Debates of Oct. 26th, 2026

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I read Bill C‑40 and had the opportunity to give a speech here in the House. I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding about the bill. I will explain why. By creating this corporation, Bill C‑40 will provide support so businesses can bid on government contracts. I have worked with businesses. All too often, we see that they would like to bid on contracts, but they lack the financial means or do not have the necessary financial backing, from banks, for instance. That is what Bill C‑40 offers. It will support the entire sector in bidding on these contracts. It will provide loan insurance. It will make it possible to get loans.

I would like my colleague to take the time to read the bill carefully and consider the impact it could have on the sector. It will support hundreds of businesses so they can bid on contracts.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, because it gives me the opportunity to mention something I did not address in my speech: the role of the procurement ombudsman. The ombudsman serves as an independent safeguard and external watchdog. When a contract is disputed and a clear answer is required, a complaint can be filed with the ombudsman. The ombudsman then appears before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, helping us get to the bottom of the matter. We correct course, if necessary. With the Defence Investment Agency, however, there will be no ombudsman. Just imagine: no transparency.

I fully agree with my colleague that we need to speed up the process, that we need to support this sector and give it a helping hand, but at what cost? It must certainly not be at the cost of undermining our democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's comments regarding respect and parliamentary oversight. To what extent is she confident that the Liberal MPs on the committee will accept amendments aimed at guaranteeing parliamentary oversight?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's French is always outstanding. What we are hearing right now is a lot of lofty rhetoric. As with other files, I would like to know just how aware government members are of what is taking place. I have already spoken about wilful blindness, but ultimately we will be left dealing with the consequences of a major departure, and that worries me. If the government is going to retain all these safeguards and criteria, then what emerges will no longer really be a Crown corporation. The rationale simply does not hold water.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for her excellent speech. When we look at Bill C‑39, which follows on the heels of Bill C‑5, we see the government concentrating even more power in the Prime Minister's Office by allowing the Prime Minister to designate projects as being in the national interest and circumvent environmental laws. Is Bill C‑40 not simply a continuation of that same trend? How far is this going to go? What does my colleague think about that?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for those who follow our work, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It is unbelievable what is happening. We supposedly have a saviour for now, but what happens later? What then? All of this in the name of national sovereignty and economic development. Seriously, we are undermining our democracy. Bill C-40 is exactly the same anti-transparency process.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, the beautiful Bay of Quinte, we are proudly home to the Royal Canadian Air Force's primary and largest air mobility hub, 8 Wing at CFB Trenton.

While CFB Trenton is a fascinating and awesome place to celebrate in its sheer enormity and scope of operations, we are here today to discuss important legislation to accelerate defence procurement, strengthen Canadian industry and reinforce Canadian sovereignty. We do so to benefit and bolster the work of the 5,000 military and civilian personnel who keep CFB Trenton operational 24-7, 365 days a year.

Bill C-40, the strengthening Canada's defence sector act, represents a major step in modernizing how Canada equips its military. Above all, the legislation is about building a stronger, more capable Canada, a Canada that can continue to defend itself against emerging threats, protect its interests and keep Canadians safe.

The bill comes at a defining moment in our country's history. Our government is making a generational investment to rebuild, rearm and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces, but our investments are only part of the equation. We must also ensure that they translate into effective military capabilities delivered to our Canadian Armed Forces quickly and efficiently, as well as that they deliver real economic benefits for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. To meet these important commitments, in October 2025, we established the Defence Investment Agency, or the DIA, as a special operating agency within Public Services and Procurement Canada.

In just one year, the DIA has helped accelerate and advance a number of major defence projects. The legislation we are proposing builds on this momentum, giving 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 not starting from zero. With that in mind, I would like to take a few minutes to highlight some of the important projects the DIA has been able to advance over the past year, as well as to discuss how Bill C-40 would ensure that we can keep delivering at the pace that our military needs and that Canadians expect.

Let me begin with air and space. Canada is a vast country. Protecting our airspace, particularly in the Arctic, requires modern aircraft, advanced surveillance systems and reliable communications. We are making significant progress on all three fronts. In May, Canada selected Saab as the preferred supplier for our future airborne early warning and control capability. Negotiations are now advancing toward the acquisition of the GlobalEye system. This system would provide long-range surveillance and early warning capabilities, helping our forces detect and track potential threats. Because GlobalEye uses Canadian-made Bombardier Global 6500 aircraft, this project also offers important opportunities for Canada's aerospace industry.

