Opinion
Should government have more power or less?
We welcome our readers’ opinions. Here’s one from Central Alberta resident Norman Weibe.
I’m told a coalition government is a possibility in this election. That if the Federal Liberals don’t get quite enough votes, the NDP and Greens will prop them up, to deny the conservatives a chance to govern.
More-so, the NDP or Greens, would use this capability to their advantage, and force concessions from the Liberals on the environmental agenda and other socialist policies. We’ve seen this before, so it’s a valid concern.
I understand this tactic could embolden past supporters of those parties to stick with them, in the hopes that this situation could arise. If it did, they would exert far more power as a ‘king maker’ than their few votes ever could under normal circumstances.
This whole scenario I find truly disturbing. Not just due to the thought of ever expanding socialist policies introduced into our lives through government, but the fact that the voters have no say or input in such coalitions.
This flaw in our system of government, where parties are given such sweeping powers should never be allowed to happen. Additionally, the leadership of the nation is something that all of us should be able to directly participate in.
Perhaps the electing of a Prime Minister or Premier should be a separate vote. Those running for such leadership positions would have assembled their leadership team in advance, and created their platform. This would give us the opportunity to scrutinize our options for entire leadership teams.
They would have the opportunity to select the people they considered the best and brightest to support their platform and achieve the goals they have laid out. That leadership group would then run collectively as a team, and upon winning take that role.
There would be no more opportunity for a coalition government to be formed, because that power would no longer reside with the leaders of each of the political parties, but with the people alone. Anyone losing the leadership contest would be out completely, and unable to negotiate a power sharing deal.
The platform that the leadership team ran on would influence each individual MP/MLA, but it wouldn’t mean they are whipped, and have no voice as is sometimes the case. The leadership would now have to ensure they could count on the support of those representatives, and couldn’t take them for granted.
It seems to me that much of the political power in our Canadian systems, remains in the hands of very few. The voters have some say, but not enough.
Power is held by those who jealously guard it and do not wish to see it reduced. We should look at every possibility to put more power in the hands of the people, and have as much decision making done as close to the source of the issue at hand.
There are many examples to look at the world over. Systems that have decades of use, and we can learn from others successes and mistakes.
No matter what alternative solutions are presented to us in the future; I believe it is imperative that political power should be decentralized, as much as possible.
From the Fraser Institute
The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.
Canada has made a legal commitment to achieve “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. Back in 2015, then-Prime Minister Trudeau promised that climate action will “create jobs and economic growth” and the federal government insists it will create a “strong economy.” The truth is that the net zero policy generates vast costs and very little benefit—and Canada would be better off changing direction.
Achieving net zero carbon emissions is far more daunting than politicians have ever admitted. Canada is nowhere near on track. Annual Canadian CO₂ emissions have increased 20 per cent since 1990. In the time that Trudeau was prime minister, fossil fuel energy supply actually increased over 11 per cent. Similarly, the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy supply (not just electricity) increased from 75 per cent in 2015 to 77 per cent in 2023.
Over the same period, the switch from coal to gas, and a tiny 0.4 percentage point increase in the energy from solar and wind, has reduced annual CO₂ emissions by less than three per cent. On that trend, getting to zero won’t take 25 years as the Liberal government promised, but more than 160 years. One study shows that the government’s current plan which won’t even reach net-zero will cost Canada a quarter of a million jobs, seven per cent lower GDP and wages on average $8,000 lower.
Globally, achieving net-zero will be even harder. Remember, Canada makes up about 1.5 per cent of global CO₂ emissions, and while Canada is already rich with plenty of energy, the world’s poor want much more energy.
In order to achieve global net-zero by 2050, by 2030 we would already need to achieve the equivalent of removing the combined emissions of China and the United States — every year. This is in the realm of science fiction.
The painful Covid lockdowns of 2020 only reduced global emissions by about six per cent. To achieve net zero, the UN points out that we would need to have doubled those reductions in 2021, tripled them in 2022, quadrupled them in 2023, and so on. This year they would need to be sextupled, and by 2030 increased 11-fold. So far, the world hasn’t even managed to start reducing global carbon emissions, which last year hit a new record.
Data from both the International Energy Agency and the US Energy Information Administration give added cause for skepticism. Both organizations foresee the world getting more energy from renewables: an increase from today’s 16 per cent to between one-quarter to one-third of all primary energy by 2050. But that is far from a transition. On an optimistically linear trend, this means we’re a century or two away from achieving 100 percent renewables.
