Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to misrepresent what I said. In my remarks, I tried to explain that in a strategy for the conversion of defence industries, we need to have, first of all, in the private sector, the sort of initiative that can provide direction to every company affected.
Take for example Paramax, now Unisys GSG, the prime contractor for the helicopter contract the government cancelled on November 4.
I am quoting from a Canadian Press article published in the Gazette of April 19, 1994:
Paul Manson, president of Unisys GSG-says the company may end up better off than it might have had it carried the multibillion dollar helicopter contract through to its conclusion.
"We've gone through the worst of the setback from the helicopter", he said.
The articile goes on:
He said Unisys is using the expertise gained in military work for commercial contracts, especially in the field of total systems integration. "Once you would sell a mainframe or a mini-computer or a PC and then walk away", he said.
"Now we're involved in the whole package-maintenance, software, systems and integration.
The article goes on:
The cancellation cloud may have had a silver lining in that it forced Unisys into diversification at a time of "intense downward pressure on defence budgets".
My point is simply that I hope this indicates a success for the particular company. It has a highly motivated very professional manager as president, Mr. Manson. He has done a good job trying to anticipate where his company can find new successes. He spent a fair bit of time discussing strategy with Industry Canada. We have tried to be helpful to him as a government should be in identifying opportunities and in looking for possibilities.
Indeed the DIPP fund may prove useful in this exercise again as a repayable contribution to research which will lead to the production of new products to sell into new markets.
This is a very clear strategy. It is not a do-nothing strategy as the hon. member has attempted to characterize it. It is a practical pragmatic strategy that reflects two things, first of all the important contribution that these firms make to Canada's base of highly skilled, highly educated technical people. Second, it reflects the reality of the fiscal situation of the Government of Canada.
With all due respect to the hon. member who makes quotations from press releases at a time when the government in office was projecting $30 billion deficits, times have changed. Any government is forced to see how it can make most effective use of the resources that it has available.
If he has practical suggestions on that or if he would like to come forward and say that he thinks the DIPP fund should be increased by another $250 million and here is where we take the money from then let him suggest that. So far, other than his ranting and raving I have not heard any specific suggestions from him as to what it is exactly he wants us to do.