Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

Bill C-40, Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act · Second reading · now at committee in the House Where it stands

What Bill C-40 would do

The bill would create the Canadian Corporation for Defence Investment to handle production, buying, and investment for the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence, and partner governments. It would also expand federal buying and stockpiling powers to cover national security supplies and services. The responsible minister would gain authority to make financial investments in defence and security sectors, and new procurement rules would be set. The bill would also require a future review of these changes.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

67 statements

Sandra Cobena, Newmarket—Aurora

Conservative
“We must get our troops the equipment they need quickly. But the Prime Minister makes buying decisions on his own without asking the military. This bill does not hold him accountable, and that puts our troops at risk.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely. The priority here is to make sure that equipment is delivered to our troops, that this is done efficiently and fast and that it meets the requirements they need. Unfortunately, what we have seen so far is that the Prime Minister has taken unilateral decisions without necessarily consulting the military on procurement decisions and appointing companies. This bill would not provide any certainty that there will be transparency or, ultimately, accountability for those decisions. At the end of the day, it is our troops and our military, the people who protect us, who will be at risk.

James Bezan, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman

Conservative
“I oppose this bill. The government is using it to hide spending and move debt off its books into a new corporation. It lacks transparency, and this agency has already failed to get our troops the equipment they need.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 31 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it has to be made clear first and foremost that Conservatives support our troops and support getting them the equipment they need in a very fast manner. Unfortunately, what the Liberals are trying to do is add to their creative accounting and create a shell game where they will be able to move government spending out of their deficit and make it an asset under a Crown corporation. This is all smoke and mirrors. The member for Winnipeg North has done a great job in here of trying to provide misleading information to the House and Canadians. What we need to get down to is the facts, one of which is that this bill would not provide the transparency and accountability we deserve as Canadians and deserve as parliamentarians. The track record of this agency to date has been that it has not gotten the equipment that our troops desperately need.

Sandra Cobena, Newmarket—Aurora

Conservative
“I agree with the member. The head of the Canada Infrastructure Bank makes about $1.5 million a year. The Prime Minister also tends to give jobs to his friends and family. We still need answers to many questions.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the member. On the point about Crown corporations, because we keep getting pushed and pressed by the government, let us not forget that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a Crown corporation, and the CEO gets compensated around $1.5 million per year. We also know that the Prime Minister has a tendency to appoint his friends and family to positions. There are a lot of questions that still need to be answered.

