James Bezan

“Mr. Speaker, it has been a typical day in Ottawa. I started off this morning speaking about the Liberal tanker ban and how the Liberals are piling on red tape instead of solving the problem, and lo and behold, here we are at the end of the day talking about military procurement. It is the same theme. It is more Liberal red tape instead of trying to cut through red tape to get results. We have heard some fine speeches, with some things I even agree with from government members who were talking about the importance of the military and so forth, but what is the substance of the bill they put before the House today? It is a third iteration of a defence agency. It would be more bureaucracy: a new Crown corporation with unprecedented powers to administer. It would reshuffle the bureaucratic structures, giving the Liberals a bit more power with less accountability and not delivering on the results that Canadians expect. We are, of course, debating this bill and this issue at a time of intensifying conflict and challenge around the world. I believe we are in the midst of a new kind of cold war, with escalating conflict and competition between free democratic nations and authoritarian revisionist powers that would like to undermine freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This is the nature of the struggle and competition we face today. In the midst of that challenge, we need a Canada that is strong, that meets its NATO spending commitments, that does not just focus on dollars but on capabilities and results, and that is building partnerships with like-minded democracies to stand up to authoritarian revisionist powers and expand the space of human freedom by defending the freedom of our people here at home and by defending and advancing the space of freedom around the world. This requires a strong and principled Canada acting based on our values and building up our capabilities. In the midst of this, unfortunately, the Prime Minister has emphasized a foreign policy that prioritizes a renewed pivot to engagement with the CCP, which is the only thing consistent about Liberal policy over the last few decades. The one thing the Liberals have not changed is that they will always look for any excuse to deepen relationships with the Government of China, often in ways that are not at all in Canada’s interests. The Prime Minister also speaks about middle-power partnerships. It is important for the House to note that when the Prime Minister speaks of middle powers, it is a description of size, not values. There are many different kinds of middle powers, some with which we have many common interests and values and others with which we do not. We on this side of the House prefer instead to emphasize the importance of seeking strong partnerships with like-minded nations where we share common values and objectives and where we can work together to advance our interests and values in a challenging world. All of these things require strengthened Canadian capacity and capabilities, which is why we have been calling for more investments in our military since the beginning. I recall that in 2015, in the very first thrown speech of the government, it called for a leaner military. It was signalling even then a desire to reduce the capacity of our military. Conservatives pushed back then. We have pushed back consistently, calling for a strong Canada with stronger capabilities in our military capacity and in other areas so that we can defend our interests and values here at home and around the world. The tension that has been caused between Canada and the U.S. because of the decisions of the American administration is unfortunate. In the midst of that dynamic, it is all the more important that we emphasize the strength of Canada and the defence of our values, and that we not allow Liberal politicians to use this as an excuse to pivot toward tightening relationships with authoritarian powers. We need strong relationships with democracies. We need more democratic partners around the world. We need to strengthen our collaboration with democratic partners everywhere and to do so on a foundation of strengthening our own capacity and capabilities. This bill, unfortunately, is not about doing this. This bill is not about moving toward the kinds of real changes and results that we need to see. Rather, it is about a bureaucratic reorganization, with bureaucratic changes that do not deliver the results that our country needs and that are required at this time. As I said at the beginning, we have a government that wants to send signals and talk about its commitment on certain things, but that has involved putting forward legislation that piles on, moves or shifts red tape without delivering results. Bill C-40 is not going to strengthen our ability to equip our military in these challenging times. We have been calling on the government for years to make the commitments that are required. That includes defending our own security, defending our country from foreign interference. It includes addressing the very real threats to this country that come in various forms, combatting foreign interference, not developing strategic partnerships with powers that are hostile to our interests and our values, but instead building up our capacity, defending our interests and defending our security. That is very much what we need to be doing right now. In these times and in all times, we need a strong Canada with those enhanced capabilities. That is what we stand for in the opposition, in believing there is a better way and we need a government that is focused on results. I will say, in conclusion, the government will ultimately be judged by the results. It is not going to be judged by the words, by the number of bills, by the fact that again we have a third iteration of a new defence procurement in barely more than as many months. The government will be judged by whether or not it delivers in defending our security, in protecting our country from hostile actors, in building up our economy and in the various commitments that it has made. We will hold it accountable not for the words, but for the results that are delivered on defence and on every other file.”