Opinion

Is Lethbridge population 100,129 larger than Red Deer population 99,832?

Published

6 years ago

1 minute read

Red Deer’s latest census in 2016 showed that our population shrank from 100,807 in 2015 to 99,832 or by 975 residents. We have not done a census since 2016, because it is costly and needs growth to justify undertaking the expense of a census.
Lethbridge’s census of 2016 showed that their population grew from 94,804 in 2015 to 96,828 or by 2024 residents, a growth of 2.3%. 2018’s census for Lethbridge showed a population of 99,769 a growth of 1.7% over 2017 or 1571 new residents.
Let us optimistically assume that Red Deer has halted it’s outward migration of residents, without any indications or proof, and that our population has stabilized at 99,832. This is the population number that is currently being used by planners in budgeting etc.
Let us pessimistically assume then that Lethbridge maintains it’s slowest growth of 1.7% or 4 new residents per day. The latest census was done in the spring and announced in June so if we say 90 days have passed and Lethbridge only grew by 4 residents per day or 360 new residents, then, to give them a current population of 100,129 today.
So is Lethbridge, now Alberta’s third largest city? Will we find this out next June?

Follow Author

Alberta threatens to fight Trudeau government restrictions on Canada’s plastics industry

Fraser Institute / 2 hours ago

Latest federal budget will continue trend of negative outcomes for Canadians

Alberta / 4 hours ago

Red Deer Company fined $360,000.00 after 2022 workplace fatality

Fraser Institute

Latest federal budget will continue trend of negative outcomes for Canadians

Published on April 29, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

From the third quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2023, growth in real GDP per-person (a common indicator of living standards) was less than 1 per cent cumulatively versus more than 15 per cent in the United States. This despite—or more accurately, because of—massive government spending including on corporate subsidies

Reading the federal budget, which the Trudeau government tabled last week, is not an activity likely to improve the equanimity of Canadians suffering from over-taxation and anxious about stagnating living standards. The fact is, the budget sets Canadians even further behind with increased costs and higher taxes, which are sure to reduce productivity and investment further.

In terms of taxes, the main headline is the increase to the capital gains tax to a two-thirds inclusion rate for amounts over $250,000 per year. With Canada’s business investment numbers already dismal, the capital gains tax hike makes things worse by discouraging entrepreneurship and distorting economic decisions to favour present day consumption instead of saving and investment. Indeed, because people know the money they earned today will be taxed more heavily when they invest it tomorrow, the capital gains tax hike reduces incentives to work and earn today.

When it comes to costs, the “total expenses” line in the fiscal tables is most instructive. In last year’s budget, the Trudeau government said it would spend $496.9 billion in 2023-24 and $513.5 billion in 2024-25, rising to $556.9 billion by 2027-28 for a total of $2.6 trillion over five years. But according to this year’s budget, its $505.1 billion for 2023-24, $537.6 billion in 2024-25 and $588.2 billion by 2027-28, for a total of $2.8 trillion over the same five-year period, with both higher program spending and greater borrowing costs contributing to the increase.

In other words, the Trudeau government overspent its budget last year by an estimated $8.2 billion, has increased its spending for this year by $24.1 billion, and will now overspend last year’s fiscal plan by a total of $120.8 billion over five years. And that’s assuming the Liberals stick to the spending plan they just tabled. The Trudeau government has a track record of blowing past its original spending targets, often by astonishing margins, a trend continued in its latest budget. So taxpayers might reasonably expect even the significantly increased costs presented in this latest budget are an understatement.

Canadians might find the exorbitant costs of federal spending easier to accept if they saw some benefits commensurate to the spending, but they have not. From the third quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2023, growth in real GDP per-person (a common indicator of living standards) was less than 1 per cent cumulatively versus more than 15 per cent in the United States. This despite—or more accurately, because of—massive government spending including on corporate subsidies and other initiatives the government claimed would boost economic growth. Clearly, such growth has not materialized.

The latest budget increased spending for the national child-care program, but the thing has been a disaster from coast to coast, with families unable to find spots, daycare operators in dire straits, and costs to taxpayers ballooning. Similarly, while health-care spending has risen over the years, access to medical care has gone down. Spending and regulation related to climate change have exploded under the Trudeau government, but the environmental benefits of initiatives such as electric vehicle consumer subsidies and plastic bans, if there are any environmental benefits at all, are nowhere near high enough to offset the burden to taxpayers and consumers.

Clearly, the Trudeau government’s ramp-up in spending and increased taxation, as the GDP and investment figures show, have produced severely negative outcomes for eight years. By ramping spending and taxation up yet higher, it will help continue these negative outcomes.

Author:

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Bruce Dowbiggin

In Toronto The Leafs Always Fall In Spring: 2024 Edition

Published on April 29, 2024

Bruce Dowbiggin

Who knew when we tuned in Saturday night to Hockey Night In Canada that we would be witnessing playoff history. Nay, not just playoff history but hockey history. According to what we saw and heard on HNIC just ONE TEAM played on Saturday. And they lost. It goes without saying that the team was HNIC’s beloved Toronto Maple Leafs.

