Ottawa foresees a future of despair for Canadians. And shrugs

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

Up Next

Global trade reorder begins in Trump deal with United Kingdom

Don't Miss

Canada’s Energy Wealth Is Bleeding South

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Watch your a** Petro. Trump threatens Colombian President

Entertainment / 2 hours ago

Nearly half of Netflix kids shows push LGBTQ content, watchdog warns

International / 5 hours ago

Poilievre, Carney show support for Maduro capture as NDP’s interim leader denounces it

Business

Chrystia Freeland Didn’t Leave Power. She Just Took It Somewhere Else

Published on January 5, 2026

Todayville

Kelsi Sheren

Canadians were told freezing bank accounts was “necessary.” We were told sending billions overseas without a vote was “solidarity.” And now we’re told that Chrystia Freeland the architect of some of the most aggressive financial overreach in modern Canadian history advising a foreign government on economic policy is “normal.” It isn’t. It’s a closed circle of power rewarding itself, while ordinary Canadians are expected to forget what was done to them and quietly foot the bill.

I don’t believe in coincidences in politics and I don’t believe in “honourary” appointments when billions of dollars and unchecked power are involved. So when Chrystia Freeland, the same woman who helped freeze Canadians’ bank accounts, torched public trust, and oversaw economic decisions that hollowed out this country is suddenly appointed as an economic adviser to Ukraine, Canadians should stop and ask a very uncomfortable question.

Kelsi Sheren is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to Kelsi Sheren

Who exactly is Chrystia serving? Because it doesn’t look like us and doesn’t feel like us at all. I’m going to make something very clear and spell it out for Canadians… this is the same elite just moved to a different country.

Chrystia Freeland did not leave politics because she failed. She didn’t resign because she was rejected. She exited after years of consolidating power at the highest levels of government and immediately landed an advisory role with a foreign head of state.

That is not a fall from grace. That is a lateral move inside the same elite ecosystem.

Multiple Canadian outlets have now confirmed that Freeland has been named an economic adviser to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. This is not symbolic. This is not charity. This is about economic reconstruction, international financing, sanctions, and the movement of billions of dollars, much of it, if not all of it is Western taxpayer money.

Including ours.

Has everyone forgotten what this women did to Canadians?? Before anyone starts calling this “statesmanship,” let’s remember the record.

Chrystia Freeland was a central figure during one of the most dangerous moments in modern Canadian governance: the normalization of financial punishment against citizens.

Under her watch, the federal government froze bank accounts without criminal charges, without due process, and without judicial oversight. Whatever your view of the Freedom Convoy, that precedent should have terrified you and if it doesn’t you need to wake up.

Once a government proves it can financially erase you for dissent, it never unlearns that lesson.

She also presided over years of reckless spending, inflationary pressure, and policies that pushed Canadians into a cost-of-living crisis while telling them everything was fine. Housing exploded. Food prices surged. Small businesses collapsed.

And now — suddenly — she’s being handed influence over another country’s economic future? The money no one voted on is now gone with no recourse and she knows it.

Canada has already sent billions of dollars to Ukraine, including roughly $2.5 billion tied to frozen Russian assets — without any direct vote from Canadians and with minimal parliamentary scrutiny.

Let that sit for a minute.

Our government helped set a precedent where foreign sovereign assets are frozen, leveraged, and redirected — and now one of the architects of that approach is advising the very government receiving the funds.

You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand how rotten that looks. At minimum, this is a conflict of interest. At worst, it’s a closed-loop system where the same political actors make the rules, move the money, and then step into advisory roles on the receiving end.

That’s not democracy. That’s managed power. People will say, “Ukraine needs help rebuilding.” Fine. That’s not the argument. The argument is who decides, who benefits, and who is accountable.

Chrystia Freeland still carries enormous influence inside Canada’s political and financial institutions. Her appointment creates a pipeline — informal, opaque, and unaccountable between Canadian decision-makers and a foreign government dependent on Western funds.

If an average Canadian MP took a paid or unpaid advisory role with a foreign government, alarms would be ringing, but when it’s Chrystia Freeland, we’re told it’s noble. Necessary. Above criticism.

That’s how corruption survives. Not through secrecy, but through normalization.

Canadians are always last, here’s the pattern Canadians are starting to see clearly, I hope. Canadians are being forced to tighten their belts. Canadians lose purchasing power on almost everything and Canadians are told to accept less and the sad part is Canadians are good with this.

Meanwhile, political elites move effortlessly between governments, NGOs, global institutions, and advisory boards. All it is, is different flags. Same class of people.

