This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Lee Harding

A government report envisions Canadians foraging for food by 2040. Ottawa offers no solutions, just management of national decline

An obscure but disturbing federal report suggests Canadians could be foraging for food on public lands by 2040.

Policy Horizons Canada released the dire forecast on Jan. 7, 2025, in a report entitled Future Lives: Social Mobility in Question. It went largely unnoticed at the time, but its contents remain deeply concerning and worth closer examination.

Policy Horizons Canada is a little-known federal think-tank within the public service that produces long-term strategic foresight to guide government decision-making. Though not a household name, its projections can quietly shape policies at the highest levels. It  describes itself as the government’s “centre of excellence in foresight,” designed to “empower the Government of Canada with a future-oriented mindset and outlook to strengthen decision making.” Its current head is Kristel Van der Elst, former head of strategic foresight at the World Economic Forum.

The report warns that the “powerful promise” that anyone can get an education, work hard, buy property and climb the social and economic ladder is slipping away. Instead of a temporary setback, the authors argue, downward mobility could become the norm. They liken Canada’s future to a board game with “more snakes than ladders.”

“In 2040, upward social mobility is almost unheard of in Canada,” the report states. “Hardly anyone believes that they can build a better life for themselves, or their children, through their own efforts. However, many worry about sliding down the social order.”

While these scenarios aren’t firm predictions, foresight reports like this are intended to outline plausible futures. The fact that federal bureaucrats see this as realistic is revealing—and troubling.

Post-secondary education, the report suggests, will lose its appeal. Rising costs, slow adaptation to labour market needs, long program durations and poor job prospects will push many away. It predicts that people will attend university more to join the “elite” than to find employment.

Home ownership will be out of reach for most, and inequality between those who own property and those who don’t will drive “social, economic, and political  conflict.” Inheritance becomes the only reliable path to prosperity, while a new aristocracy begins to look down on the rest.

The gap between what youth are told to want and what they can realistically expect will widen, fuelling frustration and apathy. As automation and artificial intelligence expand, many traditional white-collar jobs will be replaced by machines or software. “Most people (will) rely on gig work and side hustles to meet their basic needs,” the report warns.

This leads to one of the darkest predictions: “People may start to hunt, fish, and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations. Small scale agriculture could increase.”

The authors don’t propose solutions. Instead, they ask: “What actions could be taken now to maximize opportunities and lessen the challenges related to reduced and/or downward social mobility in the future?”

That question should concern us. Policymakers aren’t being asked how to prevent the collapse of social and economic mobility but how to manage its
fallout. Are those envisioning Canada’s future more interested in engineering a controlled implosion than fostering hope and opportunity?

Yes, artificial intelligence will bring challenges and change. But there is no excuse for despair in a country as rich in natural resources as Canada. Besides, the 2021 income data used in the report predates even the release of the first version of ChatGPT.

If policymakers are serious about restoring upward mobility, they must prioritize Canada’s resource economy. Ports, pipelines, oil and gas development, and mining are essential infrastructure for prosperity. When these sectors are strangled by overregulation, investment dries up—and so do jobs. The oil patch  remains one of the fastest paths from poverty to wealth. Entry-level jobs in the field require training and safety courses, not four-year degrees.

Similarly, post-secondary education doesn’t need to be as expensive or time consuming as it is now. We should return to models where nurses could earn certification in two years instead of being funnelled into extended university programs. And if governments required universities to wind down defined benefit pension plans, tuition would fall fast.

Unfortunately, there’s a real risk that policymakers will use reports like this to justify more wealth-killing socialism. A home equity tax, for example, might be pitched to avoid future tensions between renters and homeowners. Such a tax would require Canadians to pay an annual levy based on the increased value of their home even if they haven’t sold it. These policies don’t build wealth—they punish it, offering temporary relief in place of lasting progress.

Unless we choose a more sensible path, the controlled demolition of Canada will continue.

Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

MxM News

Quick Hit:

The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to shut down its long-standing Energy Star program, which has certified energy-efficient appliances for over three decades. The move is part of a sweeping agency reorganization that also includes eliminating the climate change office and other environmental initiatives not mandated by law.

Key Details:

• EPA officials announced the dismantling of the Energy Star program in a staff meeting on May 6, 2025.
• The agency is eliminating its climate-related divisions, including those overseeing Energy Star and greenhouse gas reporting.
• The move is framed as part of a broader restructuring to prioritize statutory obligations and reduce government overreach.

Diving Deeper:

In a significant shift for federal environmental policy, the Environmental Protection Agency will eliminate the Energy Star program, a popular certification used to identify energy-efficient home appliances like refrigerators, dishwashers, and dryers. Internal documents and a recorded staff meeting reveal that EPA leadership is dismantling entire divisions focused on climate change and voluntary energy initiatives.

Paul Gunning, director of the EPA’s Office of Atmospheric Protection—which is also being cut—told staff the agency would “de-prioritize and eliminate” all climate-related work outside of what’s legally required. The Energy Star program, created in 1992 under President George H.W. Bush, has helped save American households and businesses over $500 billion in energy costs and prevented billions of metric tons of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere.

Supporters argue the program has been a bipartisan success story. Nearly 90% of U.S. consumers recognize the Energy Star label, and manufacturers have long relied on it to market efficient products. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and major industries, from lighting to food-equipment makers, have urged the EPA to keep it in place. A joint letter in March from dozens of trade organizations to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin warned that ending the program would not benefit Americans.

Critics of the move, like Paula R. Glover of the Alliance to Save Energy, say the Energy Star program costs just $32 million annually but delivers $40 billion in utility bill savings. “Eliminating the Energy Star program is counterintuitive to this administration’s pledge to reduce household costs,” she said. Glover added that with electricity demand set to rise 35–50% by 2040, energy-saving measures are more important than ever.

The Biden-era EPA heavily prioritized climate policy and environmental regulation, often blurring the lines between environmental stewardship and bureaucratic overreach. In contrast, the current administration—under 47th President Donald Trump—is refocusing the agency toward its statutory mission, aligning with the broader conservative agenda of streamlining government and cutting redundant or ideologically-driven programs.

While Trump previously attempted to defund Energy Star during his first term, the effort failed amid bipartisan concern that privatization could lead to lowered standards. The current plan appears to accomplish the same goal through internal restructuring, cutting not just Energy Star but programs related to methane emissions reduction, climate science, and policy.

Notably, the agency’s largest union has cried foul over how the reorganization was handled. Marie Owens Powell, its president, accused the agency of “union busting” after being blocked from attending reorganization meetings. Staff have been told they may be reassigned or let go as the EPA scales back to staffing levels not seen since the Reagan administration.

For an agency that has long served as the regulatory spearhead for the left’s climate agenda, this realignment could represent a return to core environmental functions—clean air and water—while removing the taxpayer burden of subsidizing climate-centric programs with questionable returns. The decision also signals a shift away from corporatist alliances that prop up select industries under the guise of energy policy.