Senate Committee passes C-15 - Canada - International Cannagraphic Magazine Forums

boolmag · 12-03-2009, 09:37 PM

https://whyprohibition.ca/blogs/jacob...ee-passes-c-15

myc · 12-03-2009, 09:47 PM

i've said this elsewhere.. but how about trying to convince the GG to not sign this when it comes to her?

the british monarchy is having a PR crisis here, with very few of us giving a shit about them. maybe rocking the boat and actually standing up for Canadians (something the elected officials and the senate is supposed to do for us) will give the monarchy a much needed boost?

i am pretty sure the GG can simply not sign the bill and thereby not grant royal assent to the bill.

do you think the GG will stand up for Canada?
do you think it's worth a try?

Norrath · 12-03-2009, 10:20 PM

GG is just a symbolic person isnt it?

i remember in highschool them teaching us the GG is more powerful than the PM...but in an archaic way that would never occur...

Chunkybuddha · 12-03-2009, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrath

GG is just a symbolic person isnt it?

i remember in highschool them teaching us the GG is more powerful than the PM...but in an archaic way that would never occur...

They teach in highschools she's just a figurehead.

Norrath · 12-04-2009, 02:12 AM

yeah, but the GG is the localized monarch, and should be at liberty to veto anything....but after many years...doesnt ...cough sovereignty

im fuzzy on it, could have been all those classes full of sleep..

Strike99 · 12-04-2009, 02:22 AM

didn't she use her power to stop the "Coalition" election?

12-04-2009, 03:19 AM

This sucks big time, one more step backwards

mr noodles · 12-04-2009, 05:02 AM

confusion ....

Senators alter crime bill to go easier on pot growers

By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News ServiceDecember 3, 2009 7:02 PM

https://www.montrealgazette.com/news/...928/story.html

OTTAWA — For the second time this fall, a committee of the Liberal-dominated Senate has amended a Conservative law-and-order bill, eliminating an element that would automatically send marijuana growers to jail for at least six months if they're caught with as few as five plants.

The committee altered the controversial bill Thursday to retain a judge's discretion when sentencing offenders convicted of growing fewer than 200 plants, putting the upper chamber on a collision course with Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.

Automatic terms for a variety of other drug-related crimes — for the first time in Canada — were kept intact.

Nicholson, however, seized on the committee's move to highlight divisions between the Liberals in the Senate and the House of Commons.

The drug bill sailed through the Commons earlier this year after the Liberals teamed up with the Conservatives, despite grumbling within Grit ranks that they were being told to support a bad bill so they wouldn't be accused of being soft on crime.

Nicholson called on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff Thursday to "lean on these people" in the Senate and urge them to pass the bill in its original form.

The legal and constitutional affairs committee amendments will go to the Senate as a whole, which will begin debating the bill next week and then decide whether to pass the bill in its original or altered form.

The committee has also amended the bill to reaffirm the Criminal Code principle that the special circumstances of aboriginal offenders should be taken into account when sentencing.

A third amendment rewrites a provision that would automatically jail offenders convicted of a second drug offence, stating that the first offence must have been a serious one.

Liberal Senator Serge Joyal described the amendments as minor and he said no reasonable person could say that the committee "gutted" the bill.

Nicholson, who earlier this fall accused the Senate committee of gutting another crime bill, would only say Thursday that he is "disappointed" by the latest move.

The Liberals have accused the Conservatives of revelling in the Senate scrutiny because they can use it as a springboard to reinforce their tough-on-crime message and take aim at their Liberal opponents.

The committee had warned this fall that it would not rubber-stamp the legislation, which has drawn heavy criticism in public hearings in both the Commons and the Senate. Opponents have warned the bill, if passed, would flood jails and imprison drug addicts and young people rather than drug kingpins, who will continue to thrive, while small-time dealers are knocked out of commission.

The same Senate committee voted in October to dramatically alter a Conservative bill to eliminate judicial discretion to give offenders a two-for-one credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody, but the Senate as whole rejected the amendments and the bill was enshrined in law a few weeks later.

Hephaestus · 12-04-2009, 05:55 AM

Well at least it got revised somewhat; we do need to get tougher on crime; but the dank shouldn't be a crime...

Maybe I should send a big gagger out to those liberals in the senate

Strike99 · 12-04-2009, 07:08 PM

Better news! thanks noodles for the update

12-03-2009, 09:37 PM	#1
boolmag Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 106	Senate Committee passes C-15 https://whyprohibition.ca/blogs/jacob...ee-passes-c-15 Last edited by boolmag; 12-03-2009 at 09:40 PM.. Reason: *sorry, didn't see thread in Cannabis Laws & Cannabis Legislation forum*
	Quote

12-03-2009, 10:20 PM	#3
Norrath Got SoW? Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 602	GG is just a symbolic person isnt it? i remember in highschool them teaching us the GG is more powerful than the PM...but in an archaic way that would never occur... __________________ Live, laugh, love Norrath's Secret Jardin vertical 800w booth et al
	Quote

12-04-2009, 02:12 AM	#5
Norrath Got SoW? Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 602	yeah, but the GG is the localized monarch, and should be at liberty to veto anything....but after many years...doesnt ...cough sovereignty im fuzzy on it, could have been all those classes full of sleep.. __________________ Live, laugh, love Norrath's Secret Jardin vertical 800w booth et al
	Quote

12-04-2009, 02:22 AM	#6
Strike99 Analrapist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ...With the Barkers and the coloured balloons Posts: 194	didn't she use her power to stop the "Coalition" election? __________________ "What, then, do they want a government for? Not to regulate commerce; not to educate the people; not to teach religion; not to administer charity; not to make roads and railways; but simply to defend the natural rights of man - to protect person and property - to prevent the aggressions of the powerful upon the weak - in a word, to administer justice. This is the natural, the original, office of a government. It was not intended to do less: it ought not to be allowed to do more " - Herbert Spencer
	Quote

12-04-2009, 07:08 PM	#10
Strike99 Analrapist Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: ...With the Barkers and the coloured balloons Posts: 194	Better news! thanks noodles for the update __________________ "What, then, do they want a government for? Not to regulate commerce; not to educate the people; not to teach religion; not to administer charity; not to make roads and railways; but simply to defend the natural rights of man - to protect person and property - to prevent the aggressions of the powerful upon the weak - in a word, to administer justice. This is the natural, the original, office of a government. It was not intended to do less: it ought not to be allowed to do more " - Herbert Spencer
	Quote

12-03-2009, 09:47 PM	#2
myc Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 25	i've said this elsewhere.. but how about trying to convince the GG to not sign this when it comes to her? the british monarchy is having a PR crisis here, with very few of us giving a shit about them. maybe rocking the boat and actually standing up for Canadians (something the elected officials and the senate is supposed to do for us) will give the monarchy a much needed boost? i am pretty sure the GG can simply not sign the bill and thereby not grant royal assent to the bill. do you think the GG will stand up for Canada? do you think it's worth a try?
	Quote

12-04-2009, 03:19 AM	#7
Blused Guest Posts: n/a	This sucks big time, one more step backwards
	Quote

12-04-2009, 05:02 AM	#8
mr noodles Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 763	confusion .... Senators alter crime bill to go easier on pot growers By Janice Tibbetts, Canwest News ServiceDecember 3, 2009 7:02 PM https://www.montrealgazette.com/news/...928/story.html OTTAWA — For the second time this fall, a committee of the Liberal-dominated Senate has amended a Conservative law-and-order bill, eliminating an element that would automatically send marijuana growers to jail for at least six months if they're caught with as few as five plants. The committee altered the controversial bill Thursday to retain a judge's discretion when sentencing offenders convicted of growing fewer than 200 plants, putting the upper chamber on a collision course with Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. Automatic terms for a variety of other drug-related crimes — for the first time in Canada — were kept intact. Nicholson, however, seized on the committee's move to highlight divisions between the Liberals in the Senate and the House of Commons. The drug bill sailed through the Commons earlier this year after the Liberals teamed up with the Conservatives, despite grumbling within Grit ranks that they were being told to support a bad bill so they wouldn't be accused of being soft on crime. Nicholson called on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff Thursday to "lean on these people" in the Senate and urge them to pass the bill in its original form. The legal and constitutional affairs committee amendments will go to the Senate as a whole, which will begin debating the bill next week and then decide whether to pass the bill in its original or altered form. The committee has also amended the bill to reaffirm the Criminal Code principle that the special circumstances of aboriginal offenders should be taken into account when sentencing. A third amendment rewrites a provision that would automatically jail offenders convicted of a second drug offence, stating that the first offence must have been a serious one. Liberal Senator Serge Joyal described the amendments as minor and he said no reasonable person could say that the committee "gutted" the bill. Nicholson, who earlier this fall accused the Senate committee of gutting another crime bill, would only say Thursday that he is "disappointed" by the latest move. The Liberals have accused the Conservatives of revelling in the Senate scrutiny because they can use it as a springboard to reinforce their tough-on-crime message and take aim at their Liberal opponents. The committee had warned this fall that it would not rubber-stamp the legislation, which has drawn heavy criticism in public hearings in both the Commons and the Senate. Opponents have warned the bill, if passed, would flood jails and imprison drug addicts and young people rather than drug kingpins, who will continue to thrive, while small-time dealers are knocked out of commission. The same Senate committee voted in October to dramatically alter a Conservative bill to eliminate judicial discretion to give offenders a two-for-one credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody, but the Senate as whole rejected the amendments and the bill was enshrined in law a few weeks later.
	Quote

12-04-2009, 05:55 AM	#9
Hephaestus Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 493	Well at least it got revised somewhat; we do need to get tougher on crime; but the dank shouldn't be a crime... Maybe I should send a big gagger out to those liberals in the senate
	Quote