Opinion

Ponoka’s Muliplex is a go,adding to Penhold, Blackfalds, and Lacombe to bolster recreation in Central Alberta. Where’s Red Deer?

Published

8 years ago

5 minute read

Ponoka Multiplex is going ahead. Ponoka, population 7,229, is going to spend $16.6 million or $2,296 per person on a recreational multiplex, to service residents and attract growth. Great news.
Penhold Multiplex was a huge success in both regards. Penhold, population 3,277 spent $23 million or $7,018 per person and the town grew and they needed more land.
Blackfalds spent $15.2 million on the Abbey Centre and are looking to spend another $12 million on a second covered ice rink, for a total of $27.2 million. Blackfalds population 9328, will be spending $2,916 per resident on recreation.
Sylvan Lake has the new Nexsource Centre multiplex. Sylvan Lake, population 14,816 spent $33.5 million or $2,264 per person on a recreational complex.
Lacombe is spending $13,668,141 upgrading their sports complex. Lacombe population 13,057 means $1,047 per person for upgrading.
This means that 47,700 people are putting out $102 million for recreation complexes. These are growing communities looking to attract more growth. This growth has been partially from Red Deer residents migrating away from Red Deer. Red Deer’s population shrank between 2015-2016. Their own polls shows they shrank by a 1,000 residents but the federal census puts it only 400 residents less. The area north of the river shrank by 777 residents alone. There are still about 30,000 residents living north of the river.
They have only one recreational complex, over 30 years old. If the city was to step up to the plate and treat the residents on par with the smaller communities they would need to spend $64 million on recreational facilities north of the river.
If the city as a whole wanted to be equal to these smaller communities then they would have to spend $214 million dollars on recreational facilities. To compare with Penhold, the city would have to spend $700 million but Blackfalds is one of the fastest growing communities in Canada. To match their per capita spending the city of Red Deer would have to commit $292 million on recreational facilities.
Lethbridge, the third fastest growing city in Alberta and nearest in size to Red Deer recently committed $109 million for phase 2 of their recreation centre. Again to attract young families, a necessity for growth. Remember Lethbridge once turned a man-made slough into a lake and created Henderson Lake Park around it. It may be why they are the 5th fastest growing city in Canada behind Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Calgary.
Red Deer was once a hub for Central Alberta, now it cannot keep pace with Penhold, Blackfalds, Ponoka, Lacombe, Sylvan Lake, as they grow and seek out new possibilities.
The last big project in Red Deer was the Collicutt Center in Red Deer’s south east, that was 15 years ago and the city grew, that area developed, and noone is saying now that the Collicutt Centre was a bad idea.
We are opening up land in the northwest corner, thousands of acres, room for 25,000 residents and Red Deer’s largest lake, Hazlett Lake. 55,000 residents north of the river, the same population as when they decided to build a 4th recreational centre now known as the Collicutt Centre.
Red Deer needs to build a 50m pool, and the north side needs new recreational facilities, and our Collicutt Centre was such a huge success in spurring growth, why not build a Northside Collicutt Centre with a 50m pool and ice rink on Hazlett Lake?
Red Deer could be a sports hub, a tourist hub and an economic hub, once again. The proof is t5here, we just need the courage. If we do not have it now maybe we can find it before the municipal election this coming October. We just need to ask. I am asking but I am getting the run around, which could be why everyone else is growing and we are shrinking. What do you think? Let me know. Thank you.

Follow Author

Trump’s Executive Orders Are Taking Massive Chunk Out Of Censorship State

Canadian Energy Centre / 5 hours ago

Why Canadian oil is so important to the United States

Business / 9 hours ago

Canada holds valuable bargaining chip in trade negotiations with Trump

Censorship Industrial Complex

Trump’s Executive Orders Are Taking Massive Chunk Out Of Censorship State

Published on January 31, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Roderick Law

President Donald Trump has hit the ground running, issuing a flurry of executive orders. Two of them are particularly welcome.

The first, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” mandates agencies across the government cease funding and end any activities that would “unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” The other, “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government,” requires agencies “to identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to the weaponization of law enforcement and the weaponization of the Intelligence Community.”

Each order is necessary, and their issuance so soon after the inauguration shows that Trump understands that censorship and “lawfare” were rampant under his predecessor.

Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers. Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!

Former President Joe Biden himself (or whoever gave him words to read) gave us a stark reminder of his comfort with censorship in his farewell address, when he warned of the “potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country.”

But Biden was referring to the rise of social media that do not enforce speech codes dictated by one side of the political divide. He went on to complain that we are getting “buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation,” while “[s]ocial media is giving up fact-checking.”

It’s true: Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg saw the election results and realized public toleration for censorship has reached its limit. He is dismantling Facebook’s “fact checking” apparatus and following X’s “community notes” model.

