Stop Bill C-15 is now Stop Bill S-10. Attached is a new logo to put on your web pages, Facebook, etc.


Please call (866) 808-8407 to let the Conservative Party of Canada know you oppose their harmful and dangerous so called "tough on crime" strategy. The evidence is clear, S-10 will do nothing but harm our society and cost billions of dollars.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Tories+revive+mandatory+sentences+drug+crimes/2990795/story.html

Tories revive mandatory sentences for drug crimes


BY JANICE TIBBETTS, CANWEST NEWS SERVICE
MAY 5, 2010 6:02 PM

Tenants caught growing as few as six marijuana plants in their dwellings could face automatic jail terms of at least nine months, under a federal drug-sentencing bill revived Wednesday that imposes harsher penalties on home renters than on owners.
Photograph by: Robert Galbraith, Reuters
OTTAWA — Tenants caught growing as few as six marijuana plants in their dwellings could face automatic jail terms of at least nine months, under a federal drug-sentencing bill revived Wednesday that imposes harsher penalties on home renters than on owners.

The bill, introduced for the third time after dying twice before, proposes mandatory minimum jail terms for a variety of drug-related crimes, removing discretion for judges to sentence as they see fit.

The Harper government's proposed legislation imposes stiffer punishment on renters than it does on homeowners, because involving a third party is one of several aggravating factors.

"It is going to have a really detrimental affect on young people," predicted Tara Lyons, a fourth-year sociology student at Carleton University in Ottawa.

"More young people rent dwellings because they can't afford to buy their own, so this bill sets up a situation where the policies are crafted in the name of protecting children, but they are just presenting more harm to young people."

The bill proposes to impose mandatory minimum terms for other drug-trafficking crimes, ranging from one to three years.

Lyons, executive director of Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, was one of more than a dozen witnesses who urged the federal government, during House of Commons committee hearings last spring, to scrap its drug-sentencing bill.

The bar for being caught growing marijuana for the purposes of trafficking is generally five plants, which would garner a minimum six-month jail term.

However, for anyone captured under any of the broad aggravating factors, the minimum jail term is increased to nine months. It goes up to a one-year minimum for growing up to 200 plants for the purpose of selling, and two years for up to 500 plants.

Other aggravating factors include such things as whether a weapon was found on the premises, whether the location was considered unsafe, and whether the pot production posed a danger to the public in a residential area.

The Senate, which considered the bill last fall, increased the bar to 200 plants for garnering automatic incarceration, but left it at five in cases involving aggravating factors.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson on Wednesday ignored the Senate amendments and resurrected his bill as it passed in the House of Commons last June, with the support of the Liberals.

His last bill was in its final stages in the Senate when Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament in December. An earlier incarnation of the same bill died when Harper called the 2008 general election.

New Democratic Party MP Libby Davies, a vocal opponent of mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related crimes, warned Wednesday that mandatory terms for drug crimes will cost billions because they will "clog up" the prison system.

Moreover, Nicholson has refused to supply any evidence that mandatory minimums deter crime, she said.

"He could not offer anything," said Davies. "This approach that they're running with is based on this U.S. experience that has been a colossal failure both politically, economically, and from a justice point of view. Why would we be crazy enough to repeat that in Canada?"

Two studies prepared for the Justice Department, one in 2002 and the other in 2005, say that mandatory minimums do not work.

Nicholson said his bill is designed to "send a message" that "if you sell or produce drugs, you'll pay with jail time."

Several witnesses warned the justice committee last year that the proposed legislation would fill jails with addicts rather than drug kingpins, who will continue to thrive while small-time dealers are knocked out of commission.

The Harper government's bill comes at a time when several American states have retreated from mandatory minimum sentences, saying they are a glaring symbol of the failed U.S. war on drugs.

The United States experience in the last 25 years has shown that mandatory minimum sentences have flooded jails, with a disproportionate effect on drug addicts, the poor, the young, blacks and other minorities.

The U.S. surpasses every other country by far in incarceration rates and, meanwhile, the drug business has flourished.

The proposed legislation would impose one-year mandatory jail time for marijuana dealing, when it is linked to organized crime or a weapon is involved.

The sentence would be increased to two years for dealing drugs such as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine to young people, or pushing drugs near a school or other places frequented by youths.

There are already more than two dozen minimum prison terms in the Criminal Code, mainly for murder and offences involving firearms.

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/...ime-1159675.htm

Government Re-Introduces Legislation to Crack Down on Organized Drug Crime

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - May 5, 2010) - The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Mr. Daniel Petit, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Member of Parliament for Charlesbourg–Haute-Saint-Charles announced that legislation was re-introduced in the Senate today proposing tougher penalties for drug crimes. The bill specifically targets gangs and other organized criminal groups who participate in the illegal drug trade.

"Illicit drug production is the most significant source of money for gangs and organized crime in Canada," said Minister Nicholson.

"This legislation is essential to assist law enforcement agencies in cracking down on drug producers and dealers who threaten the safety of our children, neighbourhoods and communities."

The legislation proposes mandatory jail time for offenders when, for example:

The offence of trafficking is carried out for organized crime purposes or a weapon or violence is involved;

The drug is sold to youth or the trafficking offence takes place near a school or an area normally frequented by youth; or

The production of the illegal drug constitutes a potential security, health or safety hazard to children or a residential community.

"Our Government's message is clear: drug lords should pay with jail time," said Mr Petit. "Canadians can count on us to continue standing up for law-abiding citizens. We will denounce any tactics that may weaken or obstruct this important legislation."

http://whyprohibition.ca/blogs/jacob-hunter/c-15-has-returned-now-called-s-10

Rob Nicholson today reintroduced C-15 as Bill S-10, the bill is slightly different, with mandatory minimum sentences kicking in at 6 plants, not 1. So, to say again, the bill no longer has a mandatory minimum sentence for 1 marijuana plant.

That being said, the bill is a disaster for Canada. S-10 will imprison thousands of Canadians for victimless crimes, send people to jail for growing 6 marijuana plants, making any hashish (or baked goods) and a host of other offences.

There is no evidence that S-10 will work, indeed, every scientific study says it will fail. We know that prohibition has never worked, and we know that mandatory minimum sentences only increase the violence in our society.

Please contact your Member of Parliament (Login to WhyProhibition.ca, your MP will display in the top Right of the page) and let them know you oppose S-10 or any mandatory minimum sentence for marijuana.

Additionally, please, call (866) 808-8407 to let the Conservative Party of Canada know you oppose their harmful and dangerous so called "tough on crime" strategy. The evidence is clear, S-10 will do nothing but harm our society and cost billions of dollars.


Call (866) 808-8407 today to let the Conservatives know how you feel.

Read the full text of Bill S-10 here.



S-10
Third Session, Fortieth Parliament,
59 Elizabeth II, 2010
SENATE OF CANADA
BILL S-10
An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

FIRST READING, MAY 5, 2010
LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE


SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for cannabis (marihuana) production and to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I.

As well, it requires that a review of that Act be undertaken and a report submitted to Parliament. The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Go nazies....go the fuck home, lock yourself and stay there. Using peoples lives as they please!! FUCKING DISCUSTING!!!

Canadian's are to stupid to realize that they want to amend legislation that has been struck down by two of the highest courts in Canada. Also the whole federal drug prohibition should die soon because of this case in the Supreme Court of Canada: A.G. v. PHS
http://www.ccldr.net/ag-v-phs.php

Lets all worry about nothing.
Lets tell the Cons to stop spend our money on retardation!

Ken

Sigh... The 'POL' in POLCOA means Parliament only legislates.

Bill S-10 is Parliament legislating. This also means more resources dedicated to courts. The reason that POLCOA works -- for now -- is because they don't want to get into a big budgetary nightmare.

When the manmins come in, then they will get more resources, and find a way around it. Don't become complacent.

here's a list of Senators with all of their contact info:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/senate/isenator.asp

To amend a dead act. If they were writing a new one(CDSA), okay I'd be trembling.

The majority of Canadians want cannabis decriminalized and our government wants to make cannabis MORE illegal.

The conservatives are now telling us woman want less crime, they frame the discussion to fit their agenda. So by introducing this bill they create crime. Less people are going to be willing to grow a few plants for personal use, so now they will go to the black market. This will fund more organized crime and create more violence. It will also expose more cannabis users to harder drugs.

This is going to cost us billions and we are going to fill prisons with hard working mothers, fathers, and college kids all because they grew a couple plants. This won't decrease cannabis use and it won't decrease large scale grow-ops. It's an epic fail.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

May 6, 2010

(Victoria, B.C.): The International Hempology 101 Society will be holding a rally to object to Bill S-10, the re-introduction of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing legislation formerly known as Bill C-15, and as Bill C-26 before that. A crowd is expected to gather at Centennial Square today, May 6 a high noon (12 pm) to distribute information and educate the public about the harms this law will cause. Herb, the mascot for the International Hempology 101 Society is rumored to be making an appearance.


Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts follows in the misguide path of the United Statesʼ “War on Drugs”. It will use costly jail cells to punish non-violent, low level marijuana producers and mix them with hard core criminals . It will put drug distribution solely in the hands of gangsters who are willing to risk serious sentences for growing flowers. With this new legislation growing as few as six cannabis plants could result in a minimum of six months in jail with Bill C-15.



The International Hempology 101 Society has been advocating for sensible cannabis regulations through education and community events for the last 14 years. They are an incorporated, non-profit society dedicated to educating the public about hemp, cannabis, and prohibition.


-30-

This is completely heading in the opposite direction the US is taking. What ever happened to the harmonization of drug policies in North America? I guess it's all bullshit. I can pretty much sum up why they are doing this. They think getting high is a sin.

Finally someone who understands! Yeeeehhhhh!!

I showed you my withdraw Jacob Hunter, so how much more proof do you need? LOL WhyDontWeKnow.ca

Ken

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/805839--picking-on-the-wrong-people


Re: Tories may revive minimum pot sentences as part of tough-on-crime agenda, May 2

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson says that Bill S-10 is aimed at gangs and organized crime. Why then, does he support this bill that will give more power and profits to gangs and organized criminals, while targeting people who grow more than five cannabis plants? Small growers should be regulated, licensed and taxed — not jailed — so that people with chronic pain, HIV, AIDS, MS and cancer aren’t forced to buy cannabis from street gangs. At a time when the rest of the world is moving forward to legalize cannabis, our government is moving backward. Our politicians’ inability to distinguish between cannabis and dangerous drugs like cocaine will be a costly mistake — in dollars and human lives.

Janice Barton, Scarborough

http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/16272/7/report++from+parliament's+hill+-++may+7th,+2010

And most recently this week, our Government introduced legislation to crack down on organized drug crime. Bill S-10 proposes mandatory jail time for drug trafficking carried out for organized crime purposes or when a weapon or violence is involved. Prison time will also be mandatory if drugs are sold to youth or the trafficking takes place near a school or an area normally frequented by youth (a measure contained in another Private Members’ Bill I repeatedly introduced in Parliaments past).

when will they stop wasting all these resources on beating a dead horse they should give the people what they want and enjoy the quite after the storm

It's fear mongering to hide the facts and treason! Don't let it bother you. And don't believe lawyers either! If you stand your ground and fight they will withdraw. They fear the truth, and the truth sets you free!

Ken

Pot should be legal period. If I want to grow 5-10 plants for myself I shouldn't be taxed on that. Commercial sales (such as in liquor stores) should be taxed. With legal booze you can make your own beer and wine without being taxed and so it should be with pot.

I am confused by this

.... "Rob Nicholson today reintroduced C-15 as Bill S-10, the bill is slightly different, with mandatory minimum sentences kicking in at 6 plants, not 1. So, to say again, the bill no longer has a mandatory minimum sentence for 1 marijuana plant....."

If it was still going through the Senate when Harper prorogued Parliament and the senete ammended the bill to 200 plants for mandatory jail time.

How is Rob Nucklehead able to change it and put to the senete I am lost on how they can do this. If He changed the bill would it not start at the house of commons first then the senete. ??
To me its not right if you Change the bill and reintraduse it it should start from square one.

THe bill is a waste of tax dollars and a crime againsst Canadians.

Can anyone clear this confusing mess up for me

Thanks

Bills can be introduced in either house. The bill will still be sent to a parliamentary committee before it is allowed to be signed into law. To put it simply, the process is just being partially reversed.

Cheers

Let me see if I'm reading this right.
A bill may be introduced in the Senate, and if passed, must then pass the House.
I thought that the Senate was supposed to be the last, sober, second thought on any issue.
Does it really work both ways?

It's essentially the same process, just reversed.

* Introduction: The process begins when a bill is introduced in the Senate.
* First Reading: The bill is “read” for the first time, without debate, and printed.
* Second Reading: The principle of the bill is debated. It is then voted on and the bill is sent to a Senate committee.
* Committee Stage: A committee hears witnesses, examines the bill clause by clause, and submits a report recommending the bill be accepted as is, or with amendments, or that it not proceed any further.
* Report Stage: Additional amendments to the bill may be moved, debated and voted on.
* Third Reading: The bill is debated a final time and voted on.
* Message: Once passed, the bill is either sent to the House of Commons for approval (in the cases of bills introduced first in the Senate), or sent to the Governor General for Royal Assent (in the case of bills that were previously approved by the House).
* Royal Assent: The Governor General, or a deputy, gives the bill Royal Assent, meaning that the legislation officially becomes law.

Thanks CP

Thanks for the info

Can someone sticky this please, and unsticky the C-15 thread? Thanks.

I see little point lobbying the senate this time, since the Cons. have a majority now. Only convincing the liberal elite to force a no vote with party compliance, or a change of government will stop it now.

The conservative majority in the senate is NOT a simple majority, it is a relative one. The conservatives are now the largest party in the senate but they do not hold a majority of the seats in the red chamber. They actually hold about 47% of the chamber with 50 out of 105 seats. The liberals face them across the aisle with 49 seats of their own.

There are oddball factors of course. Conservative senator Claud Nolin for example and Liberal senators that put Randy white to shame in their ignorance.

A very firm focus should be maintained regarding the 2 Progressive conservative and three unaffiliated senators if you want to lobby anyone and think that there's a hope in heck of the liberals voting against the bill in the senate. The Liberals will be the ones you want to lobby regarding the bill being addressed in committee. The makeup of that committee (the senate standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs will probably be the one to address the bill) has not yet been announced and I'm fairly sure that it won't be until the Senate sits again on the 26th of this month. we will certainly want to pay attention to that as a conservative majority on that committee will allow the conservatives to railroad the bill through and a liberal majority will slow it down with amendments.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that one seat is currently vacant. so for anyone paying attention, that's why the numbers above add up to 104 rather than 105.

I have Bill S-10 information on my site. I'm keeping it up to date and adding related links:...

Bill S-10: "Penalties for organized drug crime act"

http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/mandatoryminimums.html

Thanks CP for posting the overview of the process! I've added it to the page.

-FrankD

Good stuff Frank.

Also, I should mention that the Senate Standing Committee on legal and Constitutional Affairs is of course already constituted. It's currently made up of five Liberal Party senators, five Conservative Party senators and one independent.

The chairperson of the committee is a Liberal senator. It's interesting to note that one of the most noted authorities on domestic drug policy and Conservative pro legalization in the senate, Senator, Pierre Claud Nolin, is not on the committee.

this governement is a fail, it will blow in there faces big time.

Find out why Senator Nolin is not on the committee, in his own words...

Read a highlighted version of Conservative Senator Pierre Claude Nolin's speech to the Senate regarding Bill S-10!

SENATE TRANSCRIPT - May 13, 2010
Bill to Amend – Debate at Second Reading – Continued
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/Bill-S10_Senate_100513.html


-FrankD
---

Frank Discussion
Cannabis activism information and resources.
http://frankdiscussion.net

Cannabis Facts for Canadians
Essential information for an informed debate about cannabis policy.
http://www.CannabisFacts.ca

I finally put aside a few minutes here Frank to read his speech. I'm curious to know why he made that request. If I had to guess, perhaps he is hoping that the same thing that happened to him will happen to conservative members of the committee. He was after all a fairly firm minded conservative prohibitionist before the special committee really got underway wasn't he?

