“We should honour our soldiers and their sacrifices. History shows that independent corporations can be very open, accountable, and efficient. I want the member to agree that creating this corporation is the best way to get our military the equipment it needs.”

“Madam Speaker, first, I would recognize that members of Parliament are wearing a poppy as a form of respect and tribute to members of our forces who have served in the past and are serving in present, and the sacrifices that have been made. I do believe, as the member referenced, that Wainwright will in fact be in the minds and hearts of many, along with our prayers for the victims. My question is with regard to the corporation that would be established. An arm’s-length corporation, I would ultimately argue, has been demonstrated in the past through many different administrations of corporations, whether at the provincial level or federal level, to be exceptionally effective in transparency, accountability and efficiencies. I am wondering if the member would recognize that corporations can, if done properly through legislation, be the best way to ensure that our men and women are best served with the necessary equipment into the future.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 41 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 →
• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 47 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“Government-owned corporations work well and can be held accountable, just like the Bank of Canada or provincial power companies. Our Prime Minister has also raised military spending to 2% of our economy, which is twice as much as Stephen Harper ever did.”

“Madam Speaker, I was at a press conference a few years back where we announced that the Hercules aircraft, through 435 squadron, was going to be replaced by the Kingfisher. The Kingfisher is going to be operational later this year for search and rescue. I am very much familiar with it because that is the branch I used to serve for when I was in the Canadian Forces, search and rescue, which was then based out of Edmonton and is now based out of the city of Winnipeg. At the end of the day, when we think of the Bank of Canada, the CBC and the post office, these are Crown corporations with a high sense of accountability. If we think of provincial Crown corporations, whether it is Manitoba Hydro, Hydro-Québec or autopac, they have proven to be very effective. We have a Prime Minister who has now raised our GDP military spending to 2%, higher than Stephen Harper ever even dreamed about. I think Stephen Harper one year raised it to 1%. Does the member not see that accountability can be held through Crown corporations?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 50 of 100

  Only 8% of this question directly addressed the speech or the topic being debated.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill. It cuts red tape so the military can buy equipment faster. Buying equipment takes too long right now, which hurts Canadian businesses and stops defence spending from creating local jobs.”

“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Labrador. This is my first opportunity to speak in the House since the tragedy at Canadian Forces Base Wainwright, so I want to begin by offering my deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of those who tragically died in this tragedy. My thoughts are also with those who were injured, their families and the entire community as they grieve and support one another through this difficult time. I rise today to give my full support to Bill C-30, which will transform the way Canada procures military equipment, invests in defence and, above all, builds its domestic defence industry. The Defence Investment Agency was created in October 2025 to speed up military procurement, but transforming it into a Crown corporation could reduce bureaucracy. I will come back to this later, but companies seeking defence contracts face significant challenges. The government has invested billions of dollars in defence, and that is very good. We want to meet NATO’s targets, but we also need to ensure that these investments benefit Canadian businesses and workers. The agency was originally established to modernize defence procurement. That was a very good first step, but it did not go far enough. Bill C-40 will finally give the agency the authority and independence it needs to accelerate the contract awarding process, reduce red tape and better coordinate government efforts. This is very important for accelerating and facilitating SMEs’ access to the defence market. This is a very practical response to the concerns that businesses have shared with us. It is also a way to quickly turn our defence investments into quality jobs for Canadians, innovation, and economic spinoffs at a time when we really need them. I want to focus specifically on the aerospace industry in Quebec and Canada, especially because Quebec’s aerospace industry is a major asset. This summer, I had the pleasure of organizing a round table that brought together both large corporations and SMEs from Quebec’s aerospace and defence industry. Bombardier was there, but so were many other innovative SMEs. In Quebec, we have outstanding expertise, world-class businesses and a network of specialized companies that contribute to our ability to innovate in Canada and around the world in the aerospace industry. During this round table with businesses, one very clear message emerged. One of the biggest obstacles to their growth and ability to secure contracts is the slow, bureaucratic pace of the defence procurement process. Their representatives explained to me that the historic investments we have announced for the defence sector are not automatically translating into jobs and economic spinoffs, because it takes so long to get contracts signed. These contracts are essential if businesses are to invest, hire staff and engage with other suppliers. For example, if Bombardier wins a defence contract, the entire chain of SMEs in Quebec and Canada stands to benefit as a result. The participants also pointed out that SMEs often struggle to access defence tenders, even if the government has already awarded them contracts and their technology is well known. In short, it takes a very long time for contracts to be awarded. Not only do we need to invest in defence, but we also need to ensure that our investments translate quickly into contracts, innovation and well-paying jobs for Canadians. Transforming the Defence Investment Agency is very important for doing that. Not only are we streamlining the processes, but another very aspect is that we are bringing together expertise within the agency to speed up procurement. If we do the right thing with this bill, we will finally be able to respond directly to the main concern expressed by the industry. Our aim is not just to spend more on defence, but to transform these investments into strong, lasting Canadian industrial capabilities that benefit our businesses and our workers, while ensuring the sovereignty of our amazing country. The agency’s core mandate is to combine and build on existing defence procurement expertise within government through a single organization focused on a very specific objective. Rather than duplicate the use of resources, it pools operational knowledge and expertise on procurement contracts in one place. As I said, one of the concerns that was mentioned during the round table was that companies have to explain their expertise or technology to one agency and then turn around and explain it again to another, even after receiving approval. They often have to repeat things twice. Now, everything will come together in a single agency. The agency’s transformation reflects our government’s commitment to build a strong, secure and sovereign Canada. With more autonomy and stronger contractual authority, the agency will finally be able to ease its administrative burden and improve its efficiency and speed, because these investments are needed now. This will strengthen our country’s ability to defend itself while providing more accountability. In February 2026, the unveiling of the first-ever defence industrial strategy marked a key step in modernizing our procurement system. The strategy already called for a whole-of-government approach aimed at strengthening our defence industrial base. We are now seeing the results of this strategy, since we have finally met the NATO defence spending target of 2% of our GDP. We have also reaffirmed our commitment to meeting the NATO target of investing 5% of GDP by 2035. The agency will obviously play a key role in meeting those targets. We are at a hinge moment. Global uncertainty, supply chain disruptions and evolving security challenges have made one thing very clear: Protecting Canadians and safeguarding our sovereignty, our economy and our military capability is what will give us industrial and military strength. Our investments in defence are also a powerful driver of growth for our economy and our innovative sectors. Let us consider just a few examples. Drone technology was developed for defence, but it can also be used in agriculture. Military aerospace innovations benefit the entire aerospace industry. The same is true for shipbuilding and satellites. There is a great company in the Outaouais region, Telesat, that builds satellites. That also benefits AI and cybersecurity. All of these examples show that by working with an effective agency, we will be able to build a strong and sovereign Canada.”

“Our committee is studying how to help veterans use their military tech skills in civilian jobs. Many leave the forces young and want good new careers. I want all members to support this work.”

“Madam Speaker, one thing we are studying at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs right now, which is very important for our veterans, is how to recognize the amazing skills they acquired in the forces. The forces now include drones, as I mentioned, cybersecurity, AI, all of those technologies that are so important to the defence sector. When they retire from the forces, they are sometimes as young as 34, and they want a rewarding career after the forces. They want to feel that they are contributing to the service of their country that they love. Our job, and I invite all members to support me, is to help them recognize the skills they acquired in dual-use technology and how they can translate those into civilian jobs so that we can build very rewarding careers for all of our veterans.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Aerospace companies in Quebec need thousands of workers, but our schools cannot train enough people. Veterans have the right skills. We are working to make it easier for veterans to get their military training recognized so they can fill these jobs.”