As we strengthen Canada's air and space capabilities, we are also investing in emerging technologies. In just months, the defence drone initiative, made possible because of DIA involvement, has helped lay the foundations for a sovereign national defence drone ecosystem.

Another important initiative is the enhanced satellite communications project, polar. This project will provide our military with reliable, secure communications in the Arctic, where conventional communications can often be limited.

Working with Canadian industry leaders such as Telesat and MDA, the Defence Investment Agency has helped advance an innovative procurement approach. Rather than developing a technical solution in isolation, we engaged Canadian industry earlier, drawing on its expertise to help identify the best way forward. In August, the agency awarded Telesat a $2.3-billion contract for the first major component of this capability. This is an excellent example of how we can move faster while strengthening Canadian technological expertise and industrial capacity.

Let me turn then to land capabilities. Our soldiers need modern equipment they can depend on. Earlier this year, our government awarded Colt Canada a contract for up to 65,402 new Canadian modular assault rifle systems. These rifles will replace equipment that has served our military for decades. Through the contract negotiated by the DIA, Colt Canada is committed to incorporating at least 80% Canadian content into these rifles, on top of their being built domestically.

This project is a great example of how the DIA is already improving readiness for our soldiers while supporting Canadian manufacturing, skilled workers and our domestic defence industrial base.

Likewise, the DIA is helping Canada move forward on the capabilities the Royal Canadian Navy needs to defend our vast waters, done most notably through the Canadian patrol submarine project. In July, Canada selected Germany-based TKMS, with the support of Germany and Norway, as its preferred supplier. Negotiations are under way to acquire up to 12 modern, conventionally powered submarines with long range, long endurance and Arctic capabilities. These submarines would strengthen our ability to detect, track and deter potential adversaries in the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans. We are planning to sustain these submarines right here in Canada.

These are just a few examples of the major defence acquisitions under way. We have been able to make significant progress on these projects since the creation of the DIA. They also highlight something important. 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 important responsibilities: National Defence identified military requirements; Public Services and Procurement Canada managed procurement and contracting; and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada oversaw industrial and economic considerations. While this arrangement brought valuable expertise across government, it could also create duplication, delays and uncertainty as projects move between organizations.

The DIA is helping to change that. 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. The DIA is also introducing more flexible approaches to procurement. That includes engaging industry earlier, streamlining decision-making and considering existing commercial or military solutions where appropriate.

This work is closely connected to Canada's defence industrial strategy, which is helping ensure 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 its heart is a straightforward approach: build, partner, buy. That means to build in Canada where we have the capacity or where developing that capacity is strategically important; partner with trusted allies when collaboration provides access to better capabilities, technologies or production opportunities; and buy existing capabilities from trusted partners.

It would all strengthen our capability to maintain and sustain essential military equipment in Canada. That is important because every critical component we can produce domestically, every system we can maintain and repair ourselves, makes our country more resilient. The DIA would have a clear responsibility for translating these requirements into results, all while maintaining strong governance, financial oversight and accountability to Parliament through a minister.

Ultimately, our success will not be measured by the number of contracts we sign. It will be measured by the opportunities we create for Canadian workers and businesses, and it will be measured by the capabilities we deliver to our military. That is what Bill C-40 is designed to achieve: a stronger military; a stronger defence industry; and a stronger, more sovereign Canada. That is why I urge all members of the House to support the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Bay of Quinte represents the largest Air Force base in Canada. It is a base that houses our C-17s, a massive equipment procurement that was purchased by the previous Conservative government without this agency, without anything. It was done through a sole-source process. It was done as an operational requirement, and it did not eliminate the need for parliamentary oversight or accountability.

Would the member agree that the purchase, along with the Chinooks and tanks during the war in Afghanistan, were all good purchases that were done for the right reasons, and they were done efficiently and well?

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, for his service to Canada as a veteran, especially at this time of year.

