Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/30/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    quite a lot over and above the 7612. By June of 2018 The flow of illegal migrants has put a strain on social services especially in Quebec where the majority cross, and in neighbouring Ontario and the city of Toronto. Earlier this year the province of Quebec said the international border with the U.S was a federal issue and sent a bill to the federal government for $146 million to cover costs associated with the influx of migrants. Later the mayor of Toronto said that city needed at least $70 million to cover their costs of dealing with migrants, while the provincial minister responsible for immigration said in July that Ontario needs about $200 million to cover costs of shelter and care for migrants. As of the end of June 2018, refugee board statistics indicated a backlog of over 55,500 asylum claims, although not all migrants came through unguarded border areas with the U.S. Also giving Quebec 250,000,000.00 is quite a lot amount of money most of which would not have needed to be paid if our PM had just kept his mouth shut. And to repeat myself, I have no problem with "Legal" immigration, but have absolutely no tolerance with "Illegal" immigration. https://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/statistics/Pages/Irregular-border-crosser-statistics.aspx
  2. 1 point
    The ACPPA requires AC to respect the Official Languages Act The same rules do not apply to other Canadian carriers https://openparliament.ca/committees/official-languages/42-1/63/ Section 10 of the ACPPA prescribes that Air Canada is subject to the Official Languages Act, or the OLA, and is therefore considered a federal institution pursuant to the OLA. Air Canada is the only Canadian airline that is subject to obligations under the OLA. It has been subject to the OLA since 1969, including part IV, covering the communications with and services to the public; part V, covering the language of work; part VI, covering the participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians; and part VII, covering the advancement of English and French. Other major Canadian airlines, such as WestJet, Air Transat, Porter Airlines, and Sunwing, are not subject to the same obligations as Air Canada under the ACPPA or the OLA. However, all major airlines must provide safety instructions to their passengers in English and in French under the Canadian Aviation Regulations pursuant to the Aeronautics Act, which also falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. It should be noted that Air Canada does not receive any direct or indirect funding from the federal government for its linguistic training programs, the language assessments of its employees, or its bilingual communications activities. Nevertheless, the airline allocates significant resources, both financial and human, to develop and maintain its linguistic programs and internal tools to meet its obligations under the OLA.
  3. 1 point
    next to Washington DC
  4. 1 point
    Gabor may be an advocate but he's no "expert", unless being completely one-sided on an issue is now considered expertise.
  5. 1 point
    BA didn’t have flat beds in 2006. AC was one of the few, if only airlines with a lie flat product across the Atlantic back then on most widebody aircraft. The 330’s, 340’s and majority of 767’s received new interiors with the first lie flat seats in 2005. AC hasn’t been a crown company in 30 years. What bailouts? How is a disappointing flight from 13 years ago on a newly merged airline with a mixed fleet which was undergoing a refleeting at the time relevant to Swoop which is operating one type? MD2 you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
  6. 1 point
    Not a lie, in that those who came before , followed the approved path to do so, recent ones welcomed in by our PM, simply jumped the border.
  7. 1 point
    https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/transport-canada-fines-drone-pilot-over-two-incidents-in-toronto-840824237.html Transport Canada fines drone pilot over two incidents in Toronto News provided by Transport Canada Aug 29, 2019, 15:56 ET Share this article OTTAWA, Aug. 29, 2019 /CNW/ - Canadians need to feel safe on the ground and in the sky. This includes when they are travelling on a flight or attending public events. Following an investigation of two incidents in downtown Toronto, Transport Canada has issued Notices of Assessment of Monetary Penalties to an individual for 11 violations of the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARS) related to the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft system - commonly known as a drone. During celebrations after the final game of the National Basketball Association Championship on June 13, 2019, and during the Toronto Raptor's victory celebration four days later, an individual flew a drone over both outdoor events. The flights appeared to be in violation of several provisions of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Transport Canada opened an investigation into the incidents, and based on the evidence collected, the individual has been served fines totalling $2,750. The alleged violations and associated penalties include: CAR section 901.02: No person shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system unless it is registered […]. Total penalty of $500 (two alleged violations at $250 each); CAR section 901.14(1): […] no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft in controlled airspace. Total penalty of $500 (two alleged violations at $250 each); CAR section 901.26: […] no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft at a distance of less than 100 feet (30 m) from another person, measured horizontally and at any altitude […]. Total penalty of $500 (two alleged violations at $250 each); CAR section 901.41(1): No pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system at any special aviation event or at any advertised event except in accordance with a special flight operations certificate […]. Total penalty of $250; CAR section 901.47(2): […] no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft at a distance of less than (a) three nautical miles from the centre of an airport; and (b) one nautical mile from the centre of a heliport. Total penalty of $500 (two alleged violations at $250 each); and, CAR section 901.54(1): […] no person shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft system under this Division unless the person […] holds either (i) a pilot certificate – small remotely piloted aircraft (VLOS) – basic operations […]; or (ii) a pilot certificate – small remotely piloted aircraft (VLOS) – advanced operations […].Total penalty of $500 (two alleged violations at $250 each). In support of the Minister of Transport's mandate to protect Canadians and aviation safety, Transport Canada's drone regulations came into effect June 1, 2019. It is mandatory for pilots of all remotely piloted aircraft weighing more than 250 grams and less than 25 kilograms to register their drones and obtain a drone pilot certificate (Basic or Advanced). There are additional requirements for drone pilots who want to fly in controlled airspace or over bystanders, including holding an Advanced Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Pilot certificate; passing a flight review; seeking NAV CANADA's permission to fly in the airspace; and flying a drone that has been declared safe for the intended purpose by the manufacturer. Administrative monetary penalties are put in place to ensure compliance with the regulations. Individuals who have been served with or sent a Notice of Assessment of Monetary Penalty may file a request with the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada for a review of the facts of the alleged violation(s) or of the amount of the penalty.
  8. 1 point
    I'm Clive Bedoe and I approve this message
  9. 1 point
    He has to get approval from the WJ and Swoop social media influencers before he's allowed to post...
  10. 0 points
    Based on this ruling, all airlines operating in / through Quebec are ripe for suits, maybe even a class action one. Air Canada ordered to pay $21,000 in damages for language rights violations ‎Today, ‎August ‎29, ‎2019, ‏‎17 minutes ago | Canadian Aviation News News provided by the Montreal Gazette – link to full story and updates The main complaint was that exit signs on aircraft gave less prominence to French than English and only the word “lift” appeared on seatbelt buckles. PRESSE CANADIENNE Updated: August 29, 2019 Air Canada aircraft. CHRIS HELGREN / REUTERS FILES The Federal Court of Canada has ordered Air Canada to pay $21,000 in damages to two francophones for repeated violations of their language rights. Michel and Lynda Thibodeau filed 22 complaints in 2016 with the Official Languages Commissioner, alleging the carrier violated the Official Languages Act. Their main complaint was that exit signs on aircraft gave less prominence to French than English and only the word “lift” appeared on the buckles of seatbelts on the aircraft. They also complained that a boarding announcement to passengers in Fredericton airport was less complete in French than in English. The two plaintiffs argued that Air Canada systematically violates the linguistic rights of francophones. Air Canada argued that the complaints were based on too rigorous an interpretation of the law, which does not call for identical treatment of both official languages but that they receive treatment that is substantially the same. The court, however, did not agree, ruling this week that unilingual or predominantly English signage and the boarding announcement made largely in English violated the law and that the Thibodeaus’ rights had been violated. The court ordered Air Canada to send the plaintiffs formal letters of apology and pay damages and interest of up to $1,500 for each complaint. Damages for eight of those complaints had already been settled prior to the hearing and were not included in the judgment. The court refused to issue a mandatory order — sought by the plaintiffs — that would oblige Air Canada to conform to its linguistic responsibilities because of the widespread prominence of English on aircraft signage and the carrier’s apparent unwillingness to correct the situation. “There is no reason to believe that Air Canada deliberately violated the (Official Languages) Act, and such an order would impose on it the constant threat of contempt of court proceedings,” the court wrote. Air Canada told the court that if it came to the conclusion the signage did not conform to the law, the air carrier was prepared, within six months after a final judgement, to file a plan that would see them replaced. The court acknowledged the offer.
  11. 0 points
    As you read through the clip below please consider its implications on Jack's situation and the fact that Canada is (in effect) blocking his return. It won't be next week or next month, it may not even be next year but by now it should be clear how this eventually plays out. The fact you (we) may not like it is irrelevant. We have been beaten at our own game IMO.... under Canadian law, I'm not even sure if he committed an offence since he left from the UK. I bet a week ago most forum members would say this could never happen: https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/inmates-placed-in-solitary-confinement-awarded-preliminary-20-million And, if you are wondering where the next generation of ISIS fighters hail from, this is it.... a simple recipe, just simmer for about 15 more years and enjoy hot. https://nationalpost.com/news/world/at-a-sprawling-tent-camp-in-syria-fanatical-isil-women-impose-a-brutal-reign-of-fear Most of this isn't hard to understand but a total lack of common sense comes at a cost and begs the question WTFDYTWGTH? https://globalnews.ca/news/5850834/deportation-halted-court-throws-out-conviction/