So regarding the EV vehicle mandate:
I’ve always through the better approach was to give tax incentives to businesses to switch to EV, stimulating demand to incentivize production.
That’s assuming we’re not going to do the painfully logical thing of building adequate public transit that would accomplish way more carbon reduction wise than letting the auto industry continue carbraining our society.
Public transit infrastructure is a decades from now solution, which is too late, except maybe for busses. Most vehicles are run by consumers, not businesses, if you meant at the buyer’s end.
The Trudeau policy in question would amount to a subsidy on EVs paid for by gas car buyers, the way it was going to work out. Poillievre was going to make that his next bugbear. He’s currently holding a press conference where he whines about the change being no fair.
Best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago. 2nd best time is today. The very act of building infrastructure stimulates local economy as well.
Consumers can’t afford EVs. For many they’re not feasible in their current state. Stimulating demand via taxes (corporate or income) aligns with who can realistically purchase them.
1st project IMO should be a high speed rail down the main corridor back east. Doesn’t directly benefit west coasters like me, but it would certainly catalyze our greater economy and reduce pollution.
Polliviere is desperate to champion a policy that Carney won’t out fiscal conservative him on lmao. Crazy PP’s broken ass clock is making a valid point about the TFW program.
The very act of building infrastructure stimulates local economy as well.
Not necessarily. It’s going to take away from other local industries, and that’s bad if they would have been more useful or valuable. Otherwise, by that logic, digging a hole and then filling it in is a great jobs program. Wikipedia has an article on this line of reasoning.
Crazy PP’s broken ass clock is making a valid point about the TFW program.
As far as I can tell, it’s just “immigrants taking our jerbs” again. And Eby’s jumping on board with it.
BTW, I think I should delete this post, because apparently it’s a duplicate. I’ll wait until we’re done though. I copied your recap over there.
It’s going to take away from other local industries
how?
digging a hole and then filling it in
That is not infrastructure though. A jobs program is not the same as stimulating the economy.
Building a train creates work for workers, business demand for locals, and long term jobs when the project is completed.
It also catalyzes the economy by making longer distance commutes cheaper and more viable.
A jobs program is not the same as stimulating the economy.
What is, then? I feel like the more work = more economy approach is exactly what you’re using here. And it’s not an uncommon way of thinking.
Let’s make it definitely infrastructure, while still impractical. A solid gold bridge that we mine for ourselves. It will employ lots of people to make, it will create all kinds of business demand to supply those workers, and maybe we put a toll booth on it for future employment, which is the three things you put forward.
How many real world problems a project solves is actually what determines it’s value, economically and in general. But, that’s all a bit of a digression, since public transit does solve some problems, or even many. It just doesn’t solve every single one. Short-term emission reductions, for example, again with the possible exception of busses that can use already built roads.
Quite often, it seems like Lemmy starts with the (valid) conclusion we need more public transit, and then works backwards to the reasons why.
A noteworthy part of the plan is to pause the electric vehicle (EV) mandate to meet a demand by the auto industry. The strategy waives the mandate for the 2026 model year and launches a 60-day review of the policy.
The new industrial strategy also includes:
- A “reskilling package”: The government will extend employment insurance benefits and make them more flexible, launch a digital jobs training program and help 50,000 workers update their skills.
- A strategic response fund: The government says it will invest $5 billion into a new fund that will help tariff-affected industries adapt and train their workforce.
- A new “Buy Canada policy”: The measures will require the federal government to use Canadian suppliers and will also “provide a roadmap” so provincial and municipal governments do the same.
- Extending Business Development Bank of Canada loans: Small and medium-sized businesses will be able to access more capital and will get more flexibility in paying it back. They will also get $1 billion in additional support over three years.
- Agriculture relief: There will be a new $370-million biofuel production incentive, and clean fuel regulations will be amended to help the biofuels industry. Canola will also get relief support from the federal government to help it bear China’s 75.8 per cent tariff on Canadian canola.
A few good bits for workers but no mention of strenghtening unions. I guess we’ll see how hard they’d fight to preserve Section 107.
Hot Take 1: Relying on the government to protect unions is antithetical to unions.
Hot Take 2: No LPC Federal Labour Minister will force people to participate in unions instead of settling for whatever protections the government affords them.
I’m hyper-pro-union and I think we’re about to re-enter the part of the cycle where unions stop taking shit and start taking names.
Fucking inject an era of strong labour solidarity into my veins, I’ve been waiting decades for some class consciousness to awaken.
IV drip that shit!