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Madawaska—Restigouche

Liberal
“I support this bill. Right now, buying military equipment takes too long because too many government departments are involved. This bill creates a single agency to handle defence purchases, cut red tape, and get our military what it needs faster.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, we are living in a rapidly changing world. Multiple conflicts are currently unfolding across the globe. The rules-based international order we knew for decades has been turned upside down. Technological advances are fundamentally altering both the nature of the threats we face and the tools available to address them. We must develop defence capabilities to meet these new realities. There are also new challenges ahead. Consider, for example, the growing strategic importance of the Arctic and the need to find a way to safeguard our sovereignty over this vast northern territory. We must reinvest to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the equipment they need, when they need it. That means reinvesting not only in modernizing and replenishing our equipment, but also in building a defence supply chain capable of meeting the needs of our armed forces in a timely manner. That is precisely why we are debating Bill C‑40 today. Since last year, we have made major investments in the Canadian Armed Forces, and we have met our NATO defence spending target of 2% of GDP. These investments are essential for protecting our country’s sovereignty. They give us the means to defend our territory, our borders and our national interests. We are also seeking to build our strategic autonomy through these investments. We want to further develop industrial capabilities and reliable supply chains right here at home so that we can meet our own defence needs and fulfill our commitments to our allies as members of NATO. This is also a measure of our credibility as a reliable international partner. In addition to meeting security needs, these defence investments are also helping us to strengthen the Canadian economy because we are enhancing Canada’s industrial capabilities. With that in mind, in February, we launched Canada’s very first defence industrial strategy, which seeks to transform our defence industries by prioritizing Canadian suppliers and materials. By investing in our defence capabilities, we want to promote our local businesses, stimulate our economy and invest in Canadian innovation and commercialization, while streamlining procurement to give businesses consistent and predictable demand. As I mentioned, we have already taken historic steps to speed up defence equipment procurement while ensuring that Canadian workers and businesses benefit in the process. However, we want to go further and, as we have said before, we can do better. To improve, we have to start by identifying weaknesses in the Canadian defence procurement system and finding ways to fix them. Specifically, I am thinking of the fragmentation between departments, because defence procurement involves multiple different government entities and ministers. This fragmentation can affect our efficiency. In addition, sometimes, procedures are too complex to meet the military’s constantly changing needs. We have also noted how slow and arduous it is for the system to adapt to the immediate needs of our armed forces. We want to cut through the red tape. We want to speed up procurement and more quickly deliver critical equipment and capabilities to the CAF and our allies. It is in this spirit that we have introduced Bill C-40 to establish the Defence Investment Agency as a Crown corporation. This agency will have a strong mandate to carry out activities related to production, procurement and investment in respect of national defence assets. What will change about this agency? It will have additional and expanded authority to move complex projects forward, and it will have the capacity and expertise to do so while developing Canada’s defence industrial base. More specifically, as a Crown corporation, this agency will be able to operate with greater authority to negotiate and manage contracts in accordance with business practices more familiar to the industry. It will eliminate fragmentation by bringing the decision-makers responsible for procurement and strategic investments together in one place. It will reduce administrative burdens and facilitate access for suppliers in order to speed up procurement. What is more, Bill C-40 proposes creating the position of associate minister of national defence for procurement to oversee this new Crown corporation. The idea is once again to centralize the activities within a single agency rather than having a fragmented system like the one we have now. The objective is to deliver better results for our armed forces. We are already hard at work. We have already announced major investments in our armed forces since the last election. We are currently in negotiations to acquire up to 12 submarines, which is the largest defence procurement in our country’s history. We are establishing a strategic partnership framework under the defence industrial strategy to expand our fleet of armoured vehicles. We announced an $11-billion investment in an icebreaker contract for the Davie shipyard, the largest shipbuilding contract in the history of the province of Quebec. My home province of New Brunswick is not being overlooked. In April, our government announced an investment of more than $1 billion for the Canadian Armed Forces base in Gagetown. This includes $871 million to recapitalize the range and training area and $172 million to establish new ground-based air defence infrastructure. These investments ensure that our soldiers train on infrastructure built to last the next century and truly adapted to today’s needs. In addition to these investments, another $20 million has been budgeted to create a modern building that centralizes transition services in order to better support CAF members and their families during the transition either back to duty or to civilian life. I want to emphasize how important this federal investment of over $1 billion is to my province, New Brunswick. This is a significant amount with economic benefits not only for the military base, but for my province as a whole. In fact, my colleague from Fredericton—Oromocto often talks to us about the importance of investing in CFB Gagetown, both to support our CAF members by providing them with adequate training facilities truly adapted to their needs, but also for the many benefits it brings to our entire province. I support my colleague from Fredericton—Oromocto’s efforts. Our defence industrial strategy also includes a component aimed at increasing Canadian innovation in the defence and dual-use sector. I am referring to funding for technology, infrastructure, research and equipment that serve both military purposes, for use by our CAF, and civilian applications. I am thinking of our investments in drones and surveillance systems. It goes without saying that there is tremendous potential in the defence sector, particularly when it comes to monitoring vast territories such as the Arctic and conducting reconnaissance missions. However, these technologies can also be used in search and rescue operations. They can be deployed during forest fires and used to map our forests. They are also useful in agriculture for mapping fields. These investments improve our drone technology, which has both military and civilian applications. The same is true of satellite technologies and the improvements we are making to access space and enhance satellite connectivity. These investments help meet the need for secure, reliable communications in remote places, of course, but there is also potential to improve cell connectivity in rural parts of the country. I am also thinking of our investments in cybersecurity, which will help strengthen the protection of our networks and improve our ability to detect threats. This is especially important at a time when artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly. Investments in cybersecurity will have tangible benefits, particularly in terms of improving the security of our public and corporate networks. I am giving all these examples to show that our defence investments will not just be used to procure military equipment. They will also benefit our businesses and communities. We are investing to meet the needs of our military, but we are also taking this opportunity to further enhance Canada’s advantage in sectors such as AI, IT and access to space. We are having this discussion on Bill C-40 as we are entering the remembrance period, and I think it is important to mention that. From October 24 to November 11, millions of Canadians wear a poppy as a visible pledge to remember those who served our country and those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom we enjoy today. Wearing a poppy is a symbol of gratitude, thanking those who serve and their families and remembering those who lost their lives in service to our country. It is also a sign of remembrance and education, reminding future generations of the importance of knowing our history and remembering those who served our country. It is a concrete way to support our local Royal Canadian Legions. The poppy campaign raises funds to support veterans and their families, so making a donation is a concrete way to show our support. This year, Remembrance Day takes on a particular meaning following the recent loss of four members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the serious injuries sustained by several others at Wainwright.

