Connect with us

Opinion

“US vs THEM” is an increasingly common philosophy today.

Published

6 minute read

Councillor Handley mentioned that there was an atmosphere of “Us vs. Them” at the Westerner in regards to city hall. Partially deemed the reason for the Westerner’s financial plight.

Hospitals and schools seem to have the “Us vs. Them” in regards to the province. Covid-19 brought it to the forefront.

Alberta Premier seems to fan the flames of “Us vs, Them” in regards to Ottawa. Yet Ottawa has been doling money to Alberta in far greater amounts than the province. Pipelines and Covid-19 are 2 examples.

I can continue with all kinds of issues, like Molly Banister recently, the Aquatic Centre to name but 2 more.

With all these protectionist sectors battling each other, the fact that there is only one group of taxpayers paying for all of it, is forgotten.

Susan Delacourt wrote a column on Trumpism which thrived under the “Us vs. Them” political culture.

She included in her column;

“Frank Graves, the EKOS pollster who has been doing an intense study of populism and its potential to surface in Canada, was not feeling complacent at all as the results rolled in from the Nov. 3 vote.

Graves and Michael Valpy wrote a piece on the eve of the vote last week, and the conclusion of that article was a warning and a prediction wrapped up in four words: “Trump is still competitive.”

Quietly, methodically, Graves has been analyzing the component pieces of Trump’s appeal and what feeds the political culture of grievance that the president championed.

Much of Graves’ findings were published earlier this year in a paper for the University of Calgary’s public-policy school — a paper that should be required reading for any Canadians of the “it can’t happen here” way of thinking.

Graves has coined the phrase “ordered populism” to describe the Trump phenomenon and the paper’s summary describes it this way:

“Ordered populism rests on the belief in a corrupt elite, and the idea that power needs to be wrested from this elite and returned to the people. Oriented toward authoritarianism, ordered populism emphasizes obedience, hostility toward outgroups, a desire to turn back the clock to a time of greater order in society, and a search for a strongman type to lead the return to a better time.”

Does that type of politics exist in Canada? It sure does, Graves says, and it’s been on the rise for the past few years. His research says that view is shared by as much as a third of the population and its ascent is accompanied by increases in polarization, inequality and a decline in the middle class.”

The fact that we don’t have a true “Trump” populist strongman here does not mean the voters do not seek one.

Our Premier tried using Trump style tactics to benefit the rich oil companies and executives. Unfortunately he appears to operate solely for the few, his inner circle, the elite, and ignores the needs of the populace.

The taxpayers are constantly being told “NO”, yet it appears that there are the favored few who get everything. Public servants are being told they will be seeing a 4% cutback to their paycheque, but remember politicians, who voted themselves top up pay when their 1/3 tax subsidy ended. Home owners were deemed less important than the developer. Skaters seem more important than swimmers. Rich people need tax relief while poor people get benefits reduced.

Taxpayers in one area hear how in another area they are turning lemons into lemonade, but not here. I am talking about the county or Blackfalds , using low interest rates, low land prices, low bids to build now, at great savings, but the city says it can’t happen here. Why not? They found millions to suddenly renovate city hall. Why not look beyond their limited circle and ask? City vs. County? Red Deer vs. Blackfalds?

If the county can save $800,000 on a $2.9 million bid, could we not look to see if we could save at that ratio, $24 million on a $90 million Aquatic centre. The city keeps talking about ice rinks, life spans of current ice rinks, well the last pool we opened was 20 years ago. Do we have any plans to replace our aging swimming pools? Skaters vs, swimmers?

Again the list goes on and on.

Every where you go there seems to be the “Us vs. Them” mentality.

Perhaps we should support those who are contrarian to the wishes of the elite. Is there an updated Trump out there to lead?

Just asking.

Follow Author

Opinion

Globally, 2025 had one of the lowest annual death rates from extreme weather in history

Published on

Congratulations World!

Here at THB we are ending 2025 with some incredibly good news that you might not hear about anywhere else — Globally, 2025 has had one of the lowest annual death rates from disasters associated with extreme weather events in recorded history.¹

According to data from the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium (via Our World in Data), through October 2025, the world saw about 4,500 deaths related to extreme weather events.² Tragically, the final two months of 2025 saw large loss of life related to flooding in South and Southeast Asia, associated with Cyclones Senyar and Ditwah.

While the final death tolls are not yet available, reports suggest perhaps 1,600 people tragically lost their lives in these and several other events in the final two months of the year.

If those estimates prove accurate, that would make 2025 among the lowest in total deaths from extreme weather events. Ever! I am cautious here because the recent decade or so has seen many years with similarly low totals — notably 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2021.

What we can say with some greater confidence is that the death rate from extreme weather events is the lowest ever at less than 0.8 deaths per 100,000 people (with population data from the United Nations). Only 2018 and 2015 are close.

To put the death rate into perspective, consider that:

  • in 1960 it was >320 per 100,000;
  • in 1970, >80 per 100,000;
  • in 1980, ~3 per 100,000;
  • in 1990, ~1.3 per 100,000;

Since 2000, six years have occurred with <1.0 deaths per 100,000 people, all since 2014. From 1970 to 2025 the death rate dropped by two orders of magnitude. This is an incredible story of human ingenuity and progress.

