I invest in this company. So does the Caisse de depot. As far as I know, as investors, we don't have a say how our investment dollars are spent by the company. Even if it's used to pay salaries.
Investors normally do have a say in executive compensation. Most large public companies these days have executive compensation as an agenda at the Annual General Meeting (AGM). A board committee will propose a compensation structure, and investors get to vote on it. Depending on the company, this vote can be binding or (more typically) non-binding (advisory). But even an advisory "no" vote will send a powerful message to the board, since after all the board has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders.
However, in Bombardier's case, the family's Class A shares get 10 times the voting rights as regular Class B shares. Hence even though the Bombardier / Beaudoin families may actually own a minority of the total shares, they still control a clear majority of the voting power.
The next Bombardier AGM will be in mid-May. As a Bombardier investor, you should have received a proxy voting form from either Bombardier or from your investment bank. You can register your displeasure on Mr. Beaudoin's proposed executive compensation by voting no on the relevant question, if you wish.
I'm an investor as is the caisse yet, the caisse investment is constantly referred to as corporate welfare for Bombardier. Can you explain where this notion comes from?
I don't know if the
Caisse investment specifically is an example of "corporate welfare". I suspect many people confuse the Caisse investment with the separate investment made by the Quebec government.
Recall that the Caisse
did not invest in Bombardier, Inc. and they specifically declined to invest in the CSeries. Instead, the Caisse only invested in Bombardier's rail business (Bombardier Transportation.)
As a crown corporation, a Caisse investment could be considered "corporate welfare" if the terms & conditions of that investment were "out of line" compared to an arms-length commercial investment, e.g., if they gave Bombardier a sweetheart deal due to some non-commercial concern (politics, relationships, etc.)
However, as far as I know, the Caisse investment was broadly in line with commercial terms. The same cannot be said of the Quebec government's investment in the CSeries program.