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

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 31 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] Vex_Detrause@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 months ago

What happened?! Is there any climate policy left? That's a lot of pro-oil policy.

[–] amphtmne@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 30 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm mad that the ONLY choices available in Canada are bigots and corporate shills.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That's not true. We don't live in a two party presidential system, we live in a multiparty parliamentary system.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 28 points 2 months ago (1 children)

God I fucking hate the liberals and everything about them.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (8 children)

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).

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] Blip6338@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 months ago

I am older and also mad at this shit ahow.

[–] garbagehead@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 months ago

The young people seem madder about being unable to have any economic goals.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (7 children)

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.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 months ago (11 children)

You realize that from young people point of view, the "hard decision" is "let's just fuck the young ones and embrace collective suicide!"?

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Take a load of this guy thinking that climate change doesn't cause economic pressure.

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[–] Vinylraupe@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 months ago

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)

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This is why we should have gotten out of the US trade relationship ~~yesterday~~ ~~last year~~ ~~a decade ago~~ ~~two decades ago~~ I 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.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (8 children)

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.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ok, Boomer.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

I think young people understand that the “ruling class” is going to have to be overthrown by any means necessary

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 6 points 2 months ago

They are? I thought they lost faith on climate change goals a long time ago.

[–] JackFrostNCola@aussie.zone 5 points 2 months ago

"Government makes bad decision: affected constituents respond that they will be negatively impacted by said bad decision"

[–] SethTaylor@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

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

[–] Sunshine@piefed.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Carney has been sailing the popularity wave for far too long.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

most countries have abandoned climate goals for years already.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] CircaV@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He’s building a fucking landing strip in downtown Toronto that’s one way to lose a future election! His majority is SLIM.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

whaaaaaaa

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments