Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much for joining us. I have to tell you—and I am talking through the chair—that I am very pleased and happy to have you here. I hope that we will be able to invite you again. Actually, once we meet with the other witnesses from the private sector and universities, it will be important for you to come back. Your responsibilities are not limited to research and development. You talked at great length about regulations, smart regulations in particular. What you are doing and what you are telling us is really important.
Thank you for the document. It is extremely well done. I am somewhat familiar with the government machinery and I am able to recognize your professionalism and transparency in dealing with this issue.
I have two questions: one is for the representatives from the Department of Industry and the other is for the representatives from the Department of Transport.
In terms of the Department of Industry, I am very interested in the government's procurement policy. You talked about aerospace in particular and one major aspect is the commercialization of innovation, which will actually affect your average Joe and Josephine. It could be in terms of defence purchases, for example.
Since we no longer produce aircraft and we take care of maintenance, we have to think about the intellectual property of software or equipment. If we want to reclaim it later to be able to play a role in the industry, it is important to look at that. That is why I have always said that intellectual property is key to innovation.
I would like to talk about ITAR, those American regulations that pertain to Canada when it comes to military equipment. If we buy a plane from Lockheed Martin, for example, and if we want to take care of the maintenance for that equipment, we have to consider civilian licenses. Industry Canada will have a say in that.
Do you think ITAR or the arms regulations can create problems for us? One of the major problems Bell Helicopter has experienced is that the American government has a list of 25 countries, and people from those 25 countries cannot be near military equipment in Canada. We can often lose the contract because of that.
Mr. Peets could perhaps answer this question. Just in terms of intellectual property, should we reassess the situation and have an agreement, although there are already ad hoc negotiations with the U.S. government and the Secretary of State? Should we not have a more specific agreement? Taking over the equipment is sometimes seen as an obstacle to productivity.