“Madam Speaker, I hope my colleague will agree that aerospace is one of the flagship sectors of Quebec’s economy. I have spoken with companies in the sector, and one Quebec-based SME told me that it could hire 300 people tomorrow morning, but our educational institutions are not currently able to train enough workers to meet the demand for these highly rewarding careers. We have veterans who have acquired these skills, this expertise, and who are simply waiting for those qualifications to be recognized. We are currently working with certain educational institutions to accelerate the recognition of skills acquired in the Canadian Armed Forces so that veterans can step in to fill labour shortages. The aerospace sector alone will need 65,000 new workers over the next 10 years. These are technical trades. Our role is to recognize veterans’ expertise and translate it into a certification that allows them to practise a Red Seal trade and pursue a meaningful career involving a wide range of technologies.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 43 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We should pass this bill because it will give contracts to Canadian defence companies faster. Combining our expertise will help get contracts out more quickly, especially for the aerospace industry.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague will be voting in favour of Bill C‑40, because its goal is get contracts awarded faster to our defence companies. I want to come back to the aerospace industry. Contracts could easily be awarded. By combining expertise, we could make sure contracts are awarded faster.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 21 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes our defence buying agency permanent and puts one minister in charge of it. This will help our military get modern equipment much faster.”

“Madam Speaker, like my colleague, this is the first time I have spoken on a bill in the House since October 17. I would like to bring condolences from the people of Labrador with respect to the tragic loss to Canada, to all of us and especially to the families of those who lost their lives on October 17. At the heart of the ongoing debate around Bill C-40 in the House lies a simple notion, that the Canadian Armed Forces deserve to have the equipment they need when they need it. It was, after all, the opening comment from my colleague across the way just a few short moments ago. Our armed forces and Canadian Coast Guard work tirelessly to protect our country’s sovereignty, defend our people, respond to emergencies and maintain international peace and security. The women and men who serve our country must have the capabilities they need to do their jobs. That includes modern, reliable equipment with advanced features and technology for maximum advantage in the field. Canada’s defence procurement has long been complicated, lengthy and reliant on international suppliers. The old methods of defence procurement involve a decentralized approach that has not been, and is not, fit for the current geopolitical realities, with responsibilities and accountability spread over too many separate departments. Canada needs a defence procurement system that can keep pace with the world around us. Our armed forces need the right equipment. We need new, nimble and more streamlined methods of procurement. Our industry needs clear direction, and Canadians expect us to deliver. Bill C-40, the strengthening Canada’s defence sector act, is the next step in that important work: giving the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard the capabilities they need when they need them. Providing modern, reliable capabilities to our armed forces is at the very core of the Defence Investment Agency’s mission. The DIA was created in October 2025 under a temporary structure of a special operating agency within Public Services and Procurement Canada to help Canada respond to current and emerging security threats. The overarching goal was to modernize equipment delivery and ensure our troops receive the capabilities they need when they need them. Creating the DIA as a special operating agency allowed us to improve delivery immediately, while developing its permanent structure. However, that was never intended to be the destination. Over the last year, the agency quickly got to work on its mission to transform defence procurement in Canada, reducing delays, cutting red tape, streamlining decision-making and delivering critical capabilities more quickly, transparently and with full accountability to Canadians. As a special operating agency, it has succeeded in its mission, to a point. In the year since the DIA was created, several major procurements have been completed or are on track to be completed faster and earlier than expected. The agency has reached key milestones on a number of complex and highly valued projects. Now guided by Canada’s first defence industrial strategy, the agency has made considerable progress in important projects, such as the next-generation rifle for our army, new aircraft, space capabilities and the next generation of submarines. The special operating agency model has proven its value. It has shown us that we can accelerate defence procurement. Instituting the Defence Investment Agency as a permanent organization with an updated mandate, authorities and flexibility will give us the tools to accelerate even faster. Moreover, it will provide a critical level of agility to meet the serious defence and security challenges that Canada is facing. This would allow us to deliver military capabilities sooner, strengthen Canadian industry and remain accountable for the results. This is what Bill C-40 would accomplish, taking progress to the next level and using a more businesslike approach. I believe many, if not most, members in the House would agree that there is a strong need for a single point of accountability for defence procurement. Under the previous, decentralized system, responsibility was spread out across multiple departments. Many organizations had a role, but no single minister was accountable for delivering results. Bill C-40 would set a dedicated ministerial leadership within the national defence portfolio, the associate minister of national defence for procurement. It is important to note that Bill C-40 would allow the new associate minister to perform financial assistance operations related to production or investment in respect of defence or national security. These new powers would allow the government to play a more active role in strengthening Canada’s defence and national security industrial base. This is how we are fostering innovation that supports strategic capabilities and moving swiftly to ensure that critical technologies and manufacturing capabilities remain available to Canada and to our allies. We have already streamlined approval processes under the DIA’s temporary structure and achieved many things in terms of accelerating and improving procurement, as I mentioned earlier. However, we need to go further, and Bill C-40 would take us there. In closing, as Canadians face an unpredictable and unstable world, our government is ensuring that our armed forces remain ready for the challenges ahead. We are rebuilding and reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces to meet the moment, so that Canadians who serve have access to the dependable, modern equipment they need. We are laser focused on delivering on the defence industrial strategy and supporting the buy Canadian policy by tapping into and using a more businesslike approach. We are collaborating with like-minded, reliable and trusted industry partners to create new opportunities for Canadian defence industries, ensuring Canadian expertise has a strong hand in keeping us safe and secure. Canada’s government is protecting Canadians by making generational investments in defence and security, and we need institutions built to match the scale and urgency of that ambition. That is why the Defence Investment Agency is transitioning to a permanent organization with an updated mandate, as well as a centralized office with greater accountability. Under this model, the DIA will move faster to make strategic investments and deliver capabilities we need for the dedicated women and men on the front lines of our armed forces. This is about putting in place the right long-term institutional framework to improve defence procurement and delivering better results for Canadians. Bill C-40, once passed, will dramatically improve outcomes for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces and all Canadians. I urge all members in the House to support this legislation.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. The world has changed. This bill lets us spend more on our military, give our troops the tools they need, and create Canadian jobs.”

