“We need to pass this bill to buy military equipment faster and better. Other allies like the UK and Australia are already doing this. Hitting our defense spending target is a good thing because it gets our troops the equipment they need.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that it seems that the Conservatives and the Bloc do not support the need for a corporation. It is not like it is absolutely unique. We could take a look at other Five Eyes countries, in particular the U.K. and Australia, where there has been movement toward ensuring that there are better processes for procurements. Yes, the Prime Minister could be accused of hitting the 2% target of our GDP, but I would argue that is a positive thing. To ensure we are able to provide the support for our military personnel in equipment, if not this, then what does the member believe would be better to ensure that we are able to deliver in a more appropriate and faster fashion the military equipment our forces require?”

“I want the Conservatives and the Bloc to vote for this bill. It creates a government corporation to buy military equipment. This will keep spending accountable, protect our country, support our allies, and create good Canadian jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time. Allow me, first, the opportunity here in debate to express my most sincere prayers and best wishes to the families, extended families and communities affected by the disaster in Wainwright. I had the privilege of serving in the Canadian Forces. I was actually posted out in Edmonton. We would often get military personnel coming in from Wainwright through the air force base in Lancaster Park. I know there are strong connections among the military families and members of the Canadian Forces and DND officials. I would let them know that the government and all members of the House are there to support in whatever way we can. It has been interesting listening to the Conservatives and the New Democrats talk about this piece of legislation. When I posed the question to the member from the Bloc, he seemed to be surprised at some of the other Five Eyes countries. If we take a look, we will find that there is some movement toward not necessarily Crown corporations but ensuring that there is one agency that is more accountable in making those military expenditures. We can take a look at the commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians in the last federal election to invest in and build our Canadian forces, recognizing that Canada does have, and has to have, a role in the United Nations and with our allied partners. That is the reason we are the first government in generations to actually hit the 2% of the GDP ratio that Canada has been asked to hit for generations. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, we achieved that within six months of the last election. If we put it through that lens and that perspective, we see that it is important to not only be able to hit the target, but also make sure that we are delivering, in tangible ways, the military supports that are absolutely essential. One of the early initiatives was the recognition that our military personnel were underpaid. That is one of the things that was dealt with, again, within the first half year of the new government. We are now talking about a Crown corporation that has a very important responsibility to all Canadians. We look to the opposition to recognize that, as provincial entities and federal entities, there are all sorts of arm’s-length Crown corporations that are there to protect the public interest, whether it might be supplying water, providing hydro or providing automobile insurance. There is a litany of provincial Crown corporations along with many federal Crown corporations. For the most part, as this one will be, they are arm’s-length. There will still be a high sense of accountability, given the amount of dollars that are being spent, by the establishment of an associate minister who would have the sole responsibility of making sure that our Canadian Forces are being armed with the things that are necessary for us to protect our sovereignty as a nation and to be able to contribute, in a very real way, to the United Nations and our allied countries. That is something we have taken very seriously, first by making a substantial commitment. When we hear of a substantial commitment, we can compare this Prime Minister to Stephen Harper when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table. At that time, we were at 1% and being soundly criticized by countries around the world for not investing enough in our Canadian Forces. Even politicians here in Canada, members of Parliament on all sides of the House, would say we needed to invest more. We have a Prime Minister who took the initiative and did just that, and he did not leave it at that. Through Bill C-40, he established the opportunity for Canada to not only invest in our military but also look at industries within Canada today that create middle-class, good, strong, healthy paying jobs in the military-industrial community, which is very real and substantial. This procurement process and the establishment of a Crown corporation would not only stabilize but also grow. We will see growth in our industrial community in the production of military equipment. I can talk about military vehicles. It could be light armoured vehicles. There are many military parts for vehicles. I could talk about aircraft equipment. Part of the F-35 wing was developed in Winnipeg. It was worth tens of millions of dollars. If members want to see the expertise that goes into that, they should go to Magellan, visit the site and see the sense of pride in what they are doing for the development of the F-35. Magellan is not alone. We can go to the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba and other areas of the country to see that the aerospace industry is moving forward. Military procurement plays a critical role in the future of our military aerospace industry. We can talk about weapons and ammunition. It could be ammunition for rockets. I would go to a place like Magellan, which has developed rockets in the past in Winnipeg. I can talk about rifles. These are the types of equipment being built through technology here in Canada and exported. In fact, all the things that I have mentioned today are major exports out of Canada. We can think of drones, cameras or surveillance. These are things for which Canada is one of the leaders in the world. We can talk about naval equipment or training opportunities and the equipment that goes along with that. These are but some of the examples that Canada exports today. A Crown corporation would have the responsibility to not only equip Canada’s military but also ensure there is a clear process to advance an industry that is so very important to Canada’s sovereignty, our jobs and our economy. All of this can be wrapped up together as a way to continue to build a stronger and healthier Canada, as I have said before, that works for all Canadians. Our military is a very important aspect of that. I would ask Conservatives and Bloc members to review the position they have taken as of today on the issue. Providing more transparency and accountability through an independent, arm’s-length Crown corporation is a good thing and something I hope they will pass.”

