Industry committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm John McDougall, president of the National Research Council. Thank you for the invitation to appear. I look forward to the discussions today. As you probably know, the National Research Council was established about 100 years ago, almost, in 1916. It was done so under an act of the Government of Canada.

National Defence committee  The recommendation essentially says that in the absence of a formal policy, it's very difficult to make these kinds of decisions. There are working procedures, but there's no formal policy.

National Defence committee  That would emerge, actually, through the procurement process itself. You can go down a number of paths with that, but one for sure. If you assume one supplier, you'll have a particular dynamic. If there are multiple sources, you'll have a different dynamic, and so on. They will have to take all of those things into account.

National Defence committee  I think my colleague has stated very well that as far as this particular project was concerned, the cooperation was very good. The responses to requests were satisfied quickly and information was freely provided. Based on my personal experience, all that I've heard about this one is that it was a good project.

National Defence committee  I'm going to make a brief comment and then I'll pass it to my friend. I would just say that we know Canada is a vast land mass and it has a very wide range of operating environments, so that obviously plays in. Go ahead, Jerzy.

National Defence committee  Our task was not to determine cost-effectiveness. It was to evaluate the appropriateness of the SOR in terms of achieving the end mission.

National Defence committee  Again, the rationale is about the ability to have creative responses. It was built largely around the fact that even today, the response is a multi-aircraft response.

National Defence committee  When you are looking at aircraft selections, or any equipment these days, I think you tend to look globally. Again, what you're trying to do ultimately is find the most cost-effective way to deliver the mission you want to deliver within your performance specifications. I think everyone will look everywhere in fulfilling that.

National Defence committee  Again, the elements you look at are the kinds of missions you expect—the study looked at the different missions that have to be carried out—and that ends up creating some of the performance specifications an aircraft would have to meet to complete that mission. Ultimately, when the missions are put together, you end up with your statement of requirements.

National Defence committee  As a matter of fact, we've been very careful not to because we're trying to determine and put on the table a statement of requirement, not a specification for a product, if I can put it that way.

National Defence committee  So we're talking about what the product has to be able to achieve, as opposed to what product can achieve that.

National Defence committee  I certainly wouldn't disagree with your statement; that decision was made and determined that finding. But I don't think we're necessarily talking about one operator either, which has an influence on that sort of thing. So if you talk about--

National Defence committee  Yes, mixed provisions. There are different ways of achieving, and that's the whole point, right? You can go down one path that takes you to a particular space very quickly, or you can try to go down a path that opens up options and actually creates more innovation and creativity in that response, and maybe gives you a better response than you would otherwise have.

National Defence committee  Well, I would say that doesn't need to be discovered. That's probably a truism, but--

National Defence committee  Again, that's the political question, really. As was mentioned earlier, the decision about service, the question about what's going to evolve in terms of future requirements and so on, does have to be judged and become an intimate part of the decision, but that's a decision made by others, not by us.