Just like a wood frog defrosting after a long, icy hibernation, the Liberal Party of Canada has suddenly sprung back to life — twitching, gasping, and trying to remember how to walk like a progressive again.
Not long ago, it looked like Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives were coasting to a coronation. The Liberals were circling the drain, with their beloved neoliberal prince, Justin Trudeau, cast aside by a party that claimed he'd lurched “too far left” (a laughable accusation, if it weren’t so dangerous).
Then came a global shockwave: Donald Trump clawed his way back into the White House, kicked off a tariff war with Canada, and rekindled the old protectionist flames. Fear flooded the Canadian electorate like spring meltwater.
Overnight, Liberal polling surged. NDP supporters, gripped by panic and clinging to the illusion of "sensible centrism," stampeded back into the red tent.
Enter Mark Carney — Bay Street's banker-turned-saviour — who’s wasted no time reminding everyone that the Liberal brand of progressivism is mostly packaging.
In just a few months, he’s scrapped the carbon tax rebate (because apparently climate policy doesn’t need to be fair), rolled back capital gains reforms, and adopted immigration rhetoric that wouldn’t be out of place at a dated Biden press conference.
And let’s not forget: Biden’s Democrats tried passing the most draconian immigration bill in U.S. history (one that would’ve violated international law), only to be outflanked by Trump’s mass deportation machine in the long run.
Carney hasn't gone full Biden…. yet, but the trajectory is clear.
This is the same Liberal Party that funnelled “defensive” arms to Israel while Gaza crumbled, only to start to slightly change its tune after the ICC made things awkward. The same party that endorsed the IHRA definition of antisemitism, a definition its own author warned shouldn’t be weaponized by governments, but which the Liberals could use to chill legitimate criticism of apartheid and occupation.
And yes, the same party that cheered in unison for a literal Ukrainian Nazi in Parliament, then spent the time since telling Canadians it was just a whoopsie.
So here we are: a reanimated Liberal Party, trembling with nervous energy, desperate to look competent, electable, and just progressive enough to co-opt disillusioned voters. But make no mistake, behind the glossy packaging is the same status quo machine.
Let’s see what promises they're peddling this time.
Waive GST on homes sold to first-time buyers for $1 million or less. Invest $35 billion to build 500,000 per year for the next decade. - National Post
In addition to eliminating GST for first-time homebuyers on new and majorly renovated homes under $1 million, they would create a standalone entity that would act as a developer overseeing the construction of affordable housing in Canada. That entity would supply $25 billion in debt financing and $1 billion in equity financing to "innovative Canadian prefabricated home builders." The Liberals would invest almost $74 million to improve critical housing infrastructure, speed up housing development and help meet the growing demand for affordable housing in the North. They would invest almost $66 million to build, renovate and repair hundreds more homes across Nunavut, including for Indigenous Peoples and underserved groups. - CBC
They’ve had a decade. Ten long years to fix the housing crisis, and yet, here we are. Rents are still soaring, homeownership is still a fantasy for millions, and real estate speculation is still treated like a national sport.
The Liberal Party has governed through the inflation of the housing bubble, the collapse of affordability, and the entrenchment of housing as a wealth extraction scheme. And they’ve done it all with a straight face, claiming they had a “plan.” Turns out, the plan was to let the market “do its thing.” No surprise, then, that the market made everything worse.
For years, the Liberals performed progressively when it was safe and symbolic backing NDP housing bills in opposition during the Harper era, only to kill them once in government. They could've tackled the crisis head-on, but instead, they acted as enablers, shuffling billions into the pockets of developers and landlords while Canadians were told to bootstrap their way out of economic despair.
Now, facing the threat of an election and a dwindling Conservative threat, the Liberals are scrambling to retrofit themselves as born-again housing champions. They’re promising billions, blueprints, and even a whole new housing entity, as if that erases a decade of dithering and damage.
Here’s what they’re proposing this time:
📌 Waive GST on new or majorly renovated homes sold to first-time buyers for $1 million or less.
📌 Build 500,000 new homes per year for the next 10 years, backed by a $35 billion investment.
📌 Create a new public developer to oversee the construction of affordable housing nationwide.
📌 Provide $25 billion in debt financing and $1 billion in equity to support Canadian prefab housing innovation.
📌 Allocate nearly $74 million to improve housing infrastructure and speed up development in Northern Canada.
📌 Dedicate nearly $66 million for home construction, renovations, and repairs in Nunavut — with a focus on Indigenous and underserved communities.
🟩 Who benefits?
First-time buyers who can still find (or afford) a home under $1 million — mostly concentrated in smaller markets or well-off segments of larger cities.
Construction firms and prefab home developers, particularly those already positioned to scale fast.
Politicians looking for good optics without taking on entrenched real estate power or financial speculation.
Select Indigenous and Northern communities, though the funding is limited and long overdue.
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Renters and unhoused people, who get little mention and no direct relief from this platform.
Urban working-class families priced out of their own cities, especially in markets where $1 million gets you a teardown.
Future generations who will inherit the consequences of subsidizing demand rather than decommodifying housing.
Anyone hoping for real structural change to how housing is financed, speculated on, and hoarded.
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
The newly proposed public developer, though its mandate, governance, and accountability remain fuzzy.
Private builders and prefab firms receiving billions in debt and equity financing.
The market — still the primary vehicle for delivery, profit-taking, and ultimately, gatekeeping who gets housed.
There's ambition on paper, and that alone is a step up from the early Trudeau years of photo-ops and platitudes. But ambition doesn’t equal transformation. A truly bold housing plan would put people before profits, break the back of speculation, and enshrine housing as a human right, not a retirement plan. Instead, we get incentives and investments designed to stimulate supply without touching the sacred cow of private profit.
The GST exemption is classic trickle-down logic. It tries to nudge affordability from the top without addressing the structural rot. And while a national developer could be a powerful tool for building public, non-market housing, that depends entirely on whether it's allowed to challenge the status quo, or whether it becomes just another pipeline of public money into private hands.
After a decade of failures, broken promises, and performative progressivism, the Liberals are hoping you’ll forget their co-role in creating the crisis. They’re counting on fear of the alternative, not faith in their vision. But if this is their housing redemption arc, it's not a revolution — it's a real estate rebrand.
Cut lowest marginal tax rate by one per cent, saving two-income households up to $825 per year. Cancel consumer carbon tax but keep and strengthen industrial carbon tax. Cancel planned capital-gains tax increase. - National Post
The Liberals are matching 25 per cent tariffs on all vehicles imported from the U.S. that are not compliant with CUSMA. They would inject $5 billion into a new “trade diversification corridor fund.” They want to renegotiate bilateral agreements with the U.S. immediately following the election. In response to expected job losses in a trade war, they would temporarily remove the one-week employment insurance waiting period. They would prioritize and procure Canadian-built vehicles. They would implement a $2-billion "strategic response fund" with the aim of protecting the Canadian auto industry and helping workers develop expertise. - CBC
Provide $2-billion “strategic response fund” for workers in the auto sector and related fields impacted by tariffs. Build “all-in-Canada” manufacturing network to bring more of the auto supply chain within our borders. Work with premiers to create national energy and trade corridor. Levy matching tariffs on U.S.-made vehicles that are not compliant with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement. - National Post
The Liberals say they would trim one percentage point off the lowest income tax bracket. They would also cancel a proposed hike to the capital gains inclusion rate. They would ease access to employment insurance by raising regional unemployment rate percentages and eliminate the GST on all homes up to $1 million for first-time homebuyers. They would suspend rules that prevent people with severance packages from collecting employment insurance for six months. They would increase the guaranteed income supplement (GIS) by five per cent for one year. They would reduce the minimum amount that must be withdrawn from a registered retirement income fund (RRIF) by 25 per cent for one year. - CBC
After a decade in power, the Liberal Party is hoping that small tax cuts, symbolic tariffs, and temporary band-aids will make voters forget who helped deepen the affordability crisis in the first place.
They’re leaning into a new populist-lite pitch: tough on America, friendly to industry, and just generous enough to paper over the crumbling social contract.
But beneath the surface of every promise lies the same neoliberal DNA: defend markets, avoid systemic change, and throw just enough money around to look busy.
For all the language about protecting workers and fighting for affordability, this is not a platform that challenges corporate profiteering or wealth hoarding.
There’s no wealth tax, no serious plan to take on the gouging grocery giants, no bold vision for economic sovereignty beyond trade posturing.
What you get instead is a series of temporary tweaks: tax cuts that mostly help higher earners, EI rule changes that expire, and a GST break for a housing market they still refuse to rein in.
It’s crisis management dressed up as transformation, and after ten years, we know exactly where that leads.
📌 Cut the lowest marginal income tax rate by 1%, saving dual-income households up to $825/year.
📌 Cancel the proposed capital gains inclusion rate increase.
📌 Cancel the consumer carbon tax but maintain and strengthen the industrial carbon tax.
📌 Match 25% tariffs on U.S. vehicles that violate CUSMA provisions.
📌 Create a $2-billion “strategic response fund” for workers impacted by tariffs, especially in the auto sector.
📌 Build an “all-in-Canada” auto manufacturing network and increase domestic procurement.
📌 Launch a $5-billion “trade diversification corridor fund” to support alternative trade infrastructure.
📌 Renegotiate key U.S. trade agreements post-election.
📌 Temporarily eliminate the one-week EI waiting period for laid-off workers.
📌 Suspend EI restrictions for people receiving severance pay (for six months).
📌 Raise regional unemployment thresholds to expand EI eligibility.
📌 Increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) by 5% for one year.
📌 Reduce required withdrawals from RRIFs by 25% — also for one year.
📌 Eliminate GST on homes up to $1 million for first-time homebuyers (also listed in housing promises).
🟩 Who benefits?
Middle- and upper-middle-income households, who reap the biggest gains from marginal tax cuts and the capital gains status quo.
Older Canadians with RRIFs, and select seniors relying on GIS, though only for a year.
Domestic auto manufacturers and firms along the supply chain.
Politicians looking to look tough on trade with the U.S. without risking too much.
First-time homebuyers still holding out hope in overheated housing markets.
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Renters, low-income workers, and gig workers who get virtually nothing from this suite of promises.
Anyone hoping for long-term support. Most of the cost-of-living measures are temporary.
Climate-conscious voters, with the consumer carbon tax tossed overboard while industry polluters keep getting tax credits and softened timelines.
Small Canadian exporters who may be caught in a trade crossfire without the support networks that big corporations enjoy.
People needing structural reform to the EI system, not just one-off tweaks during election season.
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
The federal government, which controls tariff retaliation and how strategic funds are spent, often with little transparency.
Large manufacturers and industry groups, especially in auto, who stand to gain from both direct funding and protectionist policies.
The market, still left in charge of price-setting, wealth distribution, and supply chain control, with little disruption.
This is the economic equivalent of fiddling while the affordability crisis burns. There are shiny objects here — tax cuts, tariff threats, and small cash boosts — but they don’t add up to a serious strategy for systemic change.
The Liberals want credit for fighting the cost-of-living crisis without ever confronting the forces causing it. No wealth tax. No guaranteed basic income. No crackdown on corporate profiteering. No plan to tackle the power of monopolies or the financialization of basic goods.
The trade stance is reactive, not strategic: a mix of defensive tariffs and vague corridor talk meant to sound bold while avoiding hard questions about Canada’s deep economic dependence on U.S. capital and consumer markets.
And while the GST break and EI tweaks may help a few, they come and go like campaign-season coupons — temporary relief in a long emergency.
Ultimately, this platform is designed to look busy without rocking the boat. But if you think the cost-of-living crisis is just a messaging issue, not a structural one, then maybe this plan is for you.
For the rest of us, it’s more of the same: tinkering at the margins, hoping the real problems go away before the next election cycle.
The Liberals would shift the burden of proof to the accused to make it harder for people charged with violent car theft, organized crime, home invasions and certain human-trafficking and smuggling offences to get bail. They would upgrade murder charges involving intimate partner violence and sexual violence to a constructive first-degree murder offence and criminalize the distribution of non-consensual sexual deepfakes. They would increase penalties for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. A Liberal government would recruit 1,000 more RCMP personnel, open a new RCMP academy in Saskatoon and increase pay for cadet recruits. If elected, the Liberals would train 1,000 new Canada Border Services Agency officers and add new border scanners, drones and K-9 teams to target suspicious shipments at land borders, ports and railyards. It would increase funding for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada to prosecute drug production and trafficking offences. To protect children from online sexploitation and extortion, a Liberal-led government would raise the maximum sentence for child luring. It would extend how long data related to child sexual offences needs to be preserved and extend the period for these cases to be prosecuted. To tackle hate-related crimes, a Liberal government would introduce legislation to criminalize intentionally obstructing access to any place of worship, schools and community centres. It would make it a criminal offence to wilfully intimidate or threaten those attending services at those sites, and it would increase the annual budget of the Canada Community Security Program. - CBC
A Liberal-led government would revive the gun-buyback program for assault-style firearms. It would automatically revoke gun licences for individuals convicted of violent offences, especially intimate partner violence. The Liberals would legislate a requirement for the RCMP to classify new firearm models entering the market, instead of the gun industry. They would increase funding for the RCMP’s National Forensic Laboratory Services and the Saskatchewan Ballistics Laboratory to better track down guns used in crimes. To strengthen the enforcement of yellow and red flag requirements, the Liberals would bolster the capacity of provincial chief firearms officers. - CBC
If the Conservatives are going full “tough-on-crime,” the Liberals are trying to triangulate between appearing “serious” and “smart.”
But this platform plank reveals more about where they still stand: close to the security state, cautious of real justice reform, and allergic to the idea that upstream investment in communities might be more effective than expanding police power.
Rather than tackle the root causes of crime (poverty, mental health, housing precarity, systemic racism), the Liberals are doubling down on the old playbook: more cops, more prisons, more tech, and harsher punishments.
There are nods to modern concerns like deepfakes, online child abuse, and gun control, but they’re bundled with measures that expand surveillance, harden border enforcement, and increase prosecutorial power, all without addressing the social conditions that allow harm to flourish in the first place.
📌 Shift burden of proof in bail hearings to make it harder to obtain release when charged with violent car theft, organized crime, home invasions, or specific human trafficking/smuggling crimes
📌 Reclassify murders involving intimate partner or sexual violence as constructive first-degree murder
📌 Criminalize distribution of non-consensual sexual deepfakes; increase penalties for non-consensual image sharing
📌 Hire 1,000 new RCMP personnel, build new RCMP academy in Saskatoon, and raise cadet pay
📌 Recruit 1,000 new CBSA officers, equip borders with scanners, drones, and K-9 units to track illicit goods
📌 Boost Public Prosecution Service funding to target drug trafficking and production
📌 Increase sentences for child luring and expand timelines for data preservation and prosecution in sexual offence cases
📌 Criminalize obstruction of access to places of worship, schools, and community centres
📌 Introduce new criminal offences for threatening or intimidating individuals at said locations
📌 Increase budget for Canada Community Security Program
📌 Relaunch gun buyback for assault-style firearms
📌 Automatically revoke gun licences for violent offenders
📌 Make RCMP, not the gun industry, the authority on classifying new firearm models
📌 Expand RCMP forensic and ballistics lab capacities
📌 Bolster provincial firearm officer enforcement of red/yellow flag laws
🟩 Who benefits?