“Government-owned corporations work well. Because they operate at an arm's length from government, they are more efficient, accountable, and transparent.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the leader of the Green Party. Personally, I understand and appreciate the value of Crown corporations because through them we can build in an arm’s-length component, which I would argue allows them to be far more efficient and better able to deal with the types of projects that have been assigned to them. There are many examples at all levels of government. Whether it is municipal, provincial or federal governments, they have clearly demonstrated that, through a Crown corporation, we can ensure a higher sense of accountability and transparency while at the same time—”

• 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 →

“This bill keeps the government accountable. It creates a new Crown corporation and makes an associate minister permanently responsible for it, so Parliament and the public have someone to answer to.”

“Mr. Speaker, within the legislation is the idea of having an associate minister become permanent. Through that associate minister, we would receive that accountability. Therefore, not only is there a Crown corporation that in a very tangible way ensures transparency and accountability, but we also have, through the legislation, a government that is saying that it is not going to surrender all aspects of accountability. By having an associate minister tied to it, that means that members of Parliament in the House, and through them the public as a whole, would still have a minister, a go-to political individual, who ultimately has to be accountable.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Creating this government-owned corporation quickly is the best way forward. Our military deserves it, and it protects our economy and our national defence.”

“Mr. Speaker, I believe the government, through the Prime Minister, recognizes the value of moving forward with a Crown corporation, and this is the best way to do it. We do not need to wait six months to a year to do so. We are moving quickly. The members of our Canadian Forces deserve it. In terms of Canadian sovereignty, both economical and military, this is the type of direction that I believe is good for the—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill. It creates a new Crown corporation and updates our defence laws so the military and security agencies can buy equipment and services faster. This will help our armed forces face new threats and keep pace with our allies.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by offering my deepest condolences to the families of the soldiers who lost their lives at CFB Wainwright this past weekend. Our thoughts are with their families and the families of the injured. Transforming the Defence Investment Agency into a Crown corporation would ensure that Canada is better prepared to meet defence and security challenges now and in the future. The agency will have the tools, flexibility and expertise to make strategic investments and respond more quickly to the needs of our armed forces and Coast Guard. This transformation is central to Bill C‑40, the strengthening Canada’s defence sector act. However, I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the significant amendments this bill would make to the Defence Production Act. These changes will better prepare Canada for an increasingly complex security environment. They are essential to strengthening our industrial base and ensuring that our defence procurement system can provide the armed forces and our national security partners with the capabilities that they need when they need them. The Defence Production Act has been a cornerstone of Canada’s defence procurement framework since the Korean War. Over time, as the security environment and the nature of national defence have evolved, the act has been amended a number of times. As the world continues to change rapidly, the legislation needs to adapt as well. In recent years, we have witnessed growing instability and unpredictability around the world. New threats have emerged, supply chains have become more vulnerable, and the importance of economic security has become impossible to ignore. At the same time, our allies have invested heavily in their defence industrial capacity so they can produce critical equipment and technologies quickly and at scale. Canada must keep pace with its allies. For many years, this act has guided our defence procurement and industrial strategy policies. However, it was designed for a very different era. Bill C‑40 modernizes this legislative framework to reflect today’s security realities and the increasingly close ties between defence, security, technology and economic resilience. Historically, the act focused primarily on defence equipment and infrastructure exclusively for national defence purposes. Bill C‑40 expands its scope to include national security and services related to both national defence and national security. This broader scope recognizes that contemporary threats rarely fit neatly within traditional categories. Protecting critical infrastructure, advanced technology, intelligence capabilities and supply chain security all play a role in protecting Canadians. Another important amendment seeks to clarify and expand procurement authorities. Under the Canadian corporation for defence investment act, the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant would have exclusive authority to acquire supplies and services related to defence and security, not only for the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence, but also for other federal departments, boards and agencies in the area of national security. After all, national security is a government-wide responsibility. Whether supporting border security, the protection of critical infrastructure, emergency preparedness or intelligence operations, federal departments and agencies are increasingly dependent on specialized equipment and services that contribute to our security objectives. It is important to recognize that maintaining national security is not limited to the procurement of goods and services. That is why Bill C‑40 allows the new associate minister of national defence for procurement to perform financial assistance operations related to production or investment in respect of defence or national security. These new powers will allow the government to play a more active role in strengthening Canada’s defence and national security industrial base. We are fostering innovation that supports strategic capabilities and ensuring that critical technologies and manufacturing capabilities remain available to Canada and our allies. This represents a real shift in perspective. Rather than viewing defence procurement as merely a purchasing exercise, this measure recognizes that it is part of a broader industrial and economic strategy. Investing in our industrial capabilities helps strengthen our sovereignty, reduces our vulnerabilities and supports good jobs across Canada. The proposed amendments to the Defence Production Act are only one part of a broader, comprehensive package of reforms set out in Bill C-40. These reforms include the creation of a Crown corporation responsible for carrying out production, procurement and investment activities in respect of national defence for the benefit of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence. It should be mentioned that the minister of public works and procurement would remain responsible for the Defence Production Act. As we modernize Canada’s defence production and procurement framework, accountability remains key. Bill C-40 strikes a balance between agility and accountability. It seeks to remove unnecessary barriers that can delay the delivery of essential capabilities to the armed forces, while maintaining government oversight of important decisions. Bill C-40 delivers on both. At the end of the day, our goal is not just to spend more or move faster. These changes are meant to create an efficient, transparent and accountable defence procurement and production system that delivers results for our armed forces while maintaining the trust of Canadians. At its core, this bill is about preparedness. It is about ensuring that Canada has the legislative tools it needs to build key capabilities, strengthen its domestic industrial capacity, support innovation, secure its supply chains and respond decisively to emerging threats. This bill reflects the reality that national defence and national security are increasingly closely tied to economic resilience, advanced technologies and industrial policy. Our government is proposing substantial yet necessary amendments to the Defence Production Act. These amendments broaden the scope of the act, strengthen procurement authorities, introduce new investment tools and establish updated procurement rules that are appropriate for the current security environment. Taken together, these measures aim to create a framework that is more agile and responsive and focused on Canada’s strategic defence and security priorities. This bill represents one of the most significant updates to Canada’s defence production and procurement framework in decades. It reflects a clear recognition that security challenges are evolving and that Canadian institutions must evolve with them. That is what Bill C‑40 is all about. That is how our government is making sure Canada remains safe, secure and sovereign. I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues about my speech.”

“We want to make sure Canadian companies build as much of our defence equipment as possible. We are committed to raising Canadian content in our defence spending from 30% to 70%.”

“Mr. Speaker, in our defence industrial strategy, we have three pillars: build, partner and buy. We have to make sure that Canadian companies are involved in the building of the maximum possible quantity of defence equipment and defence supplies. That is the reason we have to make sure that Canadian companies are always at the head of the line when it comes to defence procurement. We have made the commitment to go from 30% to 70% Canadian content in our defence spending. That is something we will definitely adhere to.”

• 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 →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 40 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Defence spending is already helping our economy. A company in Mirabel got a $1.5-billion plane maintenance contract, and a new defence innovation centre is opening there. These projects give good jobs to local aerospace workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, we do not need to wait for the spinoffs, because they are already here. A $1.5-billion maintenance contract was awarded to L3Harris in Mirabel, in the Laurentians, for the CC-330 Husky refuelling aircraft. It has already been determined that the DISH, the defence innovation secure hub, will be established near Mirabel. Every person who lives in the Laurentians and has a good job in the aerospace sector will be able to benefit from these contracts and many more in the future, including Bombardier’s contract for the Global 6500 jets.”

“We always planned to turn our temporary defence agency into a Crown corporation. Countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, Turkey, and Sweden already do this successfully. Our military needs modern tools quickly because technology changes fast. A Crown corporation will get our troops what they need.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Defence Investment Agency was always intended to be a temporary measure. The goal was always to create a Crown corporation. That is what we are doing now. The benefits have been clearly demonstrated in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, Turkey and Sweden. They have models very similar to what our government is proposing today. The rationale has always been this: It is absolutely essential to provide our military personnel with the capabilities they need as soon as possible, given the technological changes we are seeing on a daily basis. A Crown corporation will do exactly that.”

• 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 →