The people who suffered under Freeland’s economic policies don’t get to resign into prestige. They get debt. They get anxiety. They get silence.

She gets influence.

In case your wondering, this isn’t really about Ukraine, this is not an attack on Ukraine or its people. This is about Canadian democracy, accountability, and the dangerous precedent being set when unelected influence replaces public consent.

If Canadians are expected to fund wars, reconstruction, and foreign policy projects — then Canadians deserve transparency, debate, and representation.

Instead, we’re getting appointments behind closed doors and press releases that assume we won’t ask questions.

That era is long over.

Chrystia Freeland didn’t disappear. She didn’t retreat. She repositioned.

If Canadians don’t start calling this what it is — elite continuity without consent — then we shouldn’t be surprised when the same tactics used against citizens at home are exported abroad.

Power always practices somewhere first.

KELSI SHEREN

– – – – – – – – – – – –

One Time Donation! – Paypal – https://paypal.me/brassandunity

Buy me a coffee! – https://buymeacoffee.com/kelsisheren

Let’s connect!

Youtube – https://www.youtube.com/@thekelsisherenperspective

Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/thekelsisherenperspective?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igsh=ZDNlZDc0MzIxNw%3D%3D

X: https://x.com/KelsiBurns

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kelsie_sheren/

Substack: https://substack.com/@kelsisheren

TikTok – https://x.com/KelsiBurns

Business

Policy uncertainty continues to damage Canada’s mining potential

Published on January 5, 2026

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

According to a new survey of mining investors, despite the rich mineral potential of many Canadian jurisdictions, government policies are deterring investment

Canada is renowned for its abundant minerals and network of engineering firms with mining experience. These advantages, coupled with the rising global demand for copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt and rare-earth elements, should spur growing interest in our mining sector among investors. Yet, mining investment in Canada is on the wane.

In nominal terms, exploration investment alone fell from $4.4 billion in 2022 to $4.2 billion in 2023, with preliminary numbers for 2024 suggesting a further 2 per cent drop. And several leading exploration companies including Solaris Resources Inc., Falcon Energy Materials and Barrick Mining Corporation (the world’s second-largest mining company) have either moved their headquarters out of Canada or are considering doing so.

This downward trend extends beyond just exploration investment. In 2023 (the latest year of available data) investment in Canada’s mining sector totalled $15.2 billion, 26 per cent below the record-high $20.5 billion in 2012 (inflation-adjusted).

So, why is one of the most mineral-rich countries on Earth losing investor interest?

According to a new survey of mining investors, despite the rich mineral potential of many Canadian jurisdictions, government policies are deterring investment.

Take British Columbia, Yukon and Manitoba, for example. Although all three rank among the world’s top 10 most attractive jurisdictions for their mineral endowment, all three fall far behind in policy perception, ranking 32nd, 40th and 43rd out of 82 jurisdictions, respectively. The Northwest Territories (56th), Nunavut (59th) and Nova Scotia (76th) also rank low in terms of policy, while Saskatchewan (3rd), Newfoundland and Labrador (6th) and Alberta (9th) are the only Canadian jurisdictions that perform well.

Indeed, in multiple editions of the mining survey over many years, investors have cited policy uncertainty as a key deterrent to investment in many Canadian jurisdictions. In particular, uncertainty around disputed land claims, protected areas and environmental regulations.

Of course, Canadian jurisdictions compete with jurisdictions around the world including in the United States. And the differences in investor perception are striking. While a strong majority of survey respondents for B.C. (76 per cent), Manitoba (75 per cent) and the Yukon (69 per cent) say uncertainty around disputed land claims deters investment, the percentages are much smaller for Nevada (13 per cent) and Arizona (16 per cent). Similarly, the percentage of respondents who say uncertainty around protected areas deters investment for B.C. (76 per cent), the Yukon (76 per cent) and Manitoba (63 per cent) was much larger than for Wyoming (11 per cent) and Nevada (27 per cent).

To build new mining projects, develop technologies that improve productivity, create jobs and help spread prosperity, Canadian jurisdictions must attract investment. In 2023, mining was Canada’s second-leading export, trailing only energy, and contributed $117 billion to Canada’s total economic output. More importantly, that same year the industry provided a livelihood for 711,000 Canadians while paying wages that nearly double the average of other industries. And according to a 2021 census, the sector provided jobs to more than 17,300 First Nations people, making it one of the largest employers of Indigenous workers in the country.

Bad policies create uncertainty and deter investment. If policymakers are serious about unleashing Canada’s mining potential, they must eliminate regulatory uncertainty and establish a predictable policy framework. Otherwise, the country will keep declining in the eyes of investors.