Many have asked my opinion on those two topics. Here is what I think.
Recently, I have received a growing number of emails from readers asking my opinion on both the World Economic Forum, and Bill S-233.
And so, here are my thoughts on both.
The World Economic Forum
To start with, I see the WEF as an elitist organization, helmed by someone – Klaus Schwab – who is clearly not a fan of decentralization nor local democracy.
Like many before him, Schwab seems to believe that he should guide the future of the world, without paying much attention to the impact his ideas would have on others.
For example, while I don’t see the great reset as some sort of conspiracy, it is clearly a set of policies that would end up making life far more expensive for the average person, while concentrating wealth and political power in a smaller set of hands.
Additionally, it would take positive technological advances – blockchains – for example, and turn them to negative ends.
In my view, at the core of the WEF attitude is a mistrust of individual freedom, and far too much trust in centralized government power.
The idea of ‘owning nothing’ and ‘being happy’ is absurd, but it gives insight into the arrogant and elitist attitude of the WEF, since none of the elites plan to give up their fortunes or their lavish lifestyles.
With all of that said, it is also important to note what the WEF isn’t.
The WEF doesn’t rule the world, and it doesn’t control Canada, though it does influence our country.
That influence is exerted largely through the young global leaders program, and many politicians who went through that program go on to espouse a big government, centralized power ideology. Now, many of those who espouse that ideology – like Justin Trudeau – already held that ideology, so it wouldn’t make sense to think they were ‘indoctrinated’ by the WEF.
Further, like any organization, the WEF wants to overhype their influence.
Anyone can put a name, photo, and bio of someone on their website.
I could have a ‘featured politicians’ section on my website that includes politicians I agree with or write about, including a bio and a photo, but that wouldn’t make them directly connected to me or my website in any way.
I say this because politicians like Michelle Rempel Garner have been attacked for being on the WEF website, as if she was someone pushing the agenda of that organization. While people can certainly agree or disagree with her interpretation of conservatism, the fact is that her advocacy of the Canadian oil & gas sector – in opposition to Trudeau – is also in opposition to the ideas pushed by the WEF. The fact that she has been on the WEF website should not be seen as something nefarious or politically disqualifying.
Also, if the WEF was a shadowy organization running the world, why would they blatantly list their global leaders out in the open?
By thinking the WEF has so much power, we can actually distract from the real problems with the organization.
The great reset is a set of bad ideas, ideas that would in my view leave Canada and the Western world poorer and far less free. Confronting those ideas – and calling out politicians like Justin Trudeau who spoke of the pandemic as an ‘opportunity for a reset’ – is important, because we cannot let tragedies or crises be exploited by those in power.
In fact, one of the most popular videos I ever did was rejecting the ideas of the great reset and criticizing Trudeau’s opportunistic remarks.
With this in mind however, it also needs to be said that some can go too far when talking about the supposed influence of the WEF.
The WEF did not plan or unleash the pandemic, nor does it have the power to control this country. It only has influence to the degree that politicians choose to push WEF ideas, and ultimately that comes down to who we elect.
Putting so much assumed power in the WEF can drive people to think they have no power or agency, which could lead to people giving up on the democratic process itself. Ironically, that’s exactly what power-hungry and centralized-power supporters would want, since what they fear most is an active and engaged citizenry.
Personally, I find China and Russia to be far bigger threats to this country. Klaus Schwab didn’t invade Ukraine, and Klaus Schwab didn’t put 1 million Uyghurs in concentration camps. The governments of Russia and China did those things.
Strangely, I’ve seen some people sharing the absurd idea that Putin is ‘fighting the WEF.’ To put it mildly, that idea is comical.
Putin has been about as involved with the WEF as most other political leaders.
In the video below, you can see him addressing the WEF and being introduced by Klaus Schwab:
Putin isn’t fighting the WEF, he’s fighting the free people of Ukraine, just as the Chinese Communist Party fears the power of free individuals.
Ironically, Putin has in the past spoken at Davos and criticized US tech companies. Yet, while those companies have banned certain individuals, Putin has now shut down all independent media in Russia, and imposed an even more ruthless authoritarian police state than the one that existed before he attacked Ukraine.