To be sure, there is some luck involved as large losses of life are still possible — For instance, 2008 saw almost 150,000 deaths and a death rate of ~21 per 100,000. Large casualty events remain a risk that requires our constant attention and preparation.

But make no mistake, 2025 is not unique, but part of a much longer-term trend of reduced vulnerability and improved preparation for extreme events. Underlying this trend lies the successful application of science, technology, and policy in a world that has grown much wealthier and thus far better equipped to protect people when, inevitably, extreme events do occur.

Bravo World!

Learn more:

Formetta, G., & Feyen, L. (2019). Empirical evidence of declining global vulnerability to climate-related hazardsGlobal Environmental Change57, 101920.

1

What is “recorded history”? CRED says their data is robust since 2000, as their dataset did not have complete global coverage and perviously many events went unreported. That means that the tabulations of CRED prior to 2000 are with high certainty undercounts of actual deaths related to extreme weather events.

2

Note that extreme temperature event impacts (cold and hot) are not included here — Not becaue they are not a legitimate focus, but because tracking such events has only begun in recent years, and methodologies are necessarily different when it comes to accounting for the direct loss of life related to storms and floods (e.g., epidemiological mortality vs. actual mortality). See a THB discussion of some of these issues here. My recommendation is to account for extreme temperature impacts in parallel to impacts from events like hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes — Rather than trying to combine apples and oranges.

Subscribe to The Honest Broker.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Land use will be British Columbia’s biggest issue in 2026

Published on

By Resource Works

Tariffs may fade. The collision between reconciliation, property rights, and investment will not.

British Columbia will talk about Donald Trump’s tariffs in 2026, and it will keep grinding through affordability. But the issue that will decide whether the province can build, invest, and govern is land use.

The warning signs were there in 2024. Land based industries still generate 12 per cent of B.C.’s GDP, and the province controls more than 90 per cent of the land base, and land policy was already being remade through opaque processes, including government to government tables. When rules for access to land feel unsettled, money flows slow into a trickle.

The Cowichan ruling sends shockwaves

In August 2025, the Cowichan ruling turned that unease into a live wire. The court recognized the Cowichan’s Aboriginal title over roughly 800 acres within Richmond, including lands held by governments and unnamed third parties. It found that grants of fee simple and other interests unjustifiably infringed that title, and declared certain Canada and Richmond titles and interests “defective and invalid,” with those invalidity declarations suspended for 18 months to give governments time to make arrangements.

The reaction has been split. Supporters see a reminder that constitutional rights do not evaporate because land changed hands. Critics see a precedent that leaves private owners exposed, especially because unnamed owners in the claim area were not parties to the case and did not receive formal notice. Even the idea of “coexistence” has become contentious, because both Aboriginal title and fee simple convey exclusive rights to decide land use and capture benefits.

Market chill sets in

McLTAikins translated the risk into advice that landowners and lenders can act on: registered ownership is not immune from constitutional scrutiny, and the land title system cannot cure a constitutional defect where Aboriginal title is established. Their explanation of fee simple reads less like theory than a due diligence checklist that now reaches beyond the registry.

By December, the market was answering. National Post columnist Adam Pankratz reported that an industrial landowner within the Cowichan title area lost a lender and a prospective tenant after a $35 million construction loan was pulled. He also described a separate Richmond hotel deal where a buyer withdrew after citing precedent risk, even though the hotel was not within the declared title lands. His case that uncertainty is already changing behaviour is laid out in Montrose.

Caroline Elliott captured how quickly court language moved into daily life after a City Richmond letter warned some owners that their title might be compromised. Whatever one thinks of that wording, it pushed land law out of the courtroom and into the mortgage conversation.

Mining and exploration stall

The same fault line runs through the critical minerals push. A new mineral claims regime now requires consultation before claims are approved, and critics argue it slows early stage exploration and forces prospectors to reveal targets before they can secure rights. Pankratz made that critique earlier, in his argument about mineral staking.

Resource Works, summarising AME feedback on Mineral Tenure Act modernisation, reported that 69.5 per cent of respondents lacked confidence in proposed changes, and that more than three quarters reported increased uncertainty about doing business in B.C. The theme is not anti consultation. It is that process, capacity, and timelines decide whether consultation produces partnership or paralysis.

Layered on top is the widening fight over UNDRIP implementation and DRIPA. Geoffrey Moyse, KC, called for repeal in a Northern Beat essay on DRIPA, arguing that Section 35 already provides the constitutional framework and that trying to operationalise UNDRIP invites litigation and uncertainty.

Tariffs and housing will still dominate headlines. But they are downstream of land. Until B.C. offers a stable bargain over who can do what, where, and on what foundation, every other promise will be hostage to the same uncertainty. For a province still built on land based wealth, Resource Works argues in its institutional history that the resource economy cannot be separated from land rules. In 2026, that is the main stage.

Resource Works News

Continue Reading

Trending

X