Opinion
The Dystopian Future of Canada Part I
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:
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!
From the Fraser Institute
By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari
Canada’s rivers are vital to our environment and economy. Clean freshwater is essential to support recreation, agriculture and industry, an to sustain suitable habitat for wildlife. Conversely, degraded freshwater can make it harder to maintain safe drinking water and can harm aquatic life. So, how healthy are Canada’s rivers today?
To answer that question, Environment Canada uses an index of water quality to assess freshwater quality at monitoring stations across the country. In total, scores are available for 165 monitoring stations, jointly maintained by Environment Canada and provincial authorities, from 17 in Newfoundland and Labrador, to 8 in Saskatchewan and 20 in British Columbia.
This index works like a report card for rivers, converting water test results into scores from 0 to 100. Scientists sample river water three or more times per year at fixed locations, testing indicators such as oxygen levels, nutrients and chemical levels. These measurements are then compared against national and provincial guidelines that determine the ability of a waterway to support aquatic life.
Scores are calculated based on three factors: how many guidelines are exceeded, how often they are exceeded, and by how much they are exceeded. A score of 95-100 is “excellent,” 80-94 is “good,” 65-79 is “fair,” 45-64 is “marginal” and a score below 45 is “poor.” The most recent scores are based on data from 2021 to 2023.
Among 165 river monitoring sites across the country, the average score was 76.7. Sites along four major rivers earned a perfect score: the Northeast Magaree River (Nova Scotia), the Restigouche River (New Brunswick), the South Saskatchewan River (Saskatchewan) and the Bow River (Alberta). The Bayonne River, a tributary of the St. Lawrence River near Berthierville, Quebec, scored the lowest (33.0).
Overall, between 2021 and 2023, 83.0 per cent of monitoring sites across the country recorded fair to excellent water quality. This is a strong positive signal that most of Canada’s rivers are in generally healthy environmental condition.
A total of 13.3 per cent of stations were deemed to be marginal, that is, they received a score of 45-64 on the index. Only 3.6 per cent of monitoring sites fell into the poor category, meaning that severe degradation was limited to only a few sites (6 of 165).
Monitoring sites along waterways with relatively less development in the river’s headwaters and those with lower population density tended to earn higher scores than sites with developed land uses. However, among the 11 river monitoring sites that rated “excellent,” 8 were situated in areas facing a combination of pressures from nearby human activities that can influence water quality. This indicates the resilience of Canada’s river ecosystems, even in areas facing a combination of multiple stressors from urban runoff, agriculture, and industrial activities where waterways would otherwise be expected to be the most polluted.
Poor or marginal water quality was relatively more common in monitoring sites located along the St. Lawrence River and its major tributaries and near the Great Lakes compared to other regions. Among all sites in the marginal or poor category, 50 per cent were in this area. The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region is one of the most population-dense and extensively developed parts of Canada, supporting a mix of urban, agricultural, and industrial land uses. These pressures can introduce harmful chemical contaminants and alter nutrient balances in waterways, impairing ecosystem health.
In general, monitoring sites categorized as marginal or poor tended to be located near intensive agriculture and industrial activities. However, it’s important to reiterate that only 28 stations representing 17.0 per cent of all monitoring stations were deemed to be marginal or poor.
Provincial results vary, as shown in the figure below. Water quality scores in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta were, on average, 80 points or higher during the period from 2021 to 2023, indicating that water quality rarely departed from natural or desirable levels.
Rivers sites in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba and B.C. each had average scores between 74 and 78 points, suggesting occasional departures from natural or desirable levels.
Finally, Quebec’s average river water quality score was 64.5 during the 2021 to 2023 period. This score indicates that water quality departed from ideal conditions more frequently in Quebec than in other provinces, especially compared to provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and P.E.I. where no sites rated below “fair.”
Overall, these results highlight Canada’s success in maintaining a generally high quality of water in our rivers. Most waterways are in good shape, though some regions—especially near the Great Lakes and along the St. Lawrence River Valley—continue to face pressures from the combined effects of population growth and intensive land use.
This is a special preview article from the:
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.
Death by a thousand clicks – government censorship of Canada’s internet
Chinese Billionaire Tried To Build US-Born Baby Empire As Overseas Elites Turn To American Surrogates
Viral TikTok video shows 7-year-old cuddling great-grandfather before he’s euthanized
Politicians should be honest about environmental pros and cons of electric vehicles
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale
-
Alberta2 days agoCanada’s New Green Deal
-
Energy1 day agoCanada’s sudden rediscovery of energy ambition has been greeted with a familiar charge: hypocrisy
-
Business2 days agoCOP30 finally admits what resource workers already knew: prosperity and lower emissions must go hand in hand
-
armed forces2 days agoOttawa’s Newly Released Defence Plan Crosses a Dangerous Line
-
Business1 day agoOttawa Pretends To Pivot But Keeps Spending Like Trudeau
-
Indigenous2 days agoResidential school burials controversy continues to fuel wave of church arsons, new data suggests
-
Daily Caller1 day agoParis Climate Deal Now Decade-Old Disaster