Does the United Conservative Party Government’s intention to create a “specialized prosecution unit to address deteriorating safety in Alberta’s major urban centres” indicate there’s problem with the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service?
If so, what is it?
If not, why is the government creating a special unit when there’s nothing out of the ordinary about the crime in Alberta’s cities and their downtown cores?
Wouldn’t simply hiring more lawyers for the Crown Prosecution Service make more sense?
If you think about it, the planned policy set out in Premier Danielle Smith’s Aug. 1 mandate letter to Justice Minister Mickey Amery makes little sense from the perspective of the efficient administration of justice unless the government is dissatisfied with the performance of the ACPS.
Initial news coverage about the mandate letter, naturally enough, focused on the fact the government appears to be backing away from its plan to replace the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with a provincial force. The idea of a special prosecution service, if it was mentioned at all, was passed over lightly in most reports.
But in addition to the need to know whether this indicates dissatisfaction with the way the ACPS is doing its job, Ms. Smith’s instructions to Mr. Amery raise important additional questions, among them:
- What can a specialized prosecution unit do that the Crown Prosecution Service is not already doing to address what the government claims is deteriorating safety in “major urban centres”?
- How does the government intend to staff the new unit?
- Will it take resources from the ACPS to set it up? If so, will it add resources to the ACPS so it can continue to do its job?
- What does the government intend to do to ensure the courts can process the extra prosecutions that will presumably result from the work of the special unit? After all, there is a shortage of judges, too, here in Alberta.
- Has the government considered creation of special prosecution units for other categories of crime where it might make more sense, for example, sexual assault, crimes committed by police officers, and rural crime?
Mr. Amery’s mandate letter gives no hint of what the government expects this to cost. Nor is there any indication of how it even defines “major urban centres” – does this simply mean cities, or their downtown cores?
And what cities? Grande Prairie, Red Deer and Lethbridge all have serious addictive drug problems? Are they on the list, or will the government focus on Calgary, where it needs votes, and Edmonton, where it dislikes the mayor and city council’s progressive inclinations and sees an opportunity to mess with them?
So far, beyond anecdotal stories and plenty of visual evidence of poverty and drug use, the government has presented no evidence public safety is actually deteriorating in the Alberta’s urban centres.
I asked these questions of the Justice Minister’s office on Wednesday and have been told to expect a response. So far, though, I have received no answers. When I do, I will update readers with a new story.
In the meantime, the president of the Alberta Crown Attorneys’ Association said he is not aware of any government dissatisfaction with the work of the ACPS.
“Given the recency of the mandate, we have not yet had an opportunity to discuss it with Minister Amery or Deputy Premier Ellis,” Dallas Sopko said in an email. “We expect those discussions will occur in due course.”
“We are not aware of what data or evidence was relied upon in the preparation of this mandate,” he added. “Having said that, the dedication of additional resources to ensure that Albertans are safe is a goal our Association supports.
“Our current interpretation of the mandate does not suggest that any additional dedicated prosecutorial resources will be outside the ambit of our prosecution service,” Mr. Sopko said.
Given the lack of evidence to support the government’s claims Alberta’s cities are uniquely dangerous places teeming with “social disorder,” the most likely explanation is that this is a political stunt intended to frighten voters and justify the government’s planned and probably unconstitutional coercive drug treatment policy.
As such, this is another part of the UCP’ ridiculous narrative that the social problems being experienced throughout North America are caused by “the radical progressive left” – defined, presumably, as anyone slightly to the left of Stephen Harper’s neofascist pal Viktor Orbán.
The UCP Government would like to blame federal bail policies for the state of Canada’s cities, but the vast majority of the problems in Alberta cities developed on the UCP’s watch and involve minor crimes such as car break-ins, public drug use and intoxication, shoplifting, bicycle thefts, and aggressive panhandling.
As a regular reader of this blog pointed out recently in the comment section, “As someone who walks daily in downtown Edmonton, I see the biggest safety hazard is pick-up trucks running red lights. Let’s have some traffic enforcement!”
Another narrative conveniently advanced by the UCP with this policy is the myth of the virtue of its rural base compared with the social disorder supposedly rampant in its cities, especially Edmonton with its overwhelming support for the NDP Opposition.
The facts are somewhat different from the government’s story. Commentary on crime statistics published by Statistics Canada in February this year shows that rural crime rates in Canada are higher than urban crime rates, “mostly because of higher rates in the rural areas of the Prairies and the northern regions of provinces.”
Crimes in rural areas were both more numerous and more severe than in urban areas, StatsCan reported. “The rates for assault, violent firearms offences, mischief, disturbing the peace and impaired driving were much higher in rural areas than in urban areas. The rate of intimate partner violence was also nearly double in rural areas, with the difference between the two areas growing since 2018.”
However, the federal statistics agency noted, “the relatively high crime rate in rural areas was primarily attributable to a few communities with a very high crime rate,” with the Prairie provinces a particular problem area.
Still, if public safety is our goal, wouldn’t it make more sense to create a “specialized prosecution service” to address deteriorating security in Alberta’s rural communities?
We need specialized prosecution for sexual assault and other forms of gender-based violence that are so prone to discriminatory treatment of complainants. Also, one of the main drivers of recent increases in crime severity index is escalation in rate of police reported sexual assault. This has increased by more than 20% since 2019. The UCP is paying no attention to GBV, despite the fact that they need to come up with a strategy in order to access federal funds under the National Action Plan to End GBV.
