Honestly being able to afford a house and the cost of living is more important to young people.
I don’t know. Maybe the r/fuckcars people can win these young people back by deflating the tires of young people who are on their way to work. Once these people see the inconvenience that cars offer then they’ll adopt a climate positive mindset
yeah, like if environmental goals are incompatible and / or made it so hard for young people to live in current times.
Why shouldn’t it be?
Climate goals are something that the entire world has to work together on and most countries don’t care. So if you choose to care then you’re just setting yourself back.
How much money will it take for Carney to cave on the whole 51st state thing? The man is a whore, I say 10 billion.
“Government makes bad decision: affected constituents respond that they will be negatively impacted by said bad decision”
most countries have abandoned climate goals for years already.
Carney has been sailing the popularity wave for far too long.
He’s building a fucking landing strip in downtown Toronto that’s one way to lose a future election! His majority is SLIM.
whaaaaaaa
The young people seem madder about being unable to have any economic goals.
LPC is staying strong in the polls. I’m surprised. Maybe the press has been exaggerating the backlash? In the UK the lack of approval for Starmer is reflected in the news as well as the polls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_46th_Canadian_federal_election
The list of rollbacks they give is long:
- Scrapped the carbon tax and rebate
- Passed the Building Canada Act, which exempts major projects from environmental laws
- Doubled down on LNG infrastructure, by referring LNG Canada Phase 2 to the Major Projects Office
- Ended the Greener Homes loan program, which provided homeowners with up to $40,000 in zero-interest financing for green renovations
- Disproportionately cut funding to Environment and Climate Change Canada
- Expanded subsidies for carbon capture and storage
- Axed the 2 billion trees program
- Promised federal support for a new oilsands pipeline, as well as the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline
- Announced intention to not proceed with the cap on emissions from the oil and gas industry
- Weakened the Clean Electricity Regulations by suspending their application in Alberta
- Promised new subsidies for fossil fuel infrastructure (pipelines, CCS & enhanced oil recovery)
- Threatened to amend or suspend the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act
- Weakened greenwashing provisions in the Competition Act
- Weakened methane regulations, by delaying Alberta’s deadline for achieving the targets
- Doubled down on fossil fuels, by referring Ksi Lisims LNG, and the enabling North Coast Transmission Line, to the Major Projects Office
- Suspended a ban on the export of single-use plastic items that are prohibited in Canada
- Scrapped the Electric Vehicle Availability Standard, which would have required all new vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emissions by 2035.
- Cut $5 billion for the Canada Public Transit Fund (CPTF)
- Updated the mandate for the Canada Infrastructure Bank to make way for fossil fuel financing
- Promised $1 billion for Equinor’s proposed Bay du Nord Offshore Oil Project
- Ended the Clean Growth Hub
- Gave Alberta more powers over impact assessment
- Paused the fuel excise tax
- Created new fossil fuel subsidies for more oil and gas production
- Weakened the Pest Control Products Act
- Doubled down on fossil fuels, by approving Enbridge’s $4 billion Sunrise natural gas pipeline expansion plan in BC
- Proposed sweeping changes to major project decision making and approvals,
including:
— creating special economic zones where projects will not need reviews,
— creating conditions to preapprove pipelines,
— weakening Species at Risk Act to allow Cabinet to approve projects
that would threaten the survival or recovery of endangered species - Weakened Canada’s Electricity Regulations, which will make more room for fossil gas and make it harder to get a clean, affordable grid
- Weakened industrial carbon pricing
- Lowered expectations for CCS Pathways Project
- Considered using Export Development Canada for public financing for LNG Canada
What happened?! Is there any climate policy left? That’s a lot of pro-oil policy.
I read the article and tried to read the legal doc they sent the judge. There’s a lot of large claims here. Are there any sources? While I wouldn’t be surprised if the Libs did all of this, im pretty surprised there’s no sources in the proposal to the judge.
My blood pressure shot through the ceiling reading that list.
The environment is an increasingly bigger economic pressure, but jack shit is done about it because it can’t be quantified in an excel sheet.
I agree, the environment should be the topmost issue, and that list of cancelled efforts is incredible. I knew Carney was aiming to stimulate the economy by removing some guidelines but holy shit, this is a lot.
Scrapped the carbon tax and rebate
Which would have got PCs elected if they didn’t do that. Killing the carbon tax gained Carney 30 points.
So before we blame THE GOVMINT maybe count all the pickup trucks on the roads?
total EV sales for Canada 2025: 170,000, only 8.4%. 91.6% chose ICE.
F150s: 138,000 Silverado: 54,000 RAM 1500: 43,000 Toyota pickups: 30,000
The reality is 9.4% of Canada’s GDP is in petroleum. Is the problem government, or is the problem Canadians who pretend they aren’t Americans?
This is your reminder, Canadian, that rich people don’t give a fuck what country you’re from. The same people fucking us, Americans, are fucking you, Canadians.
Or have you forgotten that Kevin O’Leary is from Canada?
I’m mad that the ONLY choices available in Canada are bigots and corporate shills.
That’s not true. We don’t live in a two party presidential system, we live in a multiparty parliamentary system.
In your life time, have you seen anyone other than an LPC or Conservative Party as Prim toe minister? Because I haven’t and I’m 45 years old.
Oh wait you haven’t
literally Robert Borden formed the Unionist party because he needed support for Conscription in 1917.
It was a party of both Conservatives and Pro Conscription Liberals.
That was literally more than a century ago.
That’s a separate question. And the fact that we’ve had something like 15 minority governments in our history is proof that being PM is not the same as a president and that smaller parties matter. That’s literally how the NDP pushed universal healthcare through a Pearson minority and partial dental/pharma through a Trudeau minority.
Again, I’m not arguing in favour of the status quo, quite the opposite, see my response further down the thread. I’m just saying our system has its own structure and its dynamics are different from the American one.
Without proportional representation we are moving closer to a structurally codified duopoly like the US with every election.
It doesn’t matter how our current electoral system is SUPPOSED to work; POSIWID.
we are moving closer to a structurally codified duopoly
Not true. It just happens that in the last election we got a more duopolistic parliament than usual. There is no general trend however. Here is the list of all parliament makeups since confederation. You would have to go back to the 1958-1962 parliament for a two official party parliament and even then it was just that the CCF only had 8 MPs and so didn’t have official party status. To find a parliament with legitimately only 2 parties, you have to go all the way back to the 1918-1921 parliament.
Our system consistently produces 3rd and 4th parties, and operates comfortably in minority governments.
To be 100% clear, I am not making a case against proportional representation. It is absolutely the right way to go. Electoral reform is absolutely essential and we should be thiniking out of the box to deepen and strengthen our democratic institutions, e.g., replacing the unelected senate with either a kind of citizen jury via sortition or straight up the Assembly of First Nations (now that would be something :) ) and definitely a massive increase in the number of MPs, to massively increase the winning coaltion (ratio W/S). There is zero reason why 19th century technological constraints (send a bunch of dudes to sit around in a big room) should define what 21st century mass democracy should look like.
What I’m pushing back against is not electoral reform. I’m pushing back on seeing Canadian politics through a US lens. Liberals especially loooove that lens because it means they get to use the craziness of the Poilievrites to blackmail everyone.
Your focus on seat counts and minority governments mistakes formal parliamentary diversity for actual ideological divergence on the economy. Having four or five parties in the House of Commons doesn’t mean we have economic diversity. If you look at actual policy outputs over the last forty years rather than just seat distributions, the structural drift toward corporate entrenchment and laissez-faire logic is undeniable.
Take the corporate tax trajectory as a prime example. Since the 1980s, corporate tax cuts have been a steady, multi-decade bipartisan project. The federal general corporate income tax rate sat around 36 percent in the early 80s, got slashed to 21 percent under Chrétien and Martin, and was cut down to 15 percent under Harper, which is exactly where the Trudeau Liberals have comfortably left it for the last decade. The structural tax burden has systematically shifted away from capital regardless of who is in power.
On top of that, Canada’s economy is defined by heavily consolidated, state-protected cartels in banking, telecoms, and grocery retail. The actual mechanics of our government, including the Competition Bureau, routinely greenlight massive anti-competitive mergers like Rogers and Shaw that further entrench corporate power. Third parties occasionally extract minor social concessions in minority scenarios, but they never fundamentally challenge this corporate architecture.
The evolution toward laissez-faire in Canada doesn’t look like an overnight elimination of the state anyway. It looks like the marketization of it. Look at the creation of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which was explicitly designed to route public infrastructure projects through private finance so institutional investors can extract profit from public goods.
Dismissing any critique as just looking through a US lens ignores the highly specific flavor of Canadian corporate capture. Our hyper-financialized housing market, driven by federal tax structures that heavily favor Real Estate Investment Trusts, and our deep structural reliance on heavily subsidized resource extraction industries are uniquely Canadian economic realities.
A parliament can be as multi-party and fluid as it wants on paper. But if every configuration yields the same macroeconomic results of deregulation, corporate tax minimization, protected oligopolies, and the financialization of public assets, then the system is functionally operating primarily in the service of corporate interests.
Dismissing any critique as just looking through a US lens
Lemme stop you right there. I don’t «dismiss any critique.» I very specifically clarified that my pushback is against a particular Liberal narrative. I’m not here to die on some hill defending Canadian institutions.
Outside of the Liberal narrative, I don’t know if we ultimately disagree in any kind of profoundly irreconcilable way. We agree on like 99% of stuff. I have zero debate about your diagnosis of the morbidities of the Canadian system.
But empirically, the claim that «we are moving closer to a structurally codified duopoly» just doesn’t hold up. Yes, it is true that our multiparty system does have a narrow overton window of economic policy, but that’s not a «structurally codified duopoly». You are describing elite consensus/corporate capture, not duopoly. There is no inexorable march towards a Democrats-vs-Republicans system.
The distinction matters by the way. Because if the problem is a structural duopoly, the solution is mainly electoral-system reform. (And yes, of course I support that.)
But if the problem is a narrow economic Overton window under conditions of corporate power, then PR helps but is not a solution. We also need labour power, movement infrastructure, public-interest media, anti-monopoly policy, campaign finance pressure, tenant organization, public banking, serious tax reform, and parties willing to fight capital rather than merely manage its tantrums.
Fair enough, we agree on the diagnosis of corporate capture and the narrow economic Overton window. But where you see a distinct difference between “corporate capture” and a “structurally codified duopoly,” I see the former actively manufacturing the latter as a defensive strategy.
The mechanism driving us toward a de facto duopoly isn’t just legal architecture; it’s the deliberate, psychological radicalization of the electorate into strategic voting over idealistic voting. When the corporate-backed center and right consistently weaponize the “lesser of two evils” narrative, they intentionally starve third parties of oxygen. By scaring the population into believing that a vote for anyone outside the top two is a wasted vote that guarantees the “worst-case scenario,” they effectively collapse a multi-party space into a two-party reality.
This psychological funneling has the exact same structural utility as a codified duopoly. Once the electorate is successfully housebroken into accepting that only two parties can ever realistically hold power, it facilitates resistance-free codification of the corporate agenda. If power only ever fluctuates between two predictable managers who both agree on the foundational tenets of neoliberalism, like the tax cuts and oligopoly protections we just talked about, then capital never faces a true existential threat.
You are completely right that fixing this requires labor power, tenant organization, and aggressive anti-monopoly policy rather than just electoral reform. But we can’t build that movement infrastructure effectively if the political imagination of the public is perpetually trapped in a strategic voting loop. The de facto duopoly is the fortress that protects the elite consensus, and breaking the psychological hold of strategic voting is the first step to tearing it down.
If only the right had as much ideological infighting as the left. They may be hateful bigoted nationalists but they form a united front while we’re bickering over parliamentary minutiae.
Sucks. But Canada is under a shitload of economic pressure now with the U.S. fucking us over. It would be great if we could have everything, but sometimes difficult decisions need to be made.
You realize that from young people point of view, the “hard decision” is “let’s just fuck the young ones and embrace collective suicide!”?
The young people also need their healthcare funded right now, along with their education, job stimulus, etc. kinda a privileged attitude, if they just assume mommy and daddy can pay their bills when the economy implodes. it’s a difficult and complex balance, so one can only carefully navigate somewhere down the middle.
Every time the same argument. “Let’s keep our unsustainable society without any drastic change until the collapse becomes inevitable and it’s too late to prepare for it” is such a pragmatic approach.
The problem is that we simply can’t throw our economy away. It would lead to disaster even quicker.
