Take a peek at history. Long time ago, Boeing had this new prototype, the Dash-80,and they were going to sell lots to airlines. Problem with airlines, they always seem to negotiate a price way below the 'list price' when buying a bunch of airplanes, and the Dash-80, civilian model called the 707, was no different. It had all the earmarks of bankrupting the company, except, they had another derivative of the same airplane, KC-135, which was sold to the US Military for numbers much higher than list price. That saved the program, and the company.
Boeing isn't the only American company to benefit from such programs. Remember the DC-10, it was going to bankrupt McDonnel Douglas, until the KC-10 came out of the woodwork.
Boeing has a very unique way of doing accounting, would never pass the GAAP sniff test, but, for some reason they dont have to. When they do an aircraft program, they project how many sales are expected in that program, then dont realize costs until sales begin, and they amortize that cost over the projected sales number, ie, on a per airplane basis. Inevitably sales start to fall short, so they have to 'take a charge' as one of the reports comes up, but lo and behold, always seems to be some windfall in the military side when that happens, and they still end up reporting a profit of some sort. Then they have another big black hole in the accounting, classified projects. Most of those amount to nothing more than a blank cheque for developing some exotic new prototype or what have you, and within those projects they can bury all the R&D costs for exotic new manufacturing techniques, that later get applied to civilian airliner projects.
To see how some money currently flows into Boeing into the black hole of classified projects, just punch X-37 into google and look at some of the hits. This is but one of many avenues used to shovel money into Boeing inside the realm of 'classified' in a manner that bypasses any form of public scrutiny of a company spending public money.
Bottom line is, aircraft manufacturing the world over has plenty of government dollars pouring into those companies. In the USA they funnel it into companies by purchasing airplanes at exhorbitant price points after US Military markings are painted onto the airframe. In Europe they are a little more upfront about it, the governments just own the company. In Canada it came in the form of comparatively small government backed loans.
But study history just a bit farther back on the DHC line with Bombardier eventually inherited. Everybody loves the ubiquitous Beaver, holds it up as a shining example of a great bush airplane built by a great Canadian company. Check out total production by DHC, and where they went. A tad over 1600 originally built, 970 of which were delivered to the US Army. Much to ones surprise when researching the subject, same was true of the Otter, US Army was the single largest customer accepting factory new airplanes. On down the list, DHC-4 was designed and built to military specifications, then some sold into the civilian market as well. DHC-5 was for the most part exclusively for military use. DHC-6 found a sweet spot in the civilian marketplace, unusual for an aircraft, but it was successful. The company later decided to upscale it, and created the DHC-7, which was the financial fiasco that essentially killed de Haviland. A very expensive development program for a spanking new aircraft type that targetted a very specific segment of the market, but they completely misread market demand for the STOL market, and the airplane was to expensive to operate as a general purpose airplane. They struggled on and created the DHC-8 which was less expensive to operate, but, by that time the development costs of 2 programs were sinking the company, and DHC-8 sales were not going to rescue it. Bottom line, if you aren't making airplanes that are targetted for military customers, the business is not likely to sustain itself over the long term.
Same story to the south. Boeing, Douglas, Lockheed all trying to make airplanes for the commercial market back in the day. Look today, Boeing was a winner over time selling airplanes to the military, and survives in that market. Boeing essentially absorbed McD. Lockheed was very successful building airplanes exclusively for the military market, but the dabble into the civilian market almost bankrupt the company with the L-1011. Read history, US Government backed a 1.4 billion dollar loan to keep Lockheed afloat in 1971 (does that ring any bells?). Eventually Lockheed merged with Martin Marietta (maker of missles) to become the Lockheed Martin company known today, which survives pretty much exclusively on government money. If the US Military was not overseas expending missles and wearing out C-130 airframes, that segment of the company would not be profitable. ofc, they did have a huge blank cheque for a long time while the shuttle program was operational, but that's another story for another day.
Now look on the other side of the Atlantic. Back in the day, aircraft manufacturing companies were going under over there too. Britian and France both felt it was necessary to stay on the forefront of aircraft development, they got into bed together buying up local manufacturing companies and out of that came the Concorde. Wind the clock forward a whole lot of years, with lots of politics etc along the way (including copious quantities of money from various governements), and you have today's Airbus.
If you think that providing various forms of subsidy to manufacturers of aircraft is somehow unique to Canada, you are absolutely wrong and obviously not a student of history. There are no manufacturers today building civilian transport category aircraft that are not directly, or indirectly subsidized by government money. Some do it via commercial loan guarantees, some do it via outright purchase of product at inflated military pricing, others do it by simply owning the company outright, but they are all sucking at the public money teat in one form or another.