Connect with us

Opinion

Red Deer gets $49.2 million to design and expand wastewater treatment plant for 2026. Could we look at options?

Published

2 minute read

The province of Alberta is giving the city of Red Deer $49.2 million to upgrade their wastewater treatment plant. To handle the wastewater created throughout the region.
This is a multi-year multi-faceted project that will culminate in treating 72,000 cubic metres of waste daily in 2026. That is a lot of water being pumped into the river in one spot.
There will be years in the planning and designing stage before construction begins. Is there any room in that schedule to contemplate a small turbine or two to produce electricity? Is it at all possible to ask experts if it is possible to divert some of that water to run a hydro-electric turbine to produce electricity to some extent, possibly enough to run a pump or a few lights?
Turbines are about 8 times more efficient now than they were a few years ago, how efficient could they be in 7 years?
Portland installed turbines in their water pipes to produce electricity, so I am sure they asked the experts, got a feasibility study, studied the cost/benefit analysis before proceeding.
Will Red Deer even consider asking the experts? No, they asked once, years ago, it wasn’t feasible then so it is not feasible now, no matter how far they have come in efficiencies and costs. End of story. How sad.
I just thought the city could look at future cost savings, perhaps reduce their reliance on non-renewable resources, and look at possible options to get the greatest return on this generous gift from the province. That may be too much to ask.
But I am asking. What do you say?

Follow Author

International

Taiwan Criticizes CBC Correction on United Front Buddhist Land Story, Citing PRC Political Pressure

Published on

Taiwan’s Foreign Ministry warns that CBC’s editorial change “undermines the essence of press freedom” and reflects growing Chinese pressure on international media.

Canada’s state broadcaster, CBC, is facing diplomatic criticism from Taiwan after issuing a controversial correction to an explosive story regarding Chinese influence via foreign investment in Prince Edward Island—raising new questions about whether Chinese government pressure is compromising Canadian press freedom and influencing media coverage of foreign interference.

On June 14, CBC/Radio-Canada published a report on alleged ties between Bliss and Wisdom, a Buddhist group with growing land holdings on Prince Edward Island, and the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work Department. The report—based in part on findings from The Bureau’s contributor Garry Clement—noted deep concerns from PEI residents about the group’s agricultural land acquisitions and its alleged links to Beijing, including its reported advocacy for China’s annexation of Taiwan.

It highlighted a high-ranking monk from Taiwan who traveled “between his home country, Prince Edward Island, and China” in 2023 for ideological outreach, at the invitation of a Buddhist organization affiliated with the United Front Work Department—the Chinese Communist Party’s covert foreign interference arm.

But on June 17, CBC issued a correction: “In that story, the reporter said Taiwan is a country that China is threatening to invade. In fact, Taiwan is a self-governing island, and there is dispute around who controls it.” No explanation was provided for the change.

That revision quickly sparked backlash in Taipei. In a statement to Taiwan News, Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) said it was “regretful and disappointed” to see international media “engage in self-censorship or deliberately avoid using the term ‘country’ to refer to Taiwan due to political pressure from China or concerns about Beijing’s stance.” MOFA reportedly reiterated that Taiwan “is a sovereign and independent country, and is not subordinate to the People’s Republic of China,” and urged foreign media to uphold “objectivity and fairness,” warning that compromise on coverage “undermines the essence of press freedom” and distorts Taiwan’s international status.

CBC did not respond to a request for comment from Taiwan News.

CBC is funded by the federal government and mandated by the Broadcasting Act to serve the public interest with independence, journalistic integrity, and balanced coverage. Taiwan’s concerns, delivered through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, suggest a de facto state-to-state issue.

The CBC correction was also flagged Thursday by Canadian diaspora advocacy group Friends of Hong Kong, which has documented suspected United Front influence in Canada, including media pressure campaigns. “So disappointing for Canadian media: this is a politically-charged correction, due to either self-censorship or external intervention, and wilfully blind to the reality of #Taiwan the island state,” the group posted to X, calling attention to CBC’s correction notice.

The controversial CBC report was informed by a parallel investigation led by Garry Clement—a former RCMP proceeds-of-crime director—along with former CSIS Asia-Pacific chief Michel Juneau-Katsuya and publisher Dean Baxendale. The three co-authors of the forthcoming book Canada Under Siege spent the past year examining Bliss and Wisdom’s land acquisitions, foreign financial inflows, and political influence on Prince Edward Island. In his column for The Bureau, Clement warned that the RCMP’s refusal to investigate the group reflects “a chilling portrait of political complacency” and asserted that Canadian democracy is being degraded not by coups or force, but by “the quiet neglect of responsibility.”

CBC has not acknowledged external pressure behind the correction, but The Bureau has previously documented similar interference. In November 2024, China’s Consul General Yang Shu directly pressured Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim after he invited Taiwan’s representative to a civic luncheon, stating: “This was inappropriate… The Consulate General of the People’s Republic of China is the only consular mission representing China in Vancouver.” The PRC expressed dissatisfaction with the participation of Taiwan’s envoy in the B.C. Consular Corps luncheon—despite established diplomatic practice allowing their attendance.

Given this backdrop, it is plausible—though not confirmed—that CBC received similar behind-the-scenes pressure following its original PEI report.

That concern finds further grounding in evidence tabled before Canada’s Hogue Commission and leaked intelligence reviewed by The Bureau.

A leaked October 2022 CSIS report analyzed by The Bureau found that China’s election interference and political influence in Canada have been enabled by Beijing’s covert “takeover” of Chinese-language media, along with sophisticated, massively funded schemes targeting mainstream outlets and seeking to control “key media entities,” according to intelligence documents.

These clandestine operations have involved threats against journalists, the documents state, as well as inducements—such as benefits offered by Vancouver’s Chinese Consulate to cultivate “key editors, producers, and high-ranking managers.”

Among the declassified top-secret records presented to the Hogue Commission by diaspora-group participant Gabriel Yiu is a July 2023 Canadian intelligence report titled “CHINA: Domination of Chinese-Language Media in Canada Poses National Security Threats.” The document details systemic Chinese Communist Party influence over Chinese-language media outlets in Canada.

“Communist Party of China (CPC)-friendly narratives inundate Chinese-language media in Canada,” it says. “Censorship (including self-censorship) is pervasive, and alternative voices are few or marginalized in mainstream Chinese-language media. This includes both traditional media, such as newspapers, and digital platforms like WeChat.”

In a column for The Bureau, Yiu wrote, “I believe the Canadian intelligence agency’s assessment is accurate. From my own experience as a commentator since the 1990s, I have observed these shifts.” He also underscored key excerpts from the CSIS report:

  • “The CPC’s strategy to control media operates on two fronts: narrative control and platform control. [redacted] overt and clandestine.”
  • “The CPC limits opportunities for dissenting voices [redacted], provides economic incentives [redacted], and fosters self-censorship [redacted].”
  • “The CPC’s influence on Chinese-language media, shaping public opinion overseas, also supports other activities, including transnational repression and influencing electoral outcomes.”

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Christopher Rufo

The “No Kings” Protest Is Pure Fantasy

Published on

Christopher F. Rufo Christopher F. Rufo

The underlying theory is that Donald Trump is an authoritarian leader on the cusp of becoming king.

I spent Father’s Day weekend in Hood River, Oregon, and stumbled upon the local “No Kings” anti-Trump protest. The crowd was populated mostly by Baby Boomers, who appeared to be living out a political fantasy, in which they could “stop fascism” by reenacting the protest movements of their youth. One sign, typical of the genre, derided Trump as a “felon, rapist, con man”; another riffed on Mary Poppins, reading “super callous, fragile, racist, sexist, Nazi POTUS.”

The underlying theory of this protest, which reportedly drew upward of 5 million demonstrators nationwide, is that Donald Trump is an authoritarian leader on the cusp of becoming king. The only way to stop him is to flood the streets and persuade the American people that Trump is a rotten character with despotic ambitions.

The theory, of course, is nonsense. Trump is a duly elected president. He is working with Congress on the budget. His deportation policy, which lent momentum to the weekend’s demonstrations, is predicated on enforcing existing law. Though President Trump contested the results of his first reelection campaign, he ultimately relented and peacefully transferred power to President Joe Biden—hardly the behavior of a tyrant.

Yet the protests are not without utility for the Left. They are not intended to grapple with the reality of the Trump presidency but to submerge reality in fantasy. The first step in entrenching the Left’s fictions in the public mind is to cultivate a sense of hysteria. In the president’s first term, crowds wore vagina-shaped hats and marched in the bitter cold. The tone of the “No Kings” protest was no less absurd, with women in Handmaid’s Tale costumes warning that Trump would reduce them to sex slaves.

The next step is to turn public energy into a threat. As seen in Los Angeles earlier this month, the Left’s more aggressive factions can operate alongside “mostly peaceful protests,” aiming to provoke law enforcement into overreacting. During Trump’s first term, leftist activists often played a double game—promoting “nonviolent” demonstrations for women’s rights or racial justice while allowing more confrontational elements to intimidate Trump supporters.

This time, immigration is the flash point. Trump has tied his presidency to mass deportations. The Left believes it can stop him by carefully shaping public opinion. That means highlighting emotional—if sometimes misleading—stories of deportation victims and sympathetic portrayals of protesters clashing with National Guard troops. These narratives are designed to paint Trump as an authoritarian and the Left as the resistance, with the aim of driving his approval ratings low enough to weaken his presidency.

The irony is that Trump does not have the power of a king—or, arguably, even the full power of the presidency, as established in Article II of the Constitution. District courts have blocked many of his policies down to the most minute detail, sometimes within hours of their adoption. A federal judge even prohibited the administration from removing gender-related content from government websites.

At the Hood River protest, I noticed a generational divide. The Baby Boomers were the most gullible, engaging in 1960s protest nostalgia and genuinely believing that America was under threat of incipient fascism. The younger generation, which came to political consciousness during the Trump era, seemed more skeptical. At the edge of the protest, I saw a group of teenage boys holding signs that read “Ban Onions” and “Ban Scratchy Blankets.” They seemed to see through the fiction of “No Kings,” viewing left-wing Baby Boomers, rather than Trump, as the rightful targets of satire and rebellion.

I hope that this attitude prevails. For 60 years, the Boomers have held a grip on the American political narrative; it has not been a story that conduced to national well-being. America elected Trump, in part, to demolish the remaining fantasies of the 1968 generation. Yes, no kings—and no more lies.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy Christopher F. Rufo, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Trending

X