Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
“The government did not leak this defence bill before showing it to Parliament. We investigated and found no evidence that anyone shared its contents early. We have talked publicly for months about creating a Crown corporation for defence buying, so reporters were just guessing based on old information. This is a normal political disagreement, not a breach of parliamentary privilege, and the Speaker should dismiss it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege raised on October 6 by the opposition House leader respecting the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-40. I would like to begin by stating that the government takes any allegation of potential premature disclosure of information during the notice period extremely seriously. This is why there has been a slight delay in responding to the points raised by the opposition House leader, as the government looked into this matter thoroughly. I can categorically state that our comprehensive investigation revealed that no one provided any information related to the content of the bill during the notice period. For that reason alone, I would assert that there is not a prima facie question of privilege in this instance. However, I want to provide the House with relevant information regarding the Defence Investment Agency that clearly demonstrates that the subject and nature of public deliberations on the form of the organization to lead this work of defence procurement could have led to the conclusion that the government was considering establishing a Crown corporation for this purpose. As it relates to the comments by the opposition House leader, there are two arguments that I would like to address. The first is the assertion that there is no way that any intelligent observer would be able to infer that the government was proposing that the form of the organization to manage defence procurement would be a Crown corporation. Second, when the opposition House leader refers in media reports to “sources” or “federal sources”, he seems to imply that these individuals provided confidential information to journalists during the notice period. While that may be his implication, it does not in any way corroborate that an individual divulged confidential information about the contents of a bill that was on the Notice Paper. As I have indicated, I can confirm to the House that we have looked thoroughly into this matter, and we have found no evidence of an internal leak of the contents of Bill C-40 during the notice period. In contrast to previous Speakers’ rulings where the government stated that it could not confirm who leaked the contents of a bill during the notice period, our comprehensive investigation revealed no evidence that anyone provided any information related to the content of the bill during the notice period. What these inquiries and the public record demonstrate is that individuals did speak publicly about the possibility of a Crown corporation that would report to a supporting ministerial position under the Minister of National Defence over many months, but I can assure the House that these conversations did not occur at a time even proximate to the notice of the bill. The government’s objective for defence procurement has remained unchanged since the beginning of the mandate in early 2025: to have an organization that would be sufficiently independent from the public service in order to have the flexibility and agility to procure military materiel to support our armed forces to defend our sovereignty and to meet our international commitments. That objective is at the heart of our work. The form that this would take has been a deliberative effort, building on the diverse perspectives from international engagement on different models for procurement, from input from stakeholders, and from procurement specialists. On April 27, 2026, Mr. Doug Guzman, chief executive officer of the Defence Investment Agency, appeared before the Standing Committee on National Defence and was asked about the Defence Investment Agency and what form it could take. He said the following: There are a number of ways it could be set up, and we’re working our way through them. I don’t know the answer right now. It could be anything from a Crown corporation to a traditional department, or something in between. The reason Mr. Guzman stated that the organization could take the form of a Crown corporation in the spring of 2026 was due to the fact that it was still a live debate within the government. We were still consulting on whether the model proposed in Bill C-31 was the best way to proceed. Since the 2025 general election, the government has been investigating different models of defence procurement and investment and has discussed these possibilities both in Parliament and publicly. I submit that the subject and nature of these deliberations on the form of the organization to lead this work could have led to a conclusion that the government was considering establishing a Crown corporation for this purpose. I would further add that the proposal to create the Defence Investment Agency in Bill C-31 was introduced in the House on May 6, 2026. The fact that the government gave notice of a new bill related to defence investment and procurement in September telegraphed that the government was thinking of an alternative approach to give more independence and flexibility to a body to undertake these activities. The conclusion would be obvious, based on the public deliberations that had taken place, that it would be a Crown corporation. In fact, whether or not the Defence Investment Agency would become a Crown corporation, this possibility has been in the public domain since the spring of 2026. Individuals who would have been involved in the deliberations on the form of the organization to manage defence procurement would have discussed the possibility that the Crown corporation would ultimately be the preferred mode during this period, but our investigation did not reveal any discussions during the notice period. During the 2025 general election, the Liberal platform stated with respect to various forms of procurement, including defence procurement, that it could be modelled on the powers and independence of a Crown corporation. Page 7 of the platform states: Deploy a made-in-Canada procurement strategy that prioritizes, whenever possible, Canadian suppliers and supply chains, and limiting bidders