I think that the core underlying issue is economic growth. It drives all the others. Poor growth ==> no money for other programs. Deficits do matter eventually, and we can't keep piling them up, setting guardrails and then discarding them for the next improved one. We need economic growth, hence revenues, hence an expanded tax base.
A key measure is to overhaul our tax system. That was last done in 1972, and the economy -- and the world -- have changed. We need to adapt. Another key measure is to stop indfustrial policy that tries to pick winners, as you say. Canada has been trying this for decades, although we seem to have speeded up in recent years. The EV battery giveaways is a prime example. One of them, Northvolt in Quebec, has already blown up, and it is quite possible that the others will run into difficulties this year or next. Much better would be economy-wide measures that help all companies, and let the best ones prosper.
Finally, a modest proposal. Perhaps Ministers could be selected on the basis of their competence, and not in an attempt to ensure that various groups are adequately represented. We cannot afford to have half of Cabinet be passengers, as is the case now.
The most interesting part of any leadership race is going to be which candidates explicitly run against the Trudeau policies, and which candidates try and succeed Trudeau while respecting the idea of his legacy
They do have a transit policy: the feds are funding the high frequency train project in Windsor-QC City corridor. Not high speed but a dedicated passenger rail line, which will be a huge improvement over our historical subservience to CN freight.
I understand you are mighty frustrated, but no need to slag the Libs this hard.
That high frequency rail line will take at least a decade to come into service. That's optimistic: new rail lines in California are taking several decades.
Previous studies (I participated in two) have all concluded that such rail service is not financially viable. Perhaps things have changed, but I wouldn't build a climate policy on it.
I meant to say that the govt has decided to go with the high frequency rail line instead of the much more $$$ high speed.
Europe and Japan, of course, have vast networks of various railways and train speeds.
But CN and the ON auto lobby have prevented Canada from building our own proper system.
With half of Canada's population in ON and QC, we certainly have the population density and demand to operate a financially viable passenger rail service.
Gemerally agree.
I think that the core underlying issue is economic growth. It drives all the others. Poor growth ==> no money for other programs. Deficits do matter eventually, and we can't keep piling them up, setting guardrails and then discarding them for the next improved one. We need economic growth, hence revenues, hence an expanded tax base.
A key measure is to overhaul our tax system. That was last done in 1972, and the economy -- and the world -- have changed. We need to adapt. Another key measure is to stop indfustrial policy that tries to pick winners, as you say. Canada has been trying this for decades, although we seem to have speeded up in recent years. The EV battery giveaways is a prime example. One of them, Northvolt in Quebec, has already blown up, and it is quite possible that the others will run into difficulties this year or next. Much better would be economy-wide measures that help all companies, and let the best ones prosper.
Finally, a modest proposal. Perhaps Ministers could be selected on the basis of their competence, and not in an attempt to ensure that various groups are adequately represented. We cannot afford to have half of Cabinet be passengers, as is the case now.
As my father used to say "from your lips to God's ears" . It's almost impossible to talk to a Liberal MP and suggest they're doing something wrong.
« To right them off » you write. You fucking need an editor.
Appreciate the note (though you can take that tone and shove it)
The most interesting part of any leadership race is going to be which candidates explicitly run against the Trudeau policies, and which candidates try and succeed Trudeau while respecting the idea of his legacy
They do have a transit policy: the feds are funding the high frequency train project in Windsor-QC City corridor. Not high speed but a dedicated passenger rail line, which will be a huge improvement over our historical subservience to CN freight.
I understand you are mighty frustrated, but no need to slag the Libs this hard.
They have not funded the whole project or anything close to it, they’re studying it
Transport Canada is deep into the project. The land has been bought. Lots of progress happening on this long overdue file.
That high frequency rail line will take at least a decade to come into service. That's optimistic: new rail lines in California are taking several decades.
Previous studies (I participated in two) have all concluded that such rail service is not financially viable. Perhaps things have changed, but I wouldn't build a climate policy on it.
High speed is neither financially viable nor necessary.
Finally, the fed, ON, and QC govts have accepted the better plan to build a dedicated passenger line.
I meant to say that the govt has decided to go with the high frequency rail line instead of the much more $$$ high speed.
Europe and Japan, of course, have vast networks of various railways and train speeds.
But CN and the ON auto lobby have prevented Canada from building our own proper system.
With half of Canada's population in ON and QC, we certainly have the population density and demand to operate a financially viable passenger rail service.
Will Poilievre cut this project, too?
Having read you for a long time, I thought you’d like the « fucking need » lol