Debates of Oct. 26th, 2026

Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for drawing attention to the importance of base Gagetown. I spent eight years of my career posted there. I know how important that base is for the Canadian Army in particular.

My question is about accountability. The member talked a bit about it, and there has been lots of debate around that issue. However, the Liberal government, over the last 10 years, has done a good job of not accepting accountability. We had one case where we successfully censured a former minister of national defence when he messed up in a leadership role. When it came to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, unfortunately the government took the Speaker to court to prevent the will of Parliament.

Considering that he is a member of the governing caucus, which has a majority, I am not confident that the amendments that opposition members will want at committee are going to get through. Will the member commit that if the minister or the CEO of the DIA is found guilty of something, he will personally call for their resignation or firing?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the member had the opportunity to spend several years in New Brunswick. I am also pleased that he pointed out how important the announced $1-billion investment has been for infrastructure at the Gagetown military base in New Brunswick. That will make a real difference for our Canadian Armed Forces and for the province that I represent.

As far as accountability is concerned, obviously a minister will be responsible for this agency. He or she will be in the House to answer opposition members' questions and will appear in committee. A whole series of mechanisms will be put in place to ensure transparency and accountability within our parliamentary system. The Crown corporation will still be required to disclose financial information, undergo audits and table documents in Parliament.

We are giving this organization more independence from an operational perspective, but we are maintaining strict accountability measures.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about accountability.

The procurement ombudsman regularly appears before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. When I asked him if there are sufficient safeguards or if he could analyze certain contracts that might have been awarded to cronies for certain purposes, even though that is surely not happening, he replied that he could not do his job with a new structure like this one.

Seriously, we are supposed to believe the words we are hearing when, fact, what we are talking about is total autonomy.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, accountability measures will apply. The objective of making the agency a Crown corporation is to give it more autonomy so it can invest in defence and meet current needs while strengthening our country's industrial base.

Accountability measures will apply. Committee work will be carried out, reports will be written and financial disclosure obligations will have to be met. All of these criteria apply. Members of Parliament will be able to ask their questions in committee and in the House.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche both have ridings that are partly rural. Some people are wondering whether rural areas will have access to the funding and projects that will come out of this agency.

What does my colleague think the Defence Investment Agency would do for the people in his region?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first, there is the $1-billion investment in CFB Gagetown. This will have significant economic benefits for the entire province of New Brunswick.

Several businesses in my riding have contracts with the Department of National Defence or with its suppliers.

I have visited some of them in my capacity as a member of Parliament. I also document my region's ability to meet the country's defence needs and forward this information to the appropriate authorities.

When it comes to the dual-use sector, there are tangible benefits for our regions. I am thinking in particular of a research project funded by our industrial strategy at the University of New Brunswick, focusing on the security of our critical infrastructure and specifically examining Port Saint John and the Port of Belledune, which is located in northern New Brunswick.

The project focuses on ways to improve the security and efficiency of this critical infrastructure. This will have benefits not only for security but also for the civilian sector. There are many such examples.

I could go on. This provides a variety of opportunities for our businesses involved in infrastructure, such as our ports, and for our research centres that are studying defence-related issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, it truly is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-40, the defence and national security production and procurement act. In the wake of the tragic events at CFB Wainwright just over a week ago and the launch of the Royal Canadian Legion's national poppy campaign this past weekend, we are reminded of the service and sacrifice of our Canadian Armed Forces, both past and present, and the importance of the debate we are having here today.

Turning to the bill, it pains me to say that here we go again. This is the Liberal government's third attempt to deliver defence equipment to our Canadian Armed Forces in an efficient and timely way. Perhaps three times is the charm.

It was just one short year ago that I spoke to the Liberal government's budget implementation act, Bill C-31, when the government made the case that its recently created Defence Investment Agency needed to become a stand-alone entity outside of both the departments of PSPC and National Defence. Bill C-40 proposes to turn the Defence Investment Agency into the Canadian corporation for defence investment.