from foreign suppliers to bidding only on what we have agreed to in Canada’s Free Trade Agreements. We will prioritize Canadian contractors in our defence procurement, including the Canadian aerospace industry. Crown Corporations with major capital acquisitions, like VIA Rail, will also be encouraged to meet this standard. On February 17, 2026, the Prime Minister launched Canada’s first defence industrial strategy to strengthen security, create prosperity and reinforce strategic autonomy. On page 15 of the document, it states, “The Defence Investment Agency (DIA), created in October 2025, will address these challenges. Initially created as part of PSPC, the Government’s intention is to establish the DIA as a stand-alone entity.” The government made it clear, over eight months ago, that the Defence Investment Agency would become a stand-alone entity. What is proposed in Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2, is not truly an independent entity. It is a government agency. A federal government agency is not considered a completely stand-alone, independent entity in legal and accounting terms, because it remains part of the core public service. Only a Crown corporation is a true stand-alone, independent entity, and the government’s intention to potentially proceed this way was made public over eight months ago. Once Bill C-40 appeared on the Notice Paper, it became clear that the government had decided to evolve its course. It was logical to conclude that the government was moving ahead with what it had previously announced, which is to make the Defence Investment Agency a truly independent, stand-alone entity, as it had previously announced. By definition, this can only be a Crown corporation. As I stated earlier, Mr. Guzman, chief executive officer of the Defence Investment Agency, talked about the possibility of a Crown corporation at committee in April of this year. The government has been on the record speaking about the possibility of the Defence Investment Agency becoming a Crown corporation for many months now. The Globe and Mail article that the opposition House leader references also states the following: Philippe Lagassé, a professor at Carleton University who researches defence policy, said that if Ottawa turns the DIA into a Crown corporation, it would operate at arm’s length from the government.... Prof. Lagassé said he will still need to see the mechanics of the legislation.... What is important here is that Professor Lagassé refers to “if” the Defence Investment Agency were to become a Crown corporation and says that he cannot offer a precise analysis because he has not seen the bill or the specific details contained within it. This further makes the case that the details of the legislation were not divulged during the notice period. The opposition House leader also points out that the Globe and Mail story makes mention of the creation of a new cabinet position: the minister of defence procurement. I would like to point out to the House that on page 145 of the 2026 spring economic update, which was tabled on April 28, 2026, it states: In the Spring Economic Update 2026, the government proposes to introduce legislation to establish the Defence Investment Agency as a departmental agency presided over by a new minister and to make related amendments to the Defence Production Act that would, among other things, enhance financial and transactional authorities available to the new minister. The government’s intention to create a new minister of defence procurement was made public over six months ago. However, the opposition House leader failed to point out that Bill C-40 would not actually create a minister of defence procurement. Rather, it states that the government may appoint an associate minister of national defence for procurement, not an associate minister of defence, as the article states. In the context of alleging premature disclosure of a bill, these details matter. The opposition House leader also alleged that ministerial responsibility related to the Defence Investment Agency was not “telegraphed...in any previous public statements by the government”. I would assert that, if the government were to give notice of a bill entitled “an act respecting production, procurement and investment in relation to national defence and national security”, combined with the previous commitment that this agency would be presided over by a new minister, as announced in the 2026 spring economic update, it does not take much to deduce that new legislation would set some parameters around this process. This is just common sense. All legislation contains ministerial powers and responsibilities. That is how our Westminster system of government works. I also want to point out that the CBC story that the opposition House leader referenced says the following: In the spring, the government proposed to allow up to 14 exceptions, including procurements of national interest. It also made economic security a key pillar of the DIA mandate. How those measures will be reflected in the Crown corporation and whether it will have even greater authority is unclear. I would assert that it is unclear because the bill had not been introduced in the House, which further illustrates that there has been no premature disclosure of the contents of the legislation during the notice period. In conclusion, I have clearly shown that the government has been on the record for many months about the creation of a stand-alone entity responsible for defence procurement and the possibility of a Crown corporation. I have shown that only a Crown corporation is truly a stand-alone entity. I have also outlined how the government has been on the record for many months about a new minister responsible for defence procurement, and I have established the discrepancies between what was reported and what was actually contained in Bill C-40. Furthermore, I have demonstrated that all pieces of the legislation contain ministerial powers and responsibilities as part of our Westminster system of government. Finally, I have shown that quotes within the stories referenced by the official opposition House leader substantiate that details were not available about the legislation and thus are speculative. I would assert to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a high bar to meet to find a prima facie question of privilege, and I believe that I have provided, on the record, public evidence that refutes the allegations