Debates of Oct. 26th, 2026

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was very enlightening. We are talking about Bill C-40, the proposed strengthening Canada's defence sector act, which would create yet another bureaucracy for the federal government to use as a vehicle for announcements, reannouncements and photo ops. I think of Build Canada Homes, which was going to build houses at a generational scale, and in the meantime, housing starts are down and nowhere near the 500,000 for replacement to bring back housing affordability.

How would this bureaucracy be any different?

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

Madam Speaker, the short answer is that it would not. When we look at the past record of how the Liberals have been operating in government, it is just boondoggle after boondoggle. Whether it is housing, the military or building pipelines, we have not seen anything. All we hear is the Prime Minister or ministers at the podium making announcements upon announcements. We have not seen anything. It is not tangible. It takes forever for the Liberals to come up with something.

Canadians are so tired of waiting. We have been waiting 10 years for the F-35 fighter aircraft that we desperately need. We had two delivered just recently and the Liberals think they have a win. This is just another example of why recruitment is down in the military and why we cannot get people in. We are not setting goals or standards and giving people something to strive for. We are not making them feel good that they are being looked after, that when they are being deployed to Latvia, they have the equipment they need or that they are not using used equipment or washed equipment from a weekend so that reservists can do weekend deployment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member just said that military recruitment is down. Again the member is wrong, and he should know that we had record numbers of people applying to join the Canadian Forces. The member should acknowledge that.

At the end of the day, we have a Prime Minister who has been pushing for the last 18 months for our Canadian Forces. We have gone from a Stephen Harper 1% of GDP for the military to a 2% of Canadian GDP under the current Prime Minister. The member needs to be more straightforward and stick with the facts.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be straightforward: There are more people washing out in the military. They are being thrown into recruitment centres and being told that they are going to become soldiers, sailors and infantry, and they do not even know. They just show up. I have talked to friends who are in the military, and they are asking, “What are these people doing here?” They do not even know what they are doing here. Do not tell me that recruitment is up when the full spectrum of what is going on in the military is not being given.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to Bill C-40, strengthening Canada's defence sector act. This enactment contains measures relating to production, procurement and investment with respect to national defence and national security. Part 1 deals with establishing the Canadian corporation for defence investment and part 2 would amend the Defence Production Act to, among other things:

(a) extend the application of that Act to supplies and projects related to national security and to services related to national defence and national security; (b) provide that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has the authority to acquire supplies and services related to national defence and national security... [with some] exceptions; (c) extend the purposes for which that Minister may engage in stockpiling to include national defence and national security, including economic security, and the defence and security of an associated government or other state; (d) provide that Minister with new financial authorities...; and (e) establish procurement rules.....

Then part 3 gets into providing the necessary review of said acts. Everything I just said was extracted from the legislation itself.

What does this mean in plain speak? Bill C-40 would establish a Canadian corporation for defence investment, a Crown corporation run by a CEO and a board of directors under the authority of the associate minister of defence for procurement. The extent that Treasury Board's rules, however, would apply to this corporation have not been established. It is not part of the bill itself, but it is expected to be substantially less than before the defence investment act is enacted.

The Defence Production Act would be renamed and amended to permit the minister to procure everything or anything that could have a national defence or security use. It would also allow the corporation to exercise powers under sections 15 and 16 of the newly named defence and national security production and procurement act, which would deal with the stockpiling, procurement and disposal of military equipment. Bill C-40 would also massively expand the number of categories under which the minister could carry out a sole-sourced procurement, 17 in total should this bill pass, and by virtue of that, decline to run a competition and would also allow any number of future exceptions to be written into regulation, not backed through legislation. It would also allow the minister to exclude anyone on national security grounds from a competition, and here is what I take issue with, without justification, oversight or explanation to Canada and to Parliament.

Before I get into some of the other reasons that I think it is important that we revisit and revamp our procurement process, I am shocked that we are debating today under the threat of time allocation. To be fair, the government has not moved it, but a Liberal stood on Friday and threatened to move time allocation on a bill that is going to allow the government to spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars going forward and, at the same time, remove parliamentary oversight. I find it fascinating that we are on the second day of debate, not even through the first five hours of debate, and we are already under a threat of time allocation.

