“We have two different bills about military buying before us right now. One sets up a temporary system and the other sets up a permanent one. I want to know why the government is asking us to debate both of them at the same time.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, there seems to be some confusion about what the procurement system should look like, because we have two bills before the House right now. First there is Bill C‑31, which will create a Crown corporation, and then there is Bill C‑40, which proposes a completely different process. From what I understand, once Bill C‑31 is passed, much of what we are debating today will simply go out the window. Today, in committee, the secretary of state told us that the plan was always to have a temporary structure before setting up a permanent one later. I wonder if my colleague knows why the government, in this case, is presenting us with the structure that was meant to be temporary, Bill C‑40, and the structure that is meant to be permanent, Bill C‑31, and why we are debating them at the same time in the House. What is the logic behind that?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 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 →

“I share my condolences with the people affected by the tragedy in Wainwright. Making this defence agency a Crown corporation lets the government avoid accountability. It removes oversight on huge expenses. It also lets the government take credit for successes while dodging blame when things go wrong. I want to know why this government always tries to reduce accountability.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois joins our colleague in expressing our heartfelt sympathy and condolences to the people affected by the tragedy in Wainwright. Our thoughts are with them. Making the Defence Investment Agency a Crown corporation will enable the government to practise selective accountability. On the one hand, with Bill C‑40, the government is removing oversight mechanisms for its most costly expenditures. On the other hand, by creating an independent Crown corporation, the government will take credit for successes when doing so suits its purposes and deny responsibility when sensitive or controversial matters arise on the grounds that the corporation operates independently. Why has this government been working to reduce accountability ever since it came to power?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 38 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 →

“I do not support this bill. No other NATO or Five Eyes country uses a state-owned corporation to buy defence equipment. Canadian businesses do not even want these government contracts, and politicians will still control the process. The government needs to explain why they are pushing this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C‑40, a procurement process that will be demolished by Bill C‑31, which will be passed because it is a budget bill, a confidence vote. Earlier today, the Standing Committee on Finance heard from the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement. I asked him why a new Crown corporation was needed for procurement, which runs counter to Bill C‑40. He replied that our companies do not want government contracts, but rather commercial ones. However, none of the Five Eyes countries or any other NATO member has a Crown corporation, or a state-owned enterprise, that handles procurement. That is evident from the fact that politicians will continue to control the procurement process. I would like my colleague to tell me why she is selling us this bill that Canadian businesses want nothing to do with. That is what the secretary of state said this morning.”

“I am worried about this bill. It lets unelected people spend billions of defence dollars. The government will use this to avoid blame if things go wrong, which means there will be no accountability.”

“Mr. Speaker, is my colleague not concerned, as I am, that, by creating a Crown corporation and giving a board of directors who are not elected the responsibility of spending billions of dollars, the government is shirking its responsibilities and washing its hands in the event of unpopular decisions or scandals? Does he not think that there will be less accountability, if not a complete lack of accountability?”

“The government is paying a former bank executive nearly $700,000 a year to run this defence work. It is also stopping the procurement watchdog from reviewing these contracts. This plan wastes public money and hides the government's biggest purchases from proper oversight.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about commitment. The government is committed to paying Douglas Guzman a salary of nearly $700,000 annually, which is double the salary of the Minister of Finance and National Revenue. Douglas Guzman is a former associate of the Prime Minister’s at Goldman Sachs. He is committed to satisfying Guzman, since Guzman was threatening to leave his position because he felt that working in the public service was ineffective. It is committed to being the only country among its NATO and Five Eyes allies to have such a structure, which raises a number of questions about transparency, ministerial responsibility and the use of public funds. Furthermore, it is committed to preventing the Office of the Procurement Ombud from reviewing contracts signed with the Defence Investment Agency, or DIA, since it does not have the authority to investigate Crown corporations. This means less transparency and less control over the government’s most expensive procurements. Is that the kind of commitment the government was elected on?”