I second the fucktard comment. I've been watching this loser speak, I would say he has it out for cannabis for sure. I hope his actions piss the senate off enough to squish his little dream and shove it straight up his ass.
who are the women that sleep with and procreate with these men
jesus
they deserve our hate as much as anyone else
Point of order. It has not passed. It was amended by the Senate in a highly unusual move in terms of Parliamentary procedure.
The Bill now goes back to the House of Commons, after having been amended by the Liberals in the Senate.
If the Liberals in the House refuse to further support the Bill - the Bill will die. The Liberals promised in August that they would oppose and not support government legislation. This is by no means a sure thing.
When the Liberals last supported this Bill, we were only six months after an election. We will soon be at the post 14 month mark. While the Liberals are not in great shape right now, one more torture revelation or a smoking gun memo on Harper's desk arising out of that mess in Afghanistan could change all that in a day.
If the Liberals choose to delay this Bill further (which they clearly don't like - that's WHY the Senate amended it) and choose to ally with the Bloc and the NDP in putting the Bill through more hearings and to subject it to further possible amendments - there is nothing that a Conservative minority government - which is all Harper has - can procedurally do to stop it.
I would not bet the farm on that happening - then again - I would not have bet more than $100 that the full Senate would have ever amended the Bill in the first place. So, who knows?
Remember, at this junture last year, the Bloc, NDP and the Liberals had signed a coalition agreement and Harper's days appeared to be over.
A lot can happen between now and the time this Bill passes - if it ever does. It can be rejected outright or the government could fall to a non-confidence vote.
Should that happen, Bill C-15 dies on the order table. It's not as if it has not happened before. The prior incarnation of this Bill died on the order table, too.
While that surely appears to be unlikely - the point is this: The Fat Lady has not yet sung on Bill C-15.
For the fist time in close to fifteen years, the Liberals in the Senate amended a government Bill over the objection of the Government.
At the end of the day, never mind what the average Joe on the street wants. I assure you that Liberals in Canada are not for a US Style War on Drugs or for mandatory minimum sentences that will fill our jails. If the Liberals wanted that - they would have passed that legislation themselves during the prior century during which they formed the Government - with a majority - 75% of that time.
Whan crap like this happens, it's fair to say that all things remain possible and all options are still open.
who are the women that sleep with and procreate with these men
jesus
they deserve our hate as much as anyone else
I admire your optimism Fatigues....and I guess at this point we should all be thinking in a more positive light....as like you said the fat lady hasn,t sung yet.
jarff
"Mr. Massicotte: It is all dangerous. What price would you pay for the mind of your child? In my community, vibrant, good young people have started with marijuana and gone down the path of addiction. What is the price of a child's brain? If one of your children had a brain injury, what would you pay, as a parent?
Senator Nolin: Why are you speaking of brain injury? We have many studies that show that gateway drugs do not exist. You know this very well. We are trying to have a rigorous study.
Mr. Massicotte: From my experience dealing with many addicted people, every heroin addict and cocaine addict started by using marijuana."
---
Ok , guys , i swear this is the last one, but its the BEST one:
"
The Chair: Mr. Momy, in your presentation you said that mandatory minimums do work, and you gave the example of mandatory minimum sentences for drunk driving working as a deterrent. We have been trying hard to get statistical evidence, studies or anything else that show that mandatory minimums do deter. Were you basing that on lived experience of your members, or do you have data to back it up?
Mr. Momy: That is lived. It is the experience and knowledge of front line police officers who are providing us information. They are no longer seeing as many repeat offenders.
The Chair: I am not disputing the validity of your members' experience. I am just wondering if there are some statistics you could give us.
Mr. Momy: No, it was not information from StatsCan or anything like that.
I would say get any of the talks about how much this is going to cost... the public knows that any numbers pre-budgeted for something always ends up going over budget 4 or 5 times the amount.
I love the footage when Rob wine ass cries about the voted on amendment.
Could you post links when your done... thanks!
I know that Kirk Tousaw is doing his best to give his opinion as to the impact and effect of C-15, if passed."Also, when was the last time a cannabis production site in a residential area was not considered to be a danger to the public? Prohibitionists have mounted a decade-long propaganda war that has successfully convinced the public that cannabis can only be produced unsafely - something we know is completely false but that has become dogma. This means that, if you grow cannabis to sell (or even give away), in order to avoid the impact of the mandatory sentences you basically have to do it on rural property that you own."
Let me assure you that if Bill C-15 passes, the first time this subsection comes up for judicial interpetation, then as surely as the sun rises and sets, if defence counsel is doing his job properly, the Court will be referred to the above answer which Mr. Saint-Denis testified to, on behalf of the Department of Justice, as to the legislative intent behind this subsection.Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 16 - Evidence, October 21, 2009
The Deputy Chair: With us today from the Department of Justice Canada, we have Mr. Paul Saint-Denis, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section. He is here to answer technical questions members of the committee may have on the bill. As such, he will not be making an opening statement.
...
Senator Carignan: I have a question about the aggravating factors provided for in subsection 3.
The Deputy Chair: Of which section?
Senator Carignan: Section 7. There's a list:
(a) the person used real property that belongs to a third party in committing the offence;
(b) the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to persons under the age of 18 years who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area;
(c) the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area;
It is quite clear, we see it in the areas of cannabis, to protect grow ops, they set traps. In the case of (b) and (c), for me, growing large quantities in a residential area for purposes of trafficking, the simple fact that it is in a residential area is enough of an aggravating factor.
My fear is that with the addition of ``potential public safety hazard,'' this additional condition means that it will be harder to find the aggravating factor. I am looking for examples where there is a potential public safety hazard. I do not know if I am being clear enough.
I have seen grow houses in residential areas where the surroundings were very peaceful. I am trying to find an example where there was a potential public safety hazard. Perhaps it was processing of the equipment, I am trying to see, my fear is that this requirement will make us less determined to remove grow operations in residential areas. Do you understand?
Mr. Saint-Denis: First, it is important to realize that we are not just targeting marijuana growing. There is the whole production of chemical drugs, methamphetamine, ecstasy and so on.
Second, the cases we were addressing with this provision were those where people were using highly volatile chemical products like insecticides. These products have a tendency to explode. They cause a great deal of damage and can damage property and goods. That is the type of case we were targeting with this provision, not quiet cannabis grow ops, which do not involve any hazards like that.
some more bullshit
"Const. Ian MacDonald with the Abbotsford Police said a lot of B.C. bud heads south of the border where its value significantly jumps, sometimes being traded pound-for-pound with cocaine,"
this article mentions an exemption from the mandatory minimums for Aboriginals. How can one race be treated differently than the other? this is so strange to me
Part of the point of those sentencing reforms was to provide alternative sentencing regimes for aboriginal offenders wherever possible.S. 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
-s. 718.2 Criminal Code of Canada