Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Public Services and Procurement

Question period dealt with Bill C-40, which would turn the Defence Investment Agency into a Crown corporation with new powers over defence procurement and investment. Conservatives argued the agency has been picking winners without open competition, cited the Saab GlobalEye aircraft decision, said the bill would reduce parliamentary oversight and Treasury Board controls, and asked the government to make its contracting rules public. Liberals replied that the agency has made progress over the past year, that signed contracts exist with companies including Telesat, Bombardier and General Dynamics, that the bill keeps existing oversight safeguards, and that the Saab choice brings work and jobs to Canada. Both sides also exchanged criticisms of each other’s records on defence spending and NATO commitments, and Liberals pointed to recent defence investments including projects in Alberta.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

13 statements

Pierre Paul-Hus

Conservative
“I oppose this bill. The government wants to create a new agency to buy military equipment, but it has not delivered anything yet. Our military needs equipment, not more bureaucracy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of failures in military procurement, the Liberals found a solution: create even more bureaucracy. The Defence Investment Agency has yet to deliver any new equipment to our military members, and its chief executive officer reportedly wanted to leave because he was frustrated with the slow pace of the system. However, with Bill C‑40, the Liberals want to turn this agency into a Crown corporation. Our military does not need a new agency. It needs equipment. Why is the Liberals’ answer to failure even more bureaucracy?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Stephen Fuhr

Liberal
“Our defence agency has done a lot for our military over the past year. We are buying new planes and armoured vehicles, and working on submarines. This bill will help the agency work faster like a business and do more than just buy equipment.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, anyone who is paying attention would know that the Defence Investment Agency, over the last 12 months, has done a lot to deliver for our armed forces. We are in contract award for new aircraft. We are in contract award for armoured vehicles. We are advancing projects such as submarines and AEW&C aircraft. All these things are happening. Bill C-40 would give our Defence Investment Agency a more commercially minded organization that could do things faster and do much more than just buy things for the military.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Pierre Paul-Hus

Conservative

Linked statement

“The defence agency is picking winners without real competition or talks with the air force. This bill will reduce oversight even more. I want the minister to promise that no deals will be made under the table.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing with the Defence Investment Agency is that they are already picking winners. We know that Saab’s GlobalEye aircraft was selected as the preferred option, without any real competition and without proper consultation with the Royal Canadian Air Force. Now, with Bill C‑40, we run the risk of further reducing parliamentary oversight. Will the minister guarantee that no contract will be awarded under the table?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Stephen Fuhr

Liberal
“This defence bill keeps all the oversight and accountability rules we already have. We made the right choice to pick Saab for these planes. They will be built and modified in Canada, which brings jobs and helps our military.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, part of the question was incoherent, but let me address the part of it that I think I could hear. Bill C-40 would still have all the safeguards for oversight and government accountability that we have in the system we have right now. With regard to the member’s comment about the GlobalEye, we did the necessary analysis to make the choice to download Saab as the preferred supplier. This is great for Canada. These airplanes are built in Canada. They could be militarized in Canada for our own needs and exported to the world. This is good for Canadian jobs, good for Canada and good for our armed forces.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Jeff Kibble

Conservative
“The government picked new military planes without a fair competition, even though the air force did not want them. Now, this bill gives a new government agency more power to hand out military contracts without competition or written reasons. I want the government to explain how this bill improves fairness and accountability.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced a global aircraft project that does not meet operational requirements, to the surprise of the air force. L3Harris Canada and other contenders were not consulted. With no open competition, clearly politics was put ahead of defence. This is not the type of procurement Canada needs. Bill C-40 would bring an updated DIA Crown corporation with no defined procedures. However, there would be 13 exceptions for sole-source contracting, with no written reasons required. How would the government bring open competition and enhanced accountability, when Bill C-40’s focus is on giving the DIA more power and the government less accountability?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Stephen Fuhr

Liberal
“The Conservatives cut defence spending and pulled us out of a NATO plane program when they were in power. The plane we are buying now is built in Canada for us and our allies, and many countries want it.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 25 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to find out, when people are criticizing what we are up to, what they did when they had the keys to the car. The Conservative Party let NATO defence spending fall below 1%. The Conservatives actually got us out of NATO AWACS. That was a specific, conscious decision by the Stephen Harper government. Regarding the NATO airplane we are looking at buying, everybody in the world wants it. It is built in Canada. It will be built for Canadians and built for our allies. We are very proud of that.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C– View analysis

