Derek 2.0

Not at all, Industry Canada provides loan guarantees to all manner of business across Canada, big and small.......big difference between that and giving Bombardier billions (when they can't find anymore private lenders or raise money by issuing shares) so they can continue into a market that they have no real chance of competing in.

Big difference between loan guarantees measured in the hundreds of millions during the economic crisis, well in a minority Government, and bailing out a corporation to the tune of several billion dollars, so they can continue their adventurism into a market owned by Boeing and Airbus. Nice try though...

Well Harper didn't shower Bombardier with taxpayer's money.........so you're wrong to suggest that he would have. If Trudeau doesn't, I'd support his choice.

Well no, we didn't stay in Afghanistan, and Obama has now extended the mission past the end of his presidency, due in large to the realization that his policy of pulling troops out of Iraq was a failure........How many decades? Who knows, for example United Nations Command (the UN command structure for forces in South Korea) was disbanded in the later 70s, over 20 years after signing on the armistice, and even then, the Americans still maintain a large military force in South Korea. No revisionism at all.......Assad's Syria has had an army much the same size and scope of Saddam's force pre the 1991 Gulf War, and we didn't invade Syria.......yet the place became an unholy mess, sans Western intervention, so to suggest ISIS wouldn't have came about if Saddam was still in power is pure speculation. None the less, its a mess now, and leaving it won't make it better, hence Trudeau's policy is wrongheaded.

Other than the fact that he didn't, no, I don't.

Yes, as its a demonstration that this is a global conflict.........the Allies didn't pick and choose where they would confront the Axis forces on a strategic scale........Trudeau's proposed policy now is akin to King withdrawing combat forces prior to the invasion of Italy.

No, as said "biggest military forces" have refused to commit conventional ground troops to the conflict which would have ended it sooner.......simply put, if the Americans hadn't of left Iraq and continued training the new Iraqi military, ISIS would never have made the gains that it has to date. With that said, providing air strikes, special forces etc in support of the Iraqi Government and Kurds, both areas in which they have little to no ability, has first halted the spread of ISIS and is now starting to retake what was loss.......just the other day, the Iraqi army was able to encircle Ramadi, cutting off most of the major routes into the city, due in part to coalition air strikes, that destroyed the heavy weapons defending the city.....There is no doubt though, that the process will take years, if not decades. There isn't a need to occupy countries, but to ensure we support the Governments of said countries that are fighting ISIS and request help from the international community.

You have zero evidence to support that claim........

In Iraq and Syria, its working great, and has crippled ISIS from operating in a near conventional sense, with heavy (captured) weapons and large formations of personal, of which, allowed them to capture large swaths of land in both Iraq and Syria.....forcing them to return back to a largely static 4G force.

Huh? The Americans have had special forces in the Philippines, at the request of the elected Government, aiding in the fight against radical Islam for decades. Clearly we're not the Americans, hence we wouldn't have a fraction of the global reach, but that doesn't explain why the Trudeau Government will cease combat operations aiding the democratic government of Iraq, at their request.

You bet, as the very nature of radical Islam is that it's a global threat, and is/will be everybody's problem.

They only flaw here is your understanding.......Bombardier has been a financial basketcase for decades, the CSeries has compounded the problem for years, and no bailout now or years ago, will change that. Since they can no longer raise capital from private lenders, likewise no longer issue more shares, since they are near penny stock status, they are sunk......The Quebec Government, or the Federal Government, lending them money is akin giving money to a degenerate gambler that we have no hope (based on past bailouts) of seeing the money fully returned to taxpayers. The Harper Government didn't "invest" in them when they first started coming into cash flow problems from the CSeries several years ago.....so again you are making up baseless claims, nor have you provided any financial adviser that suggests there is any upside to forking taxpayer money over to Bombardier.......

Exactly.......there are currently two Canadians being held hostage by an Islamic group in the Philippines.......two Canadians on Youtube, sans heads, could end Trudeau's honeymoon very quickly....

They've needed a bailout for years.........no bailouts by the Tories to the expected tune of billions.

I suppose its better than Blair or Holland (or someone from urban Toronto), but Goodale is just as much a trained seal as anyone else if so directed from above......

No, you suggested that it was a continual policy of all Governments.

Yes and no. No in that DND has staff, both military and civilian, continually working on countless programs, in some cases spanning decades, ( on everything from boots to big ticket items) attempting to best solve requirements of the military. Once the Government agrees to fund a given program, then DND presents options that best fit said requirements. Yes in that the Harper Government was the first to put the selection of winners and losers outside of arms reach (The Shipbuilding program for example) of the Government, but then, no Government is bound by said selection. Outside of the last Government, that favored sole source bids on behalf of DND, at no time in our history has military procurement not been a political process........look no further then something as simple as the Ross rifle over the SMLE during the First World War, then the further developed LE No.4 mk I over the M1 Garand (designed by a Canadian) in the Second World War. At times, it looks as if Government tries to screw things up........and I doubt this Government will be any different.

Source?

You're the one stating the GoC has continually propped up Bombardier......I'll ask again, when was the last time the GoC has given Bombardier such sizable loans?

Huh? Then what are the current staff, civilian and military, that are currently involved in procurement going to be doing?

When was the last time Bombardier received "loans" expected to be in the Billions from the GoC?

The Canadian auto industry and Bombardier are apple and oranges, as the auto industry has been profitable more then it's not. Bombardier (and Canadair) have relied upon handouts since the 60s..... I'd be very surprised, if after talking to DND and the Americans, the Government selects anything inside this mandate. Why is a speaking to the new Government's policies, on a thread on policies, thread drift?

Who do you think is going to staff the "Ministry of Procurement"?

Exactly, the fight against radical Islamic terrorists is no more or no less our fight than the fight against Nazism during the Second World War....

Boeing isn't Bombardier is the reason.......Boeing will not invest in a maintenance facility for Super Hornets in Canada when they already have one in the United States. Furthermore, our Hornets weren't built in Canada, but St Louis.......If we want said facility, we will have to pay for it. And there is no reason that Dassault couldn't.......other than there being no industry partner presently capable of doing so in Canada. If they did, the result would cost a fortune, which again, business wise would be a stupid move for Dassault as they can barely keep their French production line open....so again, if we wanted Rafales produced in Canada, we too would pay for that. Boeing, Airbus and Dassault aren't Bombardier, as they are all profitable companies managed with a level of business sense. Trudeau's first moves towards our aerospace industry will/could see him cut the collective throats of the Canadian companies that are profitable, that being apart of the F-35 program have brought them collectively into the forefront of 21st century technology,in a program that will span decades.......instead, billions will be "invested" into Bombardier for little gain to the Canadian aerospace sector.......I don't know of any economist or industry insider that feels putting money into Bombardier is a smart investment.