“Madam Speaker, I share the same respect for my colleague across the way. We have worked collaboratively on many things since I came here as a new member of Parliament. I would say to my hon. colleague that the world has changed. The premise of his question, while well stated, does not recognize that the world has changed. This legislation would allow us to invest more into our military but build an industry right here in Canada so those investments that are made would go to create jobs, maybe in his riding or in another riding. It is all about the women and men in uniform and giving them the tools they need.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Can the member explain how this new agency will deliver quickly for the Canadian Armed Forces?”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Labrador for his excellent speech. He talked about the importance of being able to make decisions quickly. Could he explain to the House how, in his opinion, this new agency will quickly deliver on its promises for the Canadian Armed Forces?”

“Buying military equipment in Canada is hard because the rules and requirements keep changing. We need to clearly state what the military needs and write accurate contract requests to get them that equipment.”

“Madam Speaker, coming from the aerospace sector before coming to the House, I know all too well how challenging procurement is in Canada when it comes to identifying the need and then waiting through the process as contract tender specs continue to change and so on. To answer my colleague’s question, we must identify the need, make sure it is well pronounced, have an RFP that is developed accurately through this new process, and get through the procurement process to get the goods required by our Canadian Armed Forces.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Creating this Crown corporation will take politics out of buying military gear. It puts trained experts in charge so our troops get what they need at the best price.”

“Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague that it is quite the opposite. Setting up a Crown corporation would take it away from politics. It would allow people who are trained and experts in the field, who will most likely sit on the board of directors, to direct the procurement policy and get the best deal for Canadians so we can buy the products and items that our Canadian Forces need.”

“Our government is getting results on military purchases, like bringing in the F-35s in 18 months. A Crown corporation will build our military industry efficiently, and we can still hold it accountable through ministers and committees. I want to know why the Conservatives will not support this Crown corporation.”