The Defence Investment Agency was launched to accelerate defence procurement, but it has failed to deliver a single piece of new equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. Instead, the government points to signing ceremonies and preferred partnership announcements, pretending that this is the same as actually delivering.

After a decade of neglect, what our sailors, soldiers and aviators need is a procurement process that equips them for the modern threats we face today. The brave men and women of our armed forces deserve the equipment they need to defend Canada and keep Canadians safe. Above all, they should be able to count on procurement processes that are efficient and accountable.

As I was contemplating my remarks for today's debate, I reflected on the question of accountability and trust: Do I trust the tired old Liberal government to do the right thing with respect to defence procurement? Let us look at its track record. One's trust would be misplaced on so many fronts, but it is especially the case when it comes to trusting the Liberal government to do the right thing on procurement. I have had the honour of serving in this place for almost two decades, so I want to remind some of my colleagues who have not been here that long of a very sad saga.

Canada joined the joint strike fighter program under the former Liberal government in 1997. That is almost 30 years ago. In 2010, under the leadership of a Conservative government, Canada finally selected the F-35, a fifth-generation fighter jet, to replace our aging fleet of CF-18s. Then, in a twist of overt political opportunism, former Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau, at the time the leader, campaigned on a promise to never purchase the F-35. This kicked off approximately seven years of Liberal stonewalling, obstructionism, foot-dragging and delays. The Liberals even concocted the silly idea of buying old jets from Australia.

Then, in 2022, the same old Liberal government ended up choosing the F-35 as the CF-18's replacement. I guess we can always count on a Liberal government to break a promise. However, this saga did not end there. In 2025, the same Liberal government once again put the F-35 procurement under review.

Military procurement should be in the best interests of the Canadian Armed Forces and Canada's national security and should not be politicized, which leads me to another area of concern with this proposed legislation, that being the potential erosion of parliamentary oversight and transparency.

This seems to be a pattern for the Liberal government. In order to fix and speed up the broken defence procurement system, the Liberals created a special agency and appointed the Prime Minister's friend Doug Guzman, who has no background in national defence but asked for a job. He was handed the position of the first CEO of the Defence Investment Agency, with a salary greater than the highest paid federal public servants on the payroll. Four months later, the government announced the need for the agency to be a stand-alone entity, and before that could happen, it introduced legislation to convert the DIA into a Crown corporation, overseen by an associate minister with unprecedented powers.

The changes contained in Bill C-40 could remove much-needed parliamentary oversight from the DIA, creating the inevitable mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and waste the government is known for. With billions of tax dollars at stake, Conservatives have serious concerns that the Liberals are increasing the opportunity for political interference and decreasing accountability.

I am sure members will recall the revelation of a potential conflict of interest, which still exists, surrounding the Liberal government's Alto rail boondoggle and the finance minister. The prospect of the finance minister making decisions as part of the federal government's budgetary process, which presents distinct benefits and advantages for his partner and her employer, and acting and voting in Parliament to give those effect, is deeply troubling. We can consider the Prime Minister's most recent pre-Thanksgiving announcement to subsidize heat pumps. Brookfield has a big stake in the retrofit and heat pump business via Enercare and Trane, and the Prime Minister has a lot of deferred shares, options and carried interest.

Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that the DIA or the Liberals themselves may have already decided on Saab's GlobalEye as the preferred supplier for the airborne early warning and control platform without proper consideration or consultation with the Royal Canadian Air Force. Political interference seems to be second nature for the government.

I raise these examples to remind Canadians why we cannot simply trust this Liberal government and to make the case for the need to ensure strong oversight and transparency. To be clear, Conservatives are on the record. We support one point of accountability for defence procurement, not adding layers of bureaucracy to an already bureaucratic system. This is why the rules around sole-source procurement and other reporting requirements must be strong.

Conservatives believe that the powers conferred to the CEO by the new associate minister should be scaled back when it comes to decisions to sole-source a procurement, and the government should be required to disclose when it uses national security exceptions to allow for sole-sourcing procurements, including which subsection was supplied. This is not currently a requirement in Bill C-40. I am concerned that the measures proposed in the bill are not strong enough. Instead of taking the politics out of procurement, the bill would ensure that Liberal insiders would benefit from contracts with no transparency, accountability, Treasury Board oversight or sufficient reporting to Parliament.

