Connect with us

Opinion

December 2019 progress report on Red Deer Air Quality, Are we serious about this?

Published

5 minute read

The fine particulate issue has been plaguing Red Deer for a decade. CBC did a story on Sept 9 2015 describing Red Deer’s air quality as the worst in Alberta which has the distinction of being the worst in Canada. A committee was established. This is part of their update.

December 2019

The Red Deer Fine Particulate Matter Implementation Progress Report (the report) provides an update on
the state of the management actions for fine particulate matter management in the Red Deer area. Alberta
Environment and Parks, and members of the Red Deer Air Quality Advisory Committee (the Advisory
Committee) developed three priority objectives to implement management actions to reduce fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) levels in the Red Deer Air Management Area. This report, therefore, presents highlights of
the progress of the Advisory Committee and its represented stakeholders have made in implementing the
Red Deer Fine Particulate Matter Response (the response).

The Red Deer area exceeded both the Canada-wide Standards (CWS) and the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). In 2015 the Advisory Committee was
established and charged with working to reduce the ambient levels of PM2.5 in the Red Deer Air Quality Management Area by implementing a management response. The response was released in April 2016 for implementation over 15 years.

The response contains three objectives: Action, Investigation, and
Engagement. Each objective contains management actions that the Advisory Committee can implement in
three phases: Phase 1, ending December 2020; Phase 2, ending December 2025; and Phase 3, ending
December 2030.

Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the efforts to implement the response within the three
priority objectives that have informed the activities of Alberta Environment and Parks and the multistakeholder group to date. The three objectives are: Objective 1 (Action), Objective 2 (Investigation), and Objective 3 (Engagement).
The response is currently in Phase 1 of implementation (2015 – 2020). This report highlights the progress made since the implementation of the response in 2016, any additional priorities identified, actions to achieve by the conclusion of Phase 1 (in 2020), and the context that informs the path forward. For more
information on these objectives, please refer to the response. The goal of the response is to reduce ambient fine particulate matter concentrations and remain below the CAAQS, as measured at ambient air quality monitoring stations within the Red Deer Air Quality Management Area.

The science report identified transportation as a major source of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and VOCs. Transportation related sources release these gasses and in turn lead to the formation of secondary PM2.5 in Red Deer. Additional investigation, specifically Provincial Air Quality Photochemical Modelling 4 continues to highlight transportation-related sources as a significant contributor to emissions that result in the formation of PM2.5. Transportation related sources include on-road and off-road sources. A wide range
of vehicles, engines and equipment types including personal and commercial vehicles, and combustion driven lawn and garden equipment contribute to transportation related emissions. Transportation related sources are concentrated near population centers.

There is more to this report but I would like to respond.

We all know that the city is trying, greening the fleet, idle-free zones, LED bulbs etc. but there are those who believe that air quality is not that important.

For example; Don’t idle but do drive 4 extra kilometres and 6 minutes longer through residential neighbourhoods and school zones. I am talking about the immediate pressing issue of the Molly Banister Extension.

We have discussed the economic costs of not extending Molly Banister with widening roads, traffic circles, pedestrian bridges and other secondary roads. We talked about business commitments to Bower Mall and south west businesses being overturned. We talked about building 6 lane roads through residential areas and school playgrounds.

We talked about building a bridge over a creek in a cow pasture that has been fenced preventing access to pedestrians and wildlife for decades.

Now we shall talk about air quality.

Thousands of cars driving 4 extra kilometres and 6 extra minutes everyday, 3,000 x 4 x 365 =4,380,000 kms per year and that is a minimal estimate. 23,500 cars per day on 32 Street servicing many neighbourhoods along 32 St. and also along 22 St.

We are talking about bridging the Piper Creek for vehicular traffic to reduce commuting.

Less commuting. Less emissions. Better air quality. Is that not the goal?

 

 

Follow Author

National

Democracy Watch Renews Push for Independent Prosecutor in SNC-Lavalin Case

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Group says Ontario Crown used “clearly incorrect” legal test to shield Trudeau from private prosecution, calls for independent process free of political ties

Democracy Watch has launched a fresh bid to reopen the door to prosecuting former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over his alleged role in the 2018 SNC-Lavalin affair, accusing Ontario Crown Counsel of using a legally flawed standard to shut down its private prosecution and continuing what it calls “a smelly cover-up” that began under the Trudeau government.

Read the full press release here

In a new letter sent Wednesday to Ontario Attorney General Doug Downey and Randy Schwartz, the province’s Assistant Deputy Attorney General for Criminal Law, the non-partisan watchdog group is again calling for an independent special prosecutor to review evidence that Trudeau obstructed justice and breached public trust by pressuring then–Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to intervene in the SNC-Lavalin prosecution seven years ago.

This latest appeal comes after Ontario’s Director of the Complex Prosecutions Bureau, John Corelli, used his authority in September to halt Democracy Watch’s private prosecution before it reached a preliminary “pre-enquête” hearing. In that letter, Corelli said there was “no reasonable prospect the Crown could prove that Mr. Trudeau acted with the requisite criminal intent.”

Democracy Watch disputes that reasoning, arguing it misstates the law.

“Crown prosecutors stopping this prosecution for a legally incorrect reason, just like the RCMP did in addition to suppressing key evidence, amounts to a smelly cover-up,” said Duff Conacher, the group’s co-founder and legal expert. “It shows clearly that Canada does not have independent, effective anti-corruption law enforcement and, as a result, corruption in the highest public offices across the country is effectively legal.”

The group’s new letter marks the second time it has asked Ontario’s Attorney General to intervene. In its first request in March, Democracy Watch urged Downey to establish a non-partisan selection committee to appoint a special prosecutor. Downey’s office declined that request in May.

Now, the group is reiterating the demand, saying the independent prosecutor should be chosen by a committee composed of people with no party ties, working alongside opposition leaders, to ensure public confidence in the process.

Conacher’s team argues that Corelli’s reasoning — that the Crown cannot prove Trudeau acted with “criminal intent” — applies the wrong legal test. In its filings, Democracy Watch cites the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Beaudry (2007), which clarified that obstruction of justice requires only that an act be done “willfully” to frustrate the course of justice — not that it be done with corrupt or deceitful intent.

“The Supreme Court has already set the threshold,” Conacher said. “Proof of ‘criminal’ intent isn’t required. It’s enough that someone acted willfully to obstruct the process. That’s what the Crown ignored.”

The group also says that the case against Trudeau is unprecedented and cannot be dismissed out of hand without judicial review. It accuses the RCMP of conducting a “negligently weak and incomplete investigation” that left key questions unanswered and accepted the government’s refusal to release Cabinet records from the time.

Democracy Watch’s original filing included testimony and documents obtained from the RCMP after a two-year access battle. It alleges that the Mounties failed to interview key witnesses, including Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff Jessica Prince and former Liberal minister Jane Philpott, and withheld portions of their answers in documents finally disclosed. The proposed pre-enquête hearing — which Corelli stopped — would have allowed those witnesses to testify under oath and allowed a judge to decide if the evidence was sufficient to proceed.

The group’s case was supported by Wayne Crookes, founder of Integrity B.C., and represented by Jen Danch of Swadron Associates law firm.

Conacher is now urging Ontario’s Attorney General to “do the right thing” and reverse course.

“Canadians can only hope Ontario’s Attorney General will work with opposition party leaders to establish a fully independent committee that will choose a fully independent special prosecutor to review the evidence,” Conacher said.

He also renewed his call for structural reform of Canada’s anti-corruption enforcement, noting that Quebec’s independent anti-corruption police and prosecution units (UPAC) have operated since 2011, while the RCMP remains under the direct control of Cabinet appointees.

