Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Senator Pratte's amendment to my motion to have the Transport and Communications Committee study the Trudeau government's recent loan to Bombardier.

While my motion seeks to focus solely on Bombardier, I do realize the value in looking at other financial arrangements of this nature between the government and private companies.

My motion never asserted that any such study shouldn't look at other loans or other means of financial assistance of this nature made by past governments, and certainly there is much that can be learned and weighed against the Bombardier loan.

As a matter of fact, I did mention one such arrangement in my original speech on my motion, one that was noticeably missing from my honourable friend Senator Pratte's speech, by the way, and that was the 2013 Air Canada arrangement.

As I said in my speech last Thursday, Air Canada was looking down the barrel of a gun, facing the very real possibility of being grounded as they struggled to deal with deficits in their pension plan.

The government at that time had to act. The difference, however, was that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty did not let the urgency of the situation force him to act irresponsibly or flippantly with taxpayers' money. Minister Flaherty attached conditions in the government's deal with the airline, including a freeze on executive compensation tied to the rate of inflation, a ban on special bonuses and limits on executive incentive plans.

As I also went on to say:

If we're going to continue making loans or agreements like this, we must be both strategic and responsible about it. We are talking about public money — taxpayers' money — here. Governments not only have to be truly transparent about the terms of these types of deals, but they also have to do the responsible thing and put covenants in place on the use of the funds.

So, contrary to what so many believe, you will get no argument from me that it would be helpful for the Senate to broaden the scope of our study, as Senator Pratte has suggested, and I'm all in favour of that. And that includes the auto industry. We should take a look at the conditions that were applied in the deals with Chrysler and General Motors, conditions like the fact the repayment was not tied to the performance of a specific product and that the government received shares in these companies that allowed us on the boards of directors of those companies.

All of that is to say that I fully support Senator Pratte's amendment to my motion. The only difference is that Senator Pratte suggested in his amendment that it be sent to Finance. However, after consultation with the Chair of the Finance Committee, it has been brought to my attention that they are so overloaded with the study of the budget, they would not be able to look at this study until six or seven months from now. So if the intention is to broaden the scope, which we're all in favour of, to look at all aspects of these types of deals, and the desire of my honourable friend is to get that done expeditiously, the Chair of the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee has offered to undertake this study if there is agreement between myself and Senator Pratte in order to move as expeditiously as possible.

I will support Senator Pratte's amendment to the motion if he would be agreeable to sending it to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. Given the broader scope of this study, I think that would be the more appropriate committee rather than what is proposed in my original motion, which is the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.

At the end of the day, I'm seeking answers for Canadians about their tax dollars, how they're spent and some assurance that when we make loans like this, they will be done prudently.

If seeking those answers, colleagues, makes me partisan, I will be glad to accept that title. If looking after job security and proper compensation for thousands of Bombardier employees and middle-class workers instead of high-level executives is being partisan, well, then I'm guilty as charged.