MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

David McGuinty

Follow by RSS

McGuinty defends major investments in the Canadian Armed Forces, including recruiting, modernizing bases, and moving military sexual offence cases to civilian courts through Bill C-11. He backs these claims with statistics, noting, “We have seen, for example, a 61% increase in completed applications.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B–
71 / 100 over 60 statements
Signal 74 / 100
Relevance 54 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 88 / 100
Averaged over the 60 of 67 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

Loses points less than most for A remark off to the side of the point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A story that illustrates instead of making a point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean

Statements 67

Government Orders ·

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“We did not move the Coast Guard into National Defence just to hit a spending target. We moved it to improve our country's security and intelligence work.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the continuing responsibilities the Coast Guard has in this regard. I would like to set the record straight, though. The Coast Guard was not transferred into the DND family as a result of our trying to hit a target. It was transferred into the DND family in order to provide security and intelligence functions in a more complete defence posture for the country.

In response to a question from Gord Johns

“This new defence corporation will answer directly to Parliament. Committees can question its leaders at any time. It will also help us make defence deals much faster, like cutting the submarine buying process from five years down to 20 months.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what the member is referring to is overall accountability and, for that matter, also compellability. The CEO of this Crown corporation could be brought before committee at any time. The board could be convened at any time. There would be opportunities to put tough, difficult and probative questions to them. There is no off-ramp with respect to the creation of the Crown in terms of accountability to Parliament. On the contrary, what it would do is make this body more fleet-footed, more focused, more commercial and more able to negotiate better deals more quickly. We have seen that most recently with the example of the forthcoming acquisition of the fleet of new submarines. A process that normally would have taken five years was in fact, hopefully with a completed contract soon to come, completed within 20 months.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“We promised to spend over $81 billion over the next five years to rebuild the military. This money is already helping us recruit and keep more members, with applications up by 61% this year.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a former serving member of the forces, and I thank him very much for his service. What the member is really indicating is that we made a decision some 14 months ago to transform the Canadian Armed Forces in terms of investments, recruitment, retention and pay packages. Overall, as I mentioned, we made a 2% commitment to spending, $81 billion-plus over the next five years, and we have seen results. We have seen, for example, a 61% increase in completed applications to join the Canadian Armed Forces this year as compared with last year. We have seen recruitment numbers continue at other levels. We have seen retention also continue to augment and ameliorate. What we are really doing here is making the requisite investments to recruit, retain, arm and rebuild, and this is exactly what the Canadian Armed Forces have been waiting for, for some time.

In response to a question from Luc Thériault

“This new defence corporation will answer to Parliament through a new associate minister. It will have a board of directors, strong money rules, and audits by the Auditor General. This will make buying defence equipment faster while keeping the government accountable.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I would say to my colleague that the proposed Crown corporation will be accountable to Parliament through a new associate minister of national defence for procurement. This is exactly the case in several other allied countries in Europe, for example, in Great Britain. The government will establish a board of directors to oversee the agency’s day-to-day management and supervision. In addition, the Crown corporation will be subject to ministerial requirements regarding reporting to Parliament and financial controls, as well as audits and reviews by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. We have established a model, or an architecture, that will streamline procurement. At the same time, we are ensuring that there is the kind of accountability to which the member is referring.

In response to a question from James Bezan

“I support creating a Crown corporation to buy defence equipment. It will be more flexible, make faster decisions, and hire business experts. It will also be able to invest directly and give out loans, which the old agency could not do.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 43 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I are in complete agreement with respect to the troops and our combined support and, I think, Parliament’s support for the folks who are battling right now in our health care system and struggling for health. We wish them, of course, speedy recoveries. I want to begin perhaps by just going back to the first part of his question, which was about the distinction between the Crown corporation and the special operating agency. One of the things that happened when we actually began the reform of a procurement regime in defence, for the first time in decades in this country, is that there were lessons to learn. We have learned from experience. We have learned in terms of the sophistication of the commercial marketplace. We have learned how to deal more overtly with the suppliers of goods and services. That is why we believe the Crown corporation will have greater flexibility to draw on commercial expertise, execute innovative investment tools and streamline decision-making processes. For example, it will allow, in this case with the Crown, the opportunity for the Crown to invest by buying equity or even providing loans. That is something that the agency previously could not provide. We think this is a step forward.

