Trudeau's First Moves

[Smallc]

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.

They already got that from Quebec (the government now owns 49.5%). Given that, they're obviously asking for something different (more loans or loan guarantees) from the Government of Canada. The ask is recent, and Harper didn't have to deal with it. Though unlike you, being someone who supported him through most of his tenure, I know what he would have done.

Now, back to Trudeau.

[socialist]

No sour grapes buddy, you are seeing what many are seeing. CTV and especially the natural Liberal media of Canada, CBC are having multiple orgasms and their presentation is over the top. They giggle (Rosie Barton and especially Hannah Thibodeau can barely contain herself), their commercial format on the event is all razzle dazzle with JT's big close up, chin up a la Obama picture and lots of red and Canadian flags all around.
It's like Royalty visiting but not the old Queen but more the giddy mood like Kate and her baby or Princess Diana at the time.

I do remember Harper's was much more sumber, like a funeral. It was minimal coverage and quickly done with. No surprise. it was surprising Harper lasted 10 years actually in such a hostile media, pop culture environment.

[ToadBrother]

No sour grapes buddy, you are seeing what many are seeing. CTV and especially the natural Liberal media of Canada, CBC are having multiple orgasms and their presentation is over the top. They giggle (Rosie Barton and especially Hannah Thibodeau can barely contain herself), their commercial format on the event is all razzle dazzle with JT's big close up, chin up a la Obama picture and lots of red and Canadian flags all around.

It's like Royalty visiting but not the old Queen but more the giddy mood like Kate and her baby or Princess Diana at the time.

I do remember Harper's was much more sumber, like a funeral. It was minimal coverage and quickly done with. No surprise. it was surprising Harper lasted 10 years actually in such a hostile media, pop culture environment.

You say it isn't sour grapes, and then the rest of your post is nothing but sour grapes.

At any rate, the press is happy because it appears that there is again a government that doesn't in equal parts loathe them and fear them. We haven't had a PM that held a fairly casual press conference on Canadian soil in nearly a decade.

[poochy]

You say it isn't sour grapes, and then the rest of your post is nothing but sour grapes.

At any rate, the press is happy because it appears that there is again a government that doesn't in equal parts loathe them and fear them. We haven't had a PM that held a fairly casual press conference on Canadian soil in nearly a decade.

Yea yea, we know, Harper was treated exactly the same as Trudeau will be, do you actually believe the nonsense you write?

[Derek 2.0]

They already got that from Quebec (the government now owns 49.5%). Given that, they're obviously asking for something different (more loans or loan guarantees) from the Government of Canada. The ask is recent, and Harper didn't have to deal with it. Though unlike you, being someone who supported him through most of his tenure, I know what he would have done.

Now, back to Trudeau.

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.

[Smallc]

Are you denying that Bombardier offered the controlling stake to Airbus in exchange for cash?

The Quebec government took a controlling stake with their $1B injection. They aren't after a partner in Trudeau - simply financial guarantees.

[Smallc]

.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.

Or, in Canadian tradition, he was leaving himself a lot of wiggle room. Harper would have done the same. You can deny it forever, but given that he gave BBD $350M himself for the same jet (a terrible investment according to you) and given that he was willing to partner with Ontario to bail out two auto companies that were just as likely to fail, I can tell you that your denial is naive.

[Derek 2.0]

The Quebec government took a controlling stake with their $1B injection. They aren't after a partner in Trudeau - simply financial guarantees.

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

[Smallc]

They took a controlling stake in the C series program, which has been hived into a separate corporation (yes, It's 49.5%, but they're in control - have no doubt):

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/quebec-government-buys-495-stake-in-cseries-418350/

If you think any government is going to let sink a company that employs 24000 Canadians if they can at all help it (in Toronto no less, where the Conservatives previously held many seats) I have a bridge to sell you.

Anyway, apparently, Trudeau's first move was to keep his promise on a cabinet with gender parity. His second move...keep his promise on the census.

