National Defence committee  Anything with respect to scheduling, as I say again, really is the political procurement process that will play itself out. It's not something we can particularly comment on. The numbers about timelines, etc., that were put forward were pieces of information that were extracted from the discussions we had.

National Defence committee  It's fair to say, in a perfect world, that if you had every possibility at your disposal, you would be able to best serve. Right? But we don't have the financial wherewithal to do that. We don't have a lot of things. So it does come down, ultimately, to the performance and the risk we're prepared to require and accept.

National Defence committee  I would say we don't prefer or not prefer. We emphasize again that different options are to be considered. Depending on your financial and risk tolerance, those decisions can be made. It's not really our job to advise on those choices. It's only to say, if you want choices, this is the way you can achieve them.

National Defence committee  It's a very big question. I think in simple terms the performance standard that needs to be met is clearly an important consideration. As I said in response to some of the others, having set a performance standard with a risk tolerance associated with it, one is able to determine the best possible choice within the cost envelope available.

National Defence committee  As I mentioned, the report was tabled. We had what I would call a normal kind of interaction, with various clarifications, etc., sorted out. The report has been accepted. Like you, we're now waiting to see what the specific recipient departments will do with it.

National Defence committee  We addressed the urgency earlier with the comment that aircraft can have life extensions. The current fleet isn't suddenly going to terminate in its capabilities. It can be maintained in various ways for some time. I probably shouldn't say this, but I like watching Ice Pilots NWT, watching the DC-3s they're flying around in the north that are dated from the Second World War and are still going strong.

National Defence committee  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.

National Defence committee  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.

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

National Defence committee  I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that nobody is going to design an aircraft for the specific Canadian requirement. What we're trying to say is that there are going to be things that need to be done to fit the aircraft to the Canadian requirement. So there will be some work done to fit it up appropriately.

National Defence committee  Exactly. You're going to have an airframe, and that's what it's going to be.

National Defence committee  Well, that was a long statement, so if I could pick and choose, maybe that would help. I guess I would say we're fans of what you might think of in the jargon of design and standards as “performance based”. So with that--

National Defence committee  It would be “this is what we're trying to achieve”, and we'd leave open the capacity to be innovative in terms of how it is achieved. But the ability to be innovative depends to some degree on political decisions, not on technical decisions, so you have to ultimately bring that together.

National Defence committee  In fairness, I'm not familiar with this. I was just asking if my colleagues were. I think the challenge it comes down to again is that, as we know, sometimes we can measure things in different ways. I think in the end, from our point of view, what we're trying to be cognizant of is the fact that the constraints you apply will ultimately influence the cost of delivery.

National Defence committee  There would be costs that we have not been charged with looking at. We looked at the constraints, not at the impact of the costs, and there is a difference there. That's why I say that to some degree we're talking about decisions that others have to make about the viability of various actions.