Worse, Zuckerburg is telling tales out of school, recalling how during the pandemic Biden officials would “scream” and “curse” at Facebook employees to remove posts that countered the government line. Tech-industrial complexes are dangerous things if you do not control them.

We can’t forget that government censorship, and its support for research into censorship technologies, is broad and deep. Consider the Cybersecurity Advisory Committee of the U.S. Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). The committee was composed of academics and tech company officials working very closely with government personnel. The Functional Government Initiative (FGI) discovered they also worked with left-wing activists. The committee was created ostensibly in response to misinformation campaigns from foreign actors, but it evolved toward domestic “threats.” It had a “Mis-, Dis-, and Mal-information” subcommittee. “Mal-information” is info that is true, but contrary to the preferred narratives of the censor. Trump’s order directly calls such efforts a “guise” to censor speech “in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.” Unfortunately, the committee was the tip of the iceberg. The Pentagon and the State Department had their own ties to censorship initiatives.

The same impulse that fostered censorship weaponized Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice(DOJ). Ask pro-life activists facing prison sentences for peaceful demonstrations outside abortion clinics.

Going back further, talk to parents who, FGI discovered, were called racist and transphobic by teachers unions and the Biden Education Department. Or the concerned parents who dared to speak up in school board meetings around the country. Their reward was being called a threat and singled out by the DOJ and FBI. We can be thankful to whoever it was that leaked the FBI memo recommending infiltrating Catholic Mass enthusiast cells.

Trump’s executive order on weaponization will hopefully right some of these wrongs and remind the DOJ and intelligence services that they work for the people. (The president also stripped security clearances from the 51 former intelligence officials who, without evidence, dismissed the Hunter Biden laptop story as a “Russian information operation.”) If nothing else, it will make clear to all, no matter their party, that there are no grey areas and no workarounds when it comes to fundamental constitutional rights.

The federal government has strayed far from its purpose of securing the God-given rights of its citizens. Trump received a mandate from the voters to move it back to the true path, and these orders bring vital reforms. Ideally, Congress will follow suit and pass legislation doing the same, but permanently. As Americans, it is the least we should expect from our government.

Roderick Law is the communications director for the Functional Government Initiative.

Business

Canada holds valuable bargaining chip in trade negotiations with Trump

Published on January 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen and Jake Fuss

On the eve of a possible trade war with the United States, Canadian policymakers have a valuable bargaining chip they can play in any negotiations—namely, Canada’s “supply management” system.

During his first day in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump said he may impose “25 per cent” tariffs on Canadian and Mexican exports into the United States on Feb. 1. In light of his resounding election win and Republican control of both houses of congress, Trump has a strong hand.

In response, Canadian policymakers—including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ontario Premier Doug Ford—have threatened retaliation. But any retaliation (tariffs imposed on the U.S., for example) would likely increase the cost of living for Canadians.

Thankfully, there’s another way. To improve our trade position with the U.S.—and simultaneously benefit Canadian consumers—policymakers could dismantle our outdated system of supply management, which restricts supply, controls imports and allows producers of milk, eggs and poultry to maintain higher prices for their products than would otherwise exist in a competitive market. Government dictates who can produce, what can be produced, when and how much. While some aspects of the system are provincial (such as certain marketing boards), the federal government controls many key components of supply management including import restrictions and national quotas.

How would this help Canada minimize the Trump threat?

In the U.S., farmers backed Trump by a three-to-one margin in the 2024 election, and given Trump’s overall views on trade, the new administration will likely target Canadian supply management in the near future. (Ironically, Trump has cried foul about Canadian tariffs, which underpin our supply management system.) Given the transactional nature of Trump’s leadership, Canadian negotiators could put supply management on the negotiating table as a bargaining chip to counter demands that would actually damage the Canadian economy, such as Trump’s tariffs. This would allow Trump to deliver increased access to the Canadian market for the farmers that overwhelmingly supported him in the election.

And crucially, this would also be good for Canadian consumers. According to a 2015 study, our supply management system costs the average Canadian household an estimated extra $300 to $444 annually, and higher prices hurt lower-income Canadians more than any other group. If we scrapped supply management, we’d see falling prices at the grocery store and increased choice due to dairy imports from the U.S.

Unfortunately, Parliament has been moving in the opposite direction. Bill C-282, which recently passed in the House of Commons and is now before the Senate, would entrench supply management by restricting the ability of Canadian trade negotiators to use increased market access as a tool in international trade negotiations. In other words, the bill—if passed—will rob Canadian negotiators of a key bargaining chip in negotiations with Trump. With a potential federal election looming, any party looking to strengthen Canada’s trade position and benefit consumers here at home should reject Bill C-282.

Trade negotiations in the second Trump era will be difficult so our policymakers in Ottawa and the provinces must avoid self-inflicted wounds. By dismantling Canada’s system of supply management, they could win concessions from Team Trump, possibly avert a destructive tit-for-tat tariff exchange, and reduce the cost of living for Canadians.