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

Blake Richards, Airdrie—Cochrane

Conservative
“The military needs the resources to do its job. We must deliver results without adding more bureaucracy.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 33 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, what matters is delivering results. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces must be given the resources they need to do their jobs. There must be no additional bureaucracy. That is all that matters.

Bob Zimmer, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies

Conservative
“We do not need another bill or more bureaucracy to fix military procurement. The government can already do the right thing without passing a new law. The Liberals only make bills like this when they want to avoid doing the actual work.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 13 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, first of all, I want to thank the member for his advocacy for veterans. I do not know anybody who has been stronger as an advocate for our vets over the last number of years. This is what Liberals do with a bill like this. When they really do not want to do something, they say, “You know, we need a law in order to do the right thing”, when they could be doing the right thing as it is. When Liberals really want to do something, the Prime Minister just does it on his own. Whether he wants to be an EU associate member or have a gun grab, he just does it, but when the Liberals do not want to do something, they create a need for a bill. Is another bill really necessary for another bureaucracy for the government to do the right thing when it comes to military procurement?

Blake Richards, Airdrie—Cochrane

Conservative
“I do not support this bill. The military needs equipment to do its job, not more bureaucracy. This bill creates bureaucracy and does not ensure soldiers get the equipment they need.”
  • 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, the answer is simply no. The bottom line is that the men and women of the armed forces need the equipment to do their jobs. They do not need more bureaucracy. The bill proposes to create more bureaucracy, but it does not necessarily propose to get the men and women the equipment they need to do their jobs, and that is the problem with the bill.

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative

Linked statement

“I oppose this bill. It just creates more bureaucracy and gives the government more power instead of giving our military the real strength and equipment it needs. We need real results to protect Canada and stand up to authoritarian countries, not more red tape.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Signal 29 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 been a typical day in Ottawa. I started off this morning speaking about the Liberal tanker ban and how the Liberals are piling on red tape instead of solving the problem, and lo and behold, here we are at the end of the day talking about military procurement. It is the same theme. It is more Liberal red tape instead of trying to cut through red tape to get results. We have heard some fine speeches, with some things I even agree with from government members who were talking about the importance of the military and so forth, but what is the substance of the bill they put before the House today? It is a third iteration of a defence agency. It would be more bureaucracy: a new Crown corporation with unprecedented powers to administer. It would reshuffle the bureaucratic structures, giving the Liberals a bit more power with less accountability and not delivering on the results that Canadians expect. We are, of course, debating this bill and this issue at a time of intensifying conflict and challenge around the world. I believe we are in the midst of a new kind of cold war, with escalating conflict and competition between free democratic nations and authoritarian revisionist powers that would like to undermine freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. This is the nature of the struggle and competition we face today. In the midst of that challenge, we need a Canada that is strong, that meets its NATO spending commitments, that does not just focus on dollars but on capabilities and results, and that is building partnerships with like-minded democracies to stand up to authoritarian revisionist powers and expand the space of human freedom by defending the freedom of our people here at home and by defending and advancing the space of freedom around the world. This requires a strong and principled Canada acting based on our values and building up our capabilities. In the midst of this, unfortunately, the Prime Minister has emphasized a foreign policy that prioritizes a renewed pivot to engagement with the CCP, which is the only thing consistent about Liberal policy over the last few decades. The one thing the Liberals have not changed is that they will always look for any excuse to deepen relationships with the Government of China, often in ways that are not at all in Canada’s interests. The Prime Minister also speaks about middle-power partnerships. It is important for the House to note that when the Prime Minister speaks of middle powers, it is a description of size, not values. There are many different kinds of middle powers, some with which we have many common interests and values and others with which we do not. We on this side of the House prefer instead to emphasize the importance of seeking strong partnerships with like-minded nations where we share common values and objectives and where we can work together to advance our interests and values in a challenging world. All of these things require strengthened Canadian capacity and capabilities, which is why we have been calling for more investments in our military since the beginning. I recall that in 2015, in the very first thrown speech of the government, it called for a leaner military. It was signalling even then a desire to reduce the capacity of our military. Conservatives pushed back then. We have pushed back consistently, calling for a strong Canada with stronger capabilities in our military capacity and in other areas so that we can defend our interests and values here at home and around the world. The tension that has been caused between Canada and the U.S. because of the decisions of the American administration is unfortunate. In the midst of that dynamic, it is all the more important that we emphasize the strength of Canada and the defence of our values, and that we not allow Liberal politicians to use this as an excuse to pivot toward tightening relationships with authoritarian powers. We need strong relationships with democracies. We need more democratic partners around the world. We need to strengthen our collaboration with democratic partners everywhere and to do so on a foundation of strengthening our own capacity and capabilities. This bill, unfortunately, is not about doing this. This bill is not about moving toward the kinds of real changes and results that we need to see. Rather, it is about a bureaucratic reorganization, with bureaucratic changes that do not deliver the results that our country needs and that are required at this time. As I said at the beginning, we have a government that wants to send signals and talk about its commitment on certain things, but that has involved putting forward legislation that piles on, moves or shifts red tape without delivering results. Bill C-40 is not going to strengthen our ability to equip our military in these challenging times. We have been calling on the government for years to make the commitments that are required. That includes defending our own security, defending our country from foreign interference. It includes addressing the very real threats to this country that come in various forms, combatting foreign interference, not developing strategic partnerships with powers that are hostile to our interests and our values, but instead building up our capacity, defending our interests and defending our security. That is very much what we need to be doing right now. In these times and in all times, we need a strong Canada with those enhanced capabilities. That is what we stand for in the opposition, in believing there is a better way and we need a government that is focused on results. I will say, in conclusion, the government will ultimately be judged by the results. It is not going to be judged by the words, by the number of bills, by the fact that again we have a third iteration of a new defence procurement in barely more than as many months. The government will be judged by whether or not it delivers in defending our security, in protecting our country from hostile actors, in building up our economy and in the various commitments that it has made. We will hold it accountable not for the words, but for the results that are delivered on defence and on every other file.

