Business
City council considers Entertainment District status for the Ross Street Patio
By Mark Weber
Downtown Business Association officials are thrilled that City council passed first reading this past week on a new bylaw that would see the Ross Street Patio receive ‘Entertainment District’ designation.
The move follows a request from the DBA made several weeks ago, explained Amanda Gould, executive director. According to the City, Entertainment Districts are new to the province, having been created last December through an amendment to the Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Act. The designation would allow certain public areas – in this cast the Ross Street Patio – to be a place where adults could consume alcohol outside of a licensed premises while taking in various forms of live entertainment. “It’s really the natural next step for the Ross Street Patio,” said Gould. “The Patio is already becoming the home for live music, and we are getting more and more people coming downtown to enjoy it. As a result, a lot of people are using the restaurants along the Patio there.
“Because of that, a lot of times their patios are full. And so they often have people asking if they can buy a drink and take it out onto the actual Patio. Unfortunately, they have to say no.” But with Entertainment District designation, that could all change.
Gould noted that it would help to further revitalize the downtown core by drawing more folks down to not only check out the entertainment that is running on the Patio all summer, but to also see all that downtown ultimately has to offer.
“It will help to make the Ross Street Patio even more popular than it already is,” she said, adding that she approached Council about the designation about eight weeks ago.
“It has all moved really fast – the City has been wonderful with this. They talked about it in council, and everyone was really supportive of it. It went to first reading, and it was unanimously supported,” she said. Second and third reading are expected to take place later in June.
“In the meantime, we’ve met with businesses and found out what their preferred operating times are. We’ve also tried to discover any issues that they can think of and how we could mitigate any challenges, and things like that,” she added. “But the businesses are so keen to do this – they are absolutely pumped.”
According to Erin Stuart, the City’s inspection and licensing manager, “Research into the topic has shown that, while relatively new in Canada, there are numerous international jurisdictions where open consumption is allowed in public areas.
“Learnings from those areas show that Entertainment Districts provide opportunities for municipalities to revitalize key neighbourhoods, drive tourism, and support local businesses,” she said in a release. “Working with the Downtown Business Association is an opportunity for a unique partnership and provides the option of working together on any issues that arise.” Prior to the May 24th meeting, City administration determined a new bylaw was needed to support the DBA’s request and sought direction from Council before proceeding.
A short timeline for implementing the designation would also of course maximize the use of the summer season. The release also noted that an Entertainment District in Red Deer would not allow public intoxication, underage drinking, use of cannabis, or the bringing in/taking away of alcohol to/from the district. The release also pointed out that the bylaw would be the first of its kind in Canada.
“It’s awesome,” said Gould in reflecting on the level of support shown for the Entertainment District concept here in Red Deer. “I’m delighted. I just came out of a meeting with the businesses and the City, and it’s just great. I’m just so excited for it.” In the meantime, she said this past week has marked the first official week of summer programming on the Ross Street Patio.
The Wednesday market is also in full swing. Visitors are invited to come down and purchase all their fresh fruits and veggies between 3:30 and 6:30 p.m. each Wednesday. Live music on the Ross Street Patio is a key feature on Wednesdays as well. And with the official kick-off to summer on the Patio having taken place, part of the celebration included the introduction of a limited-edition Ross Street Patio beer developed in partnership with Sawback Brewing.
The special beer will be available through the summer and will also be featured at several downtown restaurants. As for entertainment plans, performances on the Patio will run on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. For more about the Downtown Business Association and all that is planned for the Ross Street Patio, find them on Facebook or visit www.downtownreddeer.com.
From LifeSiteNews
Of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s fleet of 1,200 drones, 79% pose national security risks due to them being made in China
Canada’s top police force spent millions on now near-useless and compromised security drones, all because they were made in China, a nation firmly controlled by the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) government.
An internal report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to Canada’s Senate national security committee revealed that $34 million in taxpayer money was spent on a fleet of 973 Chinese-made drones.
Replacement drones are more than twice the cost of the Chinese-made ones between $31,000 and $35,000 per unit. In total, the RCMP has about 1,228 drones, meaning that 79 percent of its drone fleet poses national security risks due to them being made in China.
The RCMP said that Chinese suppliers are “currently identified as high security risks primarily due to their country of origin, data handling practices, supply chain integrity and potential vulnerability.”
In 2023, the RCMP put out a directive that restricted the use of the made-in-China drones, putting them on duty for “non-sensitive operations” only, however, with added extra steps for “offline data storage and processing.”
The report noted that the “Drones identified as having a high security risk are prohibited from use in emergency response team activities involving sensitive tactics or protected locations, VIP protective policing operations, or border integrity operations or investigations conducted in collaboration with U.S. federal agencies.”
The RCMP earlier this year said it was increasing its use of drones for border security.
Senator Claude Carignan had questioned the RCMP about what kind of precautions it uses in contract procurement.
“Can you reassure us about how national security considerations are taken into account in procurement, especially since tens of billions of dollars have been announced for procurement?” he asked.
“I want to make sure national security considerations are taken into account.”
The use of the drones by Canada’s top police force is puzzling, considering it has previously raised awareness of Communist Chinese interference in Canada.
Indeed, as reported by LifeSiteNews, earlier in the year, an RCMP internal briefing note warned that agents of the CCP are targeting Canadian universities to intimidate them and, in some instances, challenge them on their “political positions.”
The final report from the Foreign Interference Commission concluded that operatives from China may have helped elect a handful of MPs in both the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections. It also concluded that China was the primary foreign interference threat to Canada.
Chinese influence in Canadian politics is unsurprising for many, especially given former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s past admiration for China’s “basic dictatorship.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews, a Canadian senator appointed by Trudeau told Chinese officials directly that their nation is a “partner, not a rival.”
China has been accused of direct election meddling in Canada, as reported by LifeSiteNews.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, an exposé by investigative journalist Sam Cooper claims there is compelling evidence that Carney and Trudeau are strongly influenced by an “elite network” of foreign actors, including those with ties to China and the World Economic Forum. Despite Carney’s later claims that China poses a threat to Canada, he said in 2016 the Communist Chinese regime’s “perspective” on things is “one of its many strengths.”
Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.
|
When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”
They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.
The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.
It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.
The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.
None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.
Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.
The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.
The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.
Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.
Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.
Become a supporter here.
However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.
The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.
Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.
Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.
Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.
The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.
The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.
They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.
Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.
The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.
The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.
The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.
That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.
The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”
That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.
Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.
TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.
The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.
It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.
In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.
And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.
|
|
|
|
Reclaim The Net Needs Your
With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.
If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.
You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
|
Media bound to pay the price for selling their freedom to (selectively) offend
Sometimes An Ingrate Nation Pt. 2: The Great One Makes His Choice
Recent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
From Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
MAiD2 days ago
From Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
Business1 day agoCarney government should privatize airports—then open airline industry to competition
-
Business1 day agoWhat’s Going On With Global Affairs Canada and Their $392 Million Spending Trip to Brazil?
-
Energy1 day agoCanada following Europe’s stumble by ignoring energy reality
-
Automotive2 days agoCanada’s EV Mandate Is Running On Empty
-
Business2 days agoWhy Does Canada “Lead” the World in Funding Racist Indoctrination?
-
Automotive2 days agoTrump Deals Biden’s EV Dreams A Death Blow
-
Business1 day agoLoblaws Owes Canadians Up to $500 Million in “Secret” Bread Cash