Guest Column by Darrell Dunn, Publisher, The Weekly Bean.
It’s March 22, 2026, and gas prices this morning are sitting at $1.51 per liter in Lloydminster. In
December, the price dipped as low as $1.13 per liter, and in early March it hovered around $1.20.
The average price across the country today is somewhere between $1.68 and $1.70 per liter. That
represents an increase of roughly 50 percent over a very short period of time.
Wow. I wonder why this happened?
Surely it must be one of those mysterious market forces that economists speak about in hushed,
reverent tones—an invisible hand gently lifting prices upward while simultaneously reaching
into our wallets. Yes, that must be it. Nothing to see here. Just the natural ebb and flow of global
markets, operating with the serene predictability of a toddler hopped up on sugar.
I have been very careful not to sound off about individual political leaders and the impact their
decisions impose on the people they are supposed to serve. I have tried to keep my writing
focused on the positives in our community rather than raging about the endless negatives
imposed on us by external forces. There is plenty to celebrate locally—volunteers stepping up,
businesses adapting, neighbours helping neighbours. That is the good stuff. That is what keeps a
community functioning.
However, the curious little quirk known as Executive Authority in our democratic government
processes appears to have wandered completely off the rails and into the ditch, where it is now
spinning its wheels enthusiastically and insisting that everything is proceeding exactly according
to plan.
So, what exactly is Executive Authority?
Executive Authority is the legal power and responsibility to enforce laws, manage government
operations, and make decisions necessary to run an organization or a government. In practical
terms, executive authority in government is exercised by individuals such as a Prime Minister or
Premier or, in the case of the United States, a President. It is a position that carries enormous
responsibility, ideally paired with a healthy respect for consequences and a passing familiarity
with restraint.
In theory, Executive Authority in a democracy is not absolute. That would be called a
dictatorship, and historically those have had a rather poor track record when it comes to long-
term stability and pleasant living conditions. They tend to produce dramatic speeches, impressive
uniforms, and eventually, regrettable endings.
In our Western democratic systems, executive power is supposed to be counter-balanced by the
need to convince parliamentary bodies—Cabinets, MPs, Congressmen, and Senators—of the
need for a particular set of actions. In many cases, specific legislation sets out the procedures that
must be followed to endorse or ratify major decisions. It is a system designed with the radical
notion that major decisions, especially those involving war, should involve more than one person
having a particularly energetic morning.
For example, when an American President wants to go to war, with justified reasons or not, there
are three main legal paths available:
- Congress declares war (rare today)
- Congress authorizes the use of force (the most common approach)
- The President acts immediately in an emergency, and then seeks approval afterward
It is a system designed to ensure that one person cannot casually launch a conflict on a whim, a
hunch, or a particularly dramatic press conference delivered in front of a large flag. It assumes
that cooler heads will prevail, that evidence will be examined, and that someone, somewhere,
will ask the simple but important question: “Are we absolutely sure this is a good idea?”
In the current circumstances, however, the American President appears to have decided that
checks and balances are more of a polite suggestion than an actual requirement. There seems to
be little interest in articulating even a vague reason for aggressive action, and even less interest
in seeking anyone’s approval before acting. With a cast of advisors who appear to believe
bravado is a substitute for strategy, this President behaves as though the rules apply primarily to
other people.
Confidence is a wonderful quality in a leader. Overconfidence, on the other hand, is what
happens when someone confuses a microphone with a mandate.
Sadly, it is the rest of us who get to pay for it—quite literally. In this case, through artificially
high gas prices that ripple through every aspect of daily life. Groceries cost more. Transportation
costs more. Heating costs more. Everything costs more. Even the humble cup of coffee begins to
feel like a luxury item, which is deeply unfair to coffee.
Businesses absorb higher shipping costs. Farmers pay more to run equipment. Municipalities pay
more to operate vehicles and maintain infrastructure. Families adjust household budgets with the
grim determination of accountants during tax season. All because somewhere, someone decided
that geopolitical theatrics were worth the price of a global market reaction.
I do sometimes wonder how many oil stocks sit quietly in the President’s investment portfolio.
Purely an academic curiosity, of course. I am sure the thought has crossed the minds of others as
well, usually while standing at the gas pump watching the numbers climb with the steady
determination of a slot machine that never pays out.
Add to these consequences the petulant imposition of poorly justified tariffs, the mealy-mouthed
sovereignty threats, and the wanton destruction of historic trade relationships, and one begins to
see the real-world results of the infantile management of American-style Executive Authority.
Relationships that took decades to build can be dismantled in a matter of weeks, often
accompanied by triumphant declarations of victory that sound suspiciously like someone
congratulating themselves for setting the kitchen on fire.
Please be aware that these cost consequences carry a double-whammy effect. As the City
prepares to announce the coming tax bill, you can be reasonably certain that the additional costs
of—well—virtually everything required to run this City are going to increase. Not because of
reckless spending by Administration or Council, but because external decisions have made the
basic business of governance more expensive.
Fuel costs rise, equipment costs rise, construction costs rise, and suddenly the price of
maintaining roads, running snowplows, operating emergency vehicles, and keeping public
facilities open begins to creep upward. It is not mismanagement. It is mathematics. Unpleasant,
unavoidable mathematics.
And so we arrive at the final irony. The people who had absolutely no say in the decision to rattle
sabers and disrupt markets are the very same people who will shoulder the financial burden.
They will pay for it at the pump, at the grocery store, on their heating bills, and eventually on
their property tax statements.
All because one man discovered that Executive Authority, when combined with a microphone
and a flair for drama, can feel an awful lot like unlimited power—right up until the bill arrives.
Read more: GUEST Column – Search for the Holy Grail