In conclusion, this tired Liberal government's first and second attempts to reform defence procurement have not proven successful. Like Build Canada Homes or the Major Projects Office, the DIA is just the latest new Liberal bureaucracy delivering bottlenecks instead of progress. As a result, it is only logical that members of Parliament should have concerns about this third attempt to fix defence procurement.

Defence procurement is a matter at the heart of our sovereignty and our security, but after a decade of Liberal neglect, our military has been left unprepared for the threats we face. The world is changing. Symbolic announcements do not build or buy the equipment the Canadian Armed Forces require. Faster procurement does not require less accountability. The CAF needs swift action to procure equipment, and Canadian taxpayers deserve transparency and accountability for those expenses. These two requirements are not in conflict, even though it seems like the government wants to promote that view.

As a result, my concern is that the lack of transparency in the process being proposed by this bill is a design feature, not an unintended flaw. Bill C-40 would not deliver the equipment our forces desperately need, nor would it protect taxpayers from Liberal corruption. Conservatives will be opposing Bill C-40.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by our colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, who talked about procurement. Our colleague has been here for several years now. She was in the House when the Harper government was in power. At that time, defence spending was well below the 2% threshold that NATO requires of its members. In 2013, it was less than 1%. In 2014, it was 1.01%, and in 2015, it was 1.2%. Our government has exceeded the 2% target. In addition, we are on track to meet the 2035 target of spending 5% of our GDP on defence.

Our colleague said earlier that it was important to speed up procurement. Will the Conservatives support measures to streamline procurement, improve preparedness and establish the Crown corporation?

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

Mr. Speaker, after all is said and done, more is always said than done with the Liberal government. This is not the first time that the government has used creative accounting. We have seen this time and time again with the government including items that have not been considered for defence spending, including veterans' pensions and Transport Canada airplanes, as well as the entire Canadian Coast Guard budget, in order to get to our 2% NATO commitment.

If we put that together with recent reports that the Canadian Armed Forces are facing another round of internal belt tightening, the Liberals are proving once again that they are not serious about defence.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague speak about the lack of transparency. This issue has come up frequently, and it is important because it goes to the heart of the debate we must have as members of Parliament. We must remember that an agency would not be subject to the same standards of accountability. I believe the government should provide us with a briefing on this matter. It would be useful to hear senior public servants outline the differences between having an agency and having a minister responsible for public expenditures. This is clearly a major concern for my colleague. I would like to hear her views on the matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would have to say this: No one is questioning the creation of a defence agency, as other countries also use this model. However, as usual, the government's overreach and willingness to remove transparency and accountability from the process really do need to be examined.

Of course, single sourcing and Crown corporations have been used and proven successful when appropriate safeguards or regulations are in place. However, I would say the tools are not the problem. Those wielding the tools are the problem.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the work that he has done on this national defence file, as well as the work that he has done in reviewing this bill and pointing out the flaws that are inherent within it.

When I think about what is motivating the government and the options that I have been given, I would have to say I believe it is both.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Finance; the hon. member for York—Durham, Aerospace Industry; the hon. member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River, Ethics.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by paying tribute to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and to all veterans. We have started wearing the poppy in remembrance.

Let me now turn to Bill C-40. Our government is making major investments to help Quebec businesses enter and expand within Canadian and international defence supply chains. To be clear, these investments are not about military procurement alone. They are also about jobs, innovation, economic growth and ensuring that Quebec workers and businesses are at the forefront of one of the most important industrial opportunities of our generation.

In April 2026, for example, a total of $4.5 million was allocated to Aéro Montréal, Propulsion Québec and Sous-traitance industrielle Québec, or STIQ, to support small and medium-sized businesses. This is excellent news for the Lower Laurentians region. These investments will help Quebec businesses integrate into Canadian and international defence supply chains, market new technologies and become more competitive at securing contracts both domestically and abroad.