“Madam Speaker, I wish I had enough time to counter many of the things the member put on the record. Quite frankly, I am starting to believe that Conservatives do not understand or do not care. We could talk about procurements. Today, the member talked about speed, but I would add in the word efficiency. In 18 months, we can look at what the Prime Minister has accomplished. The F-35s are now on Canadian soil. There are so many things that, at the end of the day, members of the opposition do not recognize, like accountability. Crown corporations go to a minister. Members are allowed to hold them to account. Crown corporations go before a committee. We can hold them to account. Efficiency matters, and building Canada’s industrial military base also matters. This is something that a Crown corporation would be able to accomplish. The Conservatives need to get off their “we oppose everything the government does” ledge and start recognizing a good thing when it hits them in the face. Why will the member not support a Crown corporation?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 44 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 →

“The member is wrong that military recruitment is down. We have record numbers of applicants, and our government has doubled military spending to 2% of GDP. The member needs to stick to the facts.”

“Madam Speaker, the member just said that military recruitment is down. Again the member is wrong, and he should know that we had record numbers of people applying to join the Canadian Forces. The member should acknowledge that. At the end of the day, we have a Prime Minister who has been pushing for the last 18 months for our Canadian Forces. We have gone from a Stephen Harper 1% of GDP for the military to a 2% of Canadian GDP under the current Prime Minister. The member needs to be more straightforward and stick with the facts.”

“Crown corporations are very accountable because they answer to committees and ministers. In my 30 years in government, they have worked well. Creating a new corporation for military supplies will help our military. Does the member agree that these corporations can be very effective?”

“Madam Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that when we think of a Crown corporation, there is a very high level of accountability. We have Crown corporations that report to standing committees, for example. We have a minister responsible for the Crown corporation, who we can pose all sorts of questions to. There is a higher level of accountability, I would ultimately argue, and it is arm’s length. I have been a parliamentarian for over 30 years at the provincial and federal level, and Crown corporations at all levels of government have proven to be very successful. Having a military procurement corporation would be good for Canada’s military industrialization and our military. I will continue to articulate that. Would the member not agree that provincial corporations and other federal corporations can prove to be very effective?”

“I want the House to pass this bill. Buying military gear takes too long and involves too many departments. This bill sets up a new Crown corporation to make buying, making, and investing in defence equipment faster. It also helps Canadian businesses get the money they need to build things for our military.”

“Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today on behalf of the people of Acadie—Annapolis at second reading of Bill C-40, the strengthening Canada’s defence sector act. I will be sharing my time with the awesome member for South Shore—St. Margarets. I want to begin by offering my sincere condolences to family and friends of the Canadian Armed Forces members lost at CFB Wainwright. May those members rest in peace. My thoughts are also with those members who are still in hospital. I wish them a full and speedy recovery. I am part of a family that includes a CAF member, and I know that my brother served many times at CFB Wainwright. I think he said he actually trained there more than seven times and really felt bad about what happened there. We hope, of course, that everyone recovers well. Bill C-40 is personal for our region, because Acadie—Annapolis is proud to be home to 14 Wing Greenwood, the largest air base in Atlantic Canada. Greenwood trains long-range patrol crews, conducts regular surveillance over the Atlantic, supports global strategic airlift, and is the primary air search and rescue unit on Canada’s east coast. Over the past year, the government has backed Greenwood with new hangars for the new P-8A Poseidons, which replaced the aging Aurora aircraft; the new remotely piloted aircraft systems program; and new housing on the base. There is more coming for CFB Greenwood. This investment matters, not just for our safety on the east coast but just as much for the jobs and businesses of the Annapolis Valley and all of Nova Scotia. I will go back to the bill that is before us and what it means for Greenwood, the valley and, of course, Nova Scotia. At its core, the legislation asks a very straightforward question: How do we make sure that Canada’s growing investment in defence translates into real capacity, real security and real economic opportunity for Canadians, including communities such as ours? The security environment is changing rapidly. Our allies are increasing defence spending, and governments everywhere recognize that a strong military depends on a strong and resilient industrial base. For Canada, that means more than committing resources. It means making sure our institutions can put those resources to work. For too long, defence procurement has been marked by complexity, multiple departments, overlapping authorities and lengthy approval times. Each part has an important job, but together those processes can slow decisions, create uncertainty for industry, and delay essential capacities. We have talented people across the system, and we have too often asked them to deliver complex projects and processes that are not built for today’s pace and scale. Bill C-40 proposes a different approach. First, it will establish the Defence Investment Agency as a crown corporation within the national defence portfolio. The agency was created last October as the departmental agency. That was an important first step. This bill would take the next one: a permanent institution with its own board of directors, commercial expertise, and greater authority to negotiate and manage major contracts. Legally, it would be the Canadian corporation for defence investment, carrying on as the DIA. Just as important, it would bring procurement, production and investment together in one organization. Procurement is how we acquire what our armed forces need. Production is how we make sure that capacity exists to build and sustain them. Investment is how we build industrial capabilities Canada will need in the years ahead. That matters because a purchase order does not build a factory, a contract does not create a skilled workforce, and a promising technology does not strengthen our security until it can be produced, tested, delivered and sustained. That is why the bill provides the agency with a broader range of tools, including loans and advance payments, subject to the necessary approvals, to help Canadian businesses, including those in Nova Scotia, overcome financing barriers and scale up production. Consider a company from Nova Scotia. Last Thursday, I spoke with representatives from A.F. Theriault & Son, the oldest and largest privately owned vessel builder in Nova Scotia. Since 1938, it has built more than 1,000 vessels in wood, steel, aluminum, fibreglass and advanced composites. It has delivered over 750 unmanned surface target drones to the Canadian military, to the navy. It can respond to the need, but it needs to modernize and expand. A loan or an advance payment is the kind of tool that could help a company like that get there. It is exactly the kind of Nova Scotia business the DIA is being built to support. This does not mean that government would be replacing private investment. It means using private investment strategically to attract private capital and build on capabilities that our security depends on. The second part of the bill would amend the Defence Production Act and rename it the defence and national security production and procurement act. It would broaden the framework to address modern concerns, including economic security and strategically important industrial capacity. It would provide flexibility for certain procurement decisions, including urgent operational requirements. It would allow the minister, in specified circumstances, to award a contract without a competition, where that is necessary to support a sector of the economy that is important to national defence or national security. Members will no doubt want to examine this provision closely and rightly so. The argument for it is simple. In a crisis, or when critical domestic capacity is under threat, a lengthy competitive process may cause us to lose the very capacity we seek to preserve. It is in committee that these protection mechanisms must be put to the test. Flexibility must come with responsibility. The corporation would have its own board and be subject to governance and financial reporting requirements. It would report through a new associate minister of National Defence for procurement, who would answer to Parliament for the agency and who could direct its work. The Canadian Armed Forces, National Defence and the Canadian Coast Guard would continue to set their own operational priorities, requirements and acceptance criteria. The people who understand operational needs would keep deciding what is needed. The agency’s job would be to turn those requirements into results. The aim is not to choose between speed and accountability. It is to deliver both. This bill is about the link between national security and economic strength. The defence industrial strategy, launched in February, rests on a build, partner, buy framework to build in Canada where we have the capacity to develop it, to partner with trusted allies where co-operation strengthens our capabilities and supply chains, and to buy abroad when it is the most effective way to meet a requirement. Over the next decade, the strategy aims to create up to 125,000 new jobs, increase defence exports by 50%, raise the share of defence acquisitions awarded to Canadian firms to 70% and grow annual defence revenues for small and medium-sized businesses by more than $5 billion. These are ambitious goals, and they are an opportunity. That opportunity must reach smaller companies in Nova Scotia, such as Theriault, not only the biggest firms in the biggest centres. Nova Scotia has extraordinary researchers and entrepreneurs, and we need to make it easier for innovations to move from prototype to production; give businesses the predictability to invest in equipment, facilities and workers; and help those businesses compete in allied markets around the world. A stronger defence industrial base is about more than jobs. It is about the capacity to act when our security demands it. In a crisis, countries compete for the same equipment, materials and components. A country that cannot maintain its equipment, replenish its supplies or raise production when demand surges is more vulnerable. Our crews at Greenwood that patrol the Atlantic and answer the search and rescue calls 24-7 depend on equipment that is maintained, supplied and sustained without interruption. That is why sovereign capability and secure supply chains matter. Every critical component we can produce here strengthens our resilience. Every critical system we can maintain here strengthens our independence. Every Canadian innovation we can develop and master strengthens our sovereignty. Building a stronger defence sector is not only about preparing for the challenges we face today. It is also about giving Canada the capacity, confidence and independence to meet the challenges of tomorrow. It is also about making sure that when those investments come, they are felt here at home in Nova Scotia and across Canada, from the hangars in Greenwood to the businesses across the Annapolis Valley, and of course to all of Nova Scotia. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Acadie—Annapolis.”

