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)

34 statements

Julie Dzerowicz, Davenport

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill and send it to committee. The world is becoming more dangerous, and our military takes too long to buy the equipment it needs. This bill creates a dedicated government agency to buy defence supplies faster and support Canadian jobs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a true honour for me to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my constituency of Davenport. I am rising to speak to Bill C-40, the strengthening Canada’s defence sector act. I am also speaking as the chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, and I am very proud also to serve as the vice-president of the NATO parliamentary assembly. I spend a lot of time with parliamentarians from across our alliance, and what I hear from them helps explain why this bill is so important right now. Let me start with what the bill would actually do. Bill C-40 has two parts. The first part would establish as a Crown corporation the Defence Investment Agency, which we launched just over a year ago. Its job would be to carry out the production, procurement and investment of defence assets for the Canadian Armed Forces, the Department of National Defence and our NATO allies. Its chief executive officer would report to the board of directors, and the corporation would remain accountable to Parliament through a responsible minister. The second part of the bill would amend the National Defence Act to create an associate minister of national defence for procurement so that, for the first time, defence procurement would sit under one responsible minister. It would also update the Defence Production Act, which would allow Canada to stockpile critical supplies and to invest directly in our defence and security sectors. This is what is in the bill. I would like to spend the rest of my time talking about why we absolutely need it. For over 70 years, Canadians have lived within an international order that we helped build after World War II, one based on rules, on open trade and on strong institutions such as NATO and the United Nations. It was never perfect, but it brought us decades of peace and prosperity. That world has changed in a very significant way, and I agree with our Prime Minister when he says, “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.” We are watching the rise of authoritarianism and, in some places, fascism. Russia continues its brutal war against Ukraine, and the tariffs imposed by our closest neighbour have hurt Canadian workers and shaken the global economic system that so many of our jobs depend on. I know that many of the residents in my riding of Davenport are feeling this. When I talk to people at community events or at the door, I hear a real unease, a sense that something fundamental has shifted. To me, they are right to feel this way. I do not think we can afford to be nostalgic for the world as it was. We have to deal with the world as it is today. One of the biggest changes is in the nature of war itself. Admiral Pierre Vandier, who leads NATO’s Allied Command Transformation and recently visited Canada, has been warning that the lines among peace, crisis and war have broken down and that our adversaries are working around the clock, below the threshold of open conflict in what he calls the grey zone. NATO now has a name for this: cognitive warfare. It means our adversaries are not only trying to take territory but are also trying to change how we think, they are trying to divide us and they are trying to make us lose faith in each other and in our democracy. Let me put it simply: An attack on Canada today may never involve a single soldier crossing our border. It could mean someone stealing our data or our money, spreading disinformation in our communities or trying to get into the systems that run our water and electricity. Admiral Vandier also said, “The most expensive commodity today is time”, and that line has stayed with me because time is precisely what our current procurement system has been costing us. Canada, as we know, is the second-largest country in the world by land mass, with the longest coastline on earth and an Arctic that is opening up and attracting more and more attention from others. Defending a country this size takes the right equipment, delivered on time. In the past, too often we have not delivered. Our public servants have worked incredibly hard on these files. The problem, though, is a system that was never built for the speed this world now demands. As a result, our women and men in uniform have too often waited years, sometimes decades, for the equipment they need to do their job. That is why we are proposing a Crown corporation. The change we need is urgent, and I believe we need a dedicated institution with the authority to deliver it. As a Crown corporation, the agency would be able to negotiate contracts using commercial practices that industry already understands, and it would bring procurement and strategic investment together under a single mandate so decisions can move much faster. Allies like the United Kingdom, Australia and Sweden have had dedicated defence procurement bodies for years, and this bill would bring Canada in line with all of them. I know some members of this House will say that a new Crown corporation simply adds more bureaucracy. I would say it does the reverse, because it brings work that is now split across three departments into one place and removes many duplicate approvals. I also want to be clear that accountability matters. The corporation would still follow Treasury Board rules. It would still be audited, it would still report to this House and it would still answer to a minister. Now, I want to take a moment to speak to a question I often hear from residents of my constituency of Davenport, a community that has always cared deeply about peace and social justice. People often ask me, “Why are we spending so much on defence?”, and whether that money and effort should be going towards peace instead. I want them to know that I share their commitment to peace. Where I have landed is that in today’s world, peace has to be protected, and that requires us to be able to defend ourselves. Strong deterrence is often what stops a dangerous situation from turning into a war. I believe that a Canada that can defend its own sovereignty will be a much stronger voice for peace, human rights and diplomacy around the world. This is also about our responsibility to our allies. Every time I meet with my NATO colleagues, I hear about how much they are counting on Canada to do its part, because collective security only works when every member contributes. I am proud that, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, Canada has met NATO’s 2% target, and that we have committed to reaching 5% by 2035. Bill C-40 is how we will make sure that this investment turns into real capability for our forces and our allies, delivered on time. I also want to mention jobs. Our defence industrial strategy aims to have 70% of defence acquisitions go to Canadian firms and to create up to 125,000 good-paying jobs. Our goal is that when Canada buys, we build here in Canada, using Canadian steel and aluminum, and the talent of Canadian workers. We are already seeing this happen with more than $11 billion for new icebreakers at Chantier Davie in Quebec and with an expanded armoured vehicle fleet that will sustain thousands of jobs in London, Ontario. Does this mean that all is done? Absolutely not. We have so much more to do, but this bill is one important step, and it gives us the institution we need to get this work done at the speed this moment requires. My grandparents came to this country in the 1950s, and Canada gave them a safe, free and democratic place to build their lives. I think about that often and about our responsibility to protect what earlier generations built for us, especially now when the world feels so much less certain. I have a lot of confidence in Canadians. I believe we can protect our sovereignty, stand with our allies, grow our economy and continue to be the voice for peace in the world. I believe that Bill C-40 will help us do that. I urge all members of this House to support this bill, and to send it to committee where we can study it carefully and make it even stronger.

