Opinion

Conversation with Jordy Smith, about Wards and Gasoline Alley?

Published

8 years ago

9 minute read

From: Jordy Smith
To: gjmarks
Sent: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 14:02:40 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: Missed opportunities and possibles?

Thanks for the thoughts, Garfield:
I’ve been observing and studying to find out what Red Deer needs to do if we are to retain residences and businesses from moving to Gasoline Alley. The main thing I keep on finding is how we need to make our city into a more appealing destination in and of itself. Making the Hazlett Lake area into a district with amenities, shopping, etc, is a fantastic idea and one we should go with.
One thing I noticed regarding the conversation of how to keep businesses from moving to Gasoline Alley is how little of an advantage Red Deer has over it. Think about it, many candidates have said that businesses will come to Red Deer because we are in a prime location between Edmonton and Calgary… but so is Gasoline Alley. Some say we will attract more businesses because we have an airport (which is county owned), or because we may be getting a University, but Gasoline Alley can take advantage of these opportunities as well. The only advantage Red Deer has is through developing more high density destination locations like Hazlett Lake.
What are your thoughts on our ‘advantages’ over Gasoline Alley?

Thanks, Garfield:
As you may know, I am in favour of ward system. I have already written extensively on the subject. Here I will include the short Facebook article I wrote entitled, “A Case for Wards.”

When you hear the word ‘wards’ what do you think? Some people picture prison wards, some think of hospital wards, and many don’t know what to think. In this context, wards are districts city councilors represent at City Hall. Places such as Calgary and Edmonton have 12-14 wards, while other locations such as Red Deer and Lethbridge have none. In the latter examples, these cities have at-large elections where everybody votes for multiple candidates according to the number of seats available. (For example, Red Deer has eight council seats, so each voter selects a maximum of eight people.) Red Deer has always used this at-large system for elections, but I advocate for switching to a ward system.
Wards provide direct representation within the city council. They allow anyone who sees an issue in the city to go to their particular councilor and voice their concern. In this situation, the councilor ensures the person’s, and their district’s, voice is heard. If they don’t represent their community well, their constituents can vote for a new councilor in the next election. In our current system, a person can reach out to some or all of Red Deer’s councilors, but if the issue isn’t prevalent across the entire city, it is unlikely to enter the council meeting. Important neighbourhood issues may take a backseat to other matters in distant parts of the city. This scenario isn’t always a problem in at-large systems, but it often favours certain parts of a city more than others. This issue is especially true when a majority of councillors all live in a similar part of the city. In Red Deer, seven of our eight councillors live on the South-East side of the river; in fact, many of our past councils have had disproportionate representation from the South-East side. A ward system gives each part of Red Deer direct representation and a voice in council decisions.
A ward system facilitates a simplified election process for citizens. We have 29 people running for city council; this is the second highest number of candidates the city has ever had (the most was the 2013 election with 30 candidates). Having 29 candidates means every citizen must research and understand the positions of 29 different people to make an informed decision. The sheer amount of options encourages voters to pick people they know, names they recognize, or randomly selected candidates. These reasons for voting aren’t good for our democratic process because they put popularity ahead of platforms and solutions. In comparison, citizens of Calgary only have to consider, at most, nine councillor candidates; Edmontonians only need to research, at the most, 13. Each Red Deer citizen needs to be aware of over twice as many candidates than the two largest cities in Alberta! Wards simplify the election process for citizens, ensuring the most qualified candidates are selected based on the issues and solutions they bring.
Lastly, wards help prevent underqualified candidates with certain advantages to win elections. It takes a strong campaign for candidates to run successfully, and the at-large system makes it more challenging. In a ward system, every candidate only campaigns within their district; this contrasts an at-large system where a candidate must reach the entire city. The at-large system gives two types of candidates an advantage: incumbents, and those with financial resources. Incumbents are current councilors who are running for another term; their advantage comes from successfully running in previous elections. They already have signs, name recognition, more opportunities to talk with the press, and strong networking connections. None of these are bad, but it makes it difficult for new candidates with great ideas to win against incumbents who have already been on council for two, three, or four terms. Candidates with financial resources also have an advantage; they can mobilize and advertise their campaign to the entire city in a short period. Contrast this with other potentially great candidates who don’t have the resources to bring their message to a city of 100,000. Now, the best financial support comes from interest groups; often they have a particular agenda, so they back the candidate who helps them achieve it. This situation is problematic because it allows candidates to be elected whose interests are tied to their financiers, rather than the city. A candidate who lacks these advantages is unlikely to win, even if they are the best person for the position. Wards make it easier for candidates to run; they don’t require as many resources because they only compete in their ward. The incumbents still have some advantage, but the smaller community creates a more even competition.
Some argue Red Deer is too small to have wards, but cities such as Brandon, Manitoba, and other smaller cities in Ontario have had wards for decades. Others believe ward systems make city council more divisive and less focused on the city as a whole. Red Deer can resolve this concern by adopting a three or four-ward system, each with multiple councillors. This idea gives each ward more representation on the council, and encourages councillors to consider more than just one-eighth of the city when making decisions.
Every city begins with an at-large system. With it, Red Deer has grown to its current size. Our councillors work well with each other, making the city a better place. But Red Deer is facing new challenges, and developing wards is a part of overcoming them.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Follow Author

Trump puts new price tag on Canada joining “Golden Dome”

Censorship Industrial Complex / 1 hour ago

Jordan Peterson reveals DEI ‘expert’ serving as his ‘re-education coach’ for opposing LGBT agenda

conflict / 1 hour ago

Trump dismisses US intelligence that Iran wasn’t pursuing nuclear bomb before Israeli attack

Censorship Industrial Complex

Jordan Peterson reveals DEI ‘expert’ serving as his ‘re-education coach’ for opposing LGBT agenda

Published on June 18, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Ontario College of Psychologists has selected Jordan Peterson’s “re-education coach” for having publicly opposed the LGBT agenda.

