The Dystopian Future of Canada Part I

Tim Lasiuta

Published

5 years ago

8 minute read

According to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the “Great Reset,” is underway, and that should scare you.

In a video interview released November 16, 2020, of his speech in front of the United Nations delivered in late September, Trudeau has now emerged as North Americas poster child for the United Nation Agenda 21 and 2030.

While Canadians were spending our summer at our homes with limited travel and our economy sputtered along, the Liberals and their global partners were rolling out their plan to reimagine the worlds economic systems with a focus on Net-Zero Emissions and social equity.

“This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset,” Trudeau said in the following video. “This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change.”

The video can be viewed at:

He and his fellow Liberals also absconded the phrase, “Building Back Better,” a slogan that Presidential hopeful Joe Biden used during his campaign. “Building back better means getting support to the most vulnerable while maintaining our momentum on reaching the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” said Trudeau.

What will the life of an ordinary Canadian look like under 2030?

According to the original 1992 version of this non-binding legislation it included 95% depopulation of the world with all property rights being stripped from citizens with all workers living in zones close to employment.

(https://csglobe.com/agenda-21-depopulation-95-world-2030/)

Our modern version may be slightly different with no private property ownership, guaranteed incomes, forced vaccinations, the death of the family unit (perhaps our lockdowns and cohort associations are the beginning), and the death of churches and athletics (again, look at the last 6 months).

A particularly telling video explains 8 concepts the Global Rest will make commonplace, remember “I don’t own anything and I am happy.”

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/WEF-Future.mp4?_=1

According to one website, (https://prepareforchange.net/2019/04/08/agenda-21-reinvented-as-agenda-2030-and-agenda-2050-is-a-plan-to-depopulate-95-of-the-world-population-by-2030/)

“It will remove and destroy all constitutions, restrict free speech and disarm the people. When Agenda 21 is fully realized, the United Nations will be in possession of all guns and subsequently, there will be no opposition to their control.”

Paul McGuire, an internationally recognized futurist, speaker, minister, and author writes in his book The Babylon Code that:

“The true agenda of Agenda 21[/2030] is to establish a global government, global economic system, and global religion. When U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon spoke of ‘a dream of a world of peace and dignity for all’ this is no different than when the Communists promised the people a ‘worker’s paradise.’”

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is not new, it is a program that has been part of the UN for several years and includes climate change as a tool to reinvent world economies and societies. In fact, the Davos meetings have focused on the ‘Reset’ as well over the last couple of years as well and this stage has been where United States President Trump has pushed his America First policy, an act which earned him international scorn.

According to the UN 2030 website, the rationale behind the movement also known as Agenda 21 is:

When you see a chance, take it

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to set things straight. To write a new social contract, together, that is fair and just for everybody. A bold, ambitious plan to achieve the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals.

From the website, there are 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) which were adopted in 2015 and designed for a 15-year implementation time frame.

These can be found here: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/

They are: No poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, clean water, affordable clean energy, decent work, industry and innovation, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities, responsible consumption, climate action, life below water and on land, human rights and partnerships.

How far along the murky waters of Agenda 21 are we exactly in Canada?

UN troops in Canada? You bet, that will be another discussion.

Guaranteed incomes? Does CERB fit the bill?

A brief description of the tenets of the Global Reset can be found at the website below:

New World Order: UN Agenda 21/2030 Mission Goals

In fact, a recent Canadian Government grant (https://www.startupcan.ca/social-impact/sdg-pitch-competition/) for SDG Pitch Competitions has been announced for the month of November focusing on:

 SDG 1: Poverty Reduction

 SDG 5: Gender Equality

 SDG 8: Decent Work & Economic Growth

 SDG 13: Climate Action

The prize of $500 plus a gift in kind rewards pitches that embrace sustainability and fulfills one of the 4 SDG’s including: Poverty Reduction, Gender Equality, Decent Work & Economic Growth, and Climate Action.

Again, quoted from the UN website:

We believe fossil fuel subsidies can be removed without causing social harm. In five countries we are analyzing the best way to reform energy prices and we will offer a guide for policymakers on carbon pricing and subsidy reform.

As a matter of fact, one of the elements of 2030 is the decarbonization of countries while encouraging renewable resources. To see evidence of this policy in Canada all citizens have to do is to look at federal support for oil and gas resource development in western Canada and Carbon tax levels coupled with the proposed Clean Fuel Initiative from the last ‘budget.’

The simple fact remains. When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned for a seat in the UN, Canada was rejected however, since then it has become apparent that the ‘consolation’ prize of just being a member country has morphed into an outright granting of Canada’s sovereignty to the highest bidder, in this case the UN in exchange for a seemingly spokesperson role for the organization. Instead of being OUR Prime Minister, he has become the liaison and has sold his country out for a paper crown.

