Yes, absolutely. That's been our position all along. We take the exact same position.
I want to be clear. It's not picking on a particular region. We take the identical view on every industry, including auto and oil. I recognize that some people consider that an extreme position.
I don't want to diminish the importance to a particular region. I hear similar arguments made by other industries. My concern is whether the focus on the size is undercut by the cost of support.
You mentioned the additional jobs and the spin-off. I hear this argument all the time. The reality is that, to take Bombardier as the most obvious example, support for Bombardier has often been justified on the basis that it supports a supply chain. The supply chain, however, is also subsidized. Research and development is also subsidized. Purchases of the aircraft are also subsidized.
This is not, then, a case of subsidizing at the top and seeing it trickle down to support all these other elements. Everything along the chain is subsidized. All I am asking is that, when we do a cost-benefit analysis, we also count the cost. I'm fine with counting the benefits, but I think it's only fair that for every industry we count the cost as well when we're making a judgment about what support should or shouldn't be offered.
I agree with your point and with some of the other people on the panel. I recognize that I've been focusing on subsidies. There are many other ways to support the industry. I have no issue with many of those things, and they need to be discussed. I'm really solely focused on the issue of direct transfers of taxpayer money in the form of grants, not loans.
If loans are repaid, I think there is an argument there as well, with proper disclosure, but I'm really just focusing on the subsidy issue.