seen that over the course of our history.

Certainly, I look back to the time when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The predictable business environment that existed within this country was one that was envied around the world. We saw in the midst of incredibly challenging global economic circumstances that Canada was a beacon of hope and predictability, where people could invest and see some certainty.

Over the course of the challenges that we have seen over the last number of years, whether that be in relation to the COVID pandemic, whether that be in relation to the host of concerns surrounding supply chains, the fact is that over the last decade or so, there has been a radical shift in the geopolitical objectives of certain state players around the world.

I would notably say that the People's Republic of China would be at the top of that list, although it is not limited to it. Certainly, its objectives have changed the global investment climate dramatically.

I have heard a lot of members from the party opposite criticize the past record. I believe it was the parliamentary secretary from Winnipeg who referenced that the Harper government had done some preliminary work on CETA. I am proud that it was Conservatives that negotiated the deal. The Liberals almost screwed it up, but they were able to, with support from Conservatives, actually get that across the finish line.

Over the last decade, there have been radical shifts that have taken place. Of course, that has to be addressed in our legislative frameworks governing some of these things. We need to ensure that they are responsive to that.

We have seen over the last number of years, specifically the last eight years that this Prime Minister has been in power, an erosion of trust, as I have talked about often. This includes the investment climate in our country.

We are dealing with significant advancements in things like technology. We are seeing a demand for things like critical minerals. We are seeing food supply chains being put at risk. We are seeing the need to ensure that we have tight parameters and an understanding, so that not only does this protect Canadians first and foremost, but that it also ensures there is that investment certainty in our country, including for folks here at home investing.

Quite often when we talk about things like investment, it gets lost on many folks who are not trading stocks on a regular basis or not staying in tune with the financial markets. They may see a headline that the TSX is up or down, or something like that.

The reason this has such particular relevance is that every single Canadian is, in fact, an investor. If one has ever paid into a pension fund, whether that be the CPP or otherwise, that individual is an investor. We need to ensure that we have that predictable investment climate.

Specifically, we were disappointed at committee that the Liberals were not more responsive to some of the very practical amendments the Conservatives brought forward on this bill. Those amendments would have ensured that a threshold, for example, to trigger a national security review was reduced so that for Canadian resources, including intellectual property, there was a safer and more secure environment. It would ensure that those things could not fall into the wrong hands, as we have seen, unfortunately, has been the case over the last number of years.

In fact, if one could believe it, there were 10 amendments that the Conservatives brought forward. They were practical things, things that we heard from testimony at committee that would have helped address some of what we believe are ways the bill could have been improved.

As I come down to the last minute or so of my speech, we have a need in this country to ensure that our investment climate responds to the demands of a modern supply chain. We need to ensure that we have everything that is required, whether it be the critical minerals that are so essential for the manufacturing of things like our cellphones, or whether it be a host of other things that go into the economy of today, and the economy that is being built for tomorrow. It is absolutely essential that we get this right.

I would make this point in terms of the larger conversation and not just in relation to Bill C-34. We have to take seriously the national security implications when it comes to foreign investment in Canada, and not only when it comes to big multinational mergers and whatnot, which may make headlines.

We heard at committee, and we have heard throughout the course of debate, that there is a host of peripheral discussions that are required when it comes to strategic investments that may serve the geopolitical interests of a foreign state, some of which are hostile to our national interest. If we do not take these things seriously, we can see a diminishment of Canada being able to have a secure economy for our people, and also a secure investment environment for capital, which is so very essential.

As we continue the debate on Bill C-34, I hope we can take seriously how important this bill is, not only in terms of the issues it is purported to address, but also in terms of the host of concerns surrounding foreign investment. We have to ensure that we get it right so that Canadians can depend on a predictable environment for their capital, where Canadians can benefit on the home front most important of all.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois thinks that Bill C-34 does not go far enough in protecting our economic flagships, our head offices, and the innovative efforts of SMEs, which are being bought up by foreign entities. Often, they come up with important innovations that become profitable abroad. We do not think that enough transactions are being reviewed.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on that. Does he think that we need to do more to protect our head offices and innovative small businesses?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is right. There are many examples where there are innovations. We have an incredibly innovative culture here in this country.

An example is my home region of rural Alberta, whether it comes to the oil and gas sector and the incredible innovations that make our energy sector the cleanest and greenest on the planet, which we can depend on and be proud of, or whether that is in agriculture, where we see incredible innovations.

We need to ensure there is that security so that when somebody innovates in Canada, it does not end up being stolen from them, even if it is a small investment. Sometimes it is not the billion-dollar acquisitions and mergers that will make headlines on BNN Bloomberg. Also, we heard stories of fishing ports on the Atlantic coast where there were strategic investments meant to control and take away opportunities from Canadians. We have to ensure that we get it right.

The member is right that this bill does not address all those concerns. It takes some steps, but certainly more needs to be done. It is too bad that the Liberals did not take our advice seriously and pass the common-sense amendments that we brought forward during the committee discussions.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague on the issue of critical minerals as I represent Timmins—James Bay, which has some of the greatest base metal and critical mineral deposits anywhere.

There is a number of issues that we need to face in Canada in terms of being able to compete in this fast-moving energy transformation. Number one is making sure that that supply chain is able to benefit our economy. We know that other international economies are desperate to get metals.

The other issue is strategic. That is about whether or not we put a lens of sustainability on, for example, metals like cobalt and lithium that are controlled by China and that are being exploited in really brutal conditions, for example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We need to actually have a supply chain that says we can do it sustainability, that we can do it with good jobs, that we can do it with investment, and that we can do it to build up a Canadian-North American economy, as opposed to simply going to the bottom line of what is happening in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with Chinese control and horrific human rights abuses.

I would like to hear what my hon. colleague has to say on that.