I will provide a bit of my own background. I spent 25 years in the military, but 24 years ago I had the privilege of attending, on the army side, the land force technical staff program, a year-long course where I did nothing besides study defence management as it relates to the army here in Canada and how we procure equipment. I was shocked, to say the least, after learning the technical expertise, some of the skill sets associated with it and a lot of science and engineering type stuff too, how messed up our procurement system has been for decades. That is why I am all about seeing necessary changes to the way we procure equipment for our members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I want to give another specific example. After I did that course, I had the privilege of being posted at the infantry school in Gagetown. I had this weird title. I was the infantry corps technical adjutant. It was basically my job to read every statement of requirement for every piece of equipment that the army was procuring that could impact the Canadian Armed Forces and, specifically, the Canadian infantry. I remember having a debate and argument with the project director in Ottawa at the time around the purchase of our STANO equipment, our surveillance, target acquisition and night observation gear, specifically our monocular night vision goggles. We were doing something back then called whole fleet management. This was back under the Chrétien Liberal government at the time. I said this was not going to work, that we could not have equipment being procured for individual soldiers and expect to have it serviceable and ready when we need it, when we deploy on operations or to war. This was obviously post-9/11. We had troops in Afghanistan, but had not committed to the fight yet.

I was shocked and I had something to say when I called up that project director in spring 2006, because now I am the priority of the Canadian Army, deploying to Afghanistan on combat operations, and I do not even have enough monocular night vision goggles or enough equipment to train in night fighting before we are going out the door and going to war. It was just very frustrating.

If we fast-forward a bit, however, we see that we can do this right. The previous Harper Conservative government demonstrated during Afghanistan the ability to make massive procurements. They were to the tune of billions of dollars through a sole-source process. We got Chinook helicopters. We repurchased tanks. We got strategic airlift capabilities with the C-17s.

There are many more examples I could provide. It can be done, but it requires leadership and political will. A previous speaker from my side of the House highlighted this. It is about political will. Accountability, transparency and parliamentary oversight are needed.

This is what my concerns now relate to. Under the Liberal government, over the last 11 years, a number of defence procurement processes have been messed up. In previous speeches, we heard about the GlobalEye. Again, it was purchased before any substantial discussions with the Royal Canadian Air Force. There are still concerns about the operational capabilities of this platform to work in the north, in our Arctic.

Let us talk about the F-35. The member for Winnipeg North got up earlier and said they are a great thing. I will remind everyone that the member ran under the Liberal government in 2015 when it said it was going to get rid of the F-35 and that there was no way it was going to purchase the F-35, which is completely contrary to procurement, government rules and the whole competition process. It is good to finally see those F-35s being delivered.

The Liberals announced the Defence Investment Agency. It was announced during the Budget Implementation Act earlier and now through this new piece of legislation, Bill C-40. What may be part of the catalyst for this legislation is that the DIA's own CEO reportedly wanted to resign. He has been so frustrated by the slow pace of government bureaucracy and lack of the current Liberal government making things happen. What is the government's answer? It is to take away accountability and oversight.

That is where my concerns lie. We are talking about hundreds of billions of Canadian taxpayer dollars being used without being transparent or having proper parliamentary oversight. The Liberals have stood up and are claiming that the accountability is going to occur through the new associate minister of national defence. However, at the same time, we do not see anything within the clauses of the bill itself that would provide mechanisms for that oversight and transparency.

In principle, I absolutely support a massive rework of Canada's defence procurement system. However, as I laid out in my speech, Canada can procure and has procured massive military procurement in the past. How was that done? As I said, it was done through leadership. It was done through leadership by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, by pushing things through, by making the claim to the Canadian taxpayer publicly and by reporting back to this chamber the necessary mechanisms so that the billions of dollars are going out for the right reasons and not just to Liberal insiders. It can be done.

I am going to be listening intently. I am confident in stating that this bill will get to committee. I am looking forward to the testimony of the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, the Minister of National Defence and the minister of procurement services. I am looking forward to them showing up and explaining how they are going to make sure that they are accountable and transparent to Canadian taxpayers and how they will make sure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are equipped with the necessary equipment and systems they need to defend this nation.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that when we think of a Crown corporation, there is a very high level of accountability. We have Crown corporations that report to standing committees, for example. We have a minister responsible for the Crown corporation, who we can pose all sorts of questions to. There is a higher level of accountability, I would ultimately argue, and it is arm's length.

I have been a parliamentarian for over 30 years at the provincial and federal level, and Crown corporations at all levels of government have proven to be very successful. Having a military procurement corporation would be good for Canada's military industrialization and our military. I will continue to articulate that.

