Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

Speed on Green?

Published

4 minute read

Hey everyone,

As of August 11 the intersections in our city that currently have red light cameras will also now have the ability to issue tickets for speeding through them on green lights.

What do you think of this?

Could we frame this discussion as a speeders tax or a fee-to-speed? Perhaps.

But either way let’s not fool ourselves; these cameras are only marginally effective at making our roads safer. As soon as drivers learn where these cameras are they slow down temporarily and then they defiantly speed up again as soon as they’re out of range. So, yes, these cameras probably do make specific intersections safer. But on the other hand I suspect the gains might be lost if drivers are dangerously slamming on their brakes to avoid having their picture taken as soon as they catch a glimpse of the camera as they speed by. I suppose the data will bear out the fact of the matter. My mind will remain open.

Also, while the focus on catching speeders does give us a good feeling of accomplishment, the question remains; how do we address the other major factors such as distracted and impaired driving? I hear Police ride the bus in some cities and call in distracted drivers they see through the window as they cruise around the city. But that’s a whole other topic.

One thing that has worked well is installing timers at many intersections around our city. I really like how I can see from a distance that I have enough time to safely slow down and stop. So I’d like to put it forward that, if we must have speed-on-green cameras then we should use the money to pay for things like timers at intersections and other things that improve traffic safety.

I also wonder if we should be having the conversation about timing traffic lights better? “Red-Light-Deer” is a social media meme which is growing in popularity. So the bigger picture question here is how can we make traffic flow better in our city?

Lastly, another discussion that we should be having is how to improve safety in our school zones. Since we know that traffic cameras only temporarily slow drivers down and we also know that many drivers are unwilling to temporarily slow down near schools, it seems like there is an obvious solution to the problem, let’s put traffic cameras in school zones. Can we do that? Call it a cash grab, sure, just please don’t run my kids over. The scariest thing to a parent is a speeding car in school zone!

With all of that said, the reality is that we can’t legislate the sort of cultural change that needs to happen. I recently became a defensive driving instructor and this is something that I talk about a lot. People need to obey the rules of the road not because they’re afraid of getting a ticket but because they care about their own safety and respect the safety and well-being of everyone else in their community. This is the ultimate way to be proactive when it comes to road safety. It starts with you and the attitude that you choose to have when you get behind the wheel.

Cheers,

Before Post

I have lived in Red Deer since I was a child. This is the community that I choose to raise my family in and where I choose to operate my business. I am grateful for all of the opportunities I have had in this city and I will give back to the community through service, passion and conversation. I am curious. I am personal. I am BOLD.

Follow Author

More from this author
Opinion / 8 years ago

Speed on Green?

Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Canada Urgently Needs A Watchdog For Government Waste

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

From overstaffed departments to subsidy giveaways, Canadians are paying a high price for government excess

Not all the Trump administration’s policies are dubious. One is very good, in theory at least: the Department of Government Efficiency. While that term could be an oxymoron, like ‘political wisdom,’ if DOGE is useful, so may be a Canadian version.

DOGE aims to identify wasteful, duplicative, unnecessary or destructive government programs and replace outdated data systems. It also seeks to lower overall costs and ensure mechanisms are in place to evaluate proposed programs for effectiveness and value for money. This can, and usually does, involve eliminating some departments and, eventually, thousands of jobs. Some new roles within DOGE may need to become permanent.

The goal in the U.S. is to lower annual operating costs and ensure that the growth in government spending is lower than in revenues. Washington’s spending has exploded in recent years. The U.S. federal deficit exceeds six per cent of gross domestic product. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, annual debt service cost is escalating unsustainably.

Canada’s latest budget deficit of $61.9 billion in fiscal 2023–24 is about two per cent of GDP, which seems minor compared to our neighbour. However, it adds to the federal debt of $1.236 trillion, about 41 per cent of our approximate $3 trillion GDP. Ottawa’s public accounts show that expenses are 17.8 per cent of GDP, up from about 14 per cent just eight years ago. Interest on the escalating debt were 10.2 per cent of revenues in the most recent fiscal year, up from just five per cent a mere two years ago.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) continually identifies dubious or frivolous spending and outright waste or extravagance: “$30 billion in subsidies to multinational corporations like Honda, Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt. Federal corporate subsidies totalled $11.2 billion in 2022 alone. Shutting down the federal government’s seven regional development agencies would save taxpayers an estimated $1.5 billion annually.”

The CTF also noted that Ottawa hired 108,000 more staff in the past eight years at an average annual cost of over $125,000. Hiring in line with population growth would have added only 35,500, saving about $9 billion annually. The scale of waste is staggering. Canada Post, the CBC and Via Rail lose, in total, over $5 billion a year. For reference, $1 billion would buy Toyota RAV4s for over 25,600 families.

Ottawa also duplicates provincial government functions, intruding on their constitutional authority. Shifting those programs to the provinces, in health, education, environment and welfare, could save many more billions of dollars per year. Bad infrastructure decisions lead to failures such as the $33.4 billion squandered on what should have been a relatively inexpensive expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline—a case where hiring better staff could have saved money. Terrible federal IT systems, exemplified by the $4 billion Phoenix payroll horror, are another failure. The Green Slush Fund misallocated nearly $900 million.

Ominously, the fast-growing Old Age Supplement and Guaranteed Income Security programs are unfunded, unlike the Canada Pension Plan. Their costs are already roughly equal to the deficit and could become unsustainable.

