Debates of Oct. 26th, 2026

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

[An hon. member]

It is.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is not fully, and the member opposite knows that.

The government spent billions on this plane, and there are still ongoing issues with it.

There is also GlobalEye. This is the one the Prime Minister interfered on and personally chose, so he could put hand over heart and say that we are working with our European allies, elbows up, instead of picking something else. Instead of going to a proper procurement process, we have GlobalEye, which is like an AEW&C plane.

What is the problem with it? It is meant for a small European theatre, perhaps not for a country that is, surprisingly, the second-largest country in the world. I guess the government forgot that. It has no inflight refuelling capabilities, does not have 360-degree viewing for its radar and does not meet the requirements as set out by the RCAF, yet the government interfered with the procurement process to pick a plane that is not suitable for Canada.

What is going to be perhaps the largest procurement ever is submarines. I am hearing now, and the government is free to refute it, that there is a stoppage in negotiations because apparently the German sub does not meet Royal Canadian Navy requirements. The government made a big splash, saying that it was going to do this and bring in so many jobs. It does not seem to focus on delivering what is best for our armed forces at the lowest price. It seems to focus on what is best for photo ops.

I want to get back to the CC-295 Kingfisher. This one was famous for its complexity in the RFP process, which was so bloated with the requirements set by the Liberals that there was a legendary viral photo of Airbus delivering its RFP. It had to rent a U-Haul. The RFP was 100,000 pages. For Leonardo, the competing bidder, it was 180,000 pages. Somehow, with an RFP so complicated, set by the government, that it required 180,000 pages, the Liberals missed advising Leonardo that there were some loopholes that they could put in on the bids that allowed Airbus, despite putting in a bid 25% more expensive, to win the deal. Leonardo sued.

What did the government do instead of fixing its procurement process? It quietly gave Leonardo a sole-source contract, worth billions of dollars, for the CH-149 Cormorant. Airbus is happy. Leonardo is happy. Who is not happy? The taxpayers and the RCAF are not happy.

The government so overmodified the Airbus plane to justify purchasing. It is overweight and underpowered. Regulations require it to maintain a certain altitude on one engine, but the Kingfisher cannot. The equipment that it added so threw off the centre of gravity that it had to add counterweights, which of course added to the weight issue. There are icing vulnerabilities and modifications that changed the slipstream. As it was, search and rescue techs jumping out of the plane would get dragged into the airstream, bounced along the plane and killed or injured.

What is the Liberals' solution to their political meddling and incompetence? They would create the Defence Investment Agency. They hire their friend Doug Guzman, friend of the Prime Minister, and give him $1 million a year. Despite his comfy role and $1 million a year, he threatens to quit because they cannot get past the sclerotic process of procurement inflicted on the process by Canadians. Therefore they bring out Bill C-40. Even before the DIA is birthed by royal assent through the BIA, they would basically be killing it, replacing it with Bill C-40. The Liberals make a mess, create a bureaucracy to fix the mess and then would create another bureaucracy to fix the bureaucracy that was to fix the original mess.

It reminds me of an episode from Yes, Minister, the episode “Jobs for the Boys”. The government tries to hide and resolve the financial failure of a mismanaged project. Rather than admitting its mistake and fixing the mistake, it resolves it by establishing a quango. What is a quango? It is a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization. Instead of Bill C-40, the government, I think, should have named the bill “C-quango”.

The famous Sir Humphrey explains that a failing government can always be rescued by establishing a new independent board or agency that allows the government to hand out jobs to its allies, such as Mr. Guzman, while adding a new layer of officialdom to oversee the original disaster. Does this sound familiar? Yes, it does. I want to quote right from the episode. Bernard says, “Sir Humphrey, this is a bit of a cover-up, isn't it?” Sir Humphrey answers, “Certainly not, Bernard. It's a responsible discretion exercised in the national interest to prevent unnecessary disclosure of eminently justifiable procedures in which the untimely revelation could severely impair public confidence.”

Once again, quite often it is The Simpsons that is foreseeing the future in politics, but here we have another example in Yes, Minister.

We do not need a quango. We do not need a Bill C-40 to fix procurement. We do not need a Defence Investment Agency to fix procurement. What we do need is for the Liberal government to depoliticize procurement. We need it to get out of the way.

My colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound commented that during the Afghan war, in which he served, we were able to purchase howitzers and other weapons quickly through sole-sourcing. It can be done, and it can be done right. The government needs to focus on the best equipment for our men and women in uniform, at the best price for taxpayers, not on what is best for its announcements and photo ops.

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

Madam Speaker, I was at a press conference a few years back where we announced that the Hercules aircraft, through 435 squadron, was going to be replaced by the Kingfisher. The Kingfisher is going to be operational later this year for search and rescue. I am very much familiar with it because that is the branch I used to serve for when I was in the Canadian Forces, search and rescue, which was then based out of Edmonton and is now based out of the city of Winnipeg.

At the end of the day, when we think of the Bank of Canada, the CBC and the post office, these are Crown corporations with a high sense of accountability. If we think of provincial Crown corporations, whether it is Manitoba Hydro, Hydro-Québec or autopac, they have proven to be very effective. We have a Prime Minister who has now raised our GDP military spending to 2%, higher than Stephen Harper ever even dreamed about. I think Stephen Harper one year raised it to 1%.

Does the member not see that accountability can be held through Crown corporations?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I can only assume that the member opposite is playing out a scene from the Seinfeld episode “The Opposite”. He stands in this House and gives CBC as an example of openness and accountability, along with Canada Post. At the operations committee, we heard the president of Canada Post tell us at that for five years the government blocked the publication and implementation of its board's strategic plan. The president stated publicly that the government's political interference is a big reason that it is losing over $1 billion a year, yet the government wants to use the Canada Post business example as a reason to hand over the reins for defence spending. I think not.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton West for his very strong intervention pointing out all the political interference we have witnessed already from the Liberals.

My colleague is the chair of the government operations committee, or, as we like to call it, the mighty OGGO. He hears from the Parliamentary Budget Officer on a frequent basis. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in the last week or so, was criticizing the government for its overuse of Crown corporations to hide its ongoing structural deficits by moving things underneath Crown corporations, especially the spending that is going to take place under National Defence. It is going to turn spending into assets, which does not protect taxpayers. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, there were a lot of concerns expressed by the PBO with respect to transparency, the government's ability to hide debt and other issues with Crown corporations.

One of the other issues we heard about, which the member for Winnipeg North was going on about, is meeting the 2%. At committee, the Coast Guard came and told us that its money is now being counted as defence spending, even though it is for activities such as counting fish and scientific studies. This is the 2% the government is bragging about. Again, it needs to focus on procuring the weapons and equipment that our defence department and our men and women in uniform need, not playing that counting fish is a defence activity.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to get up again.

The member for Edmonton West was talking about the ongoing creative accounting. The Coast Guard is a case in point. It is a civilian organization that does a great job at navigation research, icebreaking and policing our fishery, but it does not have any constabulary power at all. It told the defence committee that although 100% of its funding is now calculated under National Defence, it is only a civilian organization, and that if it runs into any threats of a hot conflict developing between Canada and an adversary, it would flee the situation.

I would like my colleague to talk about the other creative accounting we are seeing from the Liberals, as with Transport Canada aircraft, that has been moved to National Defence, rather than them buying the kit we need to keep Canada safe.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Manitoba said it all. What we want from the government is accountability and transparency. We will work with the government to serve our men and women in uniform and get them the right equipment, but the government has to do its part as well.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Labrador.

This is my first opportunity to speak in the House since the tragedy at Canadian Forces Base Wainwright, so I want to begin by offering my deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of those who tragically died in this tragedy. My thoughts are also with those who were injured, their families and the entire community as they grieve and support one another through this difficult time.

I rise today to give my full support to Bill C-30, which will transform the way Canada procures military equipment, invests in defence and, above all, builds its domestic defence industry.

The Defence Investment Agency was created in October 2025 to speed up military procurement, but transforming it into a Crown corporation could reduce bureaucracy. I will come back to this later, but companies seeking defence contracts face significant challenges. The government has invested billions of dollars in defence, and that is very good. We want to meet NATO's targets, but we also need to ensure that these investments benefit Canadian businesses and workers.

