Thank you.
The first part of my intervention will probably resolve the issue.
In the case of the first two proposed amendments, I would consider them friendly amendments, since they deal more with the form than the substance. The first suggestion is that the replacement of the CP‑140 Aurora be discussed. Yes, there was a typo there. It would also be a matter of changing the English version so that the term “appel d'offres” is instead translated as “request for proposals”. If these amendments can be considered friendly amendments and can resolve the issue for this part of the motion, so much the better.
As for the proposed amendment to the second part of the motion, I would like to ask Mr. Bezan a question for clarification.
As I understand it, he is proposing that this be done in accordance with the accelerated schedule for open competition and the delivery of the new Canadian multi-mission aircraft. We know that, in the original request for information, which was completed by Bombardier and 22 other companies, the deadline was for a first delivery in 2040. What is currently on the government website is a first delivery in 2023. If what is currently on the government website is considered to be an accelerated timeline, then I have no problem with this amendment, since it refers to what is already public and is already a prerequisite in the procurement process for the replacement of the CP‑140 Aurora.
So, if I'm told that this is indeed the intent behind the amendment, I have no problem with it, but I would like that clarification first.