Opinion
City Council voted to remove Molly Bannister Extension because 58%-42% was too close.
THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of people have made their positions clear. 58% said keep the Molly Bannister Extension and 42% said remove it.
Several councillors said it was too close to call. Quebec would have separated from Canada with 50%+1 vote. Councillor Lee asked for a plebiscite to get a clear number. The Red Deer Advocate did a poll and got the same ratio, again.
The City’s Mayor recused herself because she has a pecuniary interest, good for her. I think there should have been others follow suit after receiving a gift or donation from the developer in the past.
The end of the day, council voted to remove the road allowance and let it go to a public hearing. After thirty years, many votes, hearings, public meetings and thousands of responses even from the college asking that the connection remain it is going to another hearing on October 28.

This appears to be a desperation move to keep the game going until they get the score they need.
They know Sunnybrook is getting hammered by the traffic on 40Ave and by 32 St. which will be expanded to 6 lanes by 2026. Now they are talking about giving the new subdivision of approximately 2,000 residents another exit through Sunnybrook to 32 St. Councillor Handley mentioned it.
Bower subdivision doesn’t want the Molly Bannister Extension because of traffic for a couple of dozen homes on Molly Bannister. The rest of Bower will be on the other side of Bower Mall. The residents on the south side will be hammered by the increased traffic on 19 Street.
Hundreds and hundreds of homes will be getting hit by traffic increases all along 32 St. 19 St. and 40 Ave.
The traffic is bad now and the city has only increased in population by 195 people in five years. We are talking about in the future when our population hits 188,000 then more.
Red Deer College will be a University with a much larger student population traveling to the University on 32 St.
2 more high schools are planned for the east end, a new aquatic centre, twinning the Collicutt in the future. The traffic problems will be enormous.
It has been mentioned that hikers, bikers and skaters would have to use a crosswalk if the bridge is built, and it would only increase driving time by a couple of minutes.
We are talking about thousands upon thousands of drivers driving for a couple of extra minutes, every day. The emissions, from all that extra fuel, burned every day.
Neighbourhoods all along 19 Street, Neighbourhoods all 22 Street, Neighbourhoods all along 32 Street, Neighbourhoods all along 40 Ave and Neighbourhoods all along 30 Ave will be negatively affected.
So a developer can build 50 houses along Piper Creek in addition to the 700+ houses he planned if the extension remained. Admittedly they will be big fancy million dollar homes on Piper Creek.
50 families will enjoy nice fenced yards backing onto Piper Creek. While thousands of other people, have to deal with increased traffic noise.
This council knows that the bridge needs to be built but there are some who actually believe that removing it is the best option.
Ten years I would have agreed but today I have seen the results of a city being led by a few including developers and land speculators and I changed my mind. I live in Sunnybrook along the woods of Piper Creek. I have seen the changes, lost value in my house, lost use of the backyard to traffic noise. Been victimized by the homeless people living in those woods, Seen the tents, the garbage, the needles and the human waste.
I watched animals get killed trying to cross 32 St. at 10,000 cars per day, today’s 23,500 cars per day makes it almost impossible how about when traffic hits 45,000? 32 Street and 19 Streets will become insurmountable barriers.
The city is repairing 32 St near 47 Ave. today at a cost of 3 million because a foundation shifted. 32 St wasn’t meant for today’s traffic.
They talking of spending millions, widening 32 St to 6 lanes, spending millions widening 19 St to 6 lanes. They have mentioned a traffic circle at 40 Ave. and 19 St which could cost maybe 10s of millions. There is a question of a pedestrian bridge over 19 St. to get to Westerner at what 17 million?
All this so a developer can build 50 houses on Piper Creek. 50, onemillion dollar houses is a lot of money, but everyone else will be paying for it for along time.
I mentioned our population grew by only 195 people in 5 years, but in the same time we built 1290 homes. We have 800 kms of sidewalks many that have yet to see a home, and yet we cannot afford to maintain. So why do we want to build another 700-750 houses, add another km or 2 of sidewalk that we cannot maintain.

All this so a few rich people can become richer?
I am really beginning to think this council does not represent me or anyone I know. How about you?

Banks
Bank of Canada Cuts Rates to 2.25%, Warns of Structural Economic Damage
Governor Tiff Macklem concedes the downturn runs deeper than a business cycle, citing trade wars, weak investment, and fading population growth as permanent drags on Canada’s economy.
In an extraordinary press conference on October 29th, 2025, Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem stood before reporters in Ottawa and calmly described what most Canadians have already been feeling for months: the economy is unraveling. But don’t expect him to say it in plain language. The central bank’s message was buried beneath bureaucratic doublespeak, carefully manicured forecasts, and bilingual spin. Strip that all away, and here’s what’s really going on: the Canadian economy has been gutted by a combination of political mismanagement, trade dependence, and a collapsing growth model based on mass immigration. The central bank knows it. The data proves it. And yet no one dares to say the quiet part out loud.
Start with the headline: the Bank of Canada cut interest rates by 25 basis points, bringing the policy rate down to 2.25%, its second consecutive cut and part of a 100 basis point easing campaign this year. That alone should tell you something is wrong. You don’t slash rates in a healthy economy. You do it when there’s pain. And there is. Canada’s GDP contracted by 1.6% in the second quarter of 2025. Exports are collapsing, investment is weak, and the unemployment rate is stuck at 7.1%, the highest non-pandemic level since 2016.
Macklem admitted it: “This is more than a cyclical downturn. It’s a structural adjustment. The U.S. trade conflict has diminished Canada’s economic prospects. The structural damage caused by tariffs is reducing the productive capacity of the economy.” That’s not just spin—that’s an admission of failure. A major trading nation like Canada has built its economic engine around exports, and now, thanks to years of reckless dependence on U.S. markets and zero effort to diversify, it’s all coming apart.
And don’t miss the implications of that phrase “structural adjustment.” It means the damage is permanent. Not temporary. Not fixable with a couple of rate cuts. Permanent. In fact, the Bank’s own Monetary Policy Report says that by the end of 2026, GDP will be 1.5% lower than it was forecast back in January. Half of that hit comes from a loss in potential output. The other half is just plain weak demand. And the reason that demand is weak? Because the federal government is finally dialing back the immigration faucet it’s been using for years to artificially inflate GDP growth.
The Bank doesn’t call it “propping up” GDP. But the facts are unavoidable. In its MPR, the Bank explicitly ties the coming consumption slowdown to a sharp drop in population growth: “Population growth is a key factor behind this expected slowdown, driven by government policies designed to reduce the inflow of newcomers. Population growth is assumed to slow to average 0.5% over 2026 and 2027.” That’s down from 3.3% just a year ago. So what was driving GDP all this time? People. Not productivity. Not innovation. Not exports. People.
And now that the government has finally acknowledged the political backlash of dumping half a million new residents a year into an overstretched housing market, the so-called “growth” is vanishing. It wasn’t real. It was demographic window dressing. Macklem admitted as much during the press conference when he said: “If you’ve got fewer new consumers in the economy, you’re going to get less consumption growth.” That’s about as close as a central banker gets to saying: we were faking it.
And yet despite all of this, the Bank still clings to its bureaucratic playbook. When asked whether Canada is heading into a recession, Macklem hedged: “Our outlook has growth resuming… but we expect that growth to be very modest… We could get two negative quarters. That’s not our forecast, but we can’t rule it out.” Translation: It’s already here, but we’re not going to admit it until StatsCan confirms it six months late.
Worse still, when reporters pressed him on what could lift the economy out of the ditch, he passed the buck. “Monetary policy can’t undo the damage caused by tariffs. It can’t target the hard-hit sectors. It can’t find new markets for companies. It can’t reconfigure supply chains.” So what can it do? “Mitigate spillovers,” Macklem says. That’s central banker code for “stand back and pray.”
So where’s the recovery supposed to come from? The Bank pins its hopes on a moderate rebound in exports, a bit of resilience in household consumption, and “ongoing government spending.” There it is. More public sector lifelines. More debt. More Ottawa Band-Aids.
And looming behind all of this is the elephant in the room: U.S. trade policy. The Bank explicitly warns that the situation could worsen depending on the outcome of next year’s U.S. election. The MPR highlights that tariffs are already cutting into Canadian income, raising business costs, and eliminating entire trade-dependent sectors. Governor Macklem put it plainly: “Unless something else changes, our incomes will be lower than they otherwise would have been.”
Canadians should be furious. For years, we were told everything was fine. That our economy was “resilient.” That inflation was “transitory.” That population growth would solve all our problems. Now we’re being told the economy is structurally impaired, trade-dependent to a fault, and stuck with weak per-capita growth, high unemployment, and sticky core inflation between 2.5–3%. And the people responsible for this mess? They’ve either resigned (Trudeau), failed upward (Carney), or still refuse to admit they spent a decade selling us a fantasy.
This isn’t just bad economics. It’s political malpractice.
Canada isn’t failing because of interest rates or some mysterious global volatility. It’s failing because of deliberate choices—trade dependence, mass immigration without infrastructure, and a refusal to confront reality. The central bank sees the iceberg. They’re easing the throttle. But the ship has already taken on water. And no one at the helm seems willing to turn the wheel.
So here’s the truth: The Bank of Canada just rang the alarm bell. Quietly. Cautiously. But clearly. The illusion is over. The fake growth era is ending. And the reckoning has begun.
Business
Ford’s Liquor War Trades Economic Freedom For Political Theatre
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Conrad Eder
Consumer choice, not government coercion, should shape the market. Doug Ford’s alcohol crackdown trades symbolic outrage for sound policy and Ontarians will pay the price
Ontario politicians have developed an insatiable appetite for prohibition. Having already imposed a sweeping ban on all American alcohol, Premier Doug Ford has now threatened to remove Crown Royal, Smirnoff and potentially other brands from LCBO shelves. Such authoritarian impulses reflect a disturbing shift in our political culture—one that undermines economic prosperity and individual liberty.
After Diageo, the multinational behind brands like Crown Royal and Smirnoff, announced in August that it would close its Amherstburg, Ont., bottling facility, affecting 200 workers, the political response was swift. NDP MPP Lisa Gretzky urged the government to retaliate by pulling Crown Royal from LCBO shelves. Days later, Ford dramatically dumped a bottle of the whisky during a press conference, signalling he might follow through.
Now, the premier has escalated the threat, vowing to remove Smirnoff and potentially other Diageo products.
These gestures may make headlines, but they come at a cost. They undermine business confidence, discourage investment, and send the wrong message to employers. More fundamentally, they reflect a poor understanding of how free societies settle disputes and make decisions.
To understand what’s at stake, it helps to consider the two basic mechanisms available to democratic societies: the marketplace and the ballot box. At the ballot box, citizens vote once, and majority rule determines a single outcome. The marketplace, by contrast, allows people to vote continuously with their dollars. Individuals make countless choices reflecting their own values and priorities. You get what you choose—without overriding anyone else’s preference.
There’s a role for government in correcting market failures, where there’s fraud, monopoly power or public risk. But banning legal products simply because of political displeasure with a company’s decision is not market correction. It’s coercion.
Diageo’s decision to close a facility may be unfortunate, but it doesn’t involve deception, unfair dominance, or harm to the public. Bans aren’t rooted in sound principle; they’re political, plain and simple.
Some argue the government is justified in acting to protect Ontario jobs. But that line of thinking is short-sighted. If job protection alone warranted banning products, we’d resist every innovation or trade deal that disrupted the status quo. Sustainable job growth depends on encouraging investment and innovation, not shielding every position from change.
The appropriate response to plant closures is policy reform, not retaliation. Ontario should focus on creating an environment where businesses want to invest and grow. That means fostering a stable, competitive business climate with clear rules, reasonable taxes, and efficient regulation. Threatening companies with bans only creates uncertainty and drives investment elsewhere.
With Ontarians spending $740 million annually on Diageo products, removing them from store shelves would impose real economic costs. Consumers would face fewer choices, weaker competition, and higher prices. Restaurants and retailers would be forced to adjust. The LCBO, Ontario’s government-run liquor retailer, would lose sales.
This isn’t hypothetical. The province’s ban on American alcohol is already projected to block nearly $1 billion in annual sales, while doing nothing to benefit Ontario consumers. The LCBO is serving political interests, not the public.
Supporters of such bans often reveal their lack of confidence in public opinion. Rather than persuade others to boycott a product voluntarily, they demand that government enforce a blanket restriction.
There’s a better way. Consumer-led boycotts offer accountability without coercion. They allow individuals to act on their beliefs without forcing others to comply. And they tend to be more effective, as companies respond faster to falling sales than to political theatrics.
But the issue at hand goes beyond liquor. It’s about whether elected officials should impose a single set of preferences on everyone, or whether citizens are trusted to decide for themselves.
Each new ban makes the next one easier to justify. Over time, these interventions accumulate and normalize government interference in private choice. Unlike consumer preferences, which can shift quickly and reverse, government prohibitions often persist. The LCBO’s century-old structure is evidence of how long some policies endure, even when they no longer serve the public interest.
This isn’t a call to eliminate government’s role. But it is a call for principled governance, the kind that distinguishes between legitimate oversight and overreach rooted in symbolism or political frustration.
Ontario’s government would do better to focus on long-term prosperity. That means building an economy where investors feel welcome, businesses can grow, and consumers are free to choose.
Ontarians are perfectly capable of making their own choices about which products to buy and which companies to support. They don’t need politicians like Ford making those decisions for them.
Conrad Eder is a policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
-
Business1 day agoTrans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
-
Alberta2 days agoPremier Smith sending teachers back to school and setting up classroom complexity task force
-
Alberta2 days agoThousands of Albertans march to demand independence from Canada
-
Crime2 days agoSuspect caught trying to flee France after $100 million Louvre jewel robbery
-
Economy1 day agoStunning Climate Change pivot from Bill Gates. Poverty and disease should be top concern.
-
Addictions1 day agoThe Shaky Science Behind Harm Reduction and Pediatric Gender Medicine
-
Business1 day agoFlying saucers, crystal paperweights and branded apples: inside the feds’ promotional merch splurge
-
International1 day agoBiden’s Autopen Orders declared “null and void”





