“I want to know why the government is avoiding openness and oversight from Parliament. This bill involves hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, and we need to watch how it is spent.”

“Madam Speaker, I am not going to debate whether or not Crown corporations can possibly be very effective. I think there are examples of where they have been very effective. There are plenty of examples of where they have not been very effective or very efficient. We have had huge debates around Canada Post. There are still huge issues, as it is not actually functioning the way it needs to function properly. That said, why is the government, and this is the whole purpose of part of my speech, hiding behind transparency and parliamentary oversight? That is where my real concerns are when we are talking about literally hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.”

“The Auditor General has said that government-owned corporations have different rules than regular departments, which makes it harder to hold them accountable. How can we make these corporations transparent when these barriers exist?”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for his service in the military. In the public accounts committee, of which I am a member, we have had many occurrences where the Auditor General has said that there are different rules for departments versus Crown corporations, and how that is a problem for the Auditor General’s dealing with accountability and transparency with regard to the Crown corporations. Can the member speak to how he sees this transparency actually proceeding with these impediments?”

“The government is bending accounting rules by calling its spending an asset. Losing money, like Canada Post does, is not an asset. We must follow normal accounting rules and watch taxpayer money closely to make sure our military is properly equipped.”

“Madam Speaker, I think that is a great point. In fact, I encourage all Canadians listening to read the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s latest reports around the bending of the rules and the interpretation of how accountability and accounting are working with the government expenditures, with the Prime Minister and the Liberal government are trying to say that spending is somehow now assets. The parliamentary secretary talked about how Crown corporations are so good, but we have some examples. I mentioned Canada Post, which has been losing $1 billion every year. At the same time, how is that an asset? That is absolutely a liability. It is spending, not an actual asset going forward. I think we should be using the same rules we have always used to account for our budgetary spending of Canadian taxpayers’ dollars in this country. I think it is so important that the privilege we have as parliamentarians is used to actually provide that oversight, to ensure for Canadians that the members of our Canadian Armed Forces are being equipped properly with those very limited taxpayer dollars.”

“We likely do not need this new defence corporation. Past governments were able to buy military equipment quickly while Parliament watched over them.”

“Madam Speaker, my Bloc colleague’s question is a good one, as it speaks to the issue of whether this corporation is even required. I would argue it likely is not. I agree with the hon. member that it is not actually doing anything, as I demonstrated in my speech, when governments of the past have successfully procured equipment in a timely fashion when required and, at the same time, with parliamentary oversight.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →