Special Interests
Accessibility, Trades, Social Services Groups, Charities, Charitable Groups, NGOs, etc.
Updated: October 15, 2025
|
Let’s clear something up. I never said, and I quote what I was told the other day, "Catholic schools shouldn’t receive public funding" — the rumor you’ve started isn’t true. When I was told by you, a week ago, that Catholic schools in Alberta are publicly funded, I didn’t have much of a reaction except surprise. I actually said that in Ontario they aren’t publicly funded (though that’s not entirely correct).
But here’s what’s ridiculous: in a one-on-one, the only question you could think of to ask me was, “Do you know how a school is built?” The school was planned in 2014 — and that’s your pressing concern? Everyone else I spoke to had at least five questions, and none of the other people were “educators.” When I admitted I didn’t know the answer, the “educators” could have offered to explain. Other tables actually tried to “educate” me when I wasn’t sure about their issues or approaches. You even had a golden opportunity to share your wants and needs with me as a candidate, to help me better understand your perspective and priorities, but you didn't take it. Why not? Too busy planning your strike? Did I really need to list “open communication” and "collaboration" as key? To me, that was a given, but apparently, to an “educator,” it wasn’t. I would have let this go until I heard my words had been twisted around to something I did not actually say so now I must clarify my answer further.
0 Comments
I previously misunderstood how Catholic schools are funded in Ontario. They receive public funding through a combination of education property taxes collected by municipalities and a provincial funding formula that considers factors like student enrollment. This constitutionally protected system has been in place since 1867. Property owners can choose whether their education taxes go to the Catholic system or the public system, and if no choice is made, the taxes default to the public system.
I wasn’t aware this option existed because I don’t have kids in school. To me, contributing financially to the public education system is still contributing—until residents without children stop paying, it all feels the same (not advocating for btw). While I have my own beliefs about the separation of church and City (State)—which is completely separate from the education issue—I think the City should not fund religious charities, social services, or non-profits directly. Funds (grants) could instead go to a local society that decides how they are distributed (like homelessness and drug addiction rehabilitation programs for example). Fortunately, education funding is a provincial responsibility, so it’s not within my purview nor will it be. I also wasn’t aware of how Catholic school funding works outside Ontario. In Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, Catholic (or other separate) schools are publicly funded, often with similar protections allowing property owners to direct their taxes. In contrast, provinces like Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland & Labrador, and British Columbia do not provide public funding for Catholic schools; religious schools there operate privately and rely on tuition and donations. While I now understand Ontario’s system better, I’m still not entirely certain whether Catholic schools should receive public funding. They are religious, so is it fair to fund them and not the next dominant religious organization—whether it’s a Satanist school, a Scientology school, or another faith? I can admit when I’ve made a mistake. Can our current Council members do the same about how they’ve voted on local issues? My guess is only during an election year, and even then, some will likely just try to distract. It’s one thing to make decisions; it’s another to be transparent and accountable when those decisions affect the community. It’s a complex issue that deserves careful consideration, given its historical and constitutional context. QUESTION: Organizations like Planned Parenthood (PP) routinely counsel women to have abortions, and increasingly, are involved in dispensing the chemical abortion pill. Given that abortion is a controversial practice that many taxpayers in your municipality find abhorrent, do you agree that PP and similar “sexual health agencies" should not receive taxpayer funds through the municipality?
ANSWER: Yes (they should Not), If there is funding it is Provincial through AHS which is outside of my jurisdiction. I believe Municipalities should leave the funding of special interest or social service groups like this up to private donation and sponsorship. "Planned Parenthood" should also be required to change their name as their focus has always been on "abortion" and not "parenthood". ----- QUESTION: There has been a move in some municipal jurisdictions to pass bylaws which establish censorship zones, also called “bubble zones”, around abortion facilities. These unconstitutional censorship zones make it illegal to express peaceful pro-life speech, including silent prayer, on taxpayer-owned public sidewalks within the vicinity of abortion facilities and pharmacies which dispense abortion pills. If elected, would you vote to oppose such a censorship bylaw? ANSWER: (which I had to correct from no, originally included this comment, though, with conditions on what 'protests' can take place,we seem to have forgotten the definition of "peaceful protest" in this country lately. but I had to email them back and make this correction: "Apologies for my earlier response — the wording of your question threw me off. Usually, votes indicate support rather than opposition. To be clear, I would not support a censorship bylaw." ----- QUESTION: Do you acknowledge that human life begins at conception (fertilization)? ANSWER: (since I must answer as someone who would be expected to uphold the law as well) No, at present we can not detect the exact moment that fertilization occurred therefore it is too legally vague. At present I continue to support the 'heartbeat' law defined in many US states. ----- QUESTION: Do you consider yourself pro-life? or pro-choice? ANSWER: pro-life ----- Let's see how much pushback this brings. If you disagree with my personal views and opinions, please only reach out if you have something constructive to contribute. This is not about campaign issues; it’s a reflection of my individual perspective. While I would vote in line with the majority of my constituents’ wishes, I do not believe municipal taxpayer dollars should directly fund social programs. I am supportive of providing facilities at or below cost for these services, but the funding itself should come from third-party organizations or, in the case of health services, the Provincial (or Federal if applicable) Government. ME ON FACEBOOK: PLATFORM: Accessibility and Seniors - Reduce costs and improve flexible support for seniors and people with disabilities by enhancing trails, signage, and accessibility features. 