Cheers

Thanks Frank for posting Sen. Nolin's speech. Here are some other, previous extracts from Hansard on S-10:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/027db_2010-05-11-E.htm

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. John D. Wallace moved second reading of Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-10, entitled the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act. This is an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Honourable senators, you may recall that this is the third attempt of our government to have this very important legislation adopted and brought into force. This bill is specifically aimed at tackling a problem that is of the most serious concern to all Canadians, and that is the problem of illicit drug crimes, particularly drug trafficking and drug production, both of which occur within all regions of our country.

Honourable senators, Bill S-10 is being reintroduced exactly as it was passed by the other place in the previous session of Parliament. It includes the amendments that were adopted by the Committee on Justice and Human Rights after hearing from the Minister of Justice, officials from the Department of Justice Canada, as well as a wide range of stakeholders and experts, including representatives of law enforcement.

These committee amendments were then adopted by the other place, and this is the bill that is now before us.

(1620)

Honourable senators, I believe it is extremely important to point out to you that this bill must be viewed within the context of Canada's National Anti-Drug Strategy that was announced by the Prime Minister in October 2007. Moreover, this bill follows through on one of our government's key priorities, namely, to tackle crime and, particularly, organized crime.

In this regard, Canada's National Anti-Drug Strategy is composed of three action plans, one of which is a plan for combating both the production and distribution of illicit drugs. This particular action plan contains a number of key elements, which include ensuring that strong and adequate penalties are in place for serious drug crimes.

Bill S-10 falls clearly within this particular action plan. The bill proposes a number of mandatory minimum penalties to ensure that the appropriate, significant sentences are imposed on those who commit serious drug crimes.

Honourable senators, it is also important to realize that Bill S-10 is not about applying mandatory minimum penalties for all drug crimes. It introduces targeted mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug crimes and ensures those who carry out these crimes will be appropriately penalized.

Before addressing the specifics of Bill S-10, I would like to take a few moments to explain the nature of the problem that this bill seeks to address.

During the last decade, domestic operations related to both the production and distribution of marijuana and synthetic drugs have dramatically increased, resulting in extremely serious problems in some regions of our country, problems which often overwhelm the capacity of law enforcement agencies. These illicit drug operations pose serious health and public safety hazards to those in or around them. They produce environmental hazards, pose cleanup problems and endanger the lives and health of Canadians and their communities.

These operations are lucrative businesses and attract a variety of organized crime groups. Huge profits are available with little risk to operators, and these profits are used to finance other criminal activities. Existing penalties and sentences related to these offences are considered by many to be far too lenient and not commensurate with the level of harm imposed upon our communities by such criminal activities.

According to Statistics Canada, the rate of marijuana cultivation or production offences has more than doubled from approximately 3,400 offences in 1994 to 8,000 in 2004. According to a study on marijuana grow operations in British Columbia in 2003, approximately 39 per cent of all reported cultivation cases, numbering 4,514, were located in British Columbia. Between 1997 and 2000, the total number of these cases increased by over 220 per cent.

Although the number of individual operations in British Columbia levelled off between 2000 and 2003, the estimated quantity of marijuana produced increased from over 19,000 kilograms in 1997 to a seven-year high of over 79,000 kilograms in 2003. That is a fourfold increase due directly to the size and sophistication of individual operations.

Honourable senators, these observations are provided to you so there can be a full appreciation of the seriousness of the drug crime situation in our country.

The Government of Canada has recognized this. It has recognized that serious drug crimes, such as large-scale grow operations and clandestine labs, most definitely pose significant threats to the safety of our streets and our communities. In this regard, Bill S-10 is a vitally significant part of our government's strategy to address this very serious problem.

This bill proposes certain amendments to strengthen the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act provisions in regard to penalties for serious drug offences by ensuring that these types of offences are punished by the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties. With this bill, our government is demonstrating its commitment to improving the safety and security of Canadians and communities across our country.

As has been stated before, our government recognizes and acknowledges that not all drug offenders and drug offences pose the same risk of danger and violence. Bill S-10 recognizes this fact, and that is why it proposes a focused and targeted approach in dealing with serious drug crimes. Accordingly, the new penalties will not apply to the offence of drug possession, nor will they apply to offences involving all types of drugs. This bill focuses on the more serious drug offences that involve the more serious illicit drugs.

Overall, the amendments included within Bill S-10 represent a tailored approach to the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences, including trafficking, importation, exportation and production involving such drugs as cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and cannabis. This bill provides a seamless approach to dealing with serious drug offences and, to this end, proposes a number of significant amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The illicit drug offences being targeted by Bill S-10 are trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, production, importing, exporting and possession for the purpose of exporting drugs. The drugs that would be covered are described as Schedule I drugs, which include cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and also Schedule II drugs, such as marijuana.

Bill S-10 does not apply to drug possession offences or to offences involving less serious drugs, such as diazepam or Valium.

For Schedule I drugs — that is, drugs which include heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine — Bill S-10 proposes a one-year mandatory minimum penalty for the offence of trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking in the presence of certain aggravating factors.

These aggravating factors include: the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with organized crime; the offence involved violence or threat of violence or weapons or threat of the use of weapons; or the offence is committed by someone who was convicted in the previous 10 years of a designated drug offence.

If youth are present during the commission of the offence, or if the offence occurs in a prison, the mandatory minimum penalty is increased to two years.

In the case of importing, exporting and possession for the purpose of exporting, the mandatory minimum penalty is one year if these offences are committed for the purpose of trafficking.

A one-year mandatory minimum penalty will also be imposed if an offender abuses his authority or his position, or if the offender has access to a restricted area and uses that access to commit these crimes.

The mandatory minimum penalty will be increased to two years if these offences involve more than one kilogram of a Schedule I drug. A mandatory minimum of two years is also provided for a production offence involving a Schedule I drug.

The mandatory minimum sentence for the production of Schedule I drugs increases to three years where the aggravating factors relating to health and safety are present. These particular factors include: the illicit drug production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to children who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area; the illicit drug production constituted a potential safety hazard in a residential area; or the person who committed the offence placed or set a trap.

For Schedule II drugs, including marijuana and cannabis resin, the proposed mandatory minimum penalty for trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking is one year if certain aggravating factors are present, such as violence, recidivism or organized crime. If factors such as trafficking to youth are present, the mandatory minimum penalty is increased to two years.

(1630)

For the offences of importing or exporting and possession for the purpose of exporting marijuana, the mandatory minimum penalty is one year imprisonment, if the offence is committed for the purpose of trafficking. A one year minimum penalty will also be imposed if an offender abuses his authority, or his position, or if the offender having access to a restricted area uses that access to commit these crimes.

For the offences of marijuana production, Bill S-10 proposes mandatory minimum penalties based on the number of plants involved: The production of six to 200 plants cultivated for the purpose of trafficking would bring a minimum of six months imprisonment. In this regard, it is significant that the minimum number of plants was increased to six plants from one plant as a result of an amendment that was proposed in the other place by the Justice Committee. The production of 201 to 500 plants would bring a minimum one year imprisonment. The production of more than 500 plants would bring a minimum of two years imprisonment. The production of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking would bring a minimum one year imprisonment.

The mandatory minimum extensions for the production of Schedule II drugs increase by 50 per cent when any of the aggravating factors relating to health and safety, which I have just described, are present. The maximum penalty for producing marijuana would be doubled from 7 to 14 years imprisonment. Amphetamines and the "date rape" drugs GHB and Rohypnol would be transferred from Schedule III to Schedule I, thereby enabling the courts to impose higher maximum penalties for offences involving these drugs.

Honourable senators, it is extremely important to recognize that Bill S-10 also provides the courts with the discretion to impose a penalty other than the mandatory minimum on a serious drug offender who has entered and successfully completed a court drug treatment program. As honourable senators will recall, when predecessor Bill C-15 was introduced last year in this chamber, a number of amendments were made to it. I would like to speak to two of those amendments.

Predecessor Bill C-15 also proposed mandatory minimum penalties that were based on the number of plants involved in the marijuana production operation. It provided for a mandatory six months imprisonment in cases involving the production of six to 200 plants and if the plants were cultivated for the purpose of trafficking. Once again, the minimum number of plants had already been raised to six plants from one plant as a result of the amendment that was adopted by the Justice Committee and passed by the other place.

Under Bill C-15, persons who cultivated five plants or less would not have been subjected to a mandatory minimum penalty. Rather, the minimum penalty would have applied only where the offender cultivated more than five plants and fewer than 201 plants, and the offender was growing the plants for the purpose of trafficking. It is not a possession offence, but it is a production offence for the purpose of trafficking.

