Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[Halifax Tar]

My 4.29% dividend (DRIP) plus capital appreciation are grateful every time you turn on a light switch.

lol You can thank me for my service lol

 

[dapaterson]

But if you’re in Winnipeg, you’re hooped.

Yes, but what about air travel?

 

[dapaterson]

Should we borrow yet more money adding to our debt and deficit to keep airfare prices lower? No thanks. If you want to fly, you pay the cost.

I find it difficult to align myself with the idea that the ability to move around the second largest country in the world in the fastest way possible is a basic right that must be funded by all taxpayers. Kinda how I feel about high speed rail.....

National mobility infrastructure is a national defence requirement. Current airports are built on land granted by the federal government, as are most rail lines.

Similarly, rights of way for other infrastructure were granted at low or no cost (Bell says "Thank you"); early cell phone bandwidth was also given away.

 

[RangerRay]

Yes, but what about air travel?

Ok, poor example.

Think of any other city that is a long hike from a competing airport or other public long distance travel option.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Custome

No, but if we are going to privatize how do you protect the interests of consumers? We already have sky high airfare. Its cheaper to go to Europe or vagas then it is toronto. So how do you encourage competitive markets?

Consumers move markets. Governments try but usually fail.

What do you see as the government's role in "encouraging competitive markets" so that consumers pay less for goods and services they voluntarily procure?

Do you want them to intervene in all categories of discretionary consumer consumption to the benefit of the consumer? Movie prices?Subscriptions to info / entertainment services? Restaurant prices? Clothing? Sporting goods? Doesn't seem fair to those taxpayers who don't play sports or eat out to have to subsidise those that do.

That slope is very slippery. It seems evocative of 70s era Wage and Price controls....

 

[PPCLI Guy]

National mobility infrastructure is a national defence requirement. Current airports are built on land granted by the federal government, as are most rail lines.

Similarly, rights of way for other infrastructure were granted at low or no cost (Bell says "Thank you"); early cell phone bandwidth was also given away.

Complete strawman. The contract simply needs to reflect the Crown's prerogative to intervene in operations if required for a national security mission.

 

[dapaterson]

Complete strawman. The contract simply needs to reflect the Crown's prerogative to intervene in operations if required for a national security mission.

I agree that we can leverage the private sector to deliver. I agree that we are not doomed to repeat the sins of our fathers.

I am not proposing a binary model. Just that national interests have to be captured and documented and enforced.

Canadian industry is dominated by oligopolies who leverage their market dominance to influence political leadership to establish barriers to entry. This in turn frustrates innovation.

On the other hand, Government entities are usually no better. What kind of fools build warehouses at the end of a runway, or permit residential development on the approaches to a runway that need to be exclusion zones?

 

[Kilted]

I'm wondering how long before Canexit becomes a slogan after this affiliated membership thing.

 

[daftandbarmy]

No, but if we are going to privatize how do you protect the interests of consumers? We already have sky high airfare. Its cheaper to go to Europe or vagas then it is toronto. So how do you encourage competitive markets?

You're assuming that airports can only make money from travelers.

As with railways, the real cash in is cargo, as well as leveraging the airport footprint as inter-modal space.

Privatization should help free up what airports can, and can't, do within a variety of business opportunity spaces.

Competition should also help keep prices within the range of what passengers are willing to pay.

 

[dapaterson]

You're assuming that airports can only make money from travelers.

As with railways, the real cash in is cargo, as well as leveraging the airport footprint as inter-modal space.

Privatization should help free up what airports can, and can't, do within a variety of business opportunity spaces.

Competition should also help keep prices within the range of what passengers are willing to pay.

Fixed facilities deter competition - you're not going to easily compete with YYC by building your own airport in Airdrie.

Privatizing natural monopolies and expecting good behaviour on their part; what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Fixed facilities deter competition - you're not going to easily compete with YYC by building your own airport in Airdrie.

Privatizing natural monopolies and expecting good behaviour on their part; what could possibly go wrong?

Certain locations have niche situations/solutions.

Those living in the Windsor-London-Sarnia, ON triangle will typically fly to US or International locations out of Detroit instead of flying out of Windsor or London into Pearson and then fly onwards to the US or International location. It comes down to cost and convenience. Population wise, that's probably right around 1m people, not an insignificant number.

Those who live in the Burlington/Hamilton area onwards towards St Catherines, Welland, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls will again look to fly out of Buffalo for flights to Florida and parts of the US and some International flights. The further east you go from Stoney Creek towards Niagara Falls, the more people will fly out of Buffalo. Again, that's probably around the 1m people mark. Cost and convenience are the main factors.

I realise that these 2 examples are only Ontario focused but privatising Pearson (and the others) won't have much, if any, of an impact on these 2+ million people in continuing to fly mostly out of the US.

 

[PrairieFella]

This may be a distinction without a difference but are the Big 4 being looked at for full privatization or are we talking PPPs with like <=49.9% stakes.

 

[McG]

The contract simply needs to reflect the Crown's prerogative to intervene in operations if required for a national security mission.

Also need to ensure our requirements are address in the standard of infrastructure. Not that we do a good job of it now anyway, but the airport closest to a major CA base should be able to support the new Husky at max troop & cargo carrying weight to enable force projection.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Slow it down or burn it down…

Brussels hit with backlash over Canada 'associate member' plan

EU diplomats told the Mail they were kept in the dark and first learnt of the proposal when Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Commission boss, unveiled it during a keynote speech.

www.dailymail.com