In a June 16 op-ed published by the National Post, Canadian psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson revealed that U.K. citizen Harry Cayton will guide him through the mandatory training.

“In the last week … the College has re-established contact, after months of unnecessary delay, which occurred in violation of their own order and guidelines. They have made me an entirely new offer, all the while insisting that this was their intent all along, which it most clearly was not,” Peterson said.

“All they really want, it turns out, is one two-hour session, which will not involve any ‘social media’ training,” he further explained. “This will be conducted by a man — one Harry Cayton — a citizen of the U.K., who is neither social media expert, according to the College and is definitely not a psychologist.”

Harry Cayton, a supposed expert on “professional regulation and governance,” is known professionally for promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

In 2021, he was appointed to conduct an independent review of the British Columbia Law Society’s governance structure, specifically examining how it supports DEI goals.

Additionally, in 2022, while appearing on Ascend Radio’s podcast, Cayton argued there should be more DEI regulations in professional associations.

Peterson has promised to make the details of his “re-education” public, questioning why the College wishes to hide what Cayton plans to discuss with him.

Peterson also explained that he will publicize the training “so that people who are interested can decide for themselves what is going on.”

In January 2024, Peterson lost his appeal of the board’s decision to compel him to undergo mandatory re-education, meaning that he must attend the training or risk losing his license to practice psychology in Ontario.

Peterson also revealed that his “legal options have” now “been exhausted” after Ontario’s highest court rejected his appeal of the College’s 2022 ruling that his public political statements ran afoul of the administrative board’s rules and that he must therefore submit to, and personally pay for, a “coaching program” on professionalism.

Peterson is a widely-known critic of Canada’s increasingly totalitarian government. He has also spoken frequently on the need for young men to accept and take on personal responsibility. While he has seemingly inspired others to explore Christianity, he has not yet espoused a personal belief in any religion, though he affirmed his wife Tammy in her decision to convert to Catholicism in 2024.

Business

Rhetoric—not evidence—continues to dominate climate debate and policy

Published on June 18, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Myths, fallacies and ideological rhetoric continue to dominate the climate policy discussion, leading to costly and ineffective government policies,
according to a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, nonpartisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“When considering climate policies, it’s important to understand what the science and analysis actually show instead of what the climate alarmists believe to be true,” said Kenneth P. Green, Fraser Institute senior fellow and author of Four Climate Fallacies.

The study dispels several myths about climate change and popular—but ineffective—emission reduction policies, specifically:

• Capitalism causes climate change: In fact, according to several environment/climate indices and the Fraser Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World Index, the more economically free a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.

• Even small-emitting countries can do their part to fight climate change: Even if Canada reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to zero, there would be
little to no measurable impact in global emissions, and it distracts people from the main drivers of emissions, which are China, India and the developing
world.

• Vehicle electrification will reduce climate risk and clean the air: Research has shown that while EVs can reduce GHG emissions when powered with
low-GHG energy, they often are not, and further, have offsetting environmental harms, reducing net environmental/climate benefits.

• Carbon capture and storage is a viable strategy to combat climate change: While effective at a small scale, the benefits of carbon capture and
storage to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions on a massive scale are limited and questionable.

“Citizens and their governments around the world need to be guided by scientific evidence when it comes to what climate policies make the most sense,” Green said.

“Unfortunately, the climate policy debate is too often dominated by myths, fallacies and false claims by activists and alarmists, with costly and ineffective results.”

Four Climate Fallacies

This study examines four climate narratives circulating in public discourse regarding climate change.
Fallacy 1: Climate Change Is Caused by Capitalism. As we will observe, this is backward: the more capitalist a country is, the more effective it is at protecting its environment and combatting climate change.
Fallacy 2: Even Small-Emitting Countries Can Do Their Part to Fight Climate Change. Again, in reality, even a casual inspection of the emission trends and projections of large-emitting countries such as China would reveal that for small-emitting countries like Canada, even driving their greenhouse gas emissions to zero would have no measurable impact in reducing climate risk.
Fallacy 3: Vehicle Electrification Will Reduce Climate Risk and Clean the Air. However, when looking beyond the hype, it becomes evident that vehicle electrification presents an array of climate and environmental benefits and harms that extend beyond climate change.
Fallacy 4: Carbon Capture and Storage Is a Viable Strategy to Combat Climate Change. This fallacy, most popular with those in the fossil fuel industry and those of a more market-oriented and politically conservative bent, is no more realistic than the previous three. An examination of the history, effectiveness, and efficiency of carbon capture and storage suggests that it is a far more limited approach to regulating greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere than proponents suggest.