Would the member not agree that provincial corporations and other federal corporations can prove to be very effective?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to debate whether or not Crown corporations can possibly be very effective. I think there are examples of where they have been very effective. There are plenty of examples of where they have not been very effective or very efficient. We have had huge debates around Canada Post. There are still huge issues, as it is not actually functioning the way it needs to function properly.

That said, why is the government, and this is the whole purpose of part of my speech, hiding behind transparency and parliamentary oversight? That is where my real concerns are when we are talking about literally hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for his service in the military.

In the public accounts committee, of which I am a member, we have had many occurrences where the Auditor General has said that there are different rules for departments versus Crown corporations, and how that is a problem for the Auditor General's dealing with accountability and transparency with regard to the Crown corporations.

Can the member speak to how he sees this transparency actually proceeding with these impediments?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that is a great point. In fact, I encourage all Canadians listening to read the Parliamentary Budget Officer's latest reports around the bending of the rules and the interpretation of how accountability and accounting are working with the government expenditures, with the Prime Minister and the Liberal government are trying to say that spending is somehow now assets.

The parliamentary secretary talked about how Crown corporations are so good, but we have some examples. I mentioned Canada Post, which has been losing $1 billion every year. At the same time, how is that an asset? That is absolutely a liability. It is spending, not an actual asset going forward.

I think we should be using the same rules we have always used to account for our budgetary spending of Canadian taxpayers' dollars in this country. I think it is so important that the privilege we have as parliamentarians is used to actually provide that oversight, to ensure for Canadians that the members of our Canadian Armed Forces are being equipped properly with those very limited taxpayer dollars.

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

Madam Speaker, creating this new Crown corporation is all well and good. It allows the government to say that decisions will be made independently. However, when we read the bill, it is clear that the government still retains control over decisions. Even if the decisions are officially being made by a Crown corporation, there will still be government oversight.

That seems a bit pointless to me. It strikes me as a bit of a smoke-and-mirrors show that will not really change anything meaningfully on the ground, especially since it is clear that it benefits a former colleague and friend of the Prime Minister who will end up at the head of this Crown corporation with a salary that could be described as astronomical.

How does my colleague view these issues in relation to Bill C-40?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, my Bloc colleague's question is a good one, as it speaks to the issue of whether this corporation is even required. I would argue it likely is not. I agree with the hon. member that it is not actually doing anything, as I demonstrated in my speech, when governments of the past have successfully procured equipment in a timely fashion when required and, at the same time, with parliamentary oversight.

[Chris d'Entremont, Liberal, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today on behalf of the people of Acadie—Annapolis at second reading of Bill C-40, the strengthening Canada's defence sector act. I will be sharing my time with the awesome member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

I want to begin by offering my sincere condolences to family and friends of the Canadian Armed Forces members lost at CFB Wainwright. May those members rest in peace. My thoughts are also with those members who are still in hospital. I wish them a full and speedy recovery. I am part of a family that includes a CAF member, and I know that my brother served many times at CFB Wainwright. I think he said he actually trained there more than seven times and really felt bad about what happened there. We hope, of course, that everyone recovers well.

Bill C-40 is personal for our region, because Acadie—Annapolis is proud to be home to 14 Wing Greenwood, the largest air base in Atlantic Canada. Greenwood trains long-range patrol crews, conducts regular surveillance over the Atlantic, supports global strategic airlift, and is the primary air search and rescue unit on Canada's east coast.

Over the past year, the government has backed Greenwood with new hangars for the new P-8A Poseidons, which replaced the aging Aurora aircraft; the new remotely piloted aircraft systems program; and new housing on the base. There is more coming for CFB Greenwood. This investment matters, not just for our safety on the east coast but just as much for the jobs and businesses of the Annapolis Valley and all of Nova Scotia.

I will go back to the bill that is before us and what it means for Greenwood, the valley and, of course, Nova Scotia. At its core, the legislation asks a very straightforward question: How do we make sure that Canada's growing investment in defence translates into real capacity, real security and real economic opportunity for Canadians, including communities such as ours?

The security environment is changing rapidly. Our allies are increasing defence spending, and governments everywhere recognize that a strong military depends on a strong and resilient industrial base. For Canada, that means more than committing resources. It means making sure our institutions can put those resources to work. For too long, defence procurement has been marked by complexity, multiple departments, overlapping authorities and lengthy approval times. Each part has an important job, but together those processes can slow decisions, create uncertainty for industry, and delay essential capacities. We have talented people across the system, and we have too often asked them to deliver complex projects and processes that are not built for today's pace and scale.