Alex Ruff, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound

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

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

Julie Dzerowicz, Davenport

Liberal
“We need this defence corporation now because the world has changed so much. We should discuss the details of the bill in committee.”
  • 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 want to thank the hon. member for his extraordinary contribution to our country. I know that he served in the Canadian Armed Forces. He is also heavily involved in the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. I always value his voice, his questions and his wisdom as part of our team. I know the hon. member made a reference how, in the past, this Crown corporation would not have been needed. That is why I spent quite a bit of time in my speech talking about how the world has so transitioned and transformed. We are in the middle of a rupture. We have to do extraordinary things at this particular moment. What I would say to the member is, indeed, we do need this Crown corporation now, and I think I have explained the value of it. In terms of his question around the third part, and whether we would be open to review, I would say that is why we have committees. It is important for us to discuss these ideas at committee.

Yves Perron, Berthier—Maskinongé

Bloc Québécois
“I do not think we need this new defence agency. The person chosen to lead it will make twice as much as the finance minister and is a close friend of the Prime Minister. I want the member to tell us how she feels about that.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 26 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the head of this new structure is going to be paid twice as much as the Minister of Finance and that—to be blunt—this…”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have a very specific question for my colleague. She praised the new structure a lot, although we think it will be unnecessary. Apart from that, does she not feel a little uncomfortable at the thought that the head of this new structure is going to be paid twice as much as the Minister of Finance and that—to be blunt—this executive used to work with the Prime Minister and is a good friend of his? How does she feel about that?

Julie Dzerowicz, Davenport

Liberal
“I want this bill to go to committee. It sets up a new Crown corporation to buy military equipment faster and better. It will still have strict rules, audits, and oversight to keep it accountable.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member about the importance of moving this bill forward to committee. I think there is always room for us to make recommendations if there are areas that we think we need to improve. I will remind everyone that this bill would help us streamline Canadian defence procurement under a Crown corporation. We would build a system that is faster, more efficient and ready to meet Canada’s needs today and into the future. I would say that in terms of accountability, under the system that we are proposing as part of part 1, the chief executive officer would be accountable to the board of directors for the management and administration of the corporations. It would also be accountable to the Government of Canada through a responsible minister and would have strict financial and reporting requirements, participate in audits and be subject to parliamentary oversight.

Natilien Joseph, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert

Liberal
“My riding has a military base. How will this bill help local businesses keep Canada safe, grow the local economy, and create good jobs?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert has a military base with real soldiers who work extremely hard to protect our territorial sovereignty with known expertise in the defence sector. How will this legislation enable our businesses to contribute more to keeping Canada safe while stimulating the local economy and creating good jobs for our workers?