With this support, STIQ will help manufacturers meet the standards required to participate in defence projects. Aéro Montréal and Propulsion Québec will help businesses in the aerospace, electric mobility and smart transportation industries, which have a strong presence in the Lower Laurentians, to access new defence markets and win contracts with Canada, allied countries and major defence contractors. These investments are part of the broader regional defence investment initiative, which is providing $64.9 million to Quebec over three years.

This regional initiative prioritizes business growth and productivity projects, particularly for SMEs, to help them meet existing or future needs of the Canadian Armed Forces, NATO or allied countries. These projects aim to increase their production and innovation capacity; improve their productivity and competitiveness; explore and expand into new markets; meet defence certification and qualification standards; support business start-up and growth, with the aim of integrating into national or international defence supply chains; and respond to calls for proposals from prime defence contractors and the Government of Canada.

We want Quebec businesses to increase their production capacity. We want them to develop innovative technology. We want them to improve their productivity, meet defence certification requirements and compete successfully in global and domestic markets. Most importantly, we want workers and communities in Quebec to prosper.

Projects funded by the regional defence investment initiative should support hundreds of well-paying jobs across Quebec. Thanks to our regional offices, such as Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, or CED, and Export Development Canada, or EDC, support will be available across the province to help businesses in large and small communities to take advantage of opportunities and access Canada's growing defence-related investments.

These investments are being made in a province that is already a major hub for defence and innovation. Quebec has over 8,500 jobs in the defence sector, which accounts for about one quarter of the total workforce in Canada's defence industry. Quebec's aerospace sector is one of the most sophisticated in the world. I am not sure whether members have heard me mention this in previous speeches, but the Lower Laurentians is home to several aerospace companies, such as L3Harris, which maintains the F-35s we were discussing earlier; Airbus; Bell Textron, a helicopter supplier; and MHI RJ Aviation Group, which is developing all sorts of new technologies to meet the needs of the future, because when it comes to defence, we no longer need the same equipment as before.

The province's advanced manufacturing sector is internationally recognized. These research institutions are making advances in artificial intelligence, digital technologies, communications, sensors, optics and highly advanced materials.

As defence spending increases, both in Canada and amongst our allies, these forces place Quebec, and of course the Lower Laurentians, in a strong position to seize a growing share of these new opportunities. Businesses operating in aerospace, information technology, security, advanced transportation, critical minerals and precision manufacturing will have opportunities for growth.

When it comes to transportation, I would like to point out that my riding is home to the Nova Bus electric bus assembly plant, Blainville is home to test tracks and the neighbouring riding is home to Paccar.

SMEs producing drones, optical systems, simulators, surveillance technologies, electronic components and specialized manufacturing equipment are already well positioned to play a greater role in defence supply chains.

In fact, the number of Quebec businesses interested in the defence sector has more than doubled over the past year. This shows both the confidence of Quebec entrepreneurs and the magnitude of the opportunities that lie ahead. We do not need to speculate on what these opportunities might bring. We can already see the results within the Quebec companies that are creating jobs, developing advanced technologies and competing in global markets.

Consider a company like CAE in Montreal. As a global leader in flight simulation and training technologies, CAE has benefited from defence-related investments that strengthened Quebec's and Canada's global leadership in simulation and training technologies.

As an aside, my son is a commercial pilot, and he teaches courses on CAE simulators in Saint-Hubert. I wish my son all the best as he pursues his career as a commercial pilot.

These investments support research, exports and highly skilled jobs. Our task now is to build on this success and create the conditions for more Canadian companies to grow, innovate and remain competitive. This is precisely the goal of our government's new defence industrial strategy, under which we have committed $6.6 billion over five years to strengthen Canada's defence industrial base.

We are investing and improving supply chains, accelerating innovation, and improving access to capital for Canadian businesses. Through its first-ever defence industrial strategy, the government is strengthening the industrial foundations underpinning Canada's security and economic resilience.

