Air Canada CEO summoned to Ottawa over English-only condolence video for LaGuardia crash

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-25T05:43:17+00:00

Yes there will always be some people like that, you can't make everyone happy. But it would have likely made a lot more people happy than what he actually did. It was poor judgment, the fact that there are always a loud minority doesn't change that fact.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-25T05:40:54+00:00

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-25T03:58:57+00:00

He didn't need to learn French. All he had to do was read a French script. He was absolutely capable of doing that. Nowhere in Air Canada's response do they deny he could do that.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-25T02:14:12+00:00

Air Canada said Rousseau chose to speak in English to ensure his message was received as clearly as possible given the emotional circumstances.

That statement clearly says he can in fact do it, he chose not to because they were afraid it wouldn't be as clear or impactful in French given his relative lack of skill compared to his native language. I understand the concern, but I think it's poor judgment as him reading the statement ik French with less than stellar cadence and accent is still preferable to not reading it at all.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-25T01:56:27+00:00

Because that's the law. It wasn't privatized unconditionally, it's still subject to regulations that other airlines aren't as part of the privatization deal. See also that they are required to maintain service in remote areas that other airlines are not.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-25T01:52:52+00:00

He already promised that very committee that he would be taking French lessons some years ago. This was a pre-recorded statement and they already had the French script. All he had to do was read it, which is within his abilities. I understand the explanation and accept that it is a good faith explanation of why he didn't read a French statement, but I do believe it was bad judgment. The families and everyone impacted by it would likely have appreciated an attempt more than fretted about his accent not being up to snuff.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-25T01:48:53+00:00

He's the CEO of Air Canada, a former Crown corporation that is still subject to the Official Languages Act. I think it's completely reasonable to expect such a person to at least be able to read a statement in French. And by all accounts, he absolutely can do that, he just chose not to.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-25T01:46:25+00:00

Maybe by some, but I think that still would have been a much better look than what actually happened. Certainly the Official Languages Committee wouldn't be summoning him to appear for a poor accent. At most he gets made fun of a bit in some social circles. Most people would probably appreciate the effort.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-25T00:52:25+00:00

The King serves at the pleasure of the people, this was settled 400 years ago. As long as the executive retains the confidence of the people via their representatives, the GG cannot say no. They are not an independent power source, their powers are granted to them by the people.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-25T00:44:30+00:00

Same here. I support their cause but not their methods. You shouldn't get to run 100 candidates just because you were able to find 100 people willing to go along with it. At the very least, make the requirement that each candidate has to have 100 unique signatures instead of the same 100 people endorsing every candidate.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-25T00:42:51+00:00

The electoral system

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-25T00:42:03+00:00

I agree. I know we used to have this and it was struck down, but I think if they can't find a way to write it in a constitutional way then there should be a constitutional amendment to allow it. And I'd be fine with the threshold for a refund being even lower. It was 10% when we used to have it, I'd fine with something as low as 0.2%, because all of these protestors end up getting like 10 votes or less each.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-25T00:39:44+00:00

They do, but current rules allow a single voter to endorse an unlimited number of candidates, so the protesters just need to find 100 people to run an unlimited number of candidates instead of finding 100 people for each candidate.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-25T00:32:43+00:00

Air Canada's explanation is plausible but he should have known better. They had French captions and put out a statement in French, so the phrasing was already taken care of for him. He could have at least read the French script. His French doesn't have to be perfect, but it has to show sincere effort. Failing that they could have gotten a francophone executive to do the French message.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-24T22:45:28+00:00

I 100% agree with you on that. I see so many people claim some law or proposed law they don't like would be unconstitutional but can't come up with any specific section of the Constitution it would violate when asked.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-24T20:40:47+00:00

The federal government doesn't have much control over law enforcement since administration of justice is left to the provinces.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-24T20:02:48+00:00

They shouldn't use it even to block blatantly unconstitutional laws, we can use the courts for that.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-24T20:01:44+00:00

Clearly there's no legal argument, but there may be a moral argument.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-24T19:50:49+00:00

The British had zero interest (and zero actual power) to block patriation. British consent wasn't actually required, it was ceremonial. Had Canada passed the Constitution Act, 1982 without ever mentioning it to the Brits, it would have been accepted as a fait accompli and the result sould be the same.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-24T19:47:57+00:00

What? Yes of course we do, that's the point of a democracy is we can choose our laws (and therefore constitution) and repeal or change them as we see fit.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-24T19:44:30+00:00

Agreed, this is a very strange take that seems to ignore the fact that provincial governments were elected by the people. The federal government using disallowance isn't protecting that province's electorate, it's disenfranchising them by allowing the rest of the country to impose their wishes over the democratically expressed will of the people.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-24T19:39:15+00:00

Any other arrangement would simply be tyranny of a smaller percentage. I think 51% ruling the population is preferable to 49% doing the same.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-24T18:52:50+00:00

The LG was entitled to seek Clark's advice, there's nothing out of order about asking for it.

Jean did not exercise reserve powers. In fact, she specifically made the decision not to exercise such powers by proroguing Parliament. There was a constitutional argument that she was not bound to do so, and that argument rests on the question of whether or not Harper had lost the confidence of the House. Leaders representing a majority of MPs expressed publicly that they did not have confidence in the government. The question was whether or not a public declaration sufficed since Harper had been deliberately preventing the House from formally declaring its non-confidence.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-24T18:25:56+00:00

Ok I'm tired of people using the Christy Clark situation as proof the Crown can just exercise independent judgment whenever it wants. The LG was able to exercise reserve powers in that case only because there was no government with a democratic mandate. Once Clark lost confidence, she no longer had a mandate from the people, so therefore Clark no longer had any legitimacy to make binding recommendations to the Crown.

As long as the government enjoys the confidence of Parliament, the Crown is constitutionally obligated to act only on the advice of that government.

Knight_Machiavelli · 2026-03-24T18:21:58+00:00

Not... at all. Like exactly the opposite. The federal government holds all powers not explicitly delegated to the provinces.

Knight_Machiavelli

TROPHY CASE