Discussion · Government Orders
Rhéal Éloi Fortin Bloc Québécois
“Our translation system has problems when a Quebec member feels they must speak English to be understood. Also, this bill does not seem to make real investments in defence. It just turns an agency into a Crown corporation. I want to know if this bill will actually train soldiers and buy planes, ships, and tanks, or if it is just a cosmetic name change.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Before I ask her a question, I want to point out to the House that this is a perfect example of the problems we have with the interpretation system. It is forcing a colleague from Quebec to give a speech in English to ensure that her anglophone colleagues understand it. I think that is a shame. Let us not forget that. That said, Bill C‑40 talks about investments. In fact, it talks about transitioning from an agency to a Crown corporation. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other. To me, it does not seem like a significant investment to improve Canada’s defence situation. It looks like a minor change to me, a cosmetic change. I want to hear my colleague’s comments on that. Is this bill calling for clear investments? Will the government actually hire soldiers, train them better, or buy planes, ships and tanks? Is there any investment in defence, or is it just a change in the name of a structure? At the same time, could the same thing not have been done with an agency rather than a Crown corporation? It is all a bit discouraging.”
-
Question or comment in debate
Signal 37 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysis
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Before I ask her a question, I want to point out to the House that this is a perfect example of the problems we have with the interpretation system. It is forcing a colleague from Quebec to give a speech in English to ensure that her anglophone colleagues understand it. I think that is a shame. Let us not forget that. That said, Bill C‑40 talks about investments. In fact, it talks about transitioning from an agency to a Crown corporation. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other. To me, it does not seem like a significant investment to improve Canada’s defence situation. It looks like a minor change to me, a cosmetic change. I want to hear my colleague’s comments on that. Is this bill calling for clear investments? Will the government actually hire soldiers, train them better, or buy planes, ships and tanks? Is there any investment in defence, or is it just a change in the name of a structure? At the same time, could the same thing not have been done with an agency rather than a Crown corporation? It is all a bit discouraging.