Connect with us

Opinion

Can anyone blame the province for ignoring the plight of the students in overcrowded schools north of the river?

Published

5 minute read

The chairman of the Red Deer Catholic School Board is hoping that there will be funding for expansion at St Patrick’s School in the Alberta budget. St. Patrick’s School is currently running at 130% capacity with a kindergarten class being taught in a hallway. St. Patrick is located north of the river, if anyone was wondering. They haven’t built a school north of the river in over 30 years.
Johnstone Park is north of the river, and originally there was a 8.64 acre site set aside for a public elementary school, but it was converted to a park and the school was built in the south-east sector instead. 30 years ago nearly 40% of the population lived north of the river, yet there was never a high school built, and the city decided to build in the south east. All schools and swimming pools, indoor ice rinks etc. were to be built south of the river.
Now only about 30% of the population lives north of the river, and 2016 saw an actual population decline when 777 residents left the area north of the river. What did the city and school boards expect.
They are opening up thousands of acres north of 11a and planning for 25,000 residents but still no plans for a high school, swimming pools or indoor ice rinks and possibly plans for 2 elementary schools. Compare this with the land around 67 Street and 30 Avenue intersection. 3 high schools, 1 junior high and 5 elementary schools.
I asked the Minister of Education for the reason that there is no plans for a high school north of the river, when there is a population of 30,000 residents and with the land north of Hwy 11a pushing the population north of the river to possibly 55,000 residents. He wrote and a staff member phoned and reiterated that it was the school boards who made the decision to not build north of the river and to concentrate 5 high schools along 30 ave.
During the public open house on the opening of land north of 11a, at city hall, I mentioned this both verbally and in writing, and was told that there are no plans for a high school, recreation centre, swimming pool or indoor ice rink north of 11a.
Councillor Lee asked the city planner if the school boards ever asked the city if they could build a high school north of 11a, and the planner said no. Councillor Lee should know, because if I am not mistaken weren’t the locations of the high schools determined when he was the chairman of the public school board?
From talking to some of people involved including the mayor at the time, I felt that it was a city led determination to not build the high schools north of the river but a compromise decision to build north east of the 67St. 30 Ave. intersection.
If the school boards decided to not build in Johnstone Park, but instead build a school in Inglewood, if the school boards and the city decided not to build a high school north of the river and instead have all 6 high schools south of the river, should they not be surprised if the province thinks that the students north of the river are not a priority?
Perhaps if the site that was originally designated for a public elementary school had been transferred over to the catholic school board, then perhaps the overcrowding at St. Pat’s would not have happened.
The province told me that it is up to the local school boards to plan properly, and it is up to people like us who actually live here to do something.
So Councillor Lee let us start with you. You were on the school board for 2 terms, you were the chairman part of that time, you then became a city councillor and you have orated your desire to be mayor. Why has there never been a high school north of the river? Why has there not been a school built north of the river since 1985? Why are we planning on 5 high schools along the 30 Ave. corridor? Please explain to the voters. Please explain to the students, past present and future, who must, have or will commute across the city twice a day to go to high school. Thank you.

Follow Author

espionage

Hong Kong Police Detain Relatives of Canadian Candidate Targeted by Beijing Election Interference

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Move follows aggressive PRC disinformation against Joe Tay, RCMP security warnings, and raises pressure on Prime Minister Mark Carney after White House meeting

In a striking escalation of Beijing’s interference in Canada’s Parliament and its global campaign to silence dissent, Hong Kong police have reportedly detained and questioned relatives of former Conservative election candidate Joe Tay—who was targeted by aggressive Chinese cyber and ground operations during the recent federal campaign, according to The Bureau’s intelligence sources.

The move to detain and question Tay’s cousin and the man’s wife in Hong Kong—reported by multiple sources, including Hong Kong Free Press—appears aimed at ramping up pressure on Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose campaign plausibly benefited from Beijing’s interference and the Liberal pledge to fight President Donald Trump’s global tariff regime.

Tay, who lost by roughly 5,000 votes to his Liberal opponent in Don Valley North, has yet to comment on the detentions. As The Bureau previously reported, the RCMP advised Tay to suspend in-person campaigning during the final week of the election due to credible threats tied to foreign interference.

The reported detentions occurred Thursday morning in the Fo Tan district of Hong Kong, where Tay’s relatives were taken to a police station for questioning. While Hong Kong police have not publicly confirmed the operation, the tactic aligns with the Chinese Communist Party’s growing use of family-based intimidation to suppress overseas dissent—a strategy documented across multiple countries by rights monitors and Western intelligence agencies.

Thursday’s detentions came just 48 hours after Carney’s closed-door meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance in Washington. Carney has not publicly commented on the content of the meeting, but according to a U.S. intelligence community source, the agenda likely included PRC political interference, trade, espionage, fentanyl trafficking, money laundering, and Chinese national security threats across North America.

Tay, 62, became a top target of Chinese interference networks during the 2025 campaign. Federal intelligence officials and The Bureau identified a coordinated foreign interference operation that promoted disinformation against Tay and other Conservative candidates across PRC-linked channels, particularly on WeChat, with the goal of depressing Chinese-Canadian voter turnout for the Conservative Party.

The SITE Task Force assessed that Tay was subject to a broader transnational repression campaign. PRC-linked accounts circulated narratives portraying Canada as a refuge for fugitives if Tay were elected—rhetoric that was echoed publicly by Liberal MP Paul Chiang, who was supported by Prime Minister Carney after those comments were publicized. Chiang’s campaign collapsed under international pressure after the RCMP announced it would review the matter.

That Beijing appears resolved to continue persecuting Tay and his family—even after his electoral defeat—points to a broader and deeper strategic objective behind this singular, confirmed case of interference. It also presents an early and consequential test for Prime Minister Carney, who campaigned on defending Canadian sovereignty while opposing Donald Trump’s tariff agenda. The timing of the escalation—detaining relatives of a defeated Canadian dissident just days after Carney’s May 6 White House meeting—suggests the PRC may be actively probing Ottawa’s resolve under new leadership.

The Bureau has extensively documented this repressive strategy. On April 10, 2025, The Bureau confirmed that Hong Kong activist Frances Hui’s parents were detained by Hong Kong national security police, following Hui’s testimony before Canada’s Parliament. Hui, now based in Washington, had previously revealed she was allegedly stalked and threatened by a suspected PRC agent.

Tay’s case fits an increasingly global pattern. The Bureau has learned that a report reviewed by Toronto police during the campaign involved a suspected stalking threat against members of Tay’s team. And now, even after democratic outcomes, the Chinese state appears determined to punish political critics through surveillance, coercion, and intimidation directed at family members—sending a clear message to diaspora communities and foreign governments alike.

The formal charges against Tay were issued by Hong Kong police in December 2024. According to official documents reviewed by The Bureau, Tay—born 12 December 1962—was charged with:

  1. Incitement to secession
  2. Collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security

Authorities allege that between July 2020 and June 2024, Tay operated a platform called HongKonger Station, through which he published “numerous videos inciting secession” and “repeatedly urged foreign countries to impose sanctions” on officials in Beijing and Hong Kong.

The SITE Task Force confirmed that these charges were disseminated and amplified by Chinese intelligence-linked networks during Canada’s 2025 campaign, as part of a broader information warfare effort to delegitimize Tay and portray his candidacy as a national security threat to China.

At the time the charges were announced, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly condemned them, warning that Beijing’s extraterritorial use of its National Security Law undermined international norms and democratic principles. Since Tay’s defeat—and her party’s electoral victory—Joly has not made any further public comment.

The Bureau will seek comment from Carney and his government today and update this story.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Business

Global trade reorder begins in Trump deal with United Kingdom

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

Seeking to reorder global trade with America at the center, President Donald Trump announced the framework of a trade deal with the United Kingdom on Thursday.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer, since 2024 leader of a nation that maintains a special relationship with the U.S. including a more even trade balance than with other countries, spoke with the president by phone during an Oval Office meeting Thursday morning.

“This is turning out to be a great deal for both countries,” Trump said.

The 78-year-old second-term Republican president said the deal would improve market access for U.S. products in the United Kingdom, and improve the relationship between the two countries. Trump said it was the first of many deals from his trade team.

The 62-year-old leader of the Labour Party said the deal would create new jobs in both nations.

“We can finishing ironing out some of the details, but there’s a fantastic platform here,” Starmer said, calling the deal “historic.”

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the U.S. has balanced trade with the United Kingdom. Lutnick said it would add $5 billion in market access to the U.S. Lutnick said the United Kingdom would get a 10% tariff on 100,000 automobile imports to the U.S., lower than the 25% tariff on foreign autos for other nations.

Lutnick said the lower tariff would protect jobs in the UK.

On social media, Trump wrote, “Today is an incredible day for America as we deliver our first Fair, Open, and Reciprocal Trade Deal – Something our past Presidents never cared about. Together with our strong Ally, the United Kingdom, we have reached the first, historic Trade Deal since Liberation Day. As part of this Deal, America will raise $6 BILLION DOLLARS in External Revenue from 10% Tariffs, $5 BILLION DOLLARS in new Export Opportunities for our Great Ranchers, Farmers, and Producers, and enhance the National Security of both the U.S. and the UK through the creation of an Aluminum and Steel Trading Zone, and a secure Pharmaceutical Supply Chain. This Deal shows that if you respect America, and bring serious proposals to the table, America is OPEN FOR BUSINESS. Many more to come — STAY TUNED!”

Trump announced a slate of higher tariffs on foreign nations on April 2, which he dubbed “Liberation Day” for American trade. On April 9, Trump paused those higher rates for 90 days to give his trade team time to make deals with other countries.

When Trump temporarily suspended the higher tariffs on April 9, he kept a 10% baseline tariff in place along with a 25% import duty on foreign autos and auto parts. He also kept 25% tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum.

Trump also imposed 145% tariffs on China, which retaliated with 125% tariffs on U.S. goods. Those tariffs remain in place, although the two nations are set to begin talks this weekend.

Economists, businesses and many publicly-traded companies have warned that tariffs could raise prices on a wide range of consumer products.

Trump has said he wants to use tariffs to restore manufacturing jobs lost to lower-wage countries in decades past, shift the tax burden away from American families, and pay down the national debt.

A tariff is a tax on imported goods. The importer pays the tax and can either absorb the loss or pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices

Continue Reading

Trending

X