Natilien Joseph, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert

Liberal
“I want to ask my colleague a question. Does he believe we should trade with more allied countries to strengthen our ties with them?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 38 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, I have deep respect for my colleague, even though we sometimes have differences of opinion in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The question I have for my colleague is this: Does my colleague truly believe in diversifying our markets in order to strengthen our trade ties with other countries, our allies, to be specific? Does he believe in that?

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“I support trading with more countries around the world. The previous Conservative government signed trade deals with many nations. The Liberals failed to build the infrastructure needed to take advantage of those deals.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, not only do I support diversifying our trade, but I worked as a staffer in the Stephen Harper government that led the way on this diversification. In 2006, when Conservatives took office, we had barely any engagements in terms of free trade outside of North America. After Stephen Harper’s tenure in office, we had signed free trade agreements with nations representing over two-thirds of the world’s GDP, with Asia-Pacific, as well as the European free trade area, the European Union and various individual countries. We made significant progress. The problem was that the Liberal government that followed did not follow those trade agreements with the kinds of infrastructure development and development of opportunities that would have allowed us to seize those opportunities. We needed to build up the infrastructure capacity to really realize the potential of those trade agreements, but it is not correct at all that this idea of diversifying our trading arrangements is something new. It is an old idea championed by Conservatives and left on the shelf by Liberals for 11 years.

Sébastien Lemire, Abitibi—Témiscamingue

Bloc Québécois
“This bill creates a new defence agency. I worry the Prime Minister is using it to appoint his friends. I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear from my colleague, who is known in this House for his strong sense of ethics and who often speaks out precisely on issues concerning the close ties that might exist, for example, between a prime minister and a friend he appoints. Curiously, we realize that this is exactly what is happening with this proposed agency. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on this.

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“Government ethics matter. I worry this bill gives the government too much power and could lead to abuse. I want a committee to study these concerns.”
  • 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 thank the member for the kind words. Yes, I think ethics in government is very important, and I am concerned about the concentration of power associated with this bill, as well as the potential abuses that could occur of that power. I look forward to further study on these issues at committee, but I very much share the concerns raised by my colleague and hope this issue will get more airing when it is studied at committee.

Alex Ruff, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound

Conservative
“This new corporation will handle tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. The bill does not include enough rules for Parliament to watch over it or for leaders to report back. Does the member share my concern about this lack of oversight?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to build on that last question a little bit. This organization, this Crown corporation, if it comes into existence, is going to have the ability to literally be accountable for tens, if not hundreds, of billions of Canadian taxpayer dollars. I have concerns over the lack of parliamentary oversight with the way this legislation is currently drafted and how this minister and this CEO will be reporting back, if at all, because it seems to be lacking that within the legislation itself. Does the hon. colleague share the same concerns about the lack of parliamentary oversight and accountability within the bill?

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“I oppose this bill. It concentrates power, removes accountability, and shuffles bureaucracy just to hide the government's poor results on military and foreign policy.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 40 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
  • 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, yes, I do. I thank my colleague for raising this issue. The fundamental question in the debate on Bill C-40 is what the legislation would actually change. This is an opportunity for us to talk about various issues in military performance, military procurement and foreign policy more broadly, but the question in our vote is, “What would this bill actually change?” The effect of this bill is a concentration of power, a lack of accountability and a bureaucratic restructuring to some extent, but it is designed to mask a lack of results we have seen from the government on this and many other files.

Natilien Joseph, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert

Liberal
“Can the member tell small and medium-sized businesses that this bill will help them create good jobs?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to job creation in Canada. Can my colleague send a message to our small and medium-sized enterprises that Bill C-40 will benefit them and help them create good jobs?

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“I am worried about jobs in Canada. The share of people working is the lowest it has been in almost 30 years. My party has a plan to fix this.”
  • 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
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 36 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, I am very concerned about the state of jobs in this country. We have not heard the government address this, but we have the lowest workforce participation in this country in almost 30 years. I have big concerns. We have put forward a substantial jobs plan to address it, which I will be talking about a little more in the upcoming late show, so stay tuned.

James Bezan, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman

Conservative
“All parties have talked about passing this defence bill without a recorded vote.”
Official Hansard

There have been discussions among all parties to have Bill C-40 pass on division.

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

Liberal
“I want the House to agree to end our work for the day early.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:43 p.m. so we can adjourn the House.

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