Our economy is not in free fall right now. Everything we talk about here is not for short term. So the question is what do we want our economy to be in the coming years. Answer: great after 10 years, and then until 20 years from now, as we rip the money from oil and gas. But at the same time, declining until…
Free fall as the cost of climate disaster will not only nullify but then dig into the budgets until we’re overwhelmed. Floods, fires, crop failures. Not only is the plan to be totally unprepared, but renouncing climate targets mean we’ll actively contributing to make the situation worse. And all of this is written already. The only way to prevent it would be to abruptly stop all fossil consumption tomorrow morning, and yes, on that we agree: it would be a disaster. We’re not talking hypothetical situations. We’re deciding today how bad it’s going to be, from very bad to absolute disaster. Very bad is we make a very very hard transition right fucking now.
But we decided it’s more pragmatic to bet on future absolute disaster…But worse even for us: emergent countries are transitioning faster than expected. So it’s possible than 10 years from now, when we built pipelines, the world’s demands will be lower than planned, and we will be the idiots who wasted billions in the fossil industry and are now helpless in front of climate change driven disasters while the rest of the world, regardless how prepared they will be, will struggle just the same, because there is a limit to how much you can be prepared: you can prepare for very bad. You can’t be prepared for absolute disaster.
You know what you can do right now?
Tax the rich!prepare ladder to make a fall even more hard!
Take the money out of the >20 billion in subsidies for oil an gas, take it by taxing the ultra-rich who are fucking this country over. If the only “reasonable” reaction to pressure by the US is to double down on oil and fuck over the next guy then we already are a US state.
I agree we need to tax the rich more. But where do think that money sits? It’s not in a checking account. It’s in shares of companies and other investments. If the rich are forced to pay billions in tax, they have to pull money out of those things and that causes real operational reductions - ie layoffs and less productivity- and that means less product available to consumers - and so prices rise. It’s a complex interplay of issues and not really as simple as just ‘tax the rich’. Not saying we shouldn’t, but we have to do it carefully. Oil and gas subsidies are pretty short sighted, it seems, but why do you think it’s done? It’s to get international investment and productivity higher so people have jobs, we can buy things that we need from other countries and have produced resources for ourselves.
Not directly related, but can we also seize Kevin O’Leary’s assets and fire him out of a cannon into the sun?
As long as it is televised on CBC.
- Who gives a fuck about the economy imploding at the expense of the extinction of our species?
- The ‘economy’ is made up nonsense to enrich the most morally bankrupt involved while shitting on everyone else.
- The death of our planet’s ecosystem is a real possible future we are facing; let the economy burn.
Well if we’re so bad, maybe it’s good that we go extinct?
The economy just is a part of society and is the way we organize resources. The way our capitalist society works, money naturally keeps moving upwards and screwing the poor - it needs strong regulation to work in a way that is beneficial for most people. Canada is better than the U.S. there. But there are realities that require society (and the economy) to continue to operate in such a way that allows the country to provide for its citizens. If the economy burns and society collapses, which you seem to want, then there will not be resources available to support the people. And any semblance of regulation that keeps lawful order and social safety nets will fail. And at that point likely some group will take over and then do whatever they want - without any regulation. So probably worse for the ecosystem.
Canada is like someone who’s trying to stop smoking, hits a rough patch, and starts smoking even more because they don’t know any other way to deal with stress. Doubling down on fossil fuels isn’t the only way to deal with this economic pressure.
Exactly so. The entire world is turning to renewables right now and the oil pressure only makes it more urgent and PROFITABLE. Going into this, new solar and wind were already cheaper than fossil fuels for power generation. Yet we’re still beholden to the oil companies who own our government.
Ok, Boomer.
Do non boomers never have to make difficult decisions? Sounds nice. Where do I sign up?
Take a load of this guy thinking that climate change doesn’t cause economic pressure.
Well yes, but not as directly and immediately as stifling businesses. Not saying I agree with Carney on this one; I don’t have the numbers nor am I an expert on macro economics. But Carney kinda is. So I’m on the fence whether to trust him on this.
You don’t think critical infrastructure being on fire stifles businesses?
What’s on fire?
The planet
He’s a banker. Bankers tell poor people “give us your money, we will keep it safe!” Did you ever trust a kid who tells you “hey, give me your candy, I’ll keep it safe?”
Canadian banks seem to keep money safe. Not sure how your analogy applies.
This is why we should have gotten out of the US trade relationship
yesterdaylast yeara decade agotwo decades agoI mean never got involved with them.All we can do now is get out of it and take the brunt of the economic down turn that comes from allowing it to reach this point.
I too think thats the reason and not some ill intent. Basically ol’ reliable. (that in the long run isnt reliable but fucks the whole planet over but you know what i mean)
Yea, so I guess one of the changes allowing for companies to bypass evironmental reviews, which will do a lot to help US based energy companies, pisses you off, then? Or any of the other things being done that benefit US companies at our expense?
Be serious, he’s selling us out and we’re getting fuck-all in return.
Yes it does piss me off. And we shouldn’t allow US control of any of our resources. Not that big Canadian companies would be much better.
I do think that some of the environmental controls and other regulations may have gone too far and they tend to just make development impossible. And as much as we might not like it, we do need development.Development for development’s sake is so utterly worthless, though. If we do it poorly it just costs us money and whatever we do get is funnelled towards the ultra-rich who centrists and conservatives refuse tax. We have known how to fix this shit for a loooong time but we cannot seem to bring ourselves to a) vote for anyone who actually represents us or b) even show up to vote at all.
Stop making excuses for the worst people and start standing up for yourself.
Hey, maybe I’m one of those ultra rich who benifits from this! I’m not, and I agree with you. But a lot of what gets built isn’t just for development’s sake. We actually benefit from a healthy economy; without it things would be much worse. There should be more regulation and taxes on the wealthy; but it’s a tricky balance with lots of moving parts and complicated interactions.
Do you know what a healthy economy is? Do you know how to measure it? Every single year, inflation outpaces most people’s buying power. A healthy, strong economy is one where small amounts of money change hands often, and where everyone has a place in it. It’s one where people have choice, and companies hire more people than necessary so that newer generations are trained. It’s one where we people can have savings, and where the generational expectation is retirement and homeownership. That’s not what we have, and that’s not what funnelling money to corporations will give us.
Instead, we have inflation outpacing wages, a housing crisis, all our levels of government sucking landlord dick, and a PM who thinks that unions are dumb as evidenced by his response to the Air Canada strike last year. We have a government that is giving nearly 9bil in development fee discounts to Ontario builders that their customers will never see reflected in the price.
Stop with this “it’s a tricky balance” crap. It’s not, you’re just absolutely scared shitless of something of value being imperfect so you retreat to excuses for why we can’t do anything at all.
God I fucking hate the liberals and everything about them.
Sorry. Have to keep supporting the checks notes former Governor of the Bank of England for PM, because a vote for NDP/Greens is a vote for the Conservatives (or whatever bullshit equivalent math is needed to keep the hoes in line).
NDP would be like a dog with 2 dicks, they would have no idea what to do once elected to power. Though a totally overwhelmed party paralyzed by indecision would still be better than what we god.
Though a totally overwhelmed party paralyzed by indecision would still be better than what we [got]
NO SHIT
The NDP have historically done well in the provinces where they have unexpectedly formed government. Rae’s time is contentious but outside of Ontario, his methods have been extensively studied and adopted by other governments to deal with similar challenges. He did new things that people haven’t tried before, and they worked. I think that’s what we’re fucking looking for right now.
Because electing the same two parties worked well so far, right? And they will totally see the light and change their ways, right?
God forbid we elect a different party
Avi Lewis would make a great PM.
The man who couldn’t get elected in his riding twice and instead of doing a by-election when he won the party leadership decided yolo? That Avi Lewis? The unelectable one?
Yes I’m being snide but I’ve voted NDP numerous times. Like PP I see him as someone more enabled to shrink a tent than grow it.
Here’s hoping he can raise the NDP to Governing level. Sick of the red/blue bs where blue fucks us dry and red fucks us but gives us trinkets
Based on what? NDP have never had power federally, what are you basing this on, your imagination?
Wasn’t one of the main criticisms about Carney that he wasn’t a politician and was an outsider?
I am older and also mad at this shit ahow.
I think young people understand that the “ruling class” is going to have to be overthrown by any means necessary
They are? I thought they lost faith on climate change goals a long time ago.
