“I want to know if the member really believes the Liberal MPs on the committee will accept changes to make sure Parliament oversees this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague’s comments regarding respect and parliamentary oversight. To what extent is she confident that the Liberal MPs on the committee will accept amendments aimed at guaranteeing parliamentary oversight?”

“The previous Conservative government bought C-17 planes, Chinook helicopters, and tanks quickly and properly without this new agency. They bought them because our military needed them, and Parliament still held them accountable. I want the member to agree that those past purchases were good, efficient, and done for the right reasons.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member for Bay of Quinte represents the largest Air Force base in Canada. It is a base that houses our C-17s, a massive equipment procurement that was purchased by the previous Conservative government without this agency, without anything. It was done through a sole-source process. It was done as an operational requirement, and it did not eliminate the need for parliamentary oversight or accountability. Would the member agree that the purchase, along with the Chinooks and tanks during the war in Afghanistan, were all good purchases that were done for the right reasons, and they were done efficiently and well?”

“I oppose this bill. The government is wasting time reorganizing offices instead of buying our military the equipment it needs. This bill creates a government-owned company so the minister can make political choices and hide debt from Parliament. We want clear accountability, full financial transparency, and fast delivery of equipment to our troops.”

“Mr. Speaker, our 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. 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. Now before that legislation is even completed, Bill C-40 proposes turning it into a Crown corporation. 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. Why 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. The 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, but here we are, a year later, and it has yet to deliver a single piece of new equipment to our armed forces, so 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. The legislation states “the Corporation must do as the Minister directs”. Canadians should understand what that means. What 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? Our 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. What has the agency delivered? What has it accelerated? How would military requirements be protected when the minister could tell the corporation what to do? Our 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; relabelling 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. Let us look at Canada Post. The government made more than $1 billion in repayable funding available in 2025, and 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. Calling funding “repayable” does not answer the question taxpayers should be asking: How 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. That is nearly three times the 2016 level: $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, and 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. 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. Canadians 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? Parliament 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. 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. After 11 years, it is time the government keeps its word to them too.”

“The government wants us to pass this bill without asking questions. Our budget watchdog warned that the Prime Minister is hiding debt in government corporations, and he seems ready to keep doing it. We need real answers.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member says that the Conservative Party is trying to find an excuse to vote against this bill. The reality is that the Liberal government wants to hand over a bill for us to blindly approve. Canadians sent us here to ask questions and get answers, answers we unfortunately do not often get. The issue with Crown corporations was clearly laid out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. She is non-partisan. This is an independent body reviewing our country’s books, and she has raised alarms about the amount of debt the Prime Minister is hiding in Crown corporations. He seems to want to continue to do the same.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“We must get our troops the equipment they need quickly. But the Prime Minister makes buying decisions on his own without asking the military. This bill does not hold him accountable, and that puts our troops at risk.”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely. The priority here is to make sure that equipment is delivered to our troops, that this is done efficiently and fast and that it meets the requirements they need. Unfortunately, what we have seen so far is that the Prime Minister has taken unilateral decisions without necessarily consulting the military on procurement decisions and appointing companies. This bill would not provide any certainty that there will be transparency or, ultimately, accountability for those decisions. At the end of the day, it is our troops and our military, the people who protect us, who will be at risk.”

“I oppose this bill. The government is using it to hide spending and move debt off its books into a new corporation. It lacks transparency, and this agency has already failed to get our troops the equipment they need.”

“Mr. Speaker, it has to be made clear first and foremost that Conservatives support our troops and support getting them the equipment they need in a very fast manner. Unfortunately, what the Liberals are trying to do is add to their creative accounting and create a shell game where they will be able to move government spending out of their deficit and make it an asset under a Crown corporation. This is all smoke and mirrors. The member for Winnipeg North has done a great job in here of trying to provide misleading information to the House and Canadians. What we need to get down to is the facts, one of which is that this bill would not provide the transparency and accountability we deserve as Canadians and deserve as parliamentarians. The track record of this agency to date has been that it has not gotten the equipment that our troops desperately need.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 31 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 agree with the member. The head of the Canada Infrastructure Bank makes about $1.5 million a year. The Prime Minister also tends to give jobs to his friends and family. We still need answers to many questions.”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the member. On the point about Crown corporations, because we keep getting pushed and pressed by the government, let us not forget that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a Crown corporation, and the CEO gets compensated around $1.5 million per year. We also know that the Prime Minister has a tendency to appoint his friends and family to positions. There are a lot of questions that still need to be answered.”

“The Liberal government does not take responsibility when it makes mistakes. Since the government has a majority, our changes to this bill might not pass. If the minister or the head of this new defence agency does something wrong, will the member promise to call for them to be fired or to resign?”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for drawing attention to the importance of base Gagetown. I spent eight years of my career posted there. I know how important that base is for the Canadian Army in particular. My question is about accountability. The member talked a bit about it, and there has been lots of debate around that issue. However, the Liberal government, over the last 10 years, has done a good job of not accepting accountability. We had one case where we successfully censured a former minister of national defence when he messed up in a leadership role. When it came to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, unfortunately the government took the Speaker to court to prevent the will of Parliament. Considering that he is a member of the governing caucus, which has a majority, I am not confident that the amendments that opposition members will want at committee are going to get through. Will the member commit that if the minister or the CEO of the DIA is found guilty of something, he will personally call for their resignation or firing?”

“I do not want this bill to pass. It creates another layer of government that fails to get our military the equipment it needs. It also removes oversight from Parliament, which allows for waste and political interference with tax dollars.”

“Mr. Speaker, it truly is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-40, the defence and national security production and procurement act. In the wake of the tragic events at CFB Wainwright just over a week ago and the launch of the Royal Canadian Legion’s national poppy campaign this past weekend, we are reminded of the service and sacrifice of our Canadian Armed Forces, both past and present, and the importance of the debate we are having here today. Turning to the bill, it pains me to say that here we go again. This is the Liberal government’s third attempt to deliver defence equipment to our Canadian Armed Forces in an efficient and timely way. Perhaps three times is the charm. It was just one short year ago that I spoke to the Liberal government’s budget implementation act, Bill C-31, when the government made the case that its recently created Defence Investment Agency needed to become a stand-alone entity outside of both the departments of PSPC and National Defence. Bill C-40 proposes to turn the Defence Investment Agency into the Canadian corporation for defence investment. The Defence Investment Agency was launched to accelerate defence procurement, but it has failed to deliver a single piece of new equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. Instead, the government points to signing ceremonies and preferred partnership announcements, pretending that this is the same as actually delivering. After a decade of neglect, what our sailors, soldiers and aviators need is a procurement process that equips them for the modern threats we face today. The brave men and women of our armed forces deserve the equipment they need to defend Canada and keep Canadians safe. Above all, they should be able to count on procurement processes that are efficient and accountable. As I was contemplating my remarks for today’s debate, I reflected on the question of accountability and trust: Do I trust the tired old Liberal government to do the right thing with respect to defence procurement? Let us look at its track record. One’s trust would be misplaced on so many fronts, but it is especially the case when it comes to trusting the Liberal government to do the right thing on procurement. I have had the honour of serving in this place for almost two decades, so I want to remind some of my colleagues who have not been here that long of a very sad saga. Canada joined the joint strike fighter program under the former Liberal government in 1997. That is almost 30 years ago. In 2010, under the leadership of a Conservative government, Canada finally selected the F-35, a fifth-generation fighter jet, to replace our aging fleet of CF-18s. Then, in a twist of overt political opportunism, former Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau, at the time the leader, campaigned on a promise to never purchase the F-35. This kicked off approximately seven years of Liberal stonewalling, obstructionism, foot-dragging and delays. The Liberals even concocted the silly idea of buying old jets from Australia. Then, in 2022, the same old Liberal government ended up choosing the F-35 as the CF-18’s replacement. I guess we can always count on a Liberal government to break a promise. However, this saga did not end there. In 2025, the same Liberal government once again put the F-35 procurement under review. Military procurement should be in the best interests of the Canadian Armed Forces and Canada’s national security and should not be politicized, which leads me to another area of concern with this proposed legislation, that