Alex Ruff, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound

Conservative
“The Liberal government does not take responsibility when it makes mistakes. Since the government has a majority, our changes to this bill might not pass. If the minister or the head of this new defence agency does something wrong, will the member promise to call for them to be fired or to resign?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for drawing attention to the importance of base Gagetown. I spent eight years of my career posted there. I know how important that base is for the Canadian Army in particular. My question is about accountability. The member talked a bit about it, and there has been lots of debate around that issue. However, the Liberal government, over the last 10 years, has done a good job of not accepting accountability. We had one case where we successfully censured a former minister of national defence when he messed up in a leadership role. When it came to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, unfortunately the government took the Speaker to court to prevent the will of Parliament. Considering that he is a member of the governing caucus, which has a majority, I am not confident that the amendments that opposition members will want at committee are going to get through. Will the member commit that if the minister or the CEO of the DIA is found guilty of something, he will personally call for their resignation or firing?

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Madawaska—Restigouche

Liberal
“The 1-billion-dollar investment in the Gagetown military base will help our armed forces and New Brunswick. This new defence agency will also stay accountable. A minister will answer questions about it, and it will have to show its finances and face audits.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the member had the opportunity to spend several years in New Brunswick. I am also pleased that he pointed out how important the announced $1-billion investment has been for infrastructure at the Gagetown military base in New Brunswick. That will make a real difference for our Canadian Armed Forces and for the province that I represent. As far as accountability is concerned, obviously a minister will be responsible for this agency. He or she will be in the House to answer opposition members’ questions and will appear in committee. A whole series of mechanisms will be put in place to ensure transparency and accountability within our parliamentary system. The Crown corporation will still be required to disclose financial information, undergo audits and table documents in Parliament. We are giving this organization more independence from an operational perspective, but we are maintaining strict accountability measures.

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Laurentides—Labelle

Bloc Québécois
“I do not trust this bill. The procurement watchdog told me he cannot do his job under this new system, so he will not be able to check if contracts go to government friends.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about accountability. The procurement ombudsman regularly appears before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. When I asked him if there are sufficient safeguards or if he could analyze certain contracts that might have been awarded to cronies for certain purposes, even though that is surely not happening, he replied that he could not do his job with a new structure like this one. Seriously, we are supposed to believe the words we are hearing when, fact, what we are talking about is total autonomy.

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Madawaska—Restigouche

Liberal

Linked statement

“This new defence agency needs to be independent so it can invest quickly and build up our industries. It will still follow strict rules. It must share its spending details, write reports, and answer questions from MPs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I said, accountability measures will apply. The objective of making the agency a Crown corporation is to give it more autonomy so it can invest in defence and meet current needs while strengthening our country’s industrial base. Accountability measures will apply. Committee work will be carried out, reports will be written and financial disclosure obligations will have to be met. All of these criteria apply. Members of Parliament will be able to ask their questions in committee and in the House.

