Connect with us

Opinion

Red Deer, for many is “A nice place to work but they don’t want to live here”

Published

8 minute read

October 16 2017 is the final exam for the current city council, mayor and the school boards. That is the day the citizens of Red Deer will elect a mayor, a city council and 2 school boards.
Some incumbents, will retire and not put their name forward, others may fail. Some will pass the exam solely on their personalities, good looks or connections, while others will work hard to pass and continue on for 4 more years.
What will they have on their resume?
The city has declined, dramatically while others have grown and prospered. The city shrank by 1%, (Blackfalds grew by 8%), unemployment is increasing, crime is increasing, vacancies are increasing, new home builds are down, businesses are leaving, and taxes are increasing. The north side of the river population 30,000, is still being discriminated against. No new schools in 30 years, still no high school, no new swimming pool in 30 years, no new indoor ice rink in 30 years. Blackfalds is fundraising for a second indoor ice rink, now with a population of only 9510.
I like to ask myself, why do these intelligent members of councils, school boards and mayors discriminate against sectors of Red Deer? I know that the north side of the river has been discriminated against both in operations and in planning, so when will my area be discriminated against, next year, next decade, or next election?
What will happen in the next nine months?
First of all this will be their final budget. The fiscal hawks, will have to show that they had what it took, to be fiscally responsible, these past 4 years. Can they square the circle of continuing tax increases, continued growth at city hall, continued increased spending, while the citizens are earning less, losing jobs, and ultimately leaving, with almost a 1,000 people moving out of Red Deer last year, 777 from north of the river.
Some will say that any decisions they make, you will not see any effect for 2 years. Fine, so what decisions did you make 3 years ago, that saw almost a thousand people leave the city last year, that saw our city become the second highest in crime rate across Canada. What decisions did you make 2 years ago that saw our unemployment rate increase last month, and businesses move from downtown to gasoline alley? What decisions did you make last year that would make you think that the city will not grow next year, negating the need for the annual census? Do not make those same decisions.
Apparently, for 700 former residents, it is better to fight rush hour traffic and drive back and forth to Blackfalds, than to live in Red Deer. What happened to make Red Deer; “A nice place to work, but I wouldn’t want to live there.”
Will the city increase taxes? Will they continue putting 1% in savings and blame that for increases? It shouldn’t because if they stayed with last year’s budget it would still be there. Will they expand staff levels, increase personnel, security, operations without reducing and redundancies? The city shrank by 1% and cost of living barely rose over 1%, 100 x 99% x101%= 99.99%. The fiscal hawks better have a good explanation for any tax increases.
The downtown protectionists, will have to explain why downtown businesses are leaving for areas like gasoline alley, after we spent so much, time, money and energy downtown. Roads, services, patios, entertainment, advertising, and businesses are leaving. What was our return on investment? Will we continue to pour millions into downtown projects at the expense of other areas and taxpayers?
Why is there no plans for a high school, north of the river? The area north of 11a will provide homes for 20,000+ more residents, meaning there will be 50,000+ residents north of the river, yet there is no plan for a high school. The incumbents will blame others, the city, the province, past-members, but they had 4 years to implement a plan. Why has fund raising become so necessary?
Nine months will see new initiatives brought forward, only to be forgotten on October 17. Incumbents will finally have an opinion, find a voice, and express their beliefs, before becoming mute again on October 17. New medias will offer more insight into the incumbents. The election of Notley in Alberta, Trudeau in Ottawa, and Trump in the USA will give a voice and optimism to the need for change, and give some awareness to re-election campaigns.
Perhaps in the next nine months leading up to the election on October 16, 2017, someone might say it is time. Instead of building the 7th or 8th indoor ice rink south of the river we could build a 2nd one north of the river. Instead of building the 5th and 6th high school south of the river we could build a 1st one north of the river. Instead of tearing down the recreation centre downtown so we can make the indoor pool bigger and the outdoor pool smaller we could build a 2nd pool north of the river.
Perhaps in the next nine months, an incumbent will say, the Collicutt Centre was a huge success, and kick started development in the south-east we should replicate that success in the north-west. We could build it by Hazlett Lake, fulfilling some of the needs of the residents, kick start development and give boost to our tourism and diversification desires.
The incumbents cannot say yes to every demand, and we do not expect them too. We would be outraged if for example, they only said yes to men and only said no to women. Would we be equally outraged if they only said yes to the south and only no to the north? Apparently not given the evidence of no high school ever, no new schools, indoor pools and indoor ice rinks in 30 plus years, north of the river.
The next nine months leading up to the municipal election on Monday October 16, 2017 will see some changes, will see stands taken, ideas proposed and many explanations. Will it be enough or is there enough impetus for change? We will have to see.
Thank you.