Julie Dzerowicz, Davenport

Liberal
“This bill helps strengthen our defence sector. Our goal is to have 70% of defence purchases go to Canadian companies and create up to 125,000 jobs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his excellent work on the Standing Committee on Immigration and Citizenship. I want to mention, in response to his excellent question, that developing our defence industrial base is absolutely critical to what we are trying to do and what this bill is trying to help us do in terms of strengthening Canada’s defence sector. We are aiming to have 70% of defence acquisitions go to Canadian firms and to create up to 125,000 good-paying jobs. I will tell colleagues how that is going to be good for—

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“I do not support this bill in its current form. It moves military spending to an independent corporation, which removes government accountability. It also does not guarantee that our military spending will help the Canadian economy instead of foreign companies.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Davenport for splitting her time with me. I am rising at this hour, grateful for the chance to address Bill C-40, but I am very much wanting to share with other members in this place that, as we are speaking here, there is a group of very dedicated peace activists making their way to Ottawa. They call themselves the peace train. I joined them on Friday in Vancouver and rode with them as far as I could before having to get off the train to make sure I got an airplane back to Ottawa in time for today’s debate, but it is telling and important that people across Canada are increasingly being drawn to the peace movement. They recognize that our country is going through a transformation from being a country celebrated around the world for historic work for peace. Of course, former prime minister Lester B. Pearson won the Nobel Peace Prize for creating peacekeepers within the United Nations. He did so when resolving the Suez crisis, which at the time cost the lives of Commonwealth soldiers, some of whom are still buried in Gaza. We cannot reach their graves, of course, because of the ongoing genocide, but we gathered on that peace train. Their slogan is, “Train is a verb”, and they are calling for the re-establishment of the Lester B. Pearson peacekeeping centre for training. We are now falling behind allies around the world in our failure to keep up with the numbers and support for peacekeepers. I learned the other day that we have cut funding for the removal of landmines. One of our more recent signature accomplishments under the former minister for foreign affairs, the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, was the Ottawa process that led to the treaty to ban landmines. We are MIA on the treaty for the prohibition of nuclear weapons. We do not even send observer delegations to the UN meetings, although some of us as parliamentarians do attend with global parliamentarians for the prohibition of nuclear war. As such, it is worth noting this with great sadness. I should mention we were greeted at the Edmonton train station by one of my heroes, the former member of parliament for Edmonton Strathcona. He served as a Progressive Conservative in that capacity, and then he was a senator in the Canadian Senate and the ambassador to the United Nations from Canada on nuclear disarmament, a position that no longer exists, which is telling all on its own. The hon. Doug Roche met us and encouraged us. He said to please take the message forward that Canada needs to be active in nuclear disarmament. We are not. Right now and in this debate, there is no doubt. On behalf of the Green Party, I need to say that we support making sure that we address the gaps in adequate support to our military, the brave, very dedicated and self-sacrificing young men and women who choose to join the Canadian Armed Forces. Of course, very heavy on our hearts right now is the tragic loss in CFB Wainwright from the wildfire of last weekend, but it is worth noting that there is a transformation happening in Canadian society writ large, where, in referring to military spending, we no longer refer to it as something we need to do in our own defence, but as a growth sector for our economy. It was not that long ago that former president Eisenhower warned the United States of the perils of relying on a military-industrial complex, but we are building one here. Our arms exports have gone up dramatically. We did not used to be an arms-trading country. Project Ploughshares tracked it and just reported last year that there was an all-time high of billions of dollars coming into Canada from our sale of military equipment and military arms, yet sometimes we dress this up as though we are supporting a Canadian defence sector. I noted just before the last speech, and the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith made note of the fact, that nothing in Bill C-40 says that where we spend money on defence has to benefit the Canadian economy, especially when we move more and more to arm’s length. That spending could be supporting U.S. corporations, or whatever, around the world where armaments are made or jet fighters are built. We want to be spending money on those and will be doing so increasingly at arm’s length from political accountability. Of the newly announced spending since last year’s budget from the government, fully 70% of new spending is going to the military. I will also highlight this announcement: The Prime Minister announced that a subsidy of $2 billion in federal public funds, described as building Canadian jobs and supporting Canadian industry, will be going to General Dynamics’ operations in London, Ontario, to build armoured personnel vehicles. Of course, General Dynamics in London, Ontario, is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics in the United States, so there is nothing there about where we are putting our funding and building in preparation for our own defence, which Canadians certainly support. There is a lot of concern over our defence in the Arctic, a vast region where we are inadequately prepared for conflict. We are very concerned as Greens about making sure that the Canadian navy has the resources it needs. We are an ocean nation with three oceans, and we are not even prepared for the kind of marine surveillance we need against illegal fishing. There are a lot of ways in which we need to see defence spending lifted. Bill C-40 fits into a pattern that I am seeing from the new government, and I want to spend some time speaking of the pattern that extends beyond military spending. Of course, as we know, the Defence Investment Agency was created on October 2 of last year as a special operating agency. Other members have mentioned what has gotten done since the creation of this special operating agency, and now we would be moving it to a Crown corporation. It is important to note that while the CBC website says that the Canadian corporation for defence investment “will report to a newly created associate minister of defence”, the bill does not say that. It says that the Governor in Council “may” create a position for an associate minister of defence. When it refers to the responsible minister, it does not say the responsible minister is the Minister of National Defence. It says that at some point in the future, cabinet would decide who the responsible minister for this bill should be. Meanwhile, decisions would be made increasingly by a Crown corporation that operates at arm’s length from the government. We know that when we have debates in this place, people ask things like whether the government will commit to restoring a line for VIA Rail, for example, which is a debate I remember from within the last day or so. The response from Liberal members is that they cannot interfere with a Crown corporation. They cannot tell it that it must restore a stop because it is a Crown corporation and is separate. This bill would indeed create a Crown corporation. The Defence Investment Agency would be a Crown corporation and would remove a level of direct accountability in a line of authority to the minister. The other thing that happens is that sometimes my Conservative colleagues refer to this as the growth of bureaucracy, but I question that, because the people working in these Crown corporations do not necessarily work as civil servants within the Government of Canada. They can be hired from the private sector or wherever they come from. I am drawn to a comparison, and this may seem far afield. There is a corporation called Epiq. The Government of Canada, through Health Canada, has given Epiq the contract to manage the class-action funds available for the thalidomiders, the people in Canada who have had a lifetime of experience as survivors of thalidomide. They do not like the term “victims”. Epiq, a foreign for-profit corporation, is making $1 million a year in often refusing basic justice to thalidomiders. That is just a small piece of a growing pattern of passing things out of government over to third party private sector consultants. I question if Bill C-40 will deliver results for our defence contractors, our military and our men and women in uniform, or if it will be just another shadowy government operation that we cannot track.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“A Crown corporation can do a lot of good when it has a clear goal and stays independent from the government. This bill makes sure it will be open and accountable. I want to know if the member has any specific changes she wants to make to this bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know that the leader of the Green Party, who has been around for many years, whether as a parliamentarian or a non-parliamentarian, is always looking at how governments can be made accountable. I am sure she is aware of this. We talk about Crown corporations. I believe that with a proper mission statement, a Crown corporation can do society a great favour being at arm’s length from government. I am sure the member would agree with that. The issue is making sure that there is a transitional action to support transparency and accountability. I believe this legislation provides for that. Does the member have some specific amendments she would like to bring forward? Even if she does not name them now, I think providing them to the minister would be advantageous.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“I will propose changes to this bill. The government keeps creating agencies and government-owned corporations that lack accountability and might not get results. This bill is too vague and leaves too much open for future decisions.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, yes, I will bring forward amendments to committee, and I will certainly propose them to the minister. The difficulty is the pattern. We have seen it with Build Canada Homes, which was first a special operating agency with no accountability and then a Crown corporation. Now there is the Defence Investment Agency, which was first a special operating agency. I imagine that next we will see the Major Projects Office be made into a Crown corporation. Again, there were two rounds of announcements and a flurry of setting things up that may or may not deliver results. Certainly, the legislation would not ensure anything. It has a lot of wide open space for future decisions.

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

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

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

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“This bill gives too much power to one minister, and its rules are confusing. It says the government may appoint an associate minister for defence procurement, but it does not require it. That minister might never be appointed.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of power in the hands of one minister, but the legislation is like a pretzel. It does not say that there will be an associate minister of natural defence for procurement. It just says, in clause 13, that the Governor General “may” appoint an associate minister. It is possible to imagine that there will never be one.

