Bob Zimmer

“Mr. Speaker, when rising on a debate about defence procurement, the debate needs to start with an acknowledgement and a thanks to the people it is intended to serve. That is the men and women who serve in our Canadian Armed Forces and who have served in our Canadian Armed Forces. I think it is especially important as we approach Remembrance Day, but it is something we need to do every single day of the year. We need to remember, pay our respects to and show appreciation for what they have done for the freedoms that we all enjoy. I know there are a number of veterans here in the House, even at this present moment. I want to point out that I am so honoured to live in the community of Airdrie, Alberta. It is so great at showing respect and remembrance. Just yesterday, I had the opportunity to join, as I do most years, in placing crosses at the LAV monument that we have for our Afghanistan mission and those who served in it at our museum in Airdrie. It was organized by the Airdrie Veterans Memorial Committee. People like Jason and Shawnee Hoffman, Bob McNevin, Dianne Kuhn and others were instrumental in making this happen. This gave us an opportunity to place a cross on the ground in front of the LAV monument for each of the 158 Canadian Armed Forces members who gave their lives serving our country in Afghanistan. This weekend coming up, I will have an opportunity, on Veterans Boulevard, to lay crosses for all who have fallen in all the different conflicts we have served in, the local members of our community who have given their lives in sacrifice for our freedoms. It is such an honour to represent a community that gets that right. Of course, we will have our major Remembrance Day ceremony organized by the Airdrie legion branch. I just want to make sure that we all remember, when we are talking about defence procurement, that this is what it is all about. It is about the men and women who serve this country and we need to make sure that we get it right for them. When standing to talk about Bill C-40, that is where the struggle is for me. It seems like the government’s answer to everything is more government bureaucracy. That is what we are seeing in this bill. It is another example in a long list of examples. Conservatives clearly support getting the brave men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces the equipment they need to defend our country and to do their jobs. We support a process that is efficient, that is accountable and that is driven by operational requirements. What we struggle with and what we cannot support is treating another organizational chart as a substitute for actual procurement. There is a record that is worth remembering. When our forces needed equipment for operations in Afghanistan, our previous Conservative government moved to ensure we acquired those essential capabilities. That included things like the Leopard 2 battle tanks, Chinook helicopters, Hercules tactical transport aircraft, C-17 Globemaster strategic airlifter, M777 howitzers and LAVS, armoured vehicles. All of those were among the equipment that was purchased during that period of time. They were not just announcements about a future process. They were the kinds of capabilities that our forces needed right then to do their jobs. We also launched the national shipbuilding strategy and we ensured that Canadian businesses had opportunities in the F-35 production and supply chain. Our position has been that Canadian industry should benefit from defence investment, though the military must still be able to acquire proven equipment quickly when it cannot be produced here in time. However, the first consideration should always be the security of Canada and the operational needs of our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces. I think the F-35 is a particularly instructive example of what happens when political decisions keep changing the course of procurement. The Conservative government announced the F-35 as the intended replacement for the CF-18s. In 2015, of course, Justin Trudeau campaigned on a promise not to buy the F-35s. The Liberal government then pursued an interim Super Hornet option before launching another competition in 2017. In 2022, after all of that, the Liberal government actually selected the F-35. Then in 2025, the government put procurement under review again. Canada is actually now contractually committed to 16 aircraft, while the fate of the remainder remains completely uncertain. Our pilots cannot defend Canadian airspace with another political reset. They need clarity about the aircraft that they will fly. They need the infrastructure that will support them and the timetable for bringing that capability into service. They need planes. They need jets. That is what they need. That is a perfect example of the kinds of delays and bungling that we see from the Liberal government when it comes to defence procurement. This problem is not confined to fighter aircraft. There are also questions about the government’s announcement that it had entered into negotiations with Saab concerning the GlobalEye airborne early warning and control platform. That was an announcement of a preferred supplier, not a signed procurement contract. Conservatives have called for the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer to examine whether the appropriate process was followed, and whether the air force’s operational requirements were properly considered. Canadians deserve to know how these decisions are being made, whether the operational needs of the armed forces are being put first and whether taxpayers are getting the best possible value for their money. At the same time, the condition of the equipment already in service shows why decisions matter and why decisions need to happen quickly. The 2024-25 national defence figures show that 59.6% of key maritime fleets, 51% of key land fleets and 42.3% of key aerospace fleets are not serviceable. Our soldiers, sailors and aviators need working equipment. They do not need just simple announcements about how Ottawa will organize the procurement process. They actually need the equipment. Now let us consider this so-called Defence Investment Agency. In October of last year, the Liberals established this Defence Investment Agency as a special operating agency within Public Services and Procurement Canada. In the spring of this year, they proposed a stand-alone agency through Bill C-31, and now, with Bill C-40, they propose a Crown corporation under a new associate minister of national defence for procurement. That is three versions of the same initiative in about a year. They are not even able to be efficient at creating efficiencies. The government’s own plans proposed about $31 million over four years to establish the original agency, and then another $104 million over five years to establish the stand-alone entity. However, the question still remains, what did the original structure actually deliver? What did the second proposal solve? Why are we now being asked to approve a third model before Canadians can have a clear accounting of results, if any? The Liberals promised to remove duplicative approvals and red tape when they created this agency, that was supposed to be the point of it. Yet here we are debating another structure, another board and another ministerial title. It is more bureaucracy. The government needs to tell Parliament and Canadians which decisions were delayed, which barriers remain and how this bill supposedly removes them. Otherwise, it risks replacing them with yet another announcement. The bottom line here is the men and women in uniform serve this country and defend our freedoms, putting their lives on the line every day. Wainwright, of course, is a tragic example of how every single day they put on that uniform, their lives are on the line. What we as parliamentarians owe them and what the government owes them is to ensure they have the equipment and the resources they need to do their jobs. What we seem to be getting from the government, instead, is more bureaucracy, delays and red tape. The one thing that we never seem to see is actual results for the men and women who we send, on behalf of this country, to defend our freedoms, and that is pathetic.”