Opinion

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

Published

8 years ago

3 minute read

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.

Follow Author

State of federal finances make NATO spending target very challenging

Business / 4 hours ago

Trump’s executive orders represent massive threat to Canadian competitiveness

International / 8 hours ago

RFK Jr. fires back in defense of vaccine stance amid heated Senate confirmation hearing

armed forces

State of federal finances make NATO spending target very challenging

Published on January 29, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Defence Minister Bill Blair recently claimed the federal government could “absolutely” achieve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) defence spending target of 2.0 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP—a measure of the size of the economy) by 2027. However, the dismal state of Canada’s finances makes this accelerated timeline very costly to Canadians.

First, some background. In 2014, Canada (along with the other NATO members) formally pledged to increase spending on defence up to a target of 2.0 per cent of GDP by 2024. At the time, Canada spent 1.01 per cent of GDP on defence. A decade has passed and Canada has failed to fulfill that pledge. Indeed, based on the current defence spending plan and the latest GDP projections, Canada’s defence spending is expected to reach just 1.34 per cent of GDP ($41.0 billion) in 2024/25.

Based on the latest spending estimates from NATO, Canada is one of only eight NATO members (out of 31 in total) to spend less than 2.0 per cent of GDP on defence. As the large majority of the alliance has now met the spending target, and President Donald Trump has called for the target to be raised even further to 5 per cent of GDP, Canada will have to dramatically increase defence spending (lest we be at complete odds with our allies).

However, meeting the NATO 2.0 per cent target by 2027/28 would require billions more in annual federal spending (see the following figure).Over the next three years, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), the federal government will increase defence spending from a projected $41.0 billion in 2024/25 to $53.5 billion in 2027/28—with the majority of this increase occurring in the first year. This means, based on the current plan, Canada’s defence spending would only reach 1.55 per cent of GDP by 2027/28.

To reach 2.0 per cent of GDP in 2027/28, the government would need to spend $68.8 billion on defence during that fiscal year. Assuming the initial jump remains the same, this implies the government would need to increase annual defence spending by $16.5 billion from 2025/26 to 2027/28—$15.3 billion more than currently planned.

The federal government plans to run four consecutive budget deficits from 2024/25 to 2027/28 that add up to $151.9 billion in expected borrowing. In other words, the government already plans to spend more than it collects in revenues. Assuming the government adopts the spending plan shown in the above figure, reaching the NATO target by 2027/28 would require an additional $22.7 billion in borrowing.

Increasing the amount borrowed will impose substantial costs on Canadians. In the near-term it results in higher debt interest payments. Government must pay interest on its debt—same as a family with a mortgage—and rising interest costs leave less money available for programs and services. For perspective, largely due to past borrowing under the Trudeau government, federal debt interest payments are expected to equal all Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenues (and then some) in 2024/25. Longer-term, an increase in borrowed money will also burden future generations of taxpayers who will likely face higher taxes to pay for today’s spending.

Clearly, borrowing money to fund higher defence spending will only worsen the state of federal finances, meaning Canada is in a lose-lose situation when it comes to meeting the NATO 2.0 per cent target—risk the consequences of further disappointing our allies or take on billions more in debt.

Instead, Ottawa should identify and cut wasteful spending and use those savings for national defence. Simply put, smaller and smarter government spending could help get Canada out of this lose-lose situation.

Business

Trump’s executive orders represent massive threat to Canadian competitiveness

Published on January 29, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Donald Trump had a busy first day back on the job. From his desk in the Oval Office, President Trump signed a suite of executive orders including on energy and regulation, with major implications for Canada. He’s clearly rejected the primacy of a regulatory state (in favour of the legislative state), put a lock on the growth of U.S. regulation, and launched regulatory and cost controls. Essentially this means the U.S. will systemically deregulate while Canada is regulating its economy ever more heavily and broadly, making our economy even less competitive with the U.S.

Trump has also put paid to the fallacy of the great electric vehicle (EV) transition by pulling the plug on the U.S. EV mandate and federal consumer subsidies for EVs. Of course, now that the U.S. will not mandate EVs in large numbers, the massive investments Canada has made in EV and battery technology and manufacturing—on the expectation of selling EV parts and vehicles in the U.S. market—will likely see little return.

Trump’s withdrawal (for a second time) from the Paris climate agreement also puts U.S. policy further at odds with Canada. While Canada will spend huge amounts of money to attempt to comply with its climate commitments under the agreement, and hurt its energy and natural resource sectors in the process, the U.S. will not. In fact, the Trump administration will likely undo many of the things that have been done in the name of implementing the Paris agreement.

Trump‘s declaration of an energy emergency and his call for a massive increase in energy production by is also a direct threat to Canada’s energy economy. As we have seen in the past, the Americans can move very quickly to increase the supply of oil and natural gas when they put their mind to it and when regulations don’t stand in the way. A U.S. energy surge could lead to a flood of oil and gas production pretty quickly, leading the U.S. to need less and less Canadian oil and gas (as Trump has flamboyantly proclaimed).

Trump also wants to expedite energy project reviews and approvals, the exact opposite to the Trudeau government’s approach, which has frustrated the building of new pipelines and other projects. This will facilitate the U.S. ability to increase energy and natural resource production at a pace Canada cannot hope to match.

Simply put, setting aside Trump’s threatened tariffs, his day-one executive orders pose a serious threat to Canada’s energy and natural resource sectors, which remain a vital source of prosperity and revenue, and merit an immediate response from our federal government.

In an ideal world, Canada would harmonize its policy approach to the U.S. on energy and natural resources, which has, in fact, been a historical norm. But unfortunately for Canadians, the Trudeau government will likely reject Trump’s policy reforms and continue its pro-administrative state, anti-energy, anti-resource economic philosophy. And given Prime Minister Trudeau’s recent actions to prorogue Parliament, President Trump’s executive-order barrage won’t face a meaningful Canadian response for months, letting the U.S. steal a massive march on energy, natural resource and regulatory policy reforms over a Canada sitting on its hands.