Derek 2.0

Annual party meetings, then voted on by party members from a mailed out ballot.

As I said in the other CPC leadership thread, she wouldn't be my first choice, but what would be even odder, is if she performed well and was received well by Canadians, for the party to go with someone else due to internal party rules that could be changed at the annual party meeting, with ballots mailed to the membership.

Exactly, mostly when we finally halted Nazi expansion........

Yes I did, but that does not equate to occupying other nations....as to for "how long"...simple, until there is no longer a threat that can't be contained by local forces. (I'm going to take a pass on the conspiracy theories though)

Exactly, it is a global problem, that doesn't only threaten the West, but also the Russians and even the Chinese..... Now when was the last time the West, the Russians and Chinese put aside their differences to achieve a common goal in ending a threat to global stability?

What is your reason for getting personal? cite

As I said, she hasn't made it public that she intended to run in the leadership race......I would assume, based on performance and polling, if she does well, then she would run and the party wouldn't exclude her........hence the subject is moot.

No, but it can be changed with a single motion and vote put forth to the party membership, as such, it doesn't mean much, nor do I see your point........Rona Ambrose can't run in the leadership race......unless members of the CPC want her to

The Party Constitution can be voted on and changed by the party membership.

She hasn't formally declared her intention to run for the permanent leadership........not that I'd oppose it, if she does well, as leader of the Official Opposition.......

Exactly, the subject will be brought up at the next party conference (early next year)..........Though Ms. Ambrose wouldn't have been my first pick as (interim) leader, I do agree that it will give her the chance to sink or swim, and then the party can decide if they would want to give her the big chair.

No you didn't get it right, as I already said to you: Mr Dwyer should remove his tin-foil hat........the defense industry made far more money during the Cold War, and if said industry was able to create another "boogeyman", it would be another Super-Power nation state. Inversely, using Syria as an example again, radical Islam had no need for the West during the outset of the Syrian uncivil war. Conflict and War have been around far longer then the "military-industrial complex" or Islam for that mater.

I never said it would have no negative effect, people employed in unprofitable sectors of the company would likely loose their jobs........now if the Government is concerned with the Canadian Aerospace sector, what is their plan once their policy to leave the F-35 craters the 30+ companies currently involved in the program? Will the Federal Government hand-out cash to the P&WC's, to the AVCORPS, to the Magellan's and the Honeywell's once they pull out of a program that Canadian companies are succeeding in? By all means explain the sense in investing taxpayers dollars in a proposed risky venture versus a program, that in its infancy, has already returned nearly $1 billion dollars to the Canadian economy.......

That is corporate fear mongering, as the Canadian Aerospace industry is not Bombardier........which has been only "building aircraft" since the late 80s. If Bombardier failed, other corporations would purchase the profitable divisions, or said divisions would go on as stand alone companies with outside investor support. This is no more evident than Bombardier's former defense division (formed from the corpse of Canadair) that couldn't make a cent under Bombardier management, but once Bombardier sold it off, it became a successful company in its own right..... -------------- In other related news, the new Liberal Governments policy on runway extensions at Toronto's Billy Bishop airport will cost Bombardier over $2 Billion in a soon to be killed order from Porter Airlines....... So does the Federal Government now "invest" $1 + 2 billion in Bombardier?

Right you are, another example in the oil companies taking a bath with the low price of oil........as pointed out by Brad Wall, they didn't come cap in hand to the Government........

That's exactly it, though one can argue, in some examples, that Government intervention could be warranted, in the example of Bombardier, that is not the case. Simply put, Bombardier gambled the company on entering a market that has devastated other, far larger, companies and its now losing. Coupled with the poor management and the very nature of their dual class share structure (That pays huge insulated dividends to the Bombardier family, well giving them disproportionate control over the company), no outside lender or major investor will touch them....... ......When they offer majority control over the C-Series to Airbus, and Airbus walks away, that should be telling to anyone even without direct knowledge of the aerospace industry. Bombardier should be left to fail, and then the corpse picked over by other corporations........as has happened to other aerospace giants, like Douglas aircraft (that practically invented airliners) that later faltered and was swallowed by McDonnell Aircraft, creating McDonnell Douglas, only itself to later be taken over by Boeing........Bombardier isn't worth keeping afloat in its current form, and one of the biggest mistakes made by the Mulroney government was allowing Bombardier (then a maker of rail cars and snow machines) to purchase Canadair when the Government divested the Crown asset........

