“The member who just spoke is the only person here who brought up corruption and attacking people's character.”

“Mr. Speaker, the only person in this room so far who has mentioned corruption and character assassination is that member.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 49 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Liberals claim they are spending more on defence than the Conservatives did, but they are just using tricky accounting. They counted the Coast Guard as part of the military to make their numbers look bigger. Our military is not doing any better than it was under Stephen Harper. I want the member to comment on this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member’s speech, and I listened to the Liberals’ questions about this, and the Liberals keep touting the fact that they are spending more money than we did when we were in power. A couple of things are the case. First is the Liberals’ fancy accounting when it comes to what they are spending money on in the military. I would point out that they moved the Coast Guard from being a civilian organization to being a military organization. Second, the Canadian Armed Forces’ capabilities have not been improved. Nobody thinks the Canadian Army is in better shape today than it was under Stephen Harper, so I am just wondering if the hon. member has any comments about that.”

“The recent 2.9-billion-dollar cut to defence hurts our soldiers and their families. I oppose this bill because it uses borrowed taxpayer money to invest in defence companies so the government can profit off buying equipment.”

“Mr. Speaker, the real strength of our army is in its people, and the $2.9-billion cut to defence this year alone is going to impact the well-being of our military, the individuals and their families. The real concern about the expenditures in this bill is that borrowed taxpayers’ money would be going to invest in defence companies so the government would have a piece of the action, and when a piece of equipment is built, procured or purchased, it would be the government that cashes in.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 19 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The military spending targets are only part of what we need to keep Canada safe. Other countries arm their coast guards, so NATO counts them as military equipment. Canada's Coast Guard is not armed, so its job should just be sharing ocean information with our military.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member from the Bloc is absolutely right. The 5%, 1.5% of which can go into infrastructure or a soft cost for the military, is only a piece of it. The other money is supposed to actually go into national defence to make our country safer. What was mentioned earlier was the Coast Guard. The fact is that other countries’ coast guards, which are included in the NATO calculation of 3.5% for the equipment, are actually armed. Our Coast Guard is not armed. All it would be doing is what it should have been doing already, and that is sharing information with defence, based on what it sees on the oceans.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 analysis →

“I oppose this defence bill. It turns the defence agency into an independent corporation, which removes government oversight and lets ministers avoid answering for their choices. It also lets the government hand out contracts without competition, which lets Liberals reward their friends and insiders.”

“Mr. Speaker, as it is a new session, it is always an honour to recognize that I am so pleased to stay in the House for the good people of Calgary Midnapore and speak on their behalf. I cannot commence this speech without paying recognition to the tragedy that took place at CFB Wainwright. As the mother of a teenage son, I cannot imagine the pain these families are feeling right now, and I want them to know that my thoughts, my prayers and my heart are with them. I also want them to know that Shaun, Aidan, Morgan and Hayden were not just the sons of Canada, they were also the sons of Alberta. It is very poignant that this horrific event would happen on the eve of a referendum to decide Alberta’s destiny within Canada. I am very happy to say that Albertans chose to be with Canada, because I believe that is a better destiny for us as Albertans. I also believe it shows that what happens in Alberta touches all of Canada. All those who serve know what it means to take accountability, so that is what I am going to be talking about today: the implementation of Bill C-40 and the need for responsibility and accountability. Bill C-40 would transform the Defence Investment Agency into a Crown corporation. This is good for many reasons. It would give the organization greater authority to negotiate, to manage and to fast-track projects, which we hope would result in quicker outcomes for both our armed men and women and for Canadians. However, as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility, and Bill C-40, I am afraid, would take away some of the responsibility and some of the accountability. It would do this by creating an arm’s-length organization, by creating winners and losers and an opportunity for Liberals to reward friends and insiders, and by eliminating fiscal and procurement oversight. The first way Bill C-40 would eliminate accountability is by creating yet another arm’s-length organization. There are countless times I have been told by a minister in committee that they cannot respond to that question or they cannot answer my query because it is an arm’s-length organization. They wash their hands of it, yet all of these organizations have an impact on Canadians’ lives and all of these organizations spend the Canadian taxpayer’s dollar. They should be completely accountable, both in the committee and in the House of Commons. We have seen some of the most heinous misuse of funds in the history of the 11-year Liberal government by arm’s-length organizations. For example, the Canada Infrastructure Bank has committed $18 billion since 2017, and in 10 years, despite this high expenditure, fewer than 10% of projects have been completed. Despite that, executives were given both bonuses and salaries to the tune of $8.6 million last year. We cannot forget the green slush fund, Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The damning 2024 Auditor General report found 90 instances where directors failed to recuse themselves for a contract total of $76 million. Out of 58 projects, 10 projects were determined to be ineligible under their own rules, totalling $59 million. Another $20 million in seed projects was approved without the required screening. It was so bad that the federal government had to disband the organization, and every single board of directors member was forced to resign. The second reason Bill C-40 leaves a wanting for accountability and responsibility is that it has pieces of legislation that would create winners and losers, which would allow Liberals to reward friends and insiders. It would expand the number of categories under which the minister could carry out a sole-source procurement. There would be 13 opportunities, in fact, with no options, no price comparisons and no comparative evaluations. It would also allow any number of future exceptions to be written into regulations, as many as they want. It would exclude the minister from the consequences of outsourcing and these can be many and can be highly impactful, from overspending and choosing projects and solutions that are out of scope, to solutions that are wrong for operational requirements. It would also allow the minister to exclude anyone without justification, without oversight and without explanation; procurement ghosting; picking winners and losers; and giving contracts to friends and insiders. We saw this no place better than in the Auditor General’s report in 2024 of McKinsey, with 10 departments being implicated and 97 professional service contracts for a total of $209 million. These rules would allow Liberals to give money to friends and insiders and they would allow the government to do what it loves to do best, and that is to play favourites. Bill C-40 would also allow the corporation to withdraw up to $1 billion out of the consolidated revenue fund, and not just once but as many times as it needed to, yet the oversight would be missing. The DIA would be under Treasury Board rules to a substantially less extent than prior to Bill C-40, Treasury Board being the body that provides the oversight for the expenditure of funds. This would mean less regulatory oversight for the spending of taxpayer dollars, something Conservatives never like to see occurring. The bill would remove the oversight of the Office of the Procurement Ombud, who audits the execution of government contracting to check for process. The procurement ombud said that he is concerned about the potential for less accountability when it comes to major defence contracts, and he has good cause for concern. In April 2024 testimony regarding the McKinsey contracting study, he stated: We are seeing consistent problems across the federal procurement landscape. If you go back even as far as a decade and further, you’ll see that many of these issues are repetitive in nature. It’s not simply one issue, but what I will say—and this is what I believe the theme for this report is—that perhaps the system has lost confidence in delivering results for the project authority. As a result, people use the system in ways that it shouldn’t be used. This is something that we are trying to avoid. In February 2024, in his testimony on ArriveCAN, the procurement ombud stated: ...the number one issue...is documentation. This is not unique to [just] these departments [that were included in this analysis and this study]. This is a struggle across the federal government. In his 2025-26 annual report, the procurement ombud stated, specific to defence procurement: Major defence procurements are high-value, high-risk, and central to Canada’s sovereignty and security [, something that is so important to Canadians at this time]. Persistent delays, fragmented accountability, and weak performance measurement carry real consequences, [as we saw this week] not only for public funds, but for operational readiness. While recent reforms demonstrate positive intent, their success will depend on clear accountability, disciplined implementation, and effective oversight throughout the [procurement processes and throughout the] lifecycle of defence contracts. In these three examples, we see the necessity for accountability. Bill C-40 would take away that accountability and that responsibility by maintaining arm’s-length organizations, putting in mechanisms to allow for winners and losers that would allow Liberals to reward their friends and insiders, and removing significant financial and procurement oversight. However, the solution is found where we begin. The procurement ombud stated, “If people aren’t accountable, it creates big gaps in the process.... You do not step away from the gap and pretend it’s not your responsibility.... When you see a gap, [you say] “I take accountability and responsibility [and I will] fill that gap.” There is no place that is more critical and more fundamental to our Canadian sovereignty and to our Canadian security than our defence procurement. The Liberals should take accountability and responsibility. Those four young men who passed away deserve that.”

