Thanks for that puff_tuff. Well it sounds to me like there's still hope. At least there sounds to be some sanity in the House. You know, the Cons may have just sunk themselves on this one. Once the witnesses are heard, they may just LEGALIZE INSTEAD OF PENALIZE.

I hope that our honorable senators will see the sheer absurdity and ignorance of this bill. With everything that senator wallace was spewing off, it sounded like a kid doing a book report without reading the book and getting a five minute summary from their friend before class.

"If this bill is referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I am confident the committee will do what it has always taken pride in doing, that is, it will hear an array of witnesses. The committee will hear an array of witnesses so that committee members can be confident that they have heard the opinions and expertise pertinent to the legislation before them. I think it a little unfair to require of Senator Wallace a commitment that any given witness will be heard."

Hopefully this will cause another Senate Report, where the committee is traveling around the country talking to Canadians and getting feedback, if so we have a chance to educate the Senate again.

Thanks for posting that Senate debate from today.
Also thanks to Senator Banks, Senator Milne, Senator Carstairs, and Senator Fraser, for their intelligent points.
Senator Wallace, on the other hand.........
He'd be more relevant in the 1920's.

Theres hope in this being sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Members of that committee include Lorna Milne , Joan Fraser , Larry Campbell and Pierre Nolin.

Seven Liberals , one independent and four conservatives.

Here's their contact info:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_S...&comm_id=11

Lets all write well thought out letters to these people and be as clear as we can about C-15.

Tell everyone you know that cares to write emails to those people on that list imploring them to not pass C-15 , and to have the true costs of mandatory minimums studied. Also they need to be thanked for the work they've done on the 2002 Senate Committee Report on Cannabis and told parliament should be implementing those recommendations.

If you have a letter you want to get folks to proof-read before sending , go ahead and post it here. We need to get as many letters to these Senators from as many people as as possible.

I will send this also as a registered letter to Claude Nolan whom is very interested with this, and has asked me to keep him informed as to the state of the cannabis laws invalidity. Wish us luck!


<frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
<nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
<campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
<milnel@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
<joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
<damphh@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
<jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
<bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
<anguswd@sen.parl.gc.ca>,
<wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca>

To the Honorable Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, re: Bill C-15

Thanks for your attention.

I have concerns as to the costs to Canadian's to futher research manditory min. sentences and marijuana that have already been addressed in the 2002 SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ILLEGAL DRUGS. We Canadian's have already paid enough money to study these common sense issues. The financial burden of MM's in Bill C-15 will fall upon the provinces to enforce and jail those convicted. In a time of recession and an already over populated prison system, how does the federal government plan to financially support the provinces for the overwhelming costs that will befall them???? The Conservative Bill is based on outdated and illogical means of enforcement of drug offences. The studies from around the world and especially in the USA, are the voices crying out that this type of policy does not work, in fact it is most destructive to socities as a whole. Polls over the last year have shown that over 90% of Canadian's support use of medical cannabis and over 60% show favour for legalization or decriminalization.

I am also writing on behalf of those of us whom use cannabis for medicinal and theroputic reasons, with out a Health Canada exemption. Canadian's of all races have rights under the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exercise their right of medicinal autonomy. The Charter section 7 says: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The Supreme Court of Canada states as to rights of personal autonomy and absolute liability which would apply to personal theroputic use of cannabis without a doctors approval or an Health Canada permit:

R. v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, 2003 SCC 74, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571

[226] As Lamer J. recalled in Motor Vehicle Reference, supra, at p. 513, “[i]t has from time immemorial been part of our system of laws that the innocent not be punished”. This fundamental principle is at the core of his introductory remarks, at p. 492:

A law that has the potential to convict a person who has not really done anything wrong offends the principles of fundamental justice and, if imprisonment is available as a penalty, such a law then violates a person’s right to liberty under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms . . . .

In other words, absolute liability and imprisonment cannot be combined.

Since this landmark decision, courts have been “‘empowered, indeed required, to measure the content of legislation’ against the principles of fundamental justice contained in s. 7 of the Charter, and specifically, to ensure that the morally innocent not be punished” (R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3, at p. 17).

[85] In Morgentaler, supra, Wilson J. suggested that liberty “grants the individual a degree of autonomy in making decisions of fundamental personal importance”, “without interference from the state” (p. 166). Liberty accordingly means more than freedom from physical restraint. It includes “the right to an irreducible sphere of personal autonomy wherein individuals may make inherently private choices free from state interference”: Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844, at para. 66; B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315, at para. 80. This is true only to the extent that such matters “can properly be characterized as fundamentally or inherently personal such that, by their very nature, they implicate basic choices going to the core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence”: Godbout, supra, at para. 66. See also Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307, 2000 SCC 44, at para. 54; Buhlers v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) (1999), 170 D.L.R. (4th) 344 (B.C.C.A.), at para. 109; Horsefield v. Ontario (Registrar of Motor Vehicles) (1999), 44 O.R. (3d) 73 (C.A.).
I am a 44 year old adult and one of those individuals whom chooses to make an inherently private choice to use cannabis theroputically without state interference. The presently enforced prohibition of cannabis is unconstitutional in accordance to R. v. Parker, Ontario Court of Appeal.

[11] Accordingly, I would uphold the trial judge’s decision to stay the charges against Parker and I would dismiss that part of the Crown’s appeal. However, I disagree with Sheppard J.’s remedy of reading in a medical use exemption into the legislation. I agree with the Crown that this is a matter for Parliament. Accordingly, I would declare the prohibition on the possession of marihuana in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to be of no force and effect. However, since this would leave a gap in the regulatory scheme until Parliament could amend the legislation to comply with the Charter, I would suspend the declaration of invalidity for a year. During this period, the marihuana law remains in full force and effect. Parker, however, cannot be deprived of his rights during this year and therefore he is entitled to a personal exemption from the possession offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for possessing marihuana for his medical needs. Since the Narcotic Control Act has already been repealed by Parliament, there is no need to hold it unconstitutional. If necessary, I would have found that Parker was entitled to a personal exemption from the cultivation offence for his medical needs.
In R. v. J.P. the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of the present CDSA 4(1).

"[11] As we have held, the MMAR did not create a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption. In Parker, this court made it clear that the criminal prohibition against possession of marihuana, absent a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption, was of no force and effect. As of April 12, 2002, there was no constitutionally acceptable medical exemption. It follows that as of that date the offence of possession of marihuana in s. 4 of the CDSA was of no force and effect. The respondent could not be prosecuted."
Please read the following case law completely and you will conclude that the highest court in Ontario has upheld the invalidity of the CDSA ss. 4(1). This law must be repealed in the present amemdments to the CDSA in Bill C-15. This is the Senate commitee's chance to do right by law. To do other wise would be a blatent disrespect of our Judicial and Democratic processes.

R. v. Parker, 2000 July 31 <CanLII 5762 (Ontario Court of Appeal)>

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2000/2000canlii5762/2000canlii5762.html


R. v. J.P., 2003 October 7 <CanLII 17492 (Ontario Court of Appeal)>

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2003/2003canlii17492/2003canlii17492.html


If you have any further questions or you would like me to recommend a witness to testify before you, please feel free to contact me.

Thankyou so much for reading the truth!



Kenneth Surgent

Ontario, Canada

Great work Ken ...

I sent that registered letter doctored up to be personal to Senator Nolan and I added a Supreme Court of Canada decision that shows how a Section 52(1) infringment remedy is to be applied. I have sent an email to Dave Brindle about this as he has been talking about it on his show as some members have pointed out.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html

Primacy of Constitution of Canada

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.


The Supreme Court of Canada in, Canada (Attorney General) v. Hislop, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 429, 2007 SCC 10 para 82, 83 states:

82 Section 52(1) instructs courts to declare unconstitutional legislation of no force or effect. When a court issues a declaration of invalidity, it declares that, henceforth, the unconstitutional law cannot be enforced. The nullification of a law is thus prospective. However, s. 52(1) may also operate retroactively so far as the parties are concerned, reaching into the past to annul the effects of the unconstitutional law: see, e.g., Miron v. Trudel, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418.

83 This Court has applied in many cases the "declaratory approach" to constitutional remedies, which implies that s. 52(1) remedies are often given retroactive effect. See, for example, Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504, 2003 SCC 54, at para. 28, Gonthier J. On this view, s. 52(1) remedies are deemed to be fully retroactive because the legislature never had the authority to enact an unconstitutional law. In the words of Professor Hogg, a declaration of constitutional invalidity "involves the nullification of the law from the outset" (P. W. Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada (loose-leaf ed.), vol. 2, at p. 55-2 (emphasis added)). If the law was invalid from the outset, then any government action taken pursuant to that law is also invalid, and consequently, those affected by it have a right to redress which reaches back into the past.

The Minister of Justice must stop all arrests and procecutions immediately / 8 years ago!

Ken

Got a email back from my MP Mark Holland pretty much saying the liberals choose politics over the freedom of Canadians.



Hi Brad,



Thanks for your thoughts on this – I appreciate your perspective, Brad, and was guided by these concerns from the beginning of analysis.



This bill was one of the most difficult pieces of legislation I have had to study and debate in Parliament. Provisions advancing the drug treatment court are worthwhile, while other provisions, aimed at growers of marijuana, are controversial. The decision to support the bill was made not individually but as a party and in recognition that compromise was necessary in a minority Parliament. Saying that, I suspect that we have not heard the last of this issue; and like other sections of Canadian law, it stands to be reviewed in future forums and Parliaments.



Best,

- Mark



Mark Holland, M.P. for Ajax-Pickering

Liberal Critic for Public Safety and National Security



From: Brad Armstrong [mailto:bradleyson@sympatico.ca]
Sent: June 5, 2009 11:07 AM
To: Holland, Mark - M.P.
Subject: Questions



Hi Mark.

My name is Brad Armstrong and i am a proud Canadian and a Liberal supporter. Like many, I support the Liberals because the Liberals are our best chance at helping Canada grow into the country we want. I support the liberals because in the past have shown to make decisions based on information, facts, and science rather than ideology. The reason I am emailing you today is in regards to Bill C-15. I would like to know why the liberals would support this bill when ALL facts and studies show that mandatory minimums do not work. Supporters of this bill could not backup their claims that this will stop crime or drug use, maybe you can? Voting for this bill and knowing that C-15 is wrong and will only crowd our prisons, waist my and other tax payers money and send Canada down the path that the USA is trying to get out of is just crazy. In fact, the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and expecting a different result. Despite what you may think, i am not a crazy pothead hippie try to legalize drugs. I am a hard working tax payer who just wants his country to go down the right path.

You know this bill is wrong. When we met in 07 to discuss bill C-26 you told me you did not support mandatory minimums.
Do the right thing and vote NO.

Please Reply
Brad Armstrong.

Not sure whether anybody can use this link for emailing Senators but for what it's worth:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/senate/isenator.asp?Language=E