Marianne Dandurand, Compton—Stanstead

Liberal
“Our ridings are partly rural. I want to know if rural areas will get funding and projects from this new defence agency, and how it will help people in my colleague's region.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche both have ridings that are partly rural. Some people are wondering whether rural areas will have access to the funding and projects that will come out of this agency. What does my colleague think the Defence Investment Agency would do for the people in his region?

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Madawaska—Restigouche

Liberal
“Defence spending helps the economy in New Brunswick. It brings a $1-billion investment to a local military base, gives contracts to local businesses, and funds university research to make our ports safer and more efficient.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first, there is the $1-billion investment in CFB Gagetown. This will have significant economic benefits for the entire province of New Brunswick. Several businesses in my riding have contracts with the Department of National Defence or with its suppliers. I have visited some of them in my capacity as a member of Parliament. I also document my region’s ability to meet the country’s defence needs and forward this information to the appropriate authorities. When it comes to the dual-use sector, there are tangible benefits for our regions. I am thinking in particular of a research project funded by our industrial strategy at the University of New Brunswick, focusing on the security of our critical infrastructure and specifically examining Port Saint John and the Port of Belledune, which is located in northern New Brunswick. The project focuses on ways to improve the security and efficiency of this critical infrastructure. This will have benefits not only for security but also for the civilian sector. There are many such examples. I could go on. This provides a variety of opportunities for our businesses involved in infrastructure, such as our ports, and for our research centres that are studying defence-related issues.

Kelly Block, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek

Conservative
“I do not want this bill to pass. It creates another layer of government that fails to get our military the equipment it needs. It also removes oversight from Parliament, which allows for waste and political interference with tax dollars.”
  • A repeated line

    “After more than a decade of Liberal government.”

