Connect with us

Opinion

5,240 voters supported the Ward System. That is more than some elected politicians received. Not to be ignored.

Published

8 minute read

5,240 voters in 2013 supported the ward system of municipal governance but it wasn’t enough. Some will say that settles the issue in perpetuity or forever.
The plebiscite was a vote on the ward system to help find one of many solutions to end the disparity between the north and south in such issues like absence of a high school north of the river or the unequal distribution of recreational facilities.
The city council favored the at-large system, and allocated $30,000 to present a side to the issue. They held a townhall information meeting hosted by popular ex-councillor Larry Pimm who extolled the virtues of the current at-large system. Reminding everyone; “To dance with the one that brought you”. No ward system advocate was invited.
Compare city hall, with $30,000 against a few volunteers with no budget, and you have an epic “David and Goliath” situation.
5,240 voters supported it, considering that the majority of school board trustees garnered fewer votes and they believe they represent the citizens.
The vote was held four years ago during an election, and some will argue that settles the matter forever. No matter that about 10% of the population moves every year, and that someone who is 18,19, 20, or 21 now could vote now that could not have voted then.
One suggested that it would be disrespectful of the voters in 2013 if we were to have another plebiscite in the future. Why do we have elections every 4 years? Possibly to bring in new ideas, people and ways to deal with new issues and events, to change course when a current course is not working?
The major is issue was the disparity between north of the river and south of the river. The last school built north of the river was in 1985, the lack of a high school north of the river and the fact that there is only one recreational centre north of the river with 11 south of the river. The ward system was brought up as a possible way to ensure their voice was heard.
Wards versus at large: Niagara Falls (population of 88,071),candidates discuss. If you want to get in the game, some say a ward system is helpful. … Now, more than a decade into an at-large system where eight councillors are elected to represent the entire city, some candidates are calling for a return to the ward system.
It may better represent the city, but some people find it confusing. One political scientist says we should consider bringing back the ward system with the civic election one week away.
A ward system, essentially, has an elected representative from varying neighbourhoods around the city.
Langara College political scientist Peter Prontzos says it’s a little more democratic and things won’t be rushed through council because there are more voices to be heard and more issues brought to the table.
But he warns there are cons.
“It may be a little more confusing in some ways and there may be occasional gridlock on city council, but I think that’s relatively minor.”
He says right now those who run for office are people with money who only represent wealthy neighbourhoods where something like public transit may not be issue.
Issues like no high school or biased distribution of recreational centres, may get on council’s agenda and be heard through a ward system.
Issues like; On the north side we have (1) the Dawe Centre while on the south side we have; (10), the Downtown Recreation Centre, Michener Aquatic Centre, Downtown Arena, Centrium complex, Collicutt Recreation Centre, Pidherney Curling Centre, Kinex Arena, Kinsmen Community Arenas, Red Deer Curling Centre, and the under-construction Gary W. Harris Centre. The city is also talking about replacing the downtown recreation centre with an expanded 50m pool.

The volunteers proposed 4 wards with 2 councillors per ward, and 5,240 voters supported the idea. Others thought not yet and some were totally against it, period. Should the politicians write off 5,240 voters as a non issue? City should be inclusive of everyone, including those not crowding the stage during the discussions on the latest issue of the day.

Jordy Smith was quite eloquent in his defence of the 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 councillor and voice their concern. In this situation, the councillor 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 councillor in the next election.
In our current system, a person can reach out to some or all of Red Deer’s councillors, 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.”
The point is that the “Ward System” is not a panacea to the disparity issue and no one thinks it is but it could be a step in addressing the issue. Many candidates talk about the “Riverlands” as the panacea to downtown issues, but it is not, it is but a step to addressing the issues.
I ask the candidates who have said that the vote should stand and not be voted on again out of respect for the 2013 voters, should we let the federal vote of 2015, where we elected a Liberal government and the provincial vote of 2015, where we elected a NDP government stand in perpetuity? I didn’t think so. That is why we have votes, because we may change our mind. Thank you.

Read more about the Red Deer Municipal Election on Todayville.

Follow Author

Business

Canada’s critical minerals are key to negotiating with Trump

Published on

From Resource Works

By

The United States wants to break its reliance on China for minerals, giving Canada a distinct advantage.

Trade issues were top of mind when United States President Donald Trump landed in Kananaskis, Alberta, for the G7 Summit. As he was met by Prime Minister Mark Carney, Canada’s vast supply of critical minerals loomed large over a potential trade deal between North America’s two largest countries.

Although Trump’s appearance at the G7 Summit was cut short by the outbreak of open hostilities between Iran and Israel, the occasion still marked a turning point in commercial and economic relations between Canada and the U.S. Whether they worsen or improve remains to be seen, but given Trump’s strategy of breaking American dependence on China for critical minerals, Canada is in a favourable position.

Despite the president’s early exit, he and Prime Minister Carney signed an accord that pledged to strike a Canada-US trade deal within 30 days.

Canada’s minerals are a natural advantage during trade talks due to the rise in worldwide demand for them. Without the minerals that Canada can produce and export, it is impossible to power modern industries like defence, renewable energy, and electric vehicles (EV).

Nickel, gallium, germanium, cobalt, graphite, and tungsten can all be found in Canada, and the U.S. will need them to maintain its leadership in the fields of technology and economics.

The fallout from Trump’s tough talk on tariff policy and his musings about annexing Canada have only increased the importance of mineral security. The president’s plan extends beyond the economy and is vital for his strategy of protecting American geopolitical interests.

Currently, the U.S. remains dependent on China for rare earth minerals, and this is a major handicap due to their rivalry with Beijing. Canada has been named as a key partner and ally in addressing that strategic gap.

Canada currently holds 34 critical minerals, offering a crucial potential advantage to the U.S. and a strategic alternative to the near-monopoly currently held by the Chinese. The Ring of Fire, a vast region of northern Ontario, is a treasure trove of critical minerals and has long been discussed as a future powerhouse of Canadian mining.

Ontario’s provincial government is spearheading the region’s development and is moving fast with legislation intended to speed up and streamline that process. In Ottawa, there is agreement between the Liberal government and Conservative opposition that the Ring of Fire needs to be developed to bolster the Canadian economy and national trade strategies.

Whether Canada comes away from the negotiations with the US in a stronger or weaker place will depend on the federal government’s willingness to make hard choices. One of those will be ramping up development, which can just as easily excite local communities as it can upset them.

One of the great drags on the Canadian economy over the past decade has been the inability to finish projects in a timely manner, especially in the natural resource sector. There was no good reason for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion to take over a decade to complete, and for new mines to still take nearly twice that amount of time to be completed.

Canada is already an energy powerhouse and can very easily turn itself into a superpower in that sector. With that should come the ambition to unlock our mineral potential to complement that. Whether it be energy, water, uranium, or minerals, Canada has everything it needs to become the democratic world’s supplier of choice in the modern economy.

Given that world trade is in flux and its future is uncertain, it is better for Canada to enter that future from a place of strength, not weakness. There is no other choice.

Continue Reading

Economy

Ottawa’s muddy energy policy leaves more questions than answers

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Based on the recent throne speech (delivered by a King, no less) and subsequent periodic statements from Prime Minister Carney, the new federal government seems stuck in an ambiguous and ill-defined state of energy policy, leaving much open to question.

After meeting with the premiers earlier this month, the prime minister talked about “decarbonized barrels” of oil, which didn’t clarify matters much. We also have a stated goal of making Canada the world’s “leading energy superpower” in both clean and conventional energy. If “conventional energy” includes oil and gas (although we’re not sure), this could represent a reversal of the Trudeau government’s plan to phase-out fossil fuel use in Canada over the next few decades. Of course, if it only refers to hydro and nuclear (also forms of conventional energy) it might not.

According to the throne speech, the Carney government will work “closely with provinces, territories, and Indigenous Peoples to identify and catalyse projects of national significance. Projects that will connect Canada, that will deepen Canada’s ties with the world, and that will create high-paying jobs for generations.” That could mean more oil and gas pipelines, but then again, it might not—it might only refer to power transmission infrastructure for wind and solar power. Again, the government hasn’t been specific.

The throne speech was a bit more specific on the topic of regulatory reform and the federal impact assessment process for energy projects. Per the speech, a new “Major Federal Project Office” will ensure the time needed to approve projects will be reduced from the currently statutory limit of five years to two. Also, the government will strike cooperation agreements with interested provinces and territories within six months to establish a review standard of “one project, one review.” All of this, of course, is to take place while “upholding Canada’s world-leading environmental standards and its constitutional obligations to Indigenous Peoples.” However, what types of projects are likely to be approved is not discussed. Could be oil and gas, could be only wind and solar.

Potentially good stuff, but ill-defined, and without reference to the hard roadblocks the Trudeau government erected over the last decade that might thwart this vision.

For example, in 2019 the Trudeau government enacted Bill C-48 (a.k.a. the “Tanker Ban Bill”), which changed regulations for large oil transports coming and going from ports on British Columbia’s northern coast, effectively banning such shipments and limiting the ability of Canadian firms to export to non-U.S. markets. Scrapping C-48 would remove one obstacle from the government’s agenda.

In 2023, the Trudeau government introduced a cap on Canadian oil and gas-related greenhouse gas emissions, and in 2024, adopted major new regulations for methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, which will almost inevitably raise costs and curtail production. Removing these regulatory burdens from Canada’s energy sector would also help Canada achieve energy superpower status.

Finally, in 2024, the Trudeau government instituted new electricity regulations that will likely drive electricity rates through the roof, while ushering in an age of less-reliable electricity supply: a two-handed slap to Canadian energy consumers. Remember, the throne speech also called for building a more “affordable” Canada—eliminating these onerous regulations would help.

In summation, while the waters remain somewhat muddy, the Carney government appears to have some good ideas for Canadian energy policy. But it must act and enact some hard legislative and regulatory reforms to realize the positive promises of good policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X