CBC’s coverage and your reading of it isn’t critical enough of the LPC, imo. For CBC’s part, their coverage surrounding Air Canada’s labour issues the other week made that pretty clear.
The pause appears indefinite for now, the part you cite does not say the pause will be for 60 days, but it might be by intention that you read it that way.
The EV mandate will be paused as the government conducts a 60-day review of the policy, and is being waived for 2026 models.
I predicted Carney’d postpone this days ago in another post. My other prediction is that Assolini will not participate in a fair CUSMA renegotiation - nothing about his first 8 months suggests he will.
CPC must be pretty ecstatic. If they can ditch PP for his excessive social conservativism, they can easily win the next federal election as Carney is Conservative. Greenpeace gets it:
However, Greenpeace Canada was quick to criticize the EV mandate delay.
“What was the point of electing Mark Carney when we get Pierre Poilievre’s climate policy?” said Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with the activist group.
CPC must be pretty ecstatic. If they can ditch PP for his excessive social conservativism, they can easily win the next federal election as Carney is Conservative. Greenpeace gets it:
However, Greenpeace Canada was quick to criticize the EV mandate delay.
“What was the point of electing Mark Carney when we get Pierre Poilievre’s climate policy?” said Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with the activist group.
Can we please at least admit that a Polievre government certainly would have had a pipeline or two in the upcoming national projects? Please? I cannot think of a more simple but correct example thus far:
The EV mandate will be paused as the government conducts a 60-day review of the policy, and is being waived for 2026 models.
I think you might just be confused or deliberately reading this oddly? Yes, the mandate is at the very least delayed by a year (that’s what the 2026 part is) and is being reviewed in totality. At the end of the pause, it might be removed, might be restructured etc, that’s literally what it means to review a government policy.
My other prediction is that Assolini will not participate in a fair CUSMA renegotiation
Fully agree. And as such, Canadian industry is likely in for a continued battering as we hemorrhage jobs. And America will likely battle anything approaching EV mandates in its markets. So, such a mandate might just make cars unaffordable in Canada (our market is insignificant compared to to America’s.)
As I said earlier, these are huge conversations with implications across the globe. The landscape is wildly different than it was when the Liberals put forward the original legislation. I would want to at a bare minimum, restructure any such mandates in conjunction with the EU, possibly abandon the auto sector entirely etc.
as Carney is Conservative.
This is silly and the same nonsense that puts republicans in power in America. It’s the same idiots who said who screamed there was no difference between Democratic and republican environmental policy because Harris would allow fracking, if you can’t look and see a stunning chasm between what is and what would have been, that’s on you. To seriously suggest that the Conservatives would have the same environmental policy is not only childish beyond belief, stunningly ignorant but that level of false equivocation is fundamentally dangerous.
Edit:
I realize not everyone actually reads what the opposition proposes. Here’s a look at the last conservative platform, in particular the climate stuff, feel free to let me know how much of this you think is happening under Carney:
Axe the entire carbon tax, including industrial pricing
Scrap regulations they view as costly or ideological, including the oil and gas GHG emissions cap, Clean Fuels Regulation (CFR) and Clean Electricity Regulation (CER)
Plan to double oil production
(e.g., Bills C-69 & C-48)
Oppose federal overreach into industrial or provincial jurisdiction (e.g., electricity taxes)
To seriously suggest that the Conservatives would have the same environmental policy is not only childish beyond belief, stunningly ignorant but that level of false equivocation is fundamentally dangerous.
You disagree with Greenpeace and I, that’s fine. I think the thing that unsettles me the most with Carney - and maybe you feel somewhat similarly with your invocation of US politics examples - is that I fear Canadian politics is descending to the 2-party system in the US where neither party serves working class interests, the two parties are very similar on many fronts (except more socially conservative ‘issues’), and the system is so easily gamed by the filthy rich to prevent positive change. (I feel the NDP is sadly missing the opportunity to be Mamdani-like, cater to the 90+% of Canadians that supported Air Canada Flight Attendants’ strike action, fill the void left of the political centre, etc.) It instills me with hopelessness and it can rile me up in an angry way. Carney has really disappointed me. I know a plurality here hold out hope that he’ll reveal a positive character later in his term, but I don’t share that belief. I remember Trump favouring Carney more than PP during the campaign for the federal Canada election. I don’t fully understand it, but it makes more sense to me now than it did before Carney was elected
I remember Trump favouring Carney more than PP during the campaign for the federal Canada election. I don’t fully understand it
It was dead simple. every Conservative politician both here (and the few who cared there) was essentially screaming/signalling as hard as they could to donald to STFU about Polievre as their relationship was huge wedge issue in the Canadian Conservative party. (Donald also rarely likes backing the losing side.)
Not to be rude, but it seems like you’re fairly new to politics if this was something that was honestly confusing. So, if I can offer some friendly advice/perspective: Carnery is handful of months into a new term with Canada facing arguably the largest economic crisis of the last 30 or 40 years? An almost unprecedented upheaval to our economic system in that our single largest trading partner (we trade more with America than we do with the rest of the world combined) now wants to decouple. The Liberals barely won that election, and even with an almost historic consolidation on the Left, could not assemble a majority. At the same time, Left wing governments across the world are embattled as far Right movements rise in popularity (Germany, the UK etc.)
How we approach the next few months likely has generational impacts that far outweigh an EV mandate next year or the next five. That’s a time to be cautious, measured and compromising, especially with those with whom we disagree. I would prefer more stringent climate regulations but what matters most is that we can carry those out long term. How do we do that? On some aspects of climate, we’re probably going to have to compromise (EV mandate) and on others (say, doubling oil production) we’re probably not.
I fear Canadian politics is descending to the 2-party system
Because almost half the country went Conservative. They got more than 40% of the vote. Even adding together every Green, NDP and Liberal vote barely gets to 50%. Either the centre and the Left fracture and let the Conservatives do whatever they want, or we appeal to some of that 45% and get back to our regular multi party system. But as long as the centre and Left so repel 45% of the population, that’s just a recipe for actual climate suicide, not this “oh no, Carney is the same as Polievre” silliness." Especially in our elected dictatorship, it’s a great strength of our system but also means that there is a huge risk.
CBC’s coverage and your reading of it isn’t critical enough of the LPC, imo. For CBC’s part, their coverage surrounding Air Canada’s labour issues the other week made that pretty clear.
The pause appears indefinite for now, the part you cite does not say the pause will be for 60 days, but it might be by intention that you read it that way.
I predicted Carney’d postpone this days ago in another post. My other prediction is that Assolini will not participate in a fair CUSMA renegotiation - nothing about his first 8 months suggests he will.
CPC must be pretty ecstatic. If they can ditch PP for his excessive social conservativism, they can easily win the next federal election as Carney is Conservative. Greenpeace gets it:
Can we please at least admit that a Polievre government certainly would have had a pipeline or two in the upcoming national projects? Please? I cannot think of a more simple but correct example thus far:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/no-oil-pipeline-on-list-1.7629818
I think you might just be confused or deliberately reading this oddly? Yes, the mandate is at the very least delayed by a year (that’s what the 2026 part is) and is being reviewed in totality. At the end of the pause, it might be removed, might be restructured etc, that’s literally what it means to review a government policy.
Fully agree. And as such, Canadian industry is likely in for a continued battering as we hemorrhage jobs. And America will likely battle anything approaching EV mandates in its markets. So, such a mandate might just make cars unaffordable in Canada (our market is insignificant compared to to America’s.)
As I said earlier, these are huge conversations with implications across the globe. The landscape is wildly different than it was when the Liberals put forward the original legislation. I would want to at a bare minimum, restructure any such mandates in conjunction with the EU, possibly abandon the auto sector entirely etc.
This is silly and the same nonsense that puts republicans in power in America. It’s the same idiots who said who screamed there was no difference between Democratic and republican environmental policy because Harris would allow fracking, if you can’t look and see a stunning chasm between what is and what would have been, that’s on you. To seriously suggest that the Conservatives would have the same environmental policy is not only childish beyond belief, stunningly ignorant but that level of false equivocation is fundamentally dangerous.
Edit:
I realize not everyone actually reads what the opposition proposes. Here’s a look at the last conservative platform, in particular the climate stuff, feel free to let me know how much of this you think is happening under Carney:
You disagree with Greenpeace and I, that’s fine. I think the thing that unsettles me the most with Carney - and maybe you feel somewhat similarly with your invocation of US politics examples - is that I fear Canadian politics is descending to the 2-party system in the US where neither party serves working class interests, the two parties are very similar on many fronts (except more socially conservative ‘issues’), and the system is so easily gamed by the filthy rich to prevent positive change. (I feel the NDP is sadly missing the opportunity to be Mamdani-like, cater to the 90+% of Canadians that supported Air Canada Flight Attendants’ strike action, fill the void left of the political centre, etc.) It instills me with hopelessness and it can rile me up in an angry way. Carney has really disappointed me. I know a plurality here hold out hope that he’ll reveal a positive character later in his term, but I don’t share that belief. I remember Trump favouring Carney more than PP during the campaign for the federal Canada election. I don’t fully understand it, but it makes more sense to me now than it did before Carney was elected
It was dead simple. every Conservative politician both here (and the few who cared there) was essentially screaming/signalling as hard as they could to donald to STFU about Polievre as their relationship was huge wedge issue in the Canadian Conservative party. (Donald also rarely likes backing the losing side.)
Not to be rude, but it seems like you’re fairly new to politics if this was something that was honestly confusing. So, if I can offer some friendly advice/perspective: Carnery is handful of months into a new term with Canada facing arguably the largest economic crisis of the last 30 or 40 years? An almost unprecedented upheaval to our economic system in that our single largest trading partner (we trade more with America than we do with the rest of the world combined) now wants to decouple. The Liberals barely won that election, and even with an almost historic consolidation on the Left, could not assemble a majority. At the same time, Left wing governments across the world are embattled as far Right movements rise in popularity (Germany, the UK etc.)
How we approach the next few months likely has generational impacts that far outweigh an EV mandate next year or the next five. That’s a time to be cautious, measured and compromising, especially with those with whom we disagree. I would prefer more stringent climate regulations but what matters most is that we can carry those out long term. How do we do that? On some aspects of climate, we’re probably going to have to compromise (EV mandate) and on others (say, doubling oil production) we’re probably not.
Because almost half the country went Conservative. They got more than 40% of the vote. Even adding together every Green, NDP and Liberal vote barely gets to 50%. Either the centre and the Left fracture and let the Conservatives do whatever they want, or we appeal to some of that 45% and get back to our regular multi party system. But as long as the centre and Left so repel 45% of the population, that’s just a recipe for actual climate suicide, not this “oh no, Carney is the same as Polievre” silliness." Especially in our elected dictatorship, it’s a great strength of our system but also means that there is a huge risk.