D
danny karey
^^^ Yep, Im looking forward to this.
See you guys there!!
Danny
See you guys there!!
Danny
Bill C-15 has passed in Canada. You will get 6 Months prison for one plant. ORGANIZE.
- Thread starter StrainCollector
- Start date
G
Green Supreme
Still don't really get that, is it for med patients only? What makes it a med marihuana expo? Sounds like someone capitalizing on the word med to be safer. Peace GS
sibilingrivalry
Member
I will be there
I attend a University in Toronto.
Chimera or anyone well informed what is the best course of action to help I know that for C-15 it is too late but I spent half of last year in a remote area of Canada, no tv, radio, telephone etc so I didn`t know about this.
What can I do, I have always voted strategically mainly liberal, because although this is a big issue the conservatives have MANY other huge faults and my region has always been close to 50/50 lib/con so the best course of action was to vote liberal.
I've written to my M.P. who is a rat bastard, he's conservative and I've smoked with his son
I have written in support of and helped with the election campaign of NDP mp's in near by areas.Why can't a party straight up use cannabis legalization as part of their main platform. It would take balls but they really have nothing to loose, even if they got blasted by mudslinging from other parties they would still end up with a larger percentage of seats then they do now.
On a side note do breeders in Spain hire people to help them? Because I would move in a second if they did. I have taken agriculture courses and spent months doing research using Flourometers Qubit systems and hydrology related equipment not to mention plant biology and genetics... sigh there should be a website to apply for apprenticeships with breeders LOL. /end daydream rant
FrankDiscussion
Member
Bill C-15 Senate Committee videos
Bill C-15 Senate Committee videos
Educating the public is always worthwhile effort. Get the word out that a fast one is being pulled on the Cdn people because the Harper gov is misinforming them about bill C-15.
The most direct way to cut through the Conservative spin is to have people watch some of the expert testimony heard by the Senate Committee and judge for themselves whether the experts are telling the truth or the Conservatives...
YouTube: Bill C-15 Senate Hearing videos
http://www.youtube.com/user/CannabisFactsForCdns
Recommended testimony:
1) David Bratzer - an active duty police officer in Victoria, BC, and a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173LZbyWCOU
---
2) Eugene Oscapella - Ottawa lawyer and founder of Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnKccUTyE_M
---
3) Kirk Tousaw - Lawyer and Executive Director of the Beyond Prohibition Foundation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1269_doTXQk
---
4) Craig Jones - Exec Dir., John Howard Society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0mQ8m-0Xqg
-FrankD
P.S. If anyone is interested in helping me find best-of segments from the Bill C-15 Senate Committee transcripts I sure would appreciate it. I want to create a video that's an overview of the cttee hearings that would hold the attention of (and educate) a wide demographic.
I haven't posted enough times to use the PM system here, so if you PM me with your email I can contact you and let you know more specifically what excerpts I'm looking for. Thanks.
Bill C-15 Senate Committee videos
The next incarnation of Bill C-15 still needs to go thru the House and Senate again, so it's too soon to say it's too late for C-15.
Educating the public is always worthwhile effort. Get the word out that a fast one is being pulled on the Cdn people because the Harper gov is misinforming them about bill C-15.
The most direct way to cut through the Conservative spin is to have people watch some of the expert testimony heard by the Senate Committee and judge for themselves whether the experts are telling the truth or the Conservatives...
YouTube: Bill C-15 Senate Hearing videos
http://www.youtube.com/user/CannabisFactsForCdns
Recommended testimony:
1) David Bratzer - an active duty police officer in Victoria, BC, and a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173LZbyWCOU
---
2) Eugene Oscapella - Ottawa lawyer and founder of Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnKccUTyE_M
---
3) Kirk Tousaw - Lawyer and Executive Director of the Beyond Prohibition Foundation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1269_doTXQk
---
4) Craig Jones - Exec Dir., John Howard Society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0mQ8m-0Xqg
-FrankD
P.S. If anyone is interested in helping me find best-of segments from the Bill C-15 Senate Committee transcripts I sure would appreciate it. I want to create a video that's an overview of the cttee hearings that would hold the attention of (and educate) a wide demographic.
I haven't posted enough times to use the PM system here, so if you PM me with your email I can contact you and let you know more specifically what excerpts I'm looking for. Thanks.
sibilingrivalry
Member
Thanks for the info, I will try and familiarize myself with more information on C-15 and its transcripts.
FrankDiscussion
Member
FYI, this page has links to all the transcripts...
Transcripts from the C-15 Senate Committee Hearings
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/SenateCtteeMtgs_BillC-15.html
-FD
Transcripts from the C-15 Senate Committee Hearings
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/SenateCtteeMtgs_BillC-15.html
-FD
Frank if you get a video edited I would love to post it on our site.
N
ne0b0rn
......
The private prison industry(prisons for profit) is alive and well here in the U.S.. And did you know that the option to do prison labor is not there. IE: its called SLAVE LABOR. There was a judge in Louisiana or Mississippi that was busted for illegally sentencing people to a private run prison and got kick back. So mandatory sentences isn't all the Canadian Gov has learned from the U.S.
To be clear, despite the comments of others who suggest electing a Liberal MP is the "only path" to blocking the conservatives, I think that advice must be assessed in the riding in which each person lives.
If one is in Quebec, than I think it is fair to say that voting for the NDP is a vain and wasted vote.
If one lives in, say, B.C., matters are different. One can influence the results of an election in a positive manner by voting NDP. In a given riding, perhaps far more so than by voting Liberal.
My main comment initially was with respect to the Green Party. Again, I do not wish to be misunderstood. It is not that many of the Green Party's ideals are wrong or their policies necessarily poor; rather, it is a frank and forthright assessment that a vote for the Green Party, however will intended, is a vote which divides the left and assists Harper in maintaining his grip on Parliament.
I will not say that a vote for the NDP amounts to passing the puck to Harper; in some cases it may be, strategically speaking, the wisest vote.
But a vote for the Green Party? Is that really helping the Conservative Party of Canada to divide and conquer?
Yes it is. A vote for the Green Party is a tape-to-tape pass right on to Harper's stick. Pretending otherwise is naivete.
O
organizedcrime
i am shocked in a good way that the one cop from LEAP said "dont follow advice from police officers, follow advice from educated professionals."
Just like any profession there will be people who know what they are talking about and people that have not a clue
I know one group I would not get legal advice from would be law enforcement officials, Lawyers get paid a lot of money to know more than LEO
FrankDiscussion
Member
The so-called "gutting" of Bill C-15 by Liberal Senators
The so-called "gutting" of Bill C-15 by Liberal Senators
The "gutting" of Bill C-15 by Liberal Senators - 12/03/09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfc0YtUZuYk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Description: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clause 3 of Bill C-15 being amended during the Dec. 3, 2009 Senate Committee meeting (clause by clause examination of the bill).
***This video contains evidence that debunks the Conservative claim of Liberal Senators "gutting" Bill C-15. In fact, the two Conservative Senators who had questions about the amendment (Sen. Carignan and Sen. Wallace) seem to have difficulty containing their giddiness over an amendment they both interpreted as making the bill "tougher"! Not exactly the reaction you'd expect over an amendment that supposedly "gutted" the bill.
*Don't believe the spin!
Read the full transcript of this committee meeting for yourself:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/...574-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=2&comm_id=11
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For Canada's sake, please spread this video link widely...
-FrankD
The so-called "gutting" of Bill C-15 by Liberal Senators
The "gutting" of Bill C-15 by Liberal Senators - 12/03/09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfc0YtUZuYk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Description: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Clause 3 of Bill C-15 being amended during the Dec. 3, 2009 Senate Committee meeting (clause by clause examination of the bill).
***This video contains evidence that debunks the Conservative claim of Liberal Senators "gutting" Bill C-15. In fact, the two Conservative Senators who had questions about the amendment (Sen. Carignan and Sen. Wallace) seem to have difficulty containing their giddiness over an amendment they both interpreted as making the bill "tougher"! Not exactly the reaction you'd expect over an amendment that supposedly "gutted" the bill.
*Don't believe the spin!
Read the full transcript of this committee meeting for yourself:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/...574-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=2&comm_id=11
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For Canada's sake, please spread this video link widely...
-FrankD
Has there been any talk of the new senators that were placed this week?
I believe there are a few conservative senators that aren't too happy with how the party has been run.
I believe there are a few conservative senators that aren't too happy with how the party has been run.
