Opinion
Election 2017 is a week old. What do candidates say about our high crime rate?
Election 2017 is one week old with three weeks remaining. A big issue and resonates with everyone is crime. There is evidence of increased crime every where and facts can be found at Statscan and other reports.
You can watch it on CBC or read about it in the Red Deer Advocate, the Huffington Post, and Maclean’s magazine.
Tara Veer our mayor and candidate has well articulated platform on her website;
Red Deerians have identified crime and public safety as their priority concern, so it is imperative that additional strategies are undertaken to ensure crime prevention and enforcement efforts are effective to respond to the safety challenges Red Deer is faced with. If re-elected as Mayor, Tara will continue to actively work to:
Ensure that local community policing priorities are established and enforced through the RCMP’s annual policing plan.
Strengthen the integration between municipal enforcement units and the RCMP to ensure common objectives, efficiency, and quality of service in all delegation of duties.
Prioritize reduction of organized crime, persons crime and property crime in the policing plan.
Identify consistent service standards for non-emergency calls to police.
Reduce the case load per officer and improve officers to population ratio by supporting the addition of new officers.
Reinforce enforcement allocations to foot patrols downtown and in the parks system.
Support the safety continuum from crime prevention through to emergency enforcement.
Increase citizen reporting to help inform crime analysis, intelligence-led policing and patrols.
Establish a strong local and regional regulatory response to the Federal Government’s legalization of marijuana.
Advocate for additional Crown Prosecutors to prevent criminal charges from being “stayed” because of capacity issues at the Red Deer Courthouse.
Hold the Provincial Government accountable for drug needle debris causing general community safety risks.
Quite a large stand on the issue but several candidates think it is not enough or possibly in the wrong direction.
Jason Habouza was informed enough to direct me to the Huffington Report on the 10 safest cities in Canada. These are based on Statscan Crime Severity Index, a new tool for measuring police-reported crime in Canada that for the first time tracks changes in the severity of crime, not just volume.
The report also examines how crime is measured in Canada, as well as recent improvements to statistics on crime that are gathered from the police.
The ten safest cities though of various sizes are all located in Ontario and Quebec and do not solely rely on the RCMP. Ontario and Quebec have provincial police departments.
#1 Quebec City, population 800,296 CSI-41.8
#2 Barrie, population 135,711 CSI-43.3
#3 Toronto, population 6 million, CSI-45.7
#4 Ottawa, population 1.25 million, CSI-46.5
#5 Guelph, population 131,794, CSI-48.4
#6 Sherbrooke, population 161,323 CSI-49.2
#7 Hamilton, population 747,545 CSI-50.5
#8 St. Catharine-Niagars, population 406,074, CSI-52.2
#9 Gatineau, population 276,245 CSI-53.6
#10 Saguenay, population 145,365, CSI-53.8
Then we have Canada, Population 36.29 million, CSI-70.96
At 5,224 incidents per 100,000 population, the police-reported crime rate, which measures the volume of police-reported crime, was virtually unchanged in 2016. This rate was 28% lower than a decade earlier in 2006.
Then we continue down to the second highest city in Canada and you guessed it.
Red Deer, population 99,832 CSI -182.03. Which translates to about 13,400 incidents per 100,000.
Alberta, as a province, did experience the largest increase (+18 per cent), which was largely attributed to more reported incidents of breaking and entering, theft of $5,000 or under, and motor vehicle theft. Grande Prairie Alberta is the city with the highest CSI in Canada.
Canada’s CSI-70.96, P.E.I. -48.52, Ontario-52.71, Alberta-102.49, Manitoba-114.44, Saskatchewan- 148.84 but Northwest Territories with a population of 41,462 had a CSI – 291.72. Which translates into 21,476 incidents per 100,000 or or 8904 incidents in 2016.
Red Deer under the current model has gone from 15 position in 2011 to the second highest Crime Severity Index across Canada in 2016. Do we look at other models.
Councillor Buck Buchanan has been advocating for looking at a more hybrid model. He encouraged Councillor Dianne Wyntjes to propose a Notice of Motion this last term regarding a Hybrid. Unfortunately the Vote went 4-4 hence lost.
What the hope was, was to get the Response Policing taken over by the Municipality and Contracting the Specialist & Federal Policing Contracted by the Force (GIS, Drugs, Intelligence etc, etc). right now we have (160) one hundred and Sixty members (80) eighty of those do Response Policing (Responding to Calls) and the other (80) eighty do other jobs. They have always said they are 12-15 short in the Response area my solution, take (110) one hundred and ten or so and do Response Policing and contract for the other 40-50 for what he called Big City Copping.
