National Defence committee  I would add, sir, that nobody disputes the need for IRBs. It's a logical thing to do. It does not influence National Defence's statement of the requirement. The military focuses on the requirement, and IRBs are recognized as a necessity, but not as something the military worries

National Defence committee  Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just want to add that notwithstanding the fact that we have a very strong aerospace industry, there may well be some pressures on that industry to fulfill all of the industrial benefits as these larger projects go through. One policy that's causing significa

National Defence committee  I would add to General Manson's response by referring to a few points I made in my presentation. If the commitment is there to purchase a capability, then it can proceed quickly. If the funding is available, of course, it can proceed. Perhaps the variable in this is how much risk

National Defence committee  The C-17, for example, which Mr. Coderre was asking about before, has an equally strategic airlift requirement in Canada as well, to provide support to Canadian Forces, or to major disasters—

National Defence committee  Absolutely.

National Defence committee  Exactly. The ice storm that occurred in 1998 is an example of where strategic airlift would have been very useful, to transport heavy equipment from the west to the east. The Hercules is used throughout Canada on a repeated basis.

National Defence committee  There is no real complication between those two. They have domestic and international capabilities of quite a large number of missions.

National Defence committee  I cannot think of a specific case, no. They have been modified from time to time since their original version, due to changing needs, or the emission requirements have changed somehow, or some new technical information has been available—not significantly, but I can't think of a

National Defence committee  That contributes to the competitive process, yes.

National Defence committee  It's interpreted into a statement of work, and the statement of requirements go together. But as long as the government approves the project and for work to continue, yes.

National Defence committee  I suppose there have been cases where you could say they rejected a particular approval and therefore did not accept the requirements, but, no, I can't think of any forced changes.

National Defence committee  I think the case you're referring to, of course, is the fixed-wing search and rescue statement of requirements.

National Defence committee  I think the fundamental issue here is that the military have the experience necessary to identify what the requirements are to perform their mission. None of these statement of requirements for significant projects is done without the most serious consideration for all of the iss

National Defence committee  I suppose anything is possible, but I think it's important to recognize the military expertise and that the military has a responsibility to identify to the government what the implications of a decision like that may be in the performance of the military mission.

National Defence committee  It's a question of nuance and interpretation of the word “possible”, I suppose. But the reality is that I think most of us would agree that the process would be totally compromised if something like that happened. The fundamental requirement here is that government decides what