FrankDiscussion
Member
Justice Minister Nicholson pushes crime bill he used to be against
Justice Minister Nicholson pushes crime bill he used to be against
We need to keep this ball "in play"...
-FrankD
---
http://hilltimes.com/page/printpage/justice-02-01-2010
Justice Minister Nicholson pushes crime bill he used to be against
By HARRIS MACLEOD
February 1, 2010
Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, who is pushing the government's tough on crime agenda and plans to revive the bill on mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes in the next Parliamentary session, did not support the proposed law when he was a Mulroney backbencher.
In 1988, Mr. Nicholson vice-chaired a Parliamentary committee that released a report recommending mandatory minimum sentences not be used, except in the case of repeat violent sexual offenders. The committee found, based on testimony and the U.S. experience, that the law didn't work and increases prison populations.
The report, titled "Taking Responsibility," cited many of the same arguments that led Liberal Senators today to make amendments to the bill, which died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued on Dec. 30 by Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.), although Mr. Nicholson has said it would be reintroduced in its original form when Parliament returns on March 3.
It noted that sentencing guidelines, which remove some of the discretionary powers of judges, "have had the undesirable effect of contributing to rapidly increasing prison populations in the United States." Additionally, it said that both witnesses and committee members doubt the effectiveness and have reservations about the social and financial costs of mandatory minimum sentences, noting they tend to increase court time because defendants fight harder to avoid conviction, as well as causing "distortions" in charging practices and plea negotiations.
Witnesses appearing before the House of Commons and Senate committees studying Bill C-15 said overwhelmingly that mandatory minimum sentences are ineffective in deterring drug-related crimes, and a 2001 government report done by the Justice Department reached the same conclusions.
The bill would require anyone found with as few as five marijuana plants to serve a minimum of six months in prison, with one and two-year minimum sentences for other drug-related offences.
Genevieve Breton, Mr. Nicholson's (Niagara Falls, Ont.) director of communications, said in an email to The Hill Times that the justice system and the drug world are different than they were 22 years ago, and therefore the government's response has also changed.
She noted that the Criminal Code contains a total of 43 offences that carry a mandatory minimum sentence, mostly for firearm and child exploitation offences, but in recent years the Harper government has added to the list.
"Parliament is expected to draft and enact laws that clearly articulate the legislators' intent, which is reflective of the values of the citizens who elected them. It is the role of the legislator to give guidance to the judiciary on maximum penalties, as well as on minimum penalties. For certain offences, our Government firmly believes that a minimum period of incarceration is justified," Ms. Breton stated.
Former PC MP David Daubney, now a public servant at the Department of Justice, was chair of the committee that authored the 1988 report, which is sometimes referred to as the "Daubney Report." He said Mr. Nicholson's views on mandatory minimum sentences today are clearly different from those in the report to which he was a signatory.
"I'm proud of the report, frankly, it was well-received and still is being used in law schools and other places as a well-received blueprint. But times change, and public opinion changes, and governments change," he said.
Mr. Daubney cited a recent Angus Reid poll, which indicated Canadians' attitudes on justice issues are hardening, as a possible motive for Mr. Nicholson's change of heart. The poll found that 65 per cent of respondents had a moderate or strong feeling that mandatory minimum sentences send a tough message to criminals, and that 62 per cent supported the death penalty for those convicted of murder. This even though crime rates in Canada have been steadily falling for three decades.
The Conservative government introduced 17 justice bills in the last session, and the they have made law and order issues a central plank of their agenda. Last week, Mr. Nicholson announced he would be putting forward proposals to stiffen penalties for youth offenders.
The justice minister has repeatedly lashed out at the Liberals, both in the House and in the media, for what he calls the gutting of Bill C-15 by Grit Senators, even though the bill was passed in the House with Liberal support. Many in the Liberal caucus have said they are uncomfortable with the measures in the bill, but there is a fear within the party of being labeled "soft on crime."
Last week Tory MP Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton-St. Albert, Alta.), who sits on the House of Commons Justice Committee, put out a press release attacking statements by Liberal MP Rob Oliphant (Don Valley West, Ont.) that his caucus was grappling with whether to continue their support of all the government's crime legislation.
NDP MP Libby Davies (Vancouver East, B.C.), whose party voted against Bill C-15, said Mr. Nicholson's zest for introducing mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes is purely political.
"This has got to be an evidence-based process, and of course he couldn't show any. All he could say was that he believed that Canadians wanted this legislation. To discover a Parliamentary report that he was a signatory to that comes to the same conclusion that we have, that mandatory minimums don't work for drug crimes, I think that's very incredible. It's reinforcement that what they are doing is not based on any evidence whatsoever. It's a political stance that they're taking that has nothing to do with solving Canada's serious drug issues. It's a politically fabricated response. It's fascinating to see that back in 1988 he obviously came to a more objective conclusion," she said.
Liberal justice critic Dominic LeBlanc (Beausejour, N.B.) said he agrees with some of what is in Bill C-15, but voiced concerns about the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions. He said his caucus has not yet decided whether they would continue their support of the bill.
Mr. LeBlanc mused that perhaps the discrepancy between Mr. Nicholson's 1988 report and his position today is because of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) preference for "American style solutions" to drug crime.
The Globe and Mail recently reported the government plans to increase the size, and budget for federal prisons in order to make way for the flood of new inmates resulting from the new crime bills. The annual budget for prisons has grown from $88.5-million in 2006-07 to $195.1-million this year, and is projected to reach $211.6-million in 2010-11.
At this point the government is refusing to say how much its crime legislation would cost the justice system, but Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page will release a report examining the expected expenditures in the coming months.
hmacleod@hilltimes .com
The Hill Times
Justice Minister Nicholson pushes crime bill he used to be against
We need to keep this ball "in play"...
-FrankD
---
http://hilltimes.com/page/printpage/justice-02-01-2010
Justice Minister Nicholson pushes crime bill he used to be against
By HARRIS MACLEOD
February 1, 2010
Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, who is pushing the government's tough on crime agenda and plans to revive the bill on mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes in the next Parliamentary session, did not support the proposed law when he was a Mulroney backbencher.
In 1988, Mr. Nicholson vice-chaired a Parliamentary committee that released a report recommending mandatory minimum sentences not be used, except in the case of repeat violent sexual offenders. The committee found, based on testimony and the U.S. experience, that the law didn't work and increases prison populations.
The report, titled "Taking Responsibility," cited many of the same arguments that led Liberal Senators today to make amendments to the bill, which died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued on Dec. 30 by Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.), although Mr. Nicholson has said it would be reintroduced in its original form when Parliament returns on March 3.
It noted that sentencing guidelines, which remove some of the discretionary powers of judges, "have had the undesirable effect of contributing to rapidly increasing prison populations in the United States." Additionally, it said that both witnesses and committee members doubt the effectiveness and have reservations about the social and financial costs of mandatory minimum sentences, noting they tend to increase court time because defendants fight harder to avoid conviction, as well as causing "distortions" in charging practices and plea negotiations.
Witnesses appearing before the House of Commons and Senate committees studying Bill C-15 said overwhelmingly that mandatory minimum sentences are ineffective in deterring drug-related crimes, and a 2001 government report done by the Justice Department reached the same conclusions.
The bill would require anyone found with as few as five marijuana plants to serve a minimum of six months in prison, with one and two-year minimum sentences for other drug-related offences.
Genevieve Breton, Mr. Nicholson's (Niagara Falls, Ont.) director of communications, said in an email to The Hill Times that the justice system and the drug world are different than they were 22 years ago, and therefore the government's response has also changed.
She noted that the Criminal Code contains a total of 43 offences that carry a mandatory minimum sentence, mostly for firearm and child exploitation offences, but in recent years the Harper government has added to the list.
"Parliament is expected to draft and enact laws that clearly articulate the legislators' intent, which is reflective of the values of the citizens who elected them. It is the role of the legislator to give guidance to the judiciary on maximum penalties, as well as on minimum penalties. For certain offences, our Government firmly believes that a minimum period of incarceration is justified," Ms. Breton stated.
Former PC MP David Daubney, now a public servant at the Department of Justice, was chair of the committee that authored the 1988 report, which is sometimes referred to as the "Daubney Report." He said Mr. Nicholson's views on mandatory minimum sentences today are clearly different from those in the report to which he was a signatory.
