Opinion
10 days into Election 2017 and the focus today is the province. What sayeth the candidates, or some at least?
Macleans published a list of the top 100 cities in Canada to retire in and Red Deer was not on the list. One of the criteria is access to health care. Apparently we rate pretty low in that category.
This is a provincial jurisdiction but some candidates are weighing in on this issue. One talks about how the hospital is always under renovation. The new parkade has come under fire for different reasons. Two suggests building a second hospital altogether, having 2 separate hospitals.
Access to timely treatment and surgery is a common issue. Another common complaint is the need to leave the city for surgery, see a specialist or for assisted living.
Seniors and others who cannot live on their own, take up a hospital bed awaiting a home in an assisted living facility. There are many stories of long-time residents spending their final years in Innisfail, Stettler and Rimbey to name but a few. Creating hardships for family and spouses remaining in Red Deer.
No wonder we did not make the list of top 100 cities to retire in.
What do some of the candidates say;
Tara Veer on the Red Deer Regional Hospital
Even though Hospital infrastructure is completely under the decision-making jurisdiction of the Provincial Government, the needs of our community are a priority for the City. There are numerous examples over the past four years of the City strongly advocating to the Provincial Government to fulfill our local provincial infrastructure needs; The Hospital is one of them and most certainly will continue to be a priority until we secure the expansion of the Red Deer Regional Hospital.
Mayor Veer has spoken and/or written substantially on this issue and this latest excerpt on Todayville.com; “I have also met and spoken with our local MLA’s and the Minister of Health regarding our community’s expectations regarding Hospital infrastructure on multiple occasions. If citizens of Red Deer would like to add their voice to our community and Council’s advocacy efforts, we encourage citizens to contact the Minister of Health and your local MLA (Kim Schreiner or Barb Miller if you live in Red Deer).”
Ken Johnston
I am meeting with our MLA’s tomorrow as have been through meetings with the Doctor group, the Foundation, private donors and AHS. I can’t speak for other candidates but that is how I am advocating for our City. Lives continue to be at risk in Red Deer and the Central Zone, I can personally attest to that. It is Capital that is needed and righting a gross inequality in Health Care spending.
Sam Bergeron
-A school and a hospital would be helpful. An elementary, middle and high school for that matter. Even a small hospital would help the north end
Lawrence Lee
We also desperately need a Regional Hospital Centre upgrade. For at least a decade we have seen the over 400,000 people that the Red Deer Regional Hospital serves not receive the same level of care that Albertans have in Edmonton and Calgary. As the province’s third largest city and a hospital that serves such a large population I will fight to support our Central Alberta region in achieving health equity and care for its residents
Michael Dawe
Having been a one time chair of the former Red Deer Regional Hospital Board knows the issues and intricacies of the hospitals would also be an informed advocate for the hospital.
I remember having very similar concerns thirty years ago and a political candidate in a federal election reminded us that we cannot have good health without a good job, money for food, a sense of security and a roof over our head. Many of these issues can be handled by city council leaving the issue of the hospital as a precursor for the provincial election of May 2019.
Red Deer can advocate for the province to step up, but there are many things the city council can do locally to ease the demand on the hospital. Let us hear from all the candidates, shall we?
Daily Caller
US Supreme Court Has Chance To End Climate Lawfare

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
All eyes will be on the Supreme Court later this week when the justices conference on Friday to decide whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari on a high-stakes climate lawsuit out of Colorado. The case is a part of the long-running lawfare campaign seeking to extract billions of dollars in jury awards from oil companies on claims of nebulous damages caused by carbon emissions.
In Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, major American energy companies are asking the Supreme Court to decide whether federal law precludes state law nuisance claims targeting interstate and global emissions. This comes as the City and County of Boulder, Colo. sued a long list of energy companies under Colorado state nuisance law for alleged impacts from global climate change.
The Colorado Supreme Court allowed a lower state trial court decision to go through, improbably finding that federal law did not preempt state law claims. The central question hangs on whether the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts state common law public nuisance claims related to the regulation of carbon emissions. In this case, as in at least 10 other cases that have been decided in favor of the defendant companies, the CAA clearly does preempt Colorado law. It seems inevitable that the Supreme Court, if it grants the cert petition, would make the same ruling.
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!
Such a finding by the Supreme Court would reinforce a 2021 ruling by the Second Circuit Appeals Court that also upheld this longstanding principle of federal law. In City of New York v. Chevron Corp. (2021), the Second Circuit ruled that municipalities may not use state tort law to hold multinational companies liable for climate damages, since global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy. Consequently, the court called for the explicit application of federal common law, with the CAA granting the Environmental Protection Agency – not federal courts – the authority to regulate domestic greenhouse gas emissions. This Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, should weigh in here and find in the same way.
