Connect with us

Opinion

Question; “Is City Council’s inconsistency a sign of preferential treatments?”

Published

3 minute read

A developer was denied a development, in Deer Park, because 15 people submitted concerns about an increase of traffic (18 cars) from 39 Street. There were concerns that if the development went to residences you might see 15 more cars in the area.

7 streets south is 32 Street, and the city is talking about increasing traffic by the thousands. I am talking about the city not extending Molly Bannister and making 32 Street 6 lanes. Submissions were submitted from almost 1800 people with the majority supporting the extension, and not increasing 32 Street into 6 lanes, and not increasing traffic by the thousands on 32 Street.

7 blocks apart, same Deer Park neighbourhood, 2 different developers, and 2 different trains of thought.

When considering 32 Street you heard condescending remarks, about it not being even close to Edmonton traffic, or the Deerfoot Trail.

When considering 39 Street, they talked about an accident, years ago and the intrusion of 18 cars on a neighbourhood.

The city’s politicians are considering restricting traffic flow by removing the Molly Bannister Extension even though the majority disagrees and their own planners recommend the Molly Bannister Extension.

There have been some discussions about this hypocrisy of city council, some using adjectives like erratic, weak, fearful, out-of-date, inconsistent and words about preferential treatment.

The downtown was brought up in this denial of development along 39 Street, but that point was mute when the developer announced he would thus move to the county.

The environmental corridor was mentioned in the supporting of expanding 32 Street, but that point is mute because the increasing traffic on 32 Street severs access to the northern sections by animals.

Staying with the environment, building 50 houses backing onto Piper Creek would restrict wildlife movement, and the lawns and non-native plants of homes would affect the environment along with all the fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides used on household landscapes.

I was asked if I thought the city would ever grow again or continue on this road of stagnation and decline. We worry so much about the downtown that we lose opportunities, business and growth.

We spend big money on experts but ignore it often for superficial and out-dated rationale.

1 development proposal denied because of 15 opposing submissions but another development proposal may be approved despite a 1,000 opposing submissions.  

No inconsistency here?  Must be the developer?

Political editor/writer and retired oilfield supervisor

Follow Author

COVID-19

Nurses vs. MLAs: A Real Solution

Published on

Nurses vs. MLAs: A Real Solution
Open Letter to Alberta MLAs
 
July 27, 2021
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Red Deer – Mountain View, AB
 
The Alberta government is calling for a 3% wage cut for nurses ($70,500 (average salary per ALIS) x 3% x 36,200 nurses = $76.56 million). Don Braid of the Calgary Herald is calling for Alberta MLAs to take a $22,000 wage cut (87 MLAs x $22,000 = $1.91 million). Unfortunately, neither of these options address the elephant in the room. Alberta will spend $23 billion on healthcare this fiscal year per Budget 2021.
 
Over the past year and a half, Albertans were forced to suspend their lives and lose their livelihoods under the guise of the common good and to protect our seemingly fragile healthcare system. If $23 billion dollars in annual spending does not secure our healthcare system against potential future threats, maybe it is time to stop accepting mediocrity and make some changes to the system.
 
Suggestions for your consideration:
 
  1. Immediately schedule a First Ministers conference (meeting between the premiers and the Prime Minister).
  2. Agree to repeal the Canada Health Act. According to the Canadian Constitution, healthcare is within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
  3. Funds needed to support provincial healthcare decisions would then be collected within each respective province instead of being received through the Canada Health Transfer.
  4. End the prohibition on private clinics and service providers which would generate competition, reduce wait times, decrease costs and ultimately provide better care for everyone.
 
Canadians have long triumphed our “free” healthcare system as being the best in the world. In reality, it is neither free nor the best. Embracing new ideas and private market solutions is the best way to improve our healthcare system for all Albertans. I for one, believe that Albertans deserve the best for their hard earned tax dollars. It’s time for a change, don’t you agree?
 
Sincerely,
 
Jared Pilon
Libertarian Party Candidate for Red Deer – Mountain View, AB
Continue Reading

Alberta

Referendum will help Albertans kickstart national conversation about unfair Equalization, Danielle Smith

Published on

This is an exert from a newsletter by Danielle Smith.  Click here to register to receive Danielle’s future newsletters.

Equalization referendum…

During the Stampede I met a pollster doing some polling on the equalization referendum in the fall. It has me worried. If the vote were held today there would be a lot of undecided. While it would likely still pass, we need the vote to be resounding so there can be no mistake how Albertans feel they are being treated.

For those of us who are diehard activists, voting “Yes” to remove equalization from the Constitution is a no brainer. When Brian Jean first proposed it I thought it was a waste of time. What’s is the point of having the province vote on a federal program? I initially thought.

Then Jean explained it to me in an interview and I thought the strategy was brilliant. By voting yes to delete a section of the Constitution it gets the ball rolling for a bigger conversation about Alberta’s role in Confederation. Under our parliamentary system – advised by court rulings and conventions – constitutional scholars say a “yes” vote will initiate a process that will unroll across the country. The federal government will be obligated to negotiate with Alberta in good faith and the other provincial legislatures will be compelled to consider a similar question in their provincial legislatures.

Here’s how it would work…
 
Here’s what could happen if we have a yes vote.

  1. The other provinces will be compelled to consider and vote on the issue. If there are 7 out of 10 representing 50 per cent of the population it will be removed from the Constitution.

