this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
104 points (98.1% liked)

Canada

10629 readers
552 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 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The theme seems to be "reduce operating spending, increase capital spending". We'll see how that will blow over with the opposition.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

dealing with the American shitstorm
getting us on a greener path

Can you clarify your position or share the article you read? I might have missed those points when I read the https://www.budget.canada.ca/ report

there are parts I’d like more of and otherd of which I’d like less
broad compromise that I think is reasonable to a large swathe of Canadians,

A bit vague no? What do you mean?

Thanks.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Those are two very different parts. Dealing with the American shitstorm is approached with enhanced trade routes etc. You might look at the broad overview here: https://budget.canada.ca/2025/report-rapport/chap1-en.html

On the greener path, sure, there's a new nuclear plant, carbon capture (not my ideal but probably a reasonable compromise with our oil dependent provinces) Wind West Atlantic and of course, holding onto the industrial carbon price. (The only realistic non Liberal government would be the Conservatives who have been opposed to that since inception.)

there are parts I’d like more of

If I had my magic wand, I'd probably like more green projects, probably some higher wealth taxes though disentangling those from capital investment is tricky etc. I'd also like to keep expanding the national daycare program.

other[s] of which I’d like less

Personally, I'm not entirely sold on a massive military budget buuuuuuuuut, I'm not wildly opposed. There are a few tax cuts that I think are a little silly (luxury jets seems fucking dumb. I hope they catch that somewhere else) and frankly, I didn't love the gigantic tax cut at the beginning, though I'm in a pretty privileged position etc.

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I understand better your points now, thanks for sharing your thoughts and optimism, I needed some optimism.

When I first read the report on budge.canada the "greener path" shows that pretty much everything ended in 2024. Moving forward they mention carbon capture without details what kind of investment they are putting money in (best I could find is funding this https://www.alberta.ca/carbon-capture-and-storage that is also a bit vague), investing in mining (justifying that mining specific minerals helps the environment, but no mention on how to make mining less damaging to the environment and hold companies accountable) and removing the carbon cap saying that investments in several sectors would reduce the emissions anyway. A lot of wishful thinking on the budget text, or on the worst case mental gymnastics malice.

Like, there is this promising

To finance government spending that helps industrial and agricultural sectors get cleaner and more competitive, ...

I would love to see the government working with farmers to keep production high and with low footprint. Despite the text being vague on how/who will get the money, farmers are already very thin on their footprint, usually limited to the access of resources to maintain their farms (heat, fertilizers, etc...). A farmer that only has access to gas for heat would not be able to reduce their footprint unless other options are made available.

I also felt like there is no handling "american shitstorm" either, there are plenty of brags on how they capitulate and are one of the least impacted by tariffs because of that.

Also, good thing you bought up the taxes. One thing I found interesting while reading the PDF version earlier, they pretty much teach us on many ways to avoid paying them, I wish that was easily available at the CRA website. =P

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

removing the carbon cap saying that investments in several sectors would reduce the emissions anyway. A lot of wishful thinking on the budget text, or on the worst case mental gymnastics malice.

A lot of this is through keeping and raising a carbon tax. That makes companies find the most efficient ways to reduce their footprints, rather than the government mandating it for each group. This is the approach favoured by most serious economists and think groups about reducing emissions quickly.

without details what kind of investment they are putting money in

You can look at the "nation building" projects, which include a massive wind farm (green as hell) and a nuclear plant (fairly clean, significantly better than say, oil or gas.)

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That makes companies find the most efficient ways to reduce their footprints, rather than the government mandating it for each group. This is the approach favoured by most serious economists

And it is the approach Carney favored in his book (which was written several years before he decided to run for office)

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 2 points 23 hours ago

Not at all surprised to hear that! (The book is sitting on my shelf, unread and judging me.)