The agency was originally established to modernize defence procurement. That was a very good first step, but it did not go far enough. Bill C-40 will finally give the agency the authority and independence it needs to accelerate the contract awarding process, reduce red tape and better coordinate government efforts. This is very important for accelerating and facilitating SMEs' access to the defence market. This is a very practical response to the concerns that businesses have shared with us. It is also a way to quickly turn our defence investments into quality jobs for Canadians, innovation, and economic spinoffs at a time when we really need them.

I want to focus specifically on the aerospace industry in Quebec and Canada, especially because Quebec's aerospace industry is a major asset. This summer, I had the pleasure of organizing a round table that brought together both large corporations and SMEs from Quebec's aerospace and defence industry. Bombardier was there, but so were many other innovative SMEs. In Quebec, we have outstanding expertise, world-class businesses and a network of specialized companies that contribute to our ability to innovate in Canada and around the world in the aerospace industry.

During this round table with businesses, one very clear message emerged. One of the biggest obstacles to their growth and ability to secure contracts is the slow, bureaucratic pace of the defence procurement process. Their representatives explained to me that the historic investments we have announced for the defence sector are not automatically translating into jobs and economic spinoffs, because it takes so long to get contracts signed. These contracts are essential if businesses are to invest, hire staff and engage with other suppliers. For example, if Bombardier wins a defence contract, the entire chain of SMEs in Quebec and Canada stands to benefit as a result.

The participants also pointed out that SMEs often struggle to access defence tenders, even if the government has already awarded them contracts and their technology is well known. In short, it takes a very long time for contracts to be awarded.

Not only do we need to invest in defence, but we also need to ensure that our investments translate quickly into contracts, innovation and well-paying jobs for Canadians. Transforming the Defence Investment Agency is very important for doing that. Not only are we streamlining the processes, but another very aspect is that we are bringing together expertise within the agency to speed up procurement. If we do the right thing with this bill, we will finally be able to respond directly to the main concern expressed by the industry.

Our aim is not just to spend more on defence, but to transform these investments into strong, lasting Canadian industrial capabilities that benefit our businesses and our workers, while ensuring the sovereignty of our amazing country. The agency's core mandate is to combine and build on existing defence procurement expertise within government through a single organization focused on a very specific objective. Rather than duplicate the use of resources, it pools operational knowledge and expertise on procurement contracts in one place. As I said, one of the concerns that was mentioned during the round table was that companies have to explain their expertise or technology to one agency and then turn around and explain it again to another, even after receiving approval. They often have to repeat things twice. Now, everything will come together in a single agency.

The agency's transformation reflects our government's commitment to build a strong, secure and sovereign Canada. With more autonomy and stronger contractual authority, the agency will finally be able to ease its administrative burden and improve its efficiency and speed, because these investments are needed now. This will strengthen our country's ability to defend itself while providing more accountability.

In February 2026, the unveiling of the first-ever defence industrial strategy marked a key step in modernizing our procurement system. The strategy already called for a whole-of-government approach aimed at strengthening our defence industrial base. We are now seeing the results of this strategy, since we have finally met the NATO defence spending target of 2% of our GDP. We have also reaffirmed our commitment to meeting the NATO target of investing 5% of GDP by 2035. The agency will obviously play a key role in meeting those targets.

We are at a hinge moment. Global uncertainty, supply chain disruptions and evolving security challenges have made one thing very clear: Protecting Canadians and safeguarding our sovereignty, our economy and our military capability is what will give us industrial and military strength.

Our investments in defence are also a powerful driver of growth for our economy and our innovative sectors. Let us consider just a few examples. Drone technology was developed for defence, but it can also be used in agriculture. Military aerospace innovations benefit the entire aerospace industry. The same is true for shipbuilding and satellites. There is a great company in the Outaouais region, Telesat, that builds satellites. That also benefits AI and cybersecurity.

All of these examples show that by working with an effective agency, we will be able to build a strong and sovereign Canada.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome my colleague to the veterans affairs committee.

One of the things we hear in the veterans affairs committee is that there is a continual lack of recognition for veterans when military contracts go out. If we look south of the border, the U.S. has a procurement strategy of including 3% of small businesses owned by veterans, and in fact, that has actually been exceeded to 5%. We hear all these numbers being thrown around by the Liberals, but we are not hearing anything about veterans. We have seen sole-sourcing.

Could the member expand a little on her thoughts about why veterans are not being recognized?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, one thing we are studying at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs right now, which is very important for our veterans, is how to recognize the amazing skills they acquired in the forces. The forces now include drones, as I mentioned, cybersecurity, AI, all of those technologies that are so important to the defence sector. When they retire from the forces, they are sometimes as young as 34, and they want a rewarding career after the forces. They want to feel that they are contributing to the service of their country that they love.

Our job, and I invite all members to support me, is to help them recognize the skills they acquired in dual-use technology and how they can translate those into civilian jobs so that we can build very rewarding careers for all of our veterans.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain in greater detail how this bill will help veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces successfully transition to civilian life.

I agree with her. I have seen cases like this in my constituency. Many individuals leave the armed forces for a variety of reasons, only to find themselves with nothing. They have no job, no social network and no recognition for their service.

I have studied Bill C-40, but I am not sure I can see any concrete improvements in it. In her view, how will Bill C-40 help these people?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope my colleague will agree that aerospace is one of the flagship sectors of Quebec's economy. I have spoken with companies in the sector, and one Quebec-based SME told me that it could hire 300 people tomorrow morning, but our educational institutions are not currently able to train enough workers to meet the demand for these highly rewarding careers.

We have veterans who have acquired these skills, this expertise, and who are simply waiting for those qualifications to be recognized. We are currently working with certain educational institutions to accelerate the recognition of skills acquired in the Canadian Armed Forces so that veterans can step in to fill labour shortages. The aerospace sector alone will need 65,000 new workers over the next 10 years. These are technical trades. Our role is to recognize veterans' expertise and translate it into a certification that allows them to practise a Red Seal trade and pursue a meaningful career involving a wide range of technologies.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am somewhat disappointed with the answer I received earlier, but I will move on.

The big question is, is this an admission of failure by the Liberal government to procure equipment? We have been waiting for years for F-35s. We have been waiting for submarine replacements. We are waiting on Snowbird replacements. We are waiting on continual equipment replacement by the Liberal government. It keeps dragging the puck, and all we hear are excuses. This seems to be another excuse.

Is this another excuse, or is this an admission of failure on bad policy that the Liberals have had in place for over 10 years?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague will be voting in favour of Bill C‑40, because its goal is get contracts awarded faster to our defence companies.

I want to come back to the aerospace industry. Contracts could easily be awarded. By combining expertise, we could make sure contracts are awarded faster.

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, like my colleague, this is the first time I have spoken on a bill in the House since October 17. I would like to bring condolences from the people of Labrador with respect to the tragic loss to Canada, to all of us and especially to the families of those who lost their lives on October 17.

At the heart of the ongoing debate around Bill C-40 in the House lies a simple notion, that the Canadian Armed Forces deserve to have the equipment they need when they need it. It was, after all, the opening comment from my colleague across the way just a few short moments ago. Our armed forces and Canadian Coast Guard work tirelessly to protect our country's sovereignty, defend our people, respond to emergencies and maintain international peace and security. The women and men who serve our country must have the capabilities they need to do their jobs. That includes modern, reliable equipment with advanced features and technology for maximum advantage in the field.

Canada's defence procurement has long been complicated, lengthy and reliant on international suppliers. The old methods of defence procurement involve a decentralized approach that has not been, and is not, fit for the current geopolitical realities, with responsibilities and accountability spread over too many separate departments. Canada needs a defence procurement system that can keep pace with the world around us.

Our armed forces need the right equipment. We need new, nimble and more streamlined methods of procurement. Our industry needs clear direction, and Canadians expect us to deliver. Bill C-40, the strengthening Canada's defence sector act, is the next step in that important work: giving the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard the capabilities they need when they need them. Providing modern, reliable capabilities to our armed forces is at the very core of the Defence Investment Agency's mission.

The DIA was created in October 2025 under a temporary structure of a special operating agency within Public Services and Procurement Canada to help Canada respond to current and emerging security threats. The overarching goal was to modernize equipment delivery and ensure our troops receive the capabilities they need when they need them. Creating the DIA as a special operating agency allowed us to improve delivery immediately, while developing its permanent structure. However, that was never intended to be the destination.