Admittedly, this is an unlikely outcome. I think we could convince AB, BC, SK, ON and NF that we are all being similarly hosed under the existing equalization program, but how would you ever convince net recipients such as QC, NS, PEI, NB and MB? Still, it would get a national conversation going about why the net payers are so frustrated.

  1. If we don’t get others to agree, the principle of equalization stays in the Constitution, but we have a meaningful two-way dialogue about how it should be restructured, and that means designing it so QC no longer receives any money through the program from the rest of us.

I told you I went to the Fairness Alberta breakfast over the Stampede. Executive Director Bill Bewick is doing a terrific job digging into the numbers and explaining how absurd the entire program is.

Consider this: Newfoundland and Labrador is on the brink of bankruptcy and doesn’t qualify for equalization. Quebec has been running surpluses and paying down debt and they receive $10 billion from the program.

If I had my druthers, my starting point would be that only small provinces should be allowed to qualify for equalization. I think PEI has it particularly tough – attempting to run all the provincial programs that are available in other provinces with a population the size of Red Deer. Providing a top up for provinces in this situation is what the program should be all about. I want Islanders to have the same quality of health care, education, social services and infrastructure as we do.

But we need to be frank about this. The equalization formula has been manipulated and massaged mainly so federal politicians can give money to Quebec. Maybe it began with good intentions, as francophones began to assert themselves and their right to operate their businesses primarily in French and needed a hand up to catch up. Maybe it was justified when Quebeckers were sharply divided on whether it was worth it to stay in Canada, as evidenced by the 50-50 referendum result in 1995.

But today, it’s just taking advantage. In fact, it’s bordering on abuse.

Quebec is taking advantage of our goodwill…
 
Last week, Quebec’s Environment Minister Benoit Charette announced that Quebec would be rejecting a $14 billion project that would have seen GNL Quebec bring liquefied natural gas from Western Canada – principally Alberta – to Port Saguenay, Quebec so it could be exported on to Europe and Asia. Charette said it did not meet his standards for the environment:


“The promoter has not succeeded in demonstrating this, on the contrary,” he said, adding that the government is worried it would discourage natural gas buyers in Europe and Asia from moving to cleaner energy sources. “This is a project that has more disadvantages than advantages.”This is truly the last straw for me. If the Quebec government hates our energy industry this much and is actively working to destroy our natural gas industry I’m done with appeasement.

On the contrary, Minister…

Liquefied natural gas offers the best opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world. It is already “the cleaner burning fuel” as the ads used to say when I was growing up. It can easily replace coal in power plants and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in both China and India (which are adding coal-fired powerplants at a rate that dramatically exceeds the addition of wind and solar power everywhere in the world). Coupled with carbon capture and storage (underground) or utilization (for useful products including carbon nanofibre, concrete, industrial minerals, alcohol and ethylene) the greenhouse gas emissions problem can be solved. It is also going to be the base fuel for the new and emerging hydrogen economy, which will power all the heavy transportation we need to continue operating our global trade economy – marine vessels, trucks, trains, maybe even airplanes one day.

I am tired of placating the fantasy that our modern industrial economy is going to be powered by wind and solar and nothing else. Yes, hydrogen now offers a meaningful way for wind and solar to store the energy they produce, finally moving them towards being a reliable source of energy for our power grid. But once you’ve generated hydrogen at a wind or solar site, how do you transport it anywhere so it can be used for other purposes? The natural gas business can move it in pipelines. You can’t move hydrogen on powerlines.

But wind and solar are also not carbon neutral until concrete, steel, fibre glass, rare earth materials and transportation are carbon neutral. Wind and solar are not more environmentally friendly until they stop killing migratory birds and bats. Wind and solar are not environmentally neutral until we find a way to recycle them at the end of use (rather than dumping everything in a landfill).

If Quebec wants to interfere with the development of our resources, damage our economy and cost us jobs, I refuse to send them any more of our money. We cannot continue being economically hobbled by Quebec and damaged by federal government policy and expected to keep on shipping out dollars to Quebec. I would be delighted to see a financially independent, strong Quebec paying for their subsidized day care all on their own.

If they want to stand on their own two feet, bravo, let’s help them out. Let’s cut off the money pipeline.

Let’s help Quebec become financially independent…

Fairness Alberta has said three simple changes could cut the cost of the program in half and make sure Quebec is cut off almost entirely.

  1. Stop adjusting the program to increase expenditures with GDP growth. This just makes logical sense. As provinces get wealthier and develop more own-source revenue they should need fewer federal transfers.
  2. Adjust the payments to take into account inflation and different costs of delivering services in different provinces. It’s a lot more expensive to hire a nurse in Alberta than in PEI, for instance.
  3. Add four cents to Quebec hydro. Quebec subsidizes electricity rates which lowers the amount of revenues available to government. Imagine if Alberta sold oil and natural gas below market value and then asked Ottawa to make up the shortfall. It’s bananas.

None of this negotiation can happen unless Albertans send a strong message that they have had it with the status quo.

Voting yes in the referendum means you are voting to eliminate or renegotiate. Voting no means you are happy being treated as the doormat of Confederation. Vote yes and make sure to tell your neighbours and friends to also.

Because as Bill points out on his Fairness Alberta website, this particular program is only one way that extra money gets transferred out of Alberta. As of 2019, Alberta has transferred nearly $325 billion to the rest of the country. We have to start changing this. Equalization is just the start.

Continue Reading

july, 2021

thu15jul(jul 15)6:30 pmthu19aug(aug 19)6:30 pmPop-up Spray Parks6:30 pm - (august 19) 6:30 pm

Trending

X