Connect with us

Opinion

Election 2017 is a week old. What do candidates say about our high crime rate?

Published

7 minute read

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?

Follow Author

More from this author

Brownstone Institute

First Amendment Blues

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By Philip DaviesPhilip Davies 

You might think these are quite rare but not a bit of it; 13,200 of these were recorded in the last 12 months, and that’s around 36 a day, and they go on your record and sometimes mean you end up with no job. They also have new laws planned to control misinformation and disinformation, something not just confined to the UK. Similar laws are planned for Ireland, Australia, Canada, and the EU.

I’m envious. The US has something the UK doesn’t have, namely a First Amendment. Yes I know there are those who wish the US didn’t have it either, including, I understand, John Kerry and that woman who still thinks she beat Trump the first time around. Kerry kind of wishes that the First Amendment wasn’t quite so obstructive to his plans. But from where I stand, you should be thankful for it.

Not only does the UK not have a First Amendment, it doesn’t have a constitution either, and that makes for worrying times right now. Free speech has little currency with Gen Z and the way it looks, even less with the new UK Labour government. Even Elon Musk, who takes a surprising interest in our little country, has recently declared the UK a police state.

It’s not surprising. Take for instance the case of Alison Pearson, who had the police knocking on her door this Remembrance Sunday. They had come to warn her they were investigating a tweet she had posted a whole year ago which someone had complained about. They were investigating whether it constituted a Non-Crime Hate Incident or NCHI. Yes, you heard me right, a ‘non-crime’ hate incident and no, this is not something out of Orwell, it’s straight out of the College of Policing’s playbook.

If you haven’t heard of them, you can thank your First Amendment. In the UK you can get a police record for something you posted on X that someone else didn’t like and you haven’t even committed a crime. NCHIs are a way they have of getting around the law in the same way John Kerry would like to get around the First Amendment, except it’s real where I live.

Alison Pearson is a reporter for the Daily Telegraph, but that doesn’t mean she can write what she likes. When she asked the police what the tweet was which was objected to, she was told they couldn’t tell her that. When she asked who the complainant was, they said they couldn’t tell her that either. They added, that she shouldn’t call them a complainant, they were officially the victim. That’s what due process is like when you don’t have a First Amendment or a constitution. Victims of NCHI in the UK are decided without a trial or a defense. They asked, very politely, if Pearson would like to come voluntarily to the police station for a friendly interview. If she didn’t want to come voluntarily, they would put her on a wanted list and she would eventually be arrested. Nice choice.

It’s true that there has been a public ruckus over this particular case, but the police are unapologetic and have doubled down. Stung into action by unwanted publicity, they are now saying they have raised the matter from an NCHI to an actual crime investigation. Which means they think she can be arrested and put in prison for expressing her opinion on X. And of course they are right. In the UK that’s where we are right now. Pearson tried to point out the irony of two police officers turning up on her door to complain about her free speech on Remembrance Day of all days, when we recall the thousands who died to keep this a free country, but irony is lost on those who have no memory of what totalitarianism means.

The way things are looking I would say things can only get worse. The new Labour government has made it clear that it wants to beef up the reporting of NCHIs and make them an effective tool for clamping down on hurtful speech. You might think these are quite rare but not a bit of it; 13,200 of these were recorded in the last 12 months, and that’s around 36 a day, and they go on your record and sometimes mean you end up with no job. They also have new laws planned to control misinformation and disinformation, something not just confined to the UK. Similar laws are planned for Ireland, Australia, Canada, and the EU. Germany in particular is keen to remove all misinformation from the internet, I understand.

Whenever I see the word ‘misinformation’ these days I automatically translate it in my head to what it really means, which is ‘dissent.’ Western countries, former champions of free speech, the bedrock of liberty and individual choice, en masse it seems, now want to outlaw dissent. What is coordinating this attack on free expression, I don’t know, but it’s real and it’s upon us. We are slowly being intellectually suffocated into not expressing any opinion that others might find objectionable or that might contradict what the government said. If you had told me that would happen in my lifetime, I would have called you a liar.

