this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2025
27 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10781 readers
353 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 day ago

Carney is a capitalist. He's a banker. He's pro money and doesn't give a shit about the environment. His ideas lead to allowing any minister to exempt an organization from any law in their responsibility.

Check out section 208 of Bill C-15 which gives a minister the ability to allow any entity to ignore a law for a period of time. They could freely allow a company to ignore environmental laws for example.

Here's the relevant part of the bill copied below, and the link to the bill on parl.ca. Scroll down a little bit to section 208. There are some things I trimmed out for brevity. This is not the whole thing, just the parts I considered most relevant.


208 Section 11 of the Act and the heading before it are replaced by the following:

#Exemptions to Encourage Innovation, Competitiveness or Economic Growth

Order
12 (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (7), a minister may, by order, for a specified validity period of not more than three years and on any terms that the minister considers appropriate, exempt an entity from the application of

  • (a) a provision of an Act of Parliament, except the Criminal Code, if the minister is responsible for the Act;
  • (b) a provision of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament, except an instrument made under the Criminal Code, if
    • (i) the minister is responsible for the Act, or
    • (ii) the body that made the instrument is accountable, through the minister, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs; or
  • (c) a provision of an Act of Parliament, except the Criminal Code, or a provision of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament, except an instrument made under the Criminal Code, if the minister administers or enforces the provision.

Conditions
(3) A minister may make an order under subsection (1) only if the minister is of the opinion that

  • (a) the exemption is in the public interest;
  • (b) the exemption would enable the testing of, among other things, a product, service, process, procedure or regulatory measure with the aim of facilitating the design, modification or administration of a regulatory regime to encourage innovation, competitiveness or economic growth;
  • (c) the benefits associated with the exemption outweigh the risks;
  • (d) sufficient resources exist, and appropriate measures will be taken, to maintain oversight of the testing, manage any risks associated with the exemption and protect public health and safety and the environment; and
  • (e) a feasible implementation plan has been developed.

#Transparency and Parliamentary Oversight

Accessibility
14 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a minister must, as soon as feasible after making an order under section 12, make the order and the following information publicly accessible:

  • (a) a description of the decision-making process and a summary of the reasons for the order; and
  • (b) a description of the process for providing comments or information to, or requesting information from, the minister in relation to the order.

Exception

  • (2) The minister may exclude information that, in the minister’s opinion, would be inappropriate to make publicly accessible for reasons that include safety or security considerations or the protection of confidential or personal information.
[–] yardy_sardley@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Not enough action? The carbon tax had people foaming at the mouth for 5 straight years.

Meanwhile Carney's climate policy is to 'invest' heavily in a technology that doesn't work in order to offset the optics of doubling oil production.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The carbon tax was a good thing. Unfortunately Trudeau's gov't didn't explain it well enough for people to know how it worked and who would receive it.

Too many just jumped on the PP bandwagon instead of looking at their account balances 4 times a year.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 7 points 18 hours ago

It's not possible to explain the carbon tax well enough for conservatives; they don't want to understand it

I'm not super comfortable with a lot of what he's saying, but it would be pretty tough to make the case that "not enough action" isn't an accurate statement.

According to new data released from Environment and Climate Change Canada, the country will fall well short of its 2030 climate goal — just halfway to its target of a 40 to 45 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels.

I'm deeply skeptical that his approach is going to do any better, but I support the idea of boosting investment in clean(er) alternatives. And he did get Alberta to agree to increase their industrial carbon price.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago

Is the goal to upset people or to avoid a climate crisis?

The carbon tax was in place long enough to make this a fact-based assessment. Any evidence that it helped?

I would like to see a government that can be effective without people “foaming at the mouth”. If the latter is the price of being effective, I will take it.

A government built on the idea that “if other people hate what we are doing then we must be doing it right” turns Canada into the US. No thank you.

If improving the climate is the goal, that should be what we measure. Strength of opposition represents at best an unavoidable side-effect and at worst failure to focus action on the actual goal.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

And then he makes carbon capture a central plank of what he's planning to do. Deceitful snake.

[–] kbal@fedia.io 11 points 1 day ago

That's unfair — it's not just carbon capture, he's also putting lots of effort into building oil pipelines.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

PP does not stand for anything. Only his own career.

Even selling out to his big business supporters is quite secondary.

To borrow a phrase from another post, having his political opponents “foaming at the mouth” is his only real metric of success. His populist playbook is based entirely on the idea that, to win the race, it does not matter at all how fast you go, as long as the other guys never finish. Obstruction and upset is the only tool he understands. His “plans” are cherry picked mimicry or polling selections. As he is neither for or against anything deeply, everything he says is “deceipt”, even when he does not explicitly intend it to be. He does not care what he is saying, only what other people think about it. If that changes, so will he.

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Who brought up Poilievre?

[–] leastaction@lemmy.ca 4 points 23 hours ago

Carney instead touted carbon capture and storage — a key condition of the Alberta agreement — as well as nuclear power generation.

What rubbish. CCUS is a fossil fuel industry scam (https://environmentaldefence.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Buyer-Beware-FFS-2022.pdf), and Carney should know it. Nuclear power generation needs to be heavily subsidized to compete with other energy sources, and of course it's not renewable, and Carney should know that too.

[–] MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Carney is governing to the right of what PP was promising.

I hope everyone feels dirty for all that strategic voting bullshit.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I hope everyone feels dirty for all that strategic voting bullshit.

I would have felt much dirtier voting for PP's party.

And the NDP candidate in my riding was a last minute seat filler with zero political or charitable or work experience.

My best available option was to vote for the liberal candidate. Who just happened to be someone I knew from communiry volunteer activities before he ran for office.

That doesn’t sound anything like strategic voting…