being the potential erosion of parliamentary oversight and transparency. This seems to be a pattern for the Liberal government. In order to fix and speed up the broken defence procurement system, the Liberals created a special agency and appointed the Prime Minister’s friend Doug Guzman, who has no background in national defence but asked for a job. He was handed the position of the first CEO of the Defence Investment Agency, with a salary greater than the highest paid federal public servants on the payroll. Four months later, the government announced the need for the agency to be a stand-alone entity, and before that could happen, it introduced legislation to convert the DIA into a Crown corporation, overseen by an associate minister with unprecedented powers. The changes contained in Bill C-40 could remove much-needed parliamentary oversight from the DIA, creating the inevitable mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and waste the government is known for. With billions of tax dollars at stake, Conservatives have serious concerns that the Liberals are increasing the opportunity for political interference and decreasing accountability. I am sure members will recall the revelation of a potential conflict of interest, which still exists, surrounding the Liberal government’s Alto rail boondoggle and the finance minister. The prospect of the finance minister making decisions as part of the federal government’s budgetary process, which presents distinct benefits and advantages for his partner and her employer, and acting and voting in Parliament to give those effect, is deeply troubling. We can consider the Prime Minister’s most recent pre-Thanksgiving announcement to subsidize heat pumps. Brookfield has a big stake in the retrofit and heat pump business via Enercare and Trane, and the Prime Minister has a lot of deferred shares, options and carried interest. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that the DIA or the Liberals themselves may have already decided on Saab’s GlobalEye as the preferred supplier for the airborne early warning and control platform without proper consideration or consultation with the Royal Canadian Air Force. Political interference seems to be second nature for the government. I raise these examples to remind Canadians why we cannot simply trust this Liberal government and to make the case for the need to ensure strong oversight and transparency. To be clear, Conservatives are on the record. We support one point of accountability for defence procurement, not adding layers of bureaucracy to an already bureaucratic system. This is why the rules around sole-source procurement and other reporting requirements must be strong. Conservatives believe that the powers conferred to the CEO by the new associate minister should be scaled back when it comes to decisions to sole-source a procurement, and the government should be required to disclose when it uses national security exceptions to allow for sole-sourcing procurements, including which subsection was supplied. This is not currently a requirement in Bill C-40. I am concerned that the measures proposed in the bill are not strong enough. Instead of taking the politics out of procurement, the bill would ensure that Liberal insiders would benefit from contracts with no transparency, accountability, Treasury Board oversight or sufficient reporting to Parliament. In conclusion, this tired Liberal government’s first and second attempts to reform defence procurement have not proven successful. Like Build Canada Homes or the Major Projects Office, the DIA is just the latest new Liberal bureaucracy delivering bottlenecks instead of progress. As a result, it is only logical that members of Parliament should have concerns about this third attempt to fix defence procurement. Defence procurement is a matter at the heart of our sovereignty and our security, but after a decade of Liberal neglect, our military has been left unprepared for the threats we face. The world is changing. Symbolic announcements do not build or buy the equipment the Canadian Armed Forces require. Faster procurement does not require less accountability. The CAF needs swift action to procure equipment, and Canadian taxpayers deserve transparency and accountability for those expenses. These two requirements are not in conflict, even though it seems like the government wants to promote that view. As a result, my concern is that the lack of transparency in the process being proposed by this bill is a design feature, not an unintended flaw. Bill C-40 would not deliver the equipment our forces desperately need, nor would it protect taxpayers from Liberal corruption. Conservatives will be opposing Bill C-40.”

• Echo ×13

  A repeated line

  “After more than a decade of Liberal government.”

  Said 13 times by 11 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

“The government is using misleading math to meet its military spending goal. It counts things like veterans' pensions, transport planes, and the coast guard as military spending when they are not. Meanwhile, our armed forces face more budget cuts. This proves the Liberals are not serious about defence.”

“Mr. Speaker, after all is said and done, more is always said than done with the Liberal government. This is not the first time that the government has used creative accounting. We have seen this time and time again with the government including items that have not been considered for defence spending, including veterans’ pensions and Transport Canada airplanes, as well as the entire Canadian Coast Guard budget, in order to get to our 2% NATO commitment. If we put that together with recent reports that the Canadian Armed Forces are facing another round of internal belt tightening, the Liberals are proving once again that they are not serious about defence.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 39 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Setting up a defence agency can work, and other countries do it. But we need to look closely at this government. They take too much power and hide what they are doing. The problem is not the agency. The problem is the people running it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would have to say this: No one is questioning the creation of a defence agency, as other countries also use this model. However, as usual, the government’s overreach and willingness to remove transparency and accountability from the process really do need to be examined. Of course, single sourcing and Crown corporations have been used and proven successful when appropriate safeguards or regulations are in place. However, I would say the tools are not the problem. Those wielding the tools are the problem.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The previous government bought major military equipment quickly without creating a new agency. We used existing rules to get the military what it needed fast. I want to know why the government is creating this new corporation. I wonder if it is just a way to avoid normal transparency rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek was around during the Harper era when we bought a lot of equipment for our Canadian Armed Forces members. They were sent out to Afghanistan with virtually nothing. We had to buy everything from tactical lift aircraft to helicopters, tanks and new LAVs; the list goes on and on. We did it without having a defence investment agency. A lot of that was sole-sourced. A lot of that was meeting the urgent operational requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces. A lot of that was about national security exemptions that were put in place. That was all done through a secretariat that the former prime minister set up and led himself. That empowered the ministers, the deputy ministers and all the departments to get the job done fast without creating new bureaucracy. Why does my colleague think the Liberals are creating the Crown corporation? Is it to ensure that Doug Guzman does not rage-quit, or is it to avoid transparency in following Treasury Board guidelines?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 91 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “Is it to ensure that Doug Guzman does not rage-quit”.

  See full analysis →

“I agree with my colleague who pointed out the problems in this defence bill. I think the government is acting on both of the motives he mentioned.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the work that he has done on this national defence file, as well as the work that he has done in reviewing this bill and pointing out the flaws that are inherent within it. When I think about what is motivating the government and the options that I have been given, I would have to say I believe it is both.”

“This bill gives the minister and an appointed head too much power to buy military equipment without asking our armed forces what they actually need. The government already surprised people by planning to buy airplanes without asking the air force. Does my colleague think the government should buy military gear without asking the military first?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech on military procurement, which is an extremely important issue. I would like to ask her a question. At CANSEC in May, everyone was taken by surprise when the government announced its intention to acquire the GlobalEye, an aircraft manufactured by Saab, without first consulting the Canadian air force. To everyone’s great surprise, this announcement was made without any consultation whatsoever. With Bill C-40, which would create the office of secretary of state for defence procurement, it is clear that the minister will have the power to make decisions himself. Worse still, the CEO, Mr. Guzman, will be able to unilaterally decide what he needs and what he wants for the country without necessarily consulting the Canadian Armed Forces. Does my colleague believe that this is the right approach? Should the government be making purchases without consulting the military?”

• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 39 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. Our military needs better equipment, but this bill just creates a secret new Crown corporation. It lets the government spend up to $1 billion without any oversight from Parliament. The Prime Minister is also paying his friend nearly $900,000 to run it instead of hiring a military expert.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today simply to object to Bill C‑40. Before going further, I first want to say that I have always supported the idea of finding a way to fix our military procurement system. I was a soldier myself for a time. Later on, and since my election, I have seen the full extent of the ineffective management plaguing Canada’s defence procurement. Yes, that needs to change. We have models to guide us. Other countries, like Australia, for example, or Great Britain, have different ways of doing things. Today, unfortunately, the government is heading in a completely different direction. In presenting the bill as a way to speed up defence procurement, the government is prevaricating. In reality, this is not a plan to provide the Canadian Armed forces with equipment. It is a blatant attempt to create a secretive bureaucratic structure. The government is asking for a $1-billion blank cheque to circumvent parliamentary oversight and line the pockets of Liberal insiders. The facts are clear. I am not making this up; the information comes directly from official Department of National Defence reports. In 2026, we have warships that are rusting away, military equipment that is worn out and fighter jets that are obsolete. More than 40% of our core naval fleet is unfit for training or operational missions. Half of our core army vehicles are out of service. The situation is even worse in the air, where 57% of the fleet is unusable. Why are we in this situation? The answer is not complicated. The government has systematically underinvested in national procurement, allowed personnel to become exhausted and accumulated nearly $10 billion in allocated defence funding that was never spent. My colleagues heard that correctly: $10 billion earmarked for defence—that is, defence investments—has not been spent and has not been used. It has sat idle, gathering dust on a shelf in the Liberal bureaucracy. The situation has gotten so bad that, last May, members of the Canadian Armed Forces were asked to return basic gear like rucksacks and tactical vests because of a severe shortage of equipment. That is serious. We are being forced to tell soldiers to bring back their rucksacks either because we do not have enough for new arrivals or because soldiers are deploying somewhere and there is not enough equipment. Members are also being asked to return their tactical vests. As I said, I served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 22 years. Of course, we have already lived through what is known as the decade of darkness, under Jean Chrétien. It was terrible. That is why seeing this sort of thing happen again in defence management is almost like post-traumatic shock. This is a national disgrace. While soldiers are short on flak jackets and rucksacks, what are the Liberals doing? They are creating ministerial positions, adding more administrative structures and appointing their friends in high finance to positions with huge salaries. What is more, Bill C-40 also establishes the Canadian corporation for defence investment. This is the third time. It is the third time in a year that the Liberals have changed their minds about the structure of the agency. First, it was supposed to be an agency within Public Services and Procurement Canada. Then, four months later, the Liberals introduced Bill C-31. They decided to make this body an independent agency. Now, with Bill C-40, it is becoming a Crown corporation with unprecedented powers under the responsibility of an associate minister of national defence. When we ask the Liberals why they have done this once, twice and now a third time, we get no answer. They cannot explain it, but we understand. We understand perfectly well what they are trying to do. By turning the agency into a Crown corporation, the Liberals are freeing themselves from Treasury Board procurement rules. It is deliberate. Crown corporations have their own rules. By creating a Crown corporation, the government is no longer accountable to Parliament. It is no longer accountable to anyone. It is not subject to the same rules. Bill C‑40 would create a Crown corporation that would allow the person in charge to spend up to $1 billion at a time without any accountability. I repeat, it is $1 billion, not $1 million. This is taxpayers’ money that can be spent without any accountability. The rules are not the same. It does not work the same way. There will be no accountability or transparency to Parliament. I am not making this up. The Parliamentary Budget Officer made this clear in her report dated October 20. She said that the government’s extensive and growing reliance on Crown corporations since 2016 amounts to creative accounting designed to conceal the government’s true debt picture and obscure the country’s fiscal sustainability. This is just another Liberal scheme. It is nothing new; it dates back to 2016. The Liberals think that if they create this organization or that Crown corporation, they can do things behind closed doors and keep everything hidden. When it comes to defence, rather than having transparency, proper equipment and investments like we want, the Liberals are going to hide all that in a Crown corporation. That is why we oppose this approach. What is more, who did they choose to head up this body that will spend public funds in a non-transparent manner? They did not choose a retired general, a recognized military procurement expert or someone who knows the needs on the ground. No, instead they chose Doug Guzman. Who is he? Doug Guzman is a very close friend of the Prime Minister. Their friendship dates back to when he was working at Goldman Sachs. This person told the Prime Minister that he would really like to have a sweet government job, and the Prime Minister told him that he would appoint him to be the CEO of a Crown corporation for defence procurement and that that would be the best thing that he could do for him. We, on this side of the House, spoke out against that. The Conservatives questioned this approach that involved appointing a guy from Goldman Sachs to be the CEO of a Crown corporation. What is more, he will be able to do what he wants. He will be able to spend however he wants and he will be paid very handsomely to do so. I heard my Bloc Québécois colleague ask this same question earlier. This person will be paid a salary of $679,000 a year and, even worse, he will receive bonuses. As we know, even when people in government are not doing a good job, they still get bonuses. We see it all the time. People are getting bonus after bonus even when they are losing money. With bonuses, this CEO could be earning up to $900,000 a year. That is the highest paying job in the Government of Canada. By way of comparison, the Prime Minister of Canada, who is responsible for the whole country, earns $435,000 a year. The chief of defence staff, who leads the entire Canadian Armed Forces, who is ultimately responsible for the lives of our soldiers and the security of our country, earns a maximum of $329,000. Once again, some well-connected Liberal insider figures that his friend the Prime Minister might be able to land him a sweet job in this new outfit, so they put him there on a salary of $600,000 a year, plus bonuses, and put him in charge of billions of dollars. He will be able to do whatever he wants. No one will ask him any questions. Who would not want a job like that? Once again, this shows exactly where things are headed: a very Liberal way of doing things, opaque and unaccountable, with someone who has no known qualifications for the job being paid an enormous salary. Speaking of pay and compensation, CEO-8 is the highest executive classification in Canada. There are people in some of the most senior positions in the country, with extensive expertise and experience, who do not earn that much. Once again, we are dealing with a bill that began with a good idea: changing the way things are done in Canada. Unfortunately, the Liberal agenda has once again taken hold. This will, once again, ensure that Liberal cronies make money. We do not know where the money will go. There is a glaring lack of oversight. Will operational requirements be met? Will the real needs of the armed forces be met, given that we have already seen announcements like the one about the GlobalEye? To everyone’s surprise, an aircraft was announced that, from a tactical and technical standpoint, does not meet those requirements. Unfortunately, we have not seen the last of this.”