Boulder-associated attorneys have become increasingly open to acknowledging the judicial lawfare inherent in their case, as they try to supplant federal regulatory jurisdiction with litigation meant to force higher energy prices rise for consumers. David Bookbinder, an environmental lawyer associated with the Boulder legal team, said the quiet part out loud in a recent Federalist Society webinar titled “Can State Courts Set Global Climate Policy. “Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products.”
Oh.
While Bookbinder recently distanced himself from the case, no notice of withdrawal had appeared in the court’s records as of this writing. Bookbinder also writes that “Gas prices and climate change policy have become political footballs because neither party in Congress has had the courage to stand up to the oil and gas lobby. Both sides fear the spin machine, so consumers get stuck paying the bill.”
Let’s be honest: The “spin machine” works in all directions. Make no mistake about it, consumers are already getting stuck paying the bill related to this long running lawfare campaign even though the defendants have repeatedly been found not to be liable in case after case. The many millions of dollars in needless legal costs sustained by the dozens of defendants named in these cases ultimately get passed to consumers via higher energy costs. This isn’t some evil conspiracy by the oil companies: It is Business Management 101.
Because the climate alarm lobby hasn’t been able to force its long-sought national carbon tax through the legislative process, sympathetic activists and plaintiff firms now pursue this backdoor effort in the nation’s courts. But their problem is that the law on this is crystal clear, and it is long past time for the Supreme Court to step in and put a stop to this serial abuse of the system.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Crime
U.S. seizes Cuba-bound ship with illicit Iranian oil history
President Trump revealed Wednesday afternoon that U.S. authorities intercepted a Cuba-bound oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast, a dramatic move aimed at tightening the squeeze on illicit oil networks operating throughout the region. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump described the vessel as “a very large tanker — the largest one ever seized in action,” hinting that more developments are coming. He declined to get into specifics, saying only that the operation happened “for a very good reason.” When asked about the tanker’s crude, Trump didn’t overcomplicate it. “Well, we keep it, I guess,” he said.
According to a U.S. official familiar with the operation, the seizure was executed by the Coast Guard with support from the U.S. Navy after a federal judge green-lit the warrant roughly two weeks ago. Another official told the New York Times the ship — identified as the Skipper — had been sailing under a falsified flag and has a documented history of trafficking illicit Iranian oil. The vessel, although carrying Venezuelan crude at the time, was seized because of those Iranian smuggling ties, not because of any direct connection to Nicolás Maduro’s regime.
Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Homeland Security Investigations, and the United States Coast Guard, with support from the Department of War, executed a seizure warrant for a crude oil tanker used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran. For multiple… pic.twitter.com/dNr0oAGl5x
— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) December 10, 2025
Vanguard, a UK-based maritime risk firm, confirmed Wednesday that the Skipper fits the profile of a tanker previously sanctioned by the United States for operating under the alias Adisa while moving banned Iranian oil. A source speaking to Politico said the ship was on its way to Cuba, where state-run Cubametales intended to flip the cargo to Asian brokers — an increasingly common workaround as U.S. sanctions isolate both Havana and Caracas from traditional buyers. With most Venezuelan product now flowing to China under the sanctions regime, oil traders began recalibrating almost immediately after the news broke. Prices ticked upward modestly as markets waited to learn whether any Venezuelan crude was on board and how much would be effectively taken off the table.
Maduro, for his part, avoided directly mentioning the seizure during a speech later Wednesday, instead railing against the United States and claiming Venezuela’s military stands ready “to break the teeth of the North American empire, if necessary.” His bluster did little to obscure the reality: the Trump administration just disrupted yet another shadowy oil operation linking Caracas, Havana, and Tehran — and sent a clear signal that these networks will be confronted, tanker by tanker.
-
Business2 days agoCanada Can Finally Profit From LNG If Ottawa Stops Dragging Its Feet
-
Crime2 days agoInside the Fortified Sinaloa-Linked Compound Canada Still Can’t Seize After 12 Years of Legal War
-
Automotive16 hours agoThe $50 Billion Question: EVs Never Delivered What Ottawa Promised
-
National2 days agoLiberal bill “targets Christians” by removing religious exemption in hate-speech law
-
Energy2 days agoLNG NOW! Canada must act fast to prosper in changing times
-
Health1 day agoUS podcaster Glenn Beck extends a lifeline to a Saskatchewan woman waiting for MAiD
-
Local Business13 hours agoRed Deer Downtown Business Association to Wind Down Operations
-
C2C Journal15 hours agoWisdom of Our Elders: The Contempt for Memory in Canadian Indigenous Policy


