Your question has many elements. If you don't mind, I will begin with the part concerning the risks.
For the record, I refer the committee members to page 28, paragraph 5.63. In that paragraph the department identified a number of risks related directly to the ISSCF framework itself. These include a “loss of work traditionally conducted in Canada if ISSCF contracts are awarded to foreign suppliers”.
This is also mentioned:
“Total dependency on one supplier for each fleet; reduced financial flexibility and ability to change requirements and priorities as needed, because of long-term, fixed-price contracts; loss of skills and expertise required to assess value for money and industry proposals, resulting from the transfer of responsibilities to the private sector; overpayment for services, especially in a directed contract situation; and uncertainty that the required culture change will be successful within federal departments faced with having to adapt to the new contracting approach.”
The department has identified those particular risks.
We should keep in mind that the contracting framework deals with essentially the third and fourth level of service. It doesn't always deal with the first level, which is the mechanics who are on the base, on a day-to-day basis, along with both the civilian and military personnel who are actually working on the equipment, maintaining it on a daily basis.
When it comes to the maintenance of equipment, there should always be either civilian or military personnel available to maintain the equipment at the base. So the equipment in the short term should always be available, but if the third and fourth level work isn't done, what happens is it will be subject to breakdown, it will require more extensive repairs. And if we don't take care of those particular risks, there is a risk that, over the long term, the equipment might not be available.