that there was premature disclosure of the bill. Having said all that, I also want to reiterate what I said at the beginning of my intervention, namely that the government takes its responsibilities to safeguard information contained in legislation on notice very seriously. While I believe that I have demonstrated that no premature disclosure took place, the government has taken the allegation seriously and made inquiries with ministerial offices as well as with officials in the public service. These inquiries have concluded that there is no evidence to support that the content of Bill C-40 was prematurely disclosed during the notice period, which further reinforces the point that there is not a case of prima facie privilege in this instance. In fact, the evidence suggests the contrary. There have been discussions within government since the formation of this government in 2025. This process has evolved from establishing an agency through an order in council in the fall of 2025. Then there was a proposal in Bill C-31 to create a new agency, and now there is the proposal to create a Crown corporation. These discussions have occurred publicly and in a committee of the House. While the model to execute defence procurement investment has continued to evolve, the objective remained the constant to create an independent, agile organization to procure defence-related equipment as efficiently as possible. It was not a stretch of the imagination that this could result in an establishment of a Crown corporation. It would appear to me that there are two sets of competing facts before the House. In such cases, Speakers have declared that a dispute as to the facts constitutes debate. On June 19, 2025, the Speaker ruled on a matter that constituted dispute as to the facts and which I would like to quote. He said: If every disagreement is to be raised as a question of privilege, the House would spend its time doing little else. There are many opportunities in our debates for members to challenge each other on the facts of a particular case, and that is the correct way of dealing with such disagreements. As for the conclusion of our inquiry into the possible premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-40, I can assure the House that no evidence has been found to corroborate that anyone divulged the contents of the bill during the notice period. I would remind the House of the importance of taking members at their word. On December 6, 2011, the Speaker ruled on a member’s involvement in inviting individuals to the gallery who were the cause of a disturbance. In this case, the Speaker ruled, and I would quote, “Remembering the time-honoured tradition in this place that members are taken at their word and so in keeping with the precedents just cited, the Chair is prepared to consider this particular aspect of the matter to be closed.” In light of the review of the evolution of the policy to determine the best manner in which to procure and invest in defence capabilities to support our Armed Forces, it was logical to assume that this could be through an establishment of a Crown corporation. The policy evolution has taken place in a public sphere, including in a committee of the House. Therefore, the conclusions drawn in the media reports are reasonable assumptions and do not point to a deliberate internal leak of the contents of Bill C-40 during the notice period. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your time and patience.”
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege raised on October 6 by the opposition House leader respecting the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-40. I would like to begin by stating that the government takes any allegation of potential premature disclosure of information during the notice period extremely seriously. This is why there has been a slight delay in responding to the points raised by the opposition House leader, as the government looked into this matter thoroughly. I can categorically state that our comprehensive investigation revealed that no one provided any information related to the content of the bill during the notice period. For that reason alone, I would assert that there is not a prima facie question of privilege in this instance. However, I want to provide the House with relevant information regarding the Defence Investment Agency that clearly demonstrates that the subject and nature of public deliberations on the form of the organization to lead this work of defence procurement could have led to the conclusion that the government was considering establishing a Crown corporation for this purpose. As it relates to the comments by the opposition House leader, there are two arguments that I would like to address. The first is the assertion that there is no way that any intelligent observer would be able to infer that the government was proposing that the form of the organization to manage defence procurement would be a Crown corporation. Second, when the opposition House leader refers in media reports to “sources” or “federal sources”, he seems to imply that these individuals provided confidential information to journalists during the notice period. While that may be his implication, it does not in any way corroborate that an individual divulged confidential information about the contents of a bill that was on the Notice Paper. As I have indicated, I can confirm to the House that we have looked thoroughly into this matter, and we have found no evidence of an internal leak of the contents of Bill C-40 during the notice period. In contrast to previous Speakers’ rulings where the government stated that it could not confirm who leaked the contents of a bill during the notice period, our comprehensive investigation revealed no evidence that anyone provided any information related to the content of the bill during the notice period. What these inquiries and the public record demonstrate is that individuals did speak publicly about the possibility of a Crown corporation that would report to a supporting ministerial position under the Minister of National Defence over many months, but I can assure the House that these conversations did not occur at a time even proximate to the notice of the bill. The government’s objective for defence procurement has remained unchanged since the beginning of the mandate in early 2025: to have an organization that would be sufficiently independent from the public service in order to have the