Publié par le sénateur Charlie Watt le 28 octobre 2009
Cet blogue est disponible dans la langue officielle dans laquelle il a été redigé.
This blog is available in the language in which it was written.
My Inuktitut speaking friends in the north have heard me on the radio speaking out against bill C-25, and know my position on the issue.
To the outside observer, it seems unusual to introduce an amendment on 3rd reading in the Senate. Normally this is the final step in a very detailed process – in this case, it is a process where a piece of legislation is first examined by our Members of Parliament, and then given a second look by my colleagues in the Senate. As senators, we are the proof-readers and fact-checkers of legislation introduced by the House of Commons. In addition, my job is to make sure that the Inuit are consulted before any new federal laws are passed, and to make sure we will not be disproportionately impacted by any changes to the law. I am the only Inuk voice in the Senate Chamber, and take my role very seriously.
During my participation in the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I asked the Minister whether Aboriginal Peoples were consulted on this particular bill and his response was:
“I have not conducted coast-to-coast hearings on this in particular. I have consulted with all my provincial attorneys general and territorial leaders, and they are the ones who have made representations on this. We have put this out to the public in our consultations with them and indicated that this is something we would be prepared to move on.” (Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Wednesday, September 16, 2009)
Because I believe the federal government has a duty to consult with Aboriginal communities, this answer from the Minister was not acceptable to me, and I wanted to make sure that all of my Senate colleagues were informed of this grave oversight.
At third reading – in front of the entire Senate, I asked for a provision to allow the Aboriginal people remain under the current rules until a more comprehensive review could be managed. In essence, this amendment would give the government and our people some time to dialogue, and to find solutions to the gross inequalities that our people face in the Canadian justice system. It was an attempt to provide Parliament with a possible face-saving-solution.
As you know, my amendment was not acceptable to all of my colleagues, and it did not pass.
I was disappointed that section 718.2 of the Criminal Code was cited as justification for at least one opposing vote (this is the section which invites judges to look for alternative sanctions to incarceration). I would argue that this section of the Code is useful under certain sentencing conditions – but it is not relevant if a judge determines that prison time is the best response to the crime because this bill removes the judge’s ability to give extra credit in sentencing.
Wednesday was an important day for our people because Senators from across Canada were listening and discussing the merits of Bill C-25. This is a debate that didn’t happen in the House of Commons because we still do not have enough voting power in some regions of the country to be truly effective – so the Senate is very important place for our needs to be addressed, and for our voices to be heard.
In spite of the outcome on this particular bill, I am humbled that I was able to bring your issues to the floor of the Senate in Ottawa, and I thank all of my colleagues who shared thoughtful insights on this matter.
Please click here to read Senator Watt's speech during proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs