More from Steve Sullivan available More fromavailable here

Tina Fontaine’s death, not surprisingly, renewed calls for a national public inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women. The Native Women’s Association of Canada has called upon the Prime Minister to hold an inquiry to identify and remedy the factors causing the problem. For many, it seems support for the inquiry is synonymous with caring about aboriginal women. The country’s Premiers are also pushing the Prime Minister for an inquiry.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether an inquiry will address the problem of missing and murdered aboriginal women. Recently, the National Post’s Andrew Coyne, the Globe’s Jeffrey Simpson and the Star’s Thomas Walkom have argued we do not need an inquiry. And the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has called for action rather than an inquiry.

While people may disagree on the next step, almost everyone agrees there we have a systemic problem that is about more than solving crimes. Aboriginal women are three times more likely to be victims of violence than non-aboriginal women. They report higher rates of spousal violence and are more likely to report injuries. They are more likely to be murdered.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, however, seems offside with almost everyone given his recent comments. The Prime Minister said, “We should not view this as a sociological phenomenon. We should view it as crime.”

If anyone expected the Prime Minister to see beyond his simplistic and glib reaction to crime to understand the complexities of the problem of violence and aboriginal women, they must be disappointed. After almost a decade of Harper’s leadership, few had such expectations.

Last year, two men were arrested for plotting a terrorist attack on a train and Harper warned it was not the time to commit sociology. “I don’t think we want to convey any view to the Canadian public other than our utter condemnation of this kind of violence, contemplation of this violence and our utter determination through our laws and our activities to do everything we can to prevent it and counter it.”

The problem is Harper and company think trying to understand why people commit crimes means excusing it, or justifying it (especially if your name is Justin Trudeau).

Sociologists study people, their interactions and relationships, their institutions and why they do what they do. The problem is Harper and company think trying to understand why people commit crimes means excusing it, or justifying it (especially if your name is Justin Trudeau).

For Harper and company, this is the soft-on-crime nonsense that only sociologists and criminologists and other “ologists” care about.

Harper doesn’t like the “ologists,” which is just another name for the so-called elites he’s setting up as a foil for next year’s election. Ian Brodie, Harper’s former Chief of Staff, once told Maclean’s that it helped the Conservatives to be attacked by the “ologists.” “So we never really had to engage in the question of what the evidence actually shows about various approaches to crime.”

It was easier not to have to worry about silly things like evidence about what prevents crime and violence. This ignores the fact that to want to know what happened to Tina Fontaine and to understand the serious problem of violence against aboriginal women are not mutually exclusive.

Committing sociology might force the Prime Minister to struggle with complex issues about crime and victimization. For example, one of the risk factors for young people being involved in violent crimes is having experienced violent victimization. Statistics Canada’s findings that, “Three out of five violent incidents (60%) were experienced by less than 2% of the population.” Aboriginal children are over-represented in foster care, prisons and as victims of crime. The failure to understand why people do bad things is not a priority if your solution to crime can be found on a Monopoly card — go directly to jail without collecting $200.

The prime minister says 40 studies have already been done on the issue but it is not clear if he has read any of them.

If he could show he understands that these were not just crimes that needed to be solved so we could punish the bad guys; if he had a real plan to address the problem, based on evidence, that emphasized prevention and safety, then maybe some of those calling for an inquiry might follow his lead. The Police Chiefs are calling for action; the premiers are looking for leadership.

We all want the police to do their job and find out what happened to Tina Fontaine. But we also want the prime minister to develop a plan, inquiry or not, to address the broader problems. Instead, he was testing soundbites dismissing the “ologists” days before his party sent out a fundraising letter asking the party faithful for another $5 to counter the attacks from the “elites.”

Steve Sullivan has been advocating for victims for almost 20 years, having served as the former president of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and as the first federal ombudsman for victims of crime. He has testified before numerous parliamentary committees on victims’ rights, justice reform and public safety issues and has conducted training for provincial and federal victim services. He is currently the executive director of Ottawa Victim Services and a part-time professor at Algonquin College in the Victimology Graduate Certificate Program. His views are his own and do not represent any agency with which he is associated.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.