One of the amendments proposed and adopted by the Senate committee in respect of the predecessor Bill C-15 changed this approach in a very significant way. That particular amendment removed the mandatory minimum penalty for persons producing between five and 200 plants if the production was for the purpose of trafficking. It removed that mandatory minimum. This amendment would have meant that any person would have been allowed to operate a production grow operation of up to 200 plants with the intent to traffick and not be exposed to a mandatory minimum penalty of any kind whatsoever if convicted of producing marijuana.

Honourable senators, this amendment amounts to an invitation for criminals to become involved in the business of producing 200 marijuana plants or less for the express purpose of trafficking and to not fear imprisonment. In my view, such an amendment would send out the absolute wrong message and most definitely should not be repeated.

I draw the attention of honourable senators to another amendment proposed and adopted by the Senate committee in respect of Bill C-15. It would have given judges the discretion to impose a penalty that would be less than the mandatory minimum for any of the serious drug offences covered by that bill when the court is satisfied that, where the offender is an Aboriginal person, the sentence would be excessively harsh under the circumstances and another sanction would be reasonable and available. That particular amendment would have meant that an Aboriginal offender who committed a serious drug crime of any kind would not face a certain term of imprisonment, as would all other offenders in similar circumstances. I also remind honourable senators that Bill S-10 provides the courts with the discretion to impose a penalty other than the mandatory minimum for a serious drug crime offender who enters and successfully completes a drug treatment program. That is regardless of whether the program is monitored by a drug court or an ordinary court.

Our government recognizes that Aboriginal offenders constitute a significant percentage of the inmate population in our jails and penitentiaries. Moreover, our government is cognizant of the Criminal Code provisions that permit courts to pay particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders during sentencing. However, as the Supreme Court of Canada found in R v. Gladue in respect of the Aboriginal offender, this is not to be taken to mean that, as a general practice, Aboriginal offenders must always be sentenced in a manner that gives greatest weight to the principles of restorative justice and less weight to goals such as deterrence, denunciation and separation. It would be reasonable to assume that Aboriginal people believe in the importance of these goals and that such goals must be given due consideration in appropriate cases.

Even when an offence is considered serious, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the length of a term of incarceration must be considered. In some circumstances, the length of the sentence of an Aboriginal offender may be less and in others, it may be the same as that of any other offender. In this context generally, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the more serious and violent the crime, the more likely it will be, as a practical matter, that the terms of imprisonment will be the same for similar offences and offenders, whether the offender is Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal.

With this in mind, I remind honourable senators that Bill S-10 is about dealing with serious drug offenders. The bill proposes that mandatory minimum penalties be imposed when serious aggravating factors are proven to exist. In my view, and under these circumstances, the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offender should be treated in the same manner in consideration of the imposition of the minimum penalty. It would still be open to the courts to impose less severe maximum penalties in appropriate cases involving Aboriginal offenders. It would also be open to the courts to refer, in appropriate cases and where possible, Aboriginal offenders to drug treatment programs and to impose a penalty other than the mandatory minimum if the offender has successfully completed the drug treatment program.

(1640)

Honourable senators, Bill S-10 is a vital part of our government's continuing commitment to take the steps necessary to protect Canadians and make our streets and communities safer. Canadians want, and expect, a justice system that has clear and strong laws that denounce and deter the commission of serious crimes in this country, and this includes, of course, serious drug crimes. Canadians want laws that impose penalties that adequately reflect the serious nature of these crimes, and Bill S-10 does just that.

Thank you, honourable senators.

Hon. Hugh Segal: I wonder if the senator would take a question?

Senator Wallace: Certainly.

Senator Segal: I am a great admirer of Senator Wallace and the tremendous work he has done on some of these difficult Criminal Code, sentencing and related issues. I am particularly impressed by the fairness and balance he has brought to the arguments that he has made on behalf of the government both he and I support.

I am worried, though, about laws that, in their specificity, may have the unintended circumstance of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. I am not a lawyer, and I defer to others in this chamber who are. I have no experience with marijuana. I was once asked by Craig Oliver in 1998 if I had ever tried marijuana. I said that I did not like it very much. I was not a smoker and I preferred smoked meat.

Having said that, there is a big difference between 200 plants and six plants. If one looks at the studies on what might be going on in university residences across the country, I am led to believe by those who understand this more than myself that there might be as many as three, four or five plants found on occasion in a student's room, maybe as many as six or seven. The notion that that constitutes prima facie evidence of the intent to traffic and sell strikes me as putting an undue burden on our police. Last I checked, the police are pretty busy dealing with serious crime, such as the real traffickers and the big grow-ops that the OPP and the RCMP, as Senator Runciman knows, have found in rural eastern and northern Ontario, where there are serious issues of people conspiring to break the law in a big way.

Does Senator Wallace think there is any give in the gap between 200 plants, which may be excessively, if you excuse the expression, liberal with respect to some protection, and six plants? On occasion, local police officers may find that hard to enforce. Local Crown Attorneys might find it puts them in the circumstance where they have to prove intent in face of competent defence lawyers who would argue that six plants may be excessive in terms of the specificity of the law, but by no means constitute intent to traffic or give to others for reasons that are intrinsically unlawful.

I put the question to the senator, knowing that he may want to reflect on it, but hoping that he might give some consideration to the prospect of a modestly more relaxed approach.

Senator Wallace: I thank the honourable senator for the question. The issue of marijuana production is significant in this country. We know from our study of Bill C-15 and the evidence that came before us at that time that there are differences of opinion on the topic. There is no question, though, with our government, and I firmly believe this myself, that marijuana production is a serious problem, and it is one that fuels organized crime to a great extent. As the honourable senator may know, in the United States, British Columbia is thought to be a major source of marijuana production and exportation, and it is a serious concern.

Regarding the range of six plants to 200 plants, production has to be proven to be for the purpose of trafficking. The Crown is required to prove that. The subject is not taken lightly. It is a serious matter to prove that it was for the purpose of trafficking. At the upper end of the scale, and I remember this from the work we did with Bill C-15, the wholesale value of 200 plants equates roughly to $350,000, so it is significant money.

At the lower end of the scale, as I mentioned in my presentation, the initial thought in the house was to start at one plant. There was a lot of discussion about where between 1 and 200 that limit should fall. There was considerable discussion with all law enforcement throughout this country on where that figure should start. The departments of justice in the various provinces were very much involved in that whole consultative process. As a consequence of that, the one was increased to five, so now it is anything that is less than six. Having gone through that exercise and taking it seriously, the number was not grabbed out of the air. It was done through consultation with those who are knowledgeable about these issues and, in particular, serious drug crime in this country, which is what this is all about. We are focusing on this to make our streets safer and protect our children. That is what this is about. It is to impact in a significant way the serious problems that organized crime presents.

Having said all of that, the question was about the chance, at this stage, having gone through this process, that there would be a change in that, and I would think not.

Hon. Joan Fraser: Will the honourable senator take another question?

Senator Wallace: Yes.

Senator Fraser: My question follows on from the interesting line of reasoning advanced by Senator Segal. I would tend to agree that six to 200 is too broad a range. It is the range the House of Commons sent to us. Perhaps this is an occasion for some sober second thought.

However, looking at the lower end of that range, six, 10, or maybe 15 plants, my recollection of the work of the Senate committee is that one of the concerns was that, true, the plants would have to be being produced for the purposes of trafficking. Unlike Senator Baker, I do not have my Criminal Code with me. Can Senator Wallace confirm for us that the Criminal Code definition of trafficking is extremely broad? It includes giving or even offering to give. Someone in a suburb who grows 20 plants so that he can have a nice pot party once or twice a year with his neighbours, just good respectable suburban folks, would be considered to be growing those plants for the purposes of trafficking even if it were only for the three or four immediate neighbours. Am I correct in my recollection about what the Criminal Code says about trafficking?

Senator Wallace: I thank the honourable senator for the question. This is not from personal knowledge, but my understanding is that five marijuana plants, which is the average that is being used for consideration, do produce a significant amount of marijuana. To answer specifically the honourable senator's question, it is true that trafficking does include more than the sale of product, and it would cover giving as well.