“Our past ways of buying military equipment have not worked. I want the member to explain why this new corporation is needed to get Canadian-bought equipment to our troops faster.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague’s speech was incredible. I know he has continuously supported the members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Atlantic Canada plays a really important role for the Department of National Defence. The member spoke a bit about some of the opportunities that this provides for companies in the defence sector in his riding. Could he elaborate on why doing the same thing we have been doing in the past has not been working, and why it is so important that we put in place a Crown corporation that would allow the men and women in uniform to get the equipment they need faster and, more appropriately, Canada-purchased equipment?”

“We need to help Canadian businesses build more equipment for our military. Past shipbuilding projects show that investing in our own companies works. We should do the same thing with other local businesses to give our armed forces what they need.”

“Madam Speaker, this is the crux of what we are trying to do. As I said in the beginning of my speech, the question we are really trying to answer is, how do we build capacity within Canada? Let us go back a number of years to when we talked about the navy’s requirement for new frigates. In order to build those, we had to create a whole new system. The Irving shipyard, or the “ships here now” process we went through, created a $1 billion system. I thank the previous government for doing that and thank this government for its continuation of that, but we need to build true capacity within our system. It is no different from working with A.F. Theriault, the airport in Yarmouth or other companies in South Shore—St. Margarets that can build the capacity and equipment that our armed forces so dearly need.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“It takes too long for our military to buy equipment, from ships to socks. We need a better system that invests in Canadian businesses to make what our soldiers need here at home.”

“Madam Speaker, I am asking myself the same question as my Bloc colleague: Is everything working the way it should right now? It takes years and years to acquire new equipment, whether ships, aircraft or even something as basic as the socks soldiers put on before lacing up their boots. We need a new approach that takes into account the potential within supply chains across Canada as well as the opportunities available in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces so we can manufacture more equipment here at home. The current system is not necessarily the best one. We must invest in a procurement process that meets the needs of the Canadian military.”

• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 47 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  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 →

“Our current defence agency has done a good job buying vehicles, submarines, and rifles quickly. How will creating a new Crown corporation get our military the gear it needs any faster?”

“Madam Speaker, I believe that the Defence Investment Agency has truly demonstrated over the past year that a dedicated organization is needed to manage military procurement. I am thinking in particular of the 190 armoured vehicles we purchased over the past year, the accelerated submarine procurement process and the assault rifles purchased this year. Could my colleague explain how this new Crown corporation would be better positioned than the Defence Investment Agency, operating under the Department of Public Services and Procurement, to deliver the equipment our military personnel need more quickly?”

“Buying military equipment is too complicated because too many departments are involved. We need to make the process simpler. Canada needed new submarines for decades, and the Defence Investment Agency helped us buy them quickly.”

“Madam Speaker, we need to look at the complexity of the entire system we have right now. We are working with three or four different departments. We need to find a way to streamline the system. The purchasing of submarines is the largest military procurement project in Canadian history, and it was done fairly quickly. Although we do not have the full picture yet, this purchase will allow Canada to acquire the best underwater capability possible. It is something we need. Canada has been needing new submarines for 25 years, even 40 years. Thanks to the Defence Investment Agency, we finally have a system that makes their procurement possible.”