Shoplifting hurts everyone.
Business owners lose money. Shoppers pay more. Police and the courts are tied up with repeat offenders.
Shoplifting hurts, but the solution isn’t found in municipal politics.
At first glance, the notice of motion from councillors Kyle Sampson and Tim Bennett, proposing a Business and Retail Crime Response Forum, to “…address ongoing crime and safety concerns,” might sound like a proactive response to rising concerns about retail and property crime in Prince George.
But looking past the carefully crafted language and this motion is more about appearance than effect. It duplicates existing efforts, oversteps council’s role and, to be honest, reads more like political campaigning than responsible governance.
The City of Prince George has the Standing Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs, which advocates to all levels of government on matters of interest to council. This committee, which Sampson sits on, is where advocacy for problems like business-related crime should start.
As well, there is the Standing Committee on Public Safety, which includes the city’s RCMP superintendent, business owners and city councillors. It’s an ideal venue to ask questions or to invite organizations like Downtown Prince George or the Chamber of Commerce to give presentations.
Recent council discussions have included initiatives like Citizens on Patrol, Block Watch enhancements and, with support from Downtown Prince George, investments in downtown CCTV infrastructure. These are first steps with clear goals.
If these two councillors believe more can be done to connect the dots, why hasn’t this been formally raised by either Sampson or Bennett at one of the established committees, where the mandate and mechanisms to make progress already exist?
Instead, their fellow councillors are being asked to support a new motion that will require more staff time, more tax dollars, and repeats what council is already doing.
The proposed forum, however, seeks to “create space for dialogue” — an initiative that, while sounding constructive, is largely redundant.
The motion also contains shades of political theatre. Proposing store tours for council members to see retail crime “first-hand” might sound earnest, but it’s also a photo op waiting to happen. Crime is a serious issue in our community, not a backdrop for political posturing.
If councillors really want insight, they should be leveraging existing reports, expert analysis and direct feedback through established channels, not manufacturing events for visibility.
A lot of what this motion claims to want to accomplish — information-sharing, community engagement, support for public safety programs — is already covered by existing city policies and programs.
Crime and consequences are also thoroughly covered by the media.
The well-documented problems with retail crime come down to the issue of repeat offenders and the need for bail reform.
BC has a shortage of Crown prosecutors and judges which leads to prosecutors prioritizing major crimes and ignoring retail crime.
The only thing that council can do on these fronts is to advocate for change with the provincial and federal governments — which is what the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee is set up to do.
What this notice of motion by Sampson and Bennett does is position its sponsors as champions of public safety — just in time for the 2026 municipal election cycle to heat up. They gain the visibility of being “in tune” and “actively responding” to public concern, without having to deliver results.
That isn’t governing. It’s campaigning.
If councillors want to be effective on crime, they should stay focused on strengthening and resourcing the initiatives already in place, not manufacturing new layers of discussion that will cost taxpayers to host while pulling staffing away from council’s existing priorities.
Council should boot this grandstanding motion out of chambers.
It’s ultimately unnecessary, duplicative and out of step with the principles of good governance.
Have your say on this with a letter to the editor: [email protected]