Hon. Grant Mitchell: I have two questions, and I will ask one at a time.

The honourable senator was making the point that this will reduce organized crime, which is somehow fuelled by marijuana trafficking. Can he tell me how it is that organized crime would be interested in six plants? That does not seem like a significant amount for an organized crime operation to be worried about, so why would we be worried about it in that context?

(1650)

Senator Wallace: The bill, as the honourable senator knows, involves a far broader range of serious drugs: heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana. There is no question that production and sale of those drugs are a financial lifeline for organized crime. We have heard that from law enforcement and I fully believe that.

As to the honourable senator's question of where the interest of organized crime begins and where to slot in the beginning point in production to gear to that, that could be an endless debate. The point is that there has to be a beginning — the beginning point of six plants was one that was not taken lightly — and there is no question that the focus of this bill is to deal with serious drug crime. It is the government's view that production from six plants and up does constitute serious drug crime.

Senator Mitchell: The real fear is that a university student growing some plants in a few rooms in a university residence or a house near campus could literally have their lives ruined by something that, in fact, is not particularly pernicious, does not lead to organized crime and might well be commensurate with any number of events that senators in this house got themselves into when they were 19 and 20 years old. When quantifying the level at six plants or five plants, that is the risk you will run. We will start to see what we have seen in the United States, where people who make a relatively minor mistake are in jail for five and ten years — admittedly, you are saying for six months — and their lives are literally ruined. I make that as a statement.

This bill will undoubtedly result, the government would hope in many more people going to jail. Its tough-on-crime bills always tout that purpose, which is the irony because if these measures actually worked fewer people would go to jail due to the disincentive for committing the crimes this kind of penalty represents.

Has the government done any analysis of how many more people will go to jail for who knows how much longer, into facilities we do not yet have but must build and operate, because this bill increases the number of people who will be creating the demand for them? Remember that one cell costs $100,000 to build and one person in that cell costs $100,000 a year to operate. Have you an estimate on what this bill will actually cost the Canadian people?

Senator Wallace: I have a couple of comments. You suggest it is the government's hope or my hope that many more people will go to jail because of this measure. I would hope just the opposite. We can debate the deterrence of impact of mandatory minimums and stiffer sentences. It would certainly be my hope that there will be a deterrent effect and as a result fewer who would involve themselves in criminal activity. That is an endless debate, I realize, but the point that we would somehow hope more people will go to jail and that is what we stand for is not the case.

Having said that, criminal activity is a significant issue in this country and I believe it is necessary for law enforcement and for legislators to support the efforts of law enforcement to disrupt that criminal activity. Yes, to do that there are times that separating those who will be involved in trafficking, production, importation, and exportation of serious drugs and incarcerating them is what will have to be done to protect our citizens and to make our streets safer. Quite frankly, if that is what it takes to do it, I fully support it.

Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I wish to follow up on Senator Mitchell's question.

Assuming this bill goes forward and goes to the committee, will Senator Wallace ensure or alert the officials in the department that we would like access to any studies that might have been done by the government that show what impact this measure might have to deter criminal activity, as the honourable senator would hope it would, and also the cost of implementing this bill as a result of increased incarceration rates be? Would the honourable senator ensure that appropriate witnesses are available to the committee for that purpose?

Senator Wallace: The full gamut of issues that this bill involves will be considered at committee, as it was when we dealt with Bill C-15. I know there are a number of witnesses within the Department of Justice and otherwise who will speak to all of the issues that this bill involves. It is not the first time the issues you raise have been raised, as you are well aware. They will be raised again and I am sure will be adequately addressed at committee.

(On motion of Senator Tardif, debate adjourned.)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/028db_2010-05-12-E.htm

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Suspended

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallace, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mockler, for the second reading of Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Hon. George Baker: Honourable senators, this is the first opportunity I have had to welcome Senator Marshall to this place. Senator Marshall has had a distinguished career in the provincial legislature and prior to that as the auditor general for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. She truly brings great experience to this place, and I welcome her here. I also note that she is only the second person from Newfoundland and Labrador to be appointed to the Senate who was born in Canada.

An Hon. Senator: That means she is young!

Senator Baker: The rest of us were born in a foreign nation called Newfoundland. The first person appointed to the Senate is Senator Fabian Manning. I reminded him the other day that three of us have sat in the Newfoundland House of Assembly. Back in 1965, I was the law clerk and then the chief clerk. In that capacity, I wrote the rules of procedure for the Newfoundland's House of Assembly. His response to me was: "I wondered what caused all the chaos."

Honourable senators, I want to recognize the great contribution made by two senators in the chamber today, to the subject matter currently under debate. They are the two recognized people in the Parliament of Canada who, perhaps, know more about this subject than anyone else knows. One senator sits on the side opposite and one senator sits on this side. The first person I recognize is the Honourable Senator Nolin.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Baker: Senator Nolin chaired a Senate committee mandated to study the use of illegal drugs in Canada. The committee produced a report in 2001 that has been referenced many times in court proceedings in Canada. Today, Senator Nolin is a recognized expert on the subject. Within the past year, I noticed that he was recognized as an expert witness in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, where he was called upon to testify on the subject of controlled drugs.

The second person I recognize sits on the Liberal side. He is considered an expert in the subject; is known throughout the country because of a television series; was the chief coroner in British Columbia for a brief time; and recently has written a magnificent book on the subject of the use of illegal drugs entitled, A Thousand Dreams. The author is the Honourable Senator Larry Campbell.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

An Hon. Senator: Bravo!

Senator Meighen: It was all hearsay.

Senator Baker: When I was reading case law one day, I noticed that Senator Campbell's name had been used by the judge in reference to the fact that as the chief coroner, he had subpoenaed an academic who had authored a report. The case revolved around the discovery of a body in the ocean, I believe. There was a difference of opinion and a great deal of discussion as to whether the chief coroner had done the right thing. A couple of months ago, that academic author appeared as a witness before the Senate Legal Committee. Senator Campbell sat across the table at committee, prepared to cross examine the witness. To my surprise, they got along well. It was like old home week. They were happy to see one another. I suggested to Senator Campbell after the meeting that the two of them had resolved their differences. He asked me what I meant. I reminded him of the court case those many years ago when he subpoenaed the academic author who had objected to his actions as chief coroner. Senator Campbell asked me if I had not read his recent book. I said that I had not read it and he replied that I should buy it and read it because the other person I was talking about had co-authored the book. I recommend this reading to anyone. It would be a particularly good Christmas present.

Honourable senators, I will make a brief reference to a point in Bill S-10 that is worthy of visiting. The mover at second reading on the government side talked about mandatory minimum sentences.

(1430)

Honourable senators, mandatory minimum sentences, as we know them, are really not mandatory in most cases. I am saying that because there is a sort of fail-safe in this legislation to the mandatory minimum sentence that is taking away the discretion from the judge. There is also a discretion that is given to the Crown prosecutor. It is taking away the discretion from the judge and then transferring it to the Crown prosecutor, and it is in the law.

For example, how many times does one read in the newspaper that someone was convicted of impaired driving for the twentieth time in the last ten years? It is common, is it not? One wonders, as a legislator, "How could that be possible? We have mandatory minimum sentences for impaired driving."

I was on every committee that dealt with that, and I know that subject inside out. I know that if one is found to be impaired, on their first conviction there is a mandatory minimum. One pays a thousand dollar fine, and loses their licence for a mandatory minimum of one year.

If one is picked up a second time, there is a mandatory minimum 30 days in jail and a mandatory loss of licence for two years minimum. If one is picked up a third time, as per section 255.(1)(a), there is mandatory minimum of 120 days in jail and one loses their licence for three years.

Beyond that, our mandatory minimum regime in the Criminal Code under impairment says it is an extra 120 days each time and an extra three years for which one loses their license. Honourable senators can figure it out: If a fellow has been caught 10 times — not 20 times — he has lost his license for 30 years.

(Debate suspended.)

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Wallace, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mockler, for the second reading of Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Hon. George Baker: Honourable senators, I was at the point where one had lost their licence for 30 years. I am talking about MMs — not the candy M&M's, but the mandatory minimums, as they are called. One would have lost their licence for 30 years and been in jail for five and a half years in that 10-year period. Therefore, how could one be out driving in order to have another 10 convictions?

