“I oppose this bill. It sets up an independent corporation to buy military equipment, which will let the government avoid oversight from Parliament. At the same time that the government is cutting money for prisons and other public services, this plan gives a high-paying job to a friend of the Prime Minister. Parliament must be allowed to review how this money is spent.”

“Mr. Speaker, a riot broke out on Friday, October 16, 2026, at La Macaza Institution, in my riding, caused by understaffing. Frontline officers found themselves in the middle of what could have been a very dangerous situation. I want all my colleagues who were not aware of this situation to know that it was very alarming. Without the expertise of the officers on the ground, the situation could have ended very differently. The connection I want to make here is obvious. Let me be very clear. The inmate population at La Macaza has changed in recent years. We are not talking about a junior kindergarten here. We are not talking about a day care centre. We are talking about a prison, the La Macaza institution. This is a direct result of the federal government’s policies. As everyone knows, the government chose to cut $132 million from Correctional Service Canada. These $132 million in cuts come on top of budget cuts being made across the public service. Now we are learning that under Bill C-40, the Crown corporation the government wants to establish would have a friend of the Prime Minister, Doug Guzman, as its CEO. Is anyone surprised? Mr. Guzman, a former Goldman Sachs executive and banker like the Prime Minister, is expected to get a salary in the neighbourhood of $700,000 a year. That is a little higher than what an MP or even a minister earns. I am outraged. While staff on the ground work day in, day out to ensure public safety at the prisons in La Macaza, Joliette, Cowansville and Port-Cartier, they are seeing how budget cuts have a direct impact on their work. We are being asked, as parliamentarians, to vote to give a $700,000 salary to a friend of the Prime Minister. This is no joke. That is the reality and it is insulting. I will explain why. It is because we also learned that Mr. Guzman allegedly threatened to leave the Defence Investment Agency, and that it was as a result of this blackmail that the government decided to make the agency into a Crown corporation. Agency officials testified to this at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I want to explain to Quebeckers and Canadians what this change really means. The creation of a Crown corporation means establishing a company that is independent from government with a board of directors and a chief executive officer. The Crown corporation will not be accountable to Parliament. I want to emphasize that: It will not be accountable to Parliament. The government will not be responsible for its day-to-day operations. As everyone knows, Canada already has plenty of Crown corporations, including the CBC, the Business Development Bank of Canada, Destination Canada and Canada Post. What do those Crown corporations have in common? They provide services. They have mandates aimed at serving the public or businesses. However, the management of military and defence procurement is not a social, cultural or economic development mandate. There is no rational argument to justify the creation of a Crown corporation in this case. The only reason I can see is that the government wants to do as it did with Bill C-5 this spring or, worse, Bill C-39. The government and the Prime Minister want free rein to ram this through and control the whole process without any parliamentary oversight. Now that is power. What the Prime Minister wants is to evade legislative oversight and turn Parliament into a rubber stamp. It is easy. No one says a word, and his plans go off without a hitch. His actions go unnoticed. There is no accountability, period. Members of Parliament are being denied three roles. I have been here for seven years and I must say I have never seen anything like this. The first is the role of intermediary between citizens and the public administration. The second is the role of legislator. The third is the role of overseeing and monitoring government actions. Otherwise, what is the point? How will lawmakers—and I am talking about all of us, not just the opposition—be able to hold the government accountable if the government keeps undermining transparency and accountability? It is troubling. With Bill C-40, just as with Bill C-39, we are witnessing undemocratic manoeuvres to ram through measures without parliamentary scrutiny. They want to rush this through, quietly and without anyone noticing, as I have already mentioned. What would be my role on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates if I no longer had the right to scrutinize these matters, if I no longer had the right to know? What do we have to offer to all the people who elected us? I represent the riding of Laurentides—Labelle. I represent a geographical area, but above all I represent people. My riding is home to 92,897 people. When I rise in the House, I am speaking on their behalf. I am speaking in the interests of my constituents. I am speaking with them in mind. When the Prime Minister and the government seek to limit parliamentary power, what they are really doing is limiting the power of the people. I think that is clear. This authoritarian streak worries me, and I am not the only one. I do not want the government to hide behind a board of directors it has appointed in order to justify potentially dubious purchases, or to pat itself on the back when a purchase proves beneficial. I do not want the Government of Canada—which, incidentally, is the only one amongst our allies to have established a system of this sort—to be able to evade the close scrutiny of members of Parliament. We deserve a government that treats Parliament with respect. That is what people want. I want Parliament to be able to work diligently, with respect for the public and with the sound management of public finances in mind. I am concerned. Efficiency must not come at all costs, yet that is what we are being told. We are being told that the government wants to do this in order to be efficient. We have just seen that we could have been efficient by taking care of our culture and investing in it. However, a one-sided decision was made. In closing, I agree that the process can certainly be improved. However, we must ensure that the intentions are noble and in the common interest, not in the interest of the Prime Minister’s friends. I have seen this movie before, and I hope that things will be different this time because the situation is serious. Let us treat it seriously.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 98 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “What the Prime Minister wants is to evade legislative oversight and turn Parliament into a rubber stamp”.

