****** Updated ********

In my column yesterday on crime rates, I noted that recent increases in the violent crime index were mainly caused by increased recording of minor crimes like uttering threats and common assault (meaning assault without a weapon and no bodily harm).  As an experiment, I put together a couple modified crime indices that use only serious crimes.  These indices use only crimes listed by Stats Can as having above average weight for severity and normalized so that 100 is the Canadian average in 2006. Here are the results.

Serious violent crime in Canada has fallen about 20 percent since 2006, which is very impressive progress.  St. John's has held pretty steady and remains below the Canadian average.

Serious nonviolent crimes have fallen about 40% in Canada since 2006 and have fallen about 30% in St. John's.  Impressive progress all around.

Here are some tables ranking Canadian metropolitan areas in terms of these crime indices.



Serious Violent Crime Index

Winnipeg, Manitoba (9,10,47)	188.7
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan	145.9
Regina, Saskatchewan	128.1
Thunder Bay, Ontario	124.1
Vancouver, British Columbia (12,13,14,28)	105.8
Edmonton, Alberta	104.3
Halifax, Nova Scotia	99.8
MontrÈal, Quebec (38,50,53)	94.4
Toronto, Ontario (33)	94.2
Abbotsford-Mission, British Columbia (8,28)	81.4
Canada (50)	81.3
Kelowna, British Columbia (8,28)	77.6
Sudbury, Ontario	74.5
Peterborough, Ontario (8)	68.9
Windsor, Ontario	68.3
Calgary, Alberta	67.1
Hamilton, Ontario (33)	66.9
London, Ontario	65.9
Ottawa-Gatineau, Ontario part (6,52)	65.4
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador	64.9
Ottawa-Gatineau, Ontario/Quebec (6,52)	63.5
Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo, Ontario	60.9
Victoria, British Columbia (28)	59.6
Saguenay, Quebec (5)	57.8
Ottawa-Gatineau, Quebec part (6)	57.4
Brantford, Ontario (8)	56.6
St.Catharines-Niagara, Ontario	54.9
Moncton, New Brunswick (8)	52.5
QuÈbec, Quebec	43
Barrie, Ontario (8)	42.8
Sherbrooke, Quebec (32,37)	42.7
Kingston, Ontario (8)	40.9
Trois-RiviËres, Quebec	40.2

Serious Nonviolent Crimes Index

Kelowna, British Columbia (8,28)	99.8
Brantford, Ontario (8)	98.2
Regina, Saskatchewan	91.5
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan	88.8
Vancouver, British Columbia (12,13,14,28)	86.6
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador	85.3
Winnipeg, Manitoba (9,10,47)	74.9
Abbotsford-Mission, British Columbia (8,28)	74.9
London, Ontario	72.1
MontrÈal, Quebec (38,50,53)	71.5
Edmonton, Alberta	69.9
Sudbury, Ontario	67.7
Trois-RiviËres, Quebec	66
St.Catharines-Niagara, Ontario	66
Moncton, New Brunswick (8)	65.8
Canada (50)	64.4
Ottawa-Gatineau, Quebec part (6)	63.9
Thunder Bay, Ontario	62.4
Windsor, Ontario	62.2
Calgary, Alberta	60.3
Saguenay, Quebec (5)	57.9
Hamilton, Ontario (33)	57.1
Peterborough, Ontario (8)	55.3
Victoria, British Columbia (28)	55
Saint John, New Brunswick (4,47)	54.1
Sherbrooke, Quebec (32,37)	53.4
Halifax, Nova Scotia	52.5
Kitchener-Cambridge-Waterloo, Ontario	51
Ottawa-Gatineau, Ontario/Quebec (6,52)	49.6
Kingston, Ontario (8)	47.1
QuÈbec, Quebec	46.7
Barrie, Ontario (8)	46.1
Ottawa-Gatineau, Ontario part (6,52)	44.8
Guelph, Ontario (8)	41.4
Toronto, Ontario (33)	38.6

You may be sick of hearing about the Muskrat by now. For the last year it has dominated the political discourse and is likely to continue to cast a shadow for some time (may as well resign yourself to that).

This most recent round of Muskrat folly centers on a court case by Hydro Quebec and a further twist in the tale from Nova Scotia. Good theater, but it's hard not to wonder if the curtain should have already come down.

What would have been the outcome had the province's public utilities board been allowed to do its job and review the project before it was sanctioned? What outcome had government listened to voices of protest and opposition? What need is there for such intransigence on the part of government if pitfalls have apparently gone unidentified? These are the most troubling questions, beyond even specific concerns raised from various perspectives.

No matter how legitimate concerns are explained away, it is increasingly difficult for people to be confident. The evolution of the project has produced a bottoming out of popular support for the government and the premier, creating an atmosphere where many feel it is no longer possible to simply believe. This sets the stage for a reckoning, one that has the potential to sweep government from office and bring Muskrat to a halt, which even for some of the project's soft supporters would now come as a welcome relief.

Otherwise, you have to practice ever more subtle feats of logical gymnastics in order to say, I support the Muskrat. Because now, when people say they support Muskrat, what they really mean is that they believe in the technical capacity of hydro dams to produce electricity, for who can speak to other outcomes of a project whose architects appear unaware of so many variables. It begins to look as though without a reckoning, if the government is allowed to continue the project and serve out its mandate, we should prepare to get what they deserve.

***** update *****

I've cut and pasted the comment so it is accessible to search engines.

"Dunderdale says Quebec doesn't believe that Newfoundland owns Labrador, saying it all goes back to the boundary dispute." 

good to know we are owned in the Big Land..we always knew we were just a resource warehouse for Nfld governments..something so insulting and sickening when the leader actually talks in the language of possessioon...not a response of NL working together on a project..but simply Nfld owns Labrador and will do whatever it wants to our Big Land..yeah thats about how history keeps showing it to. 

Now my question is will the leaders of Labrador roll over and be owned...will the people demand some respect and finally begin to get its independence..or will everyone have an opinion but no one will take any action...time will tell. 

Let's not forget that only last week Nunatsiavut government filed suit against NL government for not respecting their land claim rights... 

What will be the straw to break the camels back I wonder...as each project devastates our land more and we are continually given nothing but a few jobs 

http://www.vocm.com/newsarticle.asp?mn=2&id=36609&latest=1

********* updated *********

The following question was posed and answered in the Facebook group St. John's Municipal Elections 2013. If you would like to participate in future discussion, you are more than welcome to join in.


Q: Question for Ward 2 candidates Jonathan Galgay, Andrew Harvey, Simon Lono.

This Metrobus transit study recommends upgrading route 10 (which joins Downtown to MUN/HSC/Avalon Mall) to provide buses every 15 minutes during peak hours. Would you support this? Would you push for this?

Andrew Harvey's answer:  Absolutely. I think that far too often the city pays thousands of dollars on studies which sit on a shelf and are never acted on. There are also many other issues which need to be addressed with Metrobus but that would be a good start. 

Jonathan Galgay's answer: I would support any recommendation which increases bussing for those who require efficient and reliable transportation, including the example you provided such as route 10.

Simon Lono's answer: I looked at the report and there are great things in it. Public transit is the kind of issue that really should be evidence/data based and it looks like that’s this report has done. It’s been a little while since I relied on Metrobus to get around (used it much more when my kids were younger) but in general the report jibes with what I recall and what I’ve been hearing more recently.
Should there be better, more and regular connections between Downtown to MUN/HSC/Avalon Mall (Route 10)? I’m not sure what route would have a higher demand than that one. I’d like to see what reasons Metrobus would have for NOT doing that because it seems to me pretty obvious that’s a heavily used route that many more would use if it ran at more convenient times.
One item that needs to be explored in more detail is the use of variable sized bus fleet. Why do all the busses have to be large, standard-sized, even during low traffic times? Why can’t we use smaller busses during low traffic times but still keep up the frequency schedule instead of a standard bus on a once in a blue moon schedule?

