There are a couple more points I'd like to make in reply to the question.
First, there is wide consensus that we must identify and support the needs of our military. That's first and foremost. However, at the same time, we want to maximize the benefits of these investments to the Canadian taxpayers, and we feel the procurement process could be improved in a couple of ways. First, we feel it should be a lot more transparent. There is a need to have a lot more consultation with the industry.
Mr. Bertrand mentioned the issue of fixed-wing SARs. We would like very much to have the opportunity for the industry here in Canada to show what it can do, at the same time, of course, making sure we support the needs of the military. That's one example where we feel the procurement process needs to be improved.
The second point is that there's been a major change in approach over the last few years with regard to the single point of contact for large procurement. What we now face is the fact that there's one company that builds the aircraft and enters into contracts for servicing and maintenance of that aircraft. That can lead to a lack of development of our Canadian industry, lack of access to intellectual property. If we look at a company like L-3 in Mirabel, for example, which services the F-18, over the last year they have developed hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts with Australia because they were able to export the knowledge they have acquired by working on these programs here in Canada.
To answer your question, we feel there is a need to have more transparency, better consultation, systematic consultation with the industry, and there is good news for the taxpayer. There is good news for our soldiers, transmitting support for the industry and development in the long term for our industry, not only for the short term.