71
Bill C-5 just became law with ZERO new changes. Here's what that means (it's not good) (i.ytimg.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/canada@lemmy.ca
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wow, theyre prioritizing the well being of the country over the environment and indigenous people?

Its like they're finally trying to keep us in a first world standard of living; because they were about to be destroyed as a party entirely if they did not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Your well being depends on the environment and any improvement to your well being should not come at a detriment to the people your country colonized and genocided.

    Environmental protection acts do not exist to protect the environment. They exist to protect you from what business owners will do to your environment in the name of profit seeking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 24 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Promised actions of good should never come at the expense of any singular group, minority, people.

    In addition destroying our land to fuel the economic engine will only benefit capitalist systems and corporations.

    I've yet to see how this would sustainably benefit foreign people in their own country so to import this into Canada seems ridiculous.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -28 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    It only benefits corporations huh, do you not work for a corporation yourself?

    Its an export of a product, which derives tax revenue, which derives income taxes, which results in government programs to help the poor. Pretending like its not vital in our ecosystem is silly, its our food source, it provides us building materials, corporate exports give your dollar value and are the red blood cells of society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It only benefits corporations huh, do you not work for a corporation yourself?

    Lmao, the workers do not share in the profits of corporations. As if 😭

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -27 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Theyre literally paid out of the profits. You're spouting nonsense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    You receive a miniscule percentage of the value you create for your employer. The employer needs profits to increase constantly in order to provide value to the shareholders. When the total value of the company increases you at best receive the same cut of the value your produce. Usually though, your percentage cut decreases relative to total value so that the employer can extract greater value as demanded by shareholders. You aren't paid out of the profits, they take a cut of the value you produce by virtue of owning the company. This is why wages do not increase proportionally to productivity. I am not spouting nonsense, you just aren't equipped to understand what I am saying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Employers expend the least amount of resources necessary in order to maximize their profits, this is a practice that is not only accepted but celebrated as being "good" for the economy. So workers should follow suit and expend the least amount of their skills and labour in order to maximize their profits. If it is acceptable at the scale of billions it should be acceptable on the scale of thousands.

    There is no 'theft of time' from an entity that owns more than 1/4 (plus commute) of your life.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent