Connect with us

Opinion

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

Published

8 years ago

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.

Related Topics:

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 40 mins ago

World-leading biochemist debunks evolutionary theory

Digital ID / 52 mins ago

Canadian government launches trial version of digital ID for certain licenses, permits

Environment / 9 hours ago

Canada’s river water quality strong overall although some localized issues persist

Environment

Canada’s river water quality strong overall although some localized issues persist

Published on December 22, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Canada’s rivers are vital to our environment and economy. Clean freshwater is essential to support recreation, agriculture and industry, an to sustain suitable habitat for wildlife. Conversely, degraded freshwater can make it harder to maintain safe drinking water and can harm aquatic life. So, how healthy are Canada’s rivers today?

To answer that question, Environment Canada uses an index of water quality to assess freshwater quality at monitoring stations across the country. In total, scores are available for 165 monitoring stations, jointly maintained by Environment Canada and provincial authorities, from 17 in Newfoundland and Labrador, to 8 in Saskatchewan and 20 in British Columbia.

This index works like a report card for rivers, converting water test results into scores from 0 to 100. Scientists sample river water three or more times per year at fixed locations, testing indicators such as oxygen levels, nutrients and chemical levels. These measurements are then compared against national and provincial guidelines that determine the ability of a waterway to support aquatic life.

Scores are calculated based on three factors: how many guidelines are exceeded, how often they are exceeded, and by how much they are exceeded. A score of 95-100 is “excellent,” 80-94 is “good,” 65-79 is “fair,” 45-64 is “marginal” and a score below 45 is “poor.” The most recent scores are based on data from 2021 to 2023.

Among 165 river monitoring sites across the country, the average score was 76.7. Sites along four major rivers earned a perfect score: the Northeast Magaree River (Nova Scotia), the Restigouche River (New Brunswick), the South Saskatchewan River (Saskatchewan) and the Bow River (Alberta). The Bayonne River, a tributary of the St. Lawrence River near Berthierville, Quebec, scored the lowest (33.0).

Overall, between 2021 and 2023, 83.0 per cent of monitoring sites across the country recorded fair to excellent water quality. This is a strong positive signal that most of Canada’s rivers are in generally healthy environmental condition.

A total of 13.3 per cent of stations were deemed to be marginal, that is, they received a score of 45-64 on the index. Only 3.6 per cent of monitoring sites fell into the poor category, meaning that severe degradation was limited to only a few sites (6 of 165).

Monitoring sites along waterways with relatively less development in the river’s headwaters and those with lower population density tended to earn higher scores than sites with developed land uses. However, among the 11 river monitoring sites that rated “excellent,” 8 were situated in areas facing a combination of pressures from nearby human activities that can influence water quality. This indicates the resilience of Canada’s river ecosystems, even in areas facing a combination of multiple stressors from urban runoff, agriculture, and industrial activities where waterways would otherwise be expected to be the most polluted.

Poor or marginal water quality was relatively more common in monitoring sites located along the St. Lawrence River and its major tributaries and near the Great Lakes compared to other regions. Among all sites in the marginal or poor category, 50 per cent were in this area. The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region is one of the most population-dense and extensively developed parts of Canada, supporting a mix of urban, agricultural, and industrial land uses. These pressures can introduce harmful chemical contaminants and alter nutrient balances in waterways, impairing ecosystem health.

In general, monitoring sites categorized as marginal or poor tended to be located near intensive agriculture and industrial activities. However, it’s important to reiterate that only 28 stations representing 17.0 per cent of all monitoring stations were deemed to be marginal or poor.

Provincial results vary, as shown in the figure below. Water quality scores in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta were, on average, 80 points or higher during the period from 2021 to 2023, indicating that water quality rarely departed from natural or desirable levels.

Rivers sites in Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba and B.C. each had average scores between 74 and 78 points, suggesting occasional departures from natural or desirable levels.

Finally, Quebec’s average river water quality score was 64.5 during the 2021 to 2023 period. This score indicates that water quality departed from ideal conditions more frequently in Quebec than in other provinces, especially compared to provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and P.E.I. where no sites rated below “fair.”

Overall, these results highlight Canada’s success in maintaining a generally high quality of water in our rivers. Most waterways are in good shape, though some regions—especially near the Great Lakes and along the St. Lawrence River Valley—continue to face pressures from the combined effects of population growth and intensive land use.

Continue Reading

Agriculture

End Supply Management—For the Sake of Canadian Consumers

Published on December 22, 2025

By

This is a special preview article from the:

By Gwyn Morgan

U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade policy is often chaotic and punitive. But on one point, he is right: Canada’s agricultural supply management system has to go. Not because it is unfair to the United States, though it clearly is, but because it punishes Canadians. Supply management is a government-enforced price-fixing scheme that limits consumer choice, inflates grocery bills, wastes food, and shields a small, politically powerful group of producers from competition—at the direct expense of millions of households.

And yet Ottawa continues to support this socialist shakedown. Last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters supply management was “not on the table” in negotiations for a renewed United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, despite U.S. negotiators citing it as a roadblock to a new deal.

Supply management relies on a web of production quotas, fixed farmgate prices, strict import limits, and punitive tariffs that can approach 300 percent. Bureaucrats decide how much milk, chicken, eggs, and poultry Canadians farmers produce and which farmers can produce how much. When officials misjudge demand—as they recently did with chicken and eggs—farmers are legally barred from responding. The result is predictable: shortages, soaring prices, and frustrated consumers staring at emptier shelves and higher bills.

This is not a theoretical problem. Canada’s most recent chicken production cycle, ending in May 2025, produced one of the worst supply shortfalls in decades. Demand rose unexpectedly, but quotas froze supply in place. Canadian farmers could not increase production. Instead, consumers paid more for scarce domestic poultry while last-minute imports filled the gap at premium prices. Eggs followed a similar pattern, with shortages triggering a convoluted “allocation” system that opened the door to massive foreign imports rather than empowering Canadian farmers to respond.

Over a century of global experience has shown that central economic planning fails. Governments are simply not good at “matching” supply with demand. There is no reason to believe Ottawa’s attempts to manage a handful of food categories should fare any better. And yet supply management persists, even as its costs mount.

Those costs fall squarely on consumers. According to a Fraser Institute estimate, supply management adds roughly $375 a year to the average Canadian household’s grocery bill. Because lower-income families spend a much higher proportion of their income on food, the burden falls most heavily on them.
The system also strangles consumer choice. European countries produce thousands of varieties of high-quality cheeses at prices far below what Canadians pay for largely industrial domestic products. But our import quotas are tiny, and anything above them is hit with tariffs exceeding 245 percent. As a result, imported cheeses can cost $60 per kilogram or more in Canadian grocery stores. In Switzerland, one of the world’s most eye-poppingly expensive countries, where a thimble-sized coffee will set you back $9, premium cheeses are barely half the price you’ll find at Loblaw or Safeway.

Canada’s supply-managed farmers defend their monopoly by insisting it provides a “fair return” for famers, guarantees Canadians have access to “homegrown food” and assures the “right amount of food is produced to meet Canadian needs.” Is there a shred of evidence Canadians are being denied the “right amount” of bread, tuna, asparagus or applesauce? Of course not; the market readily supplies all these and many thousands of other non-supply-managed foods.

Like all price-fixing systems, Canada’s supply management provides only the illusion of stability and security. We’ve seen above what happens when production falls short. But perversely, if a farmer manages to get more milk out of his cows than his quota, there’s no reward: the excess must be
dumped. Last year alone, enough milk was discarded to feed 4.2 million people.

Over time, supply management has become less about farming and more about quota ownership. Artificial scarcity has turned quotas into highly valuable assets, locking out young farmers and rewarding incumbents.

Why does such a dysfunctional system persist? The answer is politics. Supply management is of outsized importance in Quebec, where producers hold a disproportionate share of quotas and are numerous enough to swing election results in key ridings. Federal parties of all stripes have learned the cost of crossing this lobby. That political cowardice now collides with reality. The USMCA is heading toward mandatory renegotiation, and supply management is squarely in Washington’s sights. Canada depends on tariff-free access to the U.S. market for hundreds of billions of dollars in exports. Trading away a deeply-flawed system to secure that access would make economic sense.

Instead, Ottawa has doubled down. Not just with Carney’s remarks last week but with Bill C-202, which makes it illegal for Canadian ministers to reduce tariffs or expand quotas on supply-managed goods in future trade talks. Formally signalling that Canada’s negotiating position is hostage to a tiny domestic lobby group is reckless, and weakens Canada’s hand before talks even begin.

Food prices continue to rise faster than inflation. Forecasts suggest the average family will spend $1,000 more on groceries next year alone. Supply management is not the only cause, but it remains a major one. Ending it would lower prices, expand choice, reduce waste, and reward entrepreneurial farmers willing to compete.

If Donald Trump can succeed in forcing supply management onto the negotiating table, he will be doing Canadian consumers—and Canadian agriculture—a favour our own political class has long refused to deliver.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal. Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who was a director of five global corporations.

Continue Reading

Trending

X