Connect with us

Opinion

Is it time to impose term limits at city hall? A historical perspective.

Published

4 minute read

If you were to look at the list of councillors (aldermen) for Red Deer from 1901 to 2017 you will find a list of 162 names.
162 people served for a total of 748 years. This averages out to 4.6 years per person. Larry Pimm and Dennis Moffat each served 27 years and you remove their years from the mix you would have 160 people serving a total of 694 years for an average of 4.3 years.
14 out 162 served for more than ten years for a total of 174 years. Take them out of the equation and you will see that 148 people served 574 years or about 3.9 – 4 years.
44 people served one year leaving a total of 104 people to serve 530 years or about 5 years each.
Many of these went on to serve as mayor and are not included in the totals.
So for 117 years we have been able to maintain a steady turnover of councillors about every 5 years. Now the term length is 4 years instead of 3 years I think it will increase. Many may find that a 4 year second term is too long and retire after 1 term.
In either case, being 3 years or 4 years, the average is less than 2 terms.
Red Deer has various council committees or boards and for example the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board you can only sit as a volunteer for 3 terms or 6 years in a row maximum. There are good reasons for limiting time served and encouraging turnover and the councillors imposed time limits.
Would these same reasons apply somewhat to city council and should they not have term limits? Should we not maintain a steady turnover in council?
Red Deer’s last municipal census showed there 99,832 residents so I am quite sure there are enough solid citizens to continue a turnover every 5 years. We have 8 councillors and if we were to turnover 5 councillors every election with a 2 term limit we would average a turnover every 5.5 years.
Currently the average amongst the incumbents is about 8 years between 4-13 years and looks like almost all of them are seeking re-election and they have the odds greatly in their favor and perhaps only 1 challenger winning a seat. So by the next election the average will be around 11 years. The trend appears to be going up for years served and down for turnover.
If we were to have 3 terms as a limit and acquire 2 or 3 newcomers every election the average will still be 9 years or nearly twice the historical average. If we had 2 term limits and we replaced 4 councillors every election the average would still be 6 years per person, still above historical average.
I think that a 2 term limit or 8 years would work and I am willing to accept a trial of 3 term limit or 12 years.
The support network is there so if all 8 councillors decided to retire on the same day, the city could easily find 8 replacements and survive. Might be some short term problems but the city will survive.
Should we talk about it?

Follow Author

Business

Federal funds FROZEN after massive fraud uncovered: Trump cuts off Minnesota child care money

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

The Trump administration has cut off all federal child care payments to Minnesota, ordering a sweeping audit of the state’s day care system as investigators dig into what officials describe as one of the largest fraud schemes ever tied to social service programs.

“We have frozen all child care payments to the state of Minnesota,” Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary Jim O’Neill wrote Tuesday afternoon, saying the move comes after mounting evidence that taxpayer dollars were being siphoned to sham or non-operational day care centers. The freeze follows a viral investigative video that put a national spotlight on facilities across Minneapolis that were receiving large sums of public money despite appearing closed or barely functioning.

According to Alex Adams, assistant secretary at HHS’s Administration for Children and Families, Minnesota has already received roughly $185 million in federal child care funding this year alone. Those funds, the administration says, will remain locked down until the state can demonstrate that payments are being used lawfully. “Funds will be released only when states prove they are being spent legitimately,” Adams said.

O’Neill accused Minnesota officials of allowing abuse to fester for years, alleging the state has “funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to fraudulent daycares across Minnesota over the past decade.” To halt further losses, HHS outlined a series of immediate enforcement steps. Going forward, states seeking reimbursement through the Administration for Children and Families will be required to provide receipts or photographic proof documenting how funds are spent.

The department has also formally demanded that Gov. Tim Walz order a “comprehensive audit” of the day care centers flagged by investigators. O’Neill said the review must include attendance records, licensing documents, complaints, investigative files, and inspection reports. He pointed directly to a video published Friday by YouTuber Nick Shirley, who visited multiple Minneapolis-area centers listed as receiving millions in public funds but found locations that appeared closed or inactive.

In addition, HHS has launched a dedicated fraud hotline and email address at childcare.gov to encourage tips from parents, providers, and the public. “We have turned off the money spigot and we are finding the fraud,” O’Neill said, urging anyone with information to come forward.

Federal prosecutors say the scope of the alleged abuse is staggering. Authorities have already confirmed at least $1 billion in fraud tied to Minnesota child care programs, with 92 people charged so far. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has warned the total could ultimately reach as high as $9 billion as investigators continue combing through records.

