Maher Arar, & the families in Lac Megantic

[August1991]

The federal government paid $10 million to Maher Arar. One guy.

Why doesn't the federal government pay at least $200,000 to each of the families "In A Small Town In Quebec"?

In Leftist think: It's only taxpayer money, and surely the errors in Lac Megantic are more egregious than the errors of Maher Arar,

----

My query: Why do taxpayers (the rest of us) pay money for errors of bureaucrats, while shareholders can choose a different portfolio?

Edited July 15, 2013 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

What is their responsibility in Lac Megantic ? Is there any at all at this point ?

Taxpayers pay for the errors of bureaucrats, and shareholders pay for the errors of the companies they invest in. No difference there.

What you need to ask is why don't people care enough about bureaucrat errors enough to put in a way to fix them ? Are there more errors in the government than elsewhere ? Where are the risks ?

[August1991]

Taxpayers pay for the errors of bureaucrats, and shareholders pay for the errors of the companies they invest in. No difference there.

Michael, I can choose my portfolio. I can't choose my country of birth.

----

More seriously, Michael, where is the incentive?. Where does the incentive fall?

Edited July 15, 2013 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

I guess your attitude (they call that 'fatalism') probably explains why things don't get better.

If it were really that bad, I suppose, then something would be done. It's hard to imagine that happening, though.

[g_bambino]

...I can choose my portfolio. I can't choose my country of birth.

It sounds like you want the federal Crown to compensate affected people in Lac-Megantic...

[August1991]

It sounds like you want the federal Crown to compensate affected people in Lac-Megantic...

Well, the federal Crown (Canada's federal state, taxpayers) compensated Maher Arar.

Surely the Crown agrees that taxpayer money should be spent more wisely.

Edited July 15, 2013 by August1991

[g_bambino]

The federal Crown (Canada's federal state, taxpayers) compensated Maher Arar.

Well, yes; because a court found that Arar had been maltreated and the responsibility for that maltreatment lay, at least in good part, with agents of the Crown. Hence, the government--the Crown-in-Council--had to pay.

With no finding of culpability on the part of the federal government in the destruction of most of Lac-Megantic and the lives lost there, there's no reason to expect the Crown to pay for any reason other than perhaps disaster relief.

[August1991]

Well, yes; because a court found that Arar had been maltreated and the responsibility for that maltreatment lay, at least in good part, with agents of the Crown. Hence, the government--the Crown-in-Council--had to pay.

Of course! Those wonderful taxpayers!

--- and why do those taxpayers give $10 million to one guy, but refuse to give millions to others.

Edited July 15, 2013 by August1991

[GostHacked]

I guess your attitude (they call that 'fatalism') probably explains why things don't get better.

Optimism is all fine, however when reality kicks you right in the damn balls enough times, you become a realist.

If it were really that bad, I suppose, then something would be done. It's hard to imagine that happening, though.

Everything is good and within current standards until rail cars explode. Then we bang on the desk asking why something was not already done about it.

But in terms of the OP....... taxpayers AND this company are going to be paying for it. If prosecution needs to happen, both sides are going to need defense. Can the townfolk of Lac Megantic afford to take them to court?

[Guest Derek L]

Of course! Those wonderful taxpayers!

--- and why do those taxpayers give $10 million to one guy, but refuse to give millions to others.

Because we lack any form of culpability(as of yet) in the disaster…….With that said, as mentioned by others, the Federal Government has committed to using taxpayer money for both disaster relief and reconstruction………

[g_bambino]

--- and why do those taxpayers give $10 million to one guy, but refuse to give millions to others.

That's a disingenuous painting of the Arar matter as one of charity when, of course, it was entirely about justice and the ancient common law concept of damages. So far, no court has found that the federal government bears any responsibility for the destruction and death in Lac-Megantic; hence, no damages owed. If money is paid by the federal Crown to the town (on top of the money Marois has promised the provincial Crown will pay), it will be more in line with the concept of charity; disaster relief.

You're comparing apples and oranges, to use a tired cliche.

[ed.: +]

Edited July 15, 2013 by g_bambino

[Michael Hardner]

Optimism is all fine, however when reality kicks you right in the damn balls enough times, you become a realist.