As a Canadian taxpayer, I don't win if the Trudeau Government pisses away hundreds of millions, if not a billion plus, dollars on a poorly run company that has torpedoed itself.

Well no he didn't demonstrate that, as Industry Canada/EDC provide loan guarantees, insurance and (with the case of EDC) customer financing for a great many Canadian corporations, including Bombardier, and have for a great many decades........that of course isn't what Bombardier is after, as linked by Smallc, they are seeking a huge cash injection to continue operations of the company. What Smallc is suggesting would be akin to a BC resident stating that they received $5 million from ICBC because they purchased extended third party liability insurance......the only goal post being moved are by smallc, as he has finally provided sources that counter his previous posts.

Why would I "admit anything" that I'm right about and you have no clue about? And again, how is it derailing this thread, as a Bombardier bailout was mentioned as one of the points of the OP?

49.5% is not a controlling stake, and from your link: Far removed from your claimed loan guarantees, as the Quebec Government is requesting the Trudeau Government to match its investment......like I said, you're talking out of your ass. Inversely, if Bombardier sunk (or lost its aviation division), there is zero evidence that all/or most of its current employees would loose their jobs, as like past failed aerospace companies, the profitable divisions would be gobbled up by industry. He has ~7 weeks to bring in 25000 Syrians........which would require filling every military base across Canada....let me know when he keeps that promise.

He didn't give Bombardier operating capital, of which they are requesting now..........are you suggesting the Government of Canada with receive Bombardier shares? (source if so)

No, they have publicly asked for a matching contribution........and what did the Government of Quebec take a controlling stake in? (source request?)

Are you denying that Bombardier offered the controlling stake to Airbus in exchange for cash? Unlike me? That's rich, I've been voting for conservative parties in this country for four decades........and no, the previous Government wouldn't have given Bombardier upwards of 1 billion dollars to enter a market it has no chance in......If Trudeau does, he is an idiot and carving into his own spending plans, unless he plans to borrow even more money or increase taxes elsewhere that is.

As I said above.........EDC (through Industry Canada) has had a fund approaching 2 billion for backing Bombardier sales/suppliers for over a decade (since 2003-2004) now and is no different then any other Canadian company that exports their products with GoC backing ..........but thanks for trying to teach me what I already know. And no, now they are asking for cash to keep the company afloat........they didn't offer Airbus a controlling stake in the C-Series because they wanted Airbus to back their loans or provide a level of insurance for export deals, financed by EDC.

Simple, because that is not whats being asked of the Government of Quebec and Canada. Both the previous Conservative and Liberal Governments have backed loans and even provided third party financing for Bombardier's customers and suppliers, through both Industry Canada and Export Development Canada, which they do for countless businesses across Canada. The difference here is that Bombardier is asking for straight-up cash to fund its launch into an already saturated market.........they are so desperate, in the months previous, they offered Airbus the controlling stake in the C-Series in exchange for cash and Airbus told them to pound sand. Anyone with a half a brain would question why Airbus, a company that produces the direct competitors to the proposed C-Series, would walk away from controlling the program.....if, as Bombardier suggests, the C-Series is to be lightning in a bottle........ Fore if that were the case, Airbus could insure the C-Series doesn't directly compete with their products, and where the C-Series did win contracts, Airbus would get a piece of the action.....on paper, a win-win for Airbus.......if the C-Series lived up to expectations that is. As it stands, one of the giants in the industry, offered the program on a silver platter, walked away..........that is why no other private investors with go anywhere near Bombardier, and is why the Government of Canada should run away in the opposite direction.