"I'm proud of the report, frankly, it was well-received and still is being used in law schools and other places as a well-received blueprint. But times change, and public opinion changes, and governments change," he said.
Mr. Daubney cited a recent Angus Reid poll, which indicated Canadians' attitudes on justice issues are hardening, as a possible motive for Mr. Nicholson's change of heart. The poll found that 65 per cent of respondents had a moderate or strong feeling that mandatory minimum sentences send a tough message to criminals, and that 62 per cent supported the death penalty for those convicted of murder. This even though crime rates in Canada have been steadily falling for three decades.
The Conservative government introduced 17 justice bills in the last session, and the they have made law and order issues a central plank of their agenda. Last week, Mr. Nicholson announced he would be putting forward proposals to stiffen penalties for youth offenders.
The justice minister has repeatedly lashed out at the Liberals, both in the House and in the media, for what he calls the gutting of Bill C-15 by Grit Senators, even though the bill was passed in the House with Liberal support. Many in the Liberal caucus have said they are uncomfortable with the measures in the bill, but there is a fear within the party of being labeled "soft on crime."
Last week Tory MP Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton-St. Albert, Alta.), who sits on the House of Commons Justice Committee, put out a press release attacking statements by Liberal MP Rob Oliphant (Don Valley West, Ont.) that his caucus was grappling with whether to continue their support of all the government's crime legislation.
NDP MP Libby Davies (Vancouver East, B.C.), whose party voted against Bill C-15, said Mr. Nicholson's zest for introducing mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes is purely political.
"This has got to be an evidence-based process, and of course he couldn't show any. All he could say was that he believed that Canadians wanted this legislation. To discover a Parliamentary report that he was a signatory to that comes to the same conclusion that we have, that mandatory minimums don't work for drug crimes, I think that's very incredible. It's reinforcement that what they are doing is not based on any evidence whatsoever. It's a political stance that they're taking that has nothing to do with solving Canada's serious drug issues. It's a politically fabricated response. It's fascinating to see that back in 1988 he obviously came to a more objective conclusion," she said.
Liberal justice critic Dominic LeBlanc (Beausejour, N.B.) said he agrees with some of what is in Bill C-15, but voiced concerns about the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions. He said his caucus has not yet decided whether they would continue their support of the bill.
Mr. LeBlanc mused that perhaps the discrepancy between Mr. Nicholson's 1988 report and his position today is because of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) preference for "American style solutions" to drug crime.
The Globe and Mail recently reported the government plans to increase the size, and budget for federal prisons in order to make way for the flood of new inmates resulting from the new crime bills. The annual budget for prisons has grown from $88.5-million in 2006-07 to $195.1-million this year, and is projected to reach $211.6-million in 2010-11.
At this point the government is refusing to say how much its crime legislation would cost the justice system, but Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page will release a report examining the expected expenditures in the coming months.
hmacleod@hilltimes .com
The Hill Times
mr noodles
Member
5 minutes ago rob nicholson stated he will try to reintroduce bill c-15 directly in the senate WITHOUT THE LIBERALS AMENDMENTS
SO BILL C-15 IS BACK IN IS ORIGINAL FORM 1 PLANT = 6 MONTHS
ITS WAR !!!!
PROTEST AND SURVIVE
SO BILL C-15 IS BACK IN IS ORIGINAL FORM 1 PLANT = 6 MONTHS
ITS WAR !!!!
PROTEST AND SURVIVE
Problem now is that the senate is now stacked. What political bullshit, who cares if there's less that want this than do, we'll just "democratically" get our way.
I'm awaiting this war to continue, what round we on, 5?
I'm awaiting this war to continue, what round we on, 5?
D
danny karey
^^^ yup, sounds about right!! 5 or 6........
Danny
Danny
mr noodles
Member
the liberals would not allow c-15 to go str8 to the senate , i will have to be reintroduced in the chamber as a new bill .
i will search the articles that where the liberals stated they will not let the bill c-15 get to the senate .
liberals are the way to go in my book , ndp is the 2 choice especially if they have chance in your county . use common sense and dont waste a vote .
protest and survive
i will search the articles that where the liberals stated they will not let the bill c-15 get to the senate .
liberals are the way to go in my book , ndp is the 2 choice especially if they have chance in your county . use common sense and dont waste a vote .
protest and survive
Last edited:
