Opinion
February 8 City Council may be allowing more parkland to be developed.

During an in-camera session at city hall, which excludes others, city council dealt with the park land at the end of Stanley Crescent. In camera means top secret but I was told that when “the” developer presents his plans the residents of Sunnybrook will be given an opportunity to offer input.
The houses around this area were built in the 60s and 20 years ago, the city assured me that the land was designated for the park system. A few months ago during the Molly Banister debate several people including councillors assured me there would be no development or that Spruce Drive would be extended south of 32 St.
What happened to protecting the wildlife corridor, or maintaining beautiful trail systems. The trail will most likely just run along the fences of housing south of 32 Street.
We have been lucky. For decades I have been able to look at trees from my livingroom, watch the deer and moose, the occasional skunk, porcupine and coyote but that will be coming to an end. I will miss it but I always expected that the city will need the money and destroy the parkland these animals call home.
This is not like the proposed bridge on the Molly Banister extension, this is not a fenced in cow pasture this is actually home to many animals. Will the environmentalists get ready to rumble? Don’t bother. There are a few city councillors fighting for the environment, give them a chance.
This area back onto 32 Street in the north end and I cannot see million dollar homes being built backing on to 32 St. The city requires a density of 17 housing units per hectare so I suspect they will build 12 suite apartments on the north side and million dollar homes along the creek.
Stanley Crescent has 6 houses on it now with about a dozen vehicles and the deer often sit in the yards watching the scenery, that will change as even 1 apartment building would triple the traffic.
All said in done, I cannot complain, I will miss the serenity of my front yard and the view but I count my blessings for all the years I had it.
A lot of trees will come down and the animals will move on, and I suspect we will move on too, because we were spoiled for so many years.
The city needs the money, because with stagnant growth we definitely do not need more houses.
It is what it is. Thank you.
Bjorn Lomborg
Net zeroās cost-benefit ratio is CRAZY high

From the Fraser Institute
The best academic estimates show thatĀ 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 hasĀ made a legal commitmentĀ to achieve ānet zeroā carbon emissions by 2050. Back in 2015, then-Prime Minister TrudeauĀ promisedĀ that climate action will ācreate jobs and economic growthā and the federal governmentĀ insistsĀ it will create a āstrong economy.ā The truth is that the net zero policy generates vast costs and very little benefitāand 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. AnnualĀ Canadian COā emissionsĀ have increased 20 per cent since 1990. In the time that Trudeau was prime minister, fossil fuel energy supply actuallyĀ increasedĀ over 11 per cent. Similarly, the share of fossil fuels in Canadaās 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 COā emissions by less than three per cent. On that trend, getting to zero wonāt take 25 years as the Liberal government promised, but more than 160 years. One studyĀ showsĀ that the governmentās current plan which wonāt 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 COā emissions, and while Canada is already rich with plenty of energy, the worldās poor want much more energy.
In order to achieve global net-zero by 2050, by 2030 we wouldĀ alreadyĀ need to achieve the equivalent of removing the combined emissions of China and the United States ā 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 UNĀ points outĀ 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 hasnāt even managed toĀ startĀ reducing global carbon emissions, which last yearĀ hit a new record.
DataĀ 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 todayās 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 weāre a century or two away from achieving 100 percent renewables.
Politicians like to blithely suggest the shift away from fossil fuels isnāt unprecedented, because in the past we transitioned from wood to coal, from coal to oil, and from oil to gas. The truth is, humanityĀ hasnāt made a real energy transition even once. Coal didnāt 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, itās worth remembering that even after two centuries, humanityās transition away from wood is not over. More thanĀ two billionĀ mostly poor people still depend on wood for cooking and heating, and it still provides aboutĀ 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 hasĀ declinedĀ 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 someĀ nine centuriesĀ 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 thatĀ 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 ā as businesses would also have to pay for all this ā 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 consumersĀ up to $US52.6 trillion. All that makes it a policy that just doesnāt make senseāfor Canada and for the world.
2025 Federal Election
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY

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 countryās 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. Iāve found the original document and have posted it below, along with The Western Standardās 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.Ā Western Standard
Here is the fullĀ document
Below are some highlights from the Policy Horizons Canada research paper. The report was quietly released on Policy Horizonās website and was reported by Blacklocksā 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 Iāve pulled:
2.3 Intergenerational wealth
In 2040,Ā 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 ā especially owning property ā divides the āhavesā from the āhave-notsā.
2.4 Social siloing
In 2040,Ā 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,Ā 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 stateās 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 āmoving upā. 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 ReporterĀ says the stark prediction comes from aĀ Foresight BriefĀ quietly released by Policy Horizons Canada, a division of the Privy Council Office.
Dated January 2025 and titledĀ Future Lives: Social Mobility In Question, the report paints a picture of a deeply divided Canada by 2040 ā where few believe they or their children can build a better life.
āMany people in Canada assume āfollowing the rulesā and ādoing the right thingā will lead to a better life,ā the report states. āHowever, things are changing. Wealth inequality is rising. It is already common for children to be less upwardly mobile than their parents.ā
Analysts suggest that growing inequality will erode hope and trust in institutions, driving many to leave the country altogether.
āCanada may become a less attractive destination for migrants,ā 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.
āPeople may start to hunt, fish and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations,ā it notes. āGovernments may come to seem irrelevant.ā
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 āthe only reliable way to get ahead.ā
Mental health outcomes are expected to worsen dramatically, driven by a deep sense of frustration and hopelessness.
āFrustration could leave many people deeply unhappy with negative consequences for their family and loved ones,ā 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
-
2025 Federal Election16 hours ago
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tayās Election
-
Energy1 day ago
Indigenous-led Projects Hold Key To Canadaās Energy Future
-
Energy1 day ago
Many Canadiansāand many Albertansālive in energy poverty
-
2025 Federal Election16 hours ago
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
-
Business1 day ago
Canada Urgently Needs A Watchdog For Government Waste
-
2025 Federal Election5 hours ago
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
-
2025 Federal Election16 hours ago
Real Homes vs. Modular Shoeboxes: The Housing Battle Between Poilievre and Carney
-
International1 day ago
Pope Francis has died aged 88