Being a realist means ... what exactly, in this context ? Expecting failure ?

[jacee]

Michael, I can choose my portfolio. I can't choose my country of birth.

You can choose to leave.

[GostHacked]

Being a realist means ... what exactly, in this context ? Expecting failure ?

In some cases, yes, expect failure.

[Topaz]

Let me ask this question, IF its true what I heard on the news, that Harper or his government gave permission to haul crude oil in unsafe tankers, and gave permission to have only one person maintain the train, instead of two, like in the rest of Canada, who should pay for it, Minister of transport and Harper, the Conservative party or the government of Canada, which is US the taxpayer??

[August1991]

So far, no court has found that the federal government bears any responsibility for the destruction and death in Lac-Megantic; hence, no damages owed.

Your use of the term "federal government" is curious. Did you mean bureaucrat? Or did you mean taxpayer? You certainly didn't mean shareholder.

As a taxpayer, no one found me responsible for anything.

Yet, as a taxpayer, I must pay money to one guy - while other families receive nothing.

[guyser]

Yet, as a taxpayer, I must pay money to one guy - while other families receive nothing.

Let us know when you are confident the govt violated other families rights

[August1991]

Let us know when you are confident the govt violated other families rights

Once again, like bambino, you use this curious phrase "govt".

What do you mean exactly?

[guyser]

Once again, like bambino, you use this curious phrase "govt".

What do you mean exactly?

The Govt of Canada.

And to add....you never paid a dime to one guy. You paid taxes.

[August1991]

The Govt of Canada.

Who dat?

[g_bambino]

As a taxpayer, no one found me responsible for anything.

Yet, as a taxpayer, I must pay money to one guy - while other families receive nothing.

As a taxpayer, you fund the Crown that violated its own laws in its dealings, via its agents, with one guy and who's justices determined damages were thus owed to said guy.

Families receive "things" from the Crown every minute of every day.

[August1991]

As a taxpayer, you fund the Crown that violated its own laws in its dealings, via its agents, with one guy and who's justices determined damages were thus owed to said guy.

IOW, I must pay for the errors of the "agents" of the "Crown" - whose "judicial agents" decide what is an error..

Bambino, I thought that you were a monarchist. It seems rather that you have defined a bureaucratic State without responsibility: "Hey, who cares! It's other people's money!"

-----

I have a different take. Stephen Harper wanted Maher Arar to disappear from the headlines so he used taxpayer money to pay him off. If the families in Lac Mégantic became a threat to Harper, he'd use our money to pay them off too.

Sadly, you can imagine where such would lead a society....

Edited July 16, 2013 by August1991

[g_bambino]

Stephen Harper wanted Maher Arar to disappear from the headlines so he used taxpayer money to pay him off. .

I've been writing under a mistaken belief; I thought Arar took his case to court and it was there determined that he had been wrongly accused and treated by Canadian officials. As you seem to already know, he received his payment out of court.

Well, then, Harper is responsible for that use of taxpayers' money. I suspect it was because Arar could've sued for more and likely won. If, though, you want to know for certain why Harper directed the Crown to use in that way the money you pay to it, take it up with him. Or, get your elected representative in parliament to do so.

If the families in Lac Mégantic became a threat to Harper, he'd use our money to pay them off too.

What "threat" are you talking about?

[guyser]

Who dat?

I have no idea what you dont get.

Sorry

[jacee]

I have a different take. Stephen Harper wanted Maher Arar to disappear from the headlines so he used taxpayer money to pay him off.

If the families in Lac Mégantic became a threat to Harper, he'd use our money to pay them off too.

Sadly, you can imagine where such would lead a society....

"Sadly" ?!?!?!!

If you want to talk about 'sad', read about the agony of the people of Lac Megantic.

At a time when most people are feeling compassion for the human tragedies and grief of the people of Lac Megantic, your only concern, and reason for starting this thread, is that they'll somehow threaten Harper into paying them some compensation, which may amount to a a bit of your pocket change?!?!?!!

(Maher Arar's settlement might have cost you a loonie.)

An absolutely creepy attack on people suffering great losses.

Just curious: Why aren't you also attacking the people of Alberta for their flood relief and compensation?

Edited July 17, 2013 by jacee