Mr. Chair, do we have to place absolute trust in people with top-secret security clearance? You know I have always objected to that. Canadian taxpayers pay, and we are their representatives. When it comes time to decide what kind of plane to select, it is very important that we have as many details as possible
So I don't want someone telling me that I have to place complete trust in a guy who has a top-secret security clearance, because that isn't true at all. I want that to be very clear. Unfortunately, I am also frustrated by the fact that I don't have a very high security clearance. I am up against guys like him, and like Mr. Ross who will be coming, who have a top-secret security clearance. I am up against generals, major-generals, lieutenant-generals, who have top-secret security clearance. We ask questions that are sometimes pretty harmless. They tell us they have the truth and they know what is going on. But we have the responsibility of buying these planes or deciding what type of plan. This has to be clear, to me, having top-secret security clearance is not necessarily a guarantee of trust.
There is another thing too, and that is the question of interoperability. If I understand correctly, the fact that we all have the same plane, an F-35, doesn't meet we will be completely interoperable. That is not true. Interoperability is how it operates in a theatre of operations. Personally, I'm sure, although I have great respect for the F-35, that a Eurofighter Typhoon or a Super Hornet is capable of operating interoperationally with the other members of NATO. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. Williams, given the agreement signed by the government, I would like to know what would happen if the government decided that it now wants to solicit bids, if, for example, there were a new government. The present government has committed itself. Would there be a risk of legal action? We all remember how Mr. Chrétien's party had promised to cancel the helicopter order before it came to power. We had a rather hefty fine to pay for breach of contract. It was worse than that, because we went 10 years with no helicopters. You recall, Mr. Williams, that they said that in political terms they couldn't just the same craft, even if we needed them, because they had said they didn't want them. They invented a package where they wanted to get the chassis from one company and the body and weaponry from another company. We come back to the car example—