Of course, the answer to the question is found in the clause that is contained in this bill. Unfortunately, in my opinion — and in a great many other people's opinion — the provision should not be present as far as impaired driving convictions are concerned, but it is.

Let me read the sentence so that there will be no doubt about it. It is also in this provision, clause 8 of the bill. It says this:

The court is not required to impose a minimum punishment unless it is satisfied that the offender, before entering a plea, was notified of the possible imposition of a minimum punishment for the offence in question and of the Attorney General's intention to prove any factors in relation to the offence that would lead to the imposition of a minimum punishment.

That is the Attorney General and the Crown prosecutor for the province. In the bill we are dealing with, it is a Crown prosecutor for the federal government. It is a federal Crown. In most cases, one will find a federal Crown and a provincial Crown if there is a mixture of charges. The point is that there is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion, which is built into every single act that we have, in one way or another, regarding mandatory minimum sentences.

The first thing we have to realize is that in the case of mandatory minimums in certain circumstances they differ from province to province. There is a prosecutor's manual in every single province. It is not the same in every province.

For example, in Ontario, what is considered to be a dated offence — that is, out of date — is beyond five years. If one has a conviction, say, for impaired driving more than five years old, the prosecutor has discretion as to whether or not to enter it under their rules. That is not present in Newfoundland. In Newfoundland, if one had a prior conviction 20 years ago, that is a prior conviction. There is no such thing as a dated impaired driving conviction.

Having made that point concerning the main point of the government as far as mandatory minimums are concerned, my chief problem with this bill, honourable senators, is a provision that has nothing to do with mandatory minimums. I will tell you what it is. It is a scary provision. I realize that the Liberals in the other place have supported this legislation. Let us not forget this. The Liberals in the other place support this legislation, as do the Conservatives. However, this is sober second thought in this chamber. That is what we are known for.

I will tell you about the scary provision that I find in this legislation, honourable senators. It will take me just a second to do it, and I will illustrate it with a couple of cases within the past year concerning university students.

The first one was in December 2009, Carswell B.C., 644. I quote:

[1] The accused is charged with one count of trafficking in ecstasy. . . .

[2] . . . he gave one ecstasy pill to an undercover officer, Cst. Haines, at a Rave event at the Pacific Coliseum.

[5] . . . Cst. Haines, pretending to be a party-goer, dressed up for the event.

Then it goes on to describe how she was dressed — this is an undercover police officer — which I will not read. She did have a mini skirt on, cowboy boots and so on. She had to do that, of course, because she was on an undercover job at this dance. It happens in every city in Canada, these undercover operations take place.

(1440)

Here is the third sentence, paragraph 9 and 10:

Cst: Do you have some stuff for me?

Acc: No, let's dance. I'll get it for you later.

Cst: Uh No. I need it now. I want to be happy now.

Acc: Ok wait here, don't move.

Cst: Ok I'll be here.

This is the judge speaking:

The accused left and walked back towards the main stage area, disappearing into the crowd. He re-appeared some 3 minutes later and placed a rolled up paper into the constable's hand. There was an ecstasy pill inside the paper. There was a brief conversation.

Cst: Oh wow, thanks. How much?

Acc: Oh nothing, for you free.

Cst: Oh wow, really? You're a sweetie. Thanks.

The constable then gave the accused a hug. She signalled the arrest team to indicate that a transaction had occurred.

Then it says:

The accused was taken into custody.

He was handcuffed, searched and then brought to jail.

The second case, which I will just read two sentences from, is 2009 Carswell BC 3405. This is testimony from a police officer. How often does this happen?

Paragraph 7:

Prior to this Rave, Constable Kinney had acted as an undercover buy-officer at three prior Raves. It was her experience and opinion that drugs, in particular ecstasy and Raves were closely associated.

Paragraph 12:

Prior to Project Twilliger, Detective Kazuta had been involved with "Project Temporal" deployed to a Coliseum Rave on December 31, 2004, which resulted in ten arrests for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking. P In 2005, he was involved with "Project Thirst" deployed to a Rave at the Coliseum, which resulted in 13 arrests for trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking. Finally, "Project Tirana, which was deployed to a Rave at the Coliseum on December 31, 2007, and resulted in 11 trafficking arrests and six arrests for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Honourable senators, all of those cases involved the exchange of a pill or two pills. In half the cases, no money was exchanged. You might say that is only the Pacific Coliseum. There is case law and there is a big arena in Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, and the cases go on.

Why am I so concerned about this possibility? Obviously, you are not supposed to have illegal drugs. You are not supposed to be using illegal drugs.

Honourable senators, just listen to the summary of this bill. Herein lies the key. Do not forget that over the years, as Senator Nolin would attest, we have been careful to structure the schedules to the Narcotics Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act so that cocaine and heroin are Schedule I drugs. Marijuana derivatives, et cetera, are Schedule II drugs. In Schedule III are what are considered to be the less serious drugs. This bill eliminates Schedule III and brings everything in Schedule III up to life imprisonment in Schedule I.

This is an interesting question, and one that I am sure will be debated in the committee. What is wrong with that? I will tell you what is wrong with it. Without a massive advertising campaign, here is what will happen. I am not too concerned about someone who is charged under a provision that now says that if you give one ecstasy pill to someone, it is life imprisonment; you are in that category. It is not being in the category of risk of life imprisonment; it is not that.

However, what is concerning in the law regarding controlled drugs, as Senator Nolin would tell you, is that when you are convicted of an offence for which life imprisonment is a possibility, other parts of the Criminal Code come into play. For example, conditions of release carry with them 10-year prohibitions. Anyone convicted of this offence after the passage of the bill would have a 10-year prohibition, for example, on the ownership or use of a firearm. Let us use that as an example. Suppose you were convicted and that after you served your sentence, you came out and had to serve a 10-year conditional sentence. Suppose you wanted to get a pardon.

Senator Stewart Olsen: No pardons.

Senator Baker: There is legislation coming in to that effect. You would normally wait five to six years — this is the law — before you can apply for a pardon. You have someone, just on one condition, waiting 15 years. Suppose it is a university student, waiting 15 years before he or she can even receive consideration for a pardon, all for exchanging an ecstasy pill with someone. This is a young university student in that situation at a rave dance.

My point is that I would say the bill will pass. The bill will pass because the Liberals agree with it and the PCs agree with it in the other place. The bill will pass. However, honourable senators, surely we can do something to say that we need an advertising campaign. We need to alert these young people that what they did last year is no longer acceptable because they could end up facing a charge of life imprisonment, have their life ruined, never be able to get a job, never be able to go to the United States or any foreign nation, because that is the condition of their conviction.

That is the main point I wanted to make, and it is a very important point; it is one of the main subjects of the bill. The summary of this bill says:

This enactment amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences, to increase the maximum penalty for cannabis (marijuana) production and to reschedule certain substances from Schedule III to that Act to Schedule I.

When you look at the substances, you would never know it is something called ecstasy. It consists of about 50 letters and it starts with "N-Phenyl," something, something, something. Believe me, I have read enough case law to know that that is the drug I just referred to, which is ecstasy. Others of those drugs that are in Schedule III are there for a specific purpose, and at the time the schedules were invented and added on to, they were not considered to be Schedule I drugs.

Honourable senators, that is the main point that I want to make. I wish to make just one observation concerning mandatory minimum sentences. I served in the House of Commons for many years. The House of Commons did a thorough study on mandatory minimum sentences, the only study ever done. It is the only complete study on the record.

(1450)

The conclusion at page 70 says the committee does not generally support the introduction of further minimum sentences beyond murder, high treason and also the repeat of sexual offences. It was a conclusion of a House of Commons committee in 1988. I remember it well; I had been in the house 15 years at that time.

An Hon. Senator: Who was on the committee?

Senator Baker: Honourable senators, I will not say that Senator Nolin knows the answer, but the chair of the committee was David Daubney and the report is referred to as the Daubney report. Mr. Daubney is a great lawyer and has a great legal mind. I know him well; he is a good friend of mine. Where does he work now? He works with the Department of Justice, I believe in the minister's office, but I wonder who was the vice-chair of the committee? The Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C. Thank you very much.

(On motion of Senator Nolin, debate adjourned.)

Highlighted Bill S-10 Senate transcripts
(May 11, 12 & 13 so far)
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/mandatoryminimums.html

QUOTES:

Conservative Senator John D. Wallace: "It is the government's view that production from six plants and up does constitute serious drug crime."

