this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
39 points (95.3% liked)

Canada

8435 readers
1928 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Schools / Universities

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

πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales

πŸ—£οΈ 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
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
39
Mark Carney's Economic Plan Released (markcarney.ca)
submitted 2 days ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I wish he had a Mstdn.ca link on his page.

top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 60d@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

A.I. SUMMARY:

Mark Carney's "One Canadian Economy" plan aims to unify Canada's fragmented markets to bolster economic growth, job creation, and national security. Key initiatives include:

  • Eliminating Interprovincial Trade Barriers: By removing these barriers, the plan projects a potential economic expansion of up to $200 billion, translating to a gain of $3,000 to $5,000 per Canadian.

  • Enhancing Labor Mobility: The plan seeks to ensure that professional qualifications are recognized nationwide, allowing Canadians to work anywhere without requalification. This approach aims to improve competitiveness, reduce costs, and stimulate economic growth.

  • Facilitating Nationwide Business Operations: By harmonizing regulations and standards, businesses can more easily sell products and services across provinces, reducing costs and expanding market access.

  • Strengthening National Infrastructure: The plan proposes prioritizing and accelerating projects of national interest that cross interprovincial boundaries, enhancing connectivity and economic cohesion.

Overall, the "One Canadian Economy" plan focuses on creating a unified national market to drive economic prosperity and resilience.

[–] FreeBooteR69@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I sent an email to Mark Carney regarding mstdn.ca and encourage others to do the same.

Hello Mr. Carney,

As a Canadian, i was wondering if you would consider adding a Canadian social media site to your presence, like mstdn.ca (mastodon) or similar? As someone who wants to get away from American corporate dominance, i would like to see Canada using home grown talent rather than only billionaire dominated media.

Thank you for your attention.

media@markcarney.ca

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago

That’s such a good template!

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 days ago (6 children)

I bounced onto his housing policy. It can be summed up as

We simply do not have enough homes. πŸ€·β€β™‚οΈ

It proceeds to do the neoliberal "let's hope the private sector saves us" crap.

Nothing about the feds building housing.

Nothing about fixing our tax code so houses aren't investments.

It doesn't even talk about bringing in more construction workers.

Just rEmOvInG rEd TaPe.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Best housing policy is to have government compete with private sector building "market affordable" (small) homes that are meant to break even, and so costs nothing. Not even cities propose this, though they can do it independently. Fundamentally, the home owner class likes scarcity of housing, and votes to keep it.

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

Best housing policy is to have government compete with private sector building "market affordable" (small) homes that are meant to break even, and so costs nothing.

Maybe even at a loss.

Not even cities propose this, though they can do it independently.

Cities can't levy taxes so they are least able to do it - and they tend to have a lot of responsibilities. The feds and provinces can raise money through taxes, so they are the most logical actor to take it on.

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

Cities can’t levy taxes so they are least able to do it

It doesn't cost anything if they break even, or why not small profit. Cities can have debt.

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

And given the cost of housing at the moment, breaking even probably isn't enough to lower housing costs.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

It's easier the higher the overall cost of housing. Training more people in trades can be lower labour costs. Doesn't have to follow usual government principle of ultra comfy job to give out as political favours. Affordability due to small size makes it easier to break even while affordable. Just because you target a break even price, doesn't mean you won't sell to highest bidder.

More supply is what lowers cost of housing, and targetting break even gives a pricing advantage over profit/scarcity model. So do decisions prioritizing affordability over luxury.

[–] ahal@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It doesn't even talk about bringing in more construction workers.

Huh? "Grow the construction sector workforce" is literally the third point. Either you're being disingenuous or you didn't read the same page that I did.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The full point is

Grow the construction sector workforce. Accelerated home construction will require a corresponding investment in our skilled trade workforce. We will expand and accelerate training and apprenticeship programs for skilled trades so that we can build the homes Canadians need. We will seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a more competitive construction industry with great jobs in trades and manufacturing.

It talks about educating trades workers, which is excellent, but our construction sector is rapidly aging, and we need as many workers as possible. Canada has a well developed immigration system for bringing new workers into the country. We need to use that.

Carney's platform does not mention Federal Skilled Trades Program, TFWs, or any other part of Canada's immigration system. Which is bizarre, given the Liberals use of immigration, and oblique mentions to Canada's growing population,

[–] CircaV@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The removal of interprovincial trade regulations for tradespeople could really help this. We don’t need people from the outside instead make it easier for people to work anywhere in Canada. Carney said he would make 1 Canadian economy, not 13.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Maybe? Tradespeople are aging out, and there aren't enough people entering the trades.