Bill C-40 proposes a different approach. First, it will establish the Defence Investment Agency as a crown corporation within the national defence portfolio. The agency was created last October as the departmental agency. That was an important first step. This bill would take the next one: a permanent institution with its own board of directors, commercial expertise, and greater authority to negotiate and manage major contracts. Legally, it would be the Canadian corporation for defence investment, carrying on as the DIA.

Just as important, it would bring procurement, production and investment together in one organization. Procurement is how we acquire what our armed forces need. Production is how we make sure that capacity exists to build and sustain them. Investment is how we build industrial capabilities Canada will need in the years ahead. That matters because a purchase order does not build a factory, a contract does not create a skilled workforce, and a promising technology does not strengthen our security until it can be produced, tested, delivered and sustained.

That is why the bill provides the agency with a broader range of tools, including loans and advance payments, subject to the necessary approvals, to help Canadian businesses, including those in Nova Scotia, overcome financing barriers and scale up production.

Consider a company from Nova Scotia. Last Thursday, I spoke with representatives from A.F. Theriault & Son, the oldest and largest privately owned vessel builder in Nova Scotia. Since 1938, it has built more than 1,000 vessels in wood, steel, aluminum, fibreglass and advanced composites. It has delivered over 750 unmanned surface target drones to the Canadian military, to the navy. It can respond to the need, but it needs to modernize and expand. A loan or an advance payment is the kind of tool that could help a company like that get there. It is exactly the kind of Nova Scotia business the DIA is being built to support.

This does not mean that government would be replacing private investment. It means using private investment strategically to attract private capital and build on capabilities that our security depends on.

The second part of the bill would amend the Defence Production Act and rename it the defence and national security production and procurement act. It would broaden the framework to address modern concerns, including economic security and strategically important industrial capacity. It would provide flexibility for certain procurement decisions, including urgent operational requirements. It would allow the minister, in specified circumstances, to award a contract without a competition, where that is necessary to support a sector of the economy that is important to national defence or national security.

Members will no doubt want to examine this provision closely and rightly so. The argument for it is simple. In a crisis, or when critical domestic capacity is under threat, a lengthy competitive process may cause us to lose the very capacity we seek to preserve. It is in committee that these protection mechanisms must be put to the test.

Flexibility must come with responsibility. The corporation would have its own board and be subject to governance and financial reporting requirements. It would report through a new associate minister of National Defence for procurement, who would answer to Parliament for the agency and who could direct its work.

The Canadian Armed Forces, National Defence and the Canadian Coast Guard would continue to set their own operational priorities, requirements and acceptance criteria. The people who understand operational needs would keep deciding what is needed. The agency's job would be to turn those requirements into results. The aim is not to choose between speed and accountability. It is to deliver both.

This bill is about the link between national security and economic strength. The defence industrial strategy, launched in February, rests on a build, partner, buy framework to build in Canada where we have the capacity to develop it, to partner with trusted allies where co-operation strengthens our capabilities and supply chains, and to buy abroad when it is the most effective way to meet a requirement.

Over the next decade, the strategy aims to create up to 125,000 new jobs, increase defence exports by 50%, raise the share of defence acquisitions awarded to Canadian firms to 70% and grow annual defence revenues for small and medium-sized businesses by more than $5 billion. These are ambitious goals, and they are an opportunity. That opportunity must reach smaller companies in Nova Scotia, such as Theriault, not only the biggest firms in the biggest centres.

Nova Scotia has extraordinary researchers and entrepreneurs, and we need to make it easier for innovations to move from prototype to production; give businesses the predictability to invest in equipment, facilities and workers; and help those businesses compete in allied markets around the world. A stronger defence industrial base is about more than jobs. It is about the capacity to act when our security demands it.

In a crisis, countries compete for the same equipment, materials and components. A country that cannot maintain its equipment, replenish its supplies or raise production when demand surges is more vulnerable. Our crews at Greenwood that patrol the Atlantic and answer the search and rescue calls 24-7 depend on equipment that is maintained, supplied and sustained without interruption.

That is why sovereign capability and secure supply chains matter. Every critical component we can produce here strengthens our resilience. Every critical system we can maintain here strengthens our independence. Every Canadian innovation we can develop and master strengthens our sovereignty.

