[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

I don't know what news is surprisng me the most today - that Prince died or Duffy was acquitted and cleared on all counts.

It just proves the Senate needs urgent reforms, and not just for its internal rules.

The result certainly shows that Senate reform is necessary.  But I think the trial was important for other reasons as well.  It also showed the extent to which are system is not so much a Parliamentary Democracy as government by executive PMO decree.  The Liberals said they would change that even though they were the ones who first created the institutional problem.  Too early to tell whether they will change it.

[viper37]

Too early to tell whether they will change it.

Of course he promised to change it.  So far, he's already broken one of his key promise to Quebec workers of Aveos.  Legalizing pot is more important than enforcing contracts, I guess.
This will be just another promise of change swept under the rug.

[crazy canuck]

I would say that reforming our drug laws should have a high priority.  What is the Aveos issue?

[Barrister]

I would say that reforming our drug laws should have a high priority.  What is the Aveos issue?

I am glad they seem to be taking their time with legallizing pot.  They seem aware there are issues about access by kids, driving while high, where and how it's sold, that need to be thought through.

I know it's coming, and it was clearly on their platform, but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.

[viper37]

I would say that reforming our drug laws should have a high priority.  What is the Aveos issue?

Air Canada had to maintain its planes maintenance in Canada, specifically in Quebec and Manitoba following the merger with Canadair, I think.
They later subcontracted it to Aveos, which went Bankrupt.
Air Canada refuses to remploy the Aveos workers and have its fleet maintenance in Quebec.
The Liberals promised the Aveos workers they would fix the situation.  They blamed the Conservatives for its inaction, as usual.

Quebec's Supreme Court and Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the government against Air Canada.
Air Canada appealed to the Supreme Court.

And now, the Liberals have announced yesterday they are giving Air Canada more leeway on what type and level of maintenance it has to do in the country.  This was done so that Air Canada would buy C-Series jets from Bombardier.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/aveos-job-losses-spur-class-action-suit-374711791.html

[crazy canuck]

Seems like the Federal government negotiated a good deal and ended the litigation with the Provinces.  Not sure what there is to be upset about.

[viper37]

Seems like the Federal government negotiated a good deal and ended the litigation with the Provinces.  Not sure what there is to be upset about.

It's not a good deal.

First, Air Canada is off the hook with nothing in exchange.  There is no contract signed with Bombardier for the C-Series, only vague intentions.

Second, maintenance on older airplanes is not the same as maintenance for a new airplane done by the manfucaturer.

If Air Canada wants out of its deal, and I can understand that circumstances changes, it should sit down with the union and renegotiate its deal, give them monetary compensation.  It concerns all governments + the workers.  2 rulings confirmed Air Canada was in breach of contract, I would expect the Feds to step in and lean on Air Canada to respect its obligations, or compensate the workers.

And I would expect of any government to respect its promises.

[Barrister]

It was ridiculous to impose those restrictions on Air Canada in the first place.  If you're going to privatize the company, then privatize it.  You don't privatize it, but then make special legislation that only applies to AC requiring it to do certain things.

[viper37]

It was ridiculous to impose those restrictions on Air Canada in the first place.

Yes it was.  But Air Canada agreed to these conditions.  It was up to them to negotiate a different deal.  Nobody put a gun to their head.

If you're going to privatize the company, then privatize it.  You don't privatize it, but then make special legislation that only applies to AC requiring it to do certain things.

It was privatization + near monopoly over Canada.  Yes, it should have been done differently, asked for more money, asked for annual compensations, etc, instead of imposing restrictions like this that would be unlivable in the future.  But it's not the first time a company has grossly mis-evaluated the future.

[Barrister]

It was ridiculous to impose those restrictions on Air Canada in the first place.

Yes it was.  But Air Canada agreed to these conditions.  It was up to them to negotiate a different deal.  Nobody put a gun to their head.

If you're going to privatize the company, then privatize it.  You don't privatize it, but then make special legislation that only applies to AC requiring it to do certain things.