    Said 13 times by 11 members since May 7.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it truly is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-40, the defence and national security production and procurement act. In the wake of the tragic events at CFB Wainwright just over a week ago and the launch of the Royal Canadian Legion’s national poppy campaign this past weekend, we are reminded of the service and sacrifice of our Canadian Armed Forces, both past and present, and the importance of the debate we are having here today. Turning to the bill, it pains me to say that here we go again. This is the Liberal government’s third attempt to deliver defence equipment to our Canadian Armed Forces in an efficient and timely way. Perhaps three times is the charm. It was just one short year ago that I spoke to the Liberal government’s budget implementation act, Bill C-31, when the government made the case that its recently created Defence Investment Agency needed to become a stand-alone entity outside of both the departments of PSPC and National Defence. Bill C-40 proposes to turn the Defence Investment Agency into the Canadian corporation for defence investment. The Defence Investment Agency was launched to accelerate defence procurement, but it has failed to deliver a single piece of new equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. Instead, the government points to signing ceremonies and preferred partnership announcements, pretending that this is the same as actually delivering. After a decade of neglect, what our sailors, soldiers and aviators need is a procurement process that equips them for the modern threats we face today. The brave men and women of our armed forces deserve the equipment they need to defend Canada and keep Canadians safe. Above all, they should be able to count on procurement processes that are efficient and accountable. As I was contemplating my remarks for today’s debate, I reflected on the question of accountability and trust: Do I trust the tired old Liberal government to do the right thing with respect to defence procurement? Let us look at its track record. One’s trust would be misplaced on so many fronts, but it is especially the case when it comes to trusting the Liberal government to do the right thing on procurement. I have had the honour of serving in this place for almost two decades, so I want to remind some of my colleagues who have not been here that long of a very sad saga. Canada joined the joint strike fighter program under the former Liberal government in 1997. That is almost 30 years ago. In 2010, under the leadership of a Conservative government, Canada finally selected the F-35, a fifth-generation fighter jet, to replace our aging fleet of CF-18s. Then, in a twist of overt political opportunism, former Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau, at the time the leader, campaigned on a promise to never purchase the F-35. This kicked off approximately seven years of Liberal stonewalling, obstructionism, foot-dragging and delays. The Liberals even concocted the silly idea of buying old jets from Australia. Then, in 2022, the same old Liberal government ended up choosing the F-35 as the CF-18’s replacement. I guess we can always count on a Liberal government to break a promise. However, this saga did not end there. In 2025, the same Liberal government once again put the F-35 procurement under review. Military procurement should be in the best interests of the Canadian Armed Forces and Canada’s national security and should not be politicized, which leads me to another area of concern with this proposed legislation, that being the potential erosion of parliamentary oversight and transparency. This seems to be a pattern for the Liberal government. In order to fix and speed up the broken defence procurement system, the Liberals created a special agency and appointed the Prime Minister’s friend Doug Guzman, who has no background in national defence but asked for a job. He was handed the position of the first CEO of the Defence Investment Agency, with a salary greater than the highest paid federal public servants on the payroll. Four months later, the government announced the need for the agency to be a stand-alone entity, and before that could happen, it introduced legislation to convert the DIA into a Crown corporation, overseen by an associate minister with unprecedented powers. The changes contained in Bill C-40 could remove much-needed parliamentary oversight from the DIA, creating the inevitable mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and waste the government is known for. With billions of tax dollars at stake, Conservatives have serious concerns that the Liberals are increasing the opportunity for political interference and decreasing accountability. I am sure members will recall the revelation of a potential conflict of interest, which still exists, surrounding the Liberal government’s Alto rail boondoggle and the finance minister. The prospect of the finance minister making decisions as part of the federal government’s budgetary process, which presents distinct benefits and advantages for his partner and her employer, and acting and voting in Parliament to give those effect, is deeply troubling. We can consider the Prime Minister’s most recent pre-Thanksgiving announcement to subsidize heat pumps. Brookfield has a big stake in the retrofit and heat pump business via Enercare and Trane, and the Prime Minister has a lot of deferred shares, options and carried interest. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that the DIA or the Liberals themselves may have already decided on Saab’s GlobalEye as the preferred supplier for the airborne early warning and control platform without proper consideration or consultation with the Royal Canadian Air Force. Political interference seems to be second nature for the government. I raise these examples to remind Canadians why we cannot simply trust this Liberal government and to make the case for the need to ensure strong oversight and transparency. To be clear, Conservatives are on the record. We support one point of accountability for defence procurement, not adding layers of bureaucracy to an already bureaucratic system. This is why the rules around sole-source procurement and other reporting requirements must be strong. Conservatives believe that the powers conferred to the CEO by the new associate minister should be scaled back when it comes to decisions to sole-source a procurement, and the government should be required to disclose when it uses national security exceptions to allow for sole-sourcing procurements, including which subsection was supplied. This is not currently a requirement in Bill C-40. I am concerned that the measures proposed in the bill are not strong enough. Instead of taking the politics out of procurement, the bill would ensure that Liberal insiders would benefit from contracts with no transparency, accountability, Treasury Board oversight or sufficient reporting to Parliament. In conclusion, this tired Liberal government’s first and second attempts to reform defence procurement have not proven successful. Like Build Canada Homes or the Major Projects Office, the DIA is just the latest new Liberal bureaucracy delivering bottlenecks instead of progress. As a result, it is only logical that members of Parliament should have concerns about this third attempt to fix defence procurement. Defence procurement is a matter at the heart of our sovereignty and our security, but after a decade of Liberal neglect, our military has been left unprepared for the threats we face. The world is changing. Symbolic announcements do not build or buy the equipment the Canadian Armed Forces require. Faster procurement does not require less accountability. The CAF needs swift action to procure equipment, and Canadian taxpayers deserve transparency and accountability for those expenses. These two requirements are not in conflict, even though it seems like the government wants to promote that view. As a result, my concern is that the lack of transparency in the process being proposed by this bill is a design feature, not an unintended flaw. Bill C-40 would not deliver the equipment our forces desperately need, nor would it protect taxpayers from Liberal corruption. Conservatives will be opposing Bill C-40.