Jeff Kibble

Conservative
“The government has failed to meet the target to spend 2% on defence. The Prime Minister makes announcements, but does not follow through.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for mansplaining the past. The government has failed to meet even the 2%. The Prime Minister has made numerous defence announcements that have— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Jeff Kibble

Conservative
“This bill lets the government skip fair competition and buy military gear without oversight from Parliament. Will the government make its buying rules public and explain all these single-source military contracts to Parliament?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made numerous defence announcements that have no signed contracts, including the GlobalEye project, which bypassed open competition. Now, Bill C-40 would turn the Defence Investment Agency into a Crown corporation that would give the Liberals unprecedented powers to bypass parliamentary oversight and easily approve sole-source contracting without fair competition. Will the Liberals commit to releasing the DIA’s full procurement procedures and provide written justification to Parliament for all major sole-source military procurement contracts?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Stephen Fuhr

Liberal
“We have already signed defence contracts with Telesat, Bombardier, and General Dynamics. The member who criticized us voted against defence spending in committee in 2024.”

  • A repeated line

    “We will take no lessons from the Conservatives.”

    Said 9 times by 4 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Telesat and MDA is a signed contract. Bombardier is a signed contract. General Dynamics Land Systems—Canada is a signed contract. May I remind the member that he voted against defence spending in 2024 at the defence committee. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis

James Bezan

Conservative
“I oppose this defence bill. The government is just reorganizing things again without fixing anything. I think this bill only exists to protect the Prime Minister's friend from having to answer to taxpayers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, nobody trusts the Liberals or the secretary of state. After a decade, the Liberals always play political games. We are now on the third iteration of the Prime Minister’s attempt to reinvent the wheel. Nothing changed in the last six months, except that media reported that Doug Guzman wanted to resign after less than a year as CEO of the Defence Investment Agency. Is Bill C-40 nothing more than an attempt to keep the Prime Minister’s BFF from rage quitting because he had to be accountable to taxpayers?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Sherry Romanado

Liberal
“The Conservatives always vote against spending money on our military. We are spending over $81 billion on defence over five years, and we met the NATO target early. The member should support this.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Respect 66 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the member opposite does not want to talk about”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that the member opposite does not want to talk about his lack of support for the Canadian Armed Forces. Every single time we have brought forward defence spending at committee, the Conservative Party has voted against it. Mr. Speaker, in budget 2025, we invested more than $81 billion in defence over the next five years. We have met the NATO target of 2% five years ahead of schedule. I do not understand why the member opposite cannot get on board.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis

James Bezan

Conservative
“The government keeps changing how it buys military equipment. It wants to create a new corporation to get around spending rules and give a minister too much control. I want the government to admit this will lower accountability and increase political meddling.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about reality. In May, the Liberal solution was turning the brand new DIA into a stand-alone agency. Six months later, the Liberals changed their minds again and are trying to turn the agency into a Crown corporation. In reality, the Liberals are attempting to circumvent Treasury Board rules and give a new associate minister unprecedented power over a Crown corporation that would have to do everything the associate minister would say, do and spend. Is this a new attempt by the Prime Minister to decrease accountability and increase political interference in defence procurement?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Sherry Romanado

Liberal
“Our government is investing nearly $8 billion in national defence in Alberta. This includes money for fighter jets, a new lab, a base for air force planes, and base repairs. We support our military members and defence workers there.”

  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence was in Alberta to talk about the incredible investments we have been making. At CFB Edmonton, we highlighted nearly $8 billion in defence investment, including nearly $4 billion to support future fighter capabilities at CFB Cold Lake. There is $750 million for a new chemical and biological laboratory at Suffield. There is $550 million to establish the western operating base for the Royal Canadian Air Force’s Husky fleet. There is over $580 million over the next three years for maintenance and repair work across bases in Alberta. There are over 12,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces and DND employees in Alberta, and we support them.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 148

All 46 items ·
  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 105 statements
  2. Government Orders Business of Supply 8 statements
  3. Statements by Members Latin American and Hispanic Day on the Hill 2 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 5 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  6. Oral Questions Government Priorities 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 13 statements
  8. Oral Questions Climate Change 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Housing 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions Employment 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions Democratic Institutions 8 statements
  15. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 6 statements
  16. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  18. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  21. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 4 statements
  22. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  23. Government Orders Business of the House 2 statements
  24. Government Orders Business of Supply 9 statements
  25. Private Members' Business Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act 15 statements
  26. Government Orders Business of Supply 8 statements
  27. Government Orders Business of Supply 42 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  29. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  30. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 6 statements