|
Please note that because electronic tabulators are gone Red Deer Elections has stated that it may take 4 days to have official results published. Names left off this list does not mean they are not worthy candidates, if their platforms speak to you then you should vote for them. 
0 Comments
QUESTION BY EMAIL.
1) Why did you decide to put your name forward as a candidate? I’m running for City Council because I care deeply about Red Deer and the people who live here. This is my home, and I want to see it safer, stronger, and more connected. I believe we need a Council that listens, communicates openly, and focuses on real solutions that make life better for everyone. My career spans over 30 years in retail operations, management, marketing, sales, and team leadership, with experience across Ontario, Nunavut, Ohio, and Alberta. While I studied business decades ago, I’ve learned far more from hands-on, practical experience than any classroom could provide. I’ve been involved in municipal committees and advocacy groups over the years, which reinforced the importance of hard work, listening to people, and delivering results. Living with a disability has given me a unique perspective on accessibility and inclusion, and I am passionate about affordable housing, fair rent, and supporting people who are struggling in our community. I am not a career politician, and serving on Council is my way to give back and fulfill my civic duty while helping make Red Deer safer, more welcoming, and more united. For more information on my experience, platform, and positions, you can visit my website at www.kevinmklerks.ca . 2) Are you a candidate that is closer in ideology to being conservative, liberal (or NDP) ideology? This will not ultimately determine my vote, but is helpful in a broad and more general understanding of how you might serve our community. I do not belong to any political party, so I cannot say how my values and platform might align with them. I believe in freedom, fairness, and common sense. Government should focus on the essentials—operating efficiently, being transparent, and staying out of people’s lives whenever possible. I value personal responsibility, helping others when we can, and ensuring everyone has a fair chance to succeed. I support practical solutions over politics, innovation over red tape, and protecting our community and environment through balance and accountability. People know what’s best for their own lives, and government should make that easier, not harder. Some have labeled me a “small-c conservative,” “slightly right of center,” “populist,” “libertarian,” or “moderate.” None of these labels, however, have any bearing on non-partisan municipal government. Since 2020, after my federal party run, I’ve been clear that political parties—federal, provincial, and especially municipal—should be abolished. Elected representatives should serve the people who chose them, not a party or its agenda. 3) Our downtown needs to be made a priority in the areas of homelessness, as well as drugs and substance abuse which occur openly on our streets, and parking issues. Do you agree? Comments? Downtown parking probably wouldn’t be such a headache if city employees weren’t allegedly taking up street spots, residents downtown who use the street for parking should be issued paid parking permits, and the Bus Terminal Parkade—most of the time sitting 70% empty—was used more. Bringing our transit system back to pre-COVID levels, with more evening routes, would also make it easier for people to get around without a vehicle. Our downtown needs attention when it comes to homelessness, open drug and substance abuse, and parking issues. Do I agree that downtown should be the absolute priority? Not exactly. Simply pushing the problem out of downtown might make business owners feel safer or give the impression that something has been accomplished, but it isn’t a real solution to homelessness. That’s why plans like the Chamber’s, and the work of local organizations, are important—they focus on practical approaches and partnerships to address these issues while the city provides support and oversight. Regarding drugs and substance abuse, the approach should be clear: addicts need to choose rehab or face legal consequences. If drug use is happening openly on our streets, law enforcement should enforce existing bylaws—but that also requires citizens to report incidents rather than just vent on social media. I’ve personally called the police about open drug use here on the Red Mile, and within five minutes there were two marked and one unmarked vehicles on site. If that’s the response I received, I can’t understand why it wouldn’t happen elsewhere like downtown—though maybe people aren’t calling the police when they see issues. 1. Would you describe your values as more liberal, conservative, or a mix of both?
I believe in freedom, fairness, and common sense. Government should focus on the basics—running efficiently, being transparent, and staying out of people’s lives as much as possible. I believe in personal responsibility, helping others when we can, and giving everyone a fair chance to succeed. I support practical solutions over politics, innovation over red tape, and protecting our community and environment through balance and accountability. I think people know what’s best for their own lives, and government should make that easier—not harder. People have called me a "small-c conservative", "slightly right of center", "populist", "libertarian", and "moderate"—but none of that has anything to do with non-partisan municipal government. I’ve said since 2020, after running for a Federal Party, that political parties in Canada—federal, provincial, and certainly municipal—should be abolished. Elected representatives should serve the people who put them there, not a party or its agenda. 2. Do you have a clear and actionable plan to address the issues of homelessness and rising crime in our city? Yes, as I mentioned at the Firefighters Forum — take this action plan (Chamber noted below) and act on it. The City needs to stay at arm’s length when it comes to addressing homelessness and addiction. We shouldn’t be wasting taxpayer dollars trying to do what others are already better equipped to handle. There are many qualified and experienced organizations out there that should be working together under one umbrella — a single coordinated society — that comes to the City only with a clear, unified plan forward. Keeping our city safe and well-built starts with being visible, proactive, and smart with resources. I want more foot patrols by Peace Officers downtown, better lighting, and a volunteer “downtown ambassador” program to deter petty crime and make residents feel safer. With the RCMP contract ending in 2032, we can create a Red Deer Municipal Police force, letting RCMP and Alberta Sheriffs (SCAN) focus on organized crime and drug sources instead of smaller offenses. At the same time, partnering with third-party organizations for non-core services like tourism, culture, and economic development keeps taxpayer money focused on core services like public safety and infrastructure. By combining prevention, presence, and smart partnerships, we can build a safer, stronger, and more vibrant community for everyone. https://www.reddeerchamber.com/assets/pdf/TaskForceRecommendationsFINAL/ Summarized: Create a Red Deer Homeless Foundation non profit to coordinate homelessness strategy: Transfer responsibilities from the City and provide transitional funding to 2025 Apply a business lens to homelessness considering economic impacts Increase community education and awareness Remove red tape in zoning and permitting to speed affordable housing Coordinate funding among agencies to reduce duplication Modernize the Alberta Housing Act for local flexibility Integrate homelessness strategy into the City’s Community Wellbeing and Safety Plan Develop provincial and federal affordable housing pathways Use public private partnerships for housing delivery Improve provincial funding and accountability Adjust federal tax and housing policies to support housing trusts Integrate addiction recovery employment and housing policies Launch Team Red Deer to encourage community involvement Promote citizen participation through volunteering and learning 3. What are your thoughts on the current strategy to reduce overtime costs for fire and emergency first responders? Do you believe it is effective or in need of revision? At the Firefighters Forum, I talked about how hiring more firemedics in Red Deer is the best way to cut overtime and keep everyone safe. Last year, we spent over $3.2 million on overtime—that’s enough to hire roughly 25 to 35 new firemedics. My goal is to bring in 50 new firemedics by the end of 2026. Above all else, we need to listen to the association and the boots on the ground about how we can make things run more efficiently without compromising public safety. I have never heard, in my life, of a city or town closing a fire station part-time simply to reduce staffing. We are lucky to have a top-rated firemedic service that is currently able to bridge the gap—but if we had a serious fire in our city, with old building codes grandfathered in, there is a real risk of lives being lost with the current staffing and coverage strategy. Imagine if one of the seniors’ highrises or one of the Capstone highrises caught fire—would we have the staff available at 2 a.m. to save lives? Instead of addressing the staffing issue properly, the city responded with a “dynamic staffing” model and a $600,000 cut to the budget, all while keeping a fire chief who received a 99% non-confidence vote from 87%* of the association membership. This is not effective leadership. People often compare our spending to Edmonton, but it’s not the same. Edmonton has over a thousand staff and more than 30 stations, each division separate for fire, rescue, and medical services. Here in Red Deer, we have fewer than 200 staff and fewer stations, and our firefighters are firemedics, which is more efficient, safer, and gets help to people faster—sometimes saving lives. The budget for emergency services should never be compared percentage-wise to parks, as incumbent candidate Victor Doerksen did. A human life has far greater value than a tree. We can pay for this and move forward without raising taxes by not wasting money, using a $1 saved for $1 new spending strategy, streamlining departments, and downloading non-core services to third-party organizations through contracting—examples include tourism, economic development promotion, culture and heritage programming, the sale of vacant public lands and buildings, and (as one candidate mentioned) the sale of the electric company while maintaining a shareholder stake in it. Even when fire and medical services are combined, AHS can still help with equipment and training. Investing in more firemedics and planning ahead means faster response times and a safer community for everyone. Thank you for your questions, Kevin M. Klerks Candidate for Red Deer City Councillor www.kevinmklerks.ca  I am not an engineer by any means and I invite someone to come up with a better idea besides cutting down the rebar or painting it orange. I can't afford large campaign signs so this doesn't impact me. But in my mind I see a T shaped rod with a corkscrew type column being a solution. These could be manufactured and marketed for this use, and look similar to this but fashioned from a single piece of steel and having a steel handle large enough to secure a base board. It could be required in the election signage rules for future elections impacting Red Deer. I just thought too, this corkscrew design would be easier to secure into harder soil than hammering a rebar in would, and the entire T-rod would need to be at least a couple feet long I guess. As I said not an engineer but at least I'm trying LOL  1. Have you ever donated to, accepted a donation from, attended one or more meetings of, become a member of, supported in any way, or had the philosophy/platform/messaging of Take Back Alberta and/or the Central Alberta Municipal Conservatives resonate with you? If yes, please feel to elaborate your connection if you wish. If no, please feel free to answer why.
First of all, I never heard of Central Alberta Municipal Conservatives before June 2025. I don’t even know if you can donate to them. Second, as a candidate, accepting a donation from them would be a violation of Red Deer’s Election rules regarding donations from charities, non-profits, or community organizations. I suspect the Elections Commissioner would have already been informed of this action and disciplinary action up to and including disbarment from participation in the election as a candidate would have already been taken. Third, I don’t know what Take Back Alberta is, so I would say no. To be honest since I started my campaign in June 2025 I’ve avoided reading anything on the whole Alberta vs Canada debate as my focus is, and should be, on Red Deer and the future of Red Deerians. Fourth, while not a card carrying “Conservative”, I have been clearly mentioned on the Central Alberta Municipal Conservatives listing. Not all of their views ‘resonate’ with me and I made it clear on several occasions that I am not a hard C Conservative – I’ve been told, between the US/Canada politics, that I’m considered more “soft c conservative, moderate, libertarian or just right of center”. My request for endorsement by the Central Alberta Municipal Conservatives has been clearly posted on my Facebook, their Facebook, and my website. I think I will take their views and write my opinions of them on my website if I have time. 2. Have you signed the Forever Canada petition? Not to my knowledge, the only exposure I’ve had to this petition was 2 women sitting at a table in downtown Red Deer and again a table with two people outside of the Forum the other night. I simply don’t have the time right now to focus on national issues and campaign for my desire to be a Red Deer City Councillor. I had a group send me an email the other day asking my views about separation, and, as I have shared several times now (including on Facebook and my website, as your questions will be) I’ll include my views below. “First off, Alberta separation is really a provincial and federal issue — not a municipal one. But you’re asking a question with a lot of layers. The UCP has been the main political force behind the whole idea of “Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada,” at least until Carney stirred things up again. But remember, the UCP are United Conservatives, not “die-hard Conservatives.” If they were truly die-hard, they’d be backing Poilievre’s recent push for a united Canada that actually works together as one — something he’s been talking about pretty consistently since January. Now, the Alberta Prosperity Project — which has been leading a lot of this conversation — hasn’t even nailed down what a referendum question would look like yet. But to their credit, they’re doing what any group that believes in freedom of choice should do: laying out the options, educating Albertans about their rights, and encouraging open discussion instead of just pushing a separatist agenda. Personally, I think Ottawa has taken from the West long enough. It’s time Alberta stood up and demanded a real seat at the table. I’d describe myself as a sovereigntist. To me, that means believing Alberta has the right to decide its own political future — whether that ends up being full separation, special status within Canada, or simply more autonomy. Being a sovereigntist doesn’t mean I’m out there waving a “separate now” flag; it just means I believe in Alberta’s right to choose its own path. It’s a principled position, not a reactionary one — about reclaiming a voice we’ve been denied for over a century. So, if you’re looking for a straight “Yes” or “No” on Alberta separation, my answer would probably be No. I think we can — and should — “have our cake and eat it too” when it comes to dealing with the federal government.” ... If I do not get a response, I will assume that your answer is ‘yes’ to the first question and ‘no’ to the second. Neither of your questions can be answered with a simple “yes” or “no.” If someone hasn’t responded to your email, there could be a number of reasons for that. However, it’s concerning to assume their silence indicates either support or opposition. Your first question also raises a legal matter regarding whether a candidate may have accepted a donation from a prohibited donor. Regardless I hope I was able to answer your questions, as with everyone else your questions and my responses will be shared on my Facebook page and website www.kevinmklerks.ca Have a good one, Kevin M. Klerks Candidate for Red Deer City Councillor www.kevinmklerks.ca QUESTION 1: What role do you believe the City should play in addressing crime & addiction issues within our community?
MY ANSWER: I think the City’s role should be more about coordination and support, not direct management. The recent Chamber of Commerce study made it pretty clear that what we’re doing now isn’t working, and that we need a more unified, community-wide effort. I’d like to see the City work closely with social service agencies, health care providers, and law enforcement—but at arm’s length. That means less municipal money spent running programs ourselves, and more focus on helping third-party organizations do their jobs effectively. The City can still help by providing or building facilities—things like shelter space, tiny homes, or recovery centers—and then leasing or renting them to qualified operators. We should also draw a firm line: no safe injection or “safe supply” sites in Red Deer. Instead, we need a permanent shelter, proper treatment options, and a path to reintegration for those ready to turn their lives around. And for those who refuse help, we have to push harder toward rehabilitation and recovery—because letting people live and die on the streets isn’t compassion, it’s neglect. QUESTION 2: What are your thoughts on the concerns being raised by Red Deer’s firefighters in their current public campaign, and how would you approach this issue if elected? MY ANSWER: This really comes down to communication and being aware of problems before they get out of control. When 99% of Red Deer’s firefighters voted non-confidence in their Fire Chief, that should have been the first red flag to Council that something was seriously wrong. Our firefighters know better than anyone what’s needed to keep Red Deerians safe. I fully support our emergency services—especially the boots on the ground. Dynamic staffing should never drop below the minimum safe level of four firemedics per engine or pumper. That’s the baseline we cut to, not below. We need to add about 50 more firemedics by the end of 2026. More personnel means less overtime, fewer exhausted and overworked staff, and ultimately fewer injuries and sick days. That’s better for our firefighters, their families, and our entire city. We also need to be looking ahead and planning for a sixth fire station, ideally breaking ground by 2035. The communication breakdown between the City and our firefighters should never have happened, and if elected, I’ll make sure those lines of communication stay open. When our first responders are supported and heard, everyone in Red Deer is safer. QUESTION 3: How do you see the relationship between the City and local nonprofits or community agencies? MY ANSWER: I believe the City needs to rely more on local nonprofits and community agencies when it comes to addressing social issues. These organizations are already doing great work in our community, and partnering with them—rather than trying to manage everything directly—takes the burden off taxpayers while still helping those in need. The City’s main focus should be on core services—the essentials that keep Red Deer running safely and efficiently. That means public safety (police, fire, EMS), public works (water, sewer, roads, waste management), and maintaining vital infrastructure. It’s not about taking