“Our military needs the best equipment and supplies, and we support spending more money on defense. But the government must put real rules in place so this money buys actual equipment instead of being lost to bureaucracy. The government also cannot claim it is boosting defense when it plans to cut the military's operating budget by 10%.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for sharing her time. It is an honour to rise in the people’s house once again, to speak in regard to Bill C-40. I would like to commence my remarks by recognizing and giving honour to those to whom honour is due. Our hearts, thoughts and prayers go out to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families who have been affected and devastated by the tragedy that has taken place at CFB Wainwright. I want to offer, to them and the Canadian Armed Forces from coast to coast to coast, our thoughts, prayers and sympathies to the families that have been affected and are going through loss at this time. Upon further reflection in regard to that, thinking of our brave men and women in uniform, past and present, and as we approach Remembrance Day coming up, it would only be correct for me to once again recognize that we owe a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid to those who paid the ultimate price, and to their families, who suffer so much along with them, providing such tremendous support and hope to Canadians. We are enjoying freedoms because they paid the price, they made sacrifices and their loved ones allowed them to serve. They have served in so many ways that we cannot begin to adequately express. On behalf of a grateful nation and on behalf of the good people of Tobique—Mactaquac, we thank all of them for their service and sacrifice. We give honour to them today. We recognize that the Canadian Armed Forces deserve the best of the best, and they deserve our best. They have an expectation of government, and rightly so, that if they are going to make sacrifices and go to serve a cause greater than themselves, they need the best equipment and supplies and the weaponry that they need to do combat in the 21st century. Part of that is making sure that we give them all the tools that they need to succeed. While I was thinking about this, I was reflecting upon how many times our brave men and women have punched above their weight in service to our country. The Canadian Armed Forces have done incredible feats throughout history. Whether it was at Vimy Ridge, where heroism was on full display; at Juno Beach when our troops, our brave young soldiers, stormed the beaches; the liberation of the Netherlands in the Second World War; the Korean War; those who served valiantly and bravely in the Persian Gulf War, or those who served more recently in Afghanistan and throughout various peacekeeping missions around the world, one thing that is clear is that their service, abilities and capabilities as fighting men and women are quite unparalleled in any other fighting force around the world. They are to be commended. They have always punched above their weight. To this day, they continue to excel and give their utmost in service to our country. That is why it is so important to get this type of bill right. That is why, when we invest in our brave men and women, we want to make sure we do it right, with the level of investment that it requires and deserves, but also with integrity around that investment to ensure that it is done properly and in the way it should be done. Too many times, we have gotten the defence spending aspect wrong in this country. It has not been the priority it should have been. This goes back throughout our history. Our brave men and women deserve much more. The government has committed to spending more on national defence, which we in the official opposition support. It is important that we make sure the safeguards are put in place, so that the money being pledged, and the spending that is going to happen, actually gets to the brave men and women who are wearing the uniform. It must get to the right equipment at the right time, expeditiously, and not be siphoned off through reams of more layers of bureaucracy, or be unaccounted for or not answerable to those who represent the people of Canada, namely the Parliament of Canada. Proper oversight and proper safeguards should be put in place. By doing that, we would be giving honour to the Canadian taxpayer, but also to the brave men and women who serve in our forces. The Canadian Armed Forces need equipment. They need it delivered. They need it on time, but they do not need another layer of bureaucracy. The Canadian Coast Guard, for example, most recently has been allocated under National Defence. Recently, at the government operations committee, I asked the defence officials who were representing it there whether the Coast Guard was still more or less a civilian operation or if it was being militarized. Are the ships being equipped with defences? Are they doing defence exercises? Are they being prepared and equipped, if they are part of National Defence, and is the spending that has been allocated under the Canadian Coast Guard for years now being attributed toward NATO required spending? I asked simply, in that committee, whether they are being equipped. The answer was that no, there are no defence mechanisms being put on the vessels. They said at that time that they were still continuing to do fish-counting operations and surveillance on the waters for fish, civilian and operational purposes, but really there was not a whole lot that would fall under the mandate of Canadian National Defence. As such, Canadians do rightly have questions, when we say we spent this much more under National Defence, whether it really is going to National Defence and equipment upgrades or it is going to reallocation through a budgetary mechanism. By reassigning certain departments, what was once under Fisheries and Oceans is now accounted for under National Defence. It helps augment the numbers quickly, but does it achieve the objective of providing the equipment that we need, the training that is needed and the resources that are needed to defend our nation and our waters? These are questions that Canadians legitimately have. There are reports of a proposed 10% cut in the Canadian Armed Forces operating budget. When we are talking about cutting 10% while saying we are going to augment and meet our NATO obligations, Canadians are right to ask how we square that circle. How does it come together that we are going to cut 10% out of operating budgets but somehow augment tremendously our level of spending on national defence? Canadians are right to ask how that goes together. I grew up in a little place called Hartfield, New Brunswick, and there, still to this point, two plus two equals four, but I am coming to learn in the House that this is not always the case. Sometimes two plus two equals 104 or 305 billion. I do not know. I cannot keep up with the figures that keep coming out of this place as relates to the finances of the nation. That is why we as the official opposition have an obligation to make sure, when it comes to procurement, that it is done properly, that it is prioritized, that the needs of the brave men and women in our armed forces are of the utmost priority and that what is needed is prioritized. If that is equipment, the forces get the equipment that they need. If they need more weaponry, they are going to get that weaponry. If they need better protective equipment, they get that. That should be the utmost priority, and contracts should not be awarded to friends and associates, those who are well connected in high places. They really should be going to those who are most qualified. I will end with this. There is a quick story that I am brought back to, and I hope I can squeeze it in. It is a story of a young man who was in a position of authority in a country that was not his own. He heard about his hometown, which was in a state of ill repair. The defences had fallen and the walls had collapsed, and this young man, whose name was Nehemiah, was quite distressed over the condition of the wall that surrounded the city where he grew up. He sought permission to come up with a strategy. He went back, and of course, it was dilapidated. It was in rough shape, and they did not know what could be done. The critics came, and they said that they could never do it for this reason; it would never get done for that reason; it was going to be faulty, and it was not going to be right. However, here is the good news: That young man came up with a strategy. He said that they were going to do something. Yes, there were threats that were emerging, and yes, it looked overwhelming to rebuild the defence of the city the way it should be, but they were going to put a brick in one hand and a sword in the other and build and defend at the same time. That is what the government needs to do, both build and defend. Let us do it together.”

“Canadians want to invest in our armed forces quickly and properly. Because this involves a lot of money, Parliament must oversee it with honesty and openness.”

“Mr. Speaker, I give my deepest respects to the service member, who paid a huge price in service, and to his family. Canadians are looking for the best way to invest in our armed forces to give them the adequate supports that they need and make sure it is timely. Canadians also want, and are demanding, that this be done with integrity. They want it done in a way that is transparent, open, with proper accountability and checks and balances in place. This is a huge amount of money, and rightly so, but it needs to be done properly, with the oversight of Parliament.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 94 of 100

  Of this reply, 91% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I share the concern that this buying process could be abused. We need checks and balances to protect tax dollars and hold the government accountable. The House does not have enough oversight right now. We must make sure safeguards are put in place.”

“Mr. Speaker, indeed, I share my colleague’s concerns. Regarding the procurement process, we want to make sure that checks and balances are put in place that protect taxpayer dollars and hold the government to account. I share the member’s concern that there is the potential for this to be abused, and it does not have adequate oversight and accountability from this body, from the House. We have to make sure that safeguards are put in place.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Conservatives worry about the government being too close to private companies. We saw problems with that in past projects like ArriveCAN. I want to know what the member thinks about these concerns.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member made a couple of comments with regard to insiders and friends. We have seen this with the ArriveCAN app and the green slush fund. This is a huge concern for Conservatives. I heard a previous colleague from across the aisle talking about a closer relationship between government and corporations. I think that is what scares us the most about that. Would the member like to share his point of view and thoughts on that and on why there are some reservations on our side?”

“I share the worry that this new corporation could give contracts to friends without proper rules. We must make sure Parliament can watch over these purchases closely.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his service to our country. I share the member’s concerns, as do many Canadians. Obviously, past behaviour can sometimes be an indicator of future behaviour. Members can understand why Canadians are looking at this with a bit of leeriness and wondering if we are establishing a corporation through which perhaps associates and friends could be rewarded with contracts without proper oversight from this body. I believe we have to look at that, make sure safeguards are put in place, and make sure that Parliament has proper oversight of any of this procurement that takes place.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“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?”

“I oppose this bill. It creates more government bureaucracy instead of buying the equipment our military needs. The government sends military contracts to foreign companies instead of Canadian workers, counts fish research as defence spending, and cuts money for homeless veterans. We must vote against this bill and build a system that actually equips our soldiers.”

“Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to acknowledge the sacrifice made by the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. On Saturday, a fire swept through a training exercise at CFB Wainwright, and Canada lost four of its brave soldiers. These soldiers were doing exactly what we asked of them: training to defend our freedoms. I ask that all of us keep the families of these soldiers, and those fighting for their lives, in our hearts and prayers. I rise today to speak to Bill C-40, which would turn the Liberals’ Defence Investment Agency into a new Crown corporation. Barely a year after creating this agency, the Liberals are already proposing to give it a new name. Canadians do not need another bureaucracy, another ministerial title or another government announcement. They need a military that has the equipment to defend our country. We cannot defend Canada with press releases or Liberal promises. According to the government’s own data, only 61.3% of military force elements were ready for operations. Since the agency was created last October, the Liberals have talked about speeding up defence procurement, but they have failed to deliver equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. I should also note that the Prime Minister’s friend from Goldman Sachs, Doug Guzman, was hand-picked to be the CEO of the Defence Investment Agency. He receives a taxpayer-funded salary of nearly $700,000. I think this is important to flag, because the Prime Minister has a trend of rewarding his buddies. While Canadians struggle to make ends meet, it has never been so good to be a Liberal insider. The Liberals say that this new Crown corporation will operate at arm’s length from the government, yet the bill itself says that “the Corporation must do as the Minister directs”. A Crown corporation that must follow the minister’s order is the Liberals’ definition of independence. This raises serious questions about transparency, oversight and expanded powers that would be given to the associate minister responsible for procurement. Billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake, and every one of those dollars must deliver real capability for our armed forces. Let us talk about the Liberal government’s record on procurement. Let us think about the last time we went grocery shopping. I know that many Canadians have flipped over a box or a jar to check where the product was made. Since the trade war with the United States began, 61% of Canadians say they are buying more Canadian products. Canadians are making an effort to support Canadian workers and Canadian businesses. However, despite Canadians’ reading labels, their own government is not. The Prime Minister has criss-crossed the country promising that Ottawa would buy Canadian. Most people have never heard how that is supposed to work, so I will explain. Every year, Public Services and Procurement Canada spends tens of billions of Canadian tax dollars on everything from software to steel. Last year, the Liberals launched their buy Canadian policy, which was supposed to give Canadian suppliers an advantage when the government awards big contracts. In other words, when Ottawa goes shopping, it is supposed to shop in Canada. While the Prime Minister’s buy Canadian promise sounded like common sense to most Canadians, the results tell a very different story. The Liberal policy does not require a company to be Canadian-owned to qualify as a Canadian supplier. That means foreign firms can wrap themselves in a Canadian flag and qualify as Canadian despite being controlled overseas, and that is what is happening. In the policy’s first six months, more than 70% of contracts awarded under buy Canadian went to foreign-owned entities. A Toronto Star analysis found that in the Prime Minister’s first 16 months in office, his government awarded $7.8 billion in contracts to American-controlled companies. The share of federal contract dollars awarded to U.S.–controlled companies has increased from 20% to 31%, a 55% increase. Of the 10 companies receiving the largest federal contracts, six are American. While the Prime Minister travels across the country telling Canadians to buy Canadian, his own government is shopping down south with their tax dollars. Perhaps we should not be surprised by this because when the Prime Minister chaired Brookfield Asset Management, its board approved moving the company’s headquarters from Canada to New York. Why does this matter to Canadians? In September alone, Canada lost 68,000 jobs, including 13,000 in manufacturing. While Canadian businesses fight unjustified tariffs just to keep the doors open, the Liberals keep sending Canadian tax dollars south of the border. If the Prime Minister really wants to buy Canadian, he should start by reading the labels. When Canadians hear the words “defence spending”, they picture fighter jets and soldiers with the equipment they need. They do not picture a research ship counting fish off our coast, but under the Liberal government, that is exactly what is being labelled as defence spending. At a government operations committee, I asked department officials a simple question: Are the Coast Guard’s offshore fishery science vessels now being counted as defence spending? The deputy commissioner answered yes, and members will not believe this, “100% of the expenditures of the Coast Guard are counted against the NATO targets.” Nobody disputes the importance of these services, but important services are not the same thing as military defence. The Liberals moved the Coast Guard under the Department of National Defence, and suddenly every dollar it spends helps the Prime Minister claim he is meeting our NATO targets. Moving an expense from one government category to another does not magically turn fisheries research vessels into battleships. Meanwhile, the government’s own reporting revealed that only 52% of key systems in the Canadian army’s fleets were serviceable. Instead of inflating numbers with fishery science missions, the Liberals should fund the military capabilities Canada’s armed forces need. We cannot talk about defence without talking about veterans. It is difficult to comprehend this, but thousands of veterans are homeless in Canada. When veterans lose their homes, we probably will not find them in a shelter. They may be sleeping in their car or on a friend’s couch. These are the men and women who once put on a uniform to defend our country. Unfortunately, earlier this year, the Liberal government decided they could not find any homeless veterans to support. It is unbelievable. A briefing note obtained through an access to information request shows that in February, the Liberals moved more than $3 million out of the veteran homelessness program. Government officials claimed that organizations had struggled to identify eligible veterans and that all opportunities to use the money had been “exhausted”. That is the same briefing note that predicted that veteran-serving organizations may raise concerns. That is undoubtedly so. Those concerns were not difficult to predict. At a government operations committee, non-profit veterans organizations expressed frustration, disappointment and even disgust that this funding was allowed to lapse. Debbie Lowther of VETS Canada said her organization helps 400 to 600 veterans every year, and about 80% of them are referred by Veterans Affairs Canada itself. The same Liberal government that sends hundreds of veterans to these organizations every year claims it could not find any veterans to help. The Liberals cannot claim to take the defence of our country seriously while turning their backs on the people who already defended it. Bill C-40 is the Liberal approach to governing. In a nutshell, it is more bureaucracy and less accountability. Whether it is a buy Canadian policy that sends contracts south, fish-counting ships labelled as defence spending or $3 million pulled away from homeless veterans, the pattern is the same. The Liberals love to change labels, hoping that Canadians will not ask for results. Canadians deserve a procurement system that meets our armed forces’ needs, supports Canadian workers and respects tax dollars.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 99 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the Prime Minister has a trend of rewarding his buddies”.

  See full analysis →