Connect with us

Opinion

Election 2017, Advance Polls open this Saturday. North/South inequality a surprise to some but not all.

Published

17 minute read

The big issue facing the candidates in a multitude of ways is the North/South inequality in regards to investment, education, recreation, youth, air quality to name but a few. Some show doubts but will let me know that I was right.
I found out that 31% of the population of Red Deer live north of the river. A number that is significant because in 1985 40% lived north of the river.
Years ago the north side residents voted for a slate of north side candidates. We have 8 councillors and 1 mayor so we should have 3 members from the north but for many years we have had only 1, Frank Wong.
31% of the residents represent only 17.6% of the candidates.
Candidates living north of the river are:
Mayor: Sean Burke,
Councillors: Jason Habuza, Kris Maciborsky, Vesna Higham, Frank Wong, Sandra Bergeron, Matt Chapin, Bobbi McCoy
Public School Board: Bev Manning, Matt Chapin
Separate School Board; No Name.
Now if none of these names draw your fancy you might consider Tanya Handley which supports building the Aquatic Centre north of 11A to kick start development.
Michael Dawe for acknowledging the issue and putting their plight into words.
I cannot give a true picture of all 51 candidates. If we were a big city and was broken into 4 wards it would be easier to know your candidates and they would be more aware of the issues.
I am always surprised when candidates and even local residents are amazed after being apprised of the following information. They are not secrets, they are widely known in national news stories, human interest articles and polls, and used in marketing tools by other cities and corporations.
Remember 31% of Red Deer’s residents live north of the river and they have the G.H.Dawe Community Centre developed in the 70s and built in the 80s.
Two thirds of Red Deer’s residents live south of the river and they have the Downtown Recreation Centre, Michener Aquatic Centre, Downtown Arena, Centrium, 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. Tanya Handley says she will not support this as she thinks it should be built north of 11a.
North of 11a. Thousands of acres up for development, and a 100 acre lake.
I have been talking about Hazlett Lake. Red Deer’s largest lake, located north of the river, north of Hwy 11a because it is up for development. It is a diamond in the rough, with potential that is being ignored at our cost. Lethbridge turned a slough into a lake becoming Henderson Park, a tourist attraction and they were the 5th fastest growing city in Canada, and they are only slightly smaller than Red Deer now and could overtake Red Deer this year.
Red Deer has a lake that the current council wants to wrap with residential and industrial land. The city wants to spend a cool hundred million turning the downtown recreation centre into an aquatic centre. Why not build an Aquatic Centre on a lake? Highly visible from Hwy 2.
The Gary W. Harris centre will be visible from Hwy 2, as is the sports Hall of Fame, as is Hazlett Lake.
If Lethbridge can turn a slough into a tourist attraction why can’t Red Deer turn a lake into a tourist attraction.
Hazlett Lake is about the same distance from the Riverlands development as the Collicutt Centre is from the Riverlands.
The Collicutt Centre came about because the city decided that with 55,000 residents the city needed a 4th recreational centre. It also spurred development in the south east and now 60% of the residents use it.
The development north of 11a would bring the total population north of the river to 55,000 (if we stop the exodus of residents,) but there are no plans for a 2nd recreation centre let alone a 4th north of the river.
There is also no plan, no discussion to stem the outward migration in Red Deer. I sense that the bias against the north is so deep, so entrenched that they do not worry about it.
Lethbridge and Red Deer have similar size population in the same province. Lethbridge is the 5th fastest growing city in Canada and grew by almost 2% per year, while Red Deer shrank by 1% last year.
Lethbridge took a man made slough and turned it into a multi-faceted tourist attraction, while Red Deer will turn a lake into a residential subdivision.
So why I am I suggesting Lethbridge turned lead into gold and Red Deer might be turning gold into lead. Let us look at what Lethbridge did with a man-made slough then look at what Red Deer will do with a lake.
Henderson Lake Park Henderson Lake Park is one of Lethbridge’s premier parks featuring a 24 hectare (59 acre)man made lake, mature trees and groves, gardens, picnic shelters, playgrounds and over 7 km of trails.
Whether you’re a family with small children, an exercise or sports enthusiast, a non-motorized boating enthusiast, a fisherman, a horticulturists, or someone simply looking to get out for a walk this park is definitely for you.
The lake is perfect for kayaks, canoes and paddle boats alike and provides easy access to the water via the boat launch and dock. The dock is often used by fishermen looking to catch Pike, Perch or Whitefish (provincial fishing regulations apply).
For the nature, exercise, and history enthusiasts there is a 2.5 km trail around the lake and another 4.3 km trail around the perimeter of the park providing ample opportunity for one to stretch their legs, check out all of the local wildlife, or view the commemorative and historical markers and displays located throughout the park. There are also great little areas for you to put down a blanket and enjoy a good book, have a picnic or simply relax and watch the world as it goes by.
Henderson Park is also home to the Demonstration and Rose Gardens. The Rose Garden is located in the northwest corner of the park and commemorates 9/11. The Demonstration Gardens are located east of the Tennis Courts and celebrates the contributions of Communities in Bloom to the Community.
Henderson Park is surrounded by a multitude of facilities like the SLP Skate Park, Henderson Horseshoe Pits, the Henderson Lake Golf Course, the Henderson Outdoor Pool, Spitz Stadium, Henderson Park Ice Centre, Henderson Tennis Courts and Nikka Yuko Japanese Garden.
Henderson Park has something to offer absolutely everyone and there isn’t a day where you won’t see families, exercise enthusiasts, seniors, people out exercising their dogs, fishermen, boaters, golfers, and just about everyone else under the sun out enjoying this wonderful park. From the photographic opportunities to the areas for quiet solitude and reflection to the exuberant playgrounds, to the trail system that is linked to the rest of the south side, this park is sure to meet everyone’s needs.
Hazlett Lake Park?
Remember, Hazlett Lake is a natural lake that covers a surface area of 0.45 km2 (0.17 mi2), has an average depth of 3 meters (10 feet). Hazlett Lake has a total shore line of 4 kilometers (2 miles). It is 44 Ha. (108.8 acres) in size. Located in the north-west sector of Red Deer.
Currently on the NADG.com website we will see a residential community around Hazlett Lake. Encompassing about 12 percent of the land north of 11A currently up for development. Phase I will be home to 5,000 residents with the nearest high school on the other side of city on the east end. A K-8 school site to be located north-east of Hazlett Lake currently planned for a later phase.
On nadg.com:
“Hazlett Lake is a 350-acre master planned residential community located in North Red Deer at the intersection of Alberta’s busiest Highway -QE2 and Highway 11A. The community will consist of over 2000 new residential units and will be Phase 1 of Red Deer’s North of 11A Major Area Structural Plan. Additionally, this development will be the first new housing project in North Red Deer in 10 years”
Red Deer also wants to build an Aquatic Centre, and the current plan is to demolish the downtown rec centre and build it there. The Collicutt Centre was built in the south east corner of Red Deer, helped to kick start development. Why not build the Aquatic Centre in the north west corner, kick starting development and build it on Hazlett Lake and create a tourist industry?
An Aquatic Centre on a lake, ludicrous right? A tourist destination highly visible to one of the busiest highways in Canada, insane right? 2 miles of shoreline may have room for a beach, impossible right? The current plans in Red Deer indicates some trails, a small community building with some historical placards, possibly a bathroom and a playground.
Not quite Henderson Lake Park, tourist attraction, is it?
To me Red Deer has a gold mine of an opportunity that will be ignored at the expense of the citizens of Red Deer. Do you agree?