Those of us who’d stuck with the telecast all evening could’ve sworn there was another team on the ice in black and gold. Rumour has it they were the Boston Bruins, but don’t quote us on that. Also, take it as a rumour that Boston’s 3-1 win gave them a 3-1 lead in games over Toronto heading back to Boston for what most expect will be the coup de grace for the blue and white. Again.

But when time came to discuss the game afterward the Toronto-based panel told us that the Leafs had beaten themselves. Yes, in some hockey version of metaphysics Toronto had transcended the third dimension. The Bruins were like The Fugitive, lurking far out of sight. Brad Marchand had had nothing to do with breaking up Toronto’s neutral-zone speed nor Charlie McAvoy clearing the front of their net. Jeremy Swayman, who he?

Instead the talking heads dissected the loss in shades of blue.

For those who were washing their hair or another vital task on Saturday, the Leafs had more story lines than a season of Curb Your Enthusiasm (insert your joke here), They finally got their migraine-afflicted star William Nylander back in the fold before a delirious Scotiabank crowd who’d probably paid about a $1000 a ticket to attend. But their star sniper Auston Matthews (allegedly) had food poisoning or a gall stone or a tee time next week back home in Scottsdale. Hard to say.

There was also a goaltending controversy, a Mitch Marner controversy and a Keith Pelley controversy (more on MLSE’s new CEO in a moment). And the, you know, 1967 thing. Despite the hysteria of their long-suffering fans at puck drop, postgame analysts hinted the Leafs seemed to be disinterested. Or, to those who actually watched the game, they were schooled by a better Boston team.

By the middle of the second period, despond and a 3-0 deficit had settled on the Leafs. Despite being the ONLY TEAM on the ice their well-compensated stars were bitching at each other on the bench. While Matthews looked glumly at his pals, Marner had a hissy fit throwing his gloves to the floor. Nylander lip-synched a rebuke to Marner along the lines of Grow up, this ain’t junior hockey. Did we say the crowd booed them off the ice after the second period? Yeah, that too.

Which led mild-mannered Kelly Hrudey to scold Marner for a bush-league behaviour in the break. Remember, Hrudey’s the nice guy on the HNIC panel. Where others see an alligator chomping on their leg Kelly sees a chance to get up-close with nature. So the rebuke for Marner was incendiary. By the time they dropped the pick for the third period you’d have thought Bob Cole wasn’t the only person to pass away this week. Gloom.

Making matters worse, Matthews was nowhere to be found. (According coach Keefe, the doctors had pulled him from the game. Whatever.) When the contest ended with a Toronto loss, the postgame chatter was once more obsessed with Toronto’s failings, as if another team were not having its way on the ice. Where was the effort? Where was the intensity promised when Leafs management spread dollars like Easter candy among its Core Four?

Kevin Bieksa, typically the most salty one on the panel, reminded everyone there was a Game 5 Monday and that 3-1 leads have been overcome. But with Toronto’s success in comebacks being nil he sounded like a guy trying to sell you a penny mining stock.

The dressing-room afterward was mint. “You know what, that’s just the way we are,” Nylander said. “I mean we expect a lot from each other, and we love each other.”

“I don’t think there’s any (frustration),” Marner added unconvincingly. “We’re grown men. We were talking about plays out there that we just want to make sure we’re all 100 percent on and know what we’re doing… We’re not yelling at each other because we hate each other.”

Chris Johnston of The Athletic called it the end of the Maple Leafs as we know them. “They’re making more mistakes at five-on-five, they’re soundly losing the special-teams battle, and they’ve transformed from being one of the NHL’s best offensive teams in the regular season to one that can’t score more than two goals per night in the playoffs. Wash, rinse, repeat.”

Coach Sheldon Keefe, whose shelf life has about 60 minutes left, was enigmatic in the face of cruel destiny. “You can question a lot of things; you can’t question the effort,” he said.

He’s right about one thing. When this first-round ends in ignominy there will be plenty of questions from Pelley, newly installed at the top of the MLSE pyramid. Such as, why should I keep this management team that teases Waygu beef in-season but delivers ground chuck in the playoffs? It’s long been said that the league the Leafs have been built for doesn’t exist in the postseason. So why keep pretending it does?

For those not in the know, Pelley has spent the last few years dealing with the Saudi’s LIV golf enterprise in his role as CEO of what used to be known as the European Tour. (Insert your barbarism reference) So he’s used to dealing with nasty situations.

Maybe his first act on the Leafs file is reminding everyone that two teams play each other in the playoffs, and it might be a good idea to learn from what the winners are doing.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, he’s a regular contributor to Sirius XM Canada Talks Ch. 167. Now for pre-order, new from the team of Evan & Bruce Dowbiggin . Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL & Changed Hockey. From Espo to Boston in 1967 to Gretz in L.A. in 1988 to Patrick Roy leaving Montreal in 1995, the stories behind the story. Launching in paperback and Kindle on #Amazon this week. Destined to be a hockey best seller. https://www.amazon.ca/Deal-Trades-Stunned-Changed-Hockey-ebook/dp/B0D236NB35/