Connect with us

Opinion

The City wants to discredit the province’s environment study, during an election year.

Published

7 years ago

5 minute read

I was on the city’s Environment Committee when the province made it’s report. Questions were raised, the panel answered, the report was accepted and the panel was praised. Concerned as I was I started asking questions and raising issues. Riverside Park monitoring showed the worst results for the city and for the region. The region as a whole has shown the worst results in the province. The province was on track to be the worst nationwide.
Riverside Park is located on the north side of the river near the 67th Street bridge. Whether this an issue or not, but one has to consider there is about 12,000 families living north of the river. There is no high school north of the river so all the high school students have to cross the river to get to high school. Blackfalds also does not have a high school so those students would have to cross the river to attend a Red Deer high school.
There is only one 40 year old recreational complex north of the river, but the most popular complex is the Collicutt Centre on 30th Ave hooking up to the 67th Street Bridge. 12,000 families have to cross the bridge for education, recreation, hospitalization and cultural activities. On the flip side, all the industrial parks are on the north side, and a large number of the 28,000 families on the south side rely on employment in the north side industrial park. They may not live on the north side because they want to live near their children’s schools, ice rinks and swimming pools on the south side.
You can imagine there would be a lot of commuting across the 67th Street bridge, not all but a lot. So what does the city do, when confronted with this information. They are building or planning 3 more high schools near 30th Ave and 67th Street bridge on the south side of town. They are rebuilding and expanding facilities on the south side. They are planning on tearing down the south side downtown Recreational Centre and rebuilding.
All the while they are planning on another 10,000 plus families north of Hwy 11A. They will commute on the 67th Street bridge until they can build another bridge on the other side of the Riverside Park monitoring station.

The city has shrunk in population by almost 1,000 residents and 777 of those residents who moved away lived on the north side of the river. That should ease the commuting portion of the pollution, but 700 new residents moved into Blackfalds adding to the commuting portion, since many will work in Red Deer or go to the south side high schools.

The city accepted the 2015 report, ignored the concerns as did the school boards, so why all of a sudden is the city acting like a tobacco company looking to discredit a report they have known, accepted and studied for over a year? Perhaps it is because there are so many bad reports out there showing Red Deer in a negative light? Highest pollution, high crime, second most dangerous city, high unemployment, decrease in population, businesses leaving, increasing tax rates, and high vacancies could be cause for concern.

Why now would we suddenly extol the possibility that our Riverside Park with all it’s green space, river and parks and industry is slightly better than the air in downtown Calgary and Edmonton. High density, high traffic parts of cities with 800,000 to 1,000,000 residents, why? To attract business, but they were doing that last year, so why now? Could it be because this is an election year? That would be some achievements, high crime, highly dangerous, most polluted region in the country. I imagine that may be why our city is starting to look like a tobacco company trying to discredit a government report on cigarette smoke.

Related Topics:

Follow Author

More from this author
Alberta / 51 mins ago

Fortis et Liber: Alberta’s Future in the Canadian Federation

Health / 2 hours ago

UK pediatrician who led review of child ‘transitions’ says US medical groups ‘misleading the public’

COVID-19 / 3 hours ago

Top Fauci Aide Allegedly Learned To Make ‘Smoking Gun’ Emails ‘Disappear,’ Testimony Reveals

COVID-19

Tucker Carlson and NFL star Aaron Rodgers discuss Bill Gates, COVID-19, US Deep State

Published on May 19, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Stephen Kokx

The star quarterback argued that Dr. Anthony Fauci was financially incentivized to suppress COVID treatments like ivermectin, adding that Americans should have compassion on those who were convinced by the ‘full-court propaganda.’

NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers has not been shy about his opposition to the COVID shot in recent years. During many public appearances on television, he has strongly denounced mandates, lockdowns, and government and media officials who pushed the jab. Now, he’s striking a somewhat different tone. 

“How do we call these people forward, in love and acceptance… to step into the truth?” Rodgers asked Tucker Carlson in reference to Americans who bought into the “full-court propaganda” and received the shot.  

 

“They went through all the mass-formation psychosis that we all did… and are now going, ‘Oh s***. Maybe that wasn’t the best. Maybe they lied to us. Maybe this wasn’t safe.’” 

Rodgers spoke with Carlson earlier this month in a timely, two-hour long interview on his  The Tucker Carlson Show. As previously reported by LifeSiteNews, they touched on an array of subjects related to how global elites control the world, including blackmail and pedophilia. 

There are “a lot of really interesting secret societies, not just the Skull and Bones at Yale, which has produced all those presidents and Freemasonry at its highest level,” Rodgers said. “There is a sexual component, I think, to a lot of that.” 

Rodgers won Super Bowl XLV with the Green Bay Packers in 2010. A sure-fire Hall of Famer, he was one of the highest profile professional athletes to push back against the shot at the time. During an appearance on ESPN’s Pat McAfee Show in January, he courageously argued that Dr. Anthony Fauci had a financial incentive to vilify alternative treatments like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, zinc, vitamin D, and vitamin C. He made similar points with Carlson.  

“If we’d called this ‘gene therapy,’… maybe we thought it was about 5 to 10 percent of people that might take this. We call it a ‘vaccine’ then that brings in all the potential [of] being canceled as an anti-vaxxer, because that’s what they did to me and you as well,” he said. 

READ: Bill Gates predicts mRNA ‘vaccine factories’ worldwide and $2 vaccines for every disease 

“There’s a top line in a lot of those organizations that are actually at their core anti-American and are not doing things that [are] in the best interest of our people,” Rodgers said. “[Trump] had four years to do it and didn’t drain the swamp, and whether he just got scared because of what he learned when he was in there, I think it’s very plausible.” 

Rodgers and Carlson also discussed COVID propagandist Bill Gates.  

“I think there’s some people that want depopulation… Bill Gates… if you look at his track record and what he’s done around the world,” Rodgers said, referring to Gates’ vaccine activism in Africa. 

“I think he’s strongly pro-death,” Carlson replied.  

“I think he’s not the only one. I think there are a lot of other people. I don’t understand what that motivation is… but I think those are some of the evils that we’re up against,” Rodgers commented.  

Rodgers revealed that he has done a seven-day fast to improve his health and encourages others to try it as well. He also explained that he doesn’t eat a lot of sugar because cancer cells thrive off of it. He then pointed out that there has been a proliferation of ailments developed by children in recent decades, seemingly hinting that he believes that is a result of the massive increase in vaccines they receive.  

Although raised in a Christian home, Rodgers told Carlson it is possible religion is a tool to “control” people. At the same time, he said there is a “demonic” element to UFOs and that, regarding the COVID shot, he thinks “evil kind of overstepped a little bit too far. And now that the tides are turning.” 

“There’s a battle that’s going on between the seen and the unseen world, between good and evil, between the powers that we can see and the powers that we can’t see,” he stated. 

At one point in their conversation, Carlson asked Rodgers, “do you know anyone who didn’t get the vax who’s upset he didn’t get the vax? Does anyone regret that decision?”  

“No,” Rodgers replied. 

“Right. Not one person, ever,” said Carlson. 

Continue Reading

Economy

Prime minister’s misleading capital gains video misses the point

Published on May 19, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen

According to a 2021 study published by the Fraser Institute, 38.4 per cent of those who paid capital gains taxes in Canada earned less than $100,000 per year, and 18.3 per cent earned less than $50,000. Yet in his video, Prime Minister Trudeau claims that his capital gains tax hike will affect only the richest “0.13 per cent of Canadians”

This week, Prime Minister Trudeau released a video about his government’s decision to increase capital gains taxes. Unfortunately, he made several misleading claims while failing to acknowledge the harmful effects this tax increase will have on a broad swath of Canadians.

Right now, individuals and businesses who sell capital assets pay taxes on 50 per cent of the gain (based on their full marginal rate). Beginning on June 25, however, the Trudeau government will increase that share to 66.7 per cent for capital gains above $250,000. People with gains above that amount will again pay their full marginal rate, but now on two-thirds of the gain.

In the video, which you can view online, the prime minister claims that this tax increase will affect only the “very richest” people in Canada and will generate significant new revenue—$20 billion, according to him—to pay for social programs. But economic research and data on capital gains taxes reveal a different picture.

For starters, it simply isn’t true that capital gains taxes only affect the wealthy. Many Canadians who incur capital gains taxes, such as small business owners, may only do so once in their lifetimes.

For example, a plumber who makes $90,000 annually may choose to sell his business for $500,000 at retirement. In that year, the plumber’s income is exaggerated because it includes the capital gain rather than only his normal income. In fact, according to a 2021 study published by the Fraser Institute, 38.4 per cent of those who paid capital gains taxes in Canada earned less than $100,000 per year, and 18.3 per cent earned less than $50,000. Yet in his video, Prime Minister Trudeau claims that his capital gains tax hike will affect only the richest “0.13 per cent of Canadians” with an “average income of $1.4 million a year.”

But this is a misleading statement. Why? Because it creates a distorted view of who will pay these capital gains taxes. Many Canadians with modest annual incomes own businesses, second homes or stocks and could end up paying these higher taxes following a onetime sale where the appreciation of their asset equals at least $250,000.

Moreover, economic research finds that capital taxes remain among the most economically damaging forms of taxation precisely because they reduce the incentive to innovate and invest. By increasing them the government will deter investment in Canada and chase away capital at a time when we badly need it. Business investment, which is crucial to boost living standards and incomes for Canadians, is collapsing in Canada. This tax hike will make a bad economic situation worse.

Finally, as noted, in the video the prime minister claims that this tax increase will generate “almost $20 billion in new revenue.” But investors do not incur capital gains taxes until they sell an asset and realize a gain. A higher capital gains tax rate gives them an incentive to hold onto their investments, perhaps until the rate is reduced after a change in government. According to economists, this “lock-in” effect can stifle economic activity. The Trudeau government likely bases its “$20 billion” number on an assumption that investors will sell their assets sooner rather than later—perhaps before June 25, to take advantage of the old inclusion rate before it disappears (although because the government has not revealed exactly how the new rate will apply that seems less likely). Of course, if revenue from the tax hike does turn out to be less than anticipated, the government will incur larger budget deficits than planned and plunge us further into debt.

Contrary to Prime Minister Trudeau’s claims, raising capital gains taxes will not improve fairness. It’s bad for investment, the economy and the living standards of Canadians.

Authors:

Jake Fuss
Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Alex Whalen
Associate Director, Atlantic Canada Prosperity, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X