It was privatization + near monopoly over Canada.  Yes, it should have been done differently, asked for more money, asked for annual compensations, etc, instead of imposing restrictions like this that would be unlivable in the future.  But it's not the first time a company has grossly mis-evaluated the future.

"Air Canada" wasn't an independent entity at the time.  It was a Crown Corporation, owned by the government.  It's CEO was a government appointee IIRC.  "Air Canada" couldn't negotiate with the government any more than you can negotiate with your boss.

[crazy canuck]

First, Air Canada is off the hook with nothing in exchange.  There is no contract signed with Bombardier for the C-Series, only vague intentions.

Second, maintenance on older airplanes is not the same as maintenance for a new airplane done by the manfucaturer.

If Air Canada wants out of its deal, and I can understand that circumstances changes, it should sit down with the union and renegotiate its deal, give them monetary compensation.  It concerns all governments + the workers.  2 rulings confirmed Air Canada was in breach of contract, I would expect the Feds to step in and lean on Air Canada to respect its obligations, or compensate the workers.

And I would expect of any government to respect its promises.

I think you may not be giving full consideration to circumstances of the legal dispute.  The thing you are asserting as obligations are, according to the the article you linked, the matters that were being litigated and that are now settled.

[Grey Fox]

I would say that reforming our drug laws should have a high priority.  What is the Aveos issue?

Air Canada had to maintain its planes maintenance in Canada, specifically in Quebec and Manitoba following the merger with Canadair, I think.
They later subcontracted it to Aveos, which went Bankrupt.
Air Canada refuses to remploy the Aveos workers and have its fleet maintenance in Quebec.
The Liberals promised the Aveos workers they would fix the situation.  They blamed the Conservatives for its inaction, as usual.

Quebec's Supreme Court and Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the government against Air Canada.
Air Canada appealed to the Supreme Court.

And now, the Liberals have announced yesterday they are giving Air Canada more leeway on what type and level of maintenance it has to do in the country.  This was done so that Air Canada would buy C-Series jets from Bombardier.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/aveos-job-losses-spur-class-action-suit-374711791.html

It is better to keep Bombardier a float than to live in the past.

[HVC]

Vipers pathologically anti liberal. If they had upheld the original deal he'd complain that the liberals buckled to the union pressure 😀

[viper37]

It is better to keep Bombardier a float than to live in the past.

Coming from a town where we rely way too much on Bombardier, I think it's bad for business to constantly keep them afloat so they can export their manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China.

[viper37]

It was ridiculous to impose those restrictions on Air Canada in the first place.

Yes it was.  But Air Canada agreed to these conditions.  It was up to them to negotiate a different deal.  Nobody put a gun to their head.

If you're going to privatize the company, then privatize it.  You don't privatize it, but then make special legislation that only applies to AC requiring it to do certain things.

It was privatization + near monopoly over Canada.  Yes, it should have been done differently, asked for more money, asked for annual compensations, etc, instead of imposing restrictions like this that would be unlivable in the future.  But it's not the first time a company has grossly mis-evaluated the future.

"Air Canada" wasn't an independent entity at the time.  It was a Crown Corporation, owned by the government.  It's CEO was a government appointee IIRC.  "Air Canada" couldn't negotiate with the government any more than you can negotiate with your boss.

Shareholders had a choice to buy or not to buy the shares knowing full well what it entitled.  It was not hidden from them.  It was not a surprise event like a fraud.  It was information that partly determined the price of the stock at the time they bought it, even up to very recently.  A company's duty is to maximize shareholder's wealth, but that does not entail breaking laws.  I understand they want out.  I understand it's a bad deal to compete with other airlines, but they signed for it, they knew what they were doing.

In my opinion, a contract is sacred.  I know english Canada does not see things that way, a contract is made to be broken, that's what makes a lawyer live.  But I disagree strongly with that opinion.

Imho, once a contract is signed between two parties, you have to live with it or find a way out that satisfies both parties.
So far, two Quebec courts have the same opinion.  We were waiting on the Supreme Court's ruling on the issue, before the Libs cancelled it, breaking their promise.