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“Under the previous Conservative government, defence spending was far below the 2% NATO target. Our government has passed that 2% goal, and we are on track to spend 5% by 2035. I want to know if the Conservatives will support our bill to speed up defence buying and create this new Crown corporation.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by our colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, who talked about procurement. Our colleague has been here for several years now. She was in the House when the Harper government was in power. At that time, defence spending was well below the 2% threshold that NATO requires of its members. In 2013, it was less than 1%. In 2014, it was 1.01%, and in 2015, it was 1.2%. Our government has exceeded the 2% target. In addition, we are on track to meet the 2035 target of spending 5% of our GDP on defence. Our colleague said earlier that it was important to speed up procurement. Will the Conservatives support measures to streamline procurement, improve preparedness and establish the Crown corporation?

Kelly Block, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek

Conservative
“The government is using misleading math to meet its military spending goal. It counts things like veterans' pensions, transport planes, and the coast guard as military spending when they are not. Meanwhile, our armed forces face more budget cuts. This proves the Liberals are not serious about defence.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 39 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, after all is said and done, more is always said than done with the Liberal government. This is not the first time that the government has used creative accounting. We have seen this time and time again with the government including items that have not been considered for defence spending, including veterans’ pensions and Transport Canada airplanes, as well as the entire Canadian Coast Guard budget, in order to get to our 2% NATO commitment. If we put that together with recent reports that the Canadian Armed Forces are facing another round of internal belt tightening, the Liberals are proving once again that they are not serious about defence.

Sébastien Lemire, Abitibi—Témiscamingue

Bloc Québécois
“Transparency is a big issue in this debate. An agency is not held accountable the same way a minister is. I want senior officials to give us a briefing to explain the differences, and I want to hear my colleague's thoughts.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague speak about the lack of transparency. This issue has come up frequently, and it is important because it goes to the heart of the debate we must have as members of Parliament. We must remember that an agency would not be subject to the same standards of accountability. I believe the government should provide us with a briefing on this matter. It would be useful to hear senior public servants outline the differences between having an agency and having a minister responsible for public expenditures. This is clearly a major concern for my colleague. I would like to hear her views on the matter.

Kelly Block, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek

Conservative
“Setting up a defence agency can work, and other countries do it. But we need to look closely at this government. They take too much power and hide what they are doing. The problem is not the agency. The problem is the people running it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would have to say this: No one is questioning the creation of a defence agency, as other countries also use this model. However, as usual, the government’s overreach and willingness to remove transparency and accountability from the process really do need to be examined. Of course, single sourcing and Crown corporations have been used and proven successful when appropriate safeguards or regulations are in place. However, I would say the tools are not the problem. Those wielding the tools are the problem.

James Bezan, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman

Conservative
“The previous government bought major military equipment quickly without creating a new agency. We used existing rules to get the military what it needed fast. I want to know why the government is creating this new corporation. I wonder if it is just a way to avoid normal transparency rules.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 91 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “Is it to ensure that Doug Guzman does not rage-quit”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek was around during the Harper era when we bought a lot of equipment for our Canadian Armed Forces members. They were sent out to Afghanistan with virtually nothing. We had to buy everything from tactical lift aircraft to helicopters, tanks and new LAVs; the list goes on and on. We did it without having a defence investment agency. A lot of that was sole-sourced. A lot of that was meeting the urgent operational requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces. A lot of that was about national security exemptions that were put in place. That was all done through a secretariat that the former prime minister set up and led himself. That empowered the ministers, the deputy ministers and all the departments to get the job done fast without creating new bureaucracy. Why does my colleague think the Liberals are creating the Crown corporation? Is it to ensure that Doug Guzman does not rage-quit, or is it to avoid transparency in following Treasury Board guidelines?

Kelly Block, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek

Conservative
“I agree with my colleague who pointed out the problems in this defence bill. I think the government is acting on both of the motives he mentioned.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the work that he has done on this national defence file, as well as the work that he has done in reviewing this bill and pointing out the flaws that are inherent within it. When I think about what is motivating the government and the options that I have been given, I would have to say I believe it is both.

