Alex Ruff

“The program to buy back banned guns is a mess. People were told to mail in their guns, but delivery companies refused to take them. The government sent late boxes, missing supplies, and wrong addresses. I want the government to pay gun owners even if their guns arrived after the deadline because of these mistakes.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am here to follow up on a question I asked a few weeks ago in the House specifically around the Liberals’ firearms confiscation compensation regime, or the gun grab, and how they are paying back our law-abiding firearms owners. In particular, I identified, here in the House during question period, the fact that I have a number of constituents who were just notified, not even a month ago, October 1. They received communications from the the Department of Public Safety saying they needed to ship their firearms to the government here in Ottawa, I believe to an address somewhere on Bronson, via Purolator, FedEx or UPS in order to receive compensation for these legal firearms. However, as I pointed out during my question, they went to all three of these couriers and were told they could not ship these firearms without prior approval. When they ultimately reached out to public safety to say that they were sent this email, this letter, saying they needed to ship these firearms and were being told by the couriers that they would not take them without prior approval, they were met with question marks. They were given case file numbers. I am going to go through some of the specific feedback. Before I get into that, I want to point out the craziness of some of this. Here is a program that the government put in place for $750-ish million, of which it allocated only $242 million to actually compensating these law-abiding, vetted, licensed and trained firearms owners for confiscating their legal property. The Liberals needed $500 million to administer the bureaucracy around this confiscation regime. Now we are hearing stories that the whole regime is not even functioning properly. Here are a couple of the points I got directly from constituents. One constituent noted that the shipping kit was delayed in arriving. It was missing packing material. Purolator refused to ship it. Again, there were issues with the actual reimbursement of the shipping, which is a separate claim or submission that firearms owners have to submit. They were told initially it could take up to 14 days to get the kit, which would have put it after the October 17 cut-off. When it showed up, there was no wrapping paper and no packing adhesive tape, which they were told should all have been in the box. The retail outlet refused to ship it without authorization from its office. It was so confusing that they had no idea how to do it. Luckily, in this first case, the firearm was shipped off. Another constituent noted contradictory information from the government. At 4 p.m., they received a call with a reference case number. They went to Purolator, and Purolator could not do it. The individual wrote, “Once again the Government of Canada lied to me.” Another constituent received the wrong shipping address, not even the right postal code, in the email from the public safety department. I could go on. There are about six or seven more constituents who I am aware of in my riding alone. In light of all of these examples, and I am sure they are replicated across every riding in Canada, will the government commit to ensuring that law-abiding firearms owners who participated in this Liberal firearms confiscation regime will get their due compensation even if the firearms were received after October 17 due to the shortfalls of the administration of this $500-million program?”

“The previous Conservative government bought military gear quickly without creating a new agency. This bill requires a review in five years. More than 13 other laws are already overdue for required reviews. Will the member make sure this review actually happens?”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Davenport for laying out a lot of the reasons why we need quality defence equipment for our Canadian Armed Forces and laying out the threat that we face with global instability. However, the other point I wanted to make was, historically, in the previous Conservative government, there were massive amounts of equipment delivered without the need for a defence investment agency in a very timely fashion, and I felt the benefits of that wholeheartedly. I want to correct the member a little. She said this bill has two parts, when it actually has three parts. The third part is that this act needs to be reviewed within five years. Would the member commit to holding the government to account to ensure that review happens, because we have more than 13 pieces of legislation right now that have not been reviewed and that review is overdue?”

“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 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?”

“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 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?”

In response to a question from Rhéal Éloi Fortin

“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 →

In response to a question from William Stevenson

“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.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“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.”