Over the last year, the agency quickly got to work on its mission to transform defence procurement in Canada, reducing delays, cutting red tape, streamlining decision-making and delivering critical capabilities more quickly, transparently and with full accountability to Canadians. As a special operating agency, it has succeeded in its mission, to a point. In the year since the DIA was created, several major procurements have been completed or are on track to be completed faster and earlier than expected. The agency has reached key milestones on a number of complex and highly valued projects.

Now guided by Canada's first defence industrial strategy, the agency has made considerable progress in important projects, such as the next-generation rifle for our army, new aircraft, space capabilities and the next generation of submarines. The special operating agency model has proven its value. It has shown us that we can accelerate defence procurement.

Instituting the Defence Investment Agency as a permanent organization with an updated mandate, authorities and flexibility will give us the tools to accelerate even faster. Moreover, it will provide a critical level of agility to meet the serious defence and security challenges that Canada is facing. This would allow us to deliver military capabilities sooner, strengthen Canadian industry and remain accountable for the results. This is what Bill C-40 would accomplish, taking progress to the next level and using a more businesslike approach.

I believe many, if not most, members in the House would agree that there is a strong need for a single point of accountability for defence procurement. Under the previous, decentralized system, responsibility was spread out across multiple departments. Many organizations had a role, but no single minister was accountable for delivering results. Bill C-40 would set a dedicated ministerial leadership within the national defence portfolio, the associate minister of national defence for procurement. It is important to note that Bill C-40 would allow the new associate minister to perform financial assistance operations related to production or investment in respect of defence or national security.

These new powers would allow the government to play a more active role in strengthening Canada's defence and national security industrial base. This is how we are fostering innovation that supports strategic capabilities and moving swiftly to ensure that critical technologies and manufacturing capabilities remain available to Canada and to our allies. We have already streamlined approval processes under the DIA's temporary structure and achieved many things in terms of accelerating and improving procurement, as I mentioned earlier. However, we need to go further, and Bill C-40 would take us there.

In closing, as Canadians face an unpredictable and unstable world, our government is ensuring that our armed forces remain ready for the challenges ahead. We are rebuilding and reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces to meet the moment, so that Canadians who serve have access to the dependable, modern equipment they need. We are laser focused on delivering on the defence industrial strategy and supporting the buy Canadian policy by tapping into and using a more businesslike approach. We are collaborating with like-minded, reliable and trusted industry partners to create new opportunities for Canadian defence industries, ensuring Canadian expertise has a strong hand in keeping us safe and secure.

Canada's government is protecting Canadians by making generational investments in defence and security, and we need institutions built to match the scale and urgency of that ambition. That is why the Defence Investment Agency is transitioning to a permanent organization with an updated mandate, as well as a centralized office with greater accountability. Under this model, the DIA will move faster to make strategic investments and deliver capabilities we need for the dedicated women and men on the front lines of our armed forces. This is about putting in place the right long-term institutional framework to improve defence procurement and delivering better results for Canadians.

Bill C-40, once passed, will dramatically improve outcomes for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces and all Canadians. I urge all members in the House to support this legislation.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I consider my colleague from Labrador a friend. I would just like to ask him a few things about his intervention. Under the Chrétien government, the Liberals came out with a defence white paper. It was about buying off-the-shelf technology, and that was, basically, relying on foreign countries for equipment. I heard my colleague say that put us in a bad situation, and we are reliant on foreign nations.

Under a Conservative government, we invested on the ground floor of the F-35s, which included small businesses in Canada being able to gain from the contracts. Now the Liberals are dragging the puck on that.

What side of the fence is my colleague on? If I get two Liberals in the same room, they are arguing between each other, and at some point one of them is going to win. Which one is going to win?

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I share the same respect for my colleague across the way. We have worked collaboratively on many things since I came here as a new member of Parliament.

I would say to my hon. colleague that the world has changed. The premise of his question, while well stated, does not recognize that the world has changed. This legislation would allow us to invest more into our military but build an industry right here in Canada so those investments that are made would go to create jobs, maybe in his riding or in another riding. It is all about the women and men in uniform and giving them the tools they need.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Labrador for his excellent speech.

He talked about the importance of being able to make decisions quickly.

Could he explain to the House how, in his opinion, this new agency will quickly deliver on its promises for the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, coming from the aerospace sector before coming to the House, I know all too well how challenging procurement is in Canada when it comes to identifying the need and then waiting through the process as contract tender specs continue to change and so on.

To answer my colleague's question, we must identify the need, make sure it is well pronounced, have an RFP that is developed accurately through this new process, and get through the procurement process to get the goods required by our Canadian Armed Forces.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, is this not a way for the government to shirk some of its responsibility? Is it not a bit risky to create an agency to handle such crucial and sensitive defence investments? Questions are already being raised.

First, there is the appointment of the agency's president, who is close to the Prime Minister and has a background at Goldman Sachs. Then, that person's salary is around $700,000 a year, which is more than that of most senior public servants. That is more than what the Minister of Finance and National Revenue himself earns, and it is more than the Prime Minister's salary, though interest on his investments is not included in that figure.

I wonder if this is a way for the government to offload some of its responsibility. When there are questionable decisions, when there are suspicions of misconduct or scandals, which could happen, even if it is just cases of misconduct that need to be investigated, the government might then be able to claim that it was not them, that it was the agency, and that it cannot be held responsible. On the contrary, when it comes to defence investments, it is absolutely essential for the government to be at the helm.

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague that it is quite the opposite. Setting up a Crown corporation would take it away from politics. It would allow people who are trained and experts in the field, who will most likely sit on the board of directors, to direct the procurement policy and get the best deal for Canadians so we can buy the products and items that our Canadian Forces need.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-40, the strengthening Canada's defence sector act. When this debate opened, the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement read the House a long list of what the Defence Investment Agency has achieved. Then he said something that I agree with completely: Some were contracts, some were preferred suppliers and some were arrangements, and we should not confuse them. He is right, so let us not. A preferred supplier is not a contract. A contract is not a delivery.

Let me be clear about where Conservatives stand. Procurement in this country is too slow. Our men and women in uniform have waited too long for the equipment they needed yesterday. Going faster is the right goal. We do not object to going faster. We object to going faster with nobody watching.

We know it can be done. During the war in Afghanistan, a Conservative government bought C-17s, Chinooks and new Hercules quickly using the urgent operational and national security exceptions that already existed. That speed came from political leadership. It did not require handing unchecked power to one person.

This is the third version of this agency in a year. It started inside Public Services and Procurement Canada. Six months later, the government buried a plan to make it a stand-alone entity in an omnibus budget bill. Before that plan has even passed, it wants a Crown corporation instead. That is three structures in one year. How is that for Liberals making themselves look busy while accomplishing nothing? There is no shortage of decisions, and how they were made tells us exactly what this bill would make routine.

Let us take the fighter trainer as an example. Since March 2024, the Royal Canadian Air Force has not had a lead-in fighter trainer. The Hawks are gone. The 419 squadron is on hiatus, and our future fighter pilots are being trained in Italy, Texas and other locations around the globe.

How did the government pick a replacement? It was not through an open competition. The Prime Minister launched negotiations for the Italian M-346 with Prime Minister Meloni on the sidelines of the G7, even though Canada had received proposals from American and South Korean manufacturers. It may well be a fine aircraft, but a leader-to-leader handshake is not a procurement process. Under Bill C-40, a government-to-government deal would be one of 17 ways a minister could skip competition entirely.

Then there is GlobalEye. The government named Saab's GlobalEye as its preferred airborne early warning aircraft at CANSEC in May. It is a capability that our air force badly needs, but according to reports, the decision came as a shock to the RCAF itself and to other manufacturers ready to bid on the contract. Saab did not meet with National Defence or the air force about operational requirements until weeks after the announcement. The technical assessment that followed found real shortfalls: limited radar coverage, no air-to-air refuelling capability and incompatibility with NORAD's secure data network.

That is why Conservatives have asked the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer to investigate. If this is how decisions get made while Parliament still has some oversight, imagine how they will be under the bill that would remove it.

This bill would create a Crown corporation that we are told would operate at arm's length, but the minister can direct it to do or not do any procurement activity, and the bill says it must comply. Ministers keep the control. The House loses the line of sight. We have seen what happens when public money flows through a body the House cannot see into. The green slush fund handed out public money with too little oversight. Bill C-40 would build that same kind of body and hand it $1 billion at a time.