“The RCMP lacks independence from the Prime Minister and Cabinet ministers who handpick its leadership,” Conacher said. “They serve at the pleasure of the government, so they are vulnerable to political interference. To ensure integrity, Canada needs a fully independent anti-corruption police force and independent prosecutors.”

Democracy Watch’s campaign underscores a broader concern that the Trudeau-era SNC-Lavalin controversy, which saw Wilson-Raybould’s resignation, Philpott’s exit, and an Ethics Commissioner finding of improper political pressure, has never been subjected to a full criminal review.

For Conacher, the issue is bigger than one case. It’s about restoring the principle that no one, not even a Prime Minister, stands above the law.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Over two thirds of Canadians say Ottawa should reduce size of federal bureaucracy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

From 2015 to 2024, headcount at Natural Resources Canada increased 39 per cent even though employment in Canada’s natural resources sector actually fell one per cent. Similarly, there was 382 per cent headcount growth at the federal department for Women and Gender Equality—obviously far higher than the actual growth in Canada’s female population.

According to a recent poll, there’s widespread support among Canadians for reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy. The support extends across the political spectrum. Among the political right, 82.8 per cent agree to reduce the federal bureaucracy compared to only 5.8 per cent who disagree (with the balance neither agreeing nor disagreeing); among political moderates 68.4 per cent agree and only 10.0 per cent disagree; and among the political left 44.8 per cent agree and 26.3 per cent disagree.

Taken together, “67 per cent agreed the federal bureaucracy should be significantly reduced. Only 12 per cent disagreed.” These results shouldn’t be surprising. The federal bureaucracy is ripe for cuts. From 2015 to 2024, the federal government added more than 110,000 new bureaucrats, a 43 per cent increase, which was nearly triple the rate of population growth.

This bureaucratic expansion was totally unjustified. From 2015 to 2024, headcount at Natural Resources Canada increased 39 per cent even though employment in Canada’s natural resources sector actually fell one per cent. Similarly, there was 382 per cent headcount growth at the federal department for Women and Gender Equality—obviously far higher than the actual growth in Canada’s female population. And there are many similar examples.

While in 2025 the number of federal public service jobs fell by three per cent, the cost of the federal bureaucracy actually increased as the number of fulltime equivalents, which accounts for whether those jobs were fulltime or part-time, went up. With the tax burden created by the federal bureaucracy rising so significantly in the past decade, it’s no wonder Canadians overwhelmingly support its reduction.

Another interesting poll result: “While 42 per cent of those surveyed supported the government using artificial intelligence tools to resolve bottlenecks in service delivery, 32 per cent opposed it, with 25 per cent on the fence.” The authors of the poll say the “plurality in favour is surprising, given the novelty of the technology.”

Yet if 67 per cent of Canadians agree with significantly shrinking the federal bureaucracy, then solid support for using AI to increasing efficiency should not be too surprising, even if the technology is relatively new. Separate research finds 58 per cent of Canadian workers say they use AI tools provided by their workplace, and although many of them do not necessarily use AI regularly, of those who report using AI the majority say it improves their productivity.

In fact, there’s massive potential for the government to leverage AI to increase efficiency and control labour expenses. According to a recent study by a think-tank at Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly known as Ryerson), while the federal public service and the overall Canadian workforce are similar in terms of the percentage of roles that could be made more productive by AI, federal employees were twice as likely (58 per cent versus 29 per cent) to have jobs “comprised of tasks that are more likely to be substituted or replaced” by AI.

The opportunity to improve public service efficiency and deliver massive savings to taxpayers is clearly there. However, whether the Carney government will take advantage of this opportunity is questionable. Unlike private businesses, which must continuously innovate and improve operational efficiency to compete in a free market, federal bureaucracies face no competition. As a result, there’s little pressure or incentive to reduce costs and increase efficiency, whether through AI or other process or organizational improvements.

In its upcoming budget and beyond, it would be a shame if the federal government does not, through AI or other changes, restrain the cost of its workforce. Taxpayers deserve, and clearly demand, a break from this ever-increasing burden.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X