MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT
Bezan presses the government on defence procurement, military housing pay, keeping the Snowbirds flying and cutting diesel taxes for farmers, and is carrying his Sergei Magnitsky sanctions bill, C-219, through the Senate. He mocks opponents rather than answering their arguments — the member for Winnipeg North is “too busy flapping his lips” — and leans on figures, arguing real defence spending was “1.05%”.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Mocking a person instead of answering their argument.4.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×4.6
×2.3
Thanks and tributes.1.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.8
Loses points less than most for A story that illustrates instead of making a point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.Less often than most members.What the tags mean A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.Less often than most members.What the tags mean
Answered ×1.7
Echo
Government Orders ·
“All parties have talked about passing this defence bill without a recorded vote.”
“There have been discussions among all parties to have Bill C-40 pass on division.”
There have been discussions among all parties to have Bill C-40 pass on division.
“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?”
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 analysisMr. 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?
“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.”
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 analysisMr. 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.
“The government is using misleading accounting by counting civilian groups as defence spending. They count all Coast Guard money as defence, even though the Coast Guard is civilian and cannot fight in a conflict. They also moved Transport Canada planes to defence instead of buying the equipment we actually need.”
“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to get up again. The member for Edmonton West was talking about the ongoing creative accounting. The Coast Guard is a case in point. It is a civilian organization that does a great job at navigation research, icebreaking and policing our fishery, but it does not have any constabulary power at all. It told the defence committee that although 100% of its funding is now calculated under National Defence, it is only a civilian organization, and that if it runs into any threats of a hot conflict developing between Canada and an adversary, it would flee the situation. I would like my colleague to talk about the other creative accounting we are seeing from the Liberals, as with Transport Canada aircraft, that has been moved to National Defence, rather than them buying the kit we need to keep Canada safe.”
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to get up again. The member for Edmonton West was talking about the ongoing creative accounting. The Coast Guard is a case in point. It is a civilian organization that does a great job at navigation research, icebreaking and policing our fishery, but it does not have any constabulary power at all. It told the defence committee that although 100% of its funding is now calculated under National Defence, it is only a civilian organization, and that if it runs into any threats of a hot conflict developing between Canada and an adversary, it would flee the situation. I would like my colleague to talk about the other creative accounting we are seeing from the Liberals, as with Transport Canada aircraft, that has been moved to National Defence, rather than them buying the kit we need to keep Canada safe.
“The government is using Crown corporations to hide its deficits. Putting military spending into these corporations turns spending into assets, which does not protect taxpayers. What does my colleague think about this?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton West for his very strong intervention pointing out all the political interference we have witnessed already from the Liberals. My colleague is the chair of the government operations committee, or, as we like to call it, the mighty OGGO. He hears from the Parliamentary Budget Officer on a frequent basis. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in the last week or so, was criticizing the government for its overuse of Crown corporations to hide its ongoing structural deficits by moving things underneath Crown corporations, especially the spending that is going to take place under National Defence. It is going to turn spending into assets, which does not protect taxpayers. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.”
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton West for his very strong intervention pointing out all the political interference we have witnessed already from the Liberals. My colleague is the chair of the government operations committee, or, as we like to call it, the mighty OGGO. He hears from the Parliamentary Budget Officer on a frequent basis. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in the last week or so, was criticizing the government for its overuse of Crown corporations to hide its ongoing structural deficits by moving things underneath Crown corporations, especially the spending that is going to take place under National Defence. It is going to turn spending into assets, which does not protect taxpayers. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.
Statements by Members ·
“An illegal blockade in Manitoba is stopping hunters from using public land. Reports say a provincial minister may have tried to bribe a First Nation chief to deal with it. I want the public safety minister to say if that is being investigated. I also want the northern affairs minister to step in and get the roadblock taken down.”
“Mr. Speaker, in Manitoba, law-abiding hunters are being denied access to public Crown lands by an illegal blockade near Bloodvein. Let us be clear that provincial crown lands are public lands. They are meant to be enjoyed by everyone. The wildlife on those lands is managed by a provincial department. The road where the illegal checkpoint is set up is a provincial road, and the RCMP in Manitoba operate under a provincial contract. Instead of enforcing the law, according to media reports, a Manitoba NDP minister may have broken the law and tried to bribe a chief of a first nation. The federal Minister of Public Safety must tell Manitobans whether these troubling allegations against one of Premier Kinew’s ministers are being investigated. Because the provincial NDP government has failed to resolve this situation, I am calling on the Minister of Northern Affairs, who is also the MP for this area, to intervene and have the roadblock removed. Protecting hunting rights and respecting indigenous rights should not come at the expense of the rule of law.”
Mr. Speaker, in Manitoba, law-abiding hunters are being denied access to public Crown lands by an illegal blockade near Bloodvein. Let us be clear that provincial crown lands are public lands. They are meant to be enjoyed by everyone. The wildlife on those lands is managed by a provincial department. The road where the illegal checkpoint is set up is a provincial road, and the RCMP in Manitoba operate under a provincial contract. Instead of enforcing the law, according to media reports, a Manitoba NDP minister may have broken the law and tried to bribe a chief of a first nation. The federal Minister of Public Safety must tell Manitobans whether these troubling allegations against one of Premier Kinew’s ministers are being investigated. Because the provincial NDP government has failed to resolve this situation, I am calling on the Minister of Northern Affairs, who is also the MP for this area, to intervene and have the roadblock removed. Protecting hunting rights and respecting indigenous rights should not come at the expense of the rule of law.
Government Orders ·
“The government should not count the Canadian Coast Guard as national defence. Unlike coast guards in the United States and the United Kingdom, Canada's coast guard is not armed and is not part of the military.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I just have to say, again, that the Liberals like to call the Canadian Coast Guard part of the defence menu. We have to remember that not all coast guards are treated equal. The Canadian Coast Guard is not a military or paramilitary organization, nor is it armed up. The United States’ is. The U.K.’s is. Other countries that use and count their coast guards are armed up and actually provide some defensive services. Transport Canada aircraft that count fishing vessels are included. Is that considered national defence?”
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I just have to say, again, that the Liberals like to call the Canadian Coast Guard part of the defence menu. We have to remember that not all coast guards are treated equal. The Canadian Coast Guard is not a military or paramilitary organization, nor is it armed up. The United States’ is. The U.K.’s is. Other countries that use and count their coast guards are armed up and actually provide some defensive services. Transport Canada aircraft that count fishing vessels are included. Is that considered national defence?
