Opinion
Report suggests our Downtown lives or dies at whim of the provincial economy. 100 million wasted?

Did we and are we going to waste a couple of hundred million dollars revitalizing the downtown? According to the city’s report, the rise and fall of our downtown rides on the provincial economy.
So did we waste hundreds of millions, on bus terminal, trails, traffic re-alignment, services, patios, arena, Riverlands and are we wasting money if we build the aquatic centre, foot bridge and a new concert hall? Why if everything rides on decisions made in Edmonton?
Other factors cited like high lease costs, suggests that property owners were gaining from our tax-payers’ largesse than the residents and businesses. High maintenance, and social issues including prostitution and drug use increased in spite of all the money spent downtown and going to be spent downtown.
Council heard about ideas like business incubators. Check my columns and letter-to-the-editor going back decades and count how many times I suggested these very things, but was ignored by the powers that be.
Please explain to us, why Red Deer is faring worse than our neighbouring communities. Why is Penhold and Blackfalds growing in this same provincial economy while Red Deer is shrinking? Why are businesses in Penhold and Blackfalds, like grocery stores expanding? Same provincial economy.
Why would an accounting firm move out of downtown into gasoline alley? I do not think they needed easier access to truck routes.
The downtown is necessary, so I am reminded, but so are other areas, not on the city’s radar. Tourism, especially sports tourism, has great potential, but only addressed in a half hearted manner. The unequal distribution of high schools and recreational facilities affect 10s of thousands of people almost daily, and not a thought given. Agriculture was a big part of our city, but lost ground to the energy sector. Government services, once a main stay in Red Deer, are losing ground to expanding satellite services in smaller communities. Big box stores and fast food are finding traction in smaller communities.
Perhaps it is time to realize that a couple hundred million of our hard earn tax dollars did not protect the downtown from a provincial downturn, while Penhold and Blackfalds grew. Then perhaps it is time to try something different.
Downsize the downtown, invest in the whole city, address the ideas of diversification, tourism, (staycation might be an idea) and perhaps make the whole city attractive to investors, visitors, and the residents.
The downtown will grow at the whim of the provincial economy and our taxes will not make any difference, so says the report.
2025 Federal Election
Canada’s press tries to turn the gender debate into a non-issue, pretend it’s not happening

From LifeSiteNews
When a conservative reporter asked Mark Carney how many genders there are and the prime minister gave an evasive answer, liberal journalists considered the question inappropriate because they want to control the narrative.
By any traditional journalistic standard, the reconstitution of reality by transgender ideology is one of the biggest stories of our generation. Indeed, in the middle of the Canadian election campaign, the UK Supreme Court ruled that “transwomen” are not women, triggering a massive backlash from the transgender movement and widespread celebration from those still possessed of common sense.
In Canada, however, the press — with the exception of the National Post and several independent outlets — has more or less collectively agreed to ignore the topic and to treat the matter as if it is settled. The mainstream broadsheets simply assume the validity of gender ideology and the social victory of the transgender movement regardless of the debates raging across the Western world.
Thus, when Alex Zoltan of Juno News managed to ask Prime Minister Mark Carney a question after the French debate, he touched a topic the rest of the media was avoiding like the plague: “How many genders are there?”
This is obviously a relevant question, with direct relevance to government policy. Current government guidelines state that gender is distinct from sex, and the Trudeau government introduced a non-binary gender option (“X”) for passports and other federal documents. Government missives have consistently referred to recently invented identities such as “two-spirit,” and last year Justin Trudeau explicitly stated that “transwomen are women” — on International Women’s Day (the UK Supreme Court disagrees).
Zoltan’s question was simple: “How many genders are there?”
In Mark Carney's Canada, stopping men from going into women's rape shelters is only a "general objective." pic.twitter.com/qJNqaBMUpt
— Alex Zoltan (@AmazingZoltan) April 20, 2025
Carney was uncomfortable but obviously prepared for the question. “Uhhhh … in terms of sex, there are two. Thank you.”
Zoltan: “My follow-up question then. Do you believe that women, biological women, have the right to their own spaces, their own sports, their own changerooms, their own prisons, their own homeless shelters?”
Here, Carney vacillated. The policy of the Trudeau government has been to segregate based on “gender” rather than biological sex. “This is Canada,” Carney stated obviously. “Um, and, um, ah, as a general objective, yes, but we work where we value all Canadians for who they are and we’ll continue to do so. Thank you very much.” In short: Carney performed a neat, albeit stumbling, pivot. He affirmed two sexes — as Pierre Poilievre has — but also appeared to affirm the Trudeau government’s transgender policies.
It is safe to assume that Carney, who has an adult daughter who identifies as non-binary, will not roll back any of Trudeau’s transgender policies, although he will likely be less performative about his LGBT activism. But what was as notable as his response to the question was the Canadian establishment’s reaction. Despite the fact that Zoltan’s question was incredibly relevant, they immediately responded as if only a fringe extremist would bother to touch on an issue so miniscule as the radical overhaul of our laws by a radical movement.
From the CBC:
True North dared ask Mark Carney if women deserve sex-based spaces, and the establishment is LIVID.
CBC cries it’s “unrelated to the debate.” 😢
They are desperate to control the narrative AND big cowards for not asking such a basic question already.pic.twitter.com/AhZmbKFlvE
— Cosmin Dzsurdzsa (@cosminDZS) April 17, 2025
The CBC complained that the topic was “unrelated to the debate.” Of course, the mainstream press has appointed itself the gatekeepers of which topics get covered, and transgender ideology has been ruled off-limits — which is why the state broadcaster would not even cover the UK’s Cass Review, which condemned the “gender-affirming care” so enthusiastically defended by the CBC and other outlets.
Journalist Wyatt Sharpe claimed the question was “American,” somehow — as if Canada has not been out front on these issues: “How many Canadians genuinely care about ‘how many genders there are?’… that is the type of American culture war style question that True North, Rebel, etc were hoping to cause Mr. Carney to not be able to answer. He answered it fine, and that’s why True North and Rebel haven’t been posting the question like they usually would across social media.”
The quintessential response came from David Beaudoin: “True North finally makes it on prime time. We’re in a trade war with the U.S. The economy is in peril. Here is a world-renowned economist running for Prime Minister. Time to show Canadians you’re a serious news outlet. ‘How many genders are there?’”
The message is clear. Men in women’s prisons? Men in female spaces? Women getting sexually assaulted by men in women’s shelters? Girls getting double mastectomies? Children getting socially transitioned by public schools without the knowledge of their parents, an issue taken up by several provinces (one of which used the notwithstanding clause to stop it)? The mainstream press has ruled from on high: Not real issues.
So, to all the women and girls and parents concerned about these issues: Shut up, they explained.
Business
Hudson’s Bay Bid Raises Red Flags Over Foreign Influence

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
A billionaire’s retail ambition might also serve Beijing’s global influence strategy. Canada must look beyond the storefront
When B.C. billionaire Weihong Liu publicly declared interest in acquiring Hudson’s Bay stores, it wasn’t just a retail story—it was a signal flare in an era where foreign investment increasingly doubles as geopolitical strategy.
The Hudson’s Bay Company, founded in 1670, remains an enduring symbol of Canadian heritage. While its commercial relevance has waned in recent years, its brand is deeply etched into the national identity. That’s precisely why any potential acquisition, particularly by an investor with strong ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), deserves thoughtful, measured scrutiny.
Liu, a prominent figure in Vancouver’s Chinese-Canadian business community, announced her interest in acquiring several Hudson’s Bay stores on Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (RedNote), expressing a desire to “make the Bay great again.” Though revitalizing a Canadian retail icon may seem commendable, the timing and context of this bid suggest a broader strategic positioning—one that aligns with the People’s Republic of China’s increasingly nuanced approach to economic diplomacy, especially in countries like Canada that sit at the crossroads of American and Chinese spheres of influence.
This fits a familiar pattern. In recent years, we’ve seen examples of Chinese corporate involvement in Canadian cultural and commercial institutions, such as Huawei’s past sponsorship of Hockey Night in Canada. Even as national security concerns were raised by allies and intelligence agencies, Huawei’s logo remained a visible presence during one of the country’s most cherished broadcasts. These engagements, though often framed as commercially justified, serve another purpose: to normalize Chinese brand and state-linked presence within the fabric of Canadian identity and daily life.
What we may be witnessing is part of a broader PRC strategy to deepen economic and cultural ties with Canada at a time when U.S.-China relations remain strained. As American tariffs on Canadian goods—particularly in aluminum, lumber and dairy—have tested cross-border loyalties, Beijing has positioned itself as an alternative economic partner. Investments into cultural and heritage-linked assets like Hudson’s Bay could be seen as a symbolic extension of this effort to draw Canada further into its orbit of influence, subtly decoupling the country from the gravitational pull of its traditional allies.
From my perspective, as a professional with experience in threat finance, economic subversion and political leveraging, this does not necessarily imply nefarious intent in each case. However, it does demand a conscious awareness of how soft power is exercised through commercial influence, particularly by state-aligned actors. As I continue my research in international business law, I see how investment vehicles, trade deals and brand acquisitions can function as instruments of foreign policy—tools for shaping narratives, building alliances and shifting influence over time.
Canada must neither overreact nor overlook these developments. Open markets and cultural exchange are vital to our prosperity and pluralism. But so too is the responsibility to preserve our sovereignty—not only in the physical sense, but in the cultural and institutional dimensions that shape our national identity.
Strategic investment review processes, cultural asset protections and greater transparency around foreign corporate ownership can help strike this balance. We should be cautious not to allow historically Canadian institutions to become conduits, however unintentionally, for geopolitical leverage.
In a world where power is increasingly exercised through influence rather than force, safeguarding our heritage means understanding who is buying—and why.
Scott McGregor is the managing partner and CEO of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting.
-
International2 days ago
Pope Francis Dies on Day after Easter
-
International2 days ago
JD Vance was one of the last people to meet Pope Francis
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
-
2025 Federal Election22 hours ago
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
-
COVID-191 day ago
Nearly Half of “COVID-19 Deaths” Were Not Due to COVID-19 – Scientific Reports Journal
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
-
2025 Federal Election23 hours ago
CHINESE ELECTION THREAT WARNING: Conservative Candidate Joe Tay Paused Public Campaign
-
Media20 hours ago
CBC retracts false claims about residential schools after accusing Rebel News of ‘misinformation’