Thank you very much, Mr. Holland.
Yes, TPC has been a very important program for Canada. I'm not referring specifically to TPC, but the concept of government risk sharing and the development of technology in Canada is a critical part of our competitiveness. It dates further back than TPC to previous programs like the defence industry productivity program.
I can tell you today that without those programs, we would not have the aerospace industry we have today in Canada. They've been instrumental in making Canada an attractive location to invest in technology development, product development, and process development.
I'll use the Messier-Dowty example in your riding, which you've already referred to. Messier-Dowty is a subsidiary of a large global French-based aerospace firm called Safran. Through Messier-Dowty, Safran has grown its world product mandate for regional and business aircraft landing gear systems. Messier-Dowty was a world leader in developing the concept of a fully integrated landing gear system. Manufacturers no longer buy wheels from one company, actuators from another, brakes from another, or tires from another. They now come to companies like Messier-Dowty to develop a completely integrated landing gear system from the actuator handle in the flight deck to the wheels and the rubber that are on the runway. It's made Messier-Dowty an incredibly competitive firm and allowed it to expand its world mandate from a base in Canada.
It would not have that capability without programs like TPC. TPC was a risk-sharing investor in development of that kind of capability and continues to be a risk-sharing developer as it further develops that capability and applies it to new product opportunities in the market. It's only an example, but there are many examples where it's been an incredibly important part of the development of the aerospace sector in Canada and replaces what we don't have in Canada, which is the massive R and D defence budget that other countries have.
How does it need to change? Well, we clearly see a need for it to continue. It hasn't yet been cancelled, but its current terms and conditions under the Treasury Board run out at the end of this calendar year, on December 31, 2006. We need to continue to make sure that kind of program is available.
Its budget has been significantly reduced from what it was originally established at in 1996. As the industry has continued to grow, the demand for new investment into new programs and continuing to support that growth have become larger. We need to make sure that it's adequately resourced to align with the investment opportunities for Canadian industry.
We need to make sure that it addresses the changing nature of R and D investment in aerospace, depending on where you are on what we would describe as the R and D continuum. The continuum begins with curiosity-based research, where we create an idea and we create knowledge that runs through technology development, ultimately technology demonstration, and aerospace application.
We have huge impediments and hurdles with respect to the demonstration of reliability and safety in this environment. It's not like other industries when systems crash. In our industry, it is a real crash. The reliability and safety demands mean a much higher level of technology demonstration in the development process that extends over a period of seven years. For companies, the cashflow is all out, the results are not guaranteed, and you need someone to share in the risk.
This is also an industry that has a product life cycle that is typically at the top end of an aircraft or an aircraft engine for 25 to 30 years. There's a continual degree of new technology development and insertion that needs to be supported. We look for a program that's not one-size-fits-all, which recognizes the changing nature through the continuum and the risk-sharing capacity that they need.
We need to look at components that support strategic investments in companies like Messier-Dowty and new product mandates, how we can facilitate better collaboration in technology development, how we can support technology demonstration platforms, how we can support proprietary technology development for individual companies, and how we can ultimately support issues of supplier development for the smaller firm.
It's not a one-size-fits-all approach. We need to look at different components and, ultimately, at how to link that to the broader technology development support mechanisms in Canada. It's not only one program; there are activities in universities that are funded through organizations like NSERC or intramural activities conducted in government through organizations like Defence Research and Development Canada and the National Research Council. How do we link those and eliminate some of the stovepipes that we have?
It's important to success, and that's how we'd like to see it changed.