Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pissedoff





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 474
Reputation: 145.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:35 pm    Post subject: $372.5 mill we can kiss goodbye Reply with quote

Feds to give $372.5 million in loans to Bombardier]

THE CANADIAN PRESS

FIRST POSTED: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 07, 2017 05:51 PM CST | UPDATED: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 07, 2017 08:19 PM CST

MONTREAL — The federal government says it will give Bombardier $372.5 million in repayable loans over four years to support the Global 7000 and CSeries aircraft projects.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/201.....bombardier
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 589
Reputation: 91Reputation: 91
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:48 pm    Post subject: Re: $372.5 mill we can kiss goodbye Reply with quote

Pissedoff wrote:
Feds to give $372.5 million in loans to Bombardier]


Quote:



...in repayable loans over four
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If it had to happen in some capacity,
I am glad it happened by way of loans rather than ownership stakes or the Government getting involved in Corporate Governance.

This discussion about buying some of the company or projects within the company as the Quebec government did was a terrible idea and I am glad that the Feds has the sense to reject going that route

While I don't love the idea, Bombardier on the C Series alone has the orders in hand to pay it back and hopefully the interest rate is appealing to the tax payer.

If anything that is the detail I am most interested in;
Is there a cost attached to the money?
Pissedoff





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 474
Reputation: 145.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote
Quote:
While I don't love the idea, Bombardier on the C Series alone has the orders in hand to pay it back and hopefully the interest rate is appealing to the tax payer.
According to the article it is interest free.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pissedoff wrote:
cosmostein wrote
Quote:
While I don't love the idea, Bombardier on the C Series alone has the orders in hand to pay it back and hopefully the interest rate is appealing to the tax payer.
According to the article it is interest free.


In that case my first thought is why?

Didn't Bombardier declare after the sale of 30% of their Transportation Arm and the orders from Air Canada and Delta for the C series that t hey no longer needed cash?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4149
Reputation: 238.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
Pissedoff wrote:
cosmostein wrote
Quote:
While I don't love the idea, Bombardier on the C Series alone has the orders in hand to pay it back and hopefully the interest rate is appealing to the tax payer.
According to the article it is interest free.


In that case my first thought is why?

Didn't Bombardier declare after the sale of 30% of their Transportation Arm and the orders from Air Canada and Delta for the C series that t hey no longer needed cash?


And didn't they already get $billion from Quebec? And didn't they concede that their business has improved since they asked for the money? Or did they lower their price so low that Brazil is now claiming that the Delta deal only went through because they are selling the aircraft at a loss, so they are appealing to the trade adjudicators.

TC adds his usual inane comment;
Quote:
...in repayable loans over four years


Aren't all loans 'repayable'? Why put the word in if the government didn't regularly use the guise of 'loans' to cover bailouts? And what should the interest rate be for a high-risk company embarking on a risky new product? Maybe the interest-free part is a bailout?

How did Bombardier do with its many previous bailouts? That would be an indication.

But who needs timely delivery on streetcars anyway?
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 589
Reputation: 91Reputation: 91
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

TC adds his usual inane comment;
Quote:
...in repayable loans over four years


Aren't all loans 'repayable'?



Not in govt they aren't.

People get in uproars over the use of grant instead of loan thinking that by grant its 'here ya go, have fun' instead of the stipulations that will/may come with the loan.

Low hanging fruit/thinkers and all that. :roll:
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6282
Reputation: 229.1
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Time to let Bombardier crash and burn

iPolitics Insights

Corporate welfare only ever leads to more of the same. Enough, already.


Tasha Kheiriddin


Thursday, February 9th, 2017


Sometimes you can’t make anyone happy. This week, Ottawa announced that it will provide Bombardier Inc. interest-free loans amounting to $372.5 million to prop up its jet business — the latest installment in a billion-dollar stream of federal disbursements to the company dating back to 1966.

Still, the news hit like a lead balloon in Quebec, where the provincial government doled out $1.3 billion to the company less than two years prior in exchange for a 49.5 per cent stake in the project, and where expectations were high that Ottawa would match that figure.

“What’s the use of being in this country?” whined PQ leader Jean Francois Lisée, complaining that while the role of the federal government is to help out economic powerhouses in need — like the auto industry — “when our turn comes, well, it’s never our turn.”

‘We’d do better to make Quebec independent,” he added, claiming the Bombardier loan is proof Quebecers “are in the wrong country.”

Coalition Avenir Quebec leader François Legault issued a press release demanding that Quebec insist on Ottawa sharing the risks of the province’s investment. And while Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard took credit for “saving” the company — which was on the brink of bankruptcy in 2015 — his finance minister, Dominique Anglade, added, “We are on the same page now, but things have to go further.”

Translation: Down the road, Quebec’s going to hit up the feds for more money.