flexibility and agility to procure military materiel to support our armed forces to defend our sovereignty and to meet our international commitments. That objective is at the heart of our work. The form that this would take has been a deliberative effort, building on the diverse perspectives from international engagement on different models for procurement, from input from stakeholders, and from procurement specialists. On April 27, 2026, Mr. Doug Guzman, chief executive officer of the Defence Investment Agency, appeared before the Standing Committee on National Defence and was asked about the Defence Investment Agency and what form it could take. He said the following: There are a number of ways it could be set up, and we’re working our way through them. I don’t know the answer right now. It could be anything from a Crown corporation to a traditional department, or something in between. The reason Mr. Guzman stated that the organization could take the form of a Crown corporation in the spring of 2026 was due to the fact that it was still a live debate within the government. We were still consulting on whether the model proposed in Bill C-31 was the best way to proceed. Since the 2025 general election, the government has been investigating different models of defence procurement and investment and has discussed these possibilities both in Parliament and publicly. I submit that the subject and nature of these deliberations on the form of the organization to lead this work could have led to a conclusion that the government was considering establishing a Crown corporation for this purpose. I would further add that the proposal to create the Defence Investment Agency in Bill C-31 was introduced in the House on May 6, 2026. The fact that the government gave notice of a new bill related to defence investment and procurement in September telegraphed that the government was thinking of an alternative approach to give more independence and flexibility to a body to undertake these activities. The conclusion would be obvious, based on the public deliberations that had taken place, that it would be a Crown corporation. In fact, whether or not the Defence Investment Agency would become a Crown corporation, this possibility has been in the public domain since the spring of 2026. Individuals who would have been involved in the deliberations on the form of the organization to manage defence procurement would have discussed the possibility that the Crown corporation would ultimately be the preferred mode during this period, but our investigation did not reveal any discussions during the notice period. During the 2025 general election, the Liberal platform stated with respect to various forms of procurement, including defence procurement, that it could be modelled on the powers and independence of a Crown corporation. Page 7 of the platform states: Deploy a made-in-Canada procurement strategy that prioritizes, whenever possible, Canadian suppliers and supply chains, and limiting bidders from foreign suppliers to bidding only on what we have agreed to in Canada’s Free Trade Agreements. We will prioritize Canadian contractors in our defence procurement, including the Canadian aerospace industry. Crown Corporations with major capital acquisitions, like VIA Rail, will also be encouraged to meet this standard. On February 17, 2026, the Prime Minister launched Canada’s first defence industrial strategy to strengthen security, create prosperity and reinforce strategic autonomy. On page 15 of the document, it states, “The Defence Investment Agency (DIA), created in October 2025, will address these challenges. Initially created as part of PSPC, the Government’s intention is to establish the DIA as a stand-alone entity.” The government made it clear, over eight months ago, that the Defence Investment Agency would become a stand-alone entity. What is proposed in Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2, is not truly an independent entity. It is a government agency. A federal government agency is not considered a completely stand-alone, independent entity in legal and accounting terms, because it remains part of the core public service. Only a Crown corporation is a true stand-alone, independent entity, and the government’s intention to potentially proceed this way was made public over eight months ago. Once Bill C-40 appeared on the Notice Paper, it became clear that the government had decided to evolve its course. It was logical to conclude that the government was moving ahead with what it had previously announced, which is to make the Defence Investment Agency a truly independent, stand-alone entity, as it had previously announced. By definition, this can only be a Crown corporation. As I stated earlier, Mr. Guzman, chief executive officer of the Defence Investment Agency, talked about the possibility of a Crown corporation at committee in April of this year. The government has been on the record speaking about the possibility of the Defence Investment Agency becoming a Crown corporation for many months now. The Globe and Mail article that the opposition House leader references also states the following: Philippe Lagassé, a professor at Carleton University who researches defence policy, said that if Ottawa turns the DIA into a Crown corporation, it would operate at arm’s length from the government.... Prof. Lagassé said he will still need to see the mechanics of the legislation.... What is important here is that Professor Lagassé refers to “if” the Defence Investment Agency were to become a Crown corporation and says that he cannot offer a precise analysis because he has not seen the bill or the specific details contained within it. This further makes the case that the details of the legislation were not divulged during the notice period. The opposition House leader also points out that the Globe and Mail story makes mention of the creation of a new cabinet position: the minister of defence procurement. I would like to point out to the House that on page 145 of the 2026 spring economic update, which was tabled on April 28, 2026, it states: In the Spring Economic Update 2026, the government proposes to introduce legislation to establish the Defence Investment Agency as a departmental agency presided over by a new minister and to make related amendments to the Defence Production Act that would, among other things, enhance financial and transactional authorities available to the new minister. The government’s