Mr. Chair, I recently met with the managers of Boeing at the Ritz-Carlton in Montreal. To them, it is clear that only 60% of the benefits have to come to Canada's aerospace industry.
Certainly, when we talk about 100% benefits in Canada, that includes the remaining 40%. It is not easy to know where the economic benefits will go. Earlier, I gave the example of Pacific salmon and northern spruce. That is not where the importance of research and development or the importance of the modern issue of intellectual property control lies. It does not lie in either forestry or fisheries. It often lies in aviation, aeronautics and aerospace. If that accounts for only 60% of the economic benefits and 40% goes elsewhere, we are losing a large segment of the benefits.
The Canadian aerospace industry is asking that 100% of the economic benefits be in aeronautics and aerospace. It is not asking for benefits in other sectors. These contracts are important to my part of the country, where most of the Canadian aerospace industry is located.
Now, I want to raise the issue of tactical aircraft, because we have not talked about them much this evening. Earlier, the minister told the member for Oakville that $1.4 billion of the $3.2 billion is earmarked for maintenance. However, these are not the real figures. The real figures are $4.6 billion for the total contract for tactical aircraft and $1.4 billion for maintenance. That means that the cost of purchasing the aircraft is $3.2 billion, and the government wants to buy 17 of them. According to my figures, Italy recently purchased aircraft at $65 million apiece, while Canada will be paying $188 million apiece.
I await the minister's reply, who will likely tell me this also includes the cost of projects, training, the translation of manuals, the size of the operations manuals, and so on. Alright, let us add 20% to $65 million, which is what the Italians paid. That comes to approximately $80 million. Now, $188 million is more than double $80 million. That is the risk we run, when we proceed in this manner, telling the Americans we will purchase their planes without first setting out the conditions. It is the Americans who are now determining the conditions and Canadian taxpayers who are left to foot the bill.
In my opinion, it is not too late. The Minister of National Defence must instruct the Minister of Industry and the Minister of International Trade to be very careful, both with respect to Boeing and to the tactical aircraft. I believe the minister owes it to Canadian taxpayers to intervene now and to ensure, before the official contract is signed, that we achieve the best economic spinoffs possible.
Nine NATO countries have decided to procure the Airbus A400M, which means that the Lockheed Martin is becoming outdated. The American army is even ending production. Why would we pay such a high price for planes that are at the end of their production, while other options may exist and it is Canadian taxpayers who are left to foot the final bill?