[dowlingm]

One thing to keep in mind is that CP’s agreement to allow passenger service in the tunnel as a condition of CPKC merger was made to Amtrak, not to “whoever wants to run service”. Might they decide it doesn’t matter? Maybe. But again, a complication not needed if Amtrak does the crossing,

 

[Urban Sky]

One thing to keep in mind is that CP’s agreement to allow passenger service in the tunnel as a condition of CPKC merger was made to Amtrak, not to “whoever wants to run service”. Might they decide it doesn’t matter? Maybe. But again, a complication not needed if Amtrak does the crossing,

Which brings us back to the Maple Leaf: VIA Rail operates it as its own train west of Niagara Falls/ON, where it is considered a VIA train for all contractual or legal purposes, especially concerning Track Access (Amtrak has no track access agreement with Metrolinx, but VIA of course does). The inverse could be done between Windsor and Detroit, where Amtrak could slap an Amtrak number on all VIA trains and treat it as its own trip. Only Amtrak would have a contractual relationship with the tunnel operator, but presumably nothing would require Amtrak to only send their own rolling stock or crews through the tunnel…

 

[dowlingm]

Which brings us back to the Maple Leaf: VIA Rail operates it as its own train west of Niagara Falls/ON, where it is considered a VIA train for all contractual or legal purposes, especially concerning Track Access (Amtrak has no track access agreement with Metrolinx, but VIA of course does). The inverse could be done between Windsor and Detroit, where Amtrak could slap an Amtrak number on all VIA trains and treat it as its own trip. Only Amtrak would have a contractual relationship with the tunnel operator, but presumably nothing would require Amtrak to only send their own rolling stock or crews through the tunnel…

Hm. I get what you're saying but I'm not convinced. This is all Amtrak's idea, let them figure out how to make it work as far as crewing and equipment go. VIA would be well served to avoid taking the blame for delays in CPR/ETR dispatching, or having to appear in US courts because someone stubbed their toe on a cross border service. In any case, if Montreal's customs post is any guide, we may all be pushing up daisies before this sees fruition.

 

[Urban Sky]

Given that much more passengers will want to travel from Canada to Detroit than from the US to Windsor, it would be desirable to have immigration and customs performed in Detroit than Windsor. Same reason why Toronto-NYC should have all border checks in Buffalo, assuming a routing via Welland rather than Niagara Falls…

 

[nfitz]

Given that much more passengers will want to travel from Canada to Detroit than from the US to Windsor, it would be desirable to have immigration and customs performed in Detroit than Windsor.

I'm not sure how that's in Amtrak's primary mandate to serve Americans. Nor do I think it would maximize ridership by Americans.

 

[roger1818]

Which brings us back to the Maple Leaf: VIA Rail operates it as its own train west of Niagara Falls/ON, where it is considered a VIA train for all contractual or legal purposes, especially concerning Track Access (Amtrak has no track access agreement with Metrolinx, but VIA of course does). The inverse could be done between Windsor and Detroit, where Amtrak could slap an Amtrak number on all VIA trains and treat it as its own trip. Only Amtrak would have a contractual relationship with the tunnel operator, but presumably nothing would require Amtrak to only send their own rolling stock or crews through the tunnel…

The big difference with the Maple Leaf is there is a crew Change in Niagara Falls, and it is operated by VIA Rail employees to/from Toronto. I doubt if Amtrak would want to do a crew change in Windsor to have all of VIA Rail's trains to Detroit operated by Amtrak employees for one stop so that it can be an Amtrak train in CPKC's eyes.

 

[Urban Sky]

The big difference with the Maple Leaf is there is a crew Change in Niagara Falls, and it is operated by VIA Rail employees to/from Toronto. I doubt if Amtrak would want to do a crew change in Windsor to have all of VIA Rail's trains to Detroit operated by Amtrak employees for one stop so that it can be an Amtrak train in CPKC's eyes.