Plainly, this bill would hand a new associate minister oligarchic powers to direct a corporation with a billion-dollar fund, to have it lend money and buy shares in companies, and to do it all while the House is kept at arm's length. This is not reform. This is concentration.

The secretary of state defended clause 9 by calling it an “unambiguous tie to the government”. That is exactly the point. This is not at arm's length. It is a minister's hand on a billion-dollar fund.

The government is promising a once-in-a-generation build-out-of-Canada defence economy, so let me ask a simple question: Who is better prepared to build, maintain and sustain military equipment than the people who use it? They are mechanics, technicians, logisticians, pilots and project managers who have run operations under conditions that most private sector managers will never see.

On the veterans affairs committee, we hear in study after study that veterans' skills are not recognized and that the government has no measurable targets, and there is nothing in the bill and nothing in this strategy to change that. There is no target for veteran-owned businesses and no credit in contract evaluation for hiring veterans. There is nothing.

Let us look south. In the United States, Congress set a statutory goal that 3% of federal contracting dollars would go to small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans. In fiscal year 2023, American agencies did not just meet that goal; they beat it, awarding more than 5%, or nearly $32 billion U.S.

We do not have to look south to know targets work. The secretary of state told the House that defence procurement met the government's 5% indigenous procurement target last year. That is good. It proves that a target can be set, measured and met in Canadian defence procurement, so why is there no target for veterans?

Conservatives want our armed forces equipped faster. We just want it done in the open and done for the people who served. That means having a minister who answers to Parliament. The bill says, “The Corporation must do as the Minister directs”, which is wording we would not find in any other law in Canada. Direction should come from cabinet on the record, not from one minister's say-so.

It means using the tools the system already has. We did it in Afghanistan. That is why Conservatives have called for a dedicated secretariat in the Privy Council so defence contracts get cabinet's priority. Speed comes from political will, not from new Crown corporations. Conservatives would cut the process, not cut Parliament out.

After a decade of Liberal neglect, our sailors, soldiers and aviators do not need a new bureaucracy or a minister with a new title. They need a procurement process that equips them for the modern threats we face. I am concerned that Bill C-40 would remove the parliamentary oversight that this agency badly needs and would open the door to waste and mismanagement.

We have seen where this leads. The greens slush fund was an arm's-length body handing out public money. Bill C-40 would be the same kind of body. That is why Conservatives have concerns and will be seeking clarity at committee.

I would be remiss not to spend my last minute of this speech recognizing those who served with the Snowbirds. I was at their last air show in Moose Jaw, something that obviously I was proud to witness and that inspired not only me but Canadians across this nation, but something that was very disappointing. It is another example of a procurement boondoggle on the Liberal side, as we do not have an aircraft to replace the Snowbirds, to transition from one to the other and to continue having a team that shows the professionalism of our Canadian military.

I look forward to the questions and comments that will come from my colleagues from both my side and the other side.

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

Madam Speaker, I wish I had enough time to counter many of the things the member put on the record.

Quite frankly, I am starting to believe that Conservatives do not understand or do not care. We could talk about procurements. Today, the member talked about speed, but I would add in the word efficiency. In 18 months, we can look at what the Prime Minister has accomplished. The F-35s are now on Canadian soil.

There are so many things that, at the end of the day, members of the opposition do not recognize, like accountability. Crown corporations go to a minister. Members are allowed to hold them to account. Crown corporations go before a committee. We can hold them to account. Efficiency matters, and building Canada's industrial military base also matters. This is something that a Crown corporation would be able to accomplish. The Conservatives need to get off their “we oppose everything the government does” ledge and start recognizing a good thing when it hits them in the face.

Why will the member not support a Crown corporation?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I feel like I am at Yuk Yucks. Honestly, on efficiency for the F-35, we have two that have been delivered after 11 years of the Liberal government, and it is not the first time it has done this. There are the Cormorant helicopters. It is unbelievable. Time after time after time, we are always waiting for equipment from the Liberal government. Is this an admission of it having bad policy previously and that it cannot get its act together? Is it trying to create some new way to expedite? Nobody believes the Liberals.