Mobility would be great, and I'm all for it, but that probably isn't enough to build the 3+ million homes necessary to improve affordability.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Yeah. I don't know why everyone is fawning over Mark Carney. He is small 'c' conservative. There's nothing he plans to do that's actually going to alleviate the burden on the middle class.

That's why I'm voting NDP next election. I don't care that Jagmeet Singh is not popular. Their party's plaform is exactly what we need right now. But nobody wants to acknowledge them as a real alternative to conservatives. No one is giving them any media attention also. So it's hard for them to deliver their message.

[–] LeFantome@programming.dev 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Another way to look at it is that we thought there was no way to avoid a conservative government. Mark Carney has brought back the possibility that somebody else could win.

What will stop Mark Carney from winning will be if too many people vote NDP. If that happens, we get Pollievre. That is just the math.

Personally, I do not like to vote to send a message or complete a survey. I like to try to pick the best available government.

As a candidate to win, the NDP is not one of the options this election. You have two choices. Please pick one.

If your number two choice is going to win, picking the opposition is a viable strategy. However, if your last place pick is going to win, maybe vote for whoever has the best chance of beating them (otherwise you are choosing your last place pick).

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

We can still get a minority conservative government. End up with another coalition. That could work great too.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago

Canadian system is that you just vote for your single riding. NDP and Green opposition to Liberal preferred voting reform (they were too quick to give up on) means your wrong narrative is what the media BSs Canadians into understanding.

The reality is that some ridings will have stronger NDP than Liberal chances, and in such ridings voting Liberal can split the vote to let PC win. You as a voter are forced to independently seek polls or other indicators of which of the 2 might be the strongest candidate, because the main media will be of zero help in preventing PC relevance.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 days ago

I don't know why everyone is fawning over Mark Carney. He is small 'c' conservative.

I think there's general antipathy towards Poilievre. It feels like classic Anyone But the Conservatives.

Carney doesn't have a history with Trudeau, so the hope is that he can steal a victory from the Conservatives.

[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Singh has so little charisma the media just passes right over him. He says all the right words but has no genuine feeling behind it. I'm afraid I'll have to vote for less evil again which fucking sucks.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

So we're going to ignore a whole party and it's values and objectives because the leader has no charisma?

I don't really care about charisma as long as they get the job done.

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

Lucky for me they tend to be my reps. In my riding(s) not voting NDP means voting for a candidate that cannot win

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Mine is a toss up between liberal, NDP and bloc quΓ©bΓ©cois

[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I understand, but most people vote by how they perceive a person. Basically elections are a popularity contest, which is unfortunate.

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

The thing is, they don't get the job done. And one of their jobs is to win over the hearts and minds of the electorate, and they can't even make small inroads on that when people are frustrated and ready for change.

The party has presented no clear vision for voters to latch on to, and I say this as someone who volunteers for them.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

They got the dental care added to the social medical insurance coverage as a third party. That's a pretty good accomplishment.

Again, I feel like the media doesn't give them enough coverage, and when they do, it's never really in their favor.

In any case. I agree with you that he lacks something. He's too "normal" I guess? Not loud enough? Not aggressive enough? People expect some kind of super star. But I believe in the party's platform and I sincerely believe it's the right path to take.

If you take the time to look at their platform, you'll see they want to strengthen the middle class and improve our quality of life. Bring back the spirit of solidarity between middle class Canadians and give everybody a chance to have a better life and a better future. Unlike neo-liberals and conservatives who only care about counting beans and hoarding profits for their corporate friends at the cost of our social services, food security, environment, etc. I'm sick of it. And I know you are too.

The only way to turn things around in our favor is by voting NDP in my opinion.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No one is giving them any media attention also. So it's hard for them to deliver their message.

Last time I checked their YouTube channel, it was sparse. They barely seem to have a presence. That was around a year ago, so maybe they've rectified that.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

I'm talking more about regular media. News channels. Etc.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I bounced onto his housing policy. It can be summed up as

We simply do not have enough homes. πŸ€·β€β™‚οΈ

Damn, maybe you got a different page to load? There seems to be a lot in his plan (too much to copy-paste here).