Politicians like to blithely suggest the shift away from fossil fuels isn’t unprecedented, because in the past we transitioned from wood to coal, from coal to oil, and from oil to gas. The truth is, humanity hasn’t made a real energy transition even once. Coal didn’t replace wood but mostly added to global energy, just like oil and gas have added further additional energy. As in the past, solar and wind are now mostly adding to our global energy output, rather than replacing fossil fuels.
Indeed, it’s worth remembering that even after two centuries, humanity’s transition away from wood is not over. More than two billion mostly poor people still depend on wood for cooking and heating, and it still provides about 5 per cent of global energy.
Like Canada, the world remains fossil fuel-based, as it delivers more than four-fifths of energy. Over the last half century, our dependence has declined only slightly from 87 per cent to 82 per cent, but in absolute terms we have increased our fossil fuel use by more than 150 per cent. On the trajectory since 1971, we will reach zero fossil fuel use some nine centuries from now, and even the fastest period of recent decline from 2014 would see us taking over three centuries.
Global warming will create more problems than benefits, so achieving net-zero would see real benefits. Over the century, the average person would experience benefits worth $700 (CAD) each year.
But net zero policies will be much more expensive. The best academic estimates show that over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.
Every year over the 21st century, costs would vastly outweigh benefits, and global costs would exceed benefits by over CAD 32 trillion each year.
We would see much higher transport costs, higher electricity costs, higher heating and cooling costs and — as businesses would also have to pay for all this — drastic increases in the price of food and all other necessities. Just one example: net-zero targets would likely increase gas costs some two-to-four times even by 2030, costing consumers up to $US52.6 trillion. All that makes it a policy that just doesn’t make sense—for Canada and for the world.
Bjørn Lomborg
Trish Wood is Critical
Report from Prime Minister’s own Pricy Council shows a terrifying image of Canada’s future under current trajectory
All hell is breaking out over a Privy Council report, compiled for the Liberal government, dated January 2025. It paints this country’s future as a bleak, modern version of Lord of the Flies. The story erupted when Joe Warmington asked Pierre Poilievre a question so shocking it sounded like a dystopian film script. I’ve found the original document and have posted it below, along with The Western Standard’s take but first here is the historic exchange.
The report outlines a grim future where affluent Canadians wall themselves off in gated communities to escape economic, political, and social unrest, while those left behind turn to survival tactics outside the law. Western Standard
Here is the full document
Below are some highlights from the Policy Horizons Canada research paper. The report was quietly released on Policy Horizon’s website and was reported by Blacklocks’ but ignored by legacy media. I suspect this is the report the RCMP was referring to when it warned of civil war in this country based on new research predicting economic hard times.
Here are some highlights I’ve pulled:
2.3 Intergenerational wealth
In 2040, people see inheritance as the only reliable way to get ahead. Society increasingly resembles an aristocracy. Wealth and status pass down the generations. Family background – especially owning property – divides the ‘haves’ from the ‘have-nots’.
2.4 Social siloing
In 2040, people rarely mix with others of different socio-economic status. Algorithmic dating apps filter by class. Gated metaverses, like real life, offer few opportunities to meet people from different backgrounds. It is hard to move up in the world by making social connections that could lead to long term romantic relationships, job opportunities, or business partnerships. Social relations no longer offer pathways to connections or opportunities that enable upward mobility.
2.5 Aspirations and expectations
In 2040, aspirations for social mobility among youth are at odds with expectations of immobility. Advertising and marketing discourses continue to drive the desire to climb the social ladder, but economic realities leave most with limited expectations of success. Cognitive dissonance between what youth are programed to want and what they know they can expect, leads many to frustration and apathy. Only a few maintain a strong drive to innovate and succeed in traditional terms
3.6 People may reject systems they believe have failed them
- People who work hard but see little reward may look for others to blame
- Some may blame AI, Big Tech, CEOs, social media, unions, or capitalism. They could demand tighter regulations, tax penalties, or profound revisions of certain systems
- Some may blame the state. They may attack policies believed to favour older cohorts, who benefited from the era of social mobility. In extreme cases, people could reject the state’s legitimacy, leading to higher rates of tax evasion or other forms of civil disobedience
- Some may choose to blame those with capital, whether it is social, economic, or decision-making capital
- Others may choose to blame immigrants, or another identifiable group. If such scapegoating becomes widespread, it could generate serious social or political conflicts
- 4.0 Conclusion
Declining social mobility could create serious challenges for citizens and policymakers. What people believe matters as much as the reality. It is often the basis for decisions and actions. Currently, most Canadians still believe that they have equality of opportunityFootnote6. This may change.