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“I support this bill and our plan to spend money on military defence. This spending will help Quebec businesses win defence contracts and create good jobs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by paying tribute to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and to all veterans. We have started wearing the poppy in remembrance. Let me now turn to Bill C-40. Our government is making major investments to help Quebec businesses enter and expand within Canadian and international defence supply chains. To be clear, these investments are not about military procurement alone. They are also about jobs, innovation, economic growth and ensuring that Quebec workers and businesses are at the forefront of one of the most important industrial opportunities of our generation. In April 2026, for example, a total of $4.5 million was allocated to Aéro Montréal, Propulsion Québec and Sous-traitance industrielle Québec, or STIQ, to support small and medium-sized businesses. This is excellent news for the Lower Laurentians region. These investments will help Quebec businesses integrate into Canadian and international defence supply chains, market new technologies and become more competitive at securing contracts both domestically and abroad. With this support, STIQ will help manufacturers meet the standards required to participate in defence projects. Aéro Montréal and Propulsion Québec will help businesses in the aerospace, electric mobility and smart transportation industries, which have a strong presence in the Lower Laurentians, to access new defence markets and win contracts with Canada, allied countries and major defence contractors. These investments are part of the broader regional defence investment initiative, which is providing $64.9 million to Quebec over three years. This regional initiative prioritizes business growth and productivity projects, particularly for SMEs, to help them meet existing or future needs of the Canadian Armed Forces, NATO or allied countries. These projects aim to increase their production and innovation capacity; improve their productivity and competitiveness; explore and expand into new markets; meet defence certification and qualification standards; support business start-up and growth, with the aim of integrating into national or international defence supply chains; and respond to calls for proposals from prime defence contractors and the Government of Canada. We want Quebec businesses to increase their production capacity. We want them to develop innovative technology. We want them to improve their productivity, meet defence certification requirements and compete successfully in global and domestic markets. Most importantly, we want workers and communities in Quebec to prosper. Projects funded by the regional defence investment initiative should support hundreds of well-paying jobs across Quebec. Thanks to our regional offices, such as Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, or CED, and Export Development Canada, or EDC, support will be available across the province to help businesses in large and small communities to take advantage of opportunities and access Canada’s growing defence-related investments. These investments are being made in a province that is already a major hub for defence and innovation. Quebec has over 8,500 jobs in the defence sector, which accounts for about one quarter of the total workforce in Canada’s defence industry. Quebec’s aerospace sector is one of the most sophisticated in the world. I am not sure whether members have heard me mention this in previous speeches, but the Lower Laurentians is home to several aerospace companies, such as L3Harris, which maintains the F-35s we were discussing earlier; Airbus; Bell Textron, a helicopter supplier; and MHI RJ Aviation Group, which is developing all sorts of new technologies to meet the needs of the future, because when it comes to defence, we no longer need the same equipment as before. The province’s advanced manufacturing sector is internationally recognized. These research institutions are making advances in artificial intelligence, digital technologies, communications, sensors, optics and highly advanced materials. As defence spending increases, both in Canada and amongst our allies, these forces place Quebec, and of course the Lower Laurentians, in a strong position to seize a growing share of these new opportunities. Businesses operating in aerospace, information technology, security, advanced transportation, critical minerals and precision manufacturing will have opportunities for growth. When it comes to transportation, I would like to point out that my riding is home to the Nova Bus electric bus assembly plant, Blainville is home to test tracks and the neighbouring riding is home to Paccar. SMEs producing drones, optical systems, simulators, surveillance technologies, electronic components and specialized manufacturing equipment are already well positioned to play a greater role in defence supply chains. In fact, the number of Quebec businesses interested in the defence sector has more than doubled over the past year. This shows both the confidence of Quebec entrepreneurs and the magnitude of the opportunities that lie ahead. We do not need to speculate on what these opportunities might bring. We can already see the results within the Quebec companies that are creating jobs, developing advanced technologies and competing in global markets. Consider a company like CAE in Montreal. As a global leader in flight simulation and training technologies, CAE has benefited from defence-related investments that strengthened Quebec’s and Canada’s global leadership in simulation and training technologies. As an aside, my son is a commercial pilot, and he teaches courses on CAE simulators in Saint-Hubert. I wish my son all the best as he pursues his career as a commercial pilot. These investments support research, exports and highly skilled jobs. Our task now is to build on this success and create the conditions for more Canadian companies to grow, innovate and remain competitive. This is precisely the goal of our government’s new defence industrial strategy, under which we have committed $6.6 billion over five years to strengthen Canada’s defence industrial base. We are investing and improving supply chains, accelerating innovation, and improving access to capital for Canadian businesses. Through its first-ever defence industrial strategy, the government is strengthening the industrial foundations underpinning Canada’s security and economic resilience. By combining long-term investments in both defence and industrial capabilities, the strategy supports businesses and Canadian workers, improves our supply chains and makes Canada a trusted partner to its allies. We are making historic investments in Canada’s defence ecosystem to transform our armed forces. We are creating good, well-paying jobs for Canadians across the country and, most importantly, we are supplying the Canadian Armed Forces with the equipment it needs to protect Canada’s security and sovereignty. The defence industrial strategy acknowledges a simple fact: Canadians should benefit from major defence investments. For that reason, our government is prioritizing Canadian suppliers, Canadian materials and Canadian innovation. This is also why we created the Defence Investment Agency: to modernize procedures, speed up projects and help Canadian businesses participate more actively in defence procurement opportunities. What does this mean for Quebec? For Quebec, these investments mean more procurement contracts. They mean opportunities for SMEs and growth in the aerospace and advanced manufacturing sectors. They mean investments in research and innovation. I am not going to take up any more of the House’s time, although I could go on at length about the many positive aspects of all this. Our objective is to help workers, businesses and communities in Quebec and across Canada. I am ready to take my colleagues’ questions.