Conservative Senator Pierre Claude Nolin: "We need to face facts: the problem is not the substance; it is the prohibition of that substance."


-FrankD

P.S. The next scheduled Senate debate will be on May 26th

If s-10 passes , and we continue into mandatory sentencing as well as private prisons that actually make a profit we are allowing our leaders the ability to not only profit by locking us up and in effect shutting us up and the very fact that it is profitable for them to incarcerate the citizens of this country is just way to scary. Our politicians are supposed to make the money they earn by serving our needs and will but these new changes in the justice system will not only pay them to ignore us and lock us up but it will also be the begining of draconian tactics to lock up anyone who disagrees with them and in essence they will try and scare the people of canada into continuing to vote for them and all along they will be making money off the misery they are going to inflict on thousands of canadians just for growing a few plants for themselves . If they truly wanted to stick it to the drug kingpins they would legalize cannabis and take all of the profits out of the hands of gangs and organized crime figures , not to mention the fact that if cannabis was legal for all then medical patients would no longer have to worry about ripper gangs anymore trying to steal there crops as there would be no value to it as the artificially inflated prices will drop to reasonable rates , not to mention that once legal anyone who really wants pot just has to plant some seeds buy 30 bucks of nutrients and wait the summer out.

But I am trully scared that we may soon live in a country where locking up citizens is more profitable to the politicians then these people being out of jail and free .

Justin Trudeau is publicly saying he will support Bill S-10.

He also says he's interested in hearing reason's why he should change his mind.

http://www.justin.ca/contact-us-en/

Remind him of his fathers quote:

"The state has no business in the bedrooms (greenhouses)of the nation. "

do you have a link showing Justin Trudeau supporting s10?

Don't have a link but I'm sure he will support it, considering he supported C-15. There is a video of Marc doing an interview calling him a snake. He supported C-15 but was smoking blunts and doing bong hits with Marc. I think the fact is that allot of these politicians don't actually support this bill. They are willing to support it and sign it because its all about furthering their own political careers, and not supporting it could mean an end to their career. Politicians doing what they do best, play politics to further their own agendas, has nothing to do with what the people want!!!

Sorry it took so long , I had to ask for permission to post.

Letter from MP Justin Trudeau

Just legalize it Justin.
Prohibition is the problem, not the solution.

looks like Marc was right on the money!!! He is a big ole snake hypocrite looking to further his career like most of them. Probably because he wants to be Prime Minister just like daddy.

Anybody have an update on the Senate hearings on S-10? I thought they were going to debate it a month ago.

hello CANADA,it seems cops are getting more heavy handed w/u...i wonder if the u.s has any influince in that situation......anyway,i couldnt think of anything better than when i read the sto9ry of china EXECUTING people 4 drugs<><><>is there any better commentary on the war" on drugs<>&govt,control....we should be heading further into being civilized compassionate people instead of falling back 2 the ways of warring tribes of cro-magnons.....when will the world grow up &catchup w/the civilized people<><>when govt;s stop wanting so much control over its citizenery<>thanku4 letting me express myself<>u do wonderfull work

Hi M,

This page has up to date info on Bill S-10 :
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/mandatoryminimums.html

Three debates took place so far (May 11,12 & 13). The transcripts are available thru the link above.


I don't know why the debates were put on hold after the third one (anyone else know?), but it will be debated again in the fall session of parliament (after summer break).


-FrankD
---

Cannabis Facts for Canadians
Essential information for an informed debate about cannabis policy.
http://www.CannabisFacts.ca

Frank Discussion
Cannabis activism information and resources.
http://frankdiscussion.net

Anyone have any idea what is happening to this
big steaming pile known as S-10 not heard anything about its status at the moment.

Thanks in advance

the senate is on summer break right now, they will begin debating it again when their summer break is over. Must be nice they get paid a shit load of money, and seems they are on break more than they work.

If they're on summer break, then that should be our queue to flood them with snail mail and email advising of our discontent. The Justin P. J. Trudeau letter just makes me mad. He was quoted in Macleans magazine with a comment that this not your mothers pot and how it kills a lot of brain cells. This is the kind of moronic misinformed crap that we have to stop. They have the media to spread lies and we don't get our message out to a wide enough voting audience.
Even looking at Macleans mag's last issue, they did an article on the little hand held vaporizer, but will they promote the changes that are needed to legalize pot, I don't think so.
It's just such a despicable double standard.

Honourable senators, I believe it is extremely important to point out to you that this bill must be viewed within the context of Canada's National Anti-Drug Strategy that was announced by the Prime Minister in October 2007. Moreover, this bill follows through on one of our government's key priorities, namely, to tackle crime and, particularly, organized crime.

Guess you work for the RCMP, Harper and the punishment crusade. Or your on some really bad drugs or a victim of severe brain washing.

Don't feed the spam...or no wait...well no, when referring to spam that works. It's a weird enough "meat" of sorts.

The bill, introduced for the third time after dying twice before, proposes mandatory minimum jail terms for a variety of drug-related crimes, removing discretion for judges to sentence as they see fit.

Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
(*Webcast*)
(Time: When the Senate rises but not before 4:15 pm)
Location: Room 257, East Block

Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Agenda for the meeting:

*Appearing*
The Honourable Robert Nicholson, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

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

On the Cannabis Facts website it says bill S-10 passed the senate committee.

What comes next? This thing is getting dangerously close to becoming law. The Cannabis Facts site has the minutes from these meetings and it just made me sick.

It's a shame to spend all that time on legislation that's only punitive in nature and will have no positive effect on society.

We yes , wasn;t aware it had fully passed commitee yet but anyways, its no matter, it will become law. After watching the webcast of the committee the liberals tried to raise the plant limit to 20 but to no avail, the Cons senators gnged up on them and blasted them out the room.

Perhaps this law will be the spark that will ignite our movement to get more organized .

Afer all look at how organized the U.S groups are compared to Cannada and I suggest it is because they HAVE to stand up for themselves or continue being barraged by SWAT style raids.

Our national Canada NORML group seems to not even be a functionl group!! I am very dissappoined by this !! We need a strong advocacy group in this county now , not a bunch of well meaning, but ultimately rag tag group of Onario and B.C activists. This is an entire country and Ontario and B.C activists aren;t goig to be able to make all the diference alone.

Can anybodyshed some light on Canada NORML ? Whats the deal ??

Actually this is what I came up with. The last time I ever heard of Normal doing anything was a big smoke in at a park in Edmonton in the 70's. I didn't even know they were active. They may need more exposure. They do have an impressive list of advisories and board members though. Check it out.

http://norml.ca/index.php

I actually contacted Keith Stroup a year agao and he said while he is sympathetic to our plght in Canada Norml Canada is a completely seperated entitiy with no affiliation to the U.S Norml and would have to run itself independenty. I can understnd this point. Fair enough, so we need to get some new blood in Canada NOrml cause the guy running it runs a Med MJ business in Montreal and you know how the Dispensaries in the Prop 19 vote went - to protect their businesses by keeping the price where it is. Can you say "conflict of interest " perhaps ?

Its a real shame cause NOrml is the U.S keep thepressue on and I believe serve to keep people interested and together in the mj movement.

Your original post...you asked for a logo to be placed on web pages.... Screw Bill S-10 web page
DONE!!

The Globe and Mail

Letters to the Editor: letters@globeandmail.com

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opin...article1801674/

17/11/2010

Erika Sasson

Mandatory minimums for drug crimes are a giant step backward for Canada

ERIKA SASSON
Special to Globe and Mail Update

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament last December, at least one good thing happened: Bill C-15 was temporarily put to rest. That bill sought to introduce mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug offences, in order to tackle "organized crime and serious drug offences." Now in its newest iteration as Bill S-10, the draft legislation has already survived a second reading and has a very good chance of becoming law.

Bill S-10 will neither deter organized crime nor make any serious dent in Canada's drug trade. Simply put, any major drug trafficker with provable ties to a criminal organization will not be daunted by a one- or two-year jail sentence, the proposed sanctions of the legislation. Convicted members of organized crime are generally incarcerated for much longer periods of time, so a mandatory one-year sentence will have no meaningful deterrent effect.

