Mr. Chair, I would like to move on to another topic now.
The minister is well aware that I take a keen interest in the aerospace industry. He also knows that I object to the way the aerospace contracts have been awarded. In addition, in the supplementary estimates that will soon be before us, certain sums of money are earmarked for that industry, which means that they will be used to purchase aerospace equipment. The government currently wants to purchase aerospace equipment worth $13 billion.
We have gone from one extreme to the other. A few years ago, the government opted for a procedure that involved 12 to 15 years of waiting time because of a whole series of obstacles that had to be overcome before equipment could be purchased. The equipment was outdated by the time it arrived. Now, we are relying on the Americans, with the Boeing contracts and the like. I am talking about the C-17 aircraft and the Chinook helicopter. But the minister made a mistake, because now Boeing is deciding about content and industrial benefits.
And we are not talking about regional industrial benefits any more; now we are talking about Canadian benefits. That means that the aerospace industry in Quebec, which makes up 60% of the industry in Canada, could take a back seat and be told that the government has invested so many billions of dollars, but that Boeing is deciding where it will invest in Canadian content. The industry in Quebec would like the government to bear in mind that it would like economic benefits in aerospace, not necessarily in fish, Pacific salmon or northern spruce. We want benefits in aerospace.
Did the minister not make a mistake when he used sole-source procurement with a specific requirement that ruled out everyone but Boeing? As a result, now, Canadian taxpayers will not get the best bang for their buck. What is more, the industry in Quebec could be hosed because of the government's approach.
I would like to hear the minister's opinion on this.