Connect with us

Opinion

10 days into Election 2017 and the focus today is the province. What sayeth the candidates, or some at least?

Published

5 minute read

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?

ESG

Tennessee Taking Lead In Protecting Civil Rights And Free Enterprise—And Stopping Political Debanking

Published on

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By ERIC BLEDSOE

 

Last week, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R.) signed into law a first-of-its-kind ban on politicized debanking. Sponsored by Rep. Jason Zachary (R.) and Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson (R.), HB 2100 will prohibit the nation’s largest banks from discriminating against individuals, businesses, and non-profits for their political and religious views.

The new law is a landmark reform to stop large banks from imposing political litmus tests on Americans.

This legislation (HB 2100) is, of course, a reaction to the trend of the largest financial institutions creating partisan barriers to Americans’ access to financial services. Last year, Bank of America closed the deposit and credit card accounts of Memphis-based non-profit Indigenous Advance Ministries. The organization works with Ugandan widows and orphans to provide for their basic needs through Christian charity. Bank of America refused to give Indigenous Advance a reason why they closed the accounts—just that they no longer wanted to work with their “business type.”

Indigenous Advance’s experience is like what the National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF) faced when JPMorgan Chase closed their accounts. NCRF promotes religious liberty for Americans of all religious faiths. Chase said it would restore NCRF’s accounts if it disclosed a list of its donors, told the bank which political candidates it intended to support, and sent them the criteria NCRF uses to decide who they want to support politically. NCRF, out of respect for their donors’ right to privacy, declined.

John Eastman, past attorney for former President Donald Trump, was debanked twice at the end of last year by Bank of America and USAA. Again, the banks provided little to no explanation for the sudden closures. Eastman told the Daily Caller that the banks said it was their policy to not provide any further information. Banks stonewalling their customers on why they close their accounts is alarmingly becoming a pattern.

In December 2022, Wells Fargo abruptly closed the personal and business accounts of Brandon Wexler, a Florida-based gun dealer. The bank’s only explanation was a brief mention that it was due to their review of account risk. Wexler had a personal account with Wells Fargo for 25 years and a business account for 14 years. One instance of an account closing might not be worthy of attention, but more and more examples like these are becoming more common. And the only common thread, besides banks refusing to explain their actions, is that the targets of debanking hold political and religious views unpopular on Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. This does not appear to be a policy at one bank, but an unspoken policy across the industry. Commenting on Wells Fargo’s action against him, Wexler said, “I’ve been with them for 25 years,” […] “I’m a professional fireman. I do everything the right way. It’s messed up.”

But large banks debanking individuals and non-profits is not the full extent of politically motivated financial service providers’ discrimination. In September, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti sent a letter sent a letter to financial service providers who are signatories to the Net Zero Financial Service Providers Alliance (NZFSPA) warning them that their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) strategies may be in violation of antitrust and consumer protection laws. Both state and federal laws prohibit coordinated or collaborative efforts between corporations to restrict trade or commerce. All members of NZFSPA agree to “(a)lign all relevant services and products to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner, scaling and mainstreaming Paris Agreement-alignment into the core of our business.” Though the 27 members of NZFSPA are supposed competitors in the financial services market, their joint commitment to restrict sectors of the economy like fossil fuel is clearly a coordinated effort.

Large financial institutions’ boycott of fossil fuel and discriminatory actions against individuals and non-profits for their religious or political views may seem disconnected at first. But those following the ESG movement won’t be surprised to see these politically motivated efforts across multiple sectors. Last month, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen sounded the alarm over these radical policies to Wells Fargo CEO Charles Scharf with the support of 15 other state attorneys general. A member of the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), Wells Fargo has committed, alongside 143 other banks, to implement ESG policies. In the letter, the attorneys general noted that Wells Fargo has a record of debanking Republican candidates and the firearms industry, imposing race- and gender-based quotas on credit customers, and publicly committing to implement radical climate standards on the energy industry.

Leftist activists realize they cannot accomplish such a radical agenda of eroding individual rights and a free economy through the ballot box. ESG is a political tool that enables the far left to bypass the democratic process to will their worldview onto Americans’ lives. In response, policymakers and other stakeholders must strengthen and enforce civil liberties protections, consumer rights, and antitrust laws, so that political activists cease willing their agenda on citizens.

Fortunately, states like Tennessee are taking the lead in protecting civil rights and free enterprise.

Eric Bledsoe is a Senior Policy Fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Continue Reading

Fraser Institute

Federal government’s fiscal record—one for the history books

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Per-person federal spending is expected to equal $11,901 this year. To put this into perspective, this is significantly more than Ottawa spent during the global financial crisis in 2008 or either world war.

The Trudeau government tabled its 2024 budget earlier this month and the contents of the fiscal plan laid bare the alarming state of federal finances. Both spending and debt per person are at or near record highs and prospects for the future don’t appear any brighter.

In the budget, the Trudeau government outlined plans for federal finances over the next five years. Annual program spending (total spending minus debt interest costs) will reach a projected $483. billion in 2024/25, $498.7 billion in 2025/26, and continue growing in the years following. By 2028/29 the government plans to spend $542.0 billion on programs—an 18.4 per cent increase from current levels.

This is not a new or surprising development for federal finances. Since taking office in 2015, the Trudeau government has shown a proclivity to spend at nearly every turn. Prime Minister Trudeau has already recorded the five highest levels of federal program spending per person (adjusted for inflation) in Canadian history from 2018 to 2022. Projections for spending in the 2024 budget assert the prime minister is now on track to have the eight highest years of per-person spending on record by the end of the 2025/26 fiscal year.

Per-person federal spending is expected to equal $11,901 this year. To put this into perspective, this is significantly more than Ottawa spent during the global financial crisis in 2008 or either world war. It’s also about 28.0 per cent higher than the full final year of Stephen Harper’s time as prime minister, meaning the size of the federal government has expanded by more than one quarter in a decade.

The government has chosen to borrow substantial sums of money to fund a lot of this marked growth in spending. Federal debt under the Trudeau government has risen before, during and after COVID regardless of whether the economy is performing relatively well or comparatively poor. Between 2015 and 2024, Ottawa is expected to run 10 consecutive deficits, with total gross debt set to reach $2.1 trillion within the next 12 months.

The scale of recent debt accumulation is eye-popping even after accounting for a growing population and the relatively high inflation of the past two years. By the end of the current fiscal year, each Canadian will be burdened with $12,769 more in total federal debt (adjusted for inflation) than they were in 2014/15.

You can attribute some of this increase in borrowing to the effects of COVID, but debt had already grown by $2,954 per person from 2014 to 2019—before the pandemic. Moreover, budget estimates show gross debt per person (adjusted for inflation) is expected to rise by more than $2,500 by 2028/29.

As with spending, the Trudeau government is on track to record the six highest years of federal debt per-person (adjusted for inflation) in Canadian history between 2020/21 and the end of its term next autumn. Why should Canadians care about this record debt?

Simply put, rising debt leads to higher interest payments that current and future generations of taxpayers must pay—leaving less money for important priorities such as health care and social services. Moreover, all this spending and debt hasn’t helped improve living standards for Canadians. Canada’s GDP per person—a broad measure of incomes—was lower at the end of 2023 than it was nearly a decade ago in 2014.

The Trudeau government’s track record with federal finances is one for the history books. Ottawa’s spending continues to be at near-record levels and Canadians have never been burdened with more debt. Those aren’t the type of records we should strive to achieve.

Continue Reading

Trending

X