But keep in mind that Provinces are ultimately responsible for housing. If, for example, you don't think Ontario is doing a good enough job with housing (and we aren't), you can blame Doug Ford, who is now doing a shitty job representing Ontario for a third term...

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Provinces are ultimately responsible for housing

The current federal government dipped into provincial responsibility to: create national cheap daycare; pay for dental care; and "encourage" municipalities to loosen zoning restrictions. They (rightly) won a court case against Alberta about who can enforce environmental regulations.

CMHC used to work with the provinces to build housing. They, and the federal government, can do it again.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And yet, at least in the Province of Ontario, the provincial government fucked up the daycare program, really fucked up municipal governance over housing projects, really really fucked up with spending healthcare funds given to them by the feds.

Unless the Federal government completely takes over these responsibilities, we still have to rely on provinces to do the right thing.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

The feds have sidestepped the provinces entirely with dental care - payments go from the federal government to dentists (via Sun Life πŸ˜‚).

I'm pretty sure the dRoP tHe ReD tApE crap the Liberals/Conservatives are doing/proposing are paid directly from federal coffers to municipalities.

I get the Ford hate, I really do, but we're in a housing crisis. We can't let neoliberals like Carney and Ford hide behind jurisdiction while they bend over backwards for private companies.

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Legit question here, what would you like to see in there?

Personally I'm not clear on where the responsibilities of federal vs provincial are on housing, so I don't even know what we should be demanding.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

  1. Build houses. AFAIU, CMHC used to work with provides to do that. The houses could be sold below market price to people below a certain income, or rented out.

  2. Build affordable housing. Rent it out below market rate.

  3. More no-interest loans for co-ops and not-for-profit builders.

  4. Put a lifetime limit on the amount of profit people can make on their primary residence tax free. Maybe 100k? Maybe 100k/five years of primary residence? I dunno. This would have to be on new purchases.

  5. Get more people building houses. Carney proposes more apprenticeships, which is great, but that takes time - we should also encourage more immigrants to build houses as a pathway to citizenship.

  6. Nobody in the trades should pay for an education. Our taxes should cover it. Ditto for healthcare.

There's a bunch of other stuff that I like, but may not make sense: remove taxes on construction materials; lower taxes on the trades; crack down on money laundering; disallow foreign ownership of Canadian homes; make improvements on homes tax free.

[–] BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Can.... can I vote for you?

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago

Make the government build some god damn social housing. We used to build a LOT more before. Now we're just hoping for the private sector to save us which is a god damn pipe dream.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Well, that seriously disappointing.

sigh

[–] CircaV@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

Yes but I think it implicitly acknowledges big changes need to happen (due to the irrational US) the only way to get out of our mess is to build in Canada east-west, and invest in Canada highspeed rail, housing, pipelines that don’t service the US. All are open to attacks from America, Canada has to do these things to survive the moment.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah. I'm really hoping for a politician to step up and start paying for new construction.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Maybe he's caught between needing the money first before committing to building.

Canada is running 6+% unemployed, which means GDP has/will take a hit.

[–] johnefrancis@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think everyone can get behind interprovincial trade. Not much else that's positive in there. Build pipelines faster, and double down on the fraud of carbon-capture. Nothing about any systemic changes that will help Canadians find housing or secure stable, increasing incomes. Nothing about shifting the share of economic growth from capital to workers. The inflation adjusted incomes of Canadians have be flat since the 1970s, and we are much less secure and have inferior services like health and education.

[–] droopy4096@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Liberals were always representing business and investment communities in much the same way Cons do, the only difference is their posturing on social issues. We only have toothless NDP to represent people... this electoral system sucks and sucks big time. we need more parties, more voices and we cannot have party representing 30% of population pretend like "it's got mandate" and it's "majority". Voting should be mandatory and number of seats should represent percentage of population represented. Spoiled ballots should be represented with empty seats and "majority" rules should be the absolute majority. If no absolute majority available for decision it's to be put to plebiscite. That may get us some semblance of Democracy in it's true sense.

[–] johnefrancis@lemmy.ca 2 points 23 hours ago

Totally agree about electoral reforms of most kinds.

Sadly the NDP has drifted far from their socialist root, and doesn't really talk about any kind of major reform to capitalism. They offer a lot of marginal policy change, but don't talk about alternatives that would reverse the 50 year trend. When Mulcair was leader, h3me wanted to eliminate the federal deficit.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

Very promising statements from Carney.