The funding freeze marks one of the most aggressive crackdowns yet by the Trump administration on state-run social programs accused of lax oversight, sending a clear message that federal dollars will not flow until Minnesota can account for where the money went — and who was cashing in.

Continue Reading

Business

The Real Reason Canada’s Health Care System Is Failing

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Conrad Eder

Conrad Eder supports universal health care, but not Canada’s broken version. Despite massive spending, Canadians face brutal wait times. He argues it’s time to allow private options, as other countries do, without abandoning universality.

It’s not about money. It’s about the rules shaping how Canada’s health care system works

Canada’s health care system isn’t failing because it lacks funding or public support. It’s failing because governments have tied it to restrictive rules that block private medical options used in other developed countries to deliver timely care.

Canada spends close to $400 billion a year on health care, placing it among the highest-spending countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Yet the system continues to struggle with some of the longest waits for care, the fewest doctors per capita and among the lowest numbers of hospital beds in the OECD. This is despite decades of spending increases, including growth of 4.5 per cent in 2023 and 5.7 per cent in 2024, according to estimates from the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

Canadians are losing confidence that government spending is the solution. In fact, many don’t even think it’s making a difference.

And who could blame them? Median health care wait times reached 30 weeks in 2024, up from 27.7 weeks in 2023, which was up from 27.4 weeks in 2022, according to annual surveys by the Fraser Institute.

Nevertheless, politicians continue to tout our universal health care system as a source of national pride and, according to national surveys, 74 per cent of Canadians agree. Yet only 56 per cent are satisfied with it. This gap reveals that while Canadians value universal health care in principle, they are frustrated with it in practice.

But it isn’t universal health care that’s the problem; it’s Canada’s uniquely restrictive version of it. In most provinces, laws restrict physicians from working simultaneously in public and private systems and prohibit private insurance for medically necessary services covered by medicare, constraints that do not exist in most other universal health care systems.

The United Kingdom, France, Germany and the Netherlands all maintain universal health care systems. Like Canada, they guarantee comprehensive insurance coverage for essential health care services. Yet they achieve better access to care than Canada, with patients seeing doctors sooner and benefiting from shorter surgical wait times.

In Germany, there are both public and private hospitals. In France, universal insurance covers procedures whether patients receive them in public hospitals or private clinics. In the Netherlands, all health insurance is private, with companies competing for customers while coverage remains guaranteed. In the United Kingdom, doctors working in public hospitals are allowed to maintain private practices.

All of these countries preserved their commitment to universal health care while allowing private alternatives to expand choice, absorb demand and deliver better access to care for everyone.

Only 26 per cent of Canadians can get same-day or next-day appointments with their family doctor, compared to 54 per cent of Dutch and 47 per cent of English patients. When specialist care is needed, 61 per cent of Canadians wait more than a month, compared to 25 per cent of Germans. For elective surgery, 90 per cent of French patients undergo procedures within four months, compared to 62 per cent of Canadians.

If other nations can deliver timely access to care while preserving universal coverage, so can Canada. Two changes, inspired by our peers, would preserve universal coverage and improve access for all.

First, allow physicians to provide services to patients in both public and private settings. This flexibility incentivizes doctors to maximize the time they spend providing patient care, expanding service capacity and reducing wait times for all patients. Those in the public system benefit from increased physician availability, as private options absorb demand that would otherwise strain public resources.

Second, permit private insurance for medically necessary services. This would allow Canadians to obtain coverage for private medical services, giving patients an affordable way to access health care options that best suit their needs. Private insurance would enable Canadians to customize their health coverage, empowering patients and supporting a more responsive health care system.

These proposals may seem radical to Canadians. They are not. They are standard practice everywhere else. And across the OECD, they coexist with universal health care. They can do the same in Canada.

Alberta has taken an important first step by allowing some physicians to work simultaneously in public and private settings through its new dual-practice model. More Canadian provinces should follow Alberta’s lead and go one step further by removing legislative barriers that prohibit private health insurance for medically necessary services. Private insurance is the natural complement to dual practice, transforming private health care from an exclusive luxury into a viable option for Canadian families.

Canadians take pride in their health care system. That pride should inspire reform, not prevent it. Canada’s health care crisis is real. It’s a crisis of self-imposed constraints preventing our universal system from functioning at the level Canadians deserve.

Policymakers can, and should, preserve universal health care in this country. But maintaining it will require a willingness to learn from those who have built systems that deliver universality and timely access to care, something Canada’s current system does not.

Conrad Eder is a policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X