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Laurentides—Labelle

Bloc Québécois
“I want to hear what changes we could make to this bill to ensure proper oversight. The procurement ombudsman told us he has no power to watch over this, so I worry about how we will keep things honest.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, some people are in good shape. I congratulate the pages for their outstanding work. Very briefly, I want to hear my colleague speak to any amendments that could be proposed. Personally, I am very concerned about accountability. When we asked, the procurement ombudsman said there is nothing he can do. If the ombudsman has absolutely no oversight authority, how can we put some kind of safeguard in place to ensure that everything stays above board?

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“I am not on this committee, but I will still propose changes to this bill. We must focus on accountability, not just speed.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think the Bloc Québécois’s participation in committees is important. Unfortunately, I do not have the opportunity to sit on committees as a member. I will still present amendments because it is not just a matter of speed. It is a matter of accountability. I see that as the key issue.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“I want to know if the Green Party leader will support this bill so it can go to committee.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, does the leader of the Green Party have the intention of supporting the legislation so that it goes to the committee stage?

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“I want this bill to go to committee, but the government must not rush the study. The government rushes committees too often, and bills are not being studied properly.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support it going to the committee stage, but I hope the government will not run roughshod over the committee and insist on inadequate testimony and witnesses. Too many committees are rushed to conclusion under the new government, and I find it very difficult to say that bills have been properly studied.

Blake Richards, Airdrie—Cochrane

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

Mr. Speaker, when rising on a debate about defence procurement, the debate needs to start with an acknowledgement and a thanks to the people it is intended to serve. That is the men and women who serve in our Canadian Armed Forces and who have served in our Canadian Armed Forces. I think it is especially important as we approach Remembrance Day, but it is something we need to do every single day of the year. We need to remember, pay our respects to and show appreciation for what they have done for the freedoms that we all enjoy. I know there are a number of veterans here in the House, even at this present moment. I want to point out that I am so honoured to live in the community of Airdrie, Alberta. It is so great at showing respect and remembrance. Just yesterday, I had the opportunity to join, as I do most years, in placing crosses at the LAV monument that we have for our Afghanistan mission and those who served in it at our museum in Airdrie. It was organized by the Airdrie Veterans Memorial Committee. People like Jason and Shawnee Hoffman, Bob McNevin, Dianne Kuhn and others were instrumental in making this happen. This gave us an opportunity to place a cross on the ground in front of the LAV monument for each of the 158 Canadian Armed Forces members who gave their lives serving our country in Afghanistan. This weekend coming up, I will have an opportunity, on Veterans Boulevard, to lay crosses for all who have fallen in all the different conflicts we have served in, the local members of our community who have given their lives in sacrifice for our freedoms. It is such an honour to represent a community that gets that right. Of course, we will have our major Remembrance Day ceremony organized by the Airdrie legion branch. I just want to make sure that we all remember, when we are talking about defence procurement, that this is what it is all about. It is about the men and women who serve this country and we need to make sure that we get it right for them. When standing to talk about Bill C-40, that is where the struggle is for me. It seems like the government’s answer to everything is more government bureaucracy. That is what we are seeing in this bill. It is another example in a long list of examples. Conservatives clearly support getting the brave men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces the equipment they need to defend our country and to do their jobs. We support a process that is efficient, that is accountable and that is driven by operational requirements. What we struggle with and what we cannot support is treating another organizational chart as a substitute for actual procurement. There is a record that is worth remembering. When our forces needed equipment for operations in Afghanistan, our previous Conservative government moved to ensure we acquired those essential capabilities. That included things like the Leopard 2 battle tanks, Chinook helicopters, Hercules tactical transport aircraft, C-17 Globemaster strategic airlifter, M777 howitzers and LAVS, armoured vehicles. All of those were among the equipment that was purchased during that period of time. They were not just announcements about a future process. They were the kinds of capabilities that our forces needed right then to do their jobs. We also launched the national shipbuilding strategy and we ensured that Canadian businesses had opportunities in the F-35 production and supply chain. Our position has been that Canadian industry should benefit from defence investment, though the military must still be able to acquire proven equipment quickly when it cannot be produced here in time. However, the first consideration should always be the security of Canada and the operational needs of our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces. I think the F-35 is a particularly instructive example of what happens when political decisions keep changing the course of procurement. The Conservative government announced the F-35 as the intended replacement for the CF-18s. In 2015, of course, Justin Trudeau campaigned on a promise not to buy the F-35s. The Liberal government then pursued an interim Super Hornet option before launching another competition in 2017. In 2022, after all of that, the Liberal government actually selected the F-35. Then in 2025, the government put procurement under review again. Canada is actually now contractually committed to 16 aircraft, while the fate of the remainder remains completely uncertain. Our pilots cannot defend Canadian airspace with another political reset. They need clarity about the aircraft that they will fly. They need the infrastructure that will support them and the timetable for bringing that capability into service. They need planes. They need jets. That is what they need. That is a perfect example of the kinds of delays and bungling that we see from the Liberal government when it comes to defence procurement. This problem is not confined to fighter aircraft. There are also questions about the government’s announcement that it had entered into negotiations with Saab concerning the GlobalEye airborne early warning and control platform. That was an announcement of a preferred supplier, not a signed procurement contract. Conservatives have called for the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer to examine whether the appropriate process was followed, and whether the air force’s operational requirements were properly considered. Canadians deserve to know how these decisions are being made, whether the operational needs of the armed forces are being put first and whether taxpayers are getting the best possible value for their money. At the same time, the condition of the equipment already in service shows why decisions matter and why decisions need to happen quickly. The 2024-25 national defence figures show that 59.6% of key maritime fleets, 51% of key land fleets and 42.3% of key aerospace fleets are not serviceable. Our soldiers, sailors and aviators need working equipment. They do not need just simple announcements about how Ottawa will organize the procurement process. They actually need the equipment. Now let us consider this so-called Defence Investment Agency. In October of last year, the Liberals established this Defence Investment Agency as a special operating agency within Public Services and Procurement Canada. In the spring of this year, they proposed a stand-alone agency through Bill C-31, and now, with Bill C-40, they propose a Crown corporation under a new associate minister of national defence for procurement. That is three versions of the same initiative in about a year. They are not even able to be efficient at creating efficiencies. The government’s own plans proposed about $31 million over four years to establish the original agency, and then another $104 million over five years to establish the stand-alone entity. However, the question still remains, what did the original structure actually deliver? What did the second proposal solve? Why are we now being asked to approve a third model before Canadians can have a clear accounting of results, if any? The Liberals promised to remove duplicative approvals and red tape when they created this agency, that was supposed to be the point of it. Yet here we are debating another structure, another board and another ministerial title. It is more bureaucracy. The government needs to tell Parliament and Canadians which decisions were delayed, which barriers remain and how this bill supposedly removes them. Otherwise, it risks replacing them with yet another announcement. The bottom line here is the men and women in uniform serve this country and defend our freedoms, putting their lives on the line every day. Wainwright, of course, is a tragic example of how every single day they put on that uniform, their lives are on the line. What we as parliamentarians owe them and what the government owes them is to ensure they have the equipment and the resources they need to do their jobs. What we seem to be getting from the government, instead, is more bureaucracy, delays and red tape. The one thing that we never seem to see is actual results for the men and women who we send, on behalf of this country, to defend our freedoms, and that is pathetic.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal

Linked statement

“More people are applying to join our military than at any point in the last 30 years. Our government is spending 2% of our national income on defence, which is far more than the Conservatives did. We have increased military pay and equipment. I want the Conservatives to explain why they oppose a Crown corporation.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, just because a Conservative says it, does not make it true. We have a record number of people applying to become members of the forces. In fact, last year was a 30-year high. We have a Prime Minister and a government that is investing 2% of the GDP into the Canadian Forces. We can contrast that to the 1%. If we factor out the Coast Guard element being brought in, like the United States has done, we are still miles ahead of what the member’s leader, when he sat in cabinet, had in contributions to the Canadian Forces. The pay has gone up, as well as the materials, and now we are talking about a Crown corporation. Tell us why you oppose Crown corporations.

Blake Richards, Airdrie—Cochrane

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

Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Laurentides—Labelle

Bloc Québécois
“I worry this new agency will just approve decisions without checking them. Members of Parliament will not be able to watch it closely, and that could lead to special treatment for the Prime Minister's friends. I want to know if my colleague shares this concern.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, earlier in my speech, I mentioned the concern that an agency like this could become a place merely for rubber-stamping, where people just sign off and say, “There you go, it’s done.” I would like to know whether my colleague shares this concern about a structure where parliamentarians may not always be aware of what is going on and cannot keep a close eye on things to make sure the Prime Minister’s friends are not given preferential treatment.

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