Sandra Cobena

Mr. Speaker, Claims · 171 wordsour 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.¹ 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.² Now before that legislation is even completed, Bill C-40 proposes turning it into a Crown corporation.³ 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. The question · 108 wordsWhy 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. Claims · 161 wordsThe 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, ⁴but here we are, a year later, and it has yet to deliver a single piece of new equipment to our armed forces, ⁵so 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.⁶ The legislation states “the Corporation must do as the Minister directs”.⁷ Canadians should understand what that means. The question · 46 wordsWhat 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? Claims · 143 wordsOur 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. The question · 25 wordsWhat has the agency delivered? What has it accelerated? How would military requirements be protected when the minister could tell the corporation what to do? Claims · 97 wordsOur 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; ⁸relabelling 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. Procedure · 92 wordsLet us look at Canada Post. The government made more than $1 billion in repayable funding available in 2025, ¹²and 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.¹³ Calling funding “repayable” does not answer the question taxpayers should be asking: ProcedureReasoning · 123 wordsHow 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 2025.⁹ That is nearly three times the 2016 level: ¹⁰¹¹$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, Claims · 67 wordsand 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.¹⁴ 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. The question · 34 wordsCanadians 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? The ask · 150 wordsParliament 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.¹⁵ 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. Claims · 14 wordsAfter 11 years, it is time the government keeps its word to them too.