Discussion · Government Orders
Martin Champoux Bloc Québécois
“We do not need a new agency to buy military equipment. The government has bought planes and ships for decades without one. This new agency lets the government take credit for successes while blaming the agency for mistakes. Public servants could do this work instead of paying a friend of the Prime Minister $700,000 a year.”
“Madam Speaker, at the time the Defence Investment Agency was created, another mechanism had been in place for decades. The need to procure military equipment is nothing new for Canada. It has always existed. The government has purchased aircraft and had ships built in the past. None of that is anything new. What forces the government to create a new agency now, one that is going to release the government from some of its responsibilities? We can all agree that the agency will bear the blame for any major errors or mistakes, whereas the government will take credit for any success. We already know how that works. What has happened in recent years that makes another agency better qualified than the Department of National Defence to handle this kind of procurement? That is the message being sent to public servants and the Department of National Defence. Furthermore, why does it take a friend of the Prime Minister, a former Goldman Sachs colleague earning a salary of $700,000 a year or more, to do work that public servants and the existing department could very well have done themselves?”
Madam Speaker, at the time the Defence Investment Agency was created, another mechanism had been in place for decades. The need to procure military equipment is nothing new for Canada. It has always existed. The government has purchased aircraft and had ships built in the past. None of that is anything new. What forces the government to create a new agency now, one that is going to release the government from some of its responsibilities? We can all agree that the agency will bear the blame for any major errors or mistakes, whereas the government will take credit for any success. We already know how that works. What has happened in recent years that makes another agency better qualified than the Department of National Defence to handle this kind of procurement? That is the message being sent to public servants and the Department of National Defence. Furthermore, why does it take a friend of the Prime Minister, a former Goldman Sachs colleague earning a salary of $700,000 a year or more, to do work that public servants and the existing department could very well have done themselves?