Evidence of meeting #34 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Stephen Quick  Director General, Canadian Aviation and Space Museum
Rénald Fortier  Curator, Canadian Aviation and Space Museum

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Thank you.

Ms. Murray, do you have a final comment or question?

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Yes. I kept hearing the theme about what you need from government is continuity and direction so that everybody is rowing in the same direction. I'd like to address this to Dr. Quick.

What does that look like? If you could have one thing that would help to create that outcome—understanding that it has to be responsive, etc.—what would the one thing be ? Would it be a cross-ministry table that coordinates government departments and views? Would it be an intergovernmental cooperation mechanism so that you're working with the provincial governments and international partners? Would it be a strategy document, in that there was consultation and all of those partners to say, “Okay, this is the agreed upon strategy. Here's the compass. Point north. We're all going to be going in that direction.” Or would it be a package of government policy and recommendations? Would it be a vision?

I really want to be highlighting the part of your objective that you talked about, which was technology and innovation for sustainability. So what would be the one mechanism that could help deliver this continuity and direction?

10:30 a.m.

Director General, Canadian Aviation and Space Museum

Stephen Quick

It's difficult to say one sort of thing. Certainly a dialogue with the industry, but as I said before—and Rénald certainly has alluded to it—innovation doesn't come in and of itself. There's a push and pull with innovation.

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

If there was one new mechanism—if you had a magic wand and this was what we were going to do—what would it be?

10:30 a.m.

Director General, Canadian Aviation and Space Museum

Stephen Quick

In terms of interdepartmental or provincial versus federal to really take a look at that, even in terms of a historical perspective, it's really difficult to say there's one silver bullet that's going to do—

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Just to clarify, I don't mean it's going to solve everything, but if there could be one new initiative or mechanism that you think would be the most effective to develop that continuity and clarity of direction, what might it be?

10:30 a.m.

Director General, Canadian Aviation and Space Museum

Stephen Quick

It think support in sustaining that continuity; I think creating an environment, as I said, that sustains that continuity.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

I have to stop there.

Mr. Poilievre, final comment.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understood the question. I'll have to change the subject.

Some of our colleagues have spoken about the need for government to intervene to provide subsidies to keep industry from moving abroad. Mr. Sullivan highlighted the wage gap that might bring the industry to another country. If such subsidies were provided, presumably industry would have to pay for them through higher taxes, since money doesn't grow on trees. When you take money out of the economy to fund industries that are not productive enough to stand on their own, what are the potential consequences to invention, innovation, and discovery?

10:30 a.m.

Curator, Canadian Aviation and Space Museum

Rénald Fortier

There are serious problems. If you subsidize an industry that is no longer functioning, it's sort of like in permanent receivership. I'm not talking about the Canadian situation. But if you have a theoretical situation where an industry is in permanent receivership, the only way it can survive is to have more money pumped into it. At some point you can't continue. It's not feasible. When you have a growing economy you might be able to tolerate it for a while, but eventually something has to happen.

This is not the situation in Canada. Very often the money provided to the industry is in loans that have to be repaid, so it's certainly not the situation here.

At various times the industry was in dire straights. That is true. In the mid-1970s the government took over de Havilland and Canadair in order to keep them from disappearing altogether. It turned out to be a good decision, but there was a period of five to 10 years when it was a fairly closely run thing. It might have gone sour, but in this case it worked.

Very often you don't know in advance whether something will work. You think it will work. You're pretty sure it will work. Then something happens like the Concorde, and the world changes. It has to be a policy decision, but I'm afraid I can't go into detail because I'm not an economist.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Okay, make a final comment, then. But make it very brief.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

I have a question on government grants to promote R and D. If an R and D endeavour has a good business case, why do taxpayers need to fund it, and if it does not have a good business case, why would taxpayers want to fund it?

10:35 a.m.

Curator, Canadian Aviation and Space Museum

Rénald Fortier

Exactly. There are cases where you want to subsidize wild and woolly ideas. If you have lots of money, then go ahead. But in many cases not everything will work. There are lots of good airplanes, Concorde being a case in point. It was a fantastic idea, but commercially it was not that great. Technologically, though, it certainly had an impact on the industry. Some of the ideas that were developed for that project, even though the project itself was not commercially all that successful, were used elsewhere. But you never know in advance. It becomes a policy decision.

If you can afford to put some money, not huge amounts, but some seed money into certain projects, then it becomes a choice. It's a business choice, almost. The government has to deal with it as a business. Eventually you have to sell these products. If there is no market for them that you can foresee, and the government cannot justify buying the product, then don't get into it.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

With that I'll thank you for your attendance today. This was very informative. I'm sure we'll look back and reflect on what you have presented to us today.

For the committee members, before we adjourn, I've circulated a budget that will carry us to the end of our witness list as it is currently proposed. I would ask for your approval so that we can secure it.

Mr. Holder's moved it. All those in favour? Opposed?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you.

Meeting adjourned.