Pierre Paul-Hus, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles

Conservative
“This bill gives the minister and an appointed head too much power to buy military equipment without asking our armed forces what they actually need. The government already surprised people by planning to buy airplanes without asking the air force. Does my colleague think the government should buy military gear without asking the military first?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Clarity 39 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech on military procurement, which is an extremely important issue. I would like to ask her a question. At CANSEC in May, everyone was taken by surprise when the government announced its intention to acquire the GlobalEye, an aircraft manufactured by Saab, without first consulting the Canadian air force. To everyone’s great surprise, this announcement was made without any consultation whatsoever. With Bill C-40, which would create the office of secretary of state for defence procurement, it is clear that the minister will have the power to make decisions himself. Worse still, the CEO, Mr. Guzman, will be able to unilaterally decide what he needs and what he wants for the country without necessarily consulting the Canadian Armed Forces. Does my colleague believe that this is the right approach? Should the government be making purchases without consulting the military?

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“Past governments spent very little on defence. We committed to spending 2% of our gross domestic product, and we want to reach 5% by 2035. We also used to buy 70% of our military equipment from the United States. We want to flip that and make 70% of it here in Canada using our own businesses.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 25 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to what was done in the past. When the Harper government was in power, investment was below 2%. In 2013, it did not even reach 1%. In 2014, it was 1.1%. We committed to reaching 2%, which we have already done. In addition, by 2035, we will reach a target of 5% of our gross domestic product. I assume my colleague is aware of this, but in the past, 70% of defence equipment came from the United States. Now, we want to invert that pattern. We want Canada to produce 70% of the equipment. We want to use our own supply chains and our own industries to manufacture it. If my colleague had truly listened to my answer, he would have realized that it was a good idea to look elsewhere when it came to aircraft procurement.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 155

  1. Private Members' Business An Act to Repeal Certain Restrictions on Shipping 7 statements
  2. Government Orders Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act 52 statements
  3. Statements by Members Tribute to Men of Terrebonne 2 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions Finance 8 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Economy 7 statements
  9. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  11. Oral Questions Child Care 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Natural Resources 6 statements
  14. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 2 statements
  18. Government Orders Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act 67 statements
  19. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 8 statements
  21. Oral Questions International Trade 5 statements
  22. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 4 statements
  23. Government Orders Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act 34 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements