Opinion
The city is expending great capital to accommodate a developer while abandoning taxpayers,
The debate over proceeding with the Molly Bannister Extension has raised many questions, left many with a feeling of abandonment.
The recent council meeting after decades of consultation, meetings, polls, requests for input, and with the result always being approximately 57% +/- in favor and 43% +/- against, it was brought as “too close to call”, “even split” requiring more input.
Quebec would have separated if it had achieved 50%+1 votes, and the consensus appears to be if the public had been at any time 50%+1 against the bridge, city council would have jumped at it.
Some have stated that they are against the bridge, no matter what. The poor taxpayer has no chance with these politicians. I was at first against the bridge ten years ago, but I have seen the costs and the damage to many lives, especially along 32 St.
The environment has been used as a scapegoat more often than not. Selective environmental concerns, is how I would put it. Where was the environmental concerns when we could have had the whole parcel on condition on keeping it a park or garden? Nowhere to be found.
Where was the environmental concerns in regard to the North-Connector bridge? Nowhere.
The plan would see 700 houses with the bridge or 750 houses without the bridge. How does adding 50 more houses backing onto Piper Creek increase park space?
We are heading into a public meeting where the council seems determined to abolish the bridge. A developer has lots of money and has an opportunity to make millions more. We are just homeowners and taxpayers trying to protect our homes, enjoy our lives and have everything to lose.
The biggest issue is the sense of abandonment by city hall. They seem to be going to extreme measures for this developer. Widening streets, Traffic circles. Pedestrian Bridge over 19 St. Carving up Sunnybrook to make a second entrance/exit point.
Under the pretense of environmentalism; making thousands of people per day drive an extra 4 kilometres, for generations to come. Burning fuel, and emitting carbons into the atmosphere so hikers, bikers and skaters don’t have to use a crosswalk.
How do we, average people, compete with a developer who socializes with planners and politicians? It is obvious that we will lose at the Public Hearing on October 26, or they will move another motion and extend the game.
I think they are counting on voter or taxpayer fatigue. Don’t count on it.
There is a municipal election and we might find it necessary to find candidates who “truly” represent the taxpayers.
Why do they keep attacking our homes? We don’t want millions in profits. We just want to enjoy our homes.
From the Fraser Institute
Political developments in the U.S. over the past few years have substantially increased the risk of any investment that relies on unrestricted access to the U.S. market
Last week, the Trudeau government and the Ford government announced a new multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded subsidy for Honda to expand its Alliston, Ontario plant to manufacture electric vehicles (EV) and host a large EV battery plant. Eventually, the direct and indirect subsidies could total $10 billion from the two governments.
The Honda announcement follows earlier deals with Northvolt, Stellantis and Volkswagen to build and operate EV battery and auto assembly plants in Ontario. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, these three deals may total $50.7 billion after accounting for the cost of government borrowing to finance the subsidies and foregone corporate tax revenue from tax abatements tied to production.
Clearly, if future taxpayers across the country (not just in Ontario) are to avoid a huge additional tax burden or suffer reductions in government services, a lot needs to go right for Canada’s EV industry.
In particular, there must emerge sufficient market demand for EVs so these “investments” in the EV auto sector will be fully paid for by future tax revenues from corporate and personal income taxes levied on companies and workers in the EV sector. During their joint announcement of the Honda deal, both Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Ford ignored this elephant in the room while claiming that the Honda deal will mean 240,000 vehicles a year manufactured at the site and 4,200 jobs preserved, while adding another 1,000 jobs.
By way of perspective, in 2023 around 185,000 EV vehicles were sold in Canada—about 11 per cent of all new cars sold in Canada that year. This is considerably less than the target capacity of the Honda complex and the total expected production capacity of Canada’s EV sector once all the various announced subsidized production facilities are in operation. In contrast, 1.2 million EVs were sold in the United States.
The demand for EVs in Canada will likely grow over time, especially given the increased incentive the federal government now has to ensure, through legislation or regulation, that Canadians retire their gas-powered vehicles and replace them with EVs. However, the long-run financial health of Canada’s EV sector requires continued access to the much larger U.S. market. Indeed, Honda’s CEO said his company chose Canada as the site for their first EV assembly plant in part because of Canada’s access to the U.S. market.
But political developments in the U.S. over the past few years have substantially increased the risk of any investment that relies on unrestricted access to the U.S. market. The trade protectionist bent of Donald Trump, the Republican nominee in the upcoming presidential election, is well known and he reportedly plans to impose a broad 10 per cent tariff on all manufactured imports to the U.S. if elected.
While the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement ostensibly gives Canadian-based EV producers tariff-free access to the U.S. market, Trump could terminate the treaty or at least insist on major changes in specific Canadian trade policies that he criticized during his first term, including supply management programs for dairy products. The trade agreement is up for trilateral review in 2025, which would allow a new Trump administration to demand political concessions such as increased Canadian spending on defence, in addition to trade concessions.
Nor would the re-election of President Joe Biden immunize Canada from protectionist risks. Biden has been a full-throated supporter of unionized U.S. auto workers and has staked his administration’s legacy on the successful electrification of the U.S. transportation sector through domestic production. Given his government’s financial commitment to growing a domestic EV sector, Biden might well impose trade restrictions on Canada if Canadian exports start to displace domestic production in the U.S.
In short, Canadian politicians, most notably Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford, have staked the future of Canada’s heavily subsidized domestic EV sector on the vagaries of the U.S. political process, which is increasingly embracing “America First” industrial policies. This may turn out to be a very costly gamble for Canadian taxpayers.
Author:
From LifeSiteNews
When one school in Alberta decided to bring in gender-neutral bathrooms back in 2017, many students avoided them because, as any idiot knows, boys and girls generally feel uncomfortable doing their business in a stall next to a member of the opposite sex.
It is still sometimes surreal to consider what constitutes a news story in 2024. Imagine telling your grandparents, or even your parents 20 years ago, that it would be breaking news across the board — Global News, the Globe and Mail, the national broadcaster — that a provincial government had issued a directive … that bathrooms and locker rooms in schools be specifically designated for either boys or girls.
But yet here we are. On May 1, Quebec’s new rules banning the implementation of shared, “gender-neutral” or “all-gender” bathrooms came into effect, the result of a 2023 petition to protest the plan to make all bathrooms gender neutral at D’Iberville high school in Rouyn-Noranda. At the time, Premier François Legault commissioned Family Minister Suzanne Roy with creating an advisory committee to do research; recommendations are expected in the winter of 2025.
But Education Minister Bernard Drainville, perhaps realizing how ridiculous it is that an advisory committee needs to be created — and then needs a year — to determine whether or not teenage boys and girls need their own bathrooms, decided to go ahead and “correct the course,” citing the need protect young girls from discomfort and harassment. When the news broke that a Quebec high school in Rouyn-Noranda was starting work on gender-neutral bathrooms, Drainville decided to address the issue via directive.
The very existence of such a sane, common-sense directive reveals how insane our culture has become; mandating male and female bathrooms is not the sort of thing one used to have to do, explicitly. The directive also stipulates that any student wishing to use an individual bathroom must be able to do so. The directive, Drainville says, is needed. “It’s a question of well-being, privacy, and respect for private life,” he said.
The CBC, of course, promptly hunted down some LGBT activists who predictably oppose the policy. “(The directive) is not well balanced because it stigmatizes kids that are a bit different,” said Mona Greenbaum, co-director of LGBT+ Family Coalition. “We know that from all sorts of research that it’s very harmful for young people to not have their gender identity affirmed.” The most recent research, of course, is the UK National Health Service’s Cass Review, which in fact concluded that the so-called “affirmative model” is “very harmful for young people.”
Jennifer Maccarone, a frequently hysterical LGBT activist and Member of the National Assembly, serves as the Liberal Party critic for “the 2SLGBTQIA+ community,” also weighed in, stating that the directive contradicted a 2021 guide for schools published by the Ministry of Education that supported the idea of gender-neutral spaces. “Does the government still stand by their document?” Maccarone demanded to know during a news conference. Drainville’s directive is pretty clear, so it would seem the answer to her question is “no.”
It is because of folks like Maccarone that such directives are even needed in the first place. When one school in Alberta decided to bring in gender-neutral bathrooms back in 2017, many students avoided them because, as any idiot knows, boys and girls generally feel uncomfortable doing their business in a stall next to a member of the opposite sex. Lineups began to form outside the gender-specific bathrooms, and students trekked all the way across the school to avoid using the gender-neutral bathrooms. Girls even risked dehydration and bladder infections rather than use bathrooms with males.
Of course, none of that matters to Maccarone and the LGBT activists. Their agenda is far more important than the comfort and safety of students — especially girls. Their complaints, and their stories, are never even considered. Fortunately, it appears that saner heads are finally prevailing.
Alberta rejects unconstitutional cap on plastic production
UN plastics plans are unscientific and unrealistic
“The Numbers Favour Our Side”
Alberta official reveals ‘almost all’ wildfires in province this year have been started by humans
-
Education3 hours agoSupport a young reader through the Tim Hortons Smile Cookie campaign
-
Economy2 days agoToday’s federal government—massive spending growth and epic betting
-
Economy2 days agoYoung Canadians are putting off having a family due to rising cost of living, survey finds
-
Alberta2 days agoOfficial statement from Premier Danielle Smith and Energy Minister Brian Jean on the start-up of the Trans Mountain Pipeline
-
Business1 day agoWhen politicians gamble, taxpayers lose
-
Automotive1 day agoVehicle monitoring software could soon use ‘kill switch’ under the guise of ‘safety’
-
Alberta2 days agoProtecting the right to vote for Canadian citizens: Minister McIver
-
Addictions1 day agoCity of Toronto asks Trudeau gov’t to decriminalize hard drugs despite policy’s failure in BC