Jonathan Galgay: As indicated on my web site, I live on Cherokee Drive which is in the east end of the City, the neighbourhood of Roncalli Estates. My wife and I moved to this neighbourhood a few years ago after living on Hamilton Ave, where my mother currently resides. I was raised and educated in Ward 2, and my father operated a business there for over 40 years until his death a few years ago. I would like to point out that there is no requirement for any member of City Council, or MHA to reside in their constituency. Like many others, Councillor Frank Galgay resided outside Ward 2 for the 16 years he represented the Ward. Where one lays their head at night should not be a determining factor in their ability to represent the best interests of residents.

I went for a walk along the beautiful Rennie's River trail today and I had an idea: why not build a pedestrian bridge where the river meets Prince Philip Drive?  See the map with the trail outlined in white and the bridge drawn in brown.


It wouldn't cost much and would provide a convenient (and very pretty) walking route between the Confederation Building and Elizabeth Avenue.  This idea might appeal to city councillors promoting a more walkable city and provincial politicians looking for ways to "engage the public" since the Confederation Building is a hassle to reach without a car.  It might even take a few cars off the road.

The only obvious problem I can see is that people crossing Prince Philip could disrupt car traffic, though in my experience it is usually easy to cross during breaks in the traffic by using the median.  What do you think?

I'm playing around with some numbers to better understand what level of tuition is appropriate at Memorial University.  There are lots of ways to approach the question.  Here is one.

In an earlier post I cited a Stats Can paper titled "Too far to go on?  Distance to school and university participation".  From the abstract:

"This study assesses the role of geographic distance to school in the probability of attending university shortly after high school graduation. Students who grow up near a university can save on costs by staying home to attend the local university, and thus may be more likely to attend. [....] After controlling for family income, parental education, and other factors associated with university participation, students living “out-of-commuting distance” are far less likely to attend than students living “within commuting distance” are."

The study finds that high school grads who live more than 40 km from a university are only 60% as likely to attend university as someone who lives closer.  Distance seems to be especially important for low income families:  a low income student is three times more likely to attend university if she lives near a university than if she lives more than 80 km away.

When the study was done in 1996,  67% of Canadians lived within 40 km of a university, compared to only 43% of NLers.  If distance was the only factor affecting participation in university, then we would expect NLers to attend at only 87% the rate of most Canadians.

Now suppose we want to lift accessibility in NL to the Canadian average.  One way would be to establish new university campuses.  Unfortunately, there is no obvious place to put them.  There are already MUN campuses in St. John's and in Corner Brook.  The next most reasonable population centres are probably Bay Roberts or Grand Falls, but they are both too small to justify the investment.

An alternative is to offer low tuition at the existing campuses.  How low?  Studies I cited here estimate that lowering tuition by $1000 will increase enrollment by 3%.   Thus to compensate for distance, we would need to set tuition about $1000 x (100% - 87%)/ 3% =  $4333 dollars per year cheaper than the Canadian average. This is very close to the current difference between tuition in NL and tuition in Ontario.  Food for thought.

"These results obviously do not mean that increasing tuition fees in a given province will lead to a rise in enrolment rates, but they do suggest that the opposite cannot be maintained either, namely, that higher fees will necessarily reduce enrolment rates."

A recent post on the popular provincial politics blog The Sir Robert Bond Papers strongly implies (but does not explicitly state) that raising university tuition has no effect on levels of university participation.

"Now for all those who believe that lower tuition fees allow more people to go to university guess again.  There’s actually evidence that low tuition fees won’t make it easier for promising students from low income families to attend university."

In support of this view, he cites a paper from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.  This paper turns out to be seriously flawed.

In a recent post and Indy column I presented evidence that younger workers have fared much better in the NL economic boom than older workers.  The more I look at the data, the more amazed I get.  What is happening in NL today is in many ways unprecedented in recent Canadian history.

For example, consider youth unemployment.  The unemployment rate for youth (aged 15-24) has always been high, because young people have little work experience and are trying to break into the workforce for the first time.  Over the last 40 years, the youth unemployment rate in Canada has been 5% to 12% higher than the unemployment rate for people over 55.  There has not been a single year in any province in which this difference has fallen to less than 2.5%.

Until now.

The following chart shows the difference in provincial unemployment rate between people aged 15-24 and people over 55.  The blue line in Newfoundland and Labrador and every other province is green.