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

Canada

11654 readers
1038 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
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 30 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)
[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 6 points 3 months ago

Also, guess who will pay less taxes, and who will foot the bill?

Less taxes for the richies and the corpos. Service cuts for everyday Canadians.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't love everything in there but overall, seems a pretty fair mix of "dealing with the American shitstorm", helping the economy and hopefully getting us on a greener path. Yes, there are parts I'd like more of and otherd of which I'd like less but in terms of a broad compromise that I think is reasonable to a large swathe of Canadians, I'm a pretty big fan.

[–] Nils@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months 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 9 points 3 months 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 3 months 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 3 months 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 3 months 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 3 months ago

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

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yay! Lower quality services is some that benefits everyone! Thanks bank daddy!

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Which services are you thinking of?

The major thing I've seen is reducing the number of public sector employees back to 2020 levels, which doesn't seem wild. (I haven't seen a good explanation of why we needed to increase the public sector by 20% since then, nor of what we got out of that. If you have anything, I'd love to read it!) Throw in some reductions of outside consultants etc...

There are undoubtedly some programs getting cut. But given we're teetering on the edge of an adversary induced recession, that doesn't seem unsreasonable.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 months ago (14 children)

(I haven't seen a good explanation of why we needed to increase the public sector by 20% since then, nor of what we got out of that. If you have anything, I'd love to read it!)

Here's an easy explanation: we didn't have enough.

Wait times are no fun, right? Need more people to process the things, or you need to remove some of the regulatory steps involved. Both those, the doing of the work and the fruitless "just make it faster" boondoggles, need meatbags to do the doing.

You now how we can tell we didn't have enough? WAIT TIMES. When it's zero, you may have too many staff. When it's a day, you're probably just right. Show me a wait time report and I'll show you 12 months in processing delays that we should have avoided by grabbing an intelligent peon and making them do some things of the things that need doing -- because processing delays and wait times are absolutely the shits right now.

QED

[–] bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 3 months ago

Exactly, Canadian population growth is outstripping service supply and has been for some time. I still have a coworker who thinks the CRA personnel should be cut to the proportions the USA has, as if that's a benchmark to aspire to.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (30 children)

I don't have anything in particular, as I haven't seen details, but the public service exists to serve the public, cutting the workforce ends up reducing services. Since we're on the edge of a recession I'd say tax the billionaires, go back and charge Google for the billions that we were supposed to get before Carney bowed down to trump. We will now also have many unemployed more unemployed people which causes strains in other areas. I remain unconvinced that cuts for austerity purposes are ultimately beneficial, raise taxes on the ultra wealthy instead

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Generally speaking, reducing public servants increases consultancy requirements, not reduces.

If you don't have someone with the capabilites/skills/corporate knowledge/experince/capacity to do X thing on the payroll, then you need to hire a consultant to do it.

Now obviously I couldn't tell you what ministry/department/etc needs, but let's take the Alto contract as an isolated example.

We don't have any rail expertise in government at all, so we need to consult it in, and we pay a premium for that. In the lens of a single rail project, that makes a a lot of sense, we aren't paying payroll and maintaining expertise for a once in a generation project.

The alternative is having something like a national rail crown corp or department, like SNCF in France. Now all the experience is at the national level whenever you need it. SNCF has a lot more staff, planning, and engineering capacity than it requires; so that gets farmed out to regions and municipalities to help them with their rail/metro/tram projects. This is instead of each of them needing consultants, driving up the costs for municipal governments/capital projects.

In this manner increased federal spending becomes an accelerant for other levels of government and reduces regional and municipal spending, and thus the overall tax burden for everyone.

So if we had something like SNCF then the Alto project might cost a little more, but the Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, Toronto, and Montréal recent/ongoing lines would be cheaper; plus medium cities like Victoria, Winnipeg, Québec City, and Halifax would have rail projects in their reach; and smaller cities like Red Deer, Regina, Thunder Bay, Kingston, Trois Rivières, and Fredericton would have tram projects in their reach.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The budget was designed to pass.

That means that it was pathetically compromising towards environmental protections, worker protections, a strong stance against the US, etc., etc.

In other words, it's pretty much a fucking milquetoast mess with nothing good.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I mean, that's how a lot of Canadian politics works... "passed because no one really hated it"...

[–] Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

That's how all politics works. You can't make everyone happy, so you just try to make every less unhappy.

[–] krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago

That's Carney through and through though.

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 months ago

Cut the 30B that subsidizes oil and gas.

[–] kbal@fedia.io 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Yves-François Blanchet gave quite a speech about it, the gist of it was that he doesn't like it. This may be a budget that fails to pass.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I think the Bloc has been adamantly opposed for months.

Possibly foolishly optimistic take incoming:

My guess/ferverent hope is that the NDP and Cons don't want another election so soon. The NDP can't afford it and I think the Conservatives wouldn't love the optics. There's also so much in there about protecting the Ontario areas where the Conservatives just made inroads + everyone still hates PP, you have to think an election would be a loser for them.

So, bold prediction/prayer, Cons n NDP allow a free vote with abstentions so they don't have to vote for it but also don't have to trigger an election.

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

I think its more likely the NDP just abstain enough that it passes. And apparently there is a member crossing the floor today from the Cons to the Libs so they only need a few abstentions to pass. I dont think the Cons will to abstain because of the optics.

[–] kbal@fedia.io 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I think some Conservatives abstaining is the most likely path. Much as they'd like to I don't think the NDP (or Elizabeth May) are going to want to be seen as enabling it.

If the Conservatives don't make it happen, their party may just get its own chance to fail to pass their first budget very soon.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If the Conservatives don’t make it happen, their party may just get its own chance to fail to pass their first budget very soon.

Ha, well put.

We'll see how it all shakes out but if I were the Liberals, I think I'd be itching for this fight and a pretty good chance at taking a majority government.

Maybe I'm discounting partisanship, but I can't imagine Canadians would be happy about another election with America attacking us. (Also, while obviously sample size/anecodatal doesn't count etc my 2 angry Conservative friends seemed pretty content with the budget.)

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The last month or so haven't been good for Mark's electability. He should really lay low a bit until the attack ad potential dies down. I'd hate to see more morons choosing Milhouse.

[–] MyBrainHurts@piefed.ca 1 points 3 months ago

Honestly, I wonder how much of that last election loss was just we hated that guy so much. If I remember correctly, there was a yawning chasm between "approval for the Conservative party" and "approval for Poilievre."

But, there's so much in this budget for almost everyone that last month aside, I'd still happily put Carney out there blasting Conservatives for wasting Canadians time etc. But we'll see how it all plays out!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

No more private planes tax, no more capital gains tax... middle and lower class Canadians to foot the bill for this "investment"

This is trickle down economics with a tik tok song in the background

[–] ImmersiveMatthew@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

Wow…that is roughly $2000 per Canadian.

[–] SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›