Canada is sleepwalking toward financial perdition. A Canadian version of DOGE—Canada Accountability, Efficiency and Transparency Team, or CAETT—is vital. The Auditor General Office admirably identifies waste and bad performance, but is not proactive, nor does it have enforcement powers. There is currently no mechanism to evaluate or end unnecessary programs to ensure Canadians will have a prosperous and secure future. CAETT could fill that role.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Campaign 2025 : The Liberal Costed Platform – Taxpayer Funded Fiction

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Carney is trying to redefine the deficit by splitting it into two categories: “operating” and “capital”—a little trick borrowed from UK public finance to confuse voters and dodge political accountability. It’s not something Canada has ever used in federal budget reporting, and there’s a reason for that: it’s misleading by design.

Mark Carney, the unelected banker-turned-savior of the Liberal Party, stood on a stage at Durham College on April 19 and did what professional economic grifters do best—he smiled politely, gestured at some numbers, and attempted to sell Canadians on a $130 billion illusion.

He called it a “costed platform.” What it really was, was a pitch deck for national decline—a warmed-over slab of recycled Trudeauism, backed by deficit delusion and framed as “bold leadership.”

And yes, the numbers are real. Terrifyingly real.

The Liberal platform promises $130 billion in new spending over four years, while running deficits of $62.3 billion this year, $59.9 billion next year, and still sitting at $48 billion in the red by 2028. To balance all of this out? A magical $28 billion in “unspecified cuts.” Not outlined. Not itemized. Just floated in the air like a promise from a door-to-door vacuum salesman.

Carney, in his perfectly rehearsed banker tone, assures us it’s not spending. No, it’s “investment.” Which is hilarious, because that’s exactly what Justin Trudeau said when he kicked off a decade of reckless spending, capital flight, and housing inflation. Carney has simply pulled off the Liberal magic trick of rebranding debt as growth.

But this isn’t just fiscal mismanagement. This is coordinated, high-level dishonesty.

Let’s be clear: Mark Carney is not new to any of this. He isn’t some white knight riding in to clean up Trudeau’s mess. He is the mess. He was Trudeau’s economic consigliere. He sat in the backrooms when they passed Bill C-69, which throttled Canada’s energy sector. He championed ESG, oversaw the implosion of GFANZ (his climate finance alliance), and helped drive $500 billion in investment out of this country.

Now he’s back—wearing a new title, making the same promises, using the same playbook. Only this time, he’s brought a spreadsheet.

In one breath, Carney says we need to “diversify trade.” In the next, he’s counting on $20 billion in one-time countertariff revenues to prop up his platform. In one paragraph, he says Canada will be “fiscally responsible.” In the next, he admits the deficit will nearly double this year. He claims he’ll spend 2% of GDP on defense—but not until 2029, because, of course, there’s no urgency when you’re protected by the American military umbrella you secretly resent.

And his housing plan? If you thought things couldn’t get worse than Justin Trudeau’s housing disaster, buckle up. Carney’s solution is modular housing—yes, government-subsidized, prefabricated micro-boxes dropped onto federally controlled land.

Mark Carney will never live in modular housing. His children will never live in modular housing. But for you, the taxpayer? That’s the future he envisions—managed housing, managed economy, managed speech, managed life.

He’s not here to lift Canadians up. He’s here to lock them down—into a permanent, bureaucratically engineered middle class, dependent on state subsidies and grateful for whatever dignity Ottawa hasn’t yet taxed away.

And when asked how he’ll find the $28 billion in cuts needed to make this plan remotely plausible, his answer was priceless:

“Technology, attrition, and a review of consultant contracts.”

Translation: “We don’t know.”

And here’s where the grift goes full throttle—the accounting scam.

Carney is trying to redefine the deficit by splitting it into two categories: “operating” and “capital”—a little trick borrowed from UK public finance to confuse voters and dodge political accountability. It’s not something Canada has ever used in federal budget reporting, and there’s a reason for that: it’s misleading by design.

Here’s how it works: Carney claims that by 2028, the government will run an “operating surplus.” Sounds responsible, right? Like the books are balanced?

Wrong.

Because even while he’s claiming an “operating surplus,” the federal government will still be running a $48 billion deficit overall. That’s real debt—borrowed money the country doesn’t have.

So how does he square the circle?

Simple: he relabels infrastructure and program spending as “capital investment”, pushes it off to the side, and tells you the main budget is in good shape.

But guess what?

You still owe the money.
The debt still grows.
And interest payments still stack up.

It’s like maxing out your credit card, then saying “no problem—I only overspent on long-term purchases, not day-to-day expenses.”

Try that line with your bank. Let me know how it goes.

This isn’t honest budgeting. It’s spreadsheet manipulation by a guy who knows how to massage the optics while the house burns down.

And let’s not forget who we’re talking about here.

This is the man who moved his financial headquarters to New York while lecturing Canadians about economic sovereignty.

This is the guy with a Cayman Islands tax haven, who built his fortune offshore and now wants to manage your budget while shielding his own.

This is the architect of GFANZ—the so-called climate finance alliance—that imploded under his leadership. The same alliance that saw JPMorgan, Citigroup, and the Big Six Canadian banks bail because Carney couldn’t keep the cartel together without running afoul of antitrust laws.

This is the same man mentioned in Marco Mendicino’s Emergencies Act texts—the man who said, Move the tanks on the protesters.

That’s right.

He wasn’t calling for dialogue. He wasn’t calling for democracy. He was calling for force—on peaceful Canadians exercising their rights. That’s who this is.

So let’s drop the fantasy.

Mark Carney isn’t here to save you.

Continue Reading

Trending

X