intention to create a new minister of defence procurement was made public over six months ago. However, the opposition House leader failed to point out that Bill C-40 would not actually create a minister of defence procurement. Rather, it states that the government may appoint an associate minister of national defence for procurement, not an associate minister of defence, as the article states. In the context of alleging premature disclosure of a bill, these details matter. The opposition House leader also alleged that ministerial responsibility related to the Defence Investment Agency was not “telegraphed...in any previous public statements by the government”. I would assert that, if the government were to give notice of a bill entitled “an act respecting production, procurement and investment in relation to national defence and national security”, combined with the previous commitment that this agency would be presided over by a new minister, as announced in the 2026 spring economic update, it does not take much to deduce that new legislation would set some parameters around this process. This is just common sense. All legislation contains ministerial powers and responsibilities. That is how our Westminster system of government works. I also want to point out that the CBC story that the opposition House leader referenced says the following: In the spring, the government proposed to allow up to 14 exceptions, including procurements of national interest. It also made economic security a key pillar of the DIA mandate. How those measures will be reflected in the Crown corporation and whether it will have even greater authority is unclear. I would assert that it is unclear because the bill had not been introduced in the House, which further illustrates that there has been no premature disclosure of the contents of the legislation during the notice period. In conclusion, I have clearly shown that the government has been on the record for many months about the creation of a stand-alone entity responsible for defence procurement and the possibility of a Crown corporation. I have shown that only a Crown corporation is truly a stand-alone entity. I have also outlined how the government has been on the record for many months about a new minister responsible for defence procurement, and I have established the discrepancies between what was reported and what was actually contained in Bill C-40. Furthermore, I have demonstrated that all pieces of the legislation contain ministerial powers and responsibilities as part of our Westminster system of government. Finally, I have shown that quotes within the stories referenced by the official opposition House leader substantiate that details were not available about the legislation and thus are speculative. I would assert to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a high bar to meet to find a prima facie question of privilege, and I believe that I have provided, on the record, public evidence that refutes the allegations that there was premature disclosure of the bill. Having said all that, I also want to reiterate what I said at the beginning of my intervention, namely that the government takes its responsibilities to safeguard information contained in legislation on notice very seriously. While I believe that I have demonstrated that no premature disclosure took place, the government has taken the allegation seriously and made inquiries with ministerial offices as well as with officials in the public service. These inquiries have concluded that there is no evidence to support that the content of Bill C-40 was prematurely disclosed during the notice period, which further reinforces the point that there is not a case of prima facie privilege in this instance. In fact, the evidence suggests the contrary. There have been discussions within government since the formation of this government in 2025. This process has evolved from establishing an agency through an order in council in the fall of 2025. Then there was a proposal in Bill C-31 to create a new agency, and now there is the proposal to create a Crown corporation. These discussions have occurred publicly and in a committee of the House. While the model to execute defence procurement investment has continued to evolve, the objective remained the constant to create an independent, agile organization to procure defence-related equipment as efficiently as possible. It was not a stretch of the imagination that this could result in an establishment of a Crown corporation. It would appear to me that there are two sets of competing facts before the House. In such cases, Speakers have declared that a dispute as to the facts constitutes debate. On June 19, 2025, the Speaker ruled on a matter that constituted dispute as to the facts and which I would like to quote. He said: If every disagreement is to be raised as a question of privilege, the House would spend its time doing little else. There are many opportunities in our debates for members to challenge each other on the facts of a particular case, and that is the correct way of dealing with such disagreements. As for the conclusion of our inquiry into the possible premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-40, I can assure the House that no evidence has been found to corroborate that anyone divulged the contents of the bill during the notice period. I would remind the House of the importance of taking members at their word. On December 6, 2011, the Speaker ruled on a member’s involvement in inviting individuals to the gallery who were the cause of a disturbance. In this case, the Speaker ruled, and I would quote, “Remembering the time-honoured tradition in this place that members are taken at their word and so in keeping with the precedents just cited, the Chair is prepared to consider this particular aspect of the matter to be closed.” In light of the review of the evolution of the policy to determine the best manner in which to procure and invest in defence capabilities to support our Armed Forces, it was logical to assume that this could be through an establishment of a Crown corporation. The policy evolution has taken place in a public sphere, including in a committee of the House. Therefore, the conclusions drawn in the media reports are reasonable assumptions and do not point to a deliberate internal leak of the contents of Bill C-40 during the notice period. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your time and patience.