The fact that no decision has been made yet presents a problem, as far as I am concerned. My tendency would be to put a period after the words “the CP-140 Aurora surveillance plane program”. If we add “and, in particular, the replacement and sudden cancellation of the Aurora incremental modernization project”, when the program has not been cancelled at this time, we are assuming that it will be. Can we mandate the Auditor General to conduct a review of the rationale for replacing it when we do not even know whether it's going to be replaced? That is what bothers me.
If we take out everything after the words “CP-140 Aurora surveillance plane program”, we would not need to make a change in the Auditor General's review. We would simply give her a mandate to look at everything included in the CP-140 Aurora aircraft program. Subsequently, if the contract is cancelled or an attempt is made to purchase other aircraft, she can always consider that in her review.
We could send her a notice saying that we asked her to review the Aurora surveillance aircraft program, but that the government has terminated the modernization contract and now wants to purchase other types of aircraft. We could then ask her to consider that in her review project. That project is not going to get off the ground tomorrow morning.
I would like to hear the views of the mover on this. Could we put a period after the words “CP-140 Aurora surveillance plane program”, and drop everything that follows for the time being? If the mover's fears turn out to be founded, we will ask the Auditor General to also consider the contract cancellation and the purchase of another type of aircraft.
I would like to hear the views of the mover on this.