I listened earlier as the member recited a litany of shortages in sending troops into harm's way when he was an active serving member, and I would like to remind him that the program we are introducing in this bill would help address the very concerns he expressed earlier. This program is designed to help better procure items such as C-17, but we have also seen that we need everything from socks to submarines, and this legislation would help do that, not only with speed but also with great oversight.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech earlier, I talked about accountability and transparency. I would like my colleague to explain to me how the government will be able to ensure transparency in this new Crown corporation. I would like him to explain that to me.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the new legislation, the shift is about centralizing execution and accountability with what is known as the CCDI. While recognizing that major defence investments will continue to advance broader Government of Canada priorities, the CCDI mandate would be more focused on defence production, procurement and investment. It would also accelerate delivery of defence capabilities.

That does not mean there would be less oversight. The CCDI would operate at arm's length under the national defence portfolio, reporting to a new minister, called the associate minister of national defence for procurement. The Government of Canada is committed to clear accountability and a more integrated approach to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the Bay of Quinte for his speech on the new Defence Investment Agency. I would like my colleague to elaborate on the type of spinoffs there might be for a riding like his or mine.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the DIA would be continue to operate under its existing authorities and advance procurements while the new Crown corporation is established. The transition would be managed to maintain continuity and minimize disruption to ongoing procurements, industrial industry partners and client organizations. Earlier today, I met with a defence contractor, for instance, who is interested and already actively working at CFB Trenton in my riding of the Bay of Quinte. They are very keen on Bill C-40 to see that this exact piece of legislation would help them further bring their private expertise to work in collaboration with our defences.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I noted that, in the member's speech, he said that there would still be accountability through a minister, but with the nature of creating this as a Crown corporation, does he not agree that this would inherently set the operations of this Crown corporation at arm's length from direct ministerial accountability?

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen, we are not reinventing the wheel here. We are not reinventing Crown corporations. I fail to see why, when we are talking defence procurement, we would all of a sudden have less accountability. We have many Crown corporations that operate very closely with government, but that is done with very good scrutiny.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our soldiers need equipment quickly, yet the government has spent the last year trying to decide how to organize the bureaucracy responsible for buying it. After 11 years of Liberal government, our sailors, soldiers and aviators are still being asked to make do with aging equipment while they wait for replacements, and they continue to do their jobs. They deserve a government that will do its job too.

Last October, the Liberals created the Defence Investment Agency. Canadians were told it would cut red tape and get equipment to our Forces faster. A few months later, the government decided the agency needed to become a stand-alone entity. It brought forward legislation in the spring. Now before that legislation is even completed, Bill C-40 proposes turning it into a Crown corporation.

For Canadians unfamiliar with that, a Crown corporation is a government-owned company that has its own board executives, such as Canada Post and Via Rail. That is a lot of time spent reorganizing an agency that was supposed to save time. Why did an agency inside a department not work? Why is the proposal for a stand-alone agency already being replaced? What exactly would a Crown corporation fix that the Liberals could not get right the first two times? The government should answer those questions before asking Parliament to approve another restructuring.

Conservatives have called for one clear point of accountability, with a dedicated secretariat in the Privy Council Office so that military purchases receive priority at the cabinet table. We want decisions made, contracts moving and, most of all, equipment delivered. Canadians should be able to identify who is responsible and hold that person accountable for the results.

The Liberals keep changing their minds about who should buy the equipment, while troops are still expected to do their jobs without it. They cannot put their duties on hold while the government figures out how to do its job. After 11 years, they deserve a government that can get them what they need and do so without delay.

The government keeps restructuring its defence agency rather than delivering equipment to our soldiers. The Defence Investment Agency was created to get military equipment purchased and delivered faster, but here we are, a year later, and it has yet to deliver a single piece of new equipment to our armed forces, so the government's response is to restructure it again.

Under Bill C-40, the minister could direct the corporation to carry out an activity, stop an activity or carry it out in a particular way. The legislation states “the Corporation must do as the Minister directs”. Canadians should understand what that means.

What is the point of having a board and a chief executive if that cannot prevent the minister from directing what the corporation does? More importantly, where does that leave the military's advice? What safeguards ensure that purchasing decisions follow operational requirements rather than political priorities?

Our pilots need aircraft that can carry out their missions, much like our sailors need ships equipped for the conditions they face, so before any politician announces any supplier, our military's requirements should be established.

