Thank you for your question. This is not an issue of work-related costs.
In examining the reduction in workforce, we have made a very diligent effort thus far to take every step possible to ensure that it happens in keeping with the regularly scheduled retirements that will occur, meaning attrition within the department itself.
I take issue with your characterization as “failures” with respect to the helicopter and F-35 programs. Both of those programs are proceeding on budget and on time. As well, we disagree with the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assessment, which essentially calculated his estimate of the future cost of the F-35 on the weight of the aircraft. We think that is fundamentally flawed and not in keeping with good budgetary practices in determining the cost of a procurement.
We have received recommendations, in particular from the Auditor General, that we have taken on board and accept. There are always ways we can improve efficiencies. There are always ways in which we can improve procurements, in many cases. I look forward to working with the new Associate Minister of National Defence specifically on some of those procurement projects, and in particular facing full on the challenges that exist in these very complex procurements that often involve multiple departments and a challenging economic environment.
In the case the new Cyclone helicopters, for example, we had work stoppages at Sikorsky. We had problems specific to the company that were well beyond the reach and the grasp of the Department of National Defence, yet we had to contend with those issues. The result was what I would describe as an aberration, in that we returned money to taxpayers. However, I think taxpayers would be happy to know that the department had returned money, as opposed to not being able to account for it. I would suggest that would be a far worse problem to contend with.