When we talk about an aerospace strategy, the reason we want a strategy like that is to also include a procurement strategy inside of that so that we have the benefit. Let's just take the example of the fighter jet. That fighter jet was supposed to be replaced over 20 years ago. We've made that plane last—and I represent the members at L3 who do the repair and overhaul of that aircraft—and we were supposed to replace that plane over 20 years ago. It's long overdue and, as you said, it's a very long process.
Economic industrial benefits are really important. We have to have a strategy where there is some Canadian content so that there's predictability and we're able to support small and medium-sized businesses.
I don't understand why the United States can do it, China can do it, France can do it—they can all put in a certain content for their country—making sure that the small and medium-sized businesses stay supported and have some work. We have leverage. We're not going to build an airplane, a fighter jet, A to Z, but we have leverage with this negotiation where there are parts for those airplanes that we can build, and we can build them for the whole fleet of airplanes, whether it be a Lockheed Martin, a Boeing or any other company. We have resources, and we are able to do that.
I think that, government-wise, we need to negotiate smarter. We need to make sure that we have the maximum benefits possible for Canada here. That goes through a procurement strategy, and it would go inside of an aerospace strategy, also, for Canada. We don't just have the fighter jets to buy. We've purchased helicopters. We have refuelling planes right now that they're looking to replace, the old Boeing model. We have the A220, which is a plane that could do that—I'm plugging Airbus right now.