Bill C-34 · 44th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act
An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDec. 7, 2022
- Debated in principleApril 17, 2023
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 20, 2023
- Passed the second chamberMarch 22, 2024
- Became lawMarch 22, 2024
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 7 December 2022, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry introduced Bill C-34 An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act (National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act), and it was given first reading. Bill C-34 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) authorize 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.…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
59% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (8,306 words introduced, 5,743 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill expanded mandatory national security reviews for state-owned enterprises and added interim conditions during reviews. Notification timelines were lengthened and new provisions on corruption and intellectual property were inserted.
- Extended review notice period from 21 to 45 days in multiple clauses.
Before: “unless the Director sends the non-Canadian a notice for review under section 15 within 21 days after the certified date referred to in paragraph (a)”
After: “unless the Director sends the non-Canadian a notice for review under section 15 within 45 days after the certified date referred to in paragraph (a) or within the prescribed period”
- Added mandatory review order for state-owned enterprise investments.
After: “an investment is reviewable under this Part if (a) the non-Canadian making the investment is a state-owned enterprise or is controlled by a state-owned enterprise”
- Required the Minister to impose interim conditions to prevent injury to national security.
After: “The Minister shall, by order, impose interim conditions in respect of the investment that are applicable until no later than when consideration of the investment is complete”
- Added conviction for act of corruption as standalone reasonable grounds for review.
After: “the fact that a non-Canadian has previously been convicted, within or outside Canada, for an offence involving an act of corruption constitutes, by itself, reasonable grounds”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Easy
The bill uses many subjective tests and broad ministerial powers instead of fixed, objective rules. Key decisions rest on opinions, reasonable grounds, and prescribed details left to regulations.
Open to argument
“If the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that an investment by a non-Canadian could be injurious to national security”
Uses 'reasonable grounds' and 'could be injurious' as open-ended subjective triggers.“any other information that the Minister considers necessary for the purposes of the review”
Leaves scope of required information to the Minister's personal assessment.“on such terms and conditions that the Minister deems appropriate”
Disclosure power is defined only by the Minister's discretion.
Clear-cut
“no later than the prescribed time prior to the implementation of the investment”
Uses fixed timing tied to a prescribed period.“the greater of $500,000 and any prescribed amount”
Sets a clear numerical maximum for one class of penalty.“within 45 days after the certified date referred to in paragraph 13(1)(a)”
Provides a specific calendar deadline for certain notices.
Discretion. Ministers may impose interim conditions, decide what information is needed, determine when undertakings suffice, and set terms for foreign disclosure, while the Governor in Council defines many key terms by regulation.
Challenging the law itself. Broad phrases such as 'injurious to national security' and unfettered ministerial discretion invite vagueness or overbreadth claims under Charter sections 7 and 8.
Disputing a charge under it. A person facing a penalty or order can readily dispute whether the Minister's subjective belief or prescribed requirements were actually met.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.