Connect with us

News

ASIRT Investigation Clears Officer Of Wrongdoing In Use Of Force Arrest Near Blackfalds

Published

8 years ago

4 minute read

By Sheldon Spackman

An investigation by the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team into a use of force arrest near Blackfalds almost two years ago has cleared the officer involved of any wrongdoing.

In a release, ASIRT officials say the December 31st, 2014 incident started with RCMP receiving a complaint of a red Dodge truck with a stolen license plate on it near Blackfalds. The truck was spotted traveling south on Range Road 28-4, with the first officer on scene driving north from the other direction getting out of his cruiser to pull it over by waving it down.

However, the truck did not stop but struck the officer in the arm as it drove by. This led to a pursuit which also involved a second cruiser. As the chase continued, the investigation determined the occupants of the truck could be seen throwing beer cans out of the back cab window. The truck eventually drove through a T-Intersection at Range Road 28-4 and Aspelund Road where it also drove through a road sign and into the south ditch.

The truck’s three passengers including a 47 year old man and two women, then fled out the side door, while the driver who was later found to be intoxicated remained in the vehicle. The officer involved ordered the suspects to get on the ground, with the two women complying and the 47 year old man failing to follow directions but coming towards the officer swearing.

The officer stated he struck the man in the head with his service pistol when the man got too close. The man fell to the ground but refused to stay down as directed. The officer indicated he then kicked the man in the torso two to three times in an effort to gain control, at which point the man stayed on the ground and was handcuffed.

The investigation determined that the driver of the truck was unable to provide any evidence related to this incident as he had remained in the vehicle and had not seen the situation unfold. The two women were witnesses and through their statements felt the use of force was unnecessary but their version of events differed slightly from each other. The 47 year old man’s version of events was inconsistent and irreconcilable with all other statements.

Immediately after the incident, the man complained of pain. He was charged, released, then treated and transported by emergency medical services to the Lacombe Hospital and Care Centre where he was assessed and released. Five days later, upon his condition worsening, he attended the Three Hills Health Centre where he was diagnosed with broken ribs and a collapsed lung. He was subsequently transferred to Red Deer Regional Hospital for admission and care.

ASIRT executive director, Ms. Susan D. Hughson, Q.C., received the completed investigative file. The evidence gathered from the four witnesses, including the officer and the man, was conflicting and contained inconsistences. The report indicates that it should also be noted that although the most reasonable inference is that the injuries were sustained as a result of the force used, the possibility that the injuries could have been caused by the single vehicle leaving the roadway, going through a sign and then into a ditch cannot be unequivocally eliminated.

After a careful review of all the evidence, Ms. Hughson confirmed that “there is no clear evidence that could provide reasonable grounds to believe the officer committed an offence.”

Related Topics:

Follow Author

More from this author
Business / 3 hours ago

‘Context Of Chemsex’: Biden-Harris Admin Dumps Millions Into Developing Drug-Fueled Gay Sex App

Crime / 4 hours ago

Mexican cartels are a direct threat to Canada’s public safety, and the future of North American trade

Business / 4 hours ago

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Business

Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces

Published on November 21, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen  and Tegan Hill

Back in the summer at a meeting in Halifax, several provincial premiers discussed a lawsuit meant to force the federal government to make changes to Canada’s equalization program. The suit—filed by Newfoundland and Labrador and backed by British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta—effectively argues that the current formula isn’t fair. But while the question of “fairness” can be subjective, its clear the equalization program is broken.

In theory, the program equalizes the ability of provinces to deliver reasonably comparable services at a reasonably comparable level of taxation. Any province’s ability to pay is based on its “fiscal capacity”—that is, its ability to raise revenue.

This year, equalization payments will total a projected $25.3 billion with all provinces except B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan to receive some money. Whether due to higher incomes, higher employment or other factors, these three provinces have a greater ability to collect government revenue so they will not receive equalization.

However, contrary to the intent of the program, as recently as 2021, equalization program costs increased despite a decline in the fiscal capacity of oil-producing provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, the fiscal capacity gap among provinces was shrinking, yet recipient provinces still received a larger equalization payment.

