One issue that comes up a lot is about restructuring the machinery of government to respond to procurement. Restructuring during the middle of handling major procurement projects can be challenging. It is telling, though, that the last several times this country has had rapid buildups of military acquisitions, it has gone with a separate defence acquisition agency. The department of defence production was the last department, and it was phased out in 1969.
In that particular example, you have a deputy minister and a minister who are visibly accountable, both in the House of Commons and with Canadians writ large. A challenge there is that there are also still cabinet confidences. There are still competing government mandates, whether it's offsets, delivering specific capabilities or meeting alliance pressures. Those are all still there, no matter how you change the machinery of government.
However, from the perspective of government accountability, I completely agree that having an identifiable minister and deputy is important.
By the way, other allies have done this. Australia, for example, has a minister for defence procurement. There is a separate agency there as well.