Johnstone Park, saw their planned school go to Inlewood. The city said the neighbourhood was not developed enough for a school, as compared to our new high school sitting in an empty neighbourhood.
Recently, the province stepped up and provided funding for the expansion on St. Patrick’s school in Highland Green, just north of the river. The school’s enrolment was 30% over capacity, a kindergarten class was being taught in a hallway, and students and families were paying the price.
There has not been a school built north of the river since 1985, perhaps that could explain why some schools are at 130% capacity and classes are held in hallways. There is no high schools north of the river, even though up to 40% of the population resided there. Could be why 777 more residents moved out of the north side and out of the city than moved into the area. Remember there are 4 high schools south of the river with 2 more planned. There are no high schools planned for the north side of the river even with thousands of acres north of 11a coming up for development and 25,000 more residents planned.
The Ministry of Education says they follow the direction of the local school boards.
What do the school board trustees, past and present have to say?
Public School Board incumbent and candidate, Dianne Macaulay had this to say;
“We have a variety of measures that can help the board determine growth in our schools. One is a system our district has been using for years call Baragard. This projects population demographics to help us determine possible new boundary’s when schools become full or when we are submitting our three year capital plan to the government for new schools needed. I can only answer your question regarding the building of schools.

The city is ultimately responsible for the placement of development including schools.

Some green spaces will have a sign indicating “This is a potential site of a public or separate school”. This can give people that are thinking about moving into that neighbourhood a heads up . But it doesn’t mean a school WILL be built.
Our latest school Don Campbell was needed but the government only gave us 3 month to determine a site. The city will not allow a school to be built unless the surrounding area is developed. So even thou a school may have been better off in another location , we only had sites on that end of the city that were currently developed
Lets talk about about the current high school project.
This was a massive joint project between Red Deer Public , Red Deer Catholic, the Francophone district and the city. The original plan was to build a joint use high school for all 3 boards. This would be a one of kind in Alberta and a large amount of space was needed for this so the city choose where it had the most to give at the time. Over 14 months of planning went into this and in the end the Bishop vetoed it because Alberta Catholic School Trustee Associations Convenant indicating their belief in how having Catholic and non catholic students together will take away from their Catholic teachings.
So now we have this huge area where will just be 2 or 3 different buildings. This has not saved tax payers one cent! I guess to sum up Garfield , we do look at the population growth and we try to build where the students will be. But sometimes our hands are tied.”

Angela Sommers, a Public School Board candidate says one of the biggest issues is the north/south inequality across schools, “just being north of the river, you can see there’s very little money for the students in the north.” Red Deer Advocate September 28 2017.

Advance polls open on Saturday, September 30, so I am offering you something to remember.

Follow Author

Economy

Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Ross McKitrick

Many Canadians are unhappy about the carbon tax. Proponents argue it’s the cheapest way to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which is true, but the problem for the government is that even as the tax hits the upper limit of what people are willing to pay, emissions haven’t fallen nearly enough to meet the federal target of at least 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Indeed, since the temporary 2020 COVID-era drop, national GHG emissions have been rising, in part due to rapid population growth.

The carbon tax, however, is only part of the federal GHG plan. In a new study published by the Fraser Institute, I present a detailed discussion of the Trudeau government’s proposed Emission Reduction Plan (ERP), including its economic impacts and the likely GHG reduction effects. The bottom line is that the package as a whole is so harmful to the economy it’s unlikely to be implemented, and it still wouldn’t reach the GHG goal even if it were.

Simply put, the government has failed to provide a detailed economic assessment of its ERP, offering instead only a superficial and flawed rationale that overstates the benefits and waives away the costs. My study presents a comprehensive analysis of the proposed policy package and uses a peer-reviewed macroeconomic model to estimate its economic and environmental effects.

The Emissions Reduction Plan can be broken down into three components: the carbon tax, the Clean Fuels Regulation (CFR) and the regulatory measures. The latter category includes a long list including the electric vehicle mandate, carbon capture system tax credits, restrictions on fertilizer use in agriculture, methane reduction targets and an overall emissions cap in the oil and gas industry, new emission limits for the electricity sector, new building and motor vehicle energy efficiency mandates and many other such instruments. The regulatory measures tend to have high upfront costs and limited short-term effects so they carry relatively high marginal costs of emission reductions.

The cheapest part of the package is the carbon tax. I estimate it will get 2030 emissions down by about 18 per cent compared to where they otherwise would be, returning them approximately to 2020 levels. The CFR brings them down a further 6 per cent relative to their base case levels and the regulatory measures bring them down another 2.5 per cent, for a cumulative reduction of 26.5 per cent below the base case 2030 level, which is just under 60 per cent of the way to the government’s target.

However, the costs of the various components are not the same.

The carbon tax reduces emissions at an initial average cost of about $290 per tonne, falling to just under $230 per tonne by 2030. This is on par with the federal government’s estimate of the social costs of GHG emissions, which rise from about $250 to $290 per tonne over the present decade. While I argue that these social cost estimates are exaggerated, even if we take them at face value, they imply that while the carbon tax policy passes a cost-benefit test the rest of the ERP does not because the per-tonne abatement costs are much higher. The CFR roughly doubles the cost per tonne of GHG reductions; adding in the regulatory measures approximately triples them.

The economic impacts are easiest to understand by translating these costs into per-worker terms. I estimate that the annual cost per worker of the carbon-pricing system net of rebates, accounting for indirect effects such as higher consumer costs and lower real wages, works out to $1,302 as of 2030. Adding in the government’s Clean Fuels Regulations more than doubles that to $3,550 and adding in the other regulatory measures increases it further to $6,700.

The policy package also reduces total employment. The carbon tax results in an estimated 57,000 fewer jobs as of 2030, the Clean Fuels Regulation increases job losses to 94,000 and the regulatory measures increases losses to 164,000 jobs. Claims by the federal government that the ERP presents new opportunities for jobs and employment in Canada are unsupported by proper analysis.

The regional impacts vary. While the energy-producing provinces (especially Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick) fare poorly, Ontario ends up bearing the largest relative costs. Ontario is a large energy user, and the CFR and other regulatory measures have strongly negative impacts on Ontario’s manufacturing base and consumer wellbeing.

Canada’s stagnant income and output levels are matters of serious policy concern. The Trudeau government has signalled it wants to fix this, but its climate plan will make the situation worse. Unfortunately, rather than seeking a proper mandate for the ERP by giving the public an honest account of the costs, the government has instead offered vague and unsupported claims that the decarbonization agenda will benefit the economy. This is untrue. And as the real costs become more and more apparent, I think it unlikely Canadians will tolerate the plan’s continued implementation.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

To understand Ottawa’s negative impact on Alberta’s economy and living standards, juxtapose two recent pieces of data.

First, in July the Trudeau government made three separate “economic development” spending announcements in  Alberta, totalling more than $80 million and affecting 37 different projects related to the “green economy,” clean technology and agriculture. And second, as noted in a new essay by Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential structures) in Canada’s extraction sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) fell 51.2 per cent from 2014 to 2022.

The productivity gains that raise living standards and improve economic conditions rely on business investment. But business investment in Canada has declined over the past decade and total economic growth per person (inflation-adjusted) from Q3-2015 through to Q1-2024 has been less than 1 per cent versus robust growth of nearly 16 per cent in the United States over the same period.

For Canada’s extraction sector, as Green documents, federal policies—new fuel regulations, extended review processes on major infrastructure projects, an effective ban on oil shipments on British Columbia’s northern coast, a hard greenhouse gas emissions cap targeting oil and gas, and other regulatory initiatives—are largely to blame for the massive decline in investment.

Meanwhile, as Ottawa impedes private investment, its latest bundle of economic development announcements underscores its strategy to have government take the lead in allocating economic resources, whether for infrastructure and public institutions or for corporate welfare to private companies.

Consider these federally-subsidized projects.

A gas cloud imaging company received $4.1 million from taxpayers to expand marketing, operations and product development. The Battery Metals Association of Canada received $850,000 to “support growth of the battery metals sector in Western Canada by enhancing collaboration and education stakeholders.” A food manufacturer in Lethbridge received $5.2 million to increase production of plant-based protein products. Ermineskin Cree Nation received nearly $400,000 for a feasibility study for a new solar farm. The Town of Coronation received almost $900,000 to renovate and retrofit two buildings into a business incubator. The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada received $400,000 for marketing and other support to help boost clean technology product exports. And so on.

When the Trudeau government announced all this corporate welfare and spending, it naturally claimed it create economic growth and good jobs. But corporate welfare doesn’t create growth and good jobs, it only directs resources (including labour) to subsidized sectors and businesses and away from sectors and businesses that must be more heavily taxed to support the subsidies. The effect of government initiatives that reduce private investment and replace it with government spending is a net economic loss.

As 20th-century business and economics journalist Henry Hazlitt put it, the case for government directing investment (instead of the private sector) relies on politicians and bureaucrats—who did not earn the money and to whom the money does not belong—investing that money wisely and with almost perfect foresight. Of course, that’s preposterous.

Alas, this replacement of private-sector investment with public spending is happening not only in Alberta but across Canada today due to the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies. Lower productivity and lower living standards, the data show, are the unhappy results.

Continue Reading

Trending

X