National Defence Committee on Feb. 14th, 2011

[Jerzy Komorowski]

When we say mandatory, we feel that in a Canadian context it is not feasible to acquire fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft without this capability.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Very good. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Merci. Thank you, Mr. Payne.

I'll give the floor to Mr. Lobb. You have five minutes.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is my first time sitting on the defence committee.

Maybe just to do a good advertisement for the NRC, in my working career previously, in the private sector, we had a partnership with the NRC and the University of Moncton. It provided very fruitful results—at least that was our experience—and provided some pretty good technological advances with their software.

In 2009, NRC was tasked by Public Works, or contracted by Public Works, to go out and get an independent review of the SOR. With it came the report and the 15 recommendations that lie therein. I know we've talked about whether costs were looked at or weren't looked at or whether it was about fit, form, and functionality more than anything.

Just so that taxpayers at home understand this, the essence of this was not to look at cost. Or was it to look at cost?

[John McDougall]

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

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Okay. That's good.

The question I have, then, is about recommendation number 4, on the consideration of a proposal with more than a single type of aircraft. It says that it could possibly “provide a cost-effective alternative to alleviate some of the costs associated with establishing”....

In your statement you said it didn't have anything to do with cost, but recommendation number 4 alludes to cost. The reader would ask what's going on here.

What's the rationale for that?

[John McDougall]

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.

[Jerzy Komorowski]

May I read the conclusion from the report? It says, on the single type of aircraft assumption:

Despite the preliminary costing data, the assumption of a single aircraft solution should be removed to allow industry to submit single or multi-fleet proposals. Such proposals can then be assessed on the basis of their merits including costs.

This is really what we wrote in the report.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Your conclusion to that point was—I'm not using my words, they're your words--to not exclude anybody right at the beginning. Let them continue throughout the procurement process and see where it takes you.

[Jerzy Komorowski]

See where it lands. That's right, exactly.

We believe that the industry has the ability to cost their offer. Let them put it on the table. Then Canadian taxpayers will have a choice.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

On the flip side of it, though, you can make the argument that if you're looking at cost, once you get past the point of procurement to the point of operation and maintenance of an entity, there are cost advantages and economies of scale when operating with one machine that everybody from coast to coast understands and operates. You have the same tools, equipment, parts, cross-training, and training, from A to Z, start to finish.

That goes back to the point Mr. Hawn made in his first or second comment, that there are some exceptionally significant cost savings to operating with one single piece. Now, I didn't see that. Is that in there? That doesn't reference that.

[John McDougall]

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.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I think the taxpayer at home should have the ability to comprehend or understand that there are two points when you're looking at your price points--the purchase and then the maintenance--and I think we've made that here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Mr. Bachand, it is your turn now.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

How would you describe the relationship you had with the various departments? I’m guessing that, at some point, you had to make requests to various departments, such as Public Works and Government Services Canada, National Defence, and so on. Would you say it was cordial? Did they fully cooperate with you?

[John McDougall]

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.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I would like to follow on what Mr. Payne said about international comparison and also on what Mr. Harris mentioned earlier about different response times and equipment from various countries. Have you carried out some sort of operation or an international comparison of the types of equipment and their response times? Have you used it to make the recommendations in the report?

[Jerzy Komorowski]

No, we have not looked at that. Again, I have to state that this was not part of our mandate. We really focused on the SOR as it was presented to us.

Also, we haven't looked at possible solutions, meaning possible aircraft. That, again, was really counter to where we wanted to focus the recommendations of the statement of requirement. We really pointed to the need for a policy to back up the level of service, in that we can use the current level of service, but really that's where it needs to start. And once there is a clear statement, then other considerations can come into play.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I am looking at your study and I see that there are a lot of technicalities, including the cargo compartment, length, width, roller conveyors, the number of stretchers that can be included, spotter windows, and the load to be carried. One of the tricks the Department of National Defence often uses is to establish the specifications based on the aircraft they want. I hope you haven't been involved in that. You must have surely done things based on merit, meaning by speaking your mind. From the way you described the situation, do you think some companies are currently closer to meeting your recommendations than others, or have you been staying away from those issues?

[Jerzy Komorowski]

I think there are quite a few of the requirements that address the cargo compartment, and almost all of them relate to the ergonomics, the needs of the SAR technicians. Some of them relate to the SAR load and to the need of interoperability--

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

With NATO?

[Jerzy Komorowski]

Yes, and we agree with that, with a caveat that there is no need to call for ability to accommodate the NATO pallet except that the notional SAR load—there is no standard SAR load, by the way, but the idea we support—whatever that is going to be, should be compatible with the NATO pallet. The NATO pallet was developed for tactical airlift, not for search and rescue.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Yes.

[Jerzy Komorowski]

So our recommendation was to remove that requirement but to retain that the SAR load be compatible with the pallet.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Have you considered the Arctic in your recommendations? The Arctic is becoming more and more important and some missions must be carried out there.

Have you taken it into consideration in your specifications and recommendations?