Large police unions and law enforcement agencies (RCMP, CBSA)
Prosecutors and border security contractors
Certain communities impacted by online abuse, gun violence, and intimate partner violence
Moderate Liberal voters who want the appearance of action without structural reform
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Racialized and low-income communities already overpoliced and underserved
Migrants and undocumented workers facing intensified border crackdowns
Individuals caught in the criminal legal system pre-trial, especially those without resources for legal defence
Civil liberties advocates and anyone wary of deepening surveillance and criminalization
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
The security state: RCMP, CBSA, and federal prosecutors
Tech contractors supplying drones, surveillance gear, and forensic tools
A growing public safety bureaucracy with an expanding mandate but little democratic oversight
Premiers and provincial firearm officers empowered to enforce subjective flag laws
Despite nods to progressive concerns (gendered violence, online exploitation, and gun control), this package leans heavily on punitive and enforcement-heavy solutions.
There's little appetite here for investing in mental health supports, community-led violence prevention, or restorative justice models.
Instead, the Liberals want to win headlines by appearing “serious” on crime, even if it means empowering the same institutions responsible for systemic overreach, discrimination, and abuse.
This isn't justice reform. It's crime panic optics dressed in technocratic garb. The worst part? It still leaves the door open for Conservatives to push things further right.
If the Liberals want to actually differentiate themselves, they’ll need to stop cosplaying as the "responsible adult in the room" and start centring the people most harmed by both crime and the carceral state.
On the campaign trail, Liberal Leader Mark Carney has been promoting a promised First and Last Mile Fund, offering federal support to connect extraction projects to broader transportation networks. The Liberals are also talking about streamlining approval processes for “national-interest infrastructure projects,” and establishing “mutual recognition,” whereby projects with provincial or territorial approval won’t also require a green light from the federal government. In his speeches, Carney has specifically named the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario, as well as the Grays Bay Road and Port project, which would connect a mineral-rich region bordering the Northwest Territories and Nunavut to the Arctic coastline. Carney flew to Iqaluit early in his tenure to discuss, among other things, critical minerals and the economic potential of the North. The Liberal Party notes this will all come “with the highest standards for safety, environmental protection and Indigenous consultation.” Many parts of the country have large deposits of the minerals required for an energy transition away from fossil fuels (there’s a whole bunch of high-grade uranium key to nuclear power in Saskatchewan, for example). The Liberals appear to be committed to ensuring those resources can be extracted and transported to customers both in and outside of Canada, and are proposing tax credits as well as help for companies to mitigate some of the financial risk of mineral exploration and production. - The Narwhal
Create a system of incentives to reward Canadian consumers and businesses for making greener choices. Strengthen the industrial carbon-tax regime. Make public investments in energy-efficient buildings and electrified transportation. Develop a carbon border-adjustment tariff on imports from countries deemed to have inadequate carbon-control policies. Streamline impact assessment process to make clean and conventional projects easier to approve. Work with provinces and territories to develop a national trade an economic corridor. - National Post
If re-elected, Liberal Leader Mark Carney has said he would work to pass the proposed cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector the Liberal government first promised in 2021 and has been ever-so-slowly ushering through since. The policy drafted in late 2024 requires oil and gas companies to reduce carbon emissions to 35 per cent below 2019 levels by early 2030. Rather than have these reductions coming from a decrease in production levels, the Liberals have said they will invest in carbon capture and methane reduction technologies to spur lowered emissions. The Liberals have promised to invest both in clean energy and the conventional energy sector, which would include oil and gas, “so we can reduce our reliance on the United States and build trading relationships with reliable partners.”
- The Narwhal
The Liberals cut consumer carbon pricing before the campaign. They plan to introduce incentives to help families invest in clean energy, including reinstating the zero-emissions vehicle subsidy program. They would tighten the output-based pricing system for large industrial emitters to ensure carbon markets work properly. They are open to building pipelines and speeding up energy projects. They would allow Quebec to veto any pipeline on its territory. They say they would phase out the use of fossil fuels in government buildings by 2030. They would develop a carbon border adjustment mechanism to tax imports from countries that don’t have comparable carbon pricing. They would invest $20 million to help the Nunavut Nukkiksautiit Corporation complete the first phase of the development of its hydroelectricity facility. They would invest $94 million to upgrade power plants in Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Haven, Igloolik and Iqaluit. - CBC
When it comes to the climate crisis, the Liberals have made one thing crystal clear: they're betting the future on industry-led extraction wrapped in a veneer of green rhetoric.
Under Mark Carney, the party’s climate and energy platform leans hard into Canada’s mining and fossil fuel sectors, rebranding them as key players in the so-called “green transition.”
But scratch beneath the surface, and what emerges is a plan that puts corporations at the helm, sidesteps community consent, and doubles down on the myth that we can dig our way out of ecological collapse.
While ordinary people are told to tighten their belts, retrofit their homes, and buy EVs, the real spoils — tax credits, subsidies, and streamlined project approvals — flow straight to mining giants, pipeline lobbyists, and the oil patch.
📌 Establish a First and Last Mile Fund to connect critical mineral extraction projects to national infrastructure networks
📌 Streamline federal approvals for “national interest” projects and allow “mutual recognition” of provincial environmental assessments
📌 Promote industrial tax credits and incentives for clean energy and mineral production
📌 Cap emissions from the oil and gas sector to 35% below 2019 levels by 2030, using carbon capture and methane reduction, not production cuts
📌 Maintain investments in both clean and conventional energy to reduce reliance on U.S. energy
📌 Develop a carbon border-adjustment tariff to tax imports from countries without robust carbon pricing
📌 Reintroduce consumer incentives like zero-emissions vehicle subsidies
📌 Tighten carbon pricing for large industrial polluters through the Output-Based Pricing System
📌 Invest in energy-efficient public buildings and electrified public transport
📌 Allow Quebec to veto new pipeline development on its territory
📌 Invest in hydroelectricity and renewable power generation projects in the North
🟩 Who benefits?
Mining corporations and oil & gas companies, particularly those operating in the North and the Prairies
Infrastructure developers and logistics firms tied to new transport corridors
Wealthier Canadians who can afford EVs, energy retrofits, and carbon-offset lifestyles
Provincial governments willing to rubber-stamp extraction projects
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Indigenous communities facing fast-tracked, industry-led projects on or near unceded territory
Working-class Canadians hit hardest by cost-of-living pressures and expected to "do their part" with minimal support
Environmental groups and scientists who have long warned against false climate solutions like carbon capture
The global South, which will likely bear the brunt of emissions from exported fossil fuels and exported extractivist models
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
Corporate lobbyists and industry stakeholders with direct access to government incentive programs
Provincial governments who can now effectively override federal environmental oversight
Private investors in carbon markets and emissions-offset schemes
A small cadre of “green capitalists” dictating the pace and direction of Canada’s so-called clean transition
At a glance, the Liberals’ climate platform looks like a middle-of-the-road attempt to balance economic growth with environmental responsibility.
But a closer read reveals a plan built on contradictions: cut emissions without cutting production, greenlight extractive megaprojects while preaching sustainability, and funnel public money into private profit machines.
This is climate policy through a neoliberal lens, where "transition" means shifting risk from corporations to communities, and "resilience" means making working people adapt to whatever the market demands.
There’s no serious plan here to leave fossil fuels in the ground, just more smoke-and-mirrors about technology that doesn’t yet exist at scale, and a lot of vague promises about consultation and safety that history suggests won’t be worth the paper they’re printed on.
If the climate crisis is a five-alarm fire, the Liberals are bringing a well-polished brochure for a fire suppression system that’s still in beta testing, and asking us to trust the arsonists to install it.
Liberal Leader Mark Carney is promising to create a defence purchasing agency to speed up military equipment procurement and prioritize buying Canadian gear and materials whenever possible. His promise echoes a 2019 Liberal campaign pledge to create a separate procurement agency, which at the time the party said would be called Defence Procurement Canada. Then-prime minister Justin Trudeau’s government never set up such an agency after the 2019 election. Canada’s system for buying military goods is a perennial target for criticism – in particular for the amount of time it takes to acquire equipment. Speaking at a campaign stop Monday, Mr. Carney pledged to create a Bureau of Research, Engineering and Advanced Leadership in Innovation and Science, or BOREALIS, to deliver what he called made-in-Canada solutions for the Canadian Armed Forces and the Communications Security Establishment, the country’s signals interception and cyberprotection agency. Canada already has Defence Research and Development Canada, a research arm of the Department of National Defence. Isabella Orozco-Madison, a spokeswoman for the Liberal campaign, said BOREALIS would be separate. The Liberal Leader, who was visiting a Bombardier facility in Dorval, Que., framed his promise as a response to threats to Canada’s sovereignty from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has imposed tariffs on many Canadian goods and has repeatedly talked of making the country the 51st U.S. state. “We will protect our sovereignty in an increasingly dangerous and divided world by rebuilding, reinvesting and rearming our military,” Mr. Carney said in a statement. “In the process, we will support made-in-Canada defence procurement, while also helping our industries and businesses reach new markets around the world.” He said the new procurement agency would prioritize the use of made-in-Canada equipment and raw materials such as steel, aluminum and critical minerals. The Liberal Leader said that, under this commitment, Ottawa would centralize decision-making on procurement and be granted more discretion to waive procurement rules when necessary. Mr. Carney said if his party forms government after the election, it would provide the agency “with greater powers and flexibility, so that there are exceptions, for example, with respect to the level of competition that’s required in terms of defence contracting, speed with which contracts can be struck,” and prioritization for “Canadian suppliers and the Canadian supply chain that’s going to deliver it.” - Globe and Mail
Get to NATO defence spending target of two per cent of GDP by 2030 at the latest. Source more Canadian steel and aluminum for domestic shipbuilding. Boost salaries for Canadian Armed Forces personnel, bolster recruitment. Procure new submarines, heavy icebreakers for deployment in Arctic. - National Post
The Liberals would aim to increase NATO defence spending to two per cent of Canada’s GDP by 2030. They would review Canada's contract for U.S.-built F-35 fighter jets and partner with allies for the next generation of aircraft. They would invest $420 million to protect sovereignty in the Arctic. They would modernize procurement legislation to enable the Canadian Armed Forces to buy equipment. It is unclear whether the Liberals will keep the $1.3-billion border security plan announced in December, which promises to increase drones and enhance aquatic and aerial surveillance in the Arctic as well as at the U.S. border. - CBC
For years, Liberal leaders have spoken the language of peacekeeping while quietly expanding Canada’s role in global militarism. Now, with Mark Carney at the helm, the Liberals are throwing on a bomber jacket and leaning hard into military-industrial nationalism, cloaking defence investments in sovereignty rhetoric while handing sweetheart deals to major domestic suppliers.
It’s an old tune dressed up with new acronyms: BOREALIS, a glitzy research initiative for military innovation; a dedicated procurement agency to "cut red tape"; and billions in new spending that suspiciously resembles a subsidy package for the private defence sector.
Carney’s campaign has positioned these policies as a patriotic response to geopolitical instability, namely, Donald Trump’s hostile stance toward Canada and rising tensions in the Arctic.
But behind the flag-waving lies a plan to accelerate procurement without meaningful democratic oversight, reduce competitive bidding in favour of domestic firms, and funnel public funds into military infrastructure while offering no clear assurances on transparency or long-term accountability.
And while the Liberals are committing to raise defence spending to NATO’s 2% target by 2030 — a pledge that echoes Conservative talking points — the rest of Canada’s crumbling public infrastructure, from schools to hospitals to Indigenous housing, gets no such guaranteed funding floor.
📌 Create a standalone defence procurement agency to streamline and accelerate military equipment purchases
📌 Prioritize Canadian materials (steel, aluminum, critical minerals) in military manufacturing contracts
📌 Establish BOREALIS: a new military-focused research and development bureau, separate from existing agencies
📌 Increase defence spending to 2% of GDP by 2030, in line with NATO targets
📌 Procure new submarines and heavy icebreakers for Arctic deployment
📌 Increase salaries and boost recruitment efforts for Canadian Armed Forces personnel
📌 Review Canada’s F-35 fighter jet contract and partner with allies on future aircraft development
📌 Invest $420 million in Arctic sovereignty initiatives
📌 Modernize procurement rules to allow less oversight and faster decision-making in defence spending
🟩 Who benefits?
Canadian defence contractors and manufacturers receiving fast-tracked, potentially non-competitive contracts
The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), with promised wage hikes and equipment upgrades
Arctic-based industries and infrastructure developers
The NATO alliance, which has long pressured Canada to spend more militarily
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Taxpayers funding a massive military expansion during a cost-of-living crisis
Advocates for transparency and democratic oversight in public procurement
Canadians pushing for social spending on healthcare, education, housing, and climate adaptation
Civil society groups concerned about militarization and foreign policy escalation
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
Cabinet and senior bureaucrats, now with expanded authority to bypass standard procurement procedures
Military-industrial players and private R&D firms with privileged access to government contracts
Arctic-focused corporations and mineral extractors eyeing infrastructure dollars under the banner of "sovereignty"
The Liberals have long walked a tightrope between diplomacy and militarism, but this platform makes clear which side they’re now favouring.
While some of the rhetoric around sovereignty and Arctic protection may resonate, it’s difficult to ignore how these promises double as a massive public bailout for defence contractors, wrapped in nationalist language and justified through fear of Trumpism.
So rather than investing in peacebuilding, diplomacy, or even true climate resilience in the North, Carney’s Liberals are pledging to spend billions on warships, submarines, and procurement bureaucracies.
Their plan to "streamline" defence contracts, if history is any guide, will likely benefit well-connected firms more than the average Canadian, especially when "streamlining" means fewer checks, less oversight, and a blank cheque for militarization.
It's a platform that sells itself as strategic foresight, but in reality, it's just business as usual, with a shiny new acronym slapped on the side of a fighter jet.
(Same quote from Climate section) On the campaign trail, Liberal Leader Mark Carney has been promoting a promised First and Last Mile Fund, offering federal support to connect extraction projects to broader transportation networks. The Liberals are also talking about streamlining approval processes for “national-interest infrastructure projects,” and establishing “mutual recognition,” whereby projects with provincial or territorial approval won’t also require a green light from the federal government. In his speeches, Carney has specifically named the Ring of Fire in northern Ontario, as well as the Grays Bay Road and Port project, which would connect a mineral-rich region bordering the Northwest Territories and Nunavut to the Arctic coastline. Carney flew to Iqaluit early in his tenure to discuss, among other things, critical minerals and the economic potential of the North. The Liberal Party notes this will all come “with the highest standards for safety, environmental protection and Indigenous consultation.” Many parts of the country have large deposits of the minerals required for an energy transition away from fossil fuels (there’s a whole bunch of high-grade uranium key to nuclear power in Saskatchewan, for example). The Liberals appear to be committed to ensuring those resources can be extracted and transported to customers both in and outside of Canada, and are proposing tax credits as well as help for companies to mitigate some of the financial risk of mineral exploration and production. - The Narwhal
The Liberals would create a First Mile Fund to build transportation networks to connect natural resource extraction sites to rail lines and roads. They would put into effect a "one window" approvals process to fast-track approvals for large-scale, national-interest infrastructure projects. They would work to speed up approvals for the construction, commissioning and operation of a new Indigenous majority-owned Cedar LNG processing facility. They would invest $175 million in the Hudson Bay Railway and at the Port of Churchill, in Manitoba. - CBC
If there’s one thing the Liberal Party excels at, it’s dressing up corporate subsidies in the language of “nation-building.”
Mark Carney, the new face of the Liberal establishment, is rolling out a series of infrastructure promises under the guise of “national interest.”
But scratch beneath the surface, and it looks a lot like the public footing the bill to de-risk major extraction and export ventures for private corporations, especially in the North.
At the heart of Carney’s plan is a First and Last Mile Fund, not for ordinary Canadians navigating crumbling public transit, but for mineral and energy companies looking to connect their remote sites to railways and ports.
While the Liberals make vague nods toward environmental protections and Indigenous consultation, they’re also promising to streamline approvals and override layers of oversight, a clear signal that corporate timelines, not public accountability, will take precedence.
From the Ring of Fire in Ontario to the Arctic coast, the Liberals are pouring political capital into making Canada a more efficient raw-materials exporter, all while dangling “net-zero” rhetoric to justify helping industry squeeze more out of the land.
It’s no coincidence that the promise also includes fast-tracking Indigenous-led projects like Cedar LNG, a savvy shield to neutralize criticism and secure buy-in from those communities most likely to be impacted. That doesn’t make the project inherently just; it just makes it harder to oppose.
📌 Create a First and Last Mile Fund to connect extraction projects to national transportation networks
📌 Implement a “one-window” fast-track approvals system for “national-interest infrastructure”
📌 Enact “mutual recognition” between provincial and federal approvals to weaken dual oversight
📌 Prioritize development of the Ring of Fire and Grays Bay Road and Port
📌 Speed up approvals for the Indigenous-majority Cedar LNG facility in British Columbia
📌 Invest $175 million in the Hudson Bay Railway and Port of Churchill in Manitoba
📌 Offer tax credits and risk-mitigation incentives to mineral exploration and extraction companies
🟩 Who benefits?
Large mining, LNG, and critical minerals corporations with federal backing
Logistical firms and rail operators with guaranteed infrastructure connections
Some Indigenous communities involved in equity-based extractive ventures
Provincial governments eager to cut environmental red tape in the name of growth
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Communities facing environmental fallout from accelerated extraction
Indigenous groups not at the negotiating table, whose consent may be bypassed
Urban and rural Canadians still waiting for affordable, green public transit solutions
Future generations stuck with stranded infrastructure and ecological debt
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
The federal cabinet, with expanded discretionary powers to override regulations
Resource extraction giants and logistics companies with political leverage
Provincial governments aligned with deregulation and industry-first development
Federal regulators (if any remain) with diminished authority to intervene
The Liberal infrastructure plan is a familiar cocktail: wrap resource extraction in national interest, splash in a few Indigenous partnerships, and serve it with a green-washed garnish.
While some economic activity will flow from this, especially for Indigenous communities able to negotiate strong deals, the larger aim is clear: de-risk industry expansion on the public dime, and speed up approvals by removing so-called “barriers” like consultation, environmental reviews, and due process.
In the absence of real investments in public-facing infrastructure like intercity rail, housing-related builds, or climate-resilient public works, this platform section feels less like visionary leadership and more like a ribbon-cutting tour for corporate Canada.
It’s the kind of promise that earns headlines, photo-ops, and campaign donations, but leaves most people wondering when the actual public benefits will arrive.
If the Liberals want to prove they’ve moved beyond Trudeau-era spin, this isn’t it.
Because at the end of the day, building roads for mining companies isn’t infrastructure for the people — it’s public money for private profit.
Expand dental care to households with incomes of less than $90,000. - National Post
The Liberals have expanded eligibility for dental care to include coverage for those 18 to 64. As for pharmacare, the party has committed to “keeping what is in place,” such as ensuring coverage for diabetes medication and contraception. It announced $52 million in funding for 16 projects across Canada through the Foreign Credential Recognition Program, which would allow internationally trained professionals to get jobs in the health-care network and construction. - CBC
The Liberals are finally expanding dental care, a move that wouldn’t even be on the table if not for the NDP’s aggressive push during the last Parliament, along with years of NDP private members’ bills that failed but helped to expand the overton window leftward.
Under Mark Carney’s leadership, the party is offering modest extensions to the existing plan, now covering individuals between 18 and 64 whose household income falls under $90,000.
While this does represent meaningful help for some, it's also the bare minimum of what universal dental care should look like in a G7 country.
Pharmacare, on the other hand, has been carefully placed in political purgatory.
Despite widespread public support and the rising cost of basic medications, the Liberals have chosen to “keep what is in place.”
That includes diabetes medications and contraception. Helpful, yes, but far from a universal system. It’s a patchwork, and the gaps are widening.
*Of course, if you’ve followed my Canadian legislation thread on Bluesky, you’ll already know the Trudeau liberals also locked Canadians into higher pharmaceutical costs through various trade agreements like CETA.
CETA will only affect intellectual property rights in Canada—not the EU. This analysis estimates that CETA's provisions will increase Canadian drug costs by between 6.2% and 12.9% starting in 2023. The Canadian government committed to compensating provinces for the rise in costs for their public drug plans. - ourcommons.ca
They’ve also tossed in a $52 million announcement for recognizing foreign credentials. An essential move in theory, but one that’s been recycled in press releases for nearly two decades with little systemic change. Without serious provincial coordination and union buy-in, it risks being another bureaucratic bottlecap: easy to announce, hard to open.
📌 Expand dental care coverage to individuals aged 18–64 in households earning under $90,000
📌 Maintain existing pharmacare elements (diabetes medication and contraception coverage)
📌 Provide $52 million in funding to support foreign credential recognition for healthcare and construction workers
🟩 Who benefits?
Lower- and middle-income adults who previously fell through the dental care gap
Individuals relying on birth control and diabetes medication with no private plan
Some internationally trained professionals looking to work in healthcare or skilled trades
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Millions of Canadians still facing out-of-pocket costs for prescriptions not covered under existing pharmacare
Patients on waiting lists due to systemic underfunding and provincial bottlenecks
Working-class people who need comprehensive healthcare reform, not just means-tested add-ons
New Canadians promised credential recognition, only to face the same regulatory wall
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
Federal health bureaucrats determining eligibility thresholds and rollout timelines
Provincial governments, especially conservative ones, who can stall or sabotage implementation
Credentialing bodies and regulatory colleges, which remain gatekeepers for skilled immigrants
It’s not that these promises are necessarily bad; it’s that they’re crumbs when Canadians are starving for systemic change.
Expanding dental care to more low- and middle-income households is good policy. But why is it always capped, means-tested, and piecemeal?
Why is the party still dancing around pharmacare like it’s radioactive, despite endless studies, public polling, and common sense pointing toward a universal system?
The foreign credential funding is the same story: the right words, the right headlines, but no new architecture to get it done. Without serious coordination and structural reform, this program is more about managing headlines than building a workforce.
These policies feel like Liberalism on autopilot: offer just enough to claim credit, but not enough to anger Bay Street or the provincial premiers.
The public still doesn’t get a seamless, dignified, universal system. And that's the problem, not what’s in the plan, but what’s still missing.
Until healthcare and social policy are treated as rights, not PR opportunities, Canadians will be stuck in a two-tiered system where what you get depends on how much you can pay, or who you vote for every four years.
Cover apprenticeship training grants up to $8,000 for students in the skilled trades. Double the funding of the Union Training and Innovation Program to $50 million annually. Increase labour mobility for skilled trades people between provinces and territories. - National Post
The Liberals would provide an apprenticeship grant of up to $8,000 for registered apprentices. They would double the funding of the Union Training and Innovation Program from $25 million to $50 million annually to increase access to union-led training initiatives. They would set up a $20-million capital funding stream for colleges to support new training spaces for apprenticeships. They would uphold the apprenticeship service program to support employers in hiring new apprentices in Red Seal trades, with up to $10,000 for eligible employers for each new apprentice hired. The party is aiming to remove federal barriers to interprovincial trade by Canada Day, which it says would increase labour mobility for skilled trades people between provinces and territories. They would expand the Labour Mobility Tax Deduction to ensure workers who travel more than 120 kilometres from their home to a job site can deduct more expenses, and commit to significantly increasing the per-year tax deduction limit. In response to expected job losses in a trade war, they would temporarily remove the one-week employment insurance waiting period. - CBC
With economic turbulence on the horizon and labour shortages becoming a political buzzword, the Liberals are pivoting to skilled trades as their new “everyman” talking point.
Under Mark Carney, the platform leans heavily into apprenticeships, labour mobility, and tax tweaks aimed at smoothing friction across provincial borders.
There’s no doubt that investing in trades training is long overdue. But the Liberals’ plan reads more like a business pitch than a vision for working-class empowerment.
These promises are heavy on grants, deductions, and funding boosts, the usual fare meant to give the impression of ambition without touching the root causes of labour precarity: underpaid work, weak union protections, and a patchwork education system that still prioritizes debt over dignity.
And let’s not ignore the fine print: every dollar is still routed through employers, tax systems, or conditional grants. Never as direct investments in people. It’s a jobs plan made for ribbon cuttings and press releases, not systemic transformation.
📌 Up to $8,000 in apprenticeship grants for students in skilled trades
📌 Double the Union Training and Innovation Program funding to $50 million annually
📌 $20 million in capital funding to expand apprenticeship training spaces at colleges
📌 Continue offering employers up to $10,000 per new Red Seal apprentice hired
📌 Expand the Labour Mobility Tax Deduction for workers travelling 120+ km to job sites
📌 Remove federal barriers to interprovincial trade to boost trades mobility
📌 Temporarily remove one-week EI waiting period in the event of a trade war job loss
🟩 Who benefits?
Students in trades programs who will see better grant access
Employers who hire apprentices, especially in high-demand fields
Workers willing (or forced) to travel long distances for work
Colleges receiving infrastructure dollars to expand training capacity
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Workers in non-Red Seal trades who fall outside the program’s scope
Young people still buried in student debt with no pathway to secure work
Apprentices in underfunded provinces still dealing with interprovincial credential chaos
Precarious workers with no union, no benefits, and no clear future in the economy
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
Employers, who remain the gatekeepers of access to apprenticeship grants
Federal tax policy architects, who decide what counts as a “deductible” worker expense
Provincial and territorial governments, who can stall labour mobility if they choose
Training program administrators, often disconnected from the lived experience of trades workers
There’s nothing wrong with apprenticeship grants or doubling union training funds. These are good things, just not nearly enough.
In true Liberal fashion, every policy is layered in bureaucracy, routed through employers, and tied to eligibility thresholds that quietly exclude the most vulnerable.
A real plan would centre workers, not businesses.
It would prioritize public training infrastructure, not conditional grants.
And it would address the growing reality that interprovincial mobility doesn’t mean much if your province is decimating public services or undercutting wages with temp contracts and privatization.
These promises are crafted to look like bold investments, but they’re mostly glorified subsidies for the business class, repackaged as help for the working class.
And for every new apprentice helped, there are still thousands of workers juggling part-time jobs, gig work, or endless retraining cycles with no pathway to stability.
Until the Liberals are ready to confront the corporate-driven erosion of labour rights and restore public pathways to good, unionized work, this is just another band-aid on a bullet wound that does nothing to address the root causes.
The Liberals would try to strengthen ties with allies that share Canada's values. They would impose sanctions on Russia to push for a ceasefire with Ukraine. - CBC
The Liberals would shrink public spending. They would cap the size of the public service and attempt to make government operations more efficient by "leveraging AI and machine learning." They would aim to balance the government's operational spending within three years, while running a "small deficit" on capital spending. They would provide an initial $150-million annual funding increase to CBC/Radio-Canada. - CBC
Mark Carney’s Liberals are trying to pull off a political high-wire act: pledging to “strengthen ties with allies that share our values” while refusing to name the genocide playing out in Gaza, the West Bank annexation, or Canada's own complicity.
While the U.S. Democratic Party collapsed under the weight of its blind support for Israel and its weapons industry, Canada’s Liberals are hoping voters will just politely look away.
Meanwhile, the Liberals are offering Canadians the same warmed-over neoliberal playbook we’ve seen for decades: cut public spending, worship tech, privatize efficiencies, and slap AI on everything.
What they call “responsible governance” is just austerity by another name. One that shrinks the state everywhere except when it comes to funnelling money into PR wars, militarized foreign policy, and “defensive” weapons packages we send to whichever regime is still politically useful.
And for those still holding on to the last shred of hope that public media might challenge this bipartisan consensus? The Liberals offer a $150 million CBC funding boost — a safe PR move to avoid total institutional collapse, but one that will likely come with strings, cuts elsewhere, and an unspoken rule: never bite the hand that funds you.
📌 Increase ties with allies that “share Canada’s values”
📌 Continue imposing sanctions on Russia to support ceasefire in Ukraine
📌 Cap size of the public service and "streamline" government operations
📌 Shrink operational public spending over three years to reach balance
📌 Use AI and machine learning to make government “more efficient”
📌 Maintain small capital deficits but commit to fiscal restraint overall
📌 $150 million annual increase to CBC/Radio-Canada funding
🟩 Who benefits?
Military contractors and “defence” manufacturers with access to contracts
Canada’s diplomatic class, who get to keep playing nice with NATO and G7 partners
Tech firms and consultants profiting from AI “efficiency” projects inside government
CBC/Radio-Canada, who may get a temporary reprieve from death by a thousand cuts
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Palestinians, whose suffering remains invisible under Liberal policy silence
Federal workers, whose jobs and bargaining power are now targets for austerity
Canadians relying on public services as cuts deepen under “operational balance” goals
Anti-war, pro-human rights citizens criminalized under IHRA and silenced for solidarity
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
Big tech and AI consultants who’ll help “streamline” the civil service
Private defence companies, quietly empowered through arms exports and R&D
Liberal-friendly donors who see public media and foreign policy as investment vehicles
The same international allies that cheerlead neoliberalism while ignoring genocide
There’s no world in which you can say you "share Canadian values" while avoiding any mention of Gaza — not after the ICC warrants, not after the mass graves, not after the live-streamed ethnic cleansing of an entire people.
Carney’s Liberals want the moral high ground while standing ankle-deep in ethical quicksand.
What’s offered here is a fog of platitudes and calculated omissions.
Sanctions on Russia and feel-good diplomacy gestures are easy political wins, especially when they distract from silent complicity in active genocides or the billions we pour into arms shipments labelled “defensive.”
And domestically? It’s the same old Liberal pivot to austerity.
Efficiency. AI. Small deficits. Fewer workers. More "innovation."
The kind of politics that has failed ordinary people year after year while propping up bloated donor-class interests, expanding technocratic control, and killing any momentum toward a more democratic public sector.
If this platform section has a slogan, it’s simple: Cut quietly. Smile publicly. Say nothing of substance.
We have worked hard to reverse damaging Conservative policies that led to delays and deep cuts to immigration levels. We know immigration is important for economic growth and have worked to increase immigration levels,reduce wait times, and build a fairer system. Many people leave their families behind to build a better future in Canada, in hopes that they can be re-united in Canada. But the wait is difficult and COVID-19 has caused further delays.
A re-elected Liberal government will:
- Reduce processing times that have been impacted by COVID-19 to under 12 months.
- Introduce electronic applications for family reunification.
- Implement a program to issue visas to spouses and children abroad while they wait for the processing of their permanent residency application, so that families can be together sooner. - Liberal Party of Canada
The party would maintain caps on immigration until it determines Canada has the capacity to receive more newcomers. - CBC
Let’s be clear: Canada’s so-called “immigration success story” has always been a public relations exercise polished by centrist technocrats who see newcomers less as people and more as GDP boosters.
Now, amid a cost-of-living crisis and a real estate bubble built on financial speculation, the Liberals are doing what status quo governments always do when the public faces economic turmoil: lean into the false narrative that immigrants are the problem.
Rather than challenge the corporate landlords hoarding housing or the post-secondary institutions exploiting international students for revenue, the Liberal platform suggests it’s time to hit the brakes on immigration growth.
And not because they’ve suddenly grown cautious about Canada’s capacity to welcome the vulnerable, but because they’re terrified of losing votes to the far-right, repeating the same mistake Democrats made south of the border just months earlier.
Mark Carney, Trudeau’s chosen successor, presents himself as the fiscally sensible adult in the room. But behind that smug banker cool is a party retrenching on promises to make Canada a refuge for the world's needy.
Their current pitch tries to thread a needle: reduce immigration without sounding like Poilievre, and maintain a broken points-based system while pretending it reflects fairness.
In short? Austerity, dressed up in multicultural drag.
📌 Reduce immigration targets for permanent residents to 395,000 in 2025 (down from 500,000), then to 380,000 in 2026, and 365,000 in 2027.
📌 Cap Canada’s temporary resident population to 5% of the total population by 2026, cutting international student and temporary worker numbers by nearly 450,000 in both 2025 and 2026.
📌 Prioritize converting existing temporary residents (international students and temporary workers) into permanent residents — targeting over 40% of 2025’s total PR admissions from this group.
📌 Focus immigration growth on economic-class newcomers, raising the share to 61.7% by 2027.
📌 Continue "strengthening" Francophone immigration outside Quebec, aiming for 10% of PRs by 2027.
📌 Maintain family reunification reforms: introduce digital applications, allow family members to be issued visas while PR processing is underway, and aim to process applications in under 12 months.
📌 Maintain current immigration caps until Canada "has the capacity" to receive more newcomers.
🟩 Who benefits?
Businesses looking for skilled, already-integrated workers (especially in health and trades)
Post-secondary institutions who still profit off international student tuitions (despite the cap)
Well-off immigrants from middle- and upper-class backgrounds who fit the merit-based system
Centrist voters craving “orderly” immigration without the overt cruelty of Conservative rhetoric
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Low-income asylum seekers and displaced people who don’t “score high enough” on the points system
Temporary foreign workers exploited and now tossed aside when politically convenient
Poorer migrants from the Global South, who are squeezed out by an economic-class focus
International students promised a better life, now facing rejections and uncertainty mid-studies
Families caught in bureaucratic limbo while Ottawa boasts about “digital processing” upgrades
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
Federal bureaucrats and IRCC gatekeepers tasked with enforcing new volume caps
Employers and post-secondary institutions who help determine who’s “worth” keeping
Wealthy immigrants, global talent, and private-sector actors influencing immigration targets
The Liberal Party base, which remains too comfortable to push back on these quiet rollbacks
In classic Liberal fashion, this immigration plan tries to speak out of both sides of its mouth. It wants the economic benefits of immigration without taking political heat for actually welcoming the marginalized.
Carney and company have leaned into technocratic management over moral clarity, using the language of “sustainability” to mask the politics of retreat.
By reducing immigration under the guise of system integrity and infrastructure strain, the Liberals are caving to a reactionary drift instead of challenging it.
They're reinforcing the myth that it’s migrants driving the crisis, not austerity budgets and crony capitalism. If there’s a guiding principle here, it’s neoliberal risk management — not humanitarianism, not solidarity, and certainly not justice.
Canada’s immigration system already filters people by class and privilege. This platform doubles down on that framework while pretending it’s being reformed. In the process, the Liberals have once again surrendered the narrative to the right and left the most vulnerable migrants out in the cold.
The Liberal government doubled the Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program from $5 billion to $10 billion and opened it to sectors other than energy and natural resources to support more Indigenous led infrastructure projects. If re-elected, the Liberals would seek partnership and consult with Indigenous leaders on how to build Canada's economy and identify opportunities for Indigenous participation in major projects while respecting Indigenous rights. The party would set aside $94 million to upgrade power plants in Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Haven, Igloolik and Iqaluit. It would allocate $74 million to improve and develop housing. It would spend $66 million to build, repair and renovate hundreds of homes across Nunavut, for Indigenous people and underserved groups. It would put $20 million toward helping the Nunavut Nukkiksautiit Corporation complete the first phase of the development of its hydroelectricity facility. It would continue to fund Jordan’s Principle to support First Nations children and has said that fixing the child welfare system is a priority. - CBC
The Liberal Party claims to prioritize Indigenous rights, but their approach often leaves much to be desired.
While they’ve made some incremental progress in supporting Indigenous-led infrastructure projects and providing funds for specific improvements like housing and power plant upgrades, these efforts remain piecemeal compared to the scale of the issues facing Indigenous communities.
Sure, there have been some wins, but those gains often feel shallow when compared to the systemic challenges that Indigenous peoples continue to face: ongoing water crises, environmental degradation, and the brutal realities of colonialism still being enacted through things like pipeline construction and police violence.
Let’s break down what they’re actually offering in 2025:
📌 Doubling the Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program from $5 billion to $10 billion, expanding it to support sectors beyond energy and natural resources.
📌 $94 million to upgrade power plants in Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Haven, Igloolik, and Iqaluit.
📌 $74 million allocated to improve and develop housing for Indigenous communities, particularly in Nunavut.
📌 $66 million to build, repair, and renovate homes across Nunavut for Indigenous and underserved communities.
📌 $20 million to help the Nunavut Nukkiksautiit Corporation complete the first phase of its hydroelectricity project.
📌 Continued funding for Jordan’s Principle to support First Nations children, with a priority on fixing the child welfare system.
🟩 Who benefits?
Indigenous businesses and communities involved in the sectors targeted by the expanded Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program.
Some Indigenous families who will benefit from new housing and infrastructure upgrades in certain northern communities.
First Nations children, with ongoing support through Jordan's Principle, which provides vital services in education, health, and social support.
🟥 Who pays the price (or gets ignored)?
Indigenous communities affected by ongoing pipeline projects, with little support for environmental justice or consultation on these developments.
Those fighting for land back, as the government's vague promises on "consultation" and "partnership" often fall short of addressing deep structural issues around land sovereignty and reparations.
Indigenous communities struggling with basic needs like clean drinking water, which continue to be neglected despite Liberal promises.
⚠️ Who holds the power if this becomes law?
Indigenous communities affected by ongoing pipeline projects, with little support for environmental justice or consultation on these developments.
Those fighting for land back, as the government's vague promises on "consultation" and "partnership" often fall short of addressing deep structural issues around land sovereignty and reparations.
Indigenous communities struggling with basic needs like clean drinking water, which continue to be neglected despite Liberal promises.
The Liberal government’s approach to Indigenous rights is full of well-intentioned promises, but still fundamentally flawed.
Doubling the Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program and providing millions for housing and infrastructure upgrades is a start, but it doesn’t address the systemic issues that continue to marginalize Indigenous peoples.
While the promises around Jordan's Principle and child welfare reform are steps in the right direction, the lack of a meaningful commitment to land back, environmental justice, or addressing the root causes of colonial violence (like the RCMP’s actions against Indigenous protesters) highlights the Liberals' refusal to truly dismantle the structures of power that continue to oppress Indigenous communities.
Until we see a clear, actionable plan for decolonization and genuine sovereignty, these promises are just another set of band-aids on a bleeding wound.
The Liberal Party is clearly attempting to strike a balance between the needs of Indigenous communities and the interests of Canada’s broader economic growth agenda.
But at the heart of this approach lies a dangerous compromise: the pursuit of profit and economic growth at the expense of Indigenous sovereignty and environmental integrity.
The promises made here are far too narrow to address the deep wounds caused by centuries of colonialism.
What’s missing from these promises?
A real commitment to land back, an end to resource exploitation without consent, and a plan to halt the ongoing violence against Indigenous people by police and state-sanctioned projects.
Without these crucial steps, the Liberals are simply continuing the status quo, with a few more dollars thrown into the mix for PR purposes.
Until the government is willing to truly confront its colonial past and empower Indigenous peoples with real autonomy, these promises will continue to ring hollow.
Liberal staffers plant ‘stop the steal’ pins at Canadian conservative conference
Operatives placed buttons at CSFN trying to link Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre with Donald Trump
Campaigners with Canada’s Liberal party had some very American-esque politicking over the weekend, when Liberal operatives were found to have planted “stop the steal” buttons at a conservative conference to link the Conservative party to Donald Trump." - The Guardian
It’s official: the Liberals have gone full cosplay. In a clumsy attempt to paint Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives as MAGA clones, Liberal operatives were caught red-handed planting fake “Stop the Steal” buttons at a Conservative conference. Not through some cutting-edge investigation, but because they bragged about it at a bar and got overheard by a journalist.
This isn’t just a juvenile prank gone wrong. It’s a revealing glimpse into the state of the Liberal campaign machine — a party more interested in American-style theatrics and distraction tactics than delivering meaningful policies for working people.
While Canadians struggle with unaffordable housing, rising food prices, and crumbling infrastructure, Liberal staffers are playing dress-up and running psy-ops at right-wing conferences.
And let’s be clear: this isn’t a defence of Poilievre, who needs no help with his Trump bona fides. But if the best argument the Liberals can muster is that “at least we’re not Trump-adjacent,” then they’ve already forfeited the moral high ground.
They’ve offered no serious alternative to neoliberal austerity or rising inequality.
Instead, they’re relying on fear, vibes, and manufactured outrage, the very tactics they claim to oppose.
Mark Carney’s team later claimed this “didn’t fit his commitment to serious and positive discourse.” But it’s hard to take that seriously when their entire campaign rests on empty moralism and culture war baiting.
You can’t fight the rise of Trumpian politics by mimicking it. And you certainly don’t defeat right-wing populism with corporate centrism, smugness, and a campaign strategy built on vibes over vision.
This stunt doesn’t just backfire, it exposes the Liberals’ hollow centre. They’ve got no answers for the material crises facing everyday people. So instead, they resort to cheap theatrics and try to cast themselves as the last firewall against fascism, while actively enabling the conditions that let it grow.
Canada will no longer cover travel costs of experts it nominates to UN's climate science body
Funding cut leaves scientists wondering if they can be part of key global climate assessment
In a sudden and unexplained change from previous decades, the federal government has stopped covering the travel costs of Canadian experts volunteering for the next major global climate science assessment.
The decision to end travel funding means that Canadian scientists are now wondering whether they can still participate in the United Nations climate science process, perhaps by using their own money or diverting grant funds that could be going toward research and students.
"It's almost insulting to all of the Canadian scientists who have volunteered all those hundreds of hours each year of their personal lives," said Robert McLeman, a professor at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., who was a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) during its last assessment.
Canadian scientists who participate in the IPCC's reports don't get paid for their work, most of which they do remotely through emails and calls. But they do need to travel about four to five times to meet their scientific collaborators, who are other experts from around the world. - CBC
At a time when Canada is literally burning, and our towns and cities are being drowned by floods, the Liberal Party, now under the elite stewardship of former Goldman Sachs banker Mark Carney, has decided that climate scientists are on their own.
That’s right. The federal government has cut travel funding for Canadian experts volunteering with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the very body that shaped the Paris Agreement and has been sounding the alarm on climate catastrophe for decades.
These scientists aren’t asking for big paycheques. They volunteer their time, often working through the night, unpaid, on top of their day jobs. All they’ve needed from their government is support getting to international meetings so Canada’s place-based knowledge, especially on Indigenous climate adaptation and rapidly warming Arctic zones, can help shape global climate action.
But now, under the guise of “tight budgets,” the Liberals are slamming the door shut.
And who pays the price?
Young researchers trying to break into climate science.
Indigenous scholars fighting to bring traditional ecological knowledge to the table.
Social scientists who’ve finally been invited into the IPCC fold, only to be told they better find a sugar daddy grant or stay home.
It’s neoliberal austerity disguised as pragmatism, a betrayal of both science and sovereignty.
Meanwhile, $680,000 — the cost of funding all the IPCC travel — is barely a rounding error in the federal budget. In fact, it’s less than half of what the government spent flying CEOs and ministers to Davos in recent years.
It’s clear: if you’re a fossil fuel executive, your ticket is paid in full. If you’re a scientist trying to stop the world from burning? Good luck crowdfunding your flight.
And the timing couldn’t be worse. We’re living through a new climate normal. Entire communities are being burnt to the ground by wildfires. Crops are failing under extreme weather and drought conditions.
The Global South is demanding climate reparations. And the IPCC, where Canada should be showing leadership, is being abandoned by our so-called progressive government.
This isn’t just about travel stipends. It’s about priorities. It's about what kind of country we want to be in a time of crisis.
Do we want to be a country that funds its scientists, or one that funds PR stunts, fossil fuel subsidies, and American-style political ops?
Mark Carney wants to talk about “serious discourse.” Let’s have one. Starting with this question: Why is the government cutting climate science while claiming to fight climate change?
As the 2025 campaign barrels forward, one thing is clear: the Liberals have dropped the mask. Gone is even the performance of progressivism. In its place, we get austerity dressed up in responsible-sounding rhetoric, hollow gestures toward climate leadership, and a platform sculpted by the hands of bankers, not people.
Mark Carney, the Bay Street darling parachuted in to replace Trudeau for being “too far left”, is not a break from the past. He is the past, wearing a freshly pressed, carbon-neutral suit.
His platform is a glossy reboot of the same Liberal formula we’ve seen for decades: campaign from the left, govern from the right. Only now, it's infused with a new strain of top-down, faux-populist managerialism — the technocrat’s answer to global unrest.
And yet, the polling suggests they might win. Not because Canadians are excited. Not because they’re inspired. But because they’re scared, staring down a global far-right wave and grasping for anything that doesn’t look like chaos.
But make no mistake: this version of the Liberal Party is not a bulwark against conservatism — it's its enabler. Over the next four years, Canadians aren’t getting a shield from the far-right. They’re getting their velvet-gloved cousin in a navy-blue suit.
So we should be under no illusions: the next four years will be tough. For workers, for renters, for students, for scientists, for Indigenous communities, for the climate.
Because the rot isn’t just in the Conservative Party, it’s in the political establishment itself.
And unless we build something real to challenge it, we’ll be stuck choosing between different brands of corporate rule while the planet burns and the people are told to be patient.
The house is on fire, my friends. And the Liberals are offering us a scented candle. It might mask the smoke for a while, but eventually, the stench cuts through, the walls collapse, and the illusion burns with it. You can’t febreze your way out of a five-alarm crisis.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.