this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2025
0 points (50.0% liked)

Canada

10109 readers
848 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
 

I did support Carney and I hope he does good things, and I don't think the following scenario would occur but I realize this belief is entirely based on my judgement of Carney's character which could be wrong.

I was thinking about the proposed gas pipeline to the east coast. If Carney hopes to be re-elected, he can't ram a pipeline through Quebec using emergency powers if such exist. Or he'd lose his seats in QC. Instead he's gotta give significant concessions to QC, like ownership, high royalties, etc. Stuff that he and Blanchet can sell to the Quebecers. I think this is certainly possible for a gas pipeline.

But then the following disaster scenario occurred to me. He likely has significant Brookfield investments in that blind trust. He likely has a seat open on that board whenever he quits public service. What if he uses emergency powers to ram a whole bunch of infrastructure, through P3s, where the private partner retains ownership, and the partner is Brookfield. Do as many of those as possible, get kicked out of office and sit on Brookfield's board, that much richer, while we get saddled with an even angrier and vindicated CPC fascism.

Thoughts?

Edit: Thanks for wading into my election PTSD nightmare!

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well, you may not have been completely right on every detail, but the way Carney's government is going, you weren't far off.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Where did you dig up this ancient post from.. 😄

But yeah things aren't going spectacularly. A Kier Starmer scenario looks more likely at the moment.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

lol yeah sorry was looking through someone else's comment history (someone who seems quite hostile to criticism of dear leader) and found your post also getting a big pile-on from Canada's Insufferable Liberal Hordes

and yeah it ain't great

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What makes you believe any of this is in the realm of possibility?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

That's what United States citizens have been saying for forty? Years. We just keep shrugging each time something happens and move the goalposts.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

That I don't see anything making it impossible or even too difficult, if they get a majority which is still possible. And that Carney has incentive to do it. If the NDP holds power, they could intervene.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is flawed logic with no substance to back it up.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I don't see the flaw in it. But yes, at this point there's no substance. We'll see how the infrastructure projects would be structured. For example whether they retain public ownership or not. If we begin to see private ownership, that would be the substance.