Connect with us


April 18 2017 Red Deer’s financial statement, presented to council, showed huge population decline.


5 minute read

Just 10 weeks ago on April 18, 2017 the 2016 Annual Financial Statement was presented to city council. In this document our population was discussed, and the decline was quantified. Our city declined from 100,807 residents in 2015, to 99,832 residents in 2016. Our city is actually smaller by 975 residents.
According to our census, 777 residents out of 975, left the neighbourhoods north of the river. This area is home to 30% of the population down from 40% in 1985. 30% of the population accounted for almost 80% of the outward migration of our population. Coincidentally the population in Blackfalds increased by 700 residents, during this time.
It is one thing that Red Deer is one of the very few communities to show an actual decline in population in a province that grew by about 4%. Especially given that Communities around Red Deer grew more rapidly than normal. The fact the north side of the river declined so steeply should set off some alarm bells, but it did not.
Evidence proving differently, the decline is a result of the provincial economy. Even given that Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge are 3 of the 5 fastest growing cities in Canada along with Regina and Saskatoon.
This is proven, documented and accepted fact. The city is basing their estimates on these facts. The city will not do a census this year because they do not see any indication of the growth needed to validate the cost. The city will be deferring any annexation due to lack of growth.
Minutes adopted, reports presented, and news printed but will any politician or political wannabe discuss this, offer solutions, or even acknowledge these concerns? No, because it is a negative. They do not have any ideas beyond the rhetorical status-quo platitudes.
September 2015, CBC news reports that Alberta has the poorest air quality in Canada, Red Deer region has the poorest air in Alberta. Red Deer north, Riverside monitors have been registering levels requiring immediate attention. 21 months later and we are no further ahead beyond trying to discredit reports, replacing monitors, and ignoring the repercussions of our actions.
Perhaps we could think about our tendency to compartmentalize our city. Why do we have all high schools, current and future along with 10 of 11 recreational facilities on one side of the city necessitating long commutes for 30% of the population. Why are we concentrating all our industry on the other side of the city, which coincidentally also has poorest air quality?
Our crime rate has been noted for being notoriously high, even topping some national charts, and has been given some notice by these same politicians and political wannabes. But are they looking in isolation without giving thought to big picture repercussions of our actions elsewhere.
Does the lack of access to recreational facilities north of the river contribute to juvenile delinquencies? Do long commutes deter young people from participating in extra-curricular activities, encouraging juvenile delinquencies? Just simple questions being left unanswered.
I think it is great to advocate for others to do their jobs, like provincial and federal elected representatives but it does not mean relinquishing all responsibilities in areas you can control.
Red Deer is not, currently, growing and is in fact declining. The city based it’s finances, budgets and projections on this fact. The province acknowledges this in ways evident to any one paying attention to the news. Removing Red Deer from needs’ lists, concentrating money and attention beyond our borders. The province is finally addressing our high crime in a reactionary way by expanding the court system, while ignoring our equally important medical and housing needs.
These are difficult issues, and it is easier to ignore or point blame at others than to offer solutions or even suggestions. But I am ever hopeful that there are those who will not hide but address these very real issues. Anyone?

Follow Author


Net Zero Part 4 – IPCC Experts Say Doing Nothing Would Be Less Harmful

Published on

Do you ever feel good when someone won’t tell you how much something costs – something you have to pay for?

No? Me neither.

But, when it comes to the Canadian government’s climate change agenda, and in particular the “Net Zero by 2050” strategy, that is where we are.

It is being forced on Canadians, who will end up paying the bill, but we are not being told what the price is today, or what the price will be tomorrow.

I will continue to dig to find out more. But in the meantime, let me share what an expert on the climate file says about what “doing nothing” would cost.

Yes, doing nothing.

But don’t take my word for it.

President Obama was (and remains) quite outspoken as an alarmist on the issue of climate change, talking often about the impending crisis.

But the former Democratic President’s senior Department of Energy official, Stephen Koonin, has just come out with a most sensible and distinctly non-alarmist perspective. His recently published book, Unsettled, suggests the alarmist climate change narrative is unfounded.

Stephen Koonin served as Undersecretary of Energy in former U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration. A PhD Physicist, he is a smart guy.

Referencing materials from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – an organization that is widely viewed by governments and media as the single most important source for information on climate change – Koonin demonstrates that the science of climate change is anything but settled, and that we are not in, nor should we anticipate, a crisis.

In fact, despite decades of apocalyptic warnings there is in fact remarkably little knowledge of what might happen. Over the last 5 decades of apocalyptic warning, life on earth has dramatically improved as our management of countless environmental challenges has improved.

What the evidence really shows is that as the global economy improves, our ability to deal with whatever mother nature throws at us improves. On that point, Koonin draws attention to what the IPCC experts say about the possible economic impacts of possible climate change-induced temperature changes.

Koonin notes that, according to the IPCC, a temperature increase of 3 degrees centigrade by 2100 – which some scientists say might happen – might create some negative environmental effects, which in turn would cause an estimated 3% hit to the economy in 2100.

But even as it makes these claims, the IPCC further predicts that the economy, in 2100, will be several times the size of the economy today (unless, of course, we interfere with it as the Net Zero by 2050 crowd wants us to do).  In other words, a strategy of doing nothing may or may not mean a temperature increase, the effects of which if bad, are expected to represent a small economic hit to the economy, but that economy will be much, much larger.

In Koonin’s words, this “translates to a decrease in the annual growth rate by an average of 3 percent divided by 80, or about 0.04 percent per year. The IPCC scenarios…assume an average global annual growth rate of about 2 percent through 2100; the climate impact would then be a 0.04 percent decrease in that 2 percent growth rate, for a resulting growth rate of 1.96 percent. In other words, the U.N. report says that the economic impact of human-induced climate change is negligible, at most a bump in the road.”

So this doesn’t sound like a crisis to me. It sounds like a very modest reduction in extraordinary economic growth. So from extraordinary economic growth to slightly less extraordinary economic growth.

Why do I draw attention to this?

Because Canada is pursuing a Net Zero by 2050 target with a whole bunch of policies that will kill economic growth.

The IPCC predicts significant global economic growth without all the things Trudeau and other Net Zero by 2050 advocates are pursuing – massive carbon taxes, additional carbon taxes called clean fuel standards (CFS), building code changes that will make a new home unaffordable, huge subsidies for pet projects, etc. In other words, the IPCC predicts growth without crazy and wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars that will hurt citizens.

So why are we allowing Trudeau and co to pursue these things?

We don’t know the full costs of Net Zero by 2050, but every signal we have is that it is absurdly expensive. AND (thank you Stephen Koonin for making this explicitly clear) the International Panel on Climate Change says ignoring the Net Zero by 2050 target and doing nothing will mean a much bigger economy.

Prime Minister Trudeau and the activists won’t tell you that.

Nor will they acknowledge what the IPCC actually says.

Let’s all applaud Stephen Koonin for trying to do so.

Green activists are driving a radical agenda screaming at us that the science is settled. As courageous scientists like Stephen Koonin note, science is never settled and to say it is settled is irresponsible. The activists say we have to radically change our economy, but don’t tell us how much that will cost – but the IPCC tells us doing absolutely nothing would result in only slightly less economic growth than we would otherwise have.

Governments are spending massive sums of your money on Net Zero by 2050.

Corporate interests commit to this radical agenda and hide behind rhetoric of doing the right thing, while they also seek out government subsidies (which taxpayers will pay for) to meet their absurd Net Zero by 2050 commitments.

All of us, as consumers, will foot the bill.

And none of it needs to happen.


Click here for more articles from Dan McTeague of Canadians for Affordable energy

Dan McTeague | President, Canadians for Affordable Energy


An 18 year veteran of the House of Commons, Dan is widely known in both official languages for his tireless work on energy pricing and saving Canadians money through accurate price forecasts. His Parliamentary initiatives, aimed at helping Canadians cope with affordable energy costs, led to providing Canadians heating fuel rebates on at least two occasions.

Widely sought for his extensive work and knowledge in energy pricing, Dan continues to provide valuable insights to North American media and policy makers. He brings three decades of experience and proven efforts on behalf of consumers in both the private and public spheres. Dan is committed to improving energy affordability for Canadians and promoting the benefits we all share in having a strong and robust energy sector.

Continue Reading


Emmy Award Winning Journalist reveals how “fact checkers” punish ‘tone’ even when the facts check out

Published on

When one of media’s most successful journalists is constantly punished by Facebook Fact Checkers it makes for a compelling story all on it’s own.   Does a 19 time Emmy Award Winning Journalist not check his facts?  Well… turns out the facts aren’t the problem.  Enjoy some more revealing insight from John Stossel.

From StosselTV

Before Facebook censored it, my video, “Are We Doomed”, got more 24 million views. You can watch it here:… Now Facebook won’t show it to many people — not even to my subscribers. Facebook’s also punishing Stossel TV by showing our other videos less. All because Facebook foolishly gave Emmanuel Vincent, a recent PhD graduate from France, the power to censor. Vincent assembled a group of like-minded scientists into a group called Climate Feedback that declared parts of my video “misleading,” or “partially false.” What facts did the “fact-checkers” correct? NONE! There was not a single hard fact that in the video that was wrong. We address the censor’s claims here, listing our sources:… I asked one Vincent “reviewer,” the only one willing to be interviewed, why I deserve censorship even though our facts were correct.

After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom. Libertarian journalist John Stossel is a zealous advocate of free markets, a syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor. Prior to joining Fox, John co-anchored ABC’s primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20. Stossel’s economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, “Stossel in the Classroom.” High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year. Stossel has received 19 Emmy Awards and has been honored five times for excellence in consumer reporting by the National Press Club. Other honors include the George Polk Award for Outstanding Local Reporting and the George Foster Peabody Award.


Continue Reading

june, 2021

tue04may(may 4)4:57 pmwed30jun(jun 30)12:00 pmMove Your Mood Family Challenge (June)(may 4) 4:57 pm - (june 30) 12:00 pm