Anyone who values free speech and individual freedom would be among the first to be arrested and jailed in Russia.
The same is true of China, which has a government that is opposed to the values of individual rights and freedoms that so many Canadians and people in the Western world cherish.
Now, it is certainly true that Canada has been moving in a more authoritarian direction. But that isn’t because of Klaus Schwab, it’s because of the choices made by the Trudeau government. Blaming the WEF actually lets Trudeau off the hook so to speak.
Similarly, blaming the WEF for all negative world events deflects attention and responsibility away from countries like China and Russia. Both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are likely glad to see the WEF get blamed in their stead.
To conclude, my view is that the WEF is an influential organization that pushes a negative set of ideas, but it falls far short of being some sort of nefarious cabal bent on world domination.
Bill S-233
On to Bill S-233.
I have had requests to discuss the legislation, with some concerned that it would mean the imposition of a vaccine requirement for pensions, and/or the beginning of a China-style social credit system.
Neither of those are true.
Bill S-233 is about providing a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income.
From the House of Commons website, here is the preamble of the bill:
Preamble
Whereas every person should have access to a livable basic income;
Whereas the provision of a guaranteed livable basic income would go a long way toward eradicating poverty and improving income equality, health conditions and educational outcomes;
Whereas the provision of a guaranteed livable basic income would benefit individuals, families and communities and protect those who are made most vulnerable in society, while facilitating the transition to an economy that responds to the climate crisis and other current major challenges;
And whereas a guaranteed livable basic income program implemented through a national framework would ensure the respect, dignity and security of all persons in Canada;
Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
Here is the rest of the text of the proposed legislation:
National Framework
Development
3 (1) The Minister must develop a national framework for the implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income program throughout Canada for any person over the age of 17, including temporary workers, permanent residents and refugee claimants.
Consultation
(2) In developing the framework, the Minister must consult with the Minister of Health, the ministers responsible for employment, social development and disability, representatives of the provincial governments responsible for health, disability, education and social development, Indigenous elders, Indigenous governing bodies and other relevant stakeholders, including policy developers and political decision-makers, as well as experts in other guaranteed livable basic income programs.
Content
(3) The framework must include measures
(a) to determine what constitutes a livable basic income for each region in Canada, taking into account the goods and services that are necessary to ensure that individuals can lead a dignified and healthy life, as well as the cost of those goods and services in accessible markets;
(b) to create national standards for health and social supports that complement a guaranteed basic income program and guide the implementation of such a program in every province;
(c) to ensure that participation in education, training or the labour market is not required in order to qualify for a guaranteed livable basic income; and
(d) to ensure that the implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income program does not result in a decrease in services or benefits meant to meet an individual’s exceptional needs related to health or disability.
Reports to Parliament
Tabling of framework
4 (1) Within one year after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister must prepare a report setting out the framework, including any social, health and economic conclusions and recommendations related to its development, and cause the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.
Publication
(2) The Minister must publish the report on the website of the Department of Finance within 10 days after the report has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament.
Report
5 Within two years after the report referred to in section 4 has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament, and every year after that, the Minister must, in consultation with the parties referred to in subsection 3(2), undertake a review of the effectiveness of the framework, prepare a report setting out the social, health and economic findings and recommendations related to the implementation and effectiveness of the framework, and cause the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after it is completed.
That’s it.
While the idea of a guaranteed income is problematic itself – being unaffordable and serving as a huge disincentive to work – nothing in the legislation imposes a vaccine requirement for pensions, nor does it have anything to do with a social credit system.
Additionally, the legislation is in first reading and hasn’t even passed. Further, since the program refers to the development of a ‘national framework,’ it would be a long-time before a basic income was brought in, and that would require even more legislation down the road.
I certainly oppose Bill S-233, not because of any of the false claims regarding it, but because a guaranteed income would severely damage our already struggling economy.
If you have been worried that Bill S-233 would impact your ability to get your pension, or that it would bring in a social credit system, I can tell you with 100% confidence that it will NOT do those things.
Spencer Fernando
