Blog Landing Page
- 27 February 2014

Changes in the Senate
Read moreSenator Charlie WattThank you for your many calls and emails concerning the announcement of Mr. Trudeau. I was able to give an interview with Nunatsiaq news on this issue and for those of you who don’t subscribe; I’m including a link to the article for your interest.
The original can be found here in the original language of publication:
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674nunavik_senator_pins_future_hopes_on_a_fully_non-partisan_senate/
- 21 February 2014

Arctic Sovereignty: Part Two
Read moreSenator Charlie WattIn the Fall of 2012, the Senate Liberal Caucus commissioned a report by Peter Hutchins Legal Inc, titled Inuit: Canada’s Treaty Partners or Free Agents? An Argument for an Inuit-Canada Joint Approach to Addressing Sovereignty Disputes in the Arctic. This report followed Mr. Hutchins’ earlier work which argued that Treaties with Inuit are essential to Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic and posited that the thawing of the Arctic ice had created such a fundamental change in circumstances that it was possible that the Treaties no longer applied to certain areas of the Arctic. The 2012 report examines Inuit rights in Canada, and internationally, as well as outlining the Inuit involvement in the current scramble for the Arctic. I invite you to click here to read the report and learn more about how addressing Arctic sovereignty with Inuit should be based on mutual respect and the recognition of Inuit rights and priorities in the Arctic.
Please click here to read Senator Watt’s first blog about Arctic sovereignty
- 20 February 2014

Mandatory Minimum Sentences – 30 Years of Criticism
Read moreSenator Mobina JafferUnlike the United States, there has not been a lot of research on mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. However, the little Canadian research that does exist is not supportive of mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimum sentences have repeatedly been criticized by several government commissions and reviews.
In 1987, the Canadian Sentencing Commission stated that “the existence of mandatory minimums appear to be justified by a belief in their deterrent value which is dubious at best.” The Sentencing Commission found that mandatory sentences do not deter people from committing crimes because most people do not even know that the minimum sentences exist. The Commission concluded that potential offenders are deterred by the possibility of detection and not by mandatory sentences. However, the Commission did find clear evidence that mandatory minimums go against the principle of proportionality. The commission argued that mandatory minimums were unjust because they prevent sentencing judges from imposing sentences that fairly reflect the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence and the circumstances of the offender.
Additionally, in 1984, the Law Reform Commission Working Paper on Homicide recommended that the mandatory life sentence for second-degree murder be repealed, and that judges should be given the discretion to impose a sentence. The Commission made this recommendation because, in its view, “murders… vary enormously one from another in various ways and in particular as to their moral culpability.” And, given this variety, the Commission stated that judges are “in the best position to take account of all the individual circumstances of each particular crime.”
Moreover, the Self-Defence Review, established in 1995 by the Solicitor General and Minister of Justice, recommended a modification to the mandatory life sentence for murder. The head of the review, Justice Ratushny, found cases where women plead guilty to manslaughter, rather than go to trial for murder, even though there was strong evidence to support a defence of self-defense. These guilty pleas were attributed to the pressures that the mandatory life sentence for murder placed on accused women. To solve the problem of women feeling pressured to plead guilty to manslaughter, Justice Ratushny stated, “all that is required is the creation of some discretion on the part of the sentencing judge to depart from the strict sentencing rules currently in place.”
Despite these criticisms, the use of mandatory minimum sentences continues to grow. We have gone from twenty-nine mandatory minimums in 2005 to roughly sixty in 2013. This raises the question of why the government is passing laws that have been shown to be ineffective and problematic for over thirty years.
- 18 February 2014

Bill C-13 – Young people left out
Read moreSenator Mobina JafferOn November 20, the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Peter MacKay, introduced a bill to address cyberbullying, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act. During second reading of the bill, the Minister said that its main purpose was to address the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.
However, Bill C-13 goes a lot further than that. It amends not only the Criminal Code, but others as well. As an omnibus bill, it picks up a number of issues along the way, such as the financial data of banks, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, telemarketing and the theft of telecommunication services. According to the Minister, the bill proposes updates to offences and to the powers of police to investigate offences committed online. This would give them more powers to be able to actually complete their investigations.
A young person convicted under this bill would face a maximum of five years in prison.
As the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, I see a number of problems with this bill. First, cyberbullying is not the main focus. By including several issues in a single bill, the issue of cyberbullying is being used to push through an ideological and political agenda while overlooking the main issues surrounding cyberbullying.
My second concern with this bill is the five-year prison sentence. Following our study on cyberbullying, we tabled the report Cyberbullying Hurts: Respect for Rights in the Digital Age. In the report, most of the witnesses said that restorative justice was the best solution. The Committee even made the following recommendation: that the promotion of restorative justice initiatives be a key component of any coordinated strategy to address cyberbullying. However, Bill C-13 runs contrary to this recommendation. As the first Senate committee to hear the stories of young Canadians, we were told that they did not want to see their friends, coworkers or bullies end up behind bars.
My third concern with this bill is that it is not focussed on young Canadians. And yet they are the best experts when it comes to managing and addressing the problem of cyberbullying. However, during the second reading of Bill C-13, at no time did the Honourable Peter MacKay say how much young Canadians are experts in this area. The advantage of our report is that we had the chance to hear from young Canadians, the group directly affected by the problem of cyberbullying. They are the ones most able to explain the problem and make recommendations.
Unfortunately, Bill C-13 may look effective on paper, but in reality it addresses only a small part of the problem without focussing on what young people have to say about cyberbullying.
- 14 February 2014

Arctic Sovereignty
Read moreSenator Charlie WattFor many Canadians, the work of a Senator is a mystery. So, I would like to take the opportunity to showcase some of the work I am involved in beyond the regular committee meetings and Senate sittings.
In particular, I have an interest in the Arctic, and Canada’s claim to the Arctic through the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) limits of the continental shelf. My Senate Liberal colleagues have been very supportive of my interest in this area as the outcome of this process will have very real implications for the Inuit and for Canada.
Research work to date has included: a legal opinion by Hutchins Legal Inc. on the subject of Inuit rights to the Arctic. We have commissioned an Inuit historic use of Arctic sea ice by Dr. Claudio Aporta of Dalhousie University (completed January 2014), and later this month we also look forward to another legal opinion from Hutchins Legal Inc. on the subject of Canada’s December 2013 submission to the UNCLOS.
These reports have already made an impact here and at the United Nations. Last spring, I had the privilege of hosting an Inuit elders Conference on the subject of Arctic Sovereignty (February 2013) and a combined Inuit youth and elders Conference on Arctic Sovereignty (April 2013). Then in May of last year, Dr. Dalee Sambo Dorough presented our concerns to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The Forum accepted our concerns and adopted them into their final report (September 2013). We know this is just the beginning as we have also shared our concerns with the Chairperson of the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Chief Wilton Littlechild and look forward to further initiatives on this file.
I want to thank my colleagues for standing with Canada’s Inuit as we remind the world of Indigenous rights. By asserting Inuit historic use of Arctic land and sea ice and water we are strengthening Canada’s claim to the regions beyond the 200 mile limit and reasserting Inuit rights within the region.
As Canada’s only Inuk Senator, I will use my position to strengthen Canadian knowledge of the Inuit and the challenges faced by my people.
Nakurmiik (thank you)
Senator Charlie Watt
Alan Rock… Over 2 Billion dollars for 5 or 6 percent of lo …