“I question the government's choice to lead this new military buying corporation. The person chosen does not have military supply experience, gets paid too much, and seems to only have the job because he is a friend of the Prime Minister.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was clear when I spoke about the skills required for the job. Was what Mr. Guzman did at Goldman Sachs a good thing? It probably was. However, is he the right person to run an opaque Crown corporation responsible for military procurement and for meeting operational requirements? That is what we are questioning. We are also questioning the fact that he is receiving an astronomical salary. As I mentioned in my speech, if the government had appointed someone with military procurement and supply expertise to a key position, that would be entirely appropriate. However, if someone turns up out of the blue and the only criterion they meet is being a friend of the Prime Minister, it is reasonable to ask questions.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 71 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “if someone turns up out of the blue and the only criterion they meet is being a friend of the Prime Minister”.

  See full analysis →

“This bill hides too much. It creates a defence agency run by someone from Goldman Sachs, but the public will not be able to see what it does. The Liberals have also changed their plans for this three times without explaining why.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned a few times in my speech, that is the problem: It is the lack of transparency. When something is opaque, it means we cannot see what is going on. We are left in the dark. That is the main danger posed by Bill C-40, which would establish a defence procurement Crown corporation headed by someone coming from Goldman Sachs. Everything is closed off. Everything is opaque. We know nothing, and we will know nothing. That is precisely what should not be happening. That also explains why the Liberals have changed the way they have presented this file not once, not twice, but three times. It is also why they cannot answer the simple question of why they have changed course three separate times.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The last Conservative government bought military gear without open bidding to help soldiers in Afghanistan, and Parliament still watched over the process. Why does the member think the Liberals want to avoid that kind of oversight?”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his many years of service in the armed forces. As he knows, the previous Conservative government successfully implemented single-source procurement projects to support our soldiers in Afghanistan, without disregarding parliamentary oversight. Why does he think the Liberals want to avoid transparency and parliamentary oversight?”

“The previous Conservative government ran the military well. This Liberal government is taking us backward. It is bringing back an era of secrecy instead of being open with soldiers, Parliament, and Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague for his 20 years of service in the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. He experienced first-hand, on the ground, the impact of ministerial decisions regarding urgently needed equipment. At the time, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government handled those matters exceptionally well. What we are seeing today is a return to the dark ages of Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government. I lived through it myself as a member of the military. It was complete chaos. Once again, we are heading back to an era of opacity and secrecy, instead of transparency for our military personnel, for Parliament and for Canadians.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. Our military has grown weaker under the Liberals because of cuts to training and equipment. Creating a new Crown corporation will not fix this. It will only hide military spending and contracts from Parliament's oversight.”