I live in the UK, the home of the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta, and the mother of parliamentary democracy. I was proud that we produced men like John Milton, John Stuart Mill, and Thomas Paine, that we understood the importance of the Areopagitica, the Rights of Man, and incorporated On Liberty into our social thinking. But those days seem long gone when police knock on your door to arrest you for an X post.

So I’m glad someone somewhere has a First Amendment even if we don’t. It may be your last defense in that republic of yours, if you can keep it.

Author

Philip Davies

Philip Davies is Visiting Fellow at Bournemouth University, UK. He gained a PhD in Quantum Mechanics at the University of London and has been an academic for over 30 years teaching Masters students how to think for themselves. He is now retired and has the luxury of thinking for himself. He fills in his spare time with a small YouTube channel where he interviews amazing academics and indulges in writing books and articles.

Continue Reading

Business

Trudeau’s new tax package gets almost everything wrong

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen and Jake Fuss

Recently, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced several short-term initiatives related to tax policy. Most notably, the package includes a two-month GST holiday on certain items and a one-time $250 cheque that will be sent to all Canadians with incomes under $150,000.

Unfortunately, the Trudeau government’s package is a grab bag of bad ideas that will not do anything to get Canada out of the long-term growth rut in which our economy is mired. There are too many to list all in one place, but here are four of the biggest problems with Prime Minister Trudeau’s tax plan.

  1. It reduces the wrong taxes. When it comes to economic growth, not all taxes are created equal. Some cause far more economic harm per dollar of government revenue raised than others. The government’s package creates a holiday on the GST for some items (only for two months) which is a mistake given that the GST is one of the least economically harmful components of the tax mix. Canada’s recent growth record is abysmal, and boosting growth should be a primary goal of any changes to tax policy. A GST cut of any duration fails this test relative to other tax cuts.
  2. Temporary tax holidays shift consumption in time, they don’t boost growth. The government’s GST reduction is actually a short-term tax holiday on certain items that will last two months. There are decades worth of economic research showing that when governments create short-term tax breaks, they may change the timing of consumption, but they won’t contribute to actual economic growth. Shifting consumption from the future to the present won’t help get Canada out of the economic doldrums. This is particularly true of the Trudeau tax holiday since purchases that Canadians may have made after the two-month holiday period will simply be shifted forward to take advantage of the absence of the GST. As noted above, there are better taxes to cut than the GST, but no matter what taxes we are talking about permanent reductions are vastly superior to temporary tax cuts like short-term holidays.
  3. One-time tax rebates don’t improve economic incentives. Perhaps the worst element of the Trudeau government’s announcement was a plan to send $250 cheques to all Canadians earning under $150,000. One-time tax rebates are a terrible way to provide tax relief. When you cut income tax rates, you improve incentives for people to work and invest because they get to keep a larger share of their earnings. This helps the economy grow. One-time rebates that you get regardless of the economic choices you make has no similar effect. This means that the rebate with its $4.7 billion price tag won’t help Canada’s poor growth performance.
  4. It borrows from the future to give to the present. The federal government is currently running a large deficit. This raises the question of who will have to pay the $4.7 billion bill for the one-time payments announced today. The answer is that the government will have to borrow the money and therefore future taxpayers will have to either pay it off or service the extra debt indefinitely. The money the Trudeau government will send out won’t come out of thin air, it’ll have to be borrowed with the burden falling on future taxpayers.

The Trudeau government got one thing conceptually right, which is that there are advantages to reducing the tax burden on Canadians. Unfortunately, the policy package it has put forward to provide tax relief gets everything wrong. It reduces the wrong taxes, shifts taxes temporally rather than cutting them, does nothing to improve economic incentives, and burdens future taxpayers. With the holiday season around the corner, this attempt at a gift to Canadian taxpayers is the economic equivalent of a lump of coal in the stocking.

Continue Reading

Trending

X