“I do not support this bill. It lets the government spend up to $1 billion through a new agency with very little oversight. This agency could spend that money on things like housing instead of national defence.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague speak, and he talked about how the Defence Investment Agency and setting up this Crown corporation is about more than just national security and national defence. He also talked about economic security. Bill C-40 would not only give power to the government to have up to $1 billion at any one time with no questions asked, so the minister can go get money from the general revenue fund, take those tax dollars and put them into who knows what at the Defence Investment Agency, since there would be little oversight and accountability there. It also talks about being able to buy things, items including residential housing, they could invest in that are non-military. Is the Defence Investment Agency as a new Crown corp really all about trying to find more dollars to put into other government ideas rather than national defence?”
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague speak, and he talked about how the Defence Investment Agency and setting up this Crown corporation is about more than just national security and national defence. He also talked about economic security. Bill C-40 would not only give power to the government to have up to $1 billion at any one time with no questions asked, so the minister can go get money from the general revenue fund, take those tax dollars and put them into who knows what at the Defence Investment Agency, since there would be little oversight and accountability there. It also talks about being able to buy things, items including residential housing, they could invest in that are non-military. Is the Defence Investment Agency as a new Crown corp really all about trying to find more dollars to put into other government ideas rather than national defence?
“The government has changed its defence agency three times now, but we are still not buying equipment fast enough. We are getting more red tape instead of real progress. I want to know how the minister will keep this new system open and accountable.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for the hard work he did this weekend being out there at CFB Wainwright, being there to support the families. I appreciate that he was there to be with the troops and that he kept the Canadian public informed. I cannot express that enough. I share his sympathy and condolences to the families, and want to give our thanks and gratitude to all the first responders. There was incredible work done in fighting the fire, rescuing those who were injured and providing medical care and attention. We are, as Canadians, all grateful for the minister’s commitment to our troops. However, I have to say that on Bill C-40 we are seeing a third iteration of the Defence Investment Agency and we are still not seeing any real true procurement happening on the scale that we want. We have seen a lot of announcements. We have seen reannouncements. We have seen intentions to deal with preferred suppliers. However, they talk about building at speeds that we have not seen yet, and all we are getting is bureaucracy. What started off as the defence investment agency under PSPC then became the Defence Investment Agency as a stand-alone entity in Bill C-31, and now, in Bill C-40, the Liberals are turning it into a Crown corporation. I just want to ask the minister this: One of the concerns we have as Conservatives is around the accountability and transparency within this system. How are we going to ensure that we exercise our fiduciary responsibilities and still support the troops at the same time?”
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for the hard work he did this weekend being out there at CFB Wainwright, being there to support the families. I appreciate that he was there to be with the troops and that he kept the Canadian public informed. I cannot express that enough. I share his sympathy and condolences to the families, and want to give our thanks and gratitude to all the first responders. There was incredible work done in fighting the fire, rescuing those who were injured and providing medical care and attention. We are, as Canadians, all grateful for the minister’s commitment to our troops. However, I have to say that on Bill C-40 we are seeing a third iteration of the Defence Investment Agency and we are still not seeing any real true procurement happening on the scale that we want. We have seen a lot of announcements. We have seen reannouncements. We have seen intentions to deal with preferred suppliers. However, they talk about building at speeds that we have not seen yet, and all we are getting is bureaucracy. What started off as the defence investment agency under PSPC then became the Defence Investment Agency as a stand-alone entity in Bill C-31, and now, in Bill C-40, the Liberals are turning it into a Crown corporation. I just want to ask the minister this: One of the concerns we have as Conservatives is around the accountability and transparency within this system. How are we going to ensure that we exercise our fiduciary responsibilities and still support the troops at the same time?
“I question whether this bill is needed. It gives one minister total power over one billion dollars. It opens the door to corruption, political meddling, and a lack of accountability.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee for his service as a veteran. It is quite laughable listening to the parliamentary secretary, the member for Winnipeg North. Five months ago, when we were talking about the second iteration or version of the Defence Investment Agency in Bill C-31, he was saying that it was the greatest idea since sliced bread. Now he is up here saying that this new Crown corporation being created for the Defence Investment Agency is the best thing we have created since sliced bread. The Liberals can get up here and make all these claims, but at the end of the day, is this the type of thing we need, or is it just something that gives unfettered power to one minister and access to $1 billion under the general revenue fund? Does it provide opportunities for political interference and corruption and to get away from accountability and transparency?”
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee for his service as a veteran. It is quite laughable listening to the parliamentary secretary, the member for Winnipeg North. Five months ago, when we were talking about the second iteration or version of the Defence Investment Agency in Bill C-31, he was saying that it was the greatest idea since sliced bread. Now he is up here saying that this new Crown corporation being created for the Defence Investment Agency is the best thing we have created since sliced bread. The Liberals can get up here and make all these claims, but at the end of the day, is this the type of thing we need, or is it just something that gives unfettered power to one minister and access to $1 billion under the general revenue fund? Does it provide opportunities for political interference and corruption and to get away from accountability and transparency?
“This bill gives the minister total control over the new defence agency. It also gives the minister 13 ways to skip normal bidding rules. I am asking my colleague if this bill will lead to political meddling and corruption with a billion dollars of public money.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague, as the shadow minister for defence procurement, has reviewed Bill C-40 very closely. He mentioned that paragraph 9(2) of the bill would give the associate minister for defence procurement absolute power over the Defence Investment Agency. We have never seen a Crown corporation be under the thumb of the government like this, where it “must do as the Minister directs”. Not even the CBC has that type of government influence over it as a Crown corporation. As the member said, there are 13 exceptions added in here as reasons the government, or the minister, may not want to run a competition, and in that, the minister would also be given a get-out-of-jail-free card. When we are talking about having a billion dollars at the disposal of the minister and the Defence Investment Agency, does my colleague believe that there is open opportunity here for increased political interference and corruption?”
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, as the shadow minister for defence procurement, has reviewed Bill C-40 very closely. He mentioned that paragraph 9(2) of the bill would give the associate minister for defence procurement absolute power over the Defence Investment Agency. We have never seen a Crown corporation be under the thumb of the government like this, where it “must do as the Minister directs”. Not even the CBC has that type of government influence over it as a Crown corporation. As the member said, there are 13 exceptions added in here as reasons the government, or the minister, may not want to run a competition, and in that, the minister would also be given a get-out-of-jail-free card. When we are talking about having a billion dollars at the disposal of the minister and the Defence Investment Agency, does my colleague believe that there is open opportunity here for increased political interference and corruption?
