Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-10 of 10
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

National Defence committee  I wouldn't say that there should be any rule that every one of the states should get a piece of the action. There may be good and sufficient reasons for geographic diversity. For example, wage rates are lower in some states than in others, so it's advantageous to the taxpayer to

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Philip E. Coyle

National Defence committee  Candidly, my impression is that when the U.S. government wants to sell military equipment overseas, it's quite able to do that, and to involve overseas partners. For example, we're selling Patriot missile systems all over the world. You could argue that this is a missile defence

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Philip E. Coyle

National Defence committee  When it comes to the largest systems, one of the jokes you often hear is that the contractors will have employees in practically every state of the union. In fact, one of the displays that the U.S. Congress asks for is a display from contractors, showing where the employment is.

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Philip E. Coyle

National Defence committee  The American Congress reviews each of these programs, especially the bigger ones, the ones involving the most money, of course. The U.S. Congress reviews that. If they approve of it, they authorize the program in the authorization committees. And then in a separate set of committ

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Philip E. Coyle

National Defence committee  I would. As I say in my prepared statement, I cannot think of an example in which the U.S. military didn't get something faster, better, and cheaper because of this oversight. You can see it in Iraq today. Soldiers are getting armoured Humvees and body armour and radios and other

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Philip E. Coyle

National Defence committee  Well, I think one of the most difficult things for the U.S. Congress is keeping track of what happens to a program if it gets into difficulty. And many don't, as I said in my opening remarks. Many don't. But when programs get into difficulty, it's very difficult for the Congress

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Philip E. Coyle

National Defence committee  Certainly. I was involved with the C-130J when it first came up, as I say, a decade or more ago. Perhaps what's more important is not what I might say from ten years ago but the latest report on it from the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the office of the Secretar

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Philip E. Coyle

National Defence committee  I'm no expert on how the Canadian government works, but it's said in the United States that the President proposes, Congress disposes. Unless Congress appropriates money for activities, they just don't happen. As I say in my formal statement, when the U.S. Congress maintains cl

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Philip E. Coyle

National Defence committee  The way the C-130J was first marketed in the United States was as a so-called commercial off-the-shelf piece of equipment. Because of that, the program bypassed the usual procurement rules that would have applied if it had been a major systems acquisition. I'm going back a deca

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Philip E. Coyle

National Defence committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Standing Committee on National Defence. I very much appreciate your invitation to appear before you today to support your study of military procurement and associated processes. I'm currently employed as the senior advisor to the Center

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Philip E. Coyle