Follow Author

illegal immigration

ICE raids California pot farm, uncovers illegal aliens and child labor

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

ICE raided a California cannabis farm Thursday suspected of employing illegal immigrants, uncovering 10 underage workers — including 8 unaccompanied minors. The operation sparked protests, but federal officials defended the action as a necessary crackdown on illegal labor and child exploitation.

Key Details:

  • ICE agents executed a lawful raid at Glass House Farms in Camarillo, targeting illegal immigrant laborers employed at the state-licensed cannabis operation.
  • Ten underage illegal immigrants were found working at the site — eight of them unaccompanied minors — prompting a federal investigation into potential child labor violations.
  • Protesters attempted to interfere with the operation and were dispersed by federal agents using crowd control measures; multiple arrests and injuries were reported.

Diving Deeper:

Federal immigration agents executed a large-scale raid Thursday at a cannabis farm in Camarillo, California, targeting illegal immigrant laborers and uncovering possible child labor violations. The operation, led by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), took place at Glass House Farms, a state-licensed marijuana facility that remains illegal under federal law.

Dozens of agents stormed the property with a federal warrant, encountering resistance from left-wing protesters who attempted to disrupt the operation. Agents responded with tear gas and smoke devices, and helicopters were deployed to ensure no suspects could flee or hide in nearby fields. Authorities later confirmed that 10 minors were working at the facility—eight of whom were unaccompanied illegal aliens.

Despite clear evidence of immigration and labor violations, California Democrats rushed to attack the enforcement action. Governor Gavin Newsom lashed out on social media, posting video of people running from the scene. Rep. Salud Carbajal called the raid “deplorable,” complaining about the use of tactical gear.

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott pushed back, calling out Newsom directly. “Here’s some breaking news: 10 juveniles were found at this marijuana facility – all illegal aliens, 8 of them unaccompanied,” he posted on X. “It’s now under investigation for child labor violations.”

While California officials cried foul, ICE defended the operation as necessary and lawful. The raid is part of a broader push under President Trump to enforce federal immigration laws and shut down operations that exploit illegal labor to undercut American workers.

The clash in Camarillo follows similar enforcement actions earlier this week in Los Angeles, where ICE also faced hostility from local officials. Nonetheless, the Trump administration appears undeterred, making clear that sanctuary policies will not shield illegal activity from federal scrutiny.

Continue Reading

Business

103 Conflicts and Counting Unprecedented Ethics Web of Prime Minister Mark Carney

Published on

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

Brookfield. The PMO. Eurasia Group. One Green Agenda, Billions in Conflicts.

Well, it finally happened. After months of dodging questions and hiding behind vague platitudes about “climate leadership,” Prime Minister Mark Carney’s official conflict-of-interest screen has been released by the Ethics Commissioner—and what it reveals is nothing short of staggering. Not five entities. Not a dozen. One hundred and three. That’s how many corporate and financial interests Carney has quietly acknowledged are too conflicted for him to touch.

At the center of this web? Brookfield Asset Management, the $1 trillion global investment firm where Carney was Vice-Chair before walking straight into Canada’s top political office. The very same Brookfield that owns energy projects, pipelines, nuclear companies, real estate empires, carbon offset schemes you name it, they’ve got a piece of it. And now, they’ve got a former executive running the country.

We’re told it’s all perfectly legal. We’re told Carney has “recused himself.” But what this disclosure actually shows is something much bigger: a government captured by finance, a prime minister with deep, ongoing entanglements in the very sectors his policies now enrich, and a climate agenda that’s beginning to look a whole lot like a money-printing operation for the global elite.

The deeper one digs into Prime Minister Mark Carney’s ethics disclosure, the clearer the picture becomes: what’s been framed as a climate leadership story is, in reality, a tightly wound web of commercial interest wrapped in green rhetoric. The 103-entity conflict-of-interest screen, ostensibly a shield against impropriety, instead serves as a road map of how thoroughly Canada’s top political office is entangled in the global green finance complex centered around Brookfield Asset Management.

As of Q1 2025, Brookfield reports $125 billion in assets under management (AUM) in its Renewable Power & Transition segment, a figure representing 12.5% of its overall $1 trillion portfolio. This segment alone encompasses most of the entities on Carney’s ethics screen: nearly 60 out of 103, even after accounting for duplicates. These aren’t passive holdings they’re the very projects, technologies, and subsidy-eligible vehicles Carney once oversaw directly as vice-chair of Brookfield and as co-lead of its $15 billion Global Transition Fund.