“Four soldiers recently died and many were hurt in a fire during training. We must support their families and the workers helping them. I want the House to pass this bill. It sets up a new public agency to buy military equipment faster. Our current buying system is too slow and complicated. Our troops need the right tools and gear without delay to stay safe and defend Canada.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, because this is the first time I have had an opportunity to address the House with respect to the incidents that occurred this past weekend, I want to say a few things about the tragedy that occurred in Wainwright. On Saturday afternoon, at CFB Wainwright, a violent, fast-moving fire broke out while soldiers were training on the range. Thirty-nine members of the Canadian Armed Forces were injured, including 19 critically, and four lost their lives: Private Aidan Goulding of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, from North Vancouver, British Columbia; Private Shaun Farrell of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, from Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; Private Hayden Lykkemark of the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, from Langley, British Columbia; and Sergeant Morgan Wong of the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, from Edmonton, Alberta. Canada will remember them. This is one of the most difficult moments the Canadian Armed Forces has faced at home in peacetime. Yesterday, I met with Canadian Armed Forces members and first responders and received an update from CAF leadership on the ongoing response. Our priority remains the well-being of the families of the fallen and those who remain hospitalized. As of this moment, 27 members of the Canadian Armed Forces are still in hospital receiving treatment. I want to take a moment to thank all of the health care workers in our hospitals, our surgeons, our nurses and our critical care experts for the support they are providing to these incredibly brave members of the Canadian Armed Forces. In particular, I would like to single out those whom I met yesterday at the hospital in Wainwright, the men and the women who performed heroically throughout the crisis. It was indeed a crisis. In the face of profound loss, they have shown extraordinary strength, compassion and care for one another. We will continue to stand with them and their families and ensure that they have the support they need. Let me now turn to the legislation before us and explain why our government is taking action to strengthen Canada’s defence sector. I do rise today in support of Bill C-40, the strengthening Canada’s defence sector act. This is a defining moment for Canada’s security and sovereignty. Threats are evolving rapidly. Technology is changing the nature of conflict, so we and our allies must adapt to a new reality. Canada must be ready. We need to strengthen our military capabilities, modernize our institutions and ensure that our investments produce concrete results. That is exactly what the bill seeks to do. At the heart of every decision we make in national defence are the women and men who serve the country. I have had the privilege of meeting them on bases and wings across Canada, aboard our ships and alongside our allies overseas. Wherever I go, I am reminded of the extraordinary professionalism, determination and sense of duty that define our Canadian Armed Forces. We ask a great deal of these Canadians, as we have all been witness to this past weekend. We ask them to defend our sovereignty in the Arctic, to stand alongside our NATO allies in Europe, to respond when Canadians face wildfires, floods and natural disasters, and when necessary, to put themselves in harm’s way. They answer that call without hesitation. Behind every member in uniform is a family that serves alongside them, families that endure long separations, repeated moves and sacrifices of their own. When we ask that much of our people, we have a responsibility to give them the tools they need to succeed, because readiness is not an abstract concept; it is whether a sailor can depend on the ship beneath their feet, whether an aviator has the capabilities needed to complete the mission, whether a soldier has the equipment and protection necessary to return home safely. We owe these Canadians more than our gratitude. We owe them those results, and delivering those results begins with ensuring that our defence procurement system works for the people who actually depend on it. Canada is making generational investments in national defence. This is irrefutable. We reached NATO’s 2% defence spending target in fiscal year 2025-26, five years ahead of our previous scheduled commitment. Budget 2025 committed approximately $81.8 billion in additional defence funding over five years. We are rebuilding, rearming and reinvesting in our national defence. As I have said before and will repeat again here, investing more is only part of the job. We must also change how we deliver, because money committed is not capability delivered. A contract signed does not put equipment in the hands of a service member. An announcement cannot defend our airspace, patrol our oceans or protect our sovereignty. Only real military capability can do that. For too long, Canada’s defence procurement system has been too fragmented, too complex and too slow, with too many steps, too many hand-offs and too much time between identifying what our armed forces need and getting that capability into their hands. That is not a reflection of the talented military personnel, public servants and procurement professionals who work within the system, but a reflection of a system that must simply evolve. The world is not going to wait for us to do just that, pursue that evolution. That brings us to the legislation before the House. The Defence Investment Agency was established in October 2025 to transform how Canada acquires and delivers defence capabilities. Bill C-40 would take that transformation even further. It would establish the agency as a Crown corporation within the national defence portfolio, giving it a permanent structure, greater commercial flexibility and the specialized expertise needed to manage complex defence investments. This is not simply about creating another institution, as some would have us believe, but about fundamentally improving how we deliver for our armed forces, bringing procurement, production and investment together, connecting military requirements with the industrial capacity needed to meet them and ensuring that decisions can be made with the speed and discipline that national security demands. Acquiring equipment is only one part of the challenge. We must also be able to maintain it, repair it, replenish it and sustain it throughout its operational life. Bill C-40 would provide broader procurement and investment tools, including mechanisms to help strengthen production capacity in strategically important areas. It would also amend the Defence Production Act to better reflect Canada’s evolving national security requirements, including economic security. It would support a more coordinated approach to major defence acquisitions. The Canadian Armed Forces, National Defence and the Canadian Coast Guard would continue to determine what capabilities they need. The Defence Investment Agency would focus on getting those capabilities delivered. The proposed agency would remain subject to appropriate government and parliamentary oversight, with clear governance and accountability arrangements. Canadians expect their government to move with urgency. They also expect responsible spending and value for money. We can do both, we must do both, and in Bill C-40 we will do both. Canada has never been a country that turned away from difficult challenges. Generations of Canadians have stepped forward to build, serve and defend this country. They built the institutions that protect us. They served in conflicts far from home. They understood that sovereignty, security and freedom could never be taken for granted. Today, that responsibility belongs to us. We have inherited it. As a result, we are making the investments. We are strengthening our armed forces. We are rebuilding our defence industrial capacity. We launched Canada’s first ever defence industrial strategy a short 10 months ago. Now we must ensure that our institutions can deliver at the pace this moment demands because it is accelerating. The measure of our commitment to national defence is not simply what we promise, but what we build, deliver and sustain, and whether the women and men who serve Canada can count on us when it matters most. They are ready to serve. We must be ready to deliver. Bill C-40 takes the process of procurement to its next logical step, building on our experience to be able to provide the equipment, the materiel that is required by the women and men on the front lines of the Canadian Armed Forces, because ultimately we are here for them as they acquit themselves courageously of their responsibilities as members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Oral Questions ·

Veterans Affairs

In response to a question from Jeff Kibble

“This case is still in court, so the government cannot get involved. I hear the member's concerns and will take them back to my office.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that this case remains under litigation, it is inappropriate for the government to involve itself in the matter. I have taken due note of the member’s concerns, and I will take them back to my office.

Oral Questions ·

National Defence

In response to a question from Dane Lloyd

“Our military is stronger when it includes people of all backgrounds and faiths. Military leaders made chaplain guidelines to care for every member and help them do their jobs. These rules do not ban private faith.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Armed Forces is strengthened by the diversity of its traditions and the backgrounds and beliefs of its members. The policies to support diversity are a moral and ethical responsibility of the Royal Canadian Chaplain Service, the chief of the defence staff and CAF leadership. In their commitment to care for all, they have made a decision that the spiritual health and well-being of CAF members are vital to operational effectiveness, and they have, of course, brought in guidelines that do not ban private or personal faith.

Government Orders ·

Points of Order

“I voted by mistake this morning when I was paired with another member. I am asking everyone to let me withdraw my vote.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I mistakenly voted while paired this morning, so I would like to request unanimous consent to withdraw my vote on division 162, the motion to proceed to orders of the day, taken earlier this day.

Oral Questions ·

National Defence

In response to a question from Alexandre Boulerice

“We are buying new fighter jets for the air force. We are reviewing how we buy them so the military gets what it needs and Canadian workers, including in Quebec, benefit.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 47 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are acquiring a new fleet of fighter jets for the Royal Canadian Air Force. The member knows that. We are reviewing all procurement approaches so that they align with the interests of Canadians and the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. We are committed to acquiring what the air force needs, while guaranteeing economic benefits for Canadians, including Quebeckers.

Oral Questions ·

Aerospace Industry

In response to a question from John Brassard

“We are spending money on Canada's space program to create jobs and grow the economy. This spending will also protect Canada's borders and help Nova Scotia build defence equipment.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Clarity 47 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, our investments in Canada’s space capabilities, the member will know, will translate into new jobs, stronger supply chains, greater industrial capacity and a more resilient Canadian economy. We are taking decisive action to strengthen our security and sovereignty, and to reinforce the resilience and long-term strength of the country. We are strengthening Atlantic Canada’s industrial capacity, growing Nova Scotia’s role in Canada’s defence industry and giving Canada the capability it needs to respond to evolving global security challenges, while supporting long-term economic growth.

Oral Questions ·

National Defence

In response to a question from Cheryl Gallant

“We are fixing and investing in the Canadian Armed Forces. More people, including more women, are joining. We are buying new weapons, building homes, and changing the military's culture. The previous Conservative government left behind a mess.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to make thoughtful, systematic and disciplined investments in the Canadian Armed Forces. Applications are up 61% year over year. The number of folks brought into the system is up 13% year over year. We have more women joining. We are making progress on the cultural challenges inside the Canadian Armed Forces. We are buying weapons systems. We bought new rifles. We are building new homes. We are building for the future. When a mess is left like it was by the last regime under Mr. Harper, it is kind of hard to defend it.

In response to a question from James Bezan

“We promised to spend two percent of our economy on national defence. The Conservatives spent less than one percent when they were in power. We are also building and buying thousands of new homes for military members.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 27 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a good day to answer this question, because, in fact, a year ago today we announced that we would achieve 2% of our GDP expenditures for defence. I remember where the member was at the end of the Harper regime when it was less than 1%. I did not see him fighting then for the money that we needed for our forces. In fact, he has been missing in action. On the housing front alone, we are building 7,500 new units, 800 units are under construction now and three new apartment buildings have been purchased. We are making progress step by step. That is exactly what the women and men of the forces deserve.

In response to a question from James Bezan

“The member is wrong about our military bases. We are investing in them. More people are applying and joining the military, training is faster, and pay is going up.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Signal 43 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the member has been, but he has not been to any of our 33 bases lately. He is not seeing the investments that are being made there. He is not seeing the improvements that have been showing up, such as a 61% increase in applications this year, year over year, a 13% increase in those accepted into the forces, reductions in times for training, and 8%, 13% and 20% increases in salaries. It is so bad. I really just cannot figure out how they can make this stuff up.

Oral Questions ·

Taxation

In response to a question from Pierre Poilievre

“The Conservative tax plan will not fix global economic problems. The Leader of the Opposition ignores our good economic news, like 88,000 new jobs last month, lower unemployment, and high foreign investment. The Conservatives have no real plan.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what is weak is the narrative. The Leader of the Opposition knows that his handful of tax changes are not going to contend with the economic challenges we are facing in the United States. They are not going to contend with the Ukrainian war. They are not going to contend with the gulf war. The Leader of the Opposition cherry-picks all the time. He does not talk about us being up 88,000 jobs last month. He does not talk about unemployment being down. He does not talk about foreign direct investment being the highest in 20 years. He does not talk about cutting taxes. He does not talk about our increased capital gains eligibility. In fact, what is interesting is that there is no plan coming from that side—

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

In response to a question from Blaine Calkins

“Our military projects have created tens of thousands of jobs across Canada. The opposition should support this work instead of criticizing the country.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, here is where we have led Canadians on the defence side alone: joint support ships, 3,500 jobs; Arctic and offshore patrol ships, 2,300 jobs; fixed-wing search and rescue, 1,800 jobs; remotely piloted aircraft system, 700 jobs; River class destroyers, 5,250 jobs; logistics vehicle modernization, 1,900 jobs; armoured combat support vehicles, 1,650 jobs. There are tens of thousands of jobs in the defence sector alone. Get on board. Stop running the country down. Help us build it.

In response to a question from Blaine Calkins

“Our economy is doing well. We added 88,000 jobs last month, cut taxes for 22 million Canadians, and are investing in housing, infrastructure, and defence. The member needs to get his facts straight.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “We cut taxes for 22 million Canadians.”

    Said 17 times by 12 members since April 27.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, here are the facts. We added 88,000 jobs last month. Unemployment is down. Foreign direct investment is up at the highest it has been in 20 years, the highest in the G7. We have dropped our fuel excise tax by 10¢ a litre. We increased capital gains eligibility. We have cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. We are making massive investments in housing, infrastructure and defence, and now the trade surplus is up. The member has to get his facts straight.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

In response to a question from Jacob Mantle

“The opposition is ignoring good economic news. We added 88,000 jobs, unemployment is down, and foreign investment is up. We lowered fuel taxes, raised the capital gains exemption, and are spending money on housing, infrastructure, and defence. Our economic plan is working.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this answer, 100% addressed the question that was asked.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “We are making massive investments in housing.”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since June 5.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I have never seen this in my 22 years in the House. I have never heard such good news be disparaged and cast aside, and they continue to run down the Canadian economy. We added 88,000 jobs. Unemployment is down. Foreign direct investment is up. We have dropped the fuel excise tax. We have increased our capital gains exemption. We are making massive investments in housing, in infrastructure and in defence. In short, we have a plan and that plan is working.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

In response to a question from Rhonda Kirkland

“The opposition has no real plan for the economy, security, or social services. They only criticize the country.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 37 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Signal 0 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what we are listening for is something rational, something thoughtful, something coherent, something comprehensive, maybe even a plan. How about a plan that is a fiscal plan? How about an economic plan? What about an industrial plan? What about a defence and security plan? How about supports and social services for Canadians? All we hear is about driving this country down. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

In response to a question from Pierre Poilievre

“The leader of the official opposition has no plans for the country, but he spent nine million dollars on his personal office in 2024.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians are hearing here is not the sound of fury. It is the sound of nothing. He has no plan. He has no fiscal plan, no economic plan, no industrial plan, no defence or security plan, no supports and no social plan, but what he does have is a track record of spending $9 million in his personal office in 2024.