This short discussion merely scratches the surface, and further links between Trudeau and his UN cohorts come to the surface daily.

NEXT INSTALLMENT: Trudeau and the Chinese Connection: Or Wu (han) is your Daddy!

Tim Lasiuta

Tim Lasiuta is a Red Deer writer, entrepreneur and communicator. He has interests in history and the future for our country.

Follow Author

Penhold Flight Instructor Releases Updated Instruction Manual For the 21st Century

#RedDeerStrong / 5 years ago

Hope, Faith and Love: the Music Ministry of Gerard Renaud

COVID-19 / 5 years ago

Part IV: Clerical Errors Affect Real People!

Agriculture

End Supply Management—For the Sake of Canadian Consumers

Published on December 22, 2025

Todayville

This is a special preview article from the:

By Gwyn Morgan

U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade policy is often chaotic and punitive. But on one point, he is right: Canada’s agricultural supply management system has to go. Not because it is unfair to the United States, though it clearly is, but because it punishes Canadians. Supply management is a government-enforced price-fixing scheme that limits consumer choice, inflates grocery bills, wastes food, and shields a small, politically powerful group of producers from competition—at the direct expense of millions of households.

And yet Ottawa continues to support this socialist shakedown. Last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters supply management was “not on the table” in negotiations for a renewed United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, despite U.S. negotiators citing it as a roadblock to a new deal.

Supply management relies on a web of production quotas, fixed farmgate prices, strict import limits, and punitive tariffs that can approach 300 percent. Bureaucrats decide how much milk, chicken, eggs, and poultry Canadians farmers produce and which farmers can produce how much. When officials misjudge demand—as they recently did with chicken and eggs—farmers are legally barred from responding. The result is predictable: shortages, soaring prices, and frustrated consumers staring at emptier shelves and higher bills.

This is not a theoretical problem. Canada’s most recent chicken production cycle, ending in May 2025, produced one of the worst supply shortfalls in decades. Demand rose unexpectedly, but quotas froze supply in place. Canadian farmers could not increase production. Instead, consumers paid more for scarce domestic poultry while last-minute imports filled the gap at premium prices. Eggs followed a similar pattern, with shortages triggering a convoluted “allocation” system that opened the door to massive foreign imports rather than empowering Canadian farmers to respond.

Over a century of global experience has shown that central economic planning fails. Governments are simply not good at “matching” supply with demand. There is no reason to believe Ottawa’s attempts to manage a handful of food categories should fare any better. And yet supply management persists, even as its costs mount.

Those costs fall squarely on consumers. According to a Fraser Institute estimate, supply management adds roughly $375 a year to the average Canadian household’s grocery bill. Because lower-income families spend a much higher proportion of their income on food, the burden falls most heavily on them.
The system also strangles consumer choice. European countries produce thousands of varieties of high-quality cheeses at prices far below what Canadians pay for largely industrial domestic products. But our import quotas are tiny, and anything above them is hit with tariffs exceeding 245 percent. As a result, imported cheeses can cost $60 per kilogram or more in Canadian grocery stores. In Switzerland, one of the world’s most eye-poppingly expensive countries, where a thimble-sized coffee will set you back $9, premium cheeses are barely half the price you’ll find at Loblaw or Safeway.

Canada’s supply-managed farmers defend their monopoly by insisting it provides a “fair return” for famers, guarantees Canadians have access to “homegrown food” and assures the “right amount of food is produced to meet Canadian needs.” Is there a shred of evidence Canadians are being denied the “right amount” of bread, tuna, asparagus or applesauce? Of course not; the market readily supplies all these and many thousands of other non-supply-managed foods.

Like all price-fixing systems, Canada’s supply management provides only the illusion of stability and security. We’ve seen above what happens when production falls short. But perversely, if a farmer manages to get more milk out of his cows than his quota, there’s no reward: the excess must be
dumped. Last year alone, enough milk was discarded to feed 4.2 million people.

Over time, supply management has become less about farming and more about quota ownership. Artificial scarcity has turned quotas into highly valuable assets, locking out young farmers and rewarding incumbents.

Why does such a dysfunctional system persist? The answer is politics. Supply management is of outsized importance in Quebec, where producers hold a disproportionate share of quotas and are numerous enough to swing election results in key ridings. Federal parties of all stripes have learned the cost of crossing this lobby. That political cowardice now collides with reality. The USMCA is heading toward mandatory renegotiation, and supply management is squarely in Washington’s sights. Canada depends on tariff-free access to the U.S. market for hundreds of billions of dollars in exports. Trading away a deeply-flawed system to secure that access would make economic sense.

Instead, Ottawa has doubled down. Not just with Carney’s remarks last week but with Bill C-202, which makes it illegal for Canadian ministers to reduce tariffs or expand quotas on supply-managed goods in future trade talks. Formally signalling that Canada’s negotiating position is hostage to a tiny domestic lobby group is reckless, and weakens Canada’s hand before talks even begin.

Food prices continue to rise faster than inflation. Forecasts suggest the average family will spend $1,000 more on groceries next year alone. Supply management is not the only cause, but it remains a major one. Ending it would lower prices, expand choice, reduce waste, and reward entrepreneurial farmers willing to compete.

If Donald Trump can succeed in forcing supply management onto the negotiating table, he will be doing Canadian consumers—and Canadian agriculture—a favour our own political class has long refused to deliver.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal. Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who was a director of five global corporations.

Automotive

Canada’s EV gamble is starting to backfire

Published on December 22, 2025

Dan McTeague

Things have only gone from bad to worse for the global Electric Vehicle industry. And that’s a problem for Canada, because successive Liberal governments have done everything in their power to hitch our cart to that horse.

Earlier this month, the Trump Administration rolled back more Biden-era regulations that effectively served as a back-door EV mandate in the United States. These rules mandated that all passenger cars be able to travel at least 65.1 miles (and for light trucks, 45.2 miles) per gallon of gasoline or diesel, by the year 2031. Since no Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicle could realistically conform to those standards, that would have essentially boxed them out of the market.

Trump’s rolling them back was a fulfillment of his campaign promise to end the Biden Administration’s stealth EV mandates. But it was also a simple recognition of the reality that EVs can’t compete on their own merits.

For proof of that, look no further than our second bit of bad news for EVs: Ford Motor Company has just announced a massive $19.5 billion write-down, almost entirely linked to its aggressive push into EVs. They’ve lost $13 billion on EVs in the past two years alone.

The company invested tens of billions on these go-carts, and lost their shirt when it turned out the market for them was miniscule.

Ford’s EV division president Andrew Frick explained, “Ford is following the customer. We are looking at the market as it is today, not just as everyone predicted it to be five years ago.”

Of course, five years ago, the market was assuming that government subsidies-plus-mandates would create a market for EVs at scale, which hasn’t happened.

As to what this portends for the market, the Wall Street Journal argued, “The company’s pivot from all-electric vehicles is a fresh sign that America’s roadways – after a push to remake them – will continue to look in the near future much like they do today, with a large number of gas-powered cars and trucks and growing use of hybrids.”

And that’s not just true in the U.S. Across the Atlantic, reports suggest the European Union is preparing to delay their own EV mandates to 2040. And the U.K.’s Labour government is considering postponing their own 2030 ICE vehicle ban to align with any EU change in policy.

It’s looking like fewer people around the world will be forced by their governments to buy EVs. Which means that fewer people will be buying EVs.

Now, that is a headache for Canada. Our leaders, at both the federal and provincial levels, have bet big on the success of EVs, investing billions in taxpayer dollars in the hopes of making Canada a major player in the global EV supply chain.

To bolster those investments, Ottawa introduced its Electric Vehicle mandate, requiring 100 per cent of new light-duty vehicle sales to be electric by 2035. This, despite the fact that EVs remain significantly more expensive than gas-and-diesel driven vehicles, they’re poorly suited to Canada’s vast distances and cold climate, and our charging infrastructure is wholly inadequate for a total transition to EVs.

But even if these things weren’t true, there still aren’t enough of us to make the government’s investment make sense. Their entire strategy depends on exporting to foreign markets that are rapidly cooling on EVs.

Collapsing demand south of the border – where the vast majority of the autos we build are sent – means that Canadian EVs will be left without buyers. And postponed (perhaps eventually canceled) mandates in Europe mean that we will be left without a fallback market.

Canadian industry voices are growing louder in their concern. Meanwhile, plants are already idling, scaling back production, or even closing, leaving workers out in the cold.

As GM Canada’s president, Kristian Aquilina, said when announcing her company’s cancellation of the BrightDrop Electric delivery van, “Quite simply, we just have not seen demand for these vehicles climb to the levels that we initially anticipated…. It’s simply a demand and a market-driven response.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney, while sharing much of the same environmental outlook as his predecessor, has already been compelled by economic realities to make a small adjustment – delaying the enforcement of the 2026 EV sales quotas by one year.

But a one-year pause doesn’t solve the problem. It kicks the can down the road.

Mr. Carney must now make a choice. He can double down on this troubled policy, continuing to throw good money after bad, endangering a lot of jobs in our automotive sector, while making transportation more expensive and less reliable for Canadians. Or he can change course: scrap the mandates, end the subsidies, and start putting people and prosperity ahead of ideology.

Here’s hoping he chooses the latter.

The writing is on the wall. Around the world, the forced transition to EVs is crashing into economic reality. If Canada doesn’t wake up soon, we’ll be left holding the bag.