Bill C-15 high-speed rail provisions face Senate scrutiny for 50,000 jobs, $35 billion growth and tariff resilience, as committees advance soil health strategy, labour stability and reconciliation.
Too many people share a common misapprehension about the role that the Senate plays, and can play even more: they’re seen as a bunch of costly layabouts, living the high life and doing absolutely nothing for the country in return.
The glass-half-full view would be that it’s a resource we could make better use of, a group of people with a broad range of knowledge and experience who could represent a, well, an at lest *more* objective review of important and complex legislation, including impacts on the country, its various regions, communities and interests.
I think this offers a great example of how it can save a bunch of committee development time and money, lean in on some of the expertise of individual Senators, and benefit from this resource, helping to achieve one of Carney’s stated goals (faster, cross-interest — ie truly national —, review of major project proposals as we wheel to face the new American threats to our economy and even our sovereignty.
It may not be perfect as it is, but changes to how one becomes a Senator, regional representation, term limits and a few other aspects could make it even more valuable resource. Let’s not kill it off to save a comparatively small amount of money; let’s look at hard at how it could be better formed and utilized…and make those changes.
I'm not contrary to the role of Senate as a "check & balance" but the current model is neither a check nor a balance to the House of Commons. Instead, it's a gaggle of Liberal bagmen, activists, and failed political candidates with a smattering of leftover Conservatives.
To make the Senate functional and helpful, it must provide meaningful regional representation as opposed to being an effective veto for Ontario and Quebec. Three Senators per Province and one per Territory, either appointed or elected by the region at their choice. 6 year term; single term only. No pension.
As it has in the past been accused of the same, substituting “Conservative” for “Liberal.” Neither was really a fair characterization, but there’s no doubt it needs changes to become more effective. I said so.
Perhaps selected by a bipartisan committee to select senators, and fingers crossed that committee can be truly bipartisan and not devolve into the partisan squabbling and one-upmanship that it seems we see more of these days.
Maybe 6 years is reasonable as a term limit; I’m more drawn to a combined term and age limit. A strict short term limit limits the leverage/benefit of experience one gains in the role (as is true in Parliament, as is true in both US Houses.)
“No pension”, BTW, is also not reasonable. It strongly biases against people in the peak years of their career, still relatively young. It shouldn’t, of course, pay out a top-tier singular pension after only a few years. It should continue to build on pensionable years.
The reason I specify strict term limits and no pension is tactical. Term limits and no pension act as a filter. The only kind of people who would put their name forward knowing those constraints would be those who have a legitimate desire for public service as opposed to a lifetime appointment to age 75 with next to nil incentive to do anything other than enjoy the free ride.
The Commons are the "rep by pop" body versus the "sober second thought" of the Senate. Allowing Ontario and Quebec to have the lion's share of seats (as at present) is deliberate structural imbalance. The US Senate has two Senators per State regardless of the population for a good reason. It makes sense to emulate that model. Having three Senators and six year terms means every two years, one Senator will need to be replaced. So at any given time, there will be a new Sen, a two year Sen and a four year Sen for continuity sake.
Having no pension means Senators have an incentive for the economy to do well since they're going to be part of it once their term expires.
We still need a way to get people out of their cars and onto trains in that corridor. With the price of flying about to go out of reach, and possibly make even driving hybrids too expensive, we need to get building.
As a reference point, the rail line between the Shanghai airport and the train terminal reaches speeds over 450km/hr, and when I got to ride in 2013, it was well proven. Fast connections like that abound in the rest of the world. Why should we be slaves to driving over crumbling roads?
It is time we caught up to the rest of the world, and not languish beside a failed state to our south. Amtrac is in the same boat as VIA. No political will or capital has been spent on passenger rail service since they were created.
If we are serious about building Canada into a strong sovereign nation, building more rail lines for passengers and cargo will be one of the foundations for us to build on.
Whenever I see politicians pitching the "nation building" nonsense about the proposed high speed rail between Quebec City and Toronto, I'm always reminded of the Simpsons episode where huckster Lyle Lanley persuades the citizens of Springfield to build a monorail as the wonderful solution to all of their imagined problems.
Unfortunately, too many Canadians have bought into the Dominion's propaganda suggesting that the wide variety of Indigenous nationalities that pre-date European Westphalian enclosures are merely ethnic groups (some totally confused into thinking it is one ethic group, like thinking all of Europe is one ethnic group), rather than entirely different peoples with philosophy, spirituality and governance structures that grew from millenia of experience on this continent that is very different from Europe.
Too many people share a common misapprehension about the role that the Senate plays, and can play even more: they’re seen as a bunch of costly layabouts, living the high life and doing absolutely nothing for the country in return.
The glass-half-full view would be that it’s a resource we could make better use of, a group of people with a broad range of knowledge and experience who could represent a, well, an at lest *more* objective review of important and complex legislation, including impacts on the country, its various regions, communities and interests.
I think this offers a great example of how it can save a bunch of committee development time and money, lean in on some of the expertise of individual Senators, and benefit from this resource, helping to achieve one of Carney’s stated goals (faster, cross-interest — ie truly national —, review of major project proposals as we wheel to face the new American threats to our economy and even our sovereignty.
It may not be perfect as it is, but changes to how one becomes a Senator, regional representation, term limits and a few other aspects could make it even more valuable resource. Let’s not kill it off to save a comparatively small amount of money; let’s look at hard at how it could be better formed and utilized…and make those changes.
I'm not contrary to the role of Senate as a "check & balance" but the current model is neither a check nor a balance to the House of Commons. Instead, it's a gaggle of Liberal bagmen, activists, and failed political candidates with a smattering of leftover Conservatives.
To make the Senate functional and helpful, it must provide meaningful regional representation as opposed to being an effective veto for Ontario and Quebec. Three Senators per Province and one per Territory, either appointed or elected by the region at their choice. 6 year term; single term only. No pension.
As it has in the past been accused of the same, substituting “Conservative” for “Liberal.” Neither was really a fair characterization, but there’s no doubt it needs changes to become more effective. I said so.
Perhaps selected by a bipartisan committee to select senators, and fingers crossed that committee can be truly bipartisan and not devolve into the partisan squabbling and one-upmanship that it seems we see more of these days.
Maybe 6 years is reasonable as a term limit; I’m more drawn to a combined term and age limit. A strict short term limit limits the leverage/benefit of experience one gains in the role (as is true in Parliament, as is true in both US Houses.)
“No pension”, BTW, is also not reasonable. It strongly biases against people in the peak years of their career, still relatively young. It shouldn’t, of course, pay out a top-tier singular pension after only a few years. It should continue to build on pensionable years.
And so on.
The reason I specify strict term limits and no pension is tactical. Term limits and no pension act as a filter. The only kind of people who would put their name forward knowing those constraints would be those who have a legitimate desire for public service as opposed to a lifetime appointment to age 75 with next to nil incentive to do anything other than enjoy the free ride.
The Commons are the "rep by pop" body versus the "sober second thought" of the Senate. Allowing Ontario and Quebec to have the lion's share of seats (as at present) is deliberate structural imbalance. The US Senate has two Senators per State regardless of the population for a good reason. It makes sense to emulate that model. Having three Senators and six year terms means every two years, one Senator will need to be replaced. So at any given time, there will be a new Sen, a two year Sen and a four year Sen for continuity sake.
Having no pension means Senators have an incentive for the economy to do well since they're going to be part of it once their term expires.
We still need a way to get people out of their cars and onto trains in that corridor. With the price of flying about to go out of reach, and possibly make even driving hybrids too expensive, we need to get building.
As a reference point, the rail line between the Shanghai airport and the train terminal reaches speeds over 450km/hr, and when I got to ride in 2013, it was well proven. Fast connections like that abound in the rest of the world. Why should we be slaves to driving over crumbling roads?
It is time we caught up to the rest of the world, and not languish beside a failed state to our south. Amtrac is in the same boat as VIA. No political will or capital has been spent on passenger rail service since they were created.
If we are serious about building Canada into a strong sovereign nation, building more rail lines for passengers and cargo will be one of the foundations for us to build on.
Nous nous souviendrons.
We are Canadian.
Whenever I see politicians pitching the "nation building" nonsense about the proposed high speed rail between Quebec City and Toronto, I'm always reminded of the Simpsons episode where huckster Lyle Lanley persuades the citizens of Springfield to build a monorail as the wonderful solution to all of their imagined problems.
Inspired by the comment discussing how Canada’s Senate shouldn't be abolished as some seem to suggest, I offer the following alternative.
Hill Times Letter: Canada needs a ‘Great Council,’ similar to Upper House, made up of Indigenous peoples who would review all federal, provincial laws
https://r.flora.ca/p/hill-times-letter-indigenous-great-council
Unfortunately, too many Canadians have bought into the Dominion's propaganda suggesting that the wide variety of Indigenous nationalities that pre-date European Westphalian enclosures are merely ethnic groups (some totally confused into thinking it is one ethic group, like thinking all of Europe is one ethnic group), rather than entirely different peoples with philosophy, spirituality and governance structures that grew from millenia of experience on this continent that is very different from Europe.