  See full analysis →

“This bill creates a new defence agency without an independent watchdog to review contracts. Without an ombudsman, there will be no transparency. We need to help the defence sector, but not by hurting our democracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, because it gives me the opportunity to mention something I did not address in my speech: the role of the procurement ombudsman. The ombudsman serves as an independent safeguard and external watchdog. When a contract is disputed and a clear answer is required, a complaint can be filed with the ombudsman. The ombudsman then appears before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, helping us get to the bottom of the matter. We correct course, if necessary. With the Defence Investment Agency, however, there will be no ombudsman. Just imagine: no transparency. I fully agree with my colleague that we need to speed up the process, that we need to support this sector and give it a helping hand, but at what cost? It must certainly not be at the cost of undermining our democracy.”

“The government's plan for this new defence corporation does not make sense. If they keep all these rules, it will not actually work like a Crown corporation. I worry the government is ignoring the problems this will cause.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s French is always outstanding. What we are hearing right now is a lot of lofty rhetoric. As with other files, I would like to know just how aware government members are of what is taking place. I have already spoken about wilful blindness, but ultimately we will be left dealing with the consequences of a major departure, and that worries me. If the government is going to retain all these safeguards and criteria, then what emerges will no longer really be a Crown corporation. The rationale simply does not hold water.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“This bill gives the Prime Minister too much power. It lets the Prime Minister label projects as important to the country just to bypass environmental laws. I want to know how far this government will go with this trend.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for her excellent speech. When we look at Bill C‑39, which follows on the heels of Bill C‑5, we see the government concentrating even more power in the Prime Minister’s Office by allowing the Prime Minister to designate projects as being in the national interest and circumvent environmental laws. Is Bill C‑40 not simply a continuation of that same trend? How far is this going to go? What does my colleague think about that?”

“This bill hurts our democracy and hides things from the public. It is part of a bigger problem.”

“Mr. Speaker, for those who follow our work, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It is unbelievable what is happening. We supposedly have a saviour for now, but what happens later? What then? All of this in the name of national sovereignty and economic development. Seriously, we are undermining our democracy. Bill C-40 is exactly the same anti-transparency process.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 13 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 want the government to explain how it will make sure this new Crown corporation is open and transparent.”

“Mr. Speaker, in my speech earlier, I talked about accountability and transparency. I would like my colleague to explain to me how the government will be able to ensure transparency in this new Crown corporation. I would like him to explain that to me.”

“This bill promises a lot of money, but government funds are limited. My region could benefit from defence work, but handing this work to a new agency is undemocratic. It will make it harder for Parliament to track spending and keep the government accountable.”

“Mr. Speaker, judging by this bill’s generosity, one would think Christmas had come at Halloween. It seems to have goodies for absolutely everyone. The reality, however, is that there is only so much money to go around, unless the government increases the deficit even more. It is true that, in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, there are opportunities to be seized in the defence sector, whether in rescue training, ballistic defence system development, ammunition or weapon disposal, or military equipment repair. The region has a lot to offer. However, I think that handing this responsibility over to an agency is undemocratic and reduces transparency. As members of Parliament, how can we ensure that such an agency will be accountable when we know very well—as my time on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has shown me—that this type of structure serves to curtail accountability?”

“I do not trust this bill. The procurement watchdog told me he cannot do his job under this new system, so he will not be able to check if contracts go to government friends.”

“Mr. Speaker, let us talk about accountability. The procurement ombudsman regularly appears before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. When I asked him if there are sufficient safeguards or if he could analyze certain contracts that might have been awarded to cronies for certain purposes, even though that is surely not happening, he replied that he could not do his job with a new structure like this one. Seriously, we are supposed to believe the words we are hearing when, fact, what we are talking about is total autonomy.”

“Transparency is a big issue in this debate. An agency is not held accountable the same way a minister is. I want senior officials to give us a briefing to explain the differences, and I want to hear my colleague's thoughts.”

“Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague speak about the lack of transparency. This issue has come up frequently, and it is important because it goes to the heart of the debate we must have as members of Parliament. We must remember that an agency would not be subject to the same standards of accountability. I believe the government should provide us with a briefing on this matter. It would be useful to hear senior public servants outline the differences between having an agency and having a minister responsible for public expenditures. This is clearly a major concern for my colleague. I would like to hear her views on the matter.”

“I attended the unveiling of a new veterans monument in my riding yesterday. There are better ways to increase defence spending than paying $700,000 to the head of a new agency. That new agency will just let the government avoid taking responsibility. I want my colleague to tell me what she thinks about that high salary.”

“Mr. Speaker, I really liked the fact that my colleague started her speech by paying tribute to our veterans. I would like to point out that, yesterday, I attended the unveiling of a new veterans monument in Lavaltrie in my riding. This wonderful monument was created by Claude Des Rosiers and depicts a man and a woman in uniform. I think that is an important step forward. We are very pleased to see that the monument represents everyone. Women are an active part of the armed forces. I want to commend the City of Lavaltrie, the Société d’histoire et du patrimoine de Lavaltrie and everyone involved in the erection of this monument. In her previous answers, my colleague spoke a lot about the fact that, under the Harper government, defence spending was below 2%. It seems to me that there are much smarter ways of increasing spending than giving a $700,000 salary to the head of a new agency that will allow the government to escape responsibility and not have to be held to account. I would like my colleague to comment on the salary of this CEO. It seems to me that there are more worthwhile ways to increase spending, ways that would be more respectful to our military personnel.”

“This bill creates a defence agency that the Auditor General cannot fully check. The government is using this setup to avoid public oversight and reward friends with top jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his foresight and for urging everyone to open our eyes so that everyone understands what is going on here. This is no ordinary approach, and he has rightfully denounced a form of collusion or, at the very least, proximity, which is the key factor in securing a “prestigious” position. As a taxpayer, I am concerned. There is a fundamental function in this Parliament: that of the Auditor General. However, we know full well that an agency like this cannot be thoroughly audited by the Auditor General. The AG does not have access to the same information as she would if the agency fell under the responsibility of the department, as it should. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on any other possible ways the government might be able to pull a little stunt like this and avoid being accountable to the public, which will benefit the Prime Minister’s friend.”

“I am worried this bill reduces the government's accountability to Parliament by creating a new Crown corporation. The government often uses independent bodies to avoid taking responsibility. What does the member think about this?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his deep respect for veterans. I sincerely appreciate it. If the parliamentary secretary is willing to listen, my question is this. My colleague mentioned several times in his speech that creating a Crown corporation could reduce the government’s accountability to parliamentarians. That is a very serious concern for us, and it seems to be becoming a very bad habit. We are seeing the same thing with Bill C‑39, where the Canada Industrial Relations Board could call for arbitrations without the minister getting involved. Then the government can stand up in the House of Commons and say that it is an independent body and that it is not its responsibility. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that.”

“This bill turns the Defence Investment Agency into a Crown corporation. This means watchdogs like the procurement ombud cannot check on its work. I want to know if my colleague is worried about this loss of oversight.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, which was, I must say, forceful and very firm. We know that transforming the Defence Investment Agency into a Crown corporation means that certain watchdogs, such as the procurement ombud, will not be able to scrutinize its activities. Is that a concern of my colleague’s?”