Certainly I would support exactly what Mr. Bain has said, that the one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work. You really need to look at the differing needs among differing elements of the spectrum, from the capital R all the way through to the capital D. You can't use the one-size-fits-all approach.
On the military procurement, clearly that is an important policy tool and lever that the government has to stimulate competitiveness in Canadian industry and to build manufacturing capacity. Obviously, right now, the government is actively assessing its airlift capability needs and how it can best be acquired.
From our view, this includes, beyond the specifics of what platform you're going to buy and who you're going to buy it from, determining the types of industrial benefits to be sought from those firms that can supply the requirement. Whether it's on the basis of a sole source because that seems to be the best way forward, or whether it's through an act of competition, clearly economic benefit and economic value to Canada needs to be a factor in that procurement process.
All suppliers have the potential and, if we negotiate that strategic level of arrangement appropriately, have the capability to create opportunities for Canadian companies to participate either directly in that procurement program, or more importantly--and I think that's what is often missed--what is the opportunity to position Canadian firms into the global supply chains of these firms--and not necessarily with respect to that specific purchase. From a Canadian perspective, we may be buying a very small number. So in terms of the actual gain from participating directly in a program, when the numbers are small, and for the most part because we're not in that development business here in Canada, when we're buying an off-the-shelf purchase, we really need to look beyond that. Whether it's Boeing, whether it's EADS, whether it's Lockheed Martin, or whoever, these are global companies with very broad businesses and global supply chains in space, in commercial aviation, and in defence.
So how do we position Canada and look at what are our long-term needs to advance the industry? Where might that align with those individual companies' needs? And how can we work together to position the economic value for Canada over the long term, not over the short term?
It doesn't matter, from our perspective, who the supplier is or, in the end, whether it's a sole source or a competition. You still need to go out and deal individually with that company and negotiate that strategic deal in terms of how we can work together to develop significant economic benefits for Canada.
On the last issue, with respect to export controls, I mentioned that in terms of the challenges that Canada is facing concerning access to U.S.-origin technology. It impacts not only Canadian-based and Canadian-owned firms, but also the Canadian subsidiaries of U.S.-based firms and the inter-company transfers. It has an impact on our business with other countries because of the impacts on U.S.-origin technology.
Ultimately, a political solution needs to be sought. We've been dealing with officials in our own government departments, and we've been dealing with officials in the Commerce Department and in the State Department in the U.S., but where that solution resides ultimately--and in our view, it is clearly a political solution--is engagement at the political level between senior political leaders in Canada and the U.S.