Government Operations Committee on Feb. 10th, 2026

[Stephen Fuhr, Liberal, Kelowna, BC]

Yes, sure I can. Essentially, this all started with a trip to Europe that I was on with the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs—I think it was back in June—when we signed a Canada-EU defence and security agreement.

The second tranche underneath that was to sign the SAFE agreement, which we've done. That gives Canada access to $240 billion—in Canadian dollars—of European procurement that we otherwise wouldn't have been involved in. Interestingly, Canada is the only non-EU country involved in this right now. I know that others wanted to be. I think you might have read something in the paper about the Brits. It didn't work out—I don't know the story behind that—but for Canada it did.

In addition to bringing our SMEs and our companies into our own procurement, we've now enabled them to get into other supply chains, whether it's through SAFE or other bilats that we have.

Again, when I went to South Korea—I just got back and am feeling a little jet-legged—we took a trade delegation of 24 companies with us, which had access to talking to a bunch of South Korean companies about how they could help deliver Canadian patrol submarines, how they could perhaps help support Canadian patrol submarines—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you. We are past our time.

We'll go to Madame Gaudreau, please, for six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will speak in French. We have two official languages, and I hope you are proficient in French.

Unlike my colleague, I'm not reassured, and I will explain why.

I am an entrepreneur. When I negotiate and put things in place, I do so with my own money. Right now, we're talking about an agency and public funds. My oversight role includes looking at what other jurisdictions are doing. I don't know why, but France came to mind. It has had a structured and planned policy framework for 60 years. Here, we're told that we have to move quickly, that there is compliance, that people were hired for this, that there are now 85 employees and that the bill on planning is on the way, but action will be taken before then.

What's the status of the clarification between investments and current expenses? What's the status of accountability? What's the status of the standardized accounting method? We want to know that. I know you are in the process of planning this. What's the status of the trajectory? It has to be something that is clear.

I'm telling you this because I'm also on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and I know that veterans are watching the agency unfold and saying that we should start by providing them with transition and support services. Otherwise, tomorrow morning, no one will want to steer what's coming.

I don't find that reassuring. Can you give some reassurance about what's coming in the next quarter?

[Stephen Fuhr, Liberal, Kelowna, BC]

Let me just circle back to something you said about transparency and accountability. Obviously, those are very important things. They always have been. We've been spending taxpayers' money on things for years, and Canadians and taxpayers want good value for their money. I think they deserve that. We're going to really focus on that in a way that's probably more tangible than it has been in the past.

The reason I say that is that if you go back to that 2024 report from NDDN, which largely informed how this agency was stood up, the recommendations in that report were unanimous. All parties agreed to them. In addition to that, there's a supplement from the Conservatives that said they wanted a single point of accountability. Under our legacy system, arguably, we didn't have it. We had four agencies that all had major roles, but no single one of those agencies was accountable. If you're talking about an increase in accountability, whether the DIA is under PSPC as an SOA or it stands up on its own, it will have a single point of accountability.

In this case right now, I hold the position, but there will be others in the future. The secretary of state for the agency is politically accountable to this committee, the House of Commons and the voters, and we didn't really have that before. I think we're going to have accountability that we really haven't seen before. I think that's an improvement.

With regard to all of the other expert elements of how we keep procurements from coming off the rails, we're making sure that the process has integrity. Right now, we still have all of the resources of PSPC, because we're still housed under them. As Mr. Guzman said, as we build out on our own we'll either bring some of that with us or get it from some other place. Wherever we need to get it from, we'll have it. We will always have that expertise in-house to make sure the process has integrity, and now we have a single point of accountability at the top, which we haven't had in 60 years. I think we're in a better place than we were before.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have one last question.

I hear that we have the expertise here and that we will not lose it. People are being incentivized to perform better than they are currently doing.

Did I hear correctly, at some point in the preliminary remarks, that external expertise will be brought in?

[Doug Guzman]

Thank you for the question. I've not had a chance to practise my French for several years.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

You should speak more French with Mr. Carney.

[Doug Guzman]

I'm more comfortable in English and so I'll answer the question in English.

Yes, I think there's room for external expertise to come into the picture. There is no shortage of large corporations out there that have complex procurement exercises. The assignment we've received is to have a look at the process that we have today. I think everyone is unanimous that it could be improved, so a small number of folks from the outside who have experience to come and improve the process, I think, would make good sense.

My focus to date has been to get the internal hires right because, as has been pointed out by some of your colleagues, I have strengths in some areas and I have weaknesses in others, so I have sought to buttress the defence and procurement and government machinery areas that I have less experience in with top-quality people from PSPC and elsewhere. We are fortunate to be able to borrow ADM Harty in that respect.

I do think there is room for outside folks who can tell us how commercial entities run it differently. I have had interest from Canadians in all kinds of different places, people in multinationals who have procurement expertise, so I do think we can bring something to the mix that way.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

In closing, I wish to reiterate that I don't feel reassured. It's the same thing every time. It's not like that in Quebec, but at the federal level, we have a habit of asking for external help. It's been adding up. I've been here for six years, and every time the government has outsourced contracts, it's been another scandal. So, let me hope that all the expertise is in-house and that we're going to focus on the people inside.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mrs. Block for five minutes.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome here, Mr. Fuhr, Mr. Guzman and Ms. Harty.

It's good to have you here. We've been looking forward to this meeting for quite some time. I hope that you have healed completely from surgery, I think it was.

[Doug Guzman]

I asked if I should bring a doctor's note. It was a detached retina. It did happen. There was some skepticism. I can send the photos.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I hope that you have completely healed from that.

In response to my colleague's question about your experience, I think you mentioned that we should ask others about why you were chosen. In fact, we did that last fall in committee. We had members from PCO, the Privy Council Office, here to answer some of our questions, and they weren't really forthcoming as to how it was that you were chosen. We do know that it was a recommendation by the Prime Minister through an order in council; however, they were reluctant to tell us about the ideas that they had on a list of people who might be good for this position.

I guess my question for you would be, did you express interest in this opportunity, or were you tapped on the shoulder to consider coming over to the DIA?

[Doug Guzman]

I expressed interest in serving Canada. I expressed that to the Prime Minister, who is a former colleague in banking, and that discussion was then moved to the PCO. I don't know who else they considered for the role.

I didn't seek this specific role. I asked the government through PCO where I could help and where my expertise fit. We landed on this role.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you.

Given that you are a former colleague and, I'm assuming, a friend of the Prime Minister, it's really important that Canadians know and can be assured that a friendship won't be used to potentially subvert our ethics requirements.

Are you currently subject to any conflict of interest screens similar to those that the Prime Minister is subject to?

[Doug Guzman]

I expect to be subject to a conflict of interest screen, yes. I'm just working it through with the ethics folks.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Okay.

Your report has still not been published from the Ethics Commissioner, yet you have already been, I'm assuming, making decisions as the CEO of the Defence Investment Agency.

[Doug Guzman]

As I said, I'm ahead of the process in terms of the deadlines. I've fully disclosed everything. The blind trust that I've been asked to set up is being set up as we speak. The accounts are being moved into—

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

While that is happening, you have been making decisions.

[Doug Guzman]

I've been fulfilling my job responsibilities, and I've been complying with the ethics process as it's laid out.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

The first contract the Defence Investment Agency awarded was for military satellite technology in the Arctic. This is a project that could be worth up to $5 billion. Just weeks ago, news broke that Telesat, one of the companies you awarded this contract to, is now being sued for fraud by creditors.

What due diligence was or was not undertaken in awarding a contract of this value?

[Stephen Fuhr, Liberal, Kelowna, BC]

I wasn't part of the due diligence process. I can confirm that what you described actually happened. We did award a strategic partnership with Telesat and MDA to provide military-grade satcom to the Canadian Armed Forces.

I don't have a comment. I might be able to pass it to Siobhan to comment on the specifics of your question.

[Siobhan Harty]

It's a strategic partnership that we awarded. This is still a work-in-progress in terms of progressing through all the steps, but we do our due diligence. I would just point out that this is still not determined. There's still a process that this has to go through as well in terms of the accusations. We have done our due diligence.

Thank you.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Perhaps what I will ask then is, do you not check a company's standing with creditors ahead of awarding multi-billion dollar contracts? If Telesat is unable to pay for debt they owe, how do you expect them to fulfill their contractual obligations to this project? This is a lawsuit that is alleging that Telesat has billions of dollars of loans that are maturing. What is the contingency should this actually come to fruition?

[Siobhan Harty]

All the due diligence will continue, and we will work with our clients to determine a contingency.

Thank you.