1. paint the yellow line back onto trails to help make multiuse trails safer for all ages and uses, 2. repair asphalt damage on existing trails before wasting money on things like bicycle roundabouts, 3. align crosswalks with cuts on the curbs, 4. increase the number of tactile surfaces at crossings for visually impaired, 5. improve street signage so people don't need a GPS to find a street right in front of them. Examples of intersections below: Some might ask, why make accommodations for residents who are blind, physically disabled, or seniors with mobility challenges when they represent only a small percentage of our community? The answer is simple: because we want Red Deer to be a welcoming city where people of all abilities feel included, and where new residents can see themselves building a life here regardless of their background or circumstances. COMMENT: These ideas are great some needed badly . However they also cost money .How do you propose to make these changes and improvements without making cuts to other necessary services or increasing our already ridiculous taxes ? MY REPLY: well we could have started by not spending $11+ million dollars on a bridge that nobody wanted repaired. There was also Millions spent on infrastructure including bicycle roundabouts which didn't need to be built this year. The money is there and a lot of it comes from external sources like the province and federal government through grants but we're wasting them on ridiculous things. We need to be focused on our existing necessary infrastructure. I propose we stopped wasting money on vanity projects and start spending it on things we already have that need upgrading or maintaining. COMMENT: I agree however once previous councils have committed that money to these pet projects how do you unspend what they have spent ? Can we and should we walk away from a project that's half finished? They likely borrowed the money to do these projects . We will be paying of that debt for years . I would suggest that paying down that debt is more iimportant than adding more projects ,especially if we don't know where the money is coming from to fund them . A new council will have a very difficult job ahead of them to ferret out wasteful spending and I my opinion I would prefer most of that spending be used to pay down existing debt and maintain existing programs rather than initiate new ones . MY REPLY: Well, for starters, an unspending example would have been to claw back the $170,000 for "public art installations" at the CPR Bridge before it was announced. It was part of the $2.7* Million in 'beautification' funding for the parks next to the bridge (something the Federal grant would not have likely covered). We get enough 'free art' that we have to deal with already. But overall yes, the money is already spent. The solution is to not spend more. Every plan includes paying into the debt and our reserve (legacy) funds. I would also suggest that we shift department focus from "spend every dime or you will lose it" to "whatever you don't spend goes into a reserve toward your budget next year". The attitude of 'if you spend a dollar save a dollar' is also a good one to adopt. The thing about many of these projects, including the bicycle roundabouts, is that they were dominantly not funded by Red Deer taxpayers. It was part of a much larger infrastructure grant. The point is though, if we are getting grants for infrastructure then they should be used on existing necessary infrastructure. If the money was earmarked for bicycle paths then again we look at the existing ones. It's all a matter of how the money is spent. Take for example my discussion on the CPR Bridge with a councillor. When I said, "if the bridge is historical, then why was the first thing they did, to tear down the 57th Street overpass on the south end that was built the same time as the bridge?' They had no answer and acted like they weren't even aware the overpass existed. I think one of the problems with career politicians and 'experienced' Councils is they've fallen into the routine of "oh this is shiny and new let's do it!" without even bothering to dig into the details. The bridge will get a new paint job (which is good since we've been slapping on paint over the lead based paint for decades now), several new girders, a new deck, new foundations, and be moved - how is it historical anymore? And how did we get from a couple million at most to upkeep the bridge to over $22 Million to move it in a matter of a few short years? When the 'rehabilitation' work is done on the bridge it won't even be 'historical' anymore or be in the same place (albeit 15 metres away). So what we really have is a $22.3+ Million bridge for the homeless. We would have been better to find a clear path forward for homelessness (like redeveloping Michener and adding tiny homes) and developing the Cannery Row district first then using the tax revenues from that to help fund the bridge. Thing is though, that big expensive multi-million dollar complex next to the river has been sitting half empty for years, they've even offered free rent to desperately get tenants, and now I hear the recent tower in Capstone is subsidized apartments. Our city doesn't need these mega million dollar projects it needs single family homes and the 'bread and butter' wage earners who drive our local economy and provide jobs. We are overspending overall. Lawrence Lee spoke of the "0% tax increases" they passed for a couple years but didn't point out that wasn't Council's decision really. They followed the same suit as everyone else because of the pandemic. I know they also spent reserves/legacy money and I don't have it with me but I wouldn't be surprised if we received Fed/Prov funding through things to get us over the pandemic as well. So now the pandemic is over the tax rates jump up. Why? Because we are overspending and spending unwisely. Let's just look at these two numbers. $11.2 Million for the bridge, Red Deer Firefighters over budget $3.4 Million. I'm not saying it's a solution at all, but I would have rather bought our fire services one more year at least until we came up with a better solution than dynamic staffing. And that would still leave us with $8 Million (less any Fed grant) to tear down the CPR Bridge if it's such a threat that it needed a $22.3M overhaul 'right now'. Again, it's focusing tax dollars toward Needs vs Wants. Necessary vs Vanity. You and I agree, focus the money on what we got not what we'd 'like' to have. We also have to look at transferring responsibility and oversight of things - like homelessness - to special task forces and societies vs spending taxpayer money on it. Our City should be there to rubber stamp the plans of smart people who have solutions and not just drag the process out for years. Taxpayer money should be spent on core services, independent contracting of non-core services (which will cost us less) and transferring programs to third parties (a simple example is fireworks displays. We give the Cultural Heritage Society a grant and it's their responsibility to spend it wisely and provide for fireworks and Cronquist House activities). We need to take a lot of the spending off the backs of the Red Deer taxpayer. Another point that came up at the public meeting: just because something is planned and fast-tracked doesn’t mean it will actually get built. As part of our future growth and sustainability, we need to be actively encouraging education and training in the trades—for both youth and those looking to make a career change. We should be holding job fairs in the community—at places like schools, rec centres, and public events—not just expecting people to apply online. We need to get out there and talk to people who might be interested in trades but have no idea how to even get started.
Question: "i sense you will not be painting any sidewalks for pride week?"
My Answer: "the only sidewalk painting I think we should be spending our money on right now is the white lines for crosswalks." |
|