Brookfield’s renewables portfolio is vast: over 41.8 GW in installed capacity globally across wind, solar, hydro, and storage, with a 200+ GW development pipeline. A significant portion of this is owned or operated through the same SPVs and subsidiaries now appearing on the conflict list. Notable entries include Scout Clean Energy ($1B), Urban Grid ($650M), and Standard Solar ($540M). These acquisitions were all completed while Carney was at Brookfield, and they continue to generate revenue from U.S. and Canadian subsidy frameworks programs now shaped by the very government he leads.

Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P., the sector flagship, holds approximately $95 billion in total assets and generated $315 million in funds from operations in Q1 2025 alone. The firm is planning to add another 8 GW in capacity this year expansion that is, in part, subsidized through the same green transition policies Carney has promoted both in office and as a climate finance advocate.

The line between public and private interest blurs even further when examining the entities categorized under the “energy transition” banner; nuclear, CCS (carbon capture and storage), and so-called e-fuels. Carney’s screen includes Brookfield’s recent $8 billion acquisition of Westinghouse Electric Company, a nuclear power behemoth now positioned to benefit from Canada’s federal nuclear incentives and SMR (small modular reactor) program. Other flagged investments like Entropy and Carbon TerraVault fall directly into carbon credit and offset schemes—markets heavily influenced by federal regulation and incentive design.

Let’s stop pretending. What we’re witnessing here isn’t just conflict of interest, it’s a complete merger of state power and corporate ambition, all dressed up in the language of moral urgency. The Ethics Commissioner’s so-called “screen” for Mark Carney? It’s a joke. A checklist. A bureaucratic fig leaf meant to reassure you that everything’s above board. But it’s not.

Because here’s the truth: Carney is policing himself. He’s supposed to recuse himself from decisions that benefit the 103 entities he’s tied to many of which he helped create or oversee as Vice-Chair of Brookfield Asset Management. But who decides if he’s in conflict? He does. Or more accurately, the PMO does. The same PMO now drafting Dominion Barton-style focus groups to figure out how best to sell you the green grift. There’s no third-party oversight, no transparency on what’s actually in his so-called blind trust, and no disclosure of the carried interest he may still be entitled to from Brookfield’s billions in funds.

Meanwhile, the policy levers of government are being pulled in exactly the direction Brookfield bet on. Wind, solar, carbon capture, nuclear, every so-called “transition” sector that Brookfield spent years buying into is now flush with green subsidies, ESG guarantees, and taxpayer-backed investment shields. This isn’t the free market at work, it’s a strategic payoff, engineered by someone who’s now running one of the most powerful G7 economies.

And again, none of it is illegal. That’s the most damning part. Because legality isn’t the standard here. The standard is integrity, and that’s nowhere to be found. The scale of this overlap isn’t just large. It’s systemic. It’s built into the very foundation of the Carney government’s climate policy. The same man who structured these funds is now the man signing off on the policies that make them profitable.

Diana Fox Carney’s Quiet Role in the Climate Cash Machine

And just when you thought the web of influence stopped at the Prime Minister himself, along comes Diana Fox Carney, economist, climate consultant, and spouse of the most well-connected man in Canadian politics. While Mark Carney’s direct financial entanglements with Brookfield Asset Management are now public record, his wife’s career trajectory paints an equally troubling picture of how the same elite networks driving Canada’s green spending are profiting in parallel, behind the curtain.

Diana Fox Carney currently holds a senior advisory role at Eurasia Group, the New York-based geopolitical risk consultancy that’s become a quiet powerhouse in shaping global ESG narratives. It’s also the same firm where Gerald Butts—Trudeau’s longtime fixer and architect of the federal climate playbook—now serves as vice chair. Add in former journalist Evan Solomon and even Conservative stalwart John Baird, and you’ve got a bipartisan consultancy stacked with Canadian political operators. Convenient? Maybe. Coordinated? You decide.

And what has this firm staffed with Liberal-era insiders received in return? Millions in untendered government contracts, including a $446,210 deal from Natural Resources Canada in 2024 for vaguely defined “geopolitical research.” That’s nearly half a million dollars in taxpayer money handed out without competition, to a firm employing the sitting Prime Minister’s wife—and his former colleagues. Just coincidence, right?

But Eurasia Group is only the start. Diana’s reach extends far beyond advisory calls. She’s connected to:

  • BeyondNetZero, a climate equity fund backed by U.S. private capital giant General Atlantic.
  • Helios CLEAR, investing in African climate “resilience.”
  • ClientEarth U.S. and the Shell Foundation, both pushing aggressive environmental litigation and policy influence.
  • Canada 2020, a Trudeau-aligned think tank that’s pocketed over $1 million in federal grants.

Throw in indirect ties to Gates Foundation funding, Save the Children, and research networks influencing African agriculture, and you’re looking at a network of transnational climate consultants with deep, ongoing influence over the exact climate policies the federal government is now implementing under her husband’s leadership.

Now, legally, Diana is in the clear. She’s not a public office holder. But that’s the point. The rules weren’t designed for this new class of political operator—the dual-career globalist power couple, where one side signs the climate cheques while the other cashes them. No formal disclosure is required. No recusals. No transparency. Yet the influence is there. The access is there. The money is flowing.

Opposition Reaction: Pierre Poilievre Slams Carney’s Hidden Conflicts, Demands Real Transparency

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre wasted no time responding to the bombshell ethics screen showing Prime Minister Mark Carney is recusing himself from dealings with over 100 companies, many tied to his former employer, Brookfield Asset Management. In a pair of direct and widely shared posts, Poilievre accused Carney of concealing critical financial entanglements from voters during the 2025 election, and warned that the Liberal leader is now either positioned to profit from federal decisions or paralyzed from making them.

“Mark Carney must explain why he kept these conflicts secret from voters until after the election,” Poilievre wrote. “Now he will be in a position to profit from big decisions or will be forced to sit out those decisions altogether. Either way, Canadians will pay the price.”

In a second post earlier that morning, Poilievre challenged the credibility of Carney’s so-called blind trust, urging the Prime Minister to liquidate his holdings entirely and hand the cash to a trustee who can invest it without Carney’s knowledge or influence:

“Otherwise, he will always know how political decisions can affect his personal wealth.”

These statements mark the strongest opposition rebuke yet of the Carney government’s financial entanglements. Poilievre’s message echoes growing public criticism that the ethics screen is little more than window dressing, lacking third-party oversight, and that it fails to address indirect benefit through carried interest, deferred compensation, or spousal affiliations.

While Carney has claimed he is in full compliance with federal ethics laws, the fact that the disclosures were released only after the election is fueling outrage—not just among Conservatives but from broader accountability watchdogs. With over 100 entities flagged, many of them tied to green energy, infrastructure, and climate finance—the same sectors receiving billions in federal spending—the Conservative leader has positioned himself as the voice of those demanding a full forensic audit of the Prime Minister’s interests.

The message from the opposition is clear: if this were a Conservative leader, the media would be calling it a scandal. But because it’s Carney—the global banker, the climate envoy, the Liberal savior—the establishment is looking the other way. Poilievre’s Conservatives aren’t. And they’re turning this into a defining issue of integrity and accountability in Canadian politics.

Let’s Call This What It Is

This isn’t subtle. This isn’t nuanced. This is what a grift looks like—on paper, in public, in black and white. Over one hundred conflicts of interest tied directly to Mark Carney. Entire portfolios of foreign and domestic holdings, billions in green investments, shell companies in Bermuda—and that’s before we even get to his wife’s global consultancy work, advising firms that quietly gobble up federal contracts without a single public tender.

And here’s the thing: we weren’t told any of this during the election. There was no press conference, no headline, no public vetting of the sprawling web of corporate and climate interests now tied to the highest office in the country. Why? Because it would have compromised the Liberal grip on power. Because the last thing this party wanted Canadians to know was that their new leader wasn’t just a banker—but a banker with a boardroom’s worth of financial strings still attached.

Now imagine—just for a moment—if it had been Pierre Poilievre. Or Andrew Scheer. Or any Conservative leader with over a hundred screened entities, global finance ties, offshore SPVs, and a spouse employed by a company collecting millions in government money. The press would be in a frenzy. The CBC would be running specials. They’d be calling him compromised, unfit, a foreign agent.

But because it’s their guy—because it’s the Liberal elite’s banker-in-chief—we’re told it’s fine. It’s all above board. Move along, nothing to see here.

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

This is not leadership. This is ideological grifting at the highest level. The Liberal Party, once the party of national unity and democratic accountability, has become a hollowed-out machine for elite interests. They’re not liberals. They’re grifters—grifting for green subsidies, globalist contracts, and personal access to power. They have no principle left. Just consultants, contracts, and a taxpayer-funded narrative to keep the game going.

Enough. Canadians didn’t vote for this. They weren’t told the truth. And now the entire climate agenda, the whole “just transition,” looks more like a get-rich scheme for the political class than any serious public mission.

It’s time for an election. Time to clear house. Time to drain this toxic, green-glossed swamp once and for all.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Opposition with Dan Knight , share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Trending

X