The concerns surrounding GlobalEye, an airborne surveillance system, show why this matters. There have been questions about whether the Royal Canadian Air Force's requirements were even properly considered before the government announced its preferred supplier. Conservatives have asked the Auditor General and Parliamentary Budget Officer to examine that decision.

The people who will operate this equipment understand what the job requires. They are also the ones who face the consequences if the government buys something that falls short. They should never be left trying to make announcements work after the decisions have been made.

Before the government asks for broader powers, it needs to answer for the results. What has the agency delivered? What has it accelerated? How would military requirements be protected when the minister could tell the corporation what to do? Our troops need a procurement system that not only answers to their operational needs, but also makes them the priority, always.

The government is hiding its debt in Crown corporations, as confirmed by the most recent PBO report; relabelling operating expenses as investments; and shredding fiscal anchors. That is what we are seeing at the Ministry of Defence. The Liberals are creating a Crown corporation to shelter military spending from parliamentary scrutiny and public visibility. Moving spending into a Crown corporation does not make it free. Canadians still carry the cost, and they still carry the risk.

Let us look at Canada Post. The government made more than $1 billion in repayable funding available in 2025, and then announced another $1-billion funding package this year to keep it solvent and operating. This funding is not added to the deficit; it is labelled as an asset on the financial books. Does anyone think Canada Post will repay its debt? It is highly unlikely. It has not turned a profit since 2017, and it has lost about $5.3 billion. Calling funding “repayable” does not answer the question taxpayers should be asking: How confident are we that we will get that money back?

Just last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that loans and advances to enterprise corporations reached $141.5 billion in 2025. That is nearly three times the 2016 level: $51 billion in 2016, compared to $141 billion in 2025. This matters because the government borrows money, lends it to a Crown corporation and records it as a financial asset. Money it expects to recover is recorded as an asset, when in fact it is a highly unlikely scenario that it will be recovered. Canadians still owe the debt the government took on to provide that loan, so recording an asset does not make the borrowing disappear. Taxpayers still have to service that debt, and they remain exposed if the loan is not repaid.

Bill C-40 would create another Crown corporation with powers to make loans, provide guarantees and buy shares in companies. Having spent 15 years in commercial banking, I know that a loan is only as sound as the borrower's ability to repay it. One needs to understand their financial position and account for the possibility of a loss. Canadians deserve that same discipline from their government. What is this corporation financing? How will the risks be assessed? If repayment becomes doubtful, when and how will that be reflected in the government's books? Parliament and the Parliamentary Budget Officer need enough information to follow the money and assess the exposure independently.

The same accountability must apply to contracts. Bill C-40 would give the government broad grounds to bypass competitive bidding. It should have to explain which exception it used, why it was necessary and how it established the value for money.

Conservatives want regular reporting to Parliament and clear answers about which Treasury Board safeguards would apply to this three-times restructured defence procurement agency. If a contract goes over budget or if an investment loses money, somebody must answer for it. Canadians should not be passed from a minister to a chief executive to a board, with everybody pointing somewhere else. Canadians deserve to know where their money is going and who will answer for it.

Our troops deserve the equipment they were promised. They have kept their word to keep Canada safe. After 11 years, it is time the government keeps its word to them too.

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

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Conservatives debate this piece of legislation, I find that it is almost as if they want to find a way to vote against it.

Crown corporations, whether at the national level or provincial level, have provided all forms of services to Canadians. The Prime Minister has made very clear the commitment to grow our Canadian Forces and to support our Canadian Forces. Let us take a look at our military industry as a whole and how it can benefit by a Crown corporation. It does not take away from accountability. We can still ask questions of the ministers and the parliamentary secretaries. We can still see the Crown corporations come before standing committees.

Crown corporations at both the national level and provincial level have proven to be very successful. Why is the Conservative Party deciding to vote against—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that the Conservative Party is trying to find an excuse to vote against this bill. The reality is that the Liberal government wants to hand over a bill for us to blindly approve. Canadians sent us here to ask questions and get answers, answers we unfortunately do not often get.

The issue with Crown corporations was clearly laid out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. She is non-partisan. This is an independent body reviewing our country's books, and she has raised alarms about the amount of debt the Prime Minister is hiding in Crown corporations. He seems to want to continue to do the same.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, judging by this bill's generosity, one would think Christmas had come at Halloween. It seems to have goodies for absolutely everyone. The reality, however, is that there is only so much money to go around, unless the government increases the deficit even more.