Building a stronger defence sector is not only about preparing for the challenges we face today. It is also about giving Canada the capacity, confidence and independence to meet the challenges of tomorrow. It is also about making sure that when those investments come, they are felt here at home in Nova Scotia and across Canada, from the hangars in Greenwood to the businesses across the Annapolis Valley, and of course to all of Nova Scotia.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Acadie—Annapolis.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was incredible. I know he has continuously supported the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Atlantic Canada plays a really important role for the Department of National Defence. The member spoke a bit about some of the opportunities that this provides for companies in the defence sector in his riding. Could he elaborate on why doing the same thing we have been doing in the past has not been working, and why it is so important that we put in place a Crown corporation that would allow the men and women in uniform to get the equipment they need faster and, more appropriately, Canada-purchased equipment?

[Chris d'Entremont, Liberal, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

Madam Speaker, this is the crux of what we are trying to do. As I said in the beginning of my speech, the question we are really trying to answer is, how do we build capacity within Canada?

Let us go back a number of years to when we talked about the navy's requirement for new frigates. In order to build those, we had to create a whole new system. The Irving shipyard, or the “ships here now” process we went through, created a $1 billion system. I thank the previous government for doing that and thank this government for its continuation of that, but we need to build true capacity within our system. It is no different from working with A.F. Theriault, the airport in Yarmouth or other companies in South Shore—St. Margarets that can build the capacity and equipment that our armed forces so dearly need.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, at the time the Defence Investment Agency was created, another mechanism had been in place for decades. The need to procure military equipment is nothing new for Canada. It has always existed. The government has purchased aircraft and had ships built in the past. None of that is anything new.

What forces the government to create a new agency now, one that is going to release the government from some of its responsibilities? We can all agree that the agency will bear the blame for any major errors or mistakes, whereas the government will take credit for any success. We already know how that works. What has happened in recent years that makes another agency better qualified than the Department of National Defence to handle this kind of procurement? That is the message being sent to public servants and the Department of National Defence.

Furthermore, why does it take a friend of the Prime Minister, a former Goldman Sachs colleague earning a salary of $700,000 a year or more, to do work that public servants and the existing department could very well have done themselves?

[Chris d'Entremont, Liberal, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am asking myself the same question as my Bloc colleague: Is everything working the way it should right now? It takes years and years to acquire new equipment, whether ships, aircraft or even something as basic as the socks soldiers put on before lacing up their boots. We need a new approach that takes into account the potential within supply chains across Canada as well as the opportunities available in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces so we can manufacture more equipment here at home. The current system is not necessarily the best one. We must invest in a procurement process that meets the needs of the Canadian military.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the Defence Investment Agency has truly demonstrated over the past year that a dedicated organization is needed to manage military procurement. I am thinking in particular of the 190 armoured vehicles we purchased over the past year, the accelerated submarine procurement process and the assault rifles purchased this year.

Could my colleague explain how this new Crown corporation would be better positioned than the Defence Investment Agency, operating under the Department of Public Services and Procurement, to deliver the equipment our military personnel need more quickly?

[Chris d'Entremont, Liberal, Acadie—Annapolis, NS]

Madam Speaker, we need to look at the complexity of the entire system we have right now. We are working with three or four different departments. We need to find a way to streamline the system. The purchasing of submarines is the largest military procurement project in Canadian history, and it was done fairly quickly. Although we do not have the full picture yet, this purchase will allow Canada to acquire the best underwater capability possible. It is something we need. Canada has been needing new submarines for 25 years, even 40 years. Thanks to the Defence Investment Agency, we finally have a system that makes their procurement possible.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is very fitting that today, October 24, on the launch of the Royal Canadian Legion's national poppy campaign, I rise here to support veterans and to speak to Bill C-40, the strengthening Canada's defence sector act.

Today we are here to discuss some important legislation that would accelerate defence procurement, strengthen Canadian identity and reinforce Canadian sovereignty. This bill represents a major step in modernizing how Canada would equip its military. Above all, this legislation is about building a stronger, more capable Canada, a Canada that continues to defend itself across emerging threats, protecting its interests and keeping Canadians safe.

