“Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member focuses on accountability and transparency. What is being proposed here, the government says, is a better effort to procure defence items, which as a whole, at a far glance or an upper look at things, would be agreeable. However, the transparency is with respect to the amount of sole-sourcing. I believe, if I am correct, off the top of my head, there are about 13 exemptions where the minister or that agency would have the opportunity to sole-source without very much transparency. This leads us to the many different examples we have seen over the course of time of removing the transparency, accountability and connection to Parliament to be able to scrutinize things as thoroughly as possible. My question for the member is, why are the Liberals removing the transparency and guardrails around the sole-sourcing of contracts at a time when we need more?”
Statement grade
A+
The average of Signal, Relevance, Respect and Clarity.
Average 100 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 13%Reasoning 87%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 13 wordswithin the legislation is the idea of having an associate minister become permanent.1Reasoning · 90 wordsThrough that associate minister, we would receive that accountability.Therefore, not only is there a Crown corporation that in a very tangible way ensures transparency and accountability, but we also have, through the legislation, a government that is saying that it is not going to surrender all aspects of accountability.By having an associate minister tied to it, that means that members of Parliament in the House, and through them the public as a whole, would still have a minister, a go-to political individual, who ultimately has to be accountable.