Why? Because a “fixed-growth rule,” introduced by the Harper government in 2009, ensures that payments grow roughly in line with the economy—even if the gap between richer and poorer provinces shrinks. The result? Total equalization payments (before adjusting for inflation) increased by 19 per cent between 2015/16 and 2020/21 despite the gap in fiscal capacities between provinces shrinking during this time.

Moreover, the structure of the equalization program is also causing problems, even for recipient provinces, because it generates strong disincentives to natural resource development and the resulting economic growth because the program “claws back” equalization dollars when provinces raise revenue from natural resource development. Despite some changes to reduce this problem, one study estimated that a recipient province wishing to increase its natural resource revenues by a modest 10 per cent could face up to a 97 per cent claw back in equalization payments.

Put simply, provinces that generally do not receive equalization such as Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan have been punished for developing their resources, whereas recipient provinces such as Quebec and in the Maritimes have been rewarded for not developing theirs.

Finally, the current program design also encourages recipient provinces to maintain high personal and business income tax rates. While higher tax rates can reduce the incentive to work, invest and be productive, they also raise the national standard average tax rate, which is used in the equalization allocation formula. Therefore, provinces are incentivized to maintain high and economically damaging tax rates to maximize equalization payments.

Unless premiers push for reforms that will improve economic incentives and contain program costs, all provinces—recipient and non-recipient—will suffer the consequences.

Authors:

Alex Whalen  and Tegan Hill
Continue Reading

National

Liberals, NDP admit closed-door meetings took place in attempt to delay Canada’s next election

Published on November 12, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Pushing back the date would preserve the pensions of some of the MPs who could be voted out of office in October 2025.

Aides to the cabinet of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirmed that MPs from the Liberal and New Democratic Party (NDP) did indeed hold closed-door “briefings” to rewrite Canada’s elections laws so that they could push back the date of the next election.

The closed-door talks between the NDP and Liberals confirmed the aides included a revision that would guarantee some of its 28 MPs, including three of Trudeau’s cabinet members, would get a pension.

Allen Sutherland, who serves as the assistant cabinet secretary, testified before the House of Commons affairs committee that the changes to the Elections Act were discussed in the meetings.

“We attended a meeting where the substance of that proposal was discussed,” he said, adding that his “understanding is the briefing was primarily oral.”

According to Sutherland, as reported by Blacklock’s Reporter, it was only NDP and Liberal MPs who attended the secret meetings regarding changes to Canada’s Elections Act via Bill C-65, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act before the bill was introduced in March.

As reported by LifeSiteNews before, the Liberals were hoping to delay the 2025 federal election by a few days in what many see as a stunt to secure pensions for MPs who are projected to lose their seats. Approximately 80 MPs would qualify for pensions should they sit as MPs until at least October 27, 2025, which is the newly proposed election date. The election date is currently set for October 20, 2025.

Sutherland noted when asked by Conservative MP Luc Berthold that he recalled little from the meetings, but he did confirm he attended “two meetings of that kind.”

“Didn’t you find it unusual that a discussion about amending the Elections Act included only two political parties and excluded the others?” Berthold asked.

Sutherland responded, “It’s important to understand what my role was in those meetings which was simply to provide background information.”

“My role was to provide information,” replied Sutherland, who added he could not provide the exact dates of the meetings.

MPs must serve at least six years to qualify for a pension that pays $77,900 a year. Should an election be called today, many MPs would fall short of reaching the six years, hence Bill C-65 was introduced by the Liberals and NDP.

The Liberals have claimed that pushing back the next election date is not over pensions but due to “trying to observe religious holidays,” as noted by Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen.

“Conservatives voted against this bill,” Berthold said, as they are “confident of winning re-election. We don’t need this change.”

Trudeau’s popularity is at a all-time low, but he has refused to step down as PM, call an early election, or even step aside as Liberal Party leader.

As for the amendments to elections laws, they come after months of polling in favour of the Conservative Party under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre.

A recent poll found that 70 percent of Canadians believe the country is “broken” as Trudeau focuses on less critical issues. Similarly, in January, most Canadians reported that they are worse off financially since Trudeau took office.

Additionally, a January poll showed that 46 percent of Canadians expressed a desire for the federal election to take place sooner rather than the latest mandated date in the fall of 2025.

Continue Reading

Trending

X