This bill comes at a very defining moment in our country. Our government is making a generational investment to help rebuild, rearm and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces. However, our investments are only part of that equation, as we must also ensure that they translate into effective military capabilities delivered to the Canadian Armed Forces quickly and efficiently and that they deliver real economic benefits for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

To meet these important commitments, we established the Defence Investment Agency, or the DIA, as we are calling it here today, as a special operating agency within Public Services and Procurement Canada back in October 2025. In just one year, the DIA has helped accelerate and advance a number of major defence projects. The legislation we are proposing would build on this momentum. It would give the DIA the additional tools and authorities it needs to keep doing this work even more quickly and efficiently. It is important to know that we are also not starting from zero.

With that in mind, I would like to take a couple of minutes to highlight some of the important projects this DIA has been able to advance over the past year to strengthen our armed forces, as well as discuss how Bill C-40 would ensure we keep delivering at the pace that our military needs and that Canadians expect.

I would be remiss if I did not speak about what some of these investments with the DIA mean for my home riding of South Shore—St. Margarets and for rural communities across Atlantic Canada. When we talk about procurement, shipbuilding and marine capability, we are talking about more than just ships. We are talking about good-paying jobs. We are talking about advanced manufacturing. We are talking about skilled trades. We are also talking about the future of our rural coastal communities, which have been building and servicing vessels for generations.

In South Shore—St. Margarets, we understand the marine sector because we live it. We are Bluenosers, by the way. Many of us were raised on the water, many of us live on the water and many of us have spent generations building, maintaining and innovating in Canada's marine economy. We know how to build marine. What is remarkable is that Atlantic Canadians only represent about 6% of Canada's total population, yet our region is home to over 20% of Canada's full defence infrastructure and capabilities. That expertise did not appear overnight. It was built by generations of tradespeople, engineers, fabricators, welders, machinists, shipbuilders and marine workers, who continue to contribute to Canada's security and prosperity every single day.

That is why defence procurement is so important for ridings like mine. When our government announced the historic $11-billion program for new icebreakers at Davie, the largest shipbuilding contract in Quebec's history, it was more than just an investment in ships. It was an investment in Canadian workers, an investment in Canadian capacity and an investment in the more than 1,500 Canadian suppliers that support our shipbuilding sector from coast to coast to coast.

I am proud to say that many of those suppliers are located in rural Nova Scotia. When major contracts are awarded to companies like Davie or Irving, the benefits do not stop at the gates of those shipyards. Those benefits ripple outward through an entire network of Canadian suppliers and manufacturers.

In my riding, one of the best examples is Hawboldt Industries in Chester. Hawboldt recently secured almost $40 million in contracts with Davie for its cranes, winches and specialized marine equipment. That contract represents more than one company's success. It supports jobs through Atlantic Canada's manufacturing supply chain. It creates work for fabricators, engineers, steel suppliers, machine shops, transportation companies and tradespeople. I could go on. It strengthens the industrial capacity that Canada needs not only to build vessels, but to sustain and service them for decades to come.

My riding is also home to companies like ABCO industries, a recognized leader in advanced manufacturing and metal fabrication. We are home to the Lunenburg foundry, Lunenburg Shipyard Alliance and East River Shipyard, all of which are contributing to Canada's marine industrial base through vessel reconstruction, fabrication, repairs, refits and maintenance. These companies might not make the big national headlines, but they are absolutely essential to Canada's defence readiness.

While our shipyards may build the next generation of vessels, companies in my riding along the south shore help maintain and service the fleets that Canada relies on every day. That work supports highly skilled jobs. It supports critical industrial expertise, and it ensures that Canada retains the ability to maintain and repair key assets here at home.

The DIA's goal is not simply to acquire equipment faster. It is about fundamentally transforming how we approach defence procurement. Historically, major acquisitions have involved several federal departments, each with its own level of different important responsibilities. National Defence identified military requirements, Public Services and Procurement managed procurement and contracts, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada oversaw industrial and economic considerations.

While this arrangement brings valuable expertise across government, it creates duplication. It delays. It creates uncertainty as projects are moved along these different organizations. The DIA is helping to change that, and we are seeing the results of that in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets, in little rural Nova Scotia.

By bringing together military, technical, commercial and procurement specialists from across government, the agency is building integrated teams that can work collaboratively from the earliest stages of a project. Instead of relying on the same sequence of hand-offs between organizations, the right experts can work together earlier to assess options, resolve problems and keep these projects moving along. The DIA is also introducing a more flexible approach to procurement that includes engaging with industry earlier, streamlining decision-making capabilities and considering existing commercial and military solutions where appropriate.

