this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2025
-20 points (22.2% liked)

Canada

9591 readers
1924 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!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Flaw 1) If Carney wanted to get richer, there are easier says to go about it.

Flaw 2) Party discipline is a norm, not codified. So if Carney does get his slim majority, a bare handful of the new, very tenuous MPs could easily stop them.

Flaw 3) Public polling in Quebec has shown approvals etc for pipelines ever since trump 2.0.

Flaw 4) BC and other provinces would demand similar handouts, which would be obvious at the start of such a program.

Flaw 5) Most of our pipelines etc have some degree of private ownership, that's how we build things in Canada.

Flaw 6) Come on.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Flaw 1) If Carney wanted to get richer, there are easier says to go about it.

Probably right.

Flaw 2) Party discipline is a norm, not codified. So if Carney does get his slim majority, a bare handful of the new, very tenuous MPs could easily stop them.

Yeah, I guess I'm underestimating the barriers available.

Flaw 3) Public polling in Quebec has shown approvals etc for pipelines ever since trump 2.0.

Oh? Do you have a link handy?

Thanks for engaging!

[–] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Thanks!

Quebec, which has taken a stance against pipeline projects in recent years, showed that nearly 60 per cent of people surveyed would support an oil and gas pipeline through their province.

Interesting. So maybe we could indeed start solving the EU's gas problem.