“We must protect tax dollars and buy equipment for the military. People do not trust the Liberals because of past scandals. Giving one minister full control of a corporation with access to a billion dollars at a time invites more corruption.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Midnapore has a lot of history here in working on Treasury Board, knowing how those guidelines are applied and why they are in place to protect the taxpayers of Canada. We have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure we are protecting those precious dollars that come from Canadian taxpayers and we have a responsibility to procure stuff for the Canadian Armed Forces so they can do the tough work of defending Canada and standing alongside our allies. The member did mention the problem that the Liberals have, which is that nobody trusts them because of scandal. Can she talk about some of the scandals the Liberals have had and how giving them unfettered access to $1 billion at a crack through a corporation that is completely directed by one minister opens the door to more corruption?”
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Midnapore has a lot of history here in working on Treasury Board, knowing how those guidelines are applied and why they are in place to protect the taxpayers of Canada. We have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure we are protecting those precious dollars that come from Canadian taxpayers and we have a responsibility to procure stuff for the Canadian Armed Forces so they can do the tough work of defending Canada and standing alongside our allies. The member did mention the problem that the Liberals have, which is that nobody trusts them because of scandal. Can she talk about some of the scandals the Liberals have had and how giving them unfettered access to $1 billion at a crack through a corporation that is completely directed by one minister opens the door to more corruption?
“The Liberals have a history of scandals. This bill gives one minister too much control over a new Crown corporation. I worry this will lead to political interference and give public money to government insiders.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for his intervention. I really appreciate that he raised the spectre of the culture of the Liberals and that they have a long track record of scandal after scandal. We have had SNC-Lavalin, ArriveCAN and the WE Foundation. We could also go back to adscam. There is just so much. We would now be setting up, as my colleague pointed out, unprecedented powers of a single minister over a Crown corporation, which we have never seen before in Canadian history, a Crown corporation that must do as demanded by a minister. Earlier, the Secretary of State was saying that this is about ensuring political oversight. Does my colleague have the same concern that I do, that this is going to increase political interference and open up an opportunity for the government to use the DIA Crown corporation as a way to have another scandal and make sure that it is shovelling money out the door to Liberal insiders and well-connected friends?”
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for his intervention. I really appreciate that he raised the spectre of the culture of the Liberals and that they have a long track record of scandal after scandal. We have had SNC-Lavalin, ArriveCAN and the WE Foundation. We could also go back to adscam. There is just so much. We would now be setting up, as my colleague pointed out, unprecedented powers of a single minister over a Crown corporation, which we have never seen before in Canadian history, a Crown corporation that must do as demanded by a minister. Earlier, the Secretary of State was saying that this is about ensuring political oversight. Does my colleague have the same concern that I do, that this is going to increase political interference and open up an opportunity for the government to use the DIA Crown corporation as a way to have another scandal and make sure that it is shovelling money out the door to Liberal insiders and well-connected friends?
In response to a question from Mark Gerretsen
“The Liberals are inflating their defence spending numbers. They count spending on the Coast Guard, pensions, police, and border services as defence. A fair comparison shows they spend only 1.05% of our GDP on defence.”
“Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is much like the member for Winnipeg North. They think that if they say it loud enough, they must be right. The fact remains that the Harper government never did that. Conservatives made the investments in the Canadian Armed Forces. The Coast Guard was not considered part of that calculation, nor were pensions, which are now in there, nor some spending from Global Affairs Canada, the RCMP and the CBSA that are all thrown in there. The Liberals have thrown everything in there except the kitchen sink. No, wait, that is in there, too. If we do an apples-to-apples comparison of 2023-24, the Liberals are at 1.05%. That is really embarrassing, knowing the dangerous world that we live in today.”
Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is much like the member for Winnipeg North. They think that if they say it loud enough, they must be right. The fact remains that the Harper government never did that. Conservatives made the investments in the Canadian Armed Forces. The Coast Guard was not considered part of that calculation, nor were pensions, which are now in there, nor some spending from Global Affairs Canada, the RCMP and the CBSA that are all thrown in there. The Liberals have thrown everything in there except the kitchen sink. No, wait, that is in there, too. If we do an apples-to-apples comparison of 2023-24, the Liberals are at 1.05%. That is really embarrassing, knowing the dangerous world that we live in today.
In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval
“The government is making it too hard for small businesses to get military contracts. When the government gives big projects to giant corporations, those big companies can steal ideas and technology from smaller creators. We need to support smaller innovators who are building new defense tools.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague serves with us on the national defence committee. One of the shortfalls and criticisms that we are hearing about right now is that the Defence Investment Agency and the Liberal government, in particular, is making it very difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. People are coming forward with some new technologies and new ideas, including in the world of cyber, quantum computing and drones, things that we need to do that they cannot get through the front door. A case in point is that when the Liberals announced the new drone program, they put it under the control of a major prime, Bombardier, rather than letting everybody have a chance to come forward as opposed to taking their technology to another company that could potentially be a competitor, that will then take away their IP and use it to their advantage instead of using it to the advantage of the creator. We need to make sure that we support the entrepreneurs, those who are out there leading on creating new equipment. As we have witnessed in the war in Ukraine, things are changing day to day. We have to be able to keep up with that, and the big primes are not always the ones that have all the answers.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 42 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, my colleague serves with us on the national defence committee. One of the shortfalls and criticisms that we are hearing about right now is that the Defence Investment Agency and the Liberal government, in particular, is making it very difficult for small and medium-sized enterprises. People are coming forward with some new technologies and new ideas, including in the world of cyber, quantum computing and drones, things that we need to do that they cannot get through the front door. A case in point is that when the Liberals announced the new drone program, they put it under the control of a major prime, Bombardier, rather than letting everybody have a chance to come forward as opposed to taking their technology to another company that could potentially be a competitor, that will then take away their IP and use it to their advantage instead of using it to the advantage of the creator. We need to make sure that we support the entrepreneurs, those who are out there leading on creating new equipment. As we have witnessed in the war in Ukraine, things are changing day to day. We have to be able to keep up with that, and the big primes are not always the ones that have all the answers.
In response to a question from Fraser Tolmie
“Our previous government bought the aircraft the air force needed and supported our Snowbirds air show team. The current government shut down the Snowbirds and is buying small planes that do not make a strong impression at international air shows.”
“Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague, as a veteran of the Royal Canadian Air Force himself, got to witness us buying the C-17s, the Chinooks and the new Hercules. We continued to buy the aircraft the air force needed, and we supported the life extension done to our Snowbirds. Of course, what these Liberals did was actually shut down our Snowbirds. Instead of buying a replacement aircraft, a jet that would really thrill the audiences and really sell Canada internationally, they are buying a cute little PC-21. It sounds a lot like somebody who is out there crop dusting. I enjoy watching crop dusting, but after a couple of hours, it is time to move on. When we are going to international air shows and we are going to be flying the PC-21 up against things like the Blue Angels, we should actually make a bigger impression out there. We could have actually extended the life of the Snowbirds once again.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 45 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
Signal 35 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 analysisMadam Speaker, I know that my colleague, as a veteran of the Royal Canadian Air Force himself, got to witness us buying the C-17s, the Chinooks and the new Hercules. We continued to buy the aircraft the air force needed, and we supported the life extension done to our Snowbirds. Of course, what these Liberals did was actually shut down our Snowbirds. Instead of buying a replacement aircraft, a jet that would really thrill the audiences and really sell Canada internationally, they are buying a cute little PC-21. It sounds a lot like somebody who is out there crop dusting. I enjoy watching crop dusting, but after a couple of hours, it is time to move on. When we are going to international air shows and we are going to be flying the PC-21 up against things like the Blue Angels, we should actually make a bigger impression out there. We could have actually extended the life of the Snowbirds once again.
In response to a question from Stephen Fuhr
“The Liberals changed the math in 2017 to make defence spending look higher than it really is. They count things like the Coast Guard, which does not fight in wars. The public records show that real defence spending was only 1.05% last year.”
“Madam Speaker, he took two minutes, so I hope I get two minutes to reply. First of all, let us talk about how the Liberals got to 2% through creative accounting. They changed the formula in 2017 when they started adding other departmental spending into national defence. Today we have the Canadian Coast Guard, which has been entirely absorbed by the Canadian Armed Forces budget, not operations. It is not a security organization. It does not have any lethality. They told us at committee, when we had the Coast Guard before them, that if there is any conflict breakout, the Coast Guard’s job is to leave the scene of the assault. It would not be in the fight. It does fisheries monitoring, navigation and ice-breaking operations to ensure the St. Lawrence Seaway stays open. This is what it actually does and it does a great job. We love the Coast Guard. If we want to compare apples to apples, as we did when we were government, compared to the numbers these guys like to throw around at us, where we just look at actual national defence spending based upon the public accounts that are filed right here in the House of Commons, in 2023-24, under the last year of Justin Trudeau, who the Secretary of State loves so much, their actual spending in that year, not using creative accounting, but actually comparing apples to apples, was 1.05%. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: That is not true. James Bezan: Madam Speaker, that is true. All the member for Winnipeg North has to do is look at the numbers. This is more important than anything. At the end of the day, this comes down to political leadership, making sure we get the job done. As Conservatives, we will always fight for those who fight for us to keep Canada, the true north, strong and free.”
Reply to a debate question
Respect 72 of 100
This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “who the Secretary of State loves so much”.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
Signal 41 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 analysisMadam Speaker, he took two minutes, so I hope I get two minutes to reply. First of all, let us talk about how the Liberals got to 2% through creative accounting. They changed the formula in 2017 when they started adding other departmental spending into national defence. Today we have the Canadian Coast Guard, which has been entirely absorbed by the Canadian Armed Forces budget, not operations. It is not a security organization. It does not have any lethality. They told us at committee, when we had the Coast Guard before them, that if there is any conflict breakout, the Coast Guard’s job is to leave the scene of the assault. It would not be in the fight. It does fisheries monitoring, navigation and ice-breaking operations to ensure the St. Lawrence Seaway stays open. This is what it actually does and it does a great job. We love the Coast Guard. If we want to compare apples to apples, as we did when we were government, compared to the numbers these guys like to throw around at us, where we just look at actual national defence spending based upon the public accounts that are filed right here in the House of Commons, in 2023-24, under the last year of Justin Trudeau, who the Secretary of State loves so much, their actual spending in that year, not using creative accounting, but actually comparing apples to apples, was 1.05%. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: That is not true. James Bezan: Madam Speaker, that is true. All the member for Winnipeg North has to do is look at the numbers. This is more important than anything. At the end of the day, this comes down to political leadership, making sure we get the job done. As Conservatives, we will always fight for those who fight for us to keep Canada, the true north, strong and free.
“The government has neglected our military for years, leaving our troops with broken vehicles and missing equipment. This bill gives ministers too much power to hand out contracts to their friends without proper oversight. We need time in committee to study it.”