This work is closely connected to Canada's defence industrial strategy, the DIS, which is helping to ensure that our defence investments also build the industrial capacity, skilled workforce and secure supply chains needed to produce and sustain critical capabilities here at home. At the heart of this approach is to build, partner and buy, baby, buy. Building in Canada where we have that capacity, or where we are developing capacity, is strategically important. We are partnering with our trusted allies, with collaboration, and that is providing access to better capabilities, technologies and production opportunities. The “buy” part means buying existing capabilities from trusted partners when building or partnering is not the right solution.

This approach is helping us consider military requirements and industrial opportunities together from the onset. It is a more streamlined approach. It helps Canadian businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises, compete for defence contracts to develop new technologies and grow their operations. It also strengthens our ability to maintain and sustain essential military equipment in Canada.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, Nova Scotia has over 14,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces and defence families. It is the number three province in terms of the population of our defence community. Nova Scotia has been punching above its weight in terms of the defence industry.

The hon. member talked a lot about what we are going to be procuring, but she also talked a little about how it is important to have not only equipment but also supports for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families.

Could she elaborate a little about making sure that we get them the equipment they need when they need it, to make sure that they can focus on the task at hand and not be worrying about whether they have the tools necessary?

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, of course, our members of CAF are some of the hardest-working people that we have here in Canada, and we need to support them. How do we support them? It is by giving them the tools they need, by giving them the housing and infrastructure they need and by giving them the hospitals they need within base. We have let our infrastructure go for a little too long, and things like our DIS and our procurement strategy help streamline that process so that we are better able to help support our CAF members, as well as our SMEs.

International Artist Day

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 25, Canadians and people around the world celebrated International Artist Day. Founded by White Rock artist Chris MacClure, the day recognizes artists and the work they do. October 25 was chosen because it is the birthday of Pablo Picasso, one of the most influential artists of the modern era.

Artists often spend years developing their craft, yet the focus is usually on the finished work rather than the person who created it. Chris MacClure created International Artist Day in the belief that artists should be recognized during their lifetimes, not after they are gone.

Canadians can take pride in knowing that this international day was founded by a White Rock, B.C., artist whose vision helped draw attention to the lasting impact art has on our lives. Art preserves moments in time, captures how people see the world, and leaves behind a record for future generations. On International Artist Day, Canada took time to recognize the artists whose work enriches our communities and our daily lives.

Canada-Taiwan Trade

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that diversifying trade is a top priority, yet he has been sitting on a trade agreement with our democratic ally Taiwan.

The Canada-Taiwan trade co-operation framework arrangement was finalized in March 2025. It would help strengthen trade, investment and supply chains with one of our largest trading partners. It is a win for Canada, yet it has languished on the Prime Minister's desk for 18 long months. The question is why.

Why do we have the delay? Is it because of the Prime Minister's ill-conceived strategic partnership with the Beijing dictatorship? Is it because the Prime Minister is taking his cues from Beijing? It certainly looks that way.

Canadian Heritage

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear—Mount Pearl—Paradise, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Below is now the number one show on the Netflix global top 10 for a second straight week.

With almost 40 million views, it has reached number one in 82 countries. It is also officially the most viewed debut for a Canadian Netflix title ever. This builds on a strong run for Canadian productions from North of North to Wayward, reaching a cumulative 48 million views since June.

The success of Canadian storytelling is translating into real results. In 2025, viewing of Canadian content in Canada grew by nearly 20%, while almost 65% of Netflix members worldwide watched Canadian content.

Below was filmed for 75 days across Newfoundland and Labrador, including in St. John's, Petty Harbour-Maddox Cove, Brigus South and Pouch Cove, employing more than 700 cast members. Below contributed more than $90 million to Canada's economy, most of it in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Economy

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer sounded the alarm in her latest report. She is projecting that federal deficits will add over $400 billion by 2031, nearly $39 billion more than the Liberal government projected in the spring. Meanwhile, the economy grew by 0.9% this year.

The Minister of Finance was delighted last week, but with growth expected to be 1.5% in 2027, what is there to be delighted about? Interest on the debt will reach $83 billion by the 2030-31 fiscal year. It is still being charged to the credit card of Canadian families.

Canadians need an economy that produces more. They do not need mounting deficits. The Conservatives are proposing tax cuts and have a plan to save $150 billion by eliminating wasteful federal spending. It is time to put growth, affordability and fiscal responsibility back at the forefront.