I know that. This is why I pay all my respect to you, a member of Parliament since 1993. You have seen so many great things and bad things.
Your quote is quite interesting, because you're a strong supporter of Bombardier but are very disappointed by the actual situation.
Mr. Chair, 93% of Quebeckers cannot be wrong. Since surveys have existed, we have never seen such unanimity of opinion in a given situation. Last Saturday, survey firm Léger published the results of a public survey according to which 93% of Quebeckers were outraged to see that the company's executives had allowed themselves salary increases of 48%. Quebeckers have given the company $1.3 billion through their provincial government and more than $2 billion through the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.
Although Canadians have little fiscal flexibility because of the fragile economic and fiscal situation, and they are watching every penny the government spends, they saw the government loan about $400 million—all taxpayers' money—to Bombardier and learned a few weeks later that the company's executives were giving themselves salary increases. It is time to shed light on that situation.
That is why we thought of giving the Bombardier executives an opportunity to come explain themselves here. Changes were made following that announcement and the backlash in Quebec and across Canada. Chairman of the board, Pierre Beaudoin, who is the grandson of Joseph-Armand Bombardier, decided to simply forego the raise. That was the least that could be done, but he did it. Unfortunately, his five colleagues did not make the same decision. They agreed to have those raises deferred for two years. This situation needs to be considered. Through our motion, we are giving Bombardier's executives a golden opportunity to explain themselves.
The chairman of Bombardier, Alain Bellemare, said in two interviews he gave that it was a lack of communication, that they did not communicate well.
I do not agree, but that is their point of view. If they recognize that it was a lack of communication, then we offer them the chance to express themselves and communicate with the Canadian people from whom they have borrowed millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, for this company.
Mr. Chair, we hope that Bombardier will have an opportunity to come testify here through its president, Mr. Bellemare, to explain to Canadians why they decided to increase the executives' salaries by 48%.
In our motion, we also invite the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Why? Because he is the one who decided to agree to provide Bombardier with government assistance, after just under a year and a half of discussions with that company. At the outset, Bombardier was asking for a donation from Canadian taxpayers in the amount of $1.3 billion, which ended up being a loan of $135 million for the C Series. That is 10 times less than the requested amount, and it is a loan. Yet here we are, very surprised to learn that the Canadian government is prepared to help Bombardier with the Global 7000. To my knowledge, Bombardier never asked for assistance for the Global 7000 project, as it has always talked about the C Series.
I want to remind you that, in March 2016, the director of Bombardier Aerospace said the following in an interview with the Financial Post:
He said that they don't need any more federal money because the Quebec government spends billions of dollars on Bombardier, gives billions of dollars to Bombardier, and the C Series was launched with big contracts from Delta, Lufthansa, Swiss, and all the other great companies.
We are not against the C Series, but we're against raising the salaries of people who were asking to borrow billions of dollars of Canadian money. That is why we are very concerned.
Our motion is one of openness, elaboration and transparency. We are giving the Bombardier executives an opportunity to appear before us and explain why they have done this. They say they have a communication problem? Perfect. We, the Conservatives, are giving them an opportunity to come explain themselves. We are saying the same thing to the minister, as during question period, with only 30 seconds to answer, he does not have the time to get to the bottom of things. So we are offering the minister an opportunity to come explain to us what he discussed with Bombardier. The Canadian government asked Bombardier to commit to not cutting jobs? We know that Bombardier has cut 14,000 jobs over the past few months. By providing this assistance from Canadian taxpayers, did the government ensure the executives would not get colossal raises like the ones they gave themselves? We would like to put the question to the minister.
Clearly, I will not reveal all our questions today, but we feel that we have to get to the bottom of things if Canadians want to have the truth about this unfortunate incident. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to put questions to parliamentary leaders—in other words, the minister—but also to Bombardier's chief executive.
The motion is based on transparency, on tax money paid by hard-working Canadians. So much tax money was spent on that. We want to be sure that we spent that money correctly and we want to be sure that we get a great explanation.
Thank you so much.