“Canada needs to fix how it buys military equipment, but this bill lets the government spend hundreds of billions of dollars without proper oversight from Parliament. Ministers must come to committee and explain how they will keep this spending open and accountable to Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak to Bill C-40, strengthening Canada’s defence sector act. This enactment contains measures relating to production, procurement and investment with respect to national defence and national security. Part 1 deals with establishing the Canadian corporation for defence investment and part 2 would amend the Defence Production Act to, among other things: (a) extend the application of that Act to supplies and projects related to national security and to services related to national defence and national security; (b) provide that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has the authority to acquire supplies and services related to national defence and national security... [with some] exceptions; (c) extend the purposes for which that Minister may engage in stockpiling to include national defence and national security, including economic security, and the defence and security of an associated government or other state; (d) provide that Minister with new financial authorities...; and (e) establish procurement rules..... Then part 3 gets into providing the necessary review of said acts. Everything I just said was extracted from the legislation itself. What does this mean in plain speak? Bill C-40 would establish a Canadian corporation for defence investment, a Crown corporation run by a CEO and a board of directors under the authority of the associate minister of defence for procurement. The extent that Treasury Board’s rules, however, would apply to this corporation have not been established. It is not part of the bill itself, but it is expected to be substantially less than before the defence investment act is enacted. The Defence Production Act would be renamed and amended to permit the minister to procure everything or anything that could have a national defence or security use. It would also allow the corporation to exercise powers under sections 15 and 16 of the newly named defence and national security production and procurement act, which would deal with the stockpiling, procurement and disposal of military equipment. Bill C-40 would also massively expand the number of categories under which the minister could carry out a sole-sourced procurement, 17 in total should this bill pass, and by virtue of that, decline to run a competition and would also allow any number of future exceptions to be written into regulation, not backed through legislation. It would also allow the minister to exclude anyone on national security grounds from a competition, and here is what I take issue with, without justification, oversight or explanation to Canada and to Parliament. Before I get into some of the other reasons that I think it is important that we revisit and revamp our procurement process, I am shocked that we are debating today under the threat of time allocation. To be fair, the government has not moved it, but a Liberal stood on Friday and threatened to move time allocation on a bill that is going to allow the government to spend literally hundreds of billions of dollars going forward and, at the same time, remove parliamentary oversight. I find it fascinating that we are on the second day of debate, not even through the first five hours of debate, and we are already under a threat of time allocation. I will provide a bit of my own background. I spent 25 years in the military, but 24 years ago I had the privilege of attending, on the army side, the land force technical staff program, a year-long course where I did nothing besides study defence management as it relates to the army here in Canada and how we procure equipment. I was shocked, to say the least, after learning the technical expertise, some of the skill sets associated with it and a lot of science and engineering type stuff too, how messed up our procurement system has been for decades. That is why I am all about seeing necessary changes to the way we procure equipment for our members of the Canadian Armed Forces. I want to give another specific example. After I did that course, I had the privilege of being posted at the infantry school in Gagetown. I had this weird title. I was the infantry corps technical adjutant. It was basically my job to read every statement of requirement for every piece of equipment that the army was procuring that could impact the Canadian Armed Forces and, specifically, the Canadian infantry. I remember having a debate and argument with the project director in Ottawa at the time around the purchase of our STANO equipment, our surveillance, target acquisition and night observation gear, specifically our monocular night vision goggles. We were doing something back then called whole fleet management. This was back under the Chrétien Liberal government at the time. I said this was not going to work, that we could not have equipment being procured for individual soldiers and expect to have it serviceable and ready when we need it, when we deploy on operations or to war. This was obviously post-9/11. We had troops in Afghanistan, but had not committed to the fight yet. I was shocked and I had something to say when I called up that project director in spring 2006, because now I am the priority of the Canadian Army, deploying to Afghanistan on combat operations, and I do not even have enough monocular night vision goggles or enough equipment to train in night fighting before we are going out the door and going to war. It was just very frustrating. If we fast-forward a bit, however, we see that we can do this right. The previous Harper Conservative government demonstrated during Afghanistan the ability to make massive procurements. They were to the tune of billions of dollars through a sole-source process. We got Chinook helicopters. We repurchased tanks. We got strategic airlift capabilities with the C-17s. There are many more examples I could provide. It can be done, but it requires leadership and political will. A previous speaker from my side of the House highlighted this. It is about political will. Accountability, transparency and parliamentary oversight are needed. This is what my concerns now relate to. Under the Liberal government, over the last 11 years, a number of defence procurement processes have been messed up. In previous speeches, we heard about the GlobalEye. Again, it was purchased before any substantial discussions with the Royal Canadian Air Force. There are still concerns about the operational capabilities of this platform to work in the north, in our Arctic. Let us talk about the F-35. The member for Winnipeg North got up earlier and said they are a great thing. I will remind everyone that the member ran under the Liberal government in 2015 when it said it was going to get rid of the F-35 and that there was no way it was going to purchase the F-35, which is completely contrary to procurement, government rules and the whole competition process. It is good to finally see those F-35s being delivered. The Liberals announced the Defence Investment Agency. It was announced during the Budget Implementation Act earlier and now through this new piece of legislation, Bill C-40. What may be part of the catalyst for this legislation is that the DIA’s own CEO reportedly wanted to resign. He has been so frustrated by the slow pace of government bureaucracy and lack of the current Liberal government making things happen. What is the government’s answer? It is to take away accountability and oversight. That is where my concerns lie. We are talking about hundreds of billions of Canadian taxpayer dollars being used without being transparent or having proper parliamentary oversight. The Liberals have stood up and are claiming that the accountability is going to occur through the new associate minister of national defence. However, at the same time, we do not see anything within the clauses of the bill itself that would provide mechanisms for that oversight and transparency. In principle, I absolutely support a massive rework of Canada’s defence procurement system. However, as I laid out in my speech, Canada can procure and has procured massive military procurement in the past. How was that done? As I said, it was done through leadership. It was done through leadership by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, by pushing things through, by making the claim to the Canadian taxpayer publicly and by reporting back to this chamber the necessary mechanisms so that the billions of dollars are going out for the right reasons and not just to Liberal insiders. It can be done. I am going to be listening intently. I am confident in stating that this bill will get to committee. I am looking forward to the testimony of the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, the Minister of National Defence and the minister of procurement services. I am looking forward to them showing up and explaining how they are going to make sure that they are accountable and transparent to Canadian taxpayers and how they will make sure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are equipped with the necessary equipment and systems they need to defend this nation.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “I will give a specific example.”