What makes you believe that it matters who deploys the crews? Amtrak has a contract with enforcable rights against the tunnel operators and as long as Amtrak is formally the operator of the (cross-border section of this) service, it doesn’t matter whether Amtrak deploys its own crews or subcontracts a different railroad for the crewing…

 

[cplchanb]

well with todays announcement that the NDP are ending their coalition, it could be any month now that there will be a vote of non confidence in the govt and a federal election. good bye to HxR and any substantial funding for a new LDF.

 

[micheal_can]

well with todays announcement that the NDP are ending their coalition, it could be any month now that there will be a vote of non confidence in the govt and a federal election. good bye to HxR and any substantial funding for a new LDF.

At this point, who knows.
The other thing is, right now, the Bloc also have enough seats to prevent an election if they want.

 

[nfitz]

A month? Ending the agreement (which wasn't a coalition) just means it goes to the status quo; which can still function for years - let alone until Parliament is prorogued for the next election.

NDP isn't going to trigger an election with the current polling, and Pharmacare still to get approved by the Senate. This is just for appearances, and to increase leverage..

I'd be less surprised if the Liberals and NDP push the election back until 2026 (though that would likely backfire - again).

 

[cplchanb]

A month? Ending the agreement (which wasn't a coalition) just means it goes to the status quo; which can still function for years - let alone until Parliament is prorogued for the next election.

NDP isn't going to trigger an election with the current polling, and Pharmacare still to get approved by the Senate. This is just for appearances, and to increase leverage..

I'd be less surprised if the Liberals and NDP push the election back until 2026 (though that would likely backfire - again).

they are bound by the constitution to have an election every 4 years so 2025 is the latest it can go.

 

[nfitz]

they are bound by the constitution to have an election every 4 years so 2025 is the latest it can go.

It's every 5 years, not 4 - constitutionally. And they can drag it out to 6 if Parliament doesn't sit after year 5, unless I've missed something.

Look at the 34th Parliament - it was between the November 21, 1988 election and the October 25, 1993 election. Parliament sat from December 12, 1988 to September 8, 1993.

Of course, there's mandatory election dates now - but that's not constitutional, and can be changed by Parliament. I doubt it would happen - but not as much as I'd doubt an election this year.

Added:

Here's the reference for 5 years. Section 50 of the 1867 Constitution Act:
50 Every House of Commons shall continue for Five Years from the Day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.

Also Section 4(1) of the 1982 Constitution Act (which extends to the provinces):
4 (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members.

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

well with todays announcement that the NDP are ending their coalition, it could be any month now that there will be a vote of non confidence in the govt and a federal election. good bye to HxR and any substantial funding for a new LDF.

Well, with any luck the province of Ontario may come into the possession of 32 new Siemens trainsets in coming years.

 

[cplchanb]

It's every 5 years, not 4 - constitutionally. And they can drag it out to 6 if Parliament doesn't sit after year 5, unless I've missed something.

Look at the 34th Parliament - it was between the November 21, 1988 election and the October 25, 1993 election. Parliament sat from December 12, 1988 to September 8, 1993.

Of course, there's mandatory election dates now - but that's not constitutional, and can be changed by Parliament. I doubt it would happen - but not as much as I'd doubt an election this year.

Added:

Here's the reference for 5 years. Section 50 of the 1867 Constitution Act:
50 Every House of Commons shall continue for Five Years from the Day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.

Also Section 4(1) of the 1982 Constitution Act (which extends to the provinces):
4 (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members.

youre looking at an outdated version. this is what the current laws show amended in 2007.

 

[nfitz]

View attachment 593892

youre looking at an outdated version. this is what the current laws show amended in 2007.

That's not the Constitution. You said they are bound by the constitution.

As I mentioned in my reply (that you just quoted) "Of course, there's mandatory election dates now - but that's not constitutional, and can be changed by Parliament".

You've quoted Section 56.1 of the Canada Elections Act. The Canada Elections Act is not part of the Constitution. It can be changed by a vote of Parliament.