“Albertans want to stay in Canada, but they want more independence from Ottawa. They do not trust the Liberal government, so they want to make their own choices.”

“Mr. Speaker, at the crux of the member’s question was the example of many independent Alberta organizations. I would like to point out that while Albertans did choose to stay in a federated Canada, which is the right option, I believe, they also responded in eight out of nine other questions that they want more independence from Ottawa in terms of defining their own destiny and feeling responsibility as a province because, frankly, they cannot count on Ottawa or the Liberal government to do it for them. What is really at the root of yesterday and the member’s question is that Albertans have trust within themselves. What they do not trust is the Liberal government and more Liberal governance.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 6 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill says the new defence agency must do whatever the minister tells it to do. Given past failures, why should Canadians not be worried about this kind of government control?”

“Mr. Speaker, clause 9 of Bill C-40 says, “The [Defence Investment Agency] must do as the Minister directs”. It does not say “may”, but “must”. I am wondering if my colleague can tell me why this should cause concern to Canadians if the GlobalEye failure under the Defence Investment Agency’s current mandate predicts a path forward and to give an example of what we can, unfortunately, expect going forward under this new bill.”

“This new bill changes this role into a minister, unlike the last version. The Liberals did this to give themselves more power to act on their own without checks and balances.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the excellent work of our defence team, in addition to our associate defence minister for procurement, who has done a fantastic job in addition to the work of our shadow minister for defence. The answer is clear. I will point out the change between Bill C-31 and Bill C-40. In Bill C-31, this position was not a minister, but was made so in Bill C-40. The reasoning is clear. The Liberals want more power for themselves. They want the ability to do things unilaterally without having the checks and balances in place. It is no surprise to me at all. The good issue that my colleague has raised is a question of control.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 41 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 23 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 →

“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?”

“The government wastes money, gives contracts to its friends, and tries to cover it up. We will keep holding them accountable for these scandals.”

“Mr. Speaker, frankly, in the nine years I have been here, I do not think I have enough time, but the WE Charity scandal stands out in my mind significantly. There is the green slush fund that I mentioned, McKinsey and my favourite from the last Parliament was ArriveCAN, which I believe really woke Canadians up to not only the ineffectiveness of the government but the ill will in the attempt to cover up the poor expenditures of the government, in addition to giving money to friends and insiders. It is an epidemic with the government and, unfortunately, for the Liberals, we will continue as the official opposition to hold them to account on it.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the government to explain why it counts the Coast Guard as defence spending for NATO. NATO rules say coast guard forces must have military training and equipment to count. My committee confirmed that our Coast Guard does not meet those rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, it has been a hot topic today, about NATO GDP spending, which ties directly into what the DIA says. I wonder if the member opposite could explain how the government can justify supporting the Coast Guard budget under GDP spending, when NATO’s own regulations, right from its website, say that coast guard forces are to be “trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force.” I have confirmed in committee that our Coast Guard cannot meet those requirements. Can the member justify the government’s use of the Coast Guard as part of NATO GDP spending?”