Connect with us

Opinion

Will we spend One Hundred Million Dollars for a faster horse

Published

2 minute read

Henry Ford was supposed to have stated; “ If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” It is often said but never proven, but it is indicative of the situation at the time.
I think of this statement, when I am involved in a survey, a planning committee, a budget meeting or anytime at all, when I am involved with planning.
Ford built cars, precipitated somewhat, to the industrial revolution and turned transportation on it’s ear, among many other things. Studebaker took longer to decide to switch from building horse drawn covered wagons to building gas powered vehicles. Today the decision was obvious, but then it required visionaries to buck the established thought and the status quo.
Do we have any visionaries in Red Deer willing to buck the status quo? Is the decision to spend $100 million on the downtown recreation centre just the same as deciding to retarp the covered wagon. Should we build a new aquatic centre in another location, like the area north of the river by Hazlett Lake?
When the Collicutt Centre was first considered it was also a highly controversial item that garnered strong opinions from all sides. Who today, would say it was the wrong decision to go forward? Especially since it is the most widely used facility in Red Deer and helped spur growth in the south east sector of Red Deer.
That discussion was around thirty years ago. The Collicutt Ctr. Itself is closing in on 20 years of age , now. The city is almost twice the size, as when Collicutt was first discussed, but there is no discussion now, about building an aquatic centre in the north west in the thousands of acres of undeveloped land coming up for development around Hazlett lake north of 11A.
So do the citizens of Red Deer want to invest $100 million in a faster horse downtown, or should we build a gas powered tourist vehicle by Hazlett Lake visible to Hwy2 and Hwy11a, traffic? Can we discuss this? Who will buck the established thought or will we just get our faster horse?

Follow Author

Business

High Taxes Hobble Canadian NHL Teams In Race For Top Players

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Canada’s steep income taxes leave NHL players with less cash in their pockets, putting Canadian teams at a serious disadvantage against their U.S. rivals. Find out why it’s not just bad luck that Canada hasn’t won the Stanley Cup in decades.

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman badly underestimates how much higher income taxes in Canada put Canadian teams at a serious competitive disadvantage by reducing players’ take-home pay and limiting their ability to attract top talent.

The NHL salary cap limits how much teams can spend on player salaries each season, so higher taxes mean players on Canadian teams effectively take home less money for the same salary, putting those teams at a disadvantage when competing for talent.

In a recent TNT broadcast, Bettman dismissed the idea that teams might adjust the salary cap to offset income tax differences, calling it “a ridiculous issue” and saying taxes were only “a little bit of a factor.” Pointing to high state taxes in California and New York, he asked, “What are we going to do? Subsidize those teams?”

What Bettman either ignored or didn’t understand is that every Canadian NHL player faces significantly higher income taxes than any of their U.S. counterparts. According to the Fraser Institute’s 2023 study, Ontario’s top marginal tax rate is 53.5 per cent, and even Alberta’s is 47 per cent. Compare that to the highest U.S. state rate among NHL locations—Minnesota at 41.85 per cent, California at 41.3 and New York at 38.85. Several states, including Florida, Texas, Nevada and Tennessee, impose no state income tax at all.

This tax gap translates into huge differences in players’ actual take-home pay, the money they keep after taxes. With a 2024-25 NHL salary cap of US$88 million, Toronto Maple Leafs players collectively earn $5.7 million less after taxes than Edmonton Oilers players, and a staggering $18.9 million less than players on the tax-free Florida Panthers. That difference alone could sign a star player and shift competitive balance.

Leafs fans frustrated by two decades of playoff disappointment should look less to coaches and management and more to Canada’s punishing tax system that drives talent south of the border or limits how much teams can pay. Lower taxes are a proven magnet for high-priced talent, driving better results and stronger teams.

University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe calls this the “great divergence,” referring to the growing gap between the U.S. and Canadian economies. He points out that U.S. GDP per capita outpaces Canada’s by 43 per cent, and the gap is widening. This economic advantage means U.S. teams operate in wealthier markets with more financial flexibility, enabling them to offer players better after-tax compensation and attract top talent more easily than Canadian teams can.

Canadian teams also face more intense media and fan pressure in smaller markets, adding to their challenges. The NHL’s prolonged Stanley Cup drought for Canadian teams since 1993 isn’t just bad luck. Statistically, the odds of no Canadian team winning the Cup in over 30 years are about one in 781. Tax policy plays a major role in this unlikely streak.

Don’t blame Bettman or the NHL. Blame the Canadian governments that keep imposing high taxes that punish success, stifle economic growth and keep Canadian teams from competing on a level playing field. Unless tax policy changes, Canadian hockey fans should expect more frustration and fewer championships.

Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Business

Ottawa Slams Eby Government Over Chinese Shipyard Deal, Citing Security and Sovereignty Risks

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

Western security analysts have warned that China’s commercial shipyards routinely serve dual-use purposes, supporting both civilian contracts and the expansion of the People’s Liberation Army Navy. A 2024 report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies warned that foreign customers contracting with Chinese state-owned shipbuilders may be inadvertently “subsidizing the growth of China’s naval power.”

Stung by a political firestorm over his provincial government’s decision to hand a massive shipbuilding contract to Chinese suppliers that critics say could bolster Xi Jinping’s military capabilities and undermine Canadian national security, B.C. Premier David Eby late Friday night reluctantly released a searing letter from federal Transport Minister Chrystia Freeland.

The letter, dated June 16 and addressed to B.C. Transportation Minister Mike Farnworth, expresses Freeland’s “consternation and disappointment” over BC Ferries’ decision to select China Merchants Industry Weihai—a subsidiary of a state-owned Chinese conglomerate closely tied to Beijing’s military-civil fusion strategy and Belt and Road Initiative—to build four new major vessels.

“I am dismayed that BC Ferries would select a Chinese state-owned shipyard to build new ferries in the current geopolitical context,” Freeland wrote. She demanded that Farnworth “verify and confirm with utmost certainty that no federal funding will be diverted to support the acquisition of these new ferries.”

Freeland emphasized that the Government of Canada has provided “long-standing financial support” to British Columbia’s ferry system, including “approximately $37.8 million” annually under a 1977 agreement, $308 million to cover pandemic-related operating losses, and “a $75-million loan to BC Ferries to help purchase four net-zero emission ferries.”

“Given the value of the contract and the level of taxpayer funding that has been provided to support BC Ferries’ operations,” Freeland wrote, “I am surprised that BC Ferries does not appear to have been mandated to require an appropriate level of Canadian content in the procurement or the involvement of the Canadian marine industry.”

The letter, which had been withheld by Eby’s government for nearly a week, was quietly released to the public just before midnight Eastern Time Friday—only after repeated demands in Parliament by Conservative MP Dan Albas, who posted on social media: “People deserve that transparency.”

The political backlash mounted swiftly following Eby’s disclosure of the deal with China. BC Conservative leader John Rustad accused Eby and BC Ferries of failing to account for the broader strategic risks of contracting with a Chinese state-owned entity during a period of rising global tensions.

“There’s lots of rhetoric going back and forth between the United States and China, friction with Taiwan,” Rustad told Postmedia. “Who knows what may happen? Hopefully nothing by 2029 to 2031, which is when these ships are going to start to be constructed and delivered.”

It’s not a far-fetched concern. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government entered into a vaccine partnership with CanSino Biologics—a company with links to China’s People’s Liberation Army—only for Beijing to block shipment of the vaccine, abruptly collapsing the deal.

In her June 16 letter, Freeland warned the B.C. government that “ongoing concerns regarding threats to security, including cybersecurity, from China” required urgent attention. She asked for clear commitments that BC Ferries had conducted “a robust risk assessment” and demanded to be informed of the steps being taken to “reduce the risks of outside influence or control from cybersecurity vulnerabilities,” and to “mitigate the risks that vessel maintenance and spare parts may pose.”

Freeland further linked the deal to Beijing’s retaliatory economic measures, writing, “China has imposed unjustified tariffs on Canada, including 100% tariffs on canola oil, meal, and pea imports, and a 25% duty on Canadian aquatic products and pork. These tariffs have affected about 36% of Canadian agriculture businesses and are directly impacting the livelihood of Canadians.”

China Merchants Industry Weihai is a subsidiary of China Merchants Group, a massive state-owned enterprise that has played a central role in advancing Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative since 2013. The conglomerate operates ports and shipyards across Asia, Europe, and Africa—including strategic holdings in Greece, Lithuania, Nigeria, and Djibouti—and is a central player in the Chinese Communist Party’s military-civil fusion strategy.

Western security analysts have warned that China’s commercial shipyards routinely serve dual-use purposes, supporting both civilian contracts and the expansion of the People’s Liberation Army Navy. A 2024 report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies warned that foreign customers contracting with Chinese state-owned shipbuilders may be inadvertently “subsidizing the growth of China’s naval power.”

Valued in the hundreds of millions, the contract will see the Chinese yard begin delivering the vessels between 2029 and 2031.

Rustad further told Postmedia that the province’s reliance on foreign state-controlled suppliers for strategic transportation infrastructure was “not just irresponsible, it’s a betrayal of Canadian workers and economic independence.”

The BC Federation of Labour has also raised concerns about the use of public money to finance offshore contracts that benefit authoritarian regimes, and Canadian maritime industry groups have renewed calls for a federal policy mandating domestic content in major shipbuilding procurements.

First established in 2016 under then-premier Christy Clark through a Memorandum of Understanding with China’s Guangdong province, the B.C.–Belt and Road Initiative pact laid the groundwork for collaboration on maritime trade, infrastructure, and shipbuilding with Chinese state-owned firms. Those ties expanded under Premier John Horgan, whose NDP government promoted deeper bilateral economic relations. The BC Ferries procurement—while legally made by an independent board—proceeded within a framework Premier Eby’s administration continues to support.

New research reported by The Bureau and published by the Washington-based Jamestown Foundation adds a sharp dimension to these concerns. The Foundation warns that criminal and political networks promoting Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative have been linked to Chinese transnational organized crime and covert Communist Party influence operations.

According to the report, a global syndicate known as Hongmen—also referred to as the Chinese Freemasons—has been deeply embedded in both criminal activity and Beijing’s “united front” operations, which support the CCP’s geopolitical aims including the annexation of Taiwan and BRI expansion.

“The organization’s sprawling structure includes affiliated offices across the globe from Hong Kong and Nairobi to Toronto and Madrid,” the report states. “The Chinese Communist Party has turned a blind eye as Hongmen ventures have expanded across One Belt One Road countries, in part because these organizations serve the purposes of united front work.”

The Jamestown Foundation’s findings echo longstanding concerns within Canada’s intelligence community regarding BRI-linked actors and opaque Chinese political networks operating in the country—especially in British Columbia, which remains the only jurisdiction in North America to have signed a formal Belt and Road agreement with Beijing.

Premier Eby has not apologized for the decision. He told reporters last week that the province would not interfere with BC Ferries’ independent board, which selected the Chinese yard based on cost and delivery timelines.

Whether mounting federal pressure and scrutiny from security experts will force a review remains an open question.

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

Trending

X