National Defence Committee on Feb. 14th, 2011

[Jerzy Komorowski]

Perhaps this is a question that I should address, since the people who were doing the work are in my institute.

I would say that we were under contract to Public Works, not to DND. All the communications with any members of the Department of National Defence first had to be cleared through Public Works.

I would say that we received very good support. As the president mentioned in his opening statement, the experts traveled to Trenton and to Comox, and they interviewed about a dozen people. Also, requests for documents...any references that are listed in the report...we essentially were granted access. So I would say that the collaboration was excellent.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Okay, thank you.

You talked about a capability-based approach using available historical data. But you didn't throw in anything--and perhaps you couldn't, based on how the mandate was given to you--about the future. I'm referring specifically to the north. Obviously the north is opening up for all the reasons we know. You didn't venture into that at all. That was obviously done consciously.

Can you elaborate on that?

[Jerzy Komorowski]

We do mention in the report the need to harness the data that's available. In fact, we do mention that there are attempts to analyze the existing data in more depth, and this is not yet available using knowledge-based systems. The National Search and Rescue Secretariat is pushing for that, and this may not be available. It looks like it will take another two years to do that.

But we did mention also the need to project forward. This fleet will serve Canadians for at least 30 years moving forward. So certainly we did indicate that there needs to be some consideration given to that.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

All right.

Just from running down my notes here, I have one little question about speed and cost, which we keep talking about.

Is there a linear relationship between the speed of the airplane and the cost of the airplane?

[Jerzy Komorowski]

Frankly, I don't think so.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

No. I mean, it's a little bit simplistic to say that a slower airplane is going to be cheaper. That's not necessarily true.

[Jerzy Komorowski]

No. Size also matters.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Yes. I've heard that.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you. Thank you very much.

I will now go to Mr. Dryden.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

You have a very specific mandate, and I think you have very carefully answered within the specifics of your mandate. The parts that strike me, and that trouble me at the same time, began, I guess, with the word “de-constraining”. That's an awful word, sort of a created word, and usually awful created words are words that are intended to hide something in that they don't quite say as they...as what might be.

I think you said in your statement that really it was your task to look at the...or your criticisms had to do with the fact that a lot of what you were talking about didn't have to do with performance-based; you mentioned that there were a lot of political considerations that went alongside considerations of performance.

And yes, it isn't your mandate to look into what those political considerations are and how that full decision is made, but what strikes me in an instance like this is that...and I hope that, with other witnesses, we will get into what those political considerations are that affect a decision that one might assume would be substantially performance-based. Otherwise, you really....

Performance-based, I would assume, is sort of the horse ahead of the cart--where the horse should be--and then you have other considerations, once you know what that best performance might be, and you end up taking those other things into consideration.

Is that a fair characterization of where your mandate is very limited--you were talking about technical things--that in fact those things that are non-performance-based are beyond your mandate, and that the decision then also includes political considerations, which are outside of your mandate?

Is that all correct?

[John McDougall]

If I might, just let me clarify a little bit what “performance-based”, when we talk about it, really means.

The nature of engineering is about risk, and risk management, basically. In order to manage risk, one has to understand where it comes from and how it is constrained. So what we have basically identified here is that there are some things that you should know as policy-setters that you would take into account in making decisions. There are other things that are more related to the absolute capability to do a job, which are where the mandatory requirement recommendations come from.

So we have a circumstance where our job was to identify places where, as I said, in our view, the statement of operating requirements was unduly limiting the ability for options. That's really what it came down to. We pointed that out, and that's the essence of the report: if you want to create more options, you can do it, but if you're going to do that, then it means you have to make your decisions within the context of the risk tolerance that exists.

So it's about risk tolerance, at the end of the day, which is not our decision; it's a political decision.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Right. And you're saying that by offering those constraints, that in fact those constraints can get in the way of the best performance?

[John McDougall]

Not exactly. It's a conclusion you could potentially draw, but I don't think it's an accurate one.

We're saying it can get in the way of perhaps making a fully knowledgeable decision, a fully open decision. That's the issue. So if you open it up a little bit, then you'll allow other options to be seriously considered, and as long as they're within your risk tolerance, you'd be fine.

But if you assume you're going to go to a particular constraint before exploring the fact of whether or not it's just a risk-based constraint or whether it's an absolute constraint, then you're tying your hands unnecessarily at the beginning instead of later on.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Dryden.

It is now Mr. Braid’s turn.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here.

Mr. McDougall, just to carry on this thread of discussion with respect to a capability-based approach, you mentioned that this is one of your key recommendations, that the SOR should be more capability-based. How did the original SOR not achieve that?

[John McDougall]

There are a whole series of areas, and I'm going to let my technical friend here go for it.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I just need a couple of examples.

[Jerzy Komorowski]

Mr. Chairman, the original statement of requirement made frequent references to the existing fleets, to the Buffalo and the C-130. We were pointing out in the report that we would like the fixed-wing SAR fleet to provide a certain level of service that can be expected and that it should not be tied to the constraints that the current fleets are capable of delivering. After all, we know they are rather old.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

So would you agree then that it would be fair and reasonable for the government to procure an aircraft that in fact exceeds the capabilities of the current fleet?

[Jerzy Komorowski]

I think we need an aircraft that will deliver the level of service that is within government policy or that's backed up by some stated policy of the government. What that is will depend on other constraints, obviously financial and others, that are outside the scope of our technical review.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Why do you believe that the term “off-the-shelf” should be removed?

[Jerzy Komorowski]

Because it is highly unlikely that an aircraft that will not require any modifications can be identified. Given certain mandatory requirements that we advocated, we felt that the aircraft that will be procured will require some modifications, and with those are certification requirements. So it's no longer off the shelf.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

To that point then, your report did recommend additional mandatory requirements. Specifically, what are those additional requirements?