By combining long-term investments in both defence and industrial capabilities, the strategy supports businesses and Canadian workers, improves our supply chains and makes Canada a trusted partner to its allies.

We are making historic investments in Canada's defence ecosystem to transform our armed forces. We are creating good, well-paying jobs for Canadians across the country and, most importantly, we are supplying the Canadian Armed Forces with the equipment it needs to protect Canada's security and sovereignty.

The defence industrial strategy acknowledges a simple fact: Canadians should benefit from major defence investments. For that reason, our government is prioritizing Canadian suppliers, Canadian materials and Canadian innovation. This is also why we created the Defence Investment Agency: to modernize procedures, speed up projects and help Canadian businesses participate more actively in defence procurement opportunities.

What does this mean for Quebec?

For Quebec, these investments mean more procurement contracts. They mean opportunities for SMEs and growth in the aerospace and advanced manufacturing sectors. They mean investments in research and innovation.

I am not going to take up any more of the House's time, although I could go on at length about the many positive aspects of all this. Our objective is to help workers, businesses and communities in Quebec and across Canada.

I am ready to take my colleagues' questions.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech on military procurement, which is an extremely important issue.

I would like to ask her a question. At CANSEC in May, everyone was taken by surprise when the government announced its intention to acquire the GlobalEye, an aircraft manufactured by Saab, without first consulting the Canadian air force. To everyone's great surprise, this announcement was made without any consultation whatsoever.

With Bill C-40, which would create the office of secretary of state for defence procurement, it is clear that the minister will have the power to make decisions himself. Worse still, the CEO, Mr. Guzman, will be able to unilaterally decide what he needs and what he wants for the country without necessarily consulting the Canadian Armed Forces.

Does my colleague believe that this is the right approach? Should the government be making purchases without consulting the military?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to what was done in the past. When the Harper government was in power, investment was below 2%. In 2013, it did not even reach 1%. In 2014, it was 1.1%. We committed to reaching 2%, which we have already done. In addition, by 2035, we will reach a target of 5% of our gross domestic product.

I assume my colleague is aware of this, but in the past, 70% of defence equipment came from the United States. Now, we want to invert that pattern. We want Canada to produce 70% of the equipment. We want to use our own supply chains and our own industries to manufacture it. If my colleague had truly listened to my answer, he would have realized that it was a good idea to look elsewhere when it came to aircraft procurement.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really liked the fact that my colleague started her speech by paying tribute to our veterans. I would like to point out that, yesterday, I attended the unveiling of a new veterans monument in Lavaltrie in my riding. This wonderful monument was created by Claude Des Rosiers and depicts a man and a woman in uniform. I think that is an important step forward. We are very pleased to see that the monument represents everyone. Women are an active part of the armed forces. I want to commend the City of Lavaltrie, the Société d'histoire et du patrimoine de Lavaltrie and everyone involved in the erection of this monument.

In her previous answers, my colleague spoke a lot about the fact that, under the Harper government, defence spending was below 2%. It seems to me that there are much smarter ways of increasing spending than giving a $700,000 salary to the head of a new agency that will allow the government to escape responsibility and not have to be held to account.

I would like my colleague to comment on the salary of this CEO. It seems to me that there are more worthwhile ways to increase spending, ways that would be more respectful to our military personnel.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the goal of the investments we are making in defence is to have dual-use applications. We have to ensure that we develop private companies while we develop defence applications. In the Lower Laurentians region, in Mirabel, there is a hub dedicated specifically to developing autonomous technologies, including drones. There will be a dual use: the private sector and the defence sector.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the examples provided by my colleague. She took us on a tour of her riding, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, this summer. In fact, I think one of the businesses she took us to could benefit from the Defence Investment Agency.

I would like my colleague to provide more examples of businesses in her riding that might benefit from this agency.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when my colleagues came to the Lower Laurentians this summer, I did indeed take the opportunity to tell them about all the opportunities we enjoy, but we did not have enough time to visit all the businesses. We did visit Abipa. What makes this company unique is that it produces 3-D parts. In the aerospace industry, it is much easier and safer to build moulds for parts, since only one part is required.

We also went to Blainville to visit the test tracks, where the range of all vehicles, including autonomous vehicles, is tested. That is not all, for there is also the development of drones and all sorts of autonomous vehicles, such as personal watercraft, quads and drones used to deliver medication. They will have dual-use applications, in both the private and defence sectors.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today simply to object to Bill C‑40.

Before going further, I first want to say that I have always supported the idea of finding a way to fix our military procurement system. I was a soldier myself for a time. Later on, and since my election, I have seen the full extent of the ineffective management plaguing Canada's defence procurement.

Yes, that needs to change. We have models to guide us. Other countries, like Australia, for example, or Great Britain, have different ways of doing things. Today, unfortunately, the government is heading in a completely different direction. In presenting the bill as a way to speed up defence procurement, the government is prevaricating. In reality, this is not a plan to provide the Canadian Armed forces with equipment. It is a blatant attempt to create a secretive bureaucratic structure. The government is asking for a $1-billion blank cheque to circumvent parliamentary oversight and line the pockets of Liberal insiders.

The facts are clear. I am not making this up; the information comes directly from official Department of National Defence reports. In 2026, we have warships that are rusting away, military equipment that is worn out and fighter jets that are obsolete. More than 40% of our core naval fleet is unfit for training or operational missions. Half of our core army vehicles are out of service. The situation is even worse in the air, where 57% of the fleet is unusable. Why are we in this situation?

The answer is not complicated. The government has systematically underinvested in national procurement, allowed personnel to become exhausted and accumulated nearly $10 billion in allocated defence funding that was never spent. My colleagues heard that correctly: $10 billion earmarked for defence—that is, defence investments—has not been spent and has not been used. It has sat idle, gathering dust on a shelf in the Liberal bureaucracy.

The situation has gotten so bad that, last May, members of the Canadian Armed Forces were asked to return basic gear like rucksacks and tactical vests because of a severe shortage of equipment. That is serious. We are being forced to tell soldiers to bring back their rucksacks either because we do not have enough for new arrivals or because soldiers are deploying somewhere and there is not enough equipment. Members are also being asked to return their tactical vests.

As I said, I served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 22 years. Of course, we have already lived through what is known as the decade of darkness, under Jean Chrétien. It was terrible. That is why seeing this sort of thing happen again in defence management is almost like post-traumatic shock. This is a national disgrace.

While soldiers are short on flak jackets and rucksacks, what are the Liberals doing? They are creating ministerial positions, adding more administrative structures and appointing their friends in high finance to positions with huge salaries. What is more, Bill C-40 also establishes the Canadian corporation for defence investment.

This is the third time. It is the third time in a year that the Liberals have changed their minds about the structure of the agency. First, it was supposed to be an agency within Public Services and Procurement Canada. Then, four months later, the Liberals introduced Bill C-31. They decided to make this body an independent agency. Now, with Bill C-40, it is becoming a Crown corporation with unprecedented powers under the responsibility of an associate minister of national defence.

When we ask the Liberals why they have done this once, twice and now a third time, we get no answer. They cannot explain it, but we understand. We understand perfectly well what they are trying to do. By turning the agency into a Crown corporation, the Liberals are freeing themselves from Treasury Board procurement rules. It is deliberate. Crown corporations have their own rules. By creating a Crown corporation, the government is no longer accountable to Parliament. It is no longer accountable to anyone. It is not subject to the same rules. Bill C‑40 would create a Crown corporation that would allow the person in charge to spend up to $1 billion at a time without any accountability. I repeat, it is $1 billion, not $1 million. This is taxpayers' money that can be spent without any accountability.

The rules are not the same. It does not work the same way. There will be no accountability or transparency to Parliament. I am not making this up. The Parliamentary Budget Officer made this clear in her report dated October 20. She said that the government's extensive and growing reliance on Crown corporations since 2016 amounts to creative accounting designed to conceal the government's true debt picture and obscure the country's fiscal sustainability. This is just another Liberal scheme. It is nothing new; it dates back to 2016. The Liberals think that if they create this organization or that Crown corporation, they can do things behind closed doors and keep everything hidden.

