Business
“Red Deer Revitalization Society” urges city to move homeless population away from downtown

This letter submitted by the Red Deer Revitalization Society
The Red Deer Revitalization Society is a group of approximately 40 concerned Red Deer business people.
A few years ago, a collection of concerned members of the Downtown Red Deer Business Community came together after the drug-addicted and homeless population were crippling their operations. These meetings took place concurrently with the City and Provincial initiatives to establish safe injection sites, permanent shelters, and other similar institutions. The volume of people in Red Deer who require assistance makes it obvious that there is a need for these services. The problem however is with their location. We write this to help motivate the relocation of the permanent shelter from the proposed 4934 54 th Ave site.
We are of the view that this proposed site will have two disastrous consequences. First, an increase in residential property tax rates. Second, the slaying of the City’s Capstone Development. A recent history of the Downtown shows that the business community and the homeless and drug-addicted community cannot peacefully coexist. This is – and has been – an underappreciated concern that affects everyone in the City of Red Deer. Over the last 15 years, Downtown Red Deer has witnessed a mass exodus of businesses. The once thriving Downtown core has become repulsive. In speaking with colleagues who have vacated the Downtown, their motivation is always taxes and vagrancy. Who can
blame them? It is difficult to attract enough customers to cover the tax bill (and other costs) when their front door is littered with drug paraphernalia and loiterers. The trend shows that a concentration of social services forsakes the area where they are located and thus surrounding businesses will take their investments elsewhere. This exclusion of business is dangerous for all of us.
Most people do not appreciate how the City makes ends meet. We all know that taxes must be collected – but how does the City determine which property owner pays what? The owners of all properties, whether commercial or residential, pay tax at an amount that is determined using various formulae which all boil down to the property’s true value. Historically, the commercial properties in Downtown Red Deer were valuable enough and producing enough revenue that they bore the brunt of the taxes. But what happens now? The exodus of business replaced with social chaos renders the Downtown Properties valueless. If the owners of these properties cannot be asked to maintain the City’s reserves, the City will have no choice but to look elsewhere. Unfortunately, residential owners will have to see their property taxes increase dramatically for the City to run. The proposed permanent shelter location is yet another mainstay for drug use and vagrancy in a downtown that is nearly dead. This will likely be the last nail in Downtown’s coffin and a direct cause of increased residential property taxes.
Another underappreciated concern is the viability of the City’s Capstone Development. The perpetual bare piece of prime real estate is the City’s crown jewel. It presents a unique opportunity to rejuvenate the Downtown and neglected Red Deer Riverfront (another letter to the editor is required to discuss the City’s squandering of opportunity in the Capstone area over the past 25 years). The proposed permanent shelter is in the shadow of the Capstone Development – where the City has invested a tremendous amount of money. In fact, some say that the City has already invested upwards of $42 Million in the Capstone Development, which is being branded as a business and family-driven part of
town. If that’s the goal, how could it possibly make sense to put a permanent shelter right beside it? We appreciate that services like homeless shelters and safe injection sites are unfavourable, and people generally have the “not in my back yard sentiment”. However, if you sit back and allow City Council to locate the shelter at 4934 54 th Ave., you will see Capstone remain undeveloped, you will continue to see the mass exodus of businesses from downtown Red Deer and you will see a significant increase in your residential property taxes.
How can you ensure that your residential property taxes decrease instead of increase? Contact City Council and your elected MLA’s and tell them that you disapprove of 4934 54 th Ave., and any other downtown location, being chosen for the permanent shelter. Time is of the essence.
Sincerely,
Red Deer Revitalization Society
Business
Saskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax

From LifeSiteNews
Saskatchewan has become the first Canadian province to free itself entirely of the carbon tax.
On March 27, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced the removal of the provincial industrial carbon tax beginning April 1, boosting the province’s industry and making Saskatchewan the first carbon tax free province.
Under Moe’s direction, Saskatchewan has dropped the industrial carbon tax which he says will allow Saskatchewan to thrive under a “tariff environment.”
“I would hope that all of the parties running in the federal election would agree with those objectives and allow the provinces to regulate in this area without imposing the federal backstop,” he continued.
The removal of the tax is estimated to save Saskatchewan residents up to 18 cents a liter in gas prices.
The removal of the tax will take place on April 1, the same day the consumer carbon tax will reduce to 0 percent under Prime Minister Mark Carney’s direction. Notably, Carney did not scrap the carbon tax legislation: he just reduced its current rate to zero. This means it could come back at any time.
Furthermore, while Carney has dropped the consumer carbon tax, he has previously revealed that he wishes to implement a corporation carbon tax, the effects of which many argued would trickle down to all Canadians.
The Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) celebrated Moe’s move, noting that the carbon tax was especially difficult on farmers.
“I think the carbon tax has been in place for approximately six years now coming up in April and the cost keeps going up every year,” SARM president Bill Huber said.
“It puts our farming community and our business people in rural municipalities at a competitive disadvantage, having to pay this and compete on the world stage,” he continued.
“We’ve got a carbon tax on power — and that’s going to be gone now — and propane and natural gas and we use them more and more every year, with grain drying and different things in our farming operations,” he explained.
“I know most producers that have grain drying systems have three-phase power. If they haven’t got natural gas, they have propane to fire those dryers. And that cost goes on and on at a high level, and it’s made us more noncompetitive on a world stage,” Huber decalred.
The carbon tax is wildly unpopular and blamed for the rising cost of living throughout Canada. Currently, Canadians living in provinces under the federal carbon pricing scheme pay $80 per tonne.
Automotive
Electric cars just another poor climate policy

From the Fraser Institute
The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.
We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?
And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.
The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.
In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.
But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.
Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.
Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.
These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.
Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.
Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.
Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Joe Tay Says He Contacted RCMP for Protection, Demands Carney Fire MP Over “Bounty” Remark
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Hong Kong-Canadian Groups Demand PM Carney Drop Liberal Candidate Over “Bounty” Remark Supporting CCP Repression
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Poilievre To Create ‘Canada First’ National Energy Corridor
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Alcohol tax and MP pay hike tomorrow (April 1)
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
China Election Interference – Parties Received Security Briefing Days Ago as SITE Monitors Threats to Conservative Candidate Joe Tay
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Fixing Canada’s immigration system should be next government’s top priority
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Poilievre, Conservatives receive election endorsement from large Canadian trade union
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
Are the Jays Signing Or Declining? Only Vladdy & Bo Know For Sure