“Many veterans leave the military and end up with no job, no support, and no recognition. I looked at this bill, and I do not see how it fixes this. I want the member to explain how it will help veterans return to normal life.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain in greater detail how this bill will help veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces successfully transition to civilian life. I agree with her. I have seen cases like this in my constituency. Many individuals leave the armed forces for a variety of reasons, only to find themselves with nothing. They have no job, no social network and no recognition for their service. I have studied Bill C-40, but I am not sure I can see any concrete improvements in it. In her view, how will Bill C-40 help these people?”

“I worry this bill lets the government avoid blame for defense spending decisions. The new agency's president is close to the Prime Minister and will make about $700,000 a year, which is more than the Prime Minister makes. If there are scandals or bad decisions, the government could just blame this agency. The government needs to stay directly in charge of defense investments.”

“Madam Speaker, is this not a way for the government to shirk some of its responsibility? Is it not a bit risky to create an agency to handle such crucial and sensitive defence investments? Questions are already being raised. First, there is the appointment of the agency’s president, who is close to the Prime Minister and has a background at Goldman Sachs. Then, that person’s salary is around $700,000 a year, which is more than that of most senior public servants. That is more than what the Minister of Finance and National Revenue himself earns, and it is more than the Prime Minister’s salary, though interest on his investments is not included in that figure. I wonder if this is a way for the government to offload some of its responsibility. When there are questionable decisions, when there are suspicions of misconduct or scandals, which could happen, even if it is just cases of misconduct that need to be investigated, the government might then be able to claim that it was not them, that it was the agency, and that it cannot be held responsible. On the contrary, when it comes to defence investments, it is absolutely essential for the government to be at the helm.”

“This bill sets up a new Crown corporation, but the government will still control its decisions. It changes nothing real. It just gives a friend of the Prime Minister a job leading this corporation with a huge salary. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this.”

“Madam Speaker, creating this new Crown corporation is all well and good. It allows the government to say that decisions will be made independently. However, when we read the bill, it is clear that the government still retains control over decisions. Even if the decisions are officially being made by a Crown corporation, there will still be government oversight. That seems a bit pointless to me. It strikes me as a bit of a smoke-and-mirrors show that will not really change anything meaningfully on the ground, especially since it is clear that it benefits a former colleague and friend of the Prime Minister who will end up at the head of this Crown corporation with a salary that could be described as astronomical. How does my colleague view these issues in relation to Bill C-40?”

• 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 →

“We do not need a new agency to buy military equipment. The government has bought planes and ships for decades without one. This new agency lets the government take credit for successes while blaming the agency for mistakes. Public servants could do this work instead of paying a friend of the Prime Minister $700,000 a year.”

“Madam Speaker, at the time the Defence Investment Agency was created, another mechanism had been in place for decades. The need to procure military equipment is nothing new for Canada. It has always existed. The government has purchased aircraft and had ships built in the past. None of that is anything new. What forces the government to create a new agency now, one that is going to release the government from some of its responsibilities? We can all agree that the agency will bear the blame for any major errors or mistakes, whereas the government will take credit for any success. We already know how that works. What has happened in recent years that makes another agency better qualified than the Department of National Defence to handle this kind of procurement? That is the message being sent to public servants and the Department of National Defence. Furthermore, why does it take a friend of the Prime Minister, a former Goldman Sachs colleague earning a salary of $700,000 a year or more, to do work that public servants and the existing department could very well have done themselves?”