John Manley

[Bombardier Inc., October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, no, it was not matching money. In fact there was three times the money from the company in this investment. The ratio of the Canadian R and D is 25 per cent.

The hon. member should know it is implicit in his question that if a company succeeds, then it should not be helped. If he were to understand a little bit about the structure of this industry which is a very important industry to Canada, he would know that every other country, and there are not that many, that have a fully developed aerospace industry, are supported either by state ownership or by indirect support through defence procurement or other measures.

We have a study, and I will be happy to give him another copy, so that he can see what those support mechanisms are. In this case the kind of thinking that he brings to this file, as evidenced in his question, is the very thinking that 40 years ago led to the destruction of the Avro Arrow and set Canada's high tech sector back years.

[Bombardier Inc., October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the offensiveness of the preamble to the question, the substance of the question is good.

In deciding to make this investment we looked at the criteria that were described when we announced the technology partnership program and the fact that we were engaged in a risk sharing venture of research and development, in this case the development of an extended version of the Canadair regional jet. We looked at the ability of that product to be marketed internationally. We looked at the number of jobs that were involved: either being sustained or created by the investment. We looked at the likelihood of the government recouping its investment fully. As I said yesterday, when we pass 400 planes we will make a profit on it.

The member lists some facts. It is a fact that despite our trade surplus the only high technology sector in which we have a trade surplus is aerospace. It is a fact that this company, Canadair, is one

of our finest companies and one of the best in the world. We will invest in our winners.

[Federal Investments, October 29th, 1996]

What I know is this: on October 21, 1996, we invested $87 million in Canadair. On October 21, 1996 we invested close to one million dollars in Matériaux Techniques Côté; on October 11, $4.25 million in Ericsson Communications; on October 9, almost one million in the École polytechnique. There are many examples.

I fail to understand why the Bloc Quebecois always wants Quebec to have such a negative image, when it is a powerful province.

[Federal Investments, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not necessarily familiar with the statistics the member has just given. He spoke primarily of years during which I know Lucien Bouchard served as a minister in the previous government.

[Bombardier Inc., October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to receive that question. I approved the loan. I recommended it to my colleagues.

It is an $87 million investment in research and development repayable on a royalty basis as aircraft are sold. We will make money on that loan.

Not only that, I am surprised to hear such a question from the Reform Party days after its fresh start. Reformers put their document out saying that a Reform government will recognize the crucial place of research and development in our economy by what? By increasing current levels of funding for research and development for industry. I agree with that.

[Polygram, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, an application has been filed with Investment Canada. No decision has been made as yet, and I do not want to discuss the matter because the decision is still up to the minister.

I may add, as I said in Bromont a few days ago, that there are probably five or six locations here in Canada where we have the industrial base for a semi-conductor industry. One was in Quebec, in Bromont.

I want to ask the hon. member this: Is she not interested in the fact, on behalf of her party here in the House of Commons, the Canadian government is doing everything it can to try and find a base to create a genuine semi-conductor industry here in Canada? That is the real issue. They have no industrial policy other than asking for subsidies, as the hon. member did earlier. To us, it is more important to look for international investment.

[Polygram, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is an odd question. Does the hon. member think that the people of Quebec or the National Capital Region, or Edmonton, Vancouver or other parts of the country, if they could get about a billion dollars invested in the semi-conductor sector, would not want the Minister of Industry to approach companies that would be able to make that kind of investment? It is very important for us to attract investment.

As for Polygram, I did not discuss the matter with Philips, and it was not on the agenda at our meeting.

[Federal Investments, October 28th, 1996]

To say that this idea was really not based on economic and industrial development is simply false.

[Federal Investments, October 28th, 1996]

Does he think all tax credits for research and development should be divided? Should all the networks of centres of excellence be divided fairly among the provinces?

[Federal Investments, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am always disturbed by the representations made by regional parties in the House. They seem to believe that each investment should be equally divided among all the provinces.

Does the hon. member think it would be better if the investment announced last Monday regarding Canadair were divided equally between all Canadians?