“Mr. Speaker, CFB Wainwright is no longer front and centre in the news, but many of our service personnel are still in a critical situation from injuries and burns. We also think of the four who lost their lives at this time. It is a reflection of the dangerous work that our military, the navy, the army and the air force do, whether in combat or during training exercises. Our thoughts and prayers are certainly with the families and friends of these four soldiers and those who knew them, as well as with the numerous personnel. This strikes close to home because I did my basic training at CFB Wainwright and was involved in other military exercises afterward. That was decades ago. I have lived a full life since then. I want to live longer, but it has been decades. These young men had their lives cut short, and as we approach Remembrance Day, we reflect on the tens of thousands of Canadians who died on the battlefield, who drowned in the North Atlantic after their ships were torpedoed and who suffered unimaginable horrors as prisoners of war in internment camps under the Japanese or as slave labourers. It was terrible. About a decade ago, my wife and I had the privilege of going to Normandy and visiting Juno Beach, where the first Canadian Army landed, and around town. If members have not had a chance to see it, I would encourage them to the site at some point in their life, and other places in France and throughout Europe, such as Vimy Ridge. There are pictures of Canadians moving throughout the town under the hail of machine gunfire. Hundreds were killed and wounded. Lest we forget. Canadians are peace-loving. We have a tradition of peacekeeping. My father served in the Royal Canadian Air Force for 36 years and was based across Canada, in Germany and with the United Nations peacekeeping forces in Ismailia, Egypt and the Golan Heights. Growing up in a military home and having served in the military, I can say the Canadian military has always been on my mind and in my heart. I remember growing up during the years that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the Liberal prime minister of Canada. I know that those were difficult days for the Canadian military. There were numerous base closures. Our troop strength was slashed and in many ways crippled. We went from having the third- or fourth-largest navy and air force to now being way down on the list, and it is dropping. Our ranking, as far as our military capacity goes, is dropping year by year, it seems. Our overall ranking is now 28th in the world. Our air force is 30th. Our navy is 45th. It has steadily dropped under the Liberals. I am not talking about our personnel. They are excellent. They are dedicated, loyal and professional, and I think they are admired wherever they are. I am talking about how under the Liberals, we have seen an ongoing decline and erosion of our military capacity in spite of the increased dangers we are facing. I understand that after the iron curtain came down, there was a peace dividend and people thought there would be no more war, but things have changed. Humanity has not changed, though. We were not prepared for previous world wars. We were not prepared for the First World War or the Second World War. One cannot just be ready at the call of a bugle. It takes training. It takes equipment. It takes investment. It takes enough personnel, too, and enough training. As for the Liberals, we are hearing a lot of talk but seeing little concrete action. I did not say “no concrete action”, because they will point to this expenditure or that expenditure, like the building of a new bureaucracy. The Liberals are very crafty. They will say they are on track to meet NATO’s defence obligations, but a lot of it is a sleight of hand. For example, they have the Coast Guard now as part of their defence calculations, which was not there beforehand. There are other things that were never part of the defence calculations but now are. The percentage is going up, but actually, in reality, it is going down. As a matter of fact, it is not just staying the same; the investments we are seeing are going down. It is getting worse. I talk with service personnel. The training budget and operating budget have been slashed year after year. This year it was another 10%. The operating budget is already low. It is tough. The infantry, for example, needs to be able to shoot ammo, but a lot of times, even ammo is at a premium. It is really tough. As recently as 2024-25, 40% of maritime key fleets were not serviceable for training and operations, as well as 50% of key army vehicles and 57% of aircraft. Those figures are actually getting worse. We then have the retirement of the Snowbirds. They are part of the military. They are a symbol of Canada, a very important symbol. The Liberals said they were going to bring a replacement aircraft, that they were going to close this down and replace these jets in the 2030s, forgetting that they just modernized these aircraft in 2021 for $29 million. Modernizing the aircraft is not the reason. We are living in a dangerous world, and the Liberals are just traipsing along. Think of what is happening in the battlefields in Ukraine and Russia right now. We have to be much more nimble and ready for hostilities. The Conservatives believe in equipping our forces quickly but also in being sensitive to the Canadian taxpayers, who foot the bill. Under the Harper Conservatives, we bought 650 new LAVs, light armoured vehicles; 500 tactical armoured vehicles; and 100 Leopard tanks. The previous government, under Chrétien, was actually disposing of them. We bought two main battle tanks, 82 armoured heavy support vehicle systems, 50 Nyala armoured vehicles and 37 M777 howitzers. For the air force, we bought five brand new CC-177 tactical Globemasters so we can move equipment around. We bought 21 Chinook helicopters and 17 new CC-130J Hercules models. We upgraded our CF-188s and made the decision to buy the F-35. We got things done. We did not need another bureaucracy under the Defence Investment Agency, which has been in operation for 10 years and has not had any purchases, nothing. The Liberals now want to make it a Crown corporation that is at arm’s length. Well, that is fine. It is not at arm’s length, because under the terms, contrary to all other Crown agencies, it must do what the minister requires it to do. It has much less accountability to Parliament. It can move things around, have contracts and do sole-source contracts that are in its interest, not accountable to Parliament. This is a travesty.”