Discussion · Government Orders
Jeff Kibble Conservative
“The Coast Guard does not count as military spending under NATO rules. Generals should run the new defence agency, not a banker picked by the Prime Minister. This bill gives one minister too much unchecked power over that agency, and that is dangerous.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech and for pointing out the accounting issue with the Coast Guard. The member opposite knows full well that the Coast Guard spending clearly does not meet NATO’s own definition, which requires it to be trained, deployable and operating as a military. In committee, I was interviewing three generals who, in my opinion, should be the ones running the Defence Investment Agency, not a banker buddy of the Prime Minister. Bill C-40 would give the newly created associate minister the direction that the DIA must follow his directions, not “may” but “must”, with little written accountability to this House. Do you agree that this would give, as has been pointed out by many people, unprecedented levels of power to one person? Is that a dangerous thing?”
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech and for pointing out the accounting issue with the Coast Guard. The member opposite knows full well that the Coast Guard spending clearly does not meet NATO’s own definition, which requires it to be trained, deployable and operating as a military. In committee, I was interviewing three generals who, in my opinion, should be the ones running the Defence Investment Agency, not a banker buddy of the Prime Minister. Bill C-40 would give the newly created associate minister the direction that the DIA must follow his directions, not “may” but “must”, with little written accountability to this House. Do you agree that this would give, as has been pointed out by many people, unprecedented levels of power to one person? Is that a dangerous thing?