People may lose faith in the Canadian project. They may reject policies that promote education, jobs, or home ownership. The usual levers may seem misguided and wasteful to those who have abandoned the idea of ‘moving up’. They could lose the drive to better themselves and their communities. Others might embrace radical ideas about restructuring the state, society, and the economy.
- 3.4 People might find alternative ways to meet their basic needs
- Housing, food, childcare, and healthcare co-operatives may become more common. This could ease burdens on social services but also challenge market-based businesses
- Forms of person-to-person exchange of goods and services could become even more popular, reducing tax revenues and consumer safety
- People may start to hunt, fish, and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations. Small-scale agriculture could increase
- Governments may come to seem irrelevant if they cannot enforce basic regulations or if people increasingly rely on grass-roots solutions to meeting basic needs
This is what The Western Standard is reporting.
Here is the entire article.
A federal think tank is warning that Canada could face a dramatic social and economic breakdown within 15 years, including mass emigration by wage earners, a surge in mental health crises, and widespread illegal hunting for food among the poor.
Blacklock’s Reporter says the stark prediction comes from a Foresight Brief quietly released by Policy Horizons Canada, a division of the Privy Council Office.
Dated January 2025 and titled Future Lives: Social Mobility In Question, the report paints a picture of a deeply divided Canada by 2040 — where few believe they or their children can build a better life.
“Many people in Canada assume ‘following the rules’ and ‘doing the right thing’ will lead to a better life,” the report states. “However, things are changing. Wealth inequality is rising. It is already common for children to be less upwardly mobile than their parents.”
Analysts suggest that growing inequality will erode hope and trust in institutions, driving many to leave the country altogether.
“Canada may become a less attractive destination for migrants,” it says, warning that even new Canadians could seek better opportunities elsewhere if the country is seen as stagnant or regressive.
The report outlines a grim future where affluent Canadians wall themselves off in gated communities to escape economic, political, and social unrest, while those left behind turn to survival tactics outside the law.
“People may start to hunt, fish and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations,” it notes. “Governments may come to seem irrelevant.”
Access to postsecondary education is projected to become a luxury only the wealthy can afford, while homeownership for first-time buyers will depend almost entirely on family wealth. Inheritance, the report says, may become “the only reliable way to get ahead.”
Mental health outcomes are expected to worsen dramatically, driven by a deep sense of frustration and hopelessness.
“Frustration could leave many people deeply unhappy with negative consequences for their family and loved ones,” analysts wrote.
The report does not disclose who ordered the research or for what purpose, though all contributing authors are federal employees. Policy Horizons Canada emphasizes the scenario is not a forecast but a plausible outcome if current trends continue unchecked.
Understand that Prime Minister Mark Carney would not only have known about this report but is partly responsible for the economic conditions that could lead to these feudalistic outcomes.
Stay critical.
#anytribebutLiberal
MEI-Ipsos poll: 56 per cent of Canadians support increasing access to non-governmental healthcare providers
Canada drops retaliatory tariffs on automakers, pauses other tariffs
Ex-NYPD Cop Jailed in Beijing’s Transnational Repatriation Plot, Canada Remains Soft Target
RCMP Whistleblowers Accuse Members of Mark Carney’s Inner Circle of Security Breaches and Surveillance
BREAKING from THE BUREAU: Pro-Beijing Group That Pushed Erin O’Toole’s Exit Warns Chinese Canadians to “Vote Carefully”
Trump Executive Orders ensure ‘Beautiful Clean’ Affordable Coal will continue to bolster US energy grid
PRC-Linked Disinformation Claims Conservatives Threaten Chinese Diaspora Interests, Take Aim at PM Carney’s Debate Remark
-
International1 day agoPope Francis has died aged 88
-
International1 day agoPope Francis Dies on Day after Easter
-
International1 day agoJD Vance was one of the last people to meet Pope Francis
-
2025 Federal Election14 hours agoOttawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
-
2025 Federal Election14 hours agoReal Homes vs. Modular Shoeboxes: The Housing Battle Between Poilievre and Carney
-
COVID-1914 hours agoNearly Half of “COVID-19 Deaths” Were Not Due to COVID-19 – Scientific Reports Journal
-
2025 Federal Election14 hours agoHow Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
-
2025 Federal Election13 hours agoPOLL: Canadians want spending cuts