It is true that, in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, there are opportunities to be seized in the defence sector, whether in rescue training, ballistic defence system development, ammunition or weapon disposal, or military equipment repair. The region has a lot to offer.

However, I think that handing this responsibility over to an agency is undemocratic and reduces transparency.

As members of Parliament, how can we ensure that such an agency will be accountable when we know very well—as my time on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has shown me—that this type of structure serves to curtail accountability?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely. The priority here is to make sure that equipment is delivered to our troops, that this is done efficiently and fast and that it meets the requirements they need. Unfortunately, what we have seen so far is that the Prime Minister has taken unilateral decisions without necessarily consulting the military on procurement decisions and appointing companies. This bill would not provide any certainty that there will be transparency or, ultimately, accountability for those decisions. At the end of the day, it is our troops and our military, the people who protect us, who will be at risk.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has to be made clear first and foremost that Conservatives support our troops and support getting them the equipment they need in a very fast manner. Unfortunately, what the Liberals are trying to do is add to their creative accounting and create a shell game where they will be able to move government spending out of their deficit and make it an asset under a Crown corporation. This is all smoke and mirrors.

The member for Winnipeg North has done a great job in here of trying to provide misleading information to the House and Canadians. What we need to get down to is the facts, one of which is that this bill would not provide the transparency and accountability we deserve as Canadians and deserve as parliamentarians. The track record of this agency to date has been that it has not gotten the equipment that our troops desperately need.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the member.

On the point about Crown corporations, because we keep getting pushed and pressed by the government, let us not forget that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a Crown corporation, and the CEO gets compensated around $1.5 million per year. We also know that the Prime Minister has a tendency to appoint his friends and family to positions. There are a lot of questions that still need to be answered.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, we are living in a rapidly changing world. Multiple conflicts are currently unfolding across the globe. The rules-based international order we knew for decades has been turned upside down. Technological advances are fundamentally altering both the nature of the threats we face and the tools available to address them. We must develop defence capabilities to meet these new realities.

There are also new challenges ahead. Consider, for example, the growing strategic importance of the Arctic and the need to find a way to safeguard our sovereignty over this vast northern territory. We must reinvest to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the equipment they need, when they need it. That means reinvesting not only in modernizing and replenishing our equipment, but also in building a defence supply chain capable of meeting the needs of our armed forces in a timely manner. That is precisely why we are debating Bill C‑40 today.

Since last year, we have made major investments in the Canadian Armed Forces, and we have met our NATO defence spending target of 2% of GDP. These investments are essential for protecting our country's sovereignty. They give us the means to defend our territory, our borders and our national interests. We are also seeking to build our strategic autonomy through these investments. We want to further develop industrial capabilities and reliable supply chains right here at home so that we can meet our own defence needs and fulfill our commitments to our allies as members of NATO. This is also a measure of our credibility as a reliable international partner.

In addition to meeting security needs, these defence investments are also helping us to strengthen the Canadian economy because we are enhancing Canada's industrial capabilities. With that in mind, in February, we launched Canada's very first defence industrial strategy, which seeks to transform our defence industries by prioritizing Canadian suppliers and materials. By investing in our defence capabilities, we want to promote our local businesses, stimulate our economy and invest in Canadian innovation and commercialization, while streamlining procurement to give businesses consistent and predictable demand.

As I mentioned, we have already taken historic steps to speed up defence equipment procurement while ensuring that Canadian workers and businesses benefit in the process. However, we want to go further and, as we have said before, we can do better. To improve, we have to start by identifying weaknesses in the Canadian defence procurement system and finding ways to fix them.

Specifically, I am thinking of the fragmentation between departments, because defence procurement involves multiple different government entities and ministers. This fragmentation can affect our efficiency. In addition, sometimes, procedures are too complex to meet the military's constantly changing needs. We have also noted how slow and arduous it is for the system to adapt to the immediate needs of our armed forces. We want to cut through the red tape. We want to speed up procurement and more quickly deliver critical equipment and capabilities to the CAF and our allies.

It is in this spirit that we have introduced Bill C-40 to establish the Defence Investment Agency as a Crown corporation. This agency will have a strong mandate to carry out activities related to production, procurement and investment in respect of national defence assets. What will change about this agency? It will have additional and expanded authority to move complex projects forward, and it will have the capacity and expertise to do so while developing Canada's defence industrial base. More specifically, as a Crown corporation, this agency will be able to operate with greater authority to negotiate and manage contracts in accordance with business practices more familiar to the industry. It will eliminate fragmentation by bringing the decision-makers responsible for procurement and strategic investments together in one place. It will reduce administrative burdens and facilitate access for suppliers in order to speed up procurement.

What is more, Bill C-40 proposes creating the position of associate minister of national defence for procurement to oversee this new Crown corporation. The idea is once again to centralize the activities within a single agency rather than having a fragmented system like the one we have now.

The objective is to deliver better results for our armed forces.

We are already hard at work. We have already announced major investments in our armed forces since the last election. We are currently in negotiations to acquire up to 12 submarines, which is the largest defence procurement in our country's history. We are establishing a strategic partnership framework under the defence industrial strategy to expand our fleet of armoured vehicles. We announced an $11-billion investment in an icebreaker contract for the Davie shipyard, the largest shipbuilding contract in the history of the province of Quebec.

My home province of New Brunswick is not being overlooked. In April, our government announced an investment of more than $1 billion for the Canadian Armed Forces base in Gagetown. This includes $871 million to recapitalize the range and training area and $172 million to establish new ground-based air defence infrastructure.

These investments ensure that our soldiers train on infrastructure built to last the next century and truly adapted to today's needs.

In addition to these investments, another $20 million has been budgeted to create a modern building that centralizes transition services in order to better support CAF members and their families during the transition either back to duty or to civilian life.

I want to emphasize how important this federal investment of over $1 billion is to my province, New Brunswick. This is a significant amount with economic benefits not only for the military base, but for my province as a whole. In fact, my colleague from Fredericton—Oromocto often talks to us about the importance of investing in CFB Gagetown, both to support our CAF members by providing them with adequate training facilities truly adapted to their needs, but also for the many benefits it brings to our entire province.

I support my colleague from Fredericton—Oromocto's efforts.

Our defence industrial strategy also includes a component aimed at increasing Canadian innovation in the defence and dual-use sector. I am referring to funding for technology, infrastructure, research and equipment that serve both military purposes, for use by our CAF, and civilian applications. I am thinking of our investments in drones and surveillance systems.

It goes without saying that there is tremendous potential in the defence sector, particularly when it comes to monitoring vast territories such as the Arctic and conducting reconnaissance missions. However, these technologies can also be used in search and rescue operations. They can be deployed during forest fires and used to map our forests. They are also useful in agriculture for mapping fields. These investments improve our drone technology, which has both military and civilian applications.

The same is true of satellite technologies and the improvements we are making to access space and enhance satellite connectivity. These investments help meet the need for secure, reliable communications in remote places, of course, but there is also potential to improve cell connectivity in rural parts of the country.

I am also thinking of our investments in cybersecurity, which will help strengthen the protection of our networks and improve our ability to detect threats. This is especially important at a time when artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly. Investments in cybersecurity will have tangible benefits, particularly in terms of improving the security of our public and corporate networks.

I am giving all these examples to show that our defence investments will not just be used to procure military equipment. They will also benefit our businesses and communities. We are investing to meet the needs of our military, but we are also taking this opportunity to further enhance Canada's advantage in sectors such as AI, IT and access to space.

We are having this discussion on Bill C-40 as we are entering the remembrance period, and I think it is important to mention that. From October 24 to November 11, millions of Canadians wear a poppy as a visible pledge to remember those who served our country and those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom we enjoy today.

Wearing a poppy is a symbol of gratitude, thanking those who serve and their families and remembering those who lost their lives in service to our country. It is also a sign of remembrance and education, reminding future generations of the importance of knowing our history and remembering those who served our country. It is a concrete way to support our local Royal Canadian Legions. The poppy campaign raises funds to support veterans and their families, so making a donation is a concrete way to show our support.

This year, Remembrance Day takes on a particular meaning following the recent loss of four members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the serious injuries sustained by several others at Wainwright.