Dr. Gotell: Thanks for reminding me of this very important point. I have added it to the story. DJC
Thanks David! You are doing a huge service through your work. Lise
Thank you very much, Lise. DJC
I see posturing and piggy-backing with Polievre messaging – which suggests back room Conservative monies/operatives – cuz the UCP hasn’t demonstrated the brains to be even this poorly coordinated.
Maybe they’re going to look into the possible collusion between city police agencies and high level traffickers like Mohammed Shah? Nah.
Best combo? Right cross, left hook and an upper cut! There is nothin’ like it! Boy they better like you! You’re all we got!
Back in the day, there was a senior manager named A. Hitler who had this weird practise of creating duplicate agencies and government ministries. What was the point? Some believe it was a way appealing to Hitler’s narcissistic tendencies to have various ministries and civil servants competing, doing the same jobs, for the purpose of fawning for the Fuhrer’s favour. Accounts reveal that will all these people falling over each other to win favour was not only wildly inefficient, it was also entertained Der Fuhrer. It’s said that Donald Trump did the same thing, so why not Danielle Smith?
Establishing a competing so called “special prosecution service” not only duplicates an already overworked official prosecution service, it also establishes an entity that can become partisan-minded in its make up and intentions. Maybe the Atty Gen, under the direction of the Premier’s Office, was instructed to create this special service to operate outside of the oversight of the Atty Gen’s office and perhaps outside of the rules of the law? Something along the lines of vigilantism?
As much as there’s the appeal of calling on a Dark Knight to right the wrongs that the establishment cannot fix, this sort of iniative tends to end badly.
Hello DJC and fellow commenters,
I am not sure how the prosecutors’ office can address deteriorating safety. Prosecutors don’t go about looking for crime. Police officers do. Then, prosecutors decide if charges are likely to result in conviction. If this is unlikely, prosecutors would choose not to proceed.
From what I can see, the crimes that people, such at the mayor of Calgary, are talking about are fairly common kinds of crimes found in the criminal code. Assault, consumption of illicit drugs, theft, and the like. They don’t seem to be especially complex cases that might require specific expertise and/or a fair amount of collaboration to gather evidence such as, say, complex drug trafficking cases or complex white collar crime.
With Danielle Smith’s apparent obsession with locking up those who use illicit drugs, my guess is that she wants especially to prosecute those who use illicit drugs in public places and are,an annoyance to businesses as well as a concern for residents who deal with the drug paraphenalia etc. in their communities.
Unsettling as this situation would be, it doesn’t really seem to make sense to set up a special prosecution service to deal with things that prosecutors deal with every day in the course of their regular duties.
I am not at all sure that Daneille Smith can require drug users to take any treatment. Since it’s nearly impossible to have an individual with mental health problems committed, I fail to see how Danielle Smith can lock up users of illicit drugs, probably in 12 step programs that are unsuccessful for most people, because she and others don’t like their effect on the community. The money would be much more useful if it is used to provide housing and other elements of a decent life.
When the UCP use the term special, it can only mean one thing, they are going to privatize it. They have a vision of privatizing as much of government as possible, regardless of the area, if it makes sense or is not cost effective. I remember the Crown Prosecutors recently got into a scuffle with the UCP over something and embarrassed the UCP. So as a reward they will simply outsource it. Also Smith got caught interfering in the Justice system with her pastor friend. With the private prosecutor area, Smith can decide which friends she can let go without consequence and which to throw the book at.
Did she mean to spell it “persecution”?
Maybe the special prosecutors will protect us from all those homeless people who pitch tents on the sidewalks and in the parks. If the cops can’t chase ’em away, the prosecutors can lock ’em up for their own good. That’s so much faster than trying to solve social problems like poverty.
Is “special prosecution unit” just code for the office our Dear Leader can directly call to get her friends off the hook when they break a pesky law? Say it ain’t so, Dani. Oh right, this is Alberta so nothing is surprising anymore!
We already have a specialized prosecutions branch that handles things like child abuse materials/pornography, expanding that to cover all sex crimes makes sense.
Thanks for your diligent work as always, but my question why is this story, among many, many others, not coming out from the NDP? Judging by the stony silence of the leadership and shadow cabinet of the NDs, it is difficult to believe they are any more capable of governing than the take-back Tories. The only thing I’ve heard from the ND’S since the election is constant pleas for donations.
Dave: I cannot answer this question. I can only say that, like you, I often question the wisdom of the NDP strategy for countering with the UCP. DJC
It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that the UCP’s tangled lay of twisted rationales has something to do with its notions about an Alberta police force (to replace the “federal” RCMP).
It’s not so much that the UCP may not take a direct political path to achieving policy but, rather, that it simply cannot—it is incapable. It’s as if alls it’s gotta do is keep the vision of an independent provincial police firmly in mind and how, exactly, to get there will somehow sort itself out like water taking the easiest path—an almost Teutonic naturism (fully clad, I mean), or notion of natural correctness and purity. UCP parliamentarians are like kids in a candy shoppe, their “ayes ” bigger than capacity to digest their tyrannical-majority appetite.
I for one have little faith in UCP faith-based procedure. It leaves out not only too many facts, but the critically important ones as well. Worse: it makes up ‘facts’ based only on political convenience (substituting Edmonton MLAs with a council of loser Sasquatches, for example). Only the monstrously self-righteous can endorse and expect success of this babble-grrrrrrrift.
So the question is: how might this particular rat’s nest of policy aspirations play into the idea of a provincial police force? Surely amended mandate letters and secreted expert reports are to follow.