[Derek 2.0]

Or, in Canadian tradition, he was leaving himself a lot of wiggle room. Harper would have done the same. You can deny it forever, but given that he gave BBD $350M himself for the same jet (a terrible investment according to you) and given that he was willing to partner with Ontario to bail out two auto companies that were just as likely to fail, I can tell you that your denial is naive.

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)

[Smallc]

Look, you're never going to admit anything. We've derailed this thread long enough.

[Derek 2.0]

They took a controlling stake in the C series program, which has been hived into a separate corporation (yes, It's 49.5%, but they're in control - have no doubt):

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/quebec-government-buys-495-stake-in-cseries-418350/

If you think any government is going to let sink a company that employs 24000 Canadians if they can at all help it (in Toronto no less, where the Conservatives previously held many seats) I have a bridge to sell you.

49.5% is not a controlling stake, and from your link:

Investissement Quebec will pay two $500 million instalments on 1 April and 30 June 2016.

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.

Anyway, apparently, Trudeau's first move was to keep his promise on a cabinet with gender parity. His second move...keep his promise on the census.

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.

[Derek 2.0]

Look, you're never going to admit anything. We've derailed this thread long enough.

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?

[The_Squid]

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?

Your premise was that Harper would never bail out Bombardier... Smallc has show repeatedly that they have given Bombardier plenty of subsidies to the tune of hundreds of millions.... you move goalposts and claim VICTORY!

It's laughable Derek#2

[Derek 2.0]

Your premise was that Harper would never bail out Bombardier... Smallc has show repeatedly that they have given Bombardier plenty of subsidies to the tune of hundreds of millions.... you move goalposts and claim VICTORY!

It's laughable Derek#2

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.

[Derek 2.0]

LOL You win Derek#2.... time to move on, like Smallc suggested....

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.

[The_Squid]

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.

Where have you been the last decade with your incredible sense of fiscal responsibility?

[cybercoma]

If you think any government is going to let sink a company that employs 24000 Canadians if they can at all help it (in Toronto no less, where the Conservatives previously held many seats) I have a bridge to sell you.

What are the consequences of not allowing businesses to fail? To me, this says that businesses, once they pass a certain threshold, no longer have to worry about risk. And what are the consequences of that for government? For the employees? And for the public more broadly?

[Smallc]

What are the consequences of not allowing businesses to fail? To me, this says that businesses, once they pass a certain threshold, no longer have to worry about risk. And what are the consequences of that for government? For the employees? And for the public more broadly?

Im nnot sure I can speak to all of that. What I can say is this - at some point, it becomes far less about the risk to the business and more about the risk to society as a whole. Government will do what it can (within reason) in a situation like this.

[cybercoma]

Im nnot sure I can speak to all of that. What I can say is this - at some point, it becomes far less about the risk to the business and more about the risk to society as a whole. Government will do what it can (within reason) in a situation like this.

But then the business no longer has to take into account risk, while the government does. Businesses at this point get to externalize the risks, while the public pays for their mistakes through taxes.

Bailouts are a challenging decision, imho.

[Smallc]

Bailouts are a challenging decision, imho.

I agree with you 100%. All I'm saying is that governments have generally (though not always) made the same decision, no matter the colour of their brand.

[WestCoastRunner]

I agree with you 100%. All I'm saying is that governments have generally (though not always) made the same decision, no matter the colour of their brand.

Governments generally don't bail out high tech companies. Take Nortel and Blackberry for two examples and these companies employed thousands of people. I'm glad they didn't, but don't assume the govt makes the same decision, regardless of the colour of their brand.

For some reason, high tech companies are ignored in these bailouts.

[Smallc]

I assume the colour of their brand doesn't matter because it hasn't so far.

[Derek 2.0]

What are the consequences of not allowing businesses to fail? To me, this says that businesses, once they pass a certain threshold, no longer have to worry about risk. And what are the consequences of that for government? For the employees? And for the public more broadly?

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........

[Derek 2.0]

Governments generally don't bail out high tech companies. Take Nortel and Blackberry for two examples and these companies employed thousands of people.

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........