In the rest of Canada, criticism came swift and fast. “The prime minister wrote a cheque for $370 million to a single company and he didn’t get assurances from them that they would hire one single new worker,” charged Conservative Interim Leader Rona Ambrose in the House of Commons. “I really hope he gets a new negotiating team before he sits down with President Trump and talks about NAFTA, or we’re screwed.” English-language columnists and financial writers piled on, with the editorial board of the Toronto Sun thundering about how the deal is “bad for taxpayers.”

open quote 761b1bBombardier has been under the control of the Beaudoin/Bombardier families since the company’s founding. Thanks to a dual share structure, they have been insulated from the declining fortunes of the company and their own poor management decisions.

The decision even made waves across the ocean. The loans prompted the government of Brazil to launch a formal complaint to the World Trade Organization alleging that “Canadian subsidies artificially affect the international competitiveness of the sector, in a manner inconsistent with Canada’s WTO obligations.”

That’s a bit rich, considering that Embraer, Brazil’s own aerospace company and a main competitor of Bombardier, is subsidized by its own government through such programs as a guaranteed line of low-interest credit for “innovation research” from the government’s National Bank for Social and Economic Development. But Brazil claims Canada’s bailout cash is different, flouts the rules of the WTO and creates “a very important asymmetry that makes competition unfair.”

No kidding. Corporate welfare of any kind is unfair. It takes the taxes paid by successful companies and their workers and redistributes them to their underperforming competitors. It rewards failure and undermines incentives to succeed. It keeps moribund industries alive for reasons that have nothing to do with economics — and everything to do with politics. And it is a neverending money pit, because once one company gets a break, demands from others soon follow.

As columnist John Robson pointed out last year, corporate welfare is all about favours and influence. He noted that Ontario’s ‘Expert Panel Examining Ontario’s Business Support Program’ reported in July 2014 that some 30 per cent of nearly $5 billion doled out to corporations went to 200 big, well-established firms, representing just 0.1 per cent of Ontario businesses.

It’s no stretch to assume that this pattern repeats itself in other provincial governments and at the federal level — where the government has come under fire lately for its “cash for access” fundraisers, with donors paying $1,500 a pop to break bread with cabinet ministers and the prime minister himself.

And when it comes to money for Bombardier, nobody ever seems to say ‘no’. No matter how bad the company performs, the cash keeps coming. Bombardier’s C-series jet has been struggling to find buyers and its stock price has dropped 50 per cent over the past four years. The company’s transport division is also struggling; it’s fallen so far behind on orders for Toronto streetcars that the city is experiencing transit delays and is now suing Bombardier for $50 million.

And then there’s the governance issue. Bombardier has been under the control of the Beaudoin/Bombardier families since the company’s founding. Thanks to a dual share structure, they have been insulated from the declining fortunes of the company and their own poor management decisions. “Reforms are needed to ensure that Bombardier’s subordinate shareholders can contribute to the decision about who is on the board of this corporation. This is not the place for taxpayer money,” concludes Anita Anand, the J.R. Kimner Chair in Investor Protections and Corporate Governance at the University of Toronto.

Prime Minister Trudeau may have felt that he was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. This might explain his decision to meet some — as opposed to all — of Bombardier’s demands. But as the fallout shows, there is no happy medium when it comes to corporate welfare. Either politicians take a stand and turn off the tap, or submit to death by a thousand drips

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/02/09.....-and-burn/
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4149
Reputation: 238.7
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
Quote:

TC adds his usual inane comment;
Quote:
...in repayable loans over four years


Aren't all loans 'repayable'?



Not in govt they aren't.

People get in uproars over the use of grant instead of loan thinking that by grant its 'here ya go, have fun' instead of the stipulations that will/may come with the loan.

Low hanging fruit/thinkers and all that. :roll:


Why wouldn't they get upset? They are lying to the public. Pretending a give-away is going to be repaid is ... fraud? It isn't as if they don''t intend to do what they are doing.

But perhaps we should reconsider. Justin is such a nice guy, how can he expect a Quebec company to repay those ... ahem .... loans when he has off-loaded his childcare costs on the public? Or partied for a week in Paris with 400 supporters, pretending they were solving the climate problem.

You can't expect a guy like that to have respect for a dollar, let alone have respect for the everyday, Tim Horton's consumer.

You can take that from a guy who thinks Sarah Palin is a parody of a politician while Justin is the best of the breed! Pathetic!
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 589
Reputation: 91Reputation: 91
votes: 3
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

Why wouldn't they get upset? They are lying to the public. Pretending a give-away is going to be repaid is ... fraud? It isn't as if they don''t intend to do what they are doing.

Huh?
Quote:

But perhaps we should reconsider. Justin is such a nice guy, how can he expect a Quebec company to repay those ... ahem .... loans

The contract will have the details.
Quote:

when he has off-loaded his childcare costs on the public?

Who did that?

Oh yea....alternative facts. I shall remember how you use those for your advantage.

Just note....every PM is given a household budget to spend as they see fit.

You're welcome.
Quote:


You can take that from a guy who thinks Sarah Palin is a parody of a politician while Justin is the best of the breed! Pathetic!

Palin isnt a parody, shes the real...and dopey...thing.

She is...you Betcha ! LOL

All rant , no substance.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


$372.5 mill we can kiss goodbye

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB