Mr. Chair, one thing is certain: it's important to recall, as the member did, the scale of the funds already invested and the mission that already exists.
If the bill simply repeats the mission that already exists in other words, then it's useless. Otherwise, it must be interpreted as a bill that seeks to create a diversion, i.e., we're preparing for the future to avoid really taking stock of what happened, the mistakes and blunders that may have occurred during the last crisis. This is normal, because no government is perfect. No administration is perfect.
Otherwise, we legislate because we want to tighten the screws, we want new powers or more coercive authority. My fear is that this coercive authority will be aimed at the provinces, which would be forced to harmonize their practices when they should instead be allowed to innovate and apply their know-how closer to the ground. This would also plunge them into a dynamic of accountability, which would be a way of subordinating them, when there should be no subordination.
By trying to intervene too much in things that stray from its mission, the federal level is moving away from the basics. Its mission should be refocused on what lies at the heart of federal jurisdiction, for example, procurement and strategic reserves. This is the role of the federal government.