over what community agencies are doing—it’s about supporting and enhancing their efforts at arm’s length. By empowering nonprofits and local partners to do what they do best, the City can stay focused on its core responsibilities while making sure residents get the help and services they need. QUESTION 4: What are your top three priorities that you would like to implement immediate change for in Red Deer? MY ANSWER: a. Protecting Our Community — Ensuring stable funding and proper staffing for Fire Services and EMS so Red Deer remains safe and ready. b. Safe, Beautiful Neighborhoods — Supporting efforts to reduce vandalism/graffiti, promoting equality and neighborhood pride as Red Deerians. c. Revitalizing Downtown — Making downtown safer and more accessible, helping local businesses, reducing bureaucratic hurdles, improving parking, and redeveloping underused properties. QUESTION 5: Red Deer faces some strong divides on issues. How would you help bring people together and lead those conversations constructively? MY ANSWER: By actually doing what every incumbent has promised for years but failed to deliver—real transparency, accountability, and open communication with the public, not at them. We need more town hall and roundtable meetings where residents can speak directly with council members, not just listen to reports. I’d also use social media as a two-way tool to keep conversations going between meetings so people feel heard and involved in real time. It’s also about bringing groups together instead of keeping them apart. I’d work with different community and special interest groups to encourage collaboration and create collective voices—like forming a society focused on homelessness and drug addiction that includes the City, nonprofits, and residents. When people feel they’re genuinely part of the discussion, they’re more likely to work together instead of against each other. That’s how we start bridging the divides in Red Deer.. --- ADDED ON FACEBOOK AFTER EMAIL SENT: I'd also mentioned about a $50,000 grant to Red Deer Cultural Heritage Society to bring Memorial Center / Festival Hall up to the 21st century with the capability of livestreaming, recording and sharing public events that take place there. Also, who came up with this horrible design for Council chambers? It was definitely designed with the intent that Council appear on a pedestal above the residents. At the very least the seating for observers should be on risers so they can actually see the council and not just the back of their heads. This is the first Council Chamber I've been in where residents are seated with Council members backs to them. Very strange set-up. Ways Councillors can communicate with public: town hall or open mic meetings once a month (like Gareth Scott For Mayor suggested at Parkland Mall -let's open a space there with volunteers who promote the 'non-tourist' side of our city (displaying project plans, etc when it's not being used for public meetings), social media - X, Facebook, Instagram (let's see Council out and about in the community and talking about how and why they voted on particular motions), more public meetings involving developments or spending over $1 Million, and more. An email received today, beginning with:
"I noticed multiple comments of yours showing support for Charlie Kirk celebrations. You had my vote up until noticing this. Support for racism, sexism, and homophobia is very concerning for me." and ending with: "Charlie Kirk built a brand by punching down — attacking marginalized groups, spreading conspiracy theories, and sowing division. I'm wondering if you could clarify your stance on these comments and why you support someone whose whole brand was discrimination. Are these theories you would like to bring into the city?" ----- Here is my reply (posted on Facebook) ----- When you email me, your message will remain in my queue until I’ve had a chance to respond. I do my best to catch up on correspondence every other day, unless I’m attending forums or other commitments. Please note: if your email is hostile or intolerant in tone, you may not receive a reply. Everyone has the right to their opinion — and I have the right to decide whether or not to engage in unproductive rhetoric. Let’s all strive to remain civil. Disagreement is natural, but belittling or degrading others simply because their views differ is not. You won’t win me over by trying to force me to abandon my ethics or morals for your vote — and if I were willing to sell my values just to win, what kind of representative would that make me? Today marks the second time I’ve received a message telling me I “lost their vote” because I said something the author didn’t agree with. To be clear: if your support depends on me condemning others you dislike, being bullied into agreement, or staying silent about real injustice — I don’t want your vote. If you’ve decided to allegedly take away your vote (since there’s no proof I had it to begin with) because of who I support, because I’ve said that someone made valid points, or because I mourn the death of anyone who is murdered for expressing their opinions — then you likely never took the time to truly read my platform or understand my principles. Kevin M. Klerks Candidate for Red Deer City Council www.kevinmklerks.ca QUESTION BY EMAIL:
Hi. Just curious your thoughts on the firefighters issue? Also, where do you stand with respect to marginalized communities (racial minorities, 2slgbtq+, people with disabilities)? MY REPLY: I don’t believe there should have ever been a “firefighters issue,” but I’d need a specific question to address it fully. I have advocated for a 25% increase in fire-medic staff, raising our numbers from 194 to about 242. As Red Deer grows, we will likely need a sixth fire station—probably near Capstone, though exact placement will depend on response times. Increasing staff also reduces overtime, which was the main argument for the dynamic staffing trial. If implemented, dynamic staffing should maintain a minimum of four firemedics per station/truck at all times, with all stations open. It should determine how many additional staff we need, not how few. On "marginalized communities—including racial minorities, 2SLGBTQ+ individuals, and people with disabilities"—I believe in treating all Red Deerians equally. As a disabled person, I do not wish to be grouped under any “alphabet agenda.” I support spending on accessibility improvements where existing infrastructure currently fails the disabled, like crosswalks that don’t align with curb cuts and better marking on multi-use trails. I do not support segregating residents or allocating resources based on identity. Hiring should be based on merit, experience, and even well-thought-out ideas—not skin color, gender ideology, or personal characteristics. I hope this answers your questions, Kevin M. Klerks Candidate for Red Deer City Council QUESTION BY EMAIL:
My question is: how do you plan to align future tax increases with inflation? Many residents simply cannot afford annual increases in the range of 10 to 12 percent. This level of taxation is unsustainable and places a significant burden on homeowners. [In Strathcona County] we implemented a process called Priority Based Budgeting. This tool evaluated the cost and value of every service provided by the municipality. It helped drive efficiencies and ensured that we focused on the services that truly mattered to our residents. I believe Red Deer would benefit greatly from a similar approach. As a point of comparison, our property taxes in Strathcona County were approximately $2,500 less—on a larger home. This underscores the need for a more strategic and disciplined approach to budgeting and taxation in Red Deer. (edited for privacy) MY REPLY: Thanks for your message and for raising this important issue. I agree—property taxes in Red Deer are high, and big annual increases just aren’t affordable for most people. I support keeping residential tax increases to a maximum of 5%, while focusing on planning smart, building strong, and saving for the future. That means spending wisely on the resources and infrastructure we already have, rebuilding our reserve and legacy funds so we’re ready for the next “disaster,” and listening to other communities and using their ideas—even from provinces people don’t usually like, like Ontario. I would definitely listen to suggestions from anyone on a better path forward that involves smarter spending and fiscal responsibility while protecting our existing resources and infrastructure from harmful cutbacks. If we can’t keep increases under 5%, we have to make real sacrifices—like not wasting $11 million on a bridge rehabilitation when we’re running an $18 million deficit, focusing on critical services like firemedics (which I believe should be increased by 25% to reduce overtime), and not taking on expenditures that should be left to third parties. Our focus should be on providing core services and infrastructure, contracting out non-core services, and getting third parties to help pay for things like community centers, pedestrian bridges, and other projects. It also means getting out of the real estate business and focusing on what the city does best. By combining smart spending, learning from others, and keeping our plans current, we can avoid big tax hikes while making sure Red Deer is strong, efficient, and prepared for the future. If there's one thing I know for certain, I don't have all the answers but working together we can find them. Thanks again for your thoughts, Kevin M. Klerks Candidate for City of Red Deer Council www.kevinmklerks.ca Did anyone else find last night’s comment by a councillor about a forthcoming 'animal bylaw' concerning? Several councillors even laughed on stage when it was mentioned, which I pointed out. This reflects the approach our current Council takes—treating communication about upcoming changes as a joke. While I don’t expect them to announce every detail before a review process begins, this incident highlights how disconnected Council can be from the public they serve. Is any incumbent willing to step forward and tell us the joke so we can laugh about it too?
|