“The previous Conservative government bought military gear quickly without creating a new agency. This bill requires a review in five years. More than 13 other laws are already overdue for required reviews. Will the member make sure this review actually happens?”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Davenport for laying out a lot of the reasons why we need quality defence equipment for our Canadian Armed Forces and laying out the threat that we face with global instability. However, the other point I wanted to make was, historically, in the previous Conservative government, there were massive amounts of equipment delivered without the need for a defence investment agency in a very timely fashion, and I felt the benefits of that wholeheartedly. I want to correct the member a little. She said this bill has two parts, when it actually has three parts. The third part is that this act needs to be reviewed within five years. Would the member commit to holding the government to account to ensure that review happens, because we have more than 13 pieces of legislation right now that have not been reviewed and that review is overdue?”

“I do not oppose government-owned companies, but some fail. This bill says the new defence agency must follow the orders of one minister. I am asking if that puts too much power over billions of dollars in one person's hands.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not necessarily opposed to a Crown corporation. There are many examples of Crown corporations that have worked well. There are examples of ones that have been quite the opposite. What it says in the bill is that the Defence Investment Agency “must”, not “may”, follow the direction of the newly created associate minister. Does the member worry that this is putting too much power, in fact almost ultimate power, into the control of one person, who would be in control of billions of dollars? Does that cause her concern?”

“I do not support this bill. Our military needs real equipment, not more government bureaucracy. The government has changed the design of this new defence agency three times in about a year, but our troops are still waiting for gear that works. Before creating another corporation, the government must explain what caused past delays and how this bill fixes them.”

“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.”

“People drop out of applying for the military because the process is too slow. Too much bureaucracy already delays equipment for our troops and benefits for veterans. This bill will not fix the problem because it only adds more bureaucracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, the first thing I notice from what the member had to say is that Liberals like to choose their words very carefully, because they have to keep their story straight. If they do not keep their story straight, then no one is going to believe them. The bottom line is that people do not believe what they have to say. When the member says that applications to join the Canadian Armed Forces are up, well, the problem is that there is another example where the Liberals’ red tape and their bureaucracy gets in the way. It is such a slow process that many people end up dropping out of that process before they ever get through it. That is the first problem. The second thing I will point out is that we hear time and time again from members who serve in our Canadian Armed Forces about the delays in getting their procurement. We have also heard from veterans who have served this country about getting the benefits they have earned through their service to this country, which is because there are too many bureaucratic processes already. All the Liberals are proposing to do is add more bureaucratic process on top of all that. That is not going to fix the problem.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 30 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The military needs the resources to do its job. We must deliver results without adding more bureaucracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, what matters is delivering results. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces must be given the resources they need to do their jobs. There must be no additional bureaucracy. That is all that matters.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 33 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“We do not need another bill or more bureaucracy to fix military procurement. The government can already do the right thing without passing a new law. The Liberals only make bills like this when they want to avoid doing the actual work.”

“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the member for his advocacy for veterans. I do not know anybody who has been stronger as an advocate for our vets over the last number of years. This is what Liberals do with a bill like this. When they really do not want to do something, they say, “You know, we need a law in order to do the right thing”, when they could be doing the right thing as it is. When Liberals really want to do something, the Prime Minister just does it on his own. Whether he wants to be an EU associate member or have a gun grab, he just does it, but when the Liberals do not want to do something, they create a need for a bill. Is another bill really necessary for another bureaucracy for the government to do the right thing when it comes to military procurement?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 13 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I do not support this bill. The military needs equipment to do its job, not more bureaucracy. This bill creates bureaucracy and does not ensure soldiers get the equipment they need.”

“Mr. Speaker, the answer is simply no. The bottom line is that the men and women of the armed forces need the equipment to do their jobs. They do not need more bureaucracy. The bill proposes to create more bureaucracy, but it does not necessarily propose to get the men and women the equipment they need to do their jobs, and that is the problem with the bill.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. It just creates more bureaucracy and gives the government more power instead of giving our military the real strength and equipment it needs. We need real results to protect Canada and stand up to authoritarian countries, not more red tape.”

“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.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 29 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I support trading with more countries around the world. The previous Conservative government signed trade deals with many nations. The Liberals failed to build the infrastructure needed to take advantage of those deals.”

“Mr. Speaker, not only do I support diversifying our trade, but I worked as a staffer in the Stephen Harper government that led the way on this diversification. In 2006, when Conservatives took office, we had barely any engagements in terms of free trade outside of North America. After Stephen Harper’s tenure in office, we had signed free trade agreements with nations representing over two-thirds of the world’s GDP, with Asia-Pacific, as well as the European free trade area, the European Union and various individual countries. We made significant progress. The problem was that the Liberal government that followed did not follow those trade agreements with the kinds of infrastructure development and development of opportunities that would have allowed us to seize those opportunities. We needed to build up the infrastructure capacity to really realize the potential of those trade agreements, but it is not correct at all that this idea of diversifying our trading arrangements is something new. It is an old idea championed by Conservatives and left on the shelf by Liberals for 11 years.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Government ethics matter. I worry this bill gives the government too much power and could lead to abuse. I want a committee to study these concerns.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the kind words. Yes, I think ethics in government is very important, and I am concerned about the concentration of power associated with this bill, as well as the potential abuses that could occur of that power. I look forward to further study on these issues at committee, but I very much share the concerns raised by my colleague and hope this issue will get more airing when it is studied at committee.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“This new corporation will handle tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. The bill does not include enough rules for Parliament to watch over it or for leaders to report back. Does the member share my concern about this lack of oversight?”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to build on that last question a little bit. This organization, this Crown corporation, if it comes into existence, is going to have the ability to literally be accountable for tens, if not hundreds, of billions of Canadian taxpayer dollars. I have concerns over the lack of parliamentary oversight with the way this legislation is currently drafted and how this minister and this CEO will be reporting back, if at all, because it seems to be lacking that within the legislation itself. Does the hon. colleague share the same concerns about the lack of parliamentary oversight and accountability within the bill?”

“I oppose this bill. It concentrates power, removes accountability, and shuffles bureaucracy just to hide the government's poor results on military and foreign policy.”

“Mr. Speaker, yes, I do. I thank my colleague for raising this issue. The fundamental question in the debate on Bill C-40 is what the legislation would actually change. This is an opportunity for us to talk about various issues in military performance, military procurement and foreign policy more broadly, but the question in our vote is, “What would this bill actually change?” The effect of this bill is a concentration of power, a lack of accountability and a bureaucratic restructuring to some extent, but it is designed to mask a lack of results we have seen from the government on this and many other files.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 40 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I am worried about jobs in Canada. The share of people working is the lowest it has been in almost 30 years. My party has a plan to fix this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the state of jobs in this country. We have not heard the government address this, but we have the lowest workforce participation in this country in almost 30 years. I have big concerns. We have put forward a substantial jobs plan to address it, which I will be talking about a little more in the upcoming late show, so stay tuned.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 36 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“All parties have talked about passing this defence bill without a recorded vote.”

“There have been discussions among all parties to have Bill C-40 pass on division.”