  Said 5 times by 3 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“We need to fix how we buy military equipment, but this bill removes transparency and oversight. The government can already buy urgent gear when leaders step up. I want to know why the Liberals chose to avoid answering to Parliament.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to expand on the question the member from the Green Party asked, which really gets to the root of accountability and the lack of transparency that is being brought forward. As somebody who has spent decades in the military, I fully understand that we need to massively revamp our defence procurement system. However, the previous Harper government demonstrated that when we need to urgently sole-source something for operational needs, it is able to be done. What does it require? It requires leadership from the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence. In this case, the Liberals are trying to bring in a mechanism, and I am trying to understand why they would take away all this transparency, ministerial accountability, ultimately, and parliamentary oversight. I have no problem with Canada and the government’s spending billions of dollars for our military, but it needs to be reported back to the House. Can my hon. colleague explain why he thinks the Liberals are going down this path?”

“Since 1945, the Commissionaires got first choice for federal security jobs, which helped employ veterans. The government ended this rule, even though their own officials said it would hurt older veterans who might not find other work. I want the minister to explain why the government did this.”

“Madam Speaker, established in 1945 to support veteran employment, the right of first refusal gave the non-profit and largest employer of veterans, the Commissionaires, preferential access to federal security guard contracts. Considering that a Veterans Affairs ministerial briefing recognized that ending the right of first refusal could negatively affect older veterans, many of whom could struggle to find alternate employment, can the veterans minister tell veterans and Canadians why the Liberal government did this?”

In response to a question from Yves Perron

“The government needs to be open about how it plans to work with the provinces on this. Some national defence issues must be handled federally, but hiding details will cause waste and problems for this plan.”

“Madam Speaker, I have my own cynical opinion of the government’s willingness to collaborate and negotiate with most organizations, including respecting provincial jurisdiction. At the same time, I acknowledge that when it comes to things like national defence, there is a time and place where sometimes we have to do things in the best interest of the country. The importance around this does have to be communicated. It has to be open and transparent about what the requirements are and how the provinces and the federal government can work together. We are in a position now where if the government does not provide that transparency, it is just going to create additional potential waste and challenges that will undermine the importance of an initiative like this.”