When it comes to defence, rather than having transparency, proper equipment and investments like we want, the Liberals are going to hide all that in a Crown corporation. That is why we oppose this approach. What is more, who did they choose to head up this body that will spend public funds in a non-transparent manner? They did not choose a retired general, a recognized military procurement expert or someone who knows the needs on the ground. No, instead they chose Doug Guzman. Who is he? Doug Guzman is a very close friend of the Prime Minister. Their friendship dates back to when he was working at Goldman Sachs. This person told the Prime Minister that he would really like to have a sweet government job, and the Prime Minister told him that he would appoint him to be the CEO of a Crown corporation for defence procurement and that that would be the best thing that he could do for him.

We, on this side of the House, spoke out against that. The Conservatives questioned this approach that involved appointing a guy from Goldman Sachs to be the CEO of a Crown corporation. What is more, he will be able to do what he wants. He will be able to spend however he wants and he will be paid very handsomely to do so. I heard my Bloc Québécois colleague ask this same question earlier. This person will be paid a salary of $679,000 a year and, even worse, he will receive bonuses. As we know, even when people in government are not doing a good job, they still get bonuses. We see it all the time. People are getting bonus after bonus even when they are losing money. With bonuses, this CEO could be earning up to $900,000 a year. That is the highest paying job in the Government of Canada. By way of comparison, the Prime Minister of Canada, who is responsible for the whole country, earns $435,000 a year. The chief of defence staff, who leads the entire Canadian Armed Forces, who is ultimately responsible for the lives of our soldiers and the security of our country, earns a maximum of $329,000.

Once again, some well-connected Liberal insider figures that his friend the Prime Minister might be able to land him a sweet job in this new outfit, so they put him there on a salary of $600,000 a year, plus bonuses, and put him in charge of billions of dollars. He will be able to do whatever he wants. No one will ask him any questions. Who would not want a job like that? Once again, this shows exactly where things are headed: a very Liberal way of doing things, opaque and unaccountable, with someone who has no known qualifications for the job being paid an enormous salary. Speaking of pay and compensation, CEO-8 is the highest executive classification in Canada. There are people in some of the most senior positions in the country, with extensive expertise and experience, who do not earn that much.

Once again, we are dealing with a bill that began with a good idea: changing the way things are done in Canada. Unfortunately, the Liberal agenda has once again taken hold. This will, once again, ensure that Liberal cronies make money. We do not know where the money will go. There is a glaring lack of oversight. Will operational requirements be met? Will the real needs of the armed forces be met, given that we have already seen announcements like the one about the GlobalEye? To everyone's surprise, an aircraft was announced that, from a tactical and technical standpoint, does not meet those requirements. Unfortunately, we have not seen the last of this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that Conservative members stand in their places and prefer to continue with character assassinations. If we take a look at Quebec hydro or the Ontario health system, we will find that the CEOs are very compatible. In fact, they might even be more compatible than what is being suggested here.

Is the member suggesting that everyone's appointment to either a federal Crown corporation or a provincial Crown corporation is strictly a political, partisan appointment? If that is the case, I suggest the member needs to realize that things have changed since the last federal election, when Canadians chose a Prime Minister who is moving and pushing to get our Canadian Forces equipped—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was clear when I spoke about the skills required for the job.

Was what Mr. Guzman did at Goldman Sachs a good thing? It probably was. However, is he the right person to run an opaque Crown corporation responsible for military procurement and for meeting operational requirements? That is what we are questioning. We are also questioning the fact that he is receiving an astronomical salary. As I mentioned in my speech, if the government had appointed someone with military procurement and supply expertise to a key position, that would be entirely appropriate. However, if someone turns up out of the blue and the only criterion they meet is being a friend of the Prime Minister, it is reasonable to ask questions.