“Madam Speaker, this being a solemn day, as we think about the tragedy and disaster that happened at CFB Wainwright, I just want to extend my heartfelt and sincere condolences to families and Canadian Armed Forces members, especially those who were on site. They are in our thoughts and prayers during this very difficult time. I would like to acknowledge Private Aidan Goulding, Private Shaun Farrell and Private Hayden Lykkemark, all part of the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, as well as Sergeant Morgan Wong, a reservist with the Loyal Edmonton Regiment. After their passing during this tragedy, we want to rally behind their families and their comrades at this time. We also want the 39 injured members of the Canadian Armed Force to know that we will be there. We will work across party lines. All of us are going to stand with them 100% to ensure that they get the supports they need to heal and recover, and ensure that if they are unable to return to work, supports are there through Veterans Affairs Canada. I have been to CFB Wainwright on a number of occasions, to be out there, to witness training and to participate in some of the training exercises, including with the PPCLI. I see why the young men and women who put on the uniform are the best of the best that Canada has to offer. They are so excited to be serving our great nation. We realize that they have to do things like live-fire training so they are always ready to defend us. Again, we send out all our support, our prayers and our love to the entire Canadian Armed Forces military family. Conservatives always support our armed forces, and we have a record of getting equipment bought and delivered in a very timely and quick manner. After the Liberal decade of darkness under Chrétien and Paul Martin, the Canadian Armed Forces was in dire need of reinvestment. We witnessed that its members were sent into Afghanistan wearing things like green uniforms. They did not have proper boots. They did not have kevlar body armour and tactical vests. We quickly went out there and bought for them the stuff they needed to work in theatre. During our time in government, we bought 650 brand new LAVs so they had light armoured vehicles to do the work they did, and 500 tactical armoured patrol vehicles. We bought 100 Leopard tanks. The Liberals, during the Chrétien era, were decommissioning all of our Leopard tanks, and what we needed in Afghanistan were Leopard tanks, so we bought 100 Leopard 2 main battle tanks. We bought 82 armoured heavy support vehicle systems and 50 Nyala armoured vehicles so they could move around more carefully, and we bought IED vehicles to clear away all of the mines and IEDs that were causing harm. Many of the fatalities and casualties experienced in Afghanistan were caused by them. We bought 16 of those vehicles and bought 37 M777 howitzers. We made sure that our army had what it needed when it went into theatre. In terms of our air force, we were at a point when we took over as government that we were begging the Americans to help us move our troops into Afghanistan. We were hitching rides with the Russians, of all people, having to get them to come with their heavy-lift Antonovs to move us. We invested in buying five brand new C-17 tactical Globemasters. We bought 21 Chinook helicopters to move our troops around in Afghanistan safely and get them away from IEDs. We bought 17 new Hercules CC-130J models, and we bought a number of UAVs. During that time, we also upgraded our CF-18s and extended the life of our Auroras, which are now past their end of life. This is going back to over 15 years ago when we made those investments. We also made the decision to buy the F-35 as our future fighter jet. On the navy side, we made sure that we stood up the national shipbuilding program. We ordered the very first six AOPSs, the Harry DeWolf-class Arctic offshore patrol ships. We ordered two joint supply ships, the protecteur class. We not only ordered but delivered on time the Asterix auxiliary offshore replenishment vessel to support our navy until the JSS’s were delivered. We also did a mid-life extension to our Halifax-class frigates. We stood up and bought what we needed. We know that sometimes we have to sole-source, so we used national security exemptions and the urgent operational requirements required by the CAF to sole-source where we had to. Some things we have to buy off the shelf to get them into play quickly, ensuring they are interoperable with our allies. We proved that we were able to get stuff done because of political leadership. We made sure that this started right at the top, with the the prime minister at that time, Stephen Harper, directing the PCO and cabinet to set up a secretariat of ministers and deputy ministers to provide leadership back down to the bureaucracies to get things done and buy the kit and equipment we needed to support the Canadian Armed Forces, especially during a time of war. Here we are, 11 years in with the Liberal government, and I can say that our fighter jets and most of the aircraft we have within the military right now are worn out. We know the army has been hollowed out and the navy is rusting out right before our eyes. To prove the point, all we have to do is look at the serviceability, readiness and operational demands of the vehicle fleets we have within the Canadian Armed Forces. This is right out of the performance reports from National Defence. In 2023-24, only 49% of land vehicles for the army were serviceable and deployable. That increased slightly to 51% in 2024-25, the last year for which we have this data. It is so bad that the guys deployed right now to Latvia are not able to train properly alongside our allies because a number of their vehicles are broken down. There is not enough in the budget to maintain and repair them and put them back into service. Often, a couple hundred of our guys who are deployed do not get certified for working as a brigade alongside our allies. In 2023, only 48.9% of our air fleet was available for operational deployments. That dropped down to 42.3% last year under the Liberals. In 2023-24, only 45% of the maritime fleet was deployable. That increased in 2024-25 to 59.6%, almost 60%. How did the Liberals make that gain? They were able to do that because they retired an entire class of patrol vessels, our Kingston-class coastal patrol vessels. They mothballed them. They are sitting in furlough now and being scrapped instead of being out there protecting our sovereignty and patrolling our maritime coastline. After 11 years, all we have gotten from the Liberals is talk and no action. The proof is in the numbers, and the sorry state of the Canadian Armed Forces today is due to 11 years of neglect by the Liberals. We are looking at a system where the Canadian Armed Forces know what they need but the Liberals are not going to give it to them. As a case in point, since the minister is talking about all the things they bought, one thing they are supposed to buy is new assault and sniper rifles, the C25s and C26s. However, we are waiting for them because the Liberals failed to sign a contract to get them delivered before all the orders were booked with the manufacturer. The Denmark and United Kingdom militaries are getting these assault rifles before we do. Our guys have to wait in the queue because we allowed other countries to jump ahead of us and buy up these new assault rifles. With respect to the SkyGuardian, the Liberals announced three years ago that we were going to have a new drone patrol aircraft or reconnaissance vessel that could fly all over Canada and up into the Arctic, but the first one has still not been delivered. Where is it? We are still looking for it. The government bought the Kingfishers, the CC-295s. This is a procurement that continues to lag behind, as it is not fit for operations. We know that the air force is struggling to use this jet to do fixed-wing search and rescue and contour flying in the Canadian Rockies. The plane has not been able to pass operational requirements, as set out by the Royal Canadian Air Force, and is still not certified, and not all the planes have been delivered at this point in time. I will note one of the greatest examples of the failure of the Liberal government. Since the war in Ukraine started, which we are four and a half years into now, we have seen how important artillery shells are in the war. Ukraine goes through between 5,000 and 6,000 shells a day. Russia has used over 30,000 shells against Ukrainians on Ukrainian territory. Putin’s war machine is getting shells from his allies: North Korea and Iran, which are not our friends. Meanwhile, we should be supplying Ukraine. We could produce, when this war started, about 3,000 shells a month. That would not last a day in Ukraine. We have been able to up it slowly, but there is no contract signed. It is up to 5,000 shells per month. The artillery shell factories and manufacturers in Canada have more than doubled their production, but the United States Army signed contracts and is getting them built there faster than we are building for ourselves. That is a failure of the government to get things done. The government likes to hang its hat on the new GlobalEye that it announced at CANSEC back in May. It is an asset that we need desperately in the Royal Canadian Air Force, especially with what is happening today, but sadly, the Defence Investment Agency and the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement failed to consult with the Royal Canadian Air Force. The media reported that the RCAF was as surprised as anyone else, since it had not even drafted the final version of the statement of requirement. The argument is used that the platforms out there did not have all the standards that we require. However, one, how do they know this when they did not talk to the air force about what it needs? Two, there were at least three competitors out there, two of them using the Bombardier Global 6500 as their basis, and for whatever reason, the government announced that it was partnering with Saab and that it was going to be a preferred supplier on this procurement, without talking to Boeing, without talking to Saab, without talking to Bombardier and without talking to L3Harris, which employs over 1,000 people in Montreal alone. If we want to talk about a symbiotic relationship, Bombardier-L3Harris is an interesting one. Boeing has the proven E-7, and instead we are going with an aircraft that has some operational shortfalls and cannot even do 360 radar, never mind having the proper connectivity. As such, there are major concerns with that procurement. If we are going to give unprecedented powers under Bill C-40 to the minister, would that not open it up so they could do more sole-sourcing based upon who they know and give Liberal insiders, friends and well-connected manufacturers the contracts, rather than talking to the user to ensure we are buying the kit and equipment we need to protect Canada in the best way possible? The replacement of the CF-18s has also been a disaster. The secretary of state is a former fighter pilot, and I respect his service to Canada, but he knows that the CF-18s are well past their due date, despite the life extension that we did as Conservatives. He was the chair of the defence committee back in the day when the government invented the capability gap nonsense and said that we had to increase the number of fighter jets we had. Of course, right away, the government announced it was going to go with a super Hornet, a brand new F-18, to make up the capability gap that we required. That, of course, would open the door to buying all F-18s. However, Boeing and Bombardier got into a mess, and the decision was made by Trudeau to do no more business with Boeing, so there were no more super Hornets. What did the government do? It went out and bought a bunch of used, vintage F-18s from Australia that were as old and worn out as our own fleet of F-18s. It cost us millions and millions of dollars to buy them and refurbish them, and we have nothing to show for it at the end of the day, other than using them as parts for the current fleet we have. The government continues with its F-35 review. That review has been sitting on the Prime Minister’s desk for over a year now. The Department of National Defence has reported back. It is well known what plane the Canadian Armed Forces wants, which is the F-35. Because of political games and grandstanding, the Prime Minister will not announce that we need the F-35, which, I must say, has been said before. Trudeau said that he would never buy the F-35. He put it out to competition, did a complete review and guess what. It was won fair and square and hands down as the best fighter jet, on all four major measurements, as what we need in Canada. We are already in the process of purchasing the first 16 jets and there will be another 14 after that. Our F-18s are old and worn out. We cannot wait for the Prime Minister to keep playing his political games and grandstanding with the United States on this when we need a fighter jet in service today so we can train up the next generation of pilots and air crew to support that fleet. It has been so bad here that we are already hearing rumours that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are being asked to turn in their rucksacks and sleeping bags. The Liberals bought a bunch of sleeping bags that do not even work at below -20°C. There are no sleeping bags. There is a shortage of tactical vests. Everybody has been asked to hand them back in. Guys are going through basic training saying that there are not enough uniforms. They are all getting worn out and we have not bought any new ones, so they have to turn their uniforms back in through basic training. It is so sad to hear that our guys who are deployed are begging, borrowing and stealing from our allies to get proper kits when they are serving in places like Latvia and on Operation Reassurance across Europe. There are things that we need to buy right away, but we are not hearing from the government. We need new tanks. Where are they? We need ground-based air defence systems after witnessing what is happening. There have been no requests for information of any of the companies out there. We have heard over and over again that we are short on military housing in this country. We are 6,700 residential housing units short in supplying the current demand, and that is not happening at any speed. To make up 6,700, even over 10 years, we would have to build over 600 a year, and we are not doing this. Three years ago, I think 32 homes were built for the armed forces. This is not of high importance to the Liberals. The Liberals have done some things. They bought the Global 6500 as an executive jet to fly ministers of the Crown around, so everybody flies around in comfort. The Prime Minister did not like the Polaris aircraft we had as the executive jet for international travel, so the Liberals had to go out and buy some new Airbus CC-330 Husky aircraft just so he could be in a luxurious aircraft. The Liberals are good at making announcements and reannouncements about preferred suppliers. They have done some of these things two times, three times and four times now, but as I just pointed out, they are bad at signing contracts. A case in point is the 155 artillery shells. The Liberals are great at creative accounting. That is how they got up over 2%. It was not actual investment in the Canadian Armed Forces. They gave pay raises, low-hanging fruit and well overdue, but they turned around and started clawing them back, and increasing rent hikes and changing the living differential for those who are posted off base. We are witnessing right now another cut coming to our armed forces. They are looking for 10% savings right now. We already went through this under Trudeau, where the Liberals cut $2.7 billion over three years. This year alone, the cut to the main estimates would amount to $2.9 billion in one year in the Prime Minister’s efforts to find savings. There is a lot more I could say on this, but I will just say that we are going to take time at committee to study this. This is the third iteration of it, but Bill C-40 would increase the opportunity for political interference and decrease accountability, transparency and protection to our taxpayers. We also know that the Liberal government has a history of corruption. By giving it this type of unvetted access to $1 billion at a time, we are worried this would turn into a major scandal.”
Madam Speaker, this being a solemn day, as we think about the tragedy and disaster that happened at CFB Wainwright, I just want to extend my heartfelt and sincere condolences to families and Canadian Armed Forces members, especially those who were on site. They are in our thoughts and prayers during this very difficult time. I would like to acknowledge Private Aidan Goulding, Private Shaun Farrell and Private Hayden Lykkemark, all part of the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, as well as Sergeant Morgan Wong, a reservist with the Loyal Edmonton Regiment. After their passing during this tragedy, we want to rally behind their families and their comrades at this time. We also want the 39 injured members of the Canadian Armed Force to know that we will be there. We will work across party lines. All of us are going to stand with them 100% to ensure that they get the supports they need to heal and recover, and ensure that if they are unable to return to work, supports are there through Veterans Affairs Canada. I have been to CFB Wainwright on a number of occasions, to be out there, to witness training and to participate in some of the training exercises, including with the PPCLI. I see why the young men and women who put on the uniform are the best of the best that Canada has to offer. They are so excited to be serving our great nation. We realize that they have to do things like live-fire training so they are always ready to defend us. Again, we send out all our support, our prayers and our love to the entire Canadian Armed Forces military family. Conservatives always support our armed forces, and we have a record of getting equipment bought and delivered in a very timely and quick manner. After the Liberal decade of darkness under Chrétien and Paul Martin, the Canadian Armed Forces was in dire need of reinvestment. We witnessed that its members were sent into Afghanistan wearing things like green uniforms. They did not have proper boots. They did not have kevlar body armour and tactical vests. We quickly went out there and bought for them the stuff they needed to work in theatre. During our time in government, we bought 650 brand new LAVs so they had light armoured vehicles to do the work they did, and 500 tactical armoured patrol vehicles. We bought 100 Leopard tanks. The Liberals, during the Chrétien era, were decommissioning all of our Leopard tanks, and what we needed in Afghanistan were Leopard tanks, so we bought 100 Leopard 2 main battle tanks. We bought 82 armoured heavy support vehicle systems and 50 Nyala armoured vehicles so they could move around more carefully, and we bought IED vehicles to clear away all of the mines and IEDs that were causing harm. Many of the fatalities and casualties experienced in Afghanistan were caused by them. We bought 16 of those vehicles and bought 37 M777 howitzers. We made sure that our army had what it needed when it went into theatre. In terms of our air force, we were at a point when we took over as government that we were begging the Americans to help us move our troops into Afghanistan. We were hitching rides with the Russians, of all people, having to get them to come with their heavy-lift Antonovs to move us. We invested in buying five brand new C-17 tactical Globemasters. We bought 21 Chinook helicopters to move our troops around in Afghanistan safely and get them away from IEDs. We bought 17 new Hercules CC-130J models, and we bought a number of UAVs. During that time, we also upgraded our CF-18s and extended the life of our Auroras, which are now past their end of life. This is going back to over 15 years ago when we made those investments. We also made the decision to buy the F-35 as our future fighter jet. On the navy side, we made sure that we stood up the national shipbuilding program. We ordered the very first six AOPSs, the Harry DeWolf-class Arctic offshore patrol ships. We ordered two joint supply ships, the protecteur class. We not only ordered but delivered on time the Asterix auxiliary offshore replenishment vessel to support our navy until the JSS’s were delivered. We also did a mid-life extension to our Halifax-class frigates. We stood up and bought what we needed. We know that sometimes we have to sole-source, so we used national security exemptions and the urgent operational requirements required by the CAF to sole-source where we had to. Some things we have to buy off the shelf to get them into play quickly, ensuring they are interoperable with our allies. We proved that we were able to get stuff done because of political leadership. We made sure that this started right at the top, with the the prime minister at that time, Stephen Harper, directing the PCO and cabinet to set up a secretariat of ministers and deputy ministers to provide leadership back down to the bureaucracies to get things done and buy the kit and equipment we needed to support the Canadian Armed Forces, especially during a time of war. Here we are, 11 years in with the Liberal government, and I can say that our fighter jets and most of the aircraft we have within the military right now are worn out. We know the army has been hollowed out and the navy is rusting out right before our eyes. To prove the point, all we have to do is look at the serviceability, readiness and operational demands of the vehicle fleets we have within the Canadian Armed Forces. This is right out of the performance reports from National Defence. In 2023-24, only 49% of land vehicles for the army were serviceable and deployable. That increased slightly to 51% in 2024-25, the last year for which we have this data. It is so bad that the guys deployed right now to Latvia are not able to train properly alongside our allies because a number of their vehicles are broken down. There is not enough in the budget to maintain and repair them and put them back into service. Often, a couple hundred of our guys who are deployed do not get certified for working as a brigade alongside our allies. In 2023, only 48.9% of our air fleet was available for operational deployments. That dropped down to 42.3% last year under the Liberals. In 2023-24, only 45% of the maritime fleet was deployable. That increased in 2024-25 to 59.6%, almost 60%. How did the Liberals make that gain? They were able to do that because they retired an entire class of patrol vessels, our Kingston-class coastal patrol vessels. They mothballed them. They are sitting in furlough now and being scrapped instead of being out there protecting our sovereignty and patrolling our maritime coastline. After 11 years, all we have gotten from the Liberals is talk and no action. The proof is in the numbers, and the sorry state of the Canadian Armed Forces today is due to 11 years of neglect by the Liberals. We are looking at a system where the Canadian Armed Forces know what they need but the Liberals are not going to give it to them. As a case in point, since the minister is talking about all the things they bought, one thing they are supposed to buy is new assault and sniper rifles, the C25s and C26s. However, we are waiting for them because the Liberals failed to sign a contract to get them delivered before all the orders were booked with the manufacturer. The Denmark and United Kingdom militaries are getting these assault rifles before we do. Our guys have to wait in the queue because we allowed other countries to jump ahead of us and buy up these new assault rifles. With respect to the SkyGuardian, the Liberals announced three years ago that we were going to have a new drone patrol aircraft or reconnaissance vessel that could fly all over Canada and up into the Arctic, but the first one has still not been delivered. Where is it? We are still looking for it. The government bought the Kingfishers, the CC-295s. This is a procurement that continues to lag behind, as it is not fit for operations. We know that the air force is struggling to use this jet to do fixed-wing search and rescue and contour flying in the Canadian Rockies. The plane has not been able to pass operational requirements, as set out by the Royal Canadian Air Force, and is still not certified, and not all the planes have been delivered at this point in time. I will note one of the greatest examples of the failure of the Liberal government. Since the war in Ukraine started, which we are four and a half years into now, we have seen how important artillery shells are in the war. Ukraine goes through between 5,000 and 6,000 shells a day. Russia has used over 30,000 shells against Ukrainians on Ukrainian territory. Putin’s war machine is getting shells from his allies: North Korea and Iran, which are not our friends. Meanwhile, we should be supplying Ukraine. We could produce, when this war started, about 3,000 shells a month. That would not last a day in Ukraine. We have been able to up it slowly, but there is no contract signed. It is up to 5,000 shells per month. The artillery shell factories and manufacturers in Canada have more than doubled their production, but the United States Army signed contracts and is getting them built there faster than we are building for ourselves. That is a failure of the government to get things done. The government likes to hang its hat on the new GlobalEye that it announced at CANSEC back in May. It is an asset that we need desperately in the Royal Canadian Air Force, especially with what is happening today, but sadly, the Defence Investment Agency and the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement failed to consult with the Royal Canadian Air Force. The media reported that the RCAF was as surprised as anyone else, since it had not even drafted the final version of the statement of requirement. The argument is used that the platforms out there did not have all the standards that we require. However, one, how do they know this when they did not talk to the air force about what it needs? Two, there were at least three competitors out there, two of them using the Bombardier Global 6500 as their basis, and for whatever reason, the government announced that it was partnering with Saab and that it was going to be a preferred supplier on this procurement, without talking to Boeing, without talking to Saab, without talking to Bombardier and without talking to L3Harris, which employs over 1,000 people in Montreal alone. If we want to talk about a symbiotic relationship, Bombardier-L3Harris is an interesting one. Boeing has the proven E-7, and instead we are going with an aircraft that has some operational shortfalls and cannot even do 360 radar, never mind having the proper connectivity. As such, there are major concerns with that procurement. If we are going to give unprecedented powers under Bill C-40 to the minister, would that not open it up so they could do more sole-sourcing based upon who they know and give Liberal insiders, friends and well-connected manufacturers the contracts, rather than talking to the user to ensure we are buying the kit and equipment we need to protect Canada in the best way possible? The replacement of the CF-18s has also been a disaster. The secretary of state is a former fighter pilot, and I respect his service to Canada, but he knows that the CF-18s are well past their due date, despite the life extension that we did as Conservatives. He was the chair of the defence committee back in the day when the government invented the capability gap nonsense and said that we had to increase the number of fighter jets we had. Of course, right away, the government announced it was going to go with a super Hornet, a brand new F-18, to make up the capability gap that we required. That, of course, would open the door to buying all F-18s. However, Boeing and Bombardier got into a mess, and the decision was made by Trudeau to do no more business with Boeing, so there were no more super Hornets. What did the government do? It went out and bought a bunch of used, vintage F-18s from Australia that were as old and worn out as our own fleet of F-18s. It cost us millions and millions of dollars to buy them and refurbish them, and we have nothing to show for it at the end of the day, other than using them as parts for the current fleet we have. The government continues with its F-35 review. That review has been sitting on the Prime Minister’s desk for over a year now. The Department of National Defence has reported back. It is well known what plane the Canadian Armed Forces wants, which is the F-35. Because of political games and grandstanding, the Prime Minister will not announce that we need the F-35, which, I must say, has been said before. Trudeau said that he would never buy the F-35. He put it out to competition, did a complete review and guess what. It was won fair and square and hands down as the best fighter jet, on all four major measurements, as what we need in Canada. We are already in the process of purchasing the first 16 jets and there will be another 14 after that. Our F-18s are old and worn out. We cannot wait for the Prime Minister to keep playing his political games and grandstanding with the United States on this when we need a fighter jet in service today so we can train up the next generation of pilots and air crew to support that fleet. It has been so bad here that we are already hearing rumours that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are being asked to turn in their rucksacks and sleeping bags. The Liberals bought a bunch of sleeping bags that do not even work at below -20°C. There are no sleeping bags. There is a shortage of tactical vests. Everybody has been asked to hand them back in. Guys are going through basic training saying that there are not enough uniforms. They are all getting worn out and we have not bought any new ones, so they have to turn their uniforms back in through basic training. It is so sad to hear that our guys who are deployed are begging, borrowing and stealing from our allies to get proper kits when they are serving in places like Latvia and on Operation Reassurance across Europe. There are things that we need to buy right away, but we are not hearing from the government. We need new tanks. Where are they? We need ground-based air defence systems after witnessing what is happening. There have been no requests for information of any of the companies out there. We have heard over and over again that we are short on military housing in this country. We are 6,700 residential housing units short in supplying the current demand, and that is not happening at any speed. To make up 6,700, even over 10 years, we would have to build over 600 a year, and we are not doing this. Three years ago, I think 32 homes were built for the armed forces. This is not of high importance to the Liberals. The Liberals have done some things. They bought the Global 6500 as an executive jet to fly ministers of the Crown around, so everybody flies around in comfort. The Prime Minister did not like the Polaris aircraft we had as the executive jet for international travel, so the Liberals had to go out and buy some new Airbus CC-330 Husky aircraft just so he could be in a luxurious aircraft. The Liberals are good at making announcements and reannouncements about preferred suppliers. They have done some of these things two times, three times and four times now, but as I just pointed out, they are bad at signing contracts. A case in point is the 155 artillery shells. The Liberals are great at creative accounting. That is how they got up over 2%. It was not actual investment in the Canadian Armed Forces. They gave pay raises, low-hanging fruit and well overdue, but they turned around and started clawing them back, and increasing rent hikes and changing the living differential for those who are posted off base. We are witnessing right now another cut coming to our armed forces. They are looking for 10% savings right now. We already went through this under Trudeau, where the Liberals cut $2.7 billion over three years. This year alone, the cut to the main estimates would amount to $2.9 billion in one year in the Prime Minister’s efforts to find savings. There is a lot more I could say on this, but I will just say that we are going to take time at committee to study this. This is the third iteration of it, but Bill C-40 would increase the opportunity for political interference and decrease accountability, transparency and protection to our taxpayers. We also know that the Liberal government has a history of corruption. By giving it this type of unvetted access to $1 billion at a time, we are worried this would turn into a major scandal.
“I oppose this bill. The government changed its plan for the defence agency to create a corporation with too much power. It lets the minister completely control the agency and give those powers to the CEO.”
“Madam Speaker, as we know, we were here just months ago talking about Bill C-31, division 16, which was going to create the Defence Investment Agency under an omnibus budget bill. The secretary of state got up and made a big speech. He was actually hoping to be, fingers crossed, the minister of defence procurement, a full minister. Of course, in Bill C-40, that has been downgraded to associate minister of national defence for procurement. What has changed? We originally set up the Defence Investment Agency as part of PSPC, and we brought it around to where it is today. We went through Bill C-31. We are now on Bill C-40. There are rumours that Doug Guzman, the Prime Minister’s BFF, his Goldman Sachs investment banker buddy, has threatened to quit. Is that the reason why we now have to set up an authoritarian corporation with powers that we have not seen before in any Crown corporation: that a minister can direct the agency, that it must do what the minister wants and that he can also pass those powers down to and share them with the CEO? Is that the very reason we are doing this? I hear that Chairman Mao is actually blushing on this one.”
Question or comment in debate
Respect 84 of 100
This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the Prime Minister's BFF, his Goldman Sachs investment banker buddy”.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, as we know, we were here just months ago talking about Bill C-31, division 16, which was going to create the Defence Investment Agency under an omnibus budget bill. The secretary of state got up and made a big speech. He was actually hoping to be, fingers crossed, the minister of defence procurement, a full minister. Of course, in Bill C-40, that has been downgraded to associate minister of national defence for procurement. What has changed? We originally set up the Defence Investment Agency as part of PSPC, and we brought it around to where it is today. We went through Bill C-31. We are now on Bill C-40. There are rumours that Doug Guzman, the Prime Minister’s BFF, his Goldman Sachs investment banker buddy, has threatened to quit. Is that the reason why we now have to set up an authoritarian corporation with powers that we have not seen before in any Crown corporation: that a minister can direct the agency, that it must do what the minister wants and that he can also pass those powers down to and share them with the CEO? Is that the very reason we are doing this? I hear that Chairman Mao is actually blushing on this one.
Private Members' Business ·
“All parties have talked, and we all agree this bill should pass now.”
“Madam Speaker, there has been discussion among all parties, and we are in agreement that the bill do now pass.”
Madam Speaker, there has been discussion among all parties, and we are in agreement that the bill do now pass.
