To: pm@pm.gc.ca
From: jpiche@connect.carleton.ca
Subject: C-2 (crime bill) and C-3 (security certificates)
Sent on Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Dear Prime Minister Harper,
My name is Justin Piché and I am a PhD student (sociology) at Carleton University. For eight years now, I have been studying crime and punishment. Having completed a Bachelor of Social Sciences and a Master of Arts in criminology at the University of Ottawa, I decided to pursue a doctorate in 2006 so that in the future I would be in a position to become a university professor. My motivation for this is simple: to provide interested students who will one day work in criminal justice institutions with the tools needed to think critically about their own professional activities in order to foster the implementation of progressive policies and practices that position imprisonment as a sanction of last resort.
While I profoundly disagree with the contents of Bill C-2 which privilege harsher and longer sentences over scholarly evidence that has shown that such legislation fails to impact crime and the contents of Bill C-3 which creates a two-tiered justice system where security certificate detainees can be tried without ever being able to see the evidence against them, I am equally bothered about the disrespect you have directed towards those who critique your policies based on principles of law and jurisprudence, and scholarly evidence. Your disdain for evidence-based critique was made all the more visible in your speech on January 28, 2008 entitled “Moving Canada Forward As Parliament Returns”.
In this polemic you outlined the priorities of the minority Conservative Administration for the upcoming session in Parliament including tax relief, child care through the universal child care benefit, national debt reduction, safe communities and national unity. There is much I found troubling in your speech, but a recurring theme especially caught my attention: your disdain for evidence, particularly on the issue of crime.
You stated:
“…we are working hard to make our country and our communities safer. Canadians feel less safe than they once did. They rightly worry about the security of their neighbourhoods and their nation.”
This flies in the face of a poll conducted by Western Opinion Research (costing $68,500) commissioned by the Privy Council Office that asked Canadians in six cities whether 'tackling crime' constituted a major priority in their lives. Focus group participants did not flag crime or personal safety as a central preoccupation. Such a finding is supported by the research of Reginald Bibby of the University of Lethbridge who, using Statistics Canada data, observed a decline amongst Canadians who perceived crime and youth crime to be a serious problem (crime: 1975 - 60 of 100, 2006 - 33 of 100 / youth crime: mid-1970s - 42 of 100, 2006 - 25 of 100).
You stated:
“It would be presumptuous for us to claim the job is done, especially when so many urgent reforms have been held up by our opponents in Parliament. Even the Federal Accountability Act was held up by our opponents in the House and the Senate for almost a year.”
Is this legislation now before the Senate being held up or is being studied? There is a difference.
You stated:
“Some try to pacify Canadians with statistics. Your personal experiences and impressions are wrong, they say; crime is really not a problem. These apologists remind me of the scene from the Wizard of Oz when the wizard says, ‘Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.’”
Some try to pacify Canadians with statistics? Is public policy not supposed to be evidence-based so that legislation is not reduced to a window-dressing exercise that fails to accomplish its goals? If we were talking about an issue in economics (the field in which you studied), would you be willing to discard quantitative evidence?
Opponents of your legislation claim that the experiences and impressions of citizens regarding crime are wrong? This is certainly the furthest thing from the truth as scholars have been studying the ‘fear of crime’ for decades. At the same time, you should again note that your own polls suggest that crime is not a pressing issue for most Canadians.
Apologists (for those who engage in crime)? Well, in my case I began university wanting to be a prosecution lawyer so that I could personally put ‘those who don’t play by the rules behind bars’, but scholarly evidence has steered me towards being a critic of imprisonment and a proponent of alternatives to incarceration. I look forward to the day where I can sign my legal documents as “Dr. Apology”.
Critics as women and men ‘behind the curtain’? I assure you that academics who conduct research are held to very high standards. In anything we publish, our work is scrutinized by colleagues who verify the authenticity of our work. Bad social science is almost always discarded in the name of academic integrity. Rest assured, that we are not operating being a curtain wearing veils of secrecy – we are open and transparent.
You stated:
"But Canadians can see behind the curtain. They know there’s a problem. They know it was caused by a generation of lawmakers who embraced the bizarre notion that the rights of criminals outweigh the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Increasing the age of protection.
Ending house arrest for those who commit serious crimes.
Tougher bail rules.
Mandatory prison sentences for gun crimes.
Keeping dangerous offenders behind bars.
Cracking down on elder abuse and street racing.
And at long last, fixing the law on young offenders."
When I was growing up, I learned that rights were to be enjoyed by all and to suggest that we ought to embrace the tiering of these rights is indeed a bizarre notion.
You stated:
That’s what we’re doing. Our opponents all pretended to be tough on crime during the last election campaign. But in Parliament they reverted to form and have fought us every step of the way. And that’s something they’ll have to explain, because Canadian communities cannot and will not go back to a soft-on-crime government.
‘Soft-on-crime government’? The evidence-based policies passed in the last decade = ‘soft-on-crime’? How will you explain that a ‘soft-on-crime’ approach led to an overall reduction in crime rates in the next federal election campaign?
Mr. Harper, you say to your opponents to stop playing politics with the safety of Canadians, urging them to pass your bills aimed at ‘tackling crime’ and combating ‘terror’. As the Senate – a chamber of second-sober thought who is tasked with studying bills passed by the House of Commons – considers these pieces of legislation, you have ordered members to pass them without the regular scrutiny. While you threaten to dissolve Parliament in the name of Liberal obstruction in the Senate, it is your contempt for democratic processes that is itself obstructive. You denounce crime and terror, yet it is you who wields the tools of fear and insecurity, while obscuring evidence-based dissent.
In order to restore honour to your office, I urge you to embrace the work of those who have been working on these issues for years and who possess the knowledge that will empower you to avoid mistakes that the Government of Canada will have to apologize for in the future.
Sincerely,
Justin Piché
PhD Student (Sociology)
Carleton University