There were 2 issues that were concerns that may have led to motion being lost.
1) another Union/Association
2) having the Capacity to do same Recruiting, Hiring, Training, Equipping.
The other thing that concerned the City is a Police Commission which comes with a Municipal Force.
The hopes and plans may have led to a better Service Delivery (more control locally) and (2) two may have gotten us into the game in regards to cost, if we get much bigger manpower wise we will not be in a position to afford to have any other option, other than the Force.
The big issue initially would be the start up cost as there will be a cost associated with same.
Remember this is the biggest Municipal Detachment. the Force has outside of B.C. and for the Force it is about positions in a lot of instances.
So the incumbents and challengers are starting to formulate different positions and the voters need to look at all and decide which way to go. Should we advocate for a provincial police force, a municipal police force, a hybrid model, or stay with the RCMP? Should we study this?
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Nick Pope
A new narrative is making its way through major media outlets about major oil corporations: climate change that they purportedly caused is taking lives, and they could be held liable for homicide.
In recent weeks, numerous outlets have run stories or opinion pieces promoting or otherwise examining the novel legal theory, which is the subject of a new paper published by the Harvard Environmental Law Review, according to a Tuesday E&E News report detailing the architects’ efforts to market their idea to prosecutors. The Boston Globe, The Guardian, Newsweek, Inside Climate News and other outlets have all recently published pieces promoting the idea that leading oil companies could or should be charged with murder for their role in climate change, which the theory’s architects claim has caused thousands of deaths in the U.S.
David Arkush, who runs Public Citizen’s climate program, and Donald Braman, a professor at George Washington University’s law school, articulated the theory in a March paper. Public Citizen is a left-of-center organization founded by failed Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader that, among other things, pressures American International Group (AIG) to stop providing insurance coverage for fossil fuel companies, according to its website and Influence Watch.
“Activists and journalists have called executives of major oil companies ‘mass murderers,’ lamenting that ‘millions of human beings will die so that they can have private planes and huge mansions,’ and a growing chorus of communities devastated by [fossil fuel companies’] lethal conduct have begun to demand accountability,” the authors state in their paper. “But as of this writing, no prosecutor in any jurisdiction has charged [fossil fuel companies] with any form of homicide over climate-related deaths. They should.”
The paper also suggests that the American Petroleum Institute (API), a leading trade association for the oil and gas industry, was involved in the industry’s purported attempts to obscure the effects of emissions.
“The record of the past two decades demonstrates that the industry has achieved its goal of providing affordable, reliable American energy to U.S. consumers while substantially reducing emissions and our environmental footprint,” a spokesperson for API told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Any suggestion to the contrary is false.”
The two authors contend that energy corporations were aware of the warming that emissions from their products and operations would cause for decades, and that those companies decided to mislead the public and obscure what effects those emissions may have. A similar narrative lies at the heart of climate lawsuits that have been filed against energy companies in numerous jurisdictions across the U.S. in recent years.
Arkush wrote a Wednesday piece for Newsweek laying out his theory and referencing these climate lawsuits, opining that the fossil fuel industry’s purported “crimes may be among the, if not the, most consequential in human history.” The Boston Globe ran a similar opinion piece authored by Arkush and another official for Public Citizen on March 17.
The Guardian ran its own piece about the climate homicide theory on March 21, using the headline “Fossil fuel firms could be tried in US for homicide over climate-related deaths, experts say.” Clean Technica, a site that promotes green energy, ran a March 16 piece on the new legal theory with the headline “Climate Criminals — Prosecuting Big Oil For Environmental Crimes.”
Inside Climate News published an April 4 story on the subject, using the headline “Should Big Oil Be Tried for Homicide?” and including excerpts from interviews with the two architects of the climate homicide theory. The pair suggested that the aim is not to punish individuals or seek vengeance, but instead achieve results that would prompt companies to shift their investments away from fossil fuels, according to Inside Climate News’ story.
However, Inside Climate News did quote legal experts who expressed skepticism about the theory’s merits.
“I do not believe that a criminal prosecution on homicide charges against the major oil companies is appropriate or can be sustained,” John Coffee Jr., a professor at Columbia Law School who specializes in corporate law, told the outlet.
Nick Pope is a contributor at The Daily Caller.
From the Fraser Institute
In the minds of most Canadians, there’s little connection between housing affordability and productivity growth, a somewhat wonky term used mainly by economists. But in fact, the connection is very real.
To improve affordability, the Trudeau government recently announced various financing programs to encourage more investment in residential housing including $6 billion for the Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund and $15 billion for an apartment construction loan program.
Meanwhile, Carolyn Rogers, senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, recently said weak business investment is contributing to Canada’s weak growth in productivity (essentially the value of economic output per hour of work). Therefore, business investment to promote productivity growth and income growth for workers is also an economic priority.
But here’s the problem. There’s only so much financial capital at reasonable interest rates to go around.
Because Canada is a small open economy, it might seem that Canadian investors have unlimited access to offshore financial capital, but this is not true. Foreign lenders and investors incur foreign exchange risk when investing in Canadian-dollar denominated assets, and the risk that Canadian asset values will decline in real value. Suppliers of financial capital expect to receive higher yields on their investments for taking on more risk. Hence, investment in residential housing (which the Trudeau government wants to promote) and investment in business assets (which the Bank of Canada warns is weak) compete against each other for scarce financial capital supplied by both domestic and foreign savers.
For perspective, investment in residential housing as a share of total investment increased from 22.4 per cent in 2000 to 41.3 per cent in 2021. Over the same period, investment in two asset categories critical to improving productivity—information and communications equipment and intellectual property products including computer software—decreased from 30.3 per cent of total domestic investment in 2000 to 22.7 per cent in 2021.
What are the potential solutions?
Of course, more financial capital might be available at existing interest rates for domestic investment in residential housing and productivity-enhancing business assets if investment growth declines in other asset categories such as transportation, roads and hospitals. But these assets also contribute to improved productivity and living standards.
Regulatory and legal pressures on Canadian pension funds to invest more in Canada and less abroad would also free up domestic savings for increased investments in residential housing, machinery and equipment and intellectual property products. But this amounts to an implicit tax on Canadians with domestic pension fund holdings to subsidize other investors.
Alternatively, to increase domestic savings, governments in Canada could increase consumption taxes (e.g. sales taxes) while reducing or even eliminating capital gains taxes, which reduce the after-tax expected returns to investing in businesses, particularly riskier new and emerging domestic companies. (Although according to the recent federal budget, the Trudeau government plans to increase capital gains taxes.)
Or governments could reduce the regulatory burden on private-sector businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, so financial capital and other inputs used to comply with often duplicative or excessive regulation can be used to invest in productivity-enhancing assets. And governments could eliminate restrictions on foreign investment in large parts of the Canadian economy including telecommunications, banking and transportation. By increasing competition, governments can improve productivity.
Eliminating such restrictions would also arguably increase the supply of foreign financial capital flowing into Canada to the extent that large foreign investors would prefer to manage their Canadian assets rather than take portfolio investment positions in Canadian-owned companies.
Canadians would undoubtedly benefit from increases in housing construction (and subsequently, increased affordability) and improved productivity from increased business investment. However, government subsidies to home builders, including the billions recently announced by the Trudeau government, simply move available domestic savings from one set of investments to another. The policy goal should be to increase the availability of risk-taking financial capital so the costs of capital decrease for Canadian investors.
Author:
Col. Douglas Macgregor torches Trump over support for bill funding wars in Ukraine and Israel
Alberta rejects unconstitutional cap on plastic production
Reflections on Earth Day
The end of Canada: The shift from democracy to totalitarian behavior in the ‘pandemic era’
-
Education2 days agoSupport a young reader through the Tim Hortons Smile Cookie campaign
-
Business2 days agoWEF panelist suggests COVID response accustomed people to the idea of CBDCs
-
illegal immigration2 days agoFlight Docs Reveal Which Cities Are Receiving Migrants Under Biden’s Parole Program
-
Fraser Institute2 days agoCanada can solve its productivity ‘emergency’—we just need politicians on board
-
Environment2 days agoJournalism Misrepresent Climate Science
-
International2 days agoNYPD storms protest-occupied Columbia building, several arrested
-
illegal immigration1 day agoOklahoma Just Became The Latest State To Take Immigration Enforcement Into Its Own Hands
-
conflict2 days agoColumbia on Lockdown After pro-Palestinian Protesters Take Over Building, Hold Janitors Hostage