Rather, it's the low-level street dealers who should be alarmed. As there's no minimum amount of cocaine required to trigger the mandatory sentence, someone who sells even a 10th of a gram of cocaine for $10 and who has a previous conviction for a "designated substance offence" will be swept up by the new laws. Street dealers are middlemen who facilitate the exchange, while the buyers and suppliers actually control the level of drug use in Canada.

If the Harper government wants to incarcerate street dealers, then it should be forthright and say so. But the government is mobilizing our legitimate fear of organized crime as a Trojan horse against minor drug offenders, the most disorganized of criminals. This is an unnecessary manipulation of public sentiment that punishes the people who have the least impact on the strength of the drug trade.

The legislation is also problematic because courts need flexibility to be effective. In Toronto, for example, many street-level offenders are battling mental illness, as well as drug addiction and poverty. While the new legislation makes an exception for "successful" completion of drug treatment court, that doesn't begin to cover the gamut of people who end up in the system simply because there's nowhere else for them to go.

The courts currently use alternative sanctions to address these issues. Prosecutors and judges often work with mental health workers and defence lawyers to devise creative solutions: Conditional sentences with treatment, community service, lengthy probation and job training are just some examples of those combined efforts. These solutions can balance the needs of the community with those of the offender, thereby furthering the goal of restorative justice. The impending legislation, however, will make it impossible to pursue restorative measures.

To make matters worse, Canadians will have to pay for more space in jails. The Tories recently pledged $155.5-million to expand prisons, and that's just in Ontario and Quebec, despite the fact that Statistics Canada says the crime rate is dropping. Add to that the price of housing prisoners each year – $57,000 a prisoner in provincial jail and $88,000 a prisoner in a federal one.

Furthermore, Canadians will have to finance more trials for offenders who will have less incentive to plead guilty due to the mandatory minimum. An offender who can't get a better deal by pleading guilty will simply roll the dice and go to trial. This will create huge financial burdens on our already under-resourced court system.

The distressing financial effect cannot be overstated. In the United States, the culture of mandatory minimum sentences has crippled many state economies, causing some jurisdictions to release offenders from jail without regard for their dangerousness simply because they can't afford to house them any longer. Certainly, the mandatory sentences in the U.S. are much harsher than the ones being proposed in Canada; but the principle remains the same: Mandatory jail sentences are extremely costly because taxpayers must pay for increased jail time and many more trials.

It's absurd to adopt a trend from a country that incarcerates the highest proportion of its population in the world, and one that's starting to move away from the culture of mandatory minimums. Americans just have too many non-violent offenders in jail, and they haven't even come close to winning their war on drugs.

To tackle serious organized crime, the government can supply our police forces with more resources for surveillance and intelligence, so they have the time and manpower to build solid cases against those who bring violence into our communities. When major cases hit the courts, the offenders will be incarcerated for much longer than what's proposed in the new bill. These sentences already exist in our jurisprudence and current legislation, and don't require mandatory minimums. With serious cases against organized crime, the right people will be punished.

Instead, the Harper government writes legislation that casts a very wide net, which will over-incarcerate all sorts of minor criminals but never the Tony Sopranos. This bill should not be allowed to pass.

Erika Sasson, a former federal prosecutor in Toronto, just received her master of law degree from New York University.

Ms. Sasson is 100% correct in her analysis of this absurd legislation.

If this bill passes it will be a giant step backwards for judicial sanity in this country and another example of Harper's incredible arrogance and disregard for the desires of the voting public.

The court system is already so overwhelmed that violent criminal cases are being dismissed all the time. What does he think is going to happen when the courts fill up with all the low-hanging fruit that will be plucked thanks to this bill?

He won't be happy until Canada is finally the police state he envisions and I fear for our country's future.

Peace

Harper tough on crime but soft on facts
Published On Wed Nov 17 2010


Prime Minister Stephen Harper at a roundtable meeting on gang violence last year in Vancouver. Harper says strong penalties deter crime but Charles Pascal, citing a study released today, predicts soaring costs and higher rates of recidivism.
Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press


Stephen Harper’s legislative agenda on crime reinforces the notion that he has created a fact-free zone in Ottawa.

According to a thorough analysis of the government’s initiatives, more than 30 per cent of Harper’s current parliamentary docket is devoted to a bundle of fear-factor “tough on crime” bills. All of this at a time when crime stats are going south. And the human and fiscal costs of all of this are staggering.

According to Paula Mallea, lawyer and research associate at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Harper’s agenda has more to do with rehabilitating his “tough guy” image and zero to do with rehabilitating either offenders or his $54 million deficit.

Naturally, passing this fear-factor legislation in a minority context requires opposition support and the Liberals and NDP, the latter only a touch less feckless than the former, don’t want to be accused of being soft on crime. In my books, being dumb on crime is worse.

Released today, Mallea’s 40-page report, The Fear Factor: Stephen Harper’s Tough on Crime Agenda provides a detailed story of peekaboo politics, horrendous public policy, and runaway and wasteful costs.

Publicly provided evidence from Statistics Canada revealed that crime continues to go down across the country, with violent crime moving clearly in the right direction, according to the new Crime Severity Index.

And all we have had from Harper and Public Safety Minister Vic Toews is double-talk when questioned about their agenda in light of the evidence. But let’s see how they respond to this new report.

Here is one example. Without having a clue as to costs, the government passed a law eliminating a two-for-one credit for time served in remand custody. If someone served 30 days while awaiting a chance at justice and was then convicted, he used to get credit for 60 days when it came to sentencing. Why? Because conditions in remand are the worst of the worst. And because remand time is “dead time,” not considered when calculating release dates. The effect of this new law will be disproportionate for marginalized populations, especially aboriginal peoples.

But on the face of it, it appears to be a good idea to scrap the two-for-one credit, the kind of superficial bumper-sticker policy that was opposition-proof. Then, after the bill’s passage, Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page did an analysis of costs, concluding that the bill to taxpayers will amount to a minimum of $5 billion over five years for this single piece of legislation — about what would be required for a national early-learning and care program that would, among so many other things, reduce the illiteracy that is so highly correlated with crime.

And what about getting really tough on drugs and ensuring that if someone is caught growing six marijuana plants for the purpose of trafficking (e.g. sharing with his friends and providing arthritis relief for his grandmother), he will get a minimum of six months in jail.

In British Columbia alone, this new minimum sentence for growers will generate at least 500 more prisoners — and the need for millions of bucks to house them, including building a whole new prison.

These are just a couple of the new crime bills that constitute “public safety” overkill. Collectively, the Harper fear-factor package will yield a major increase in numbers of offences, longer sentences and horrible prison conditions.

All of the available evidence points to more rather than less crime with this scenario. And for a government that boasts about being the taxpayer’s buddy, this will all result in huge costs to the taxpayer with worse than no return on this non-investment.

And public safety?

How about this one: If an offender is not granted parole, he will serve out his entire sentence, and then will be released to the street without supervision. Excuse me, but denial of parole connotes danger ahead. So someone gets released after serving his entire sentence in awful conditions, and zip supervision upon release? Is that a cost-cutting measure? No. Is it a recipe for recidivism? Absolutely.

In a complementary political move, Harper must have done cartwheels when former Toronto and Ontario top cop Julian Fantino said yes to running in the upcoming by-election in Vaughan. No one would deny Fantino his bona fides as a crime fighter and that’s the point. If he wins, Harper has a poster boy for his get-tough approach that will yield the exact opposite of its claims with resulting rising human and financial costs. It will be interesting to see what percentage of Vaughan voters will actually buy the Harper fear-factor gambit regarding public safety.

Many have recently castigated Harper’s regime for being rudderless. Having read this report, I would rather take “rudderless” than witness this “full steam ahead — in the wrong direction” stuff. Even Corrections Canada and victims’ rights groups have expressed their concerns about the direction of this agenda.

Don’t just do something, stand there, Prime Minister . . . while the rest of us yearn for a dose of evidence-based politics.

Charles Pascal is a professor at the University of Toronto and a former Ontario deputy minister.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorial...t-soft-on-facts

SeaOfGreen

All we can do at this point folks is wait for the fucker to leave and hope to hell that the next idiot repeals what this idiot did.

"All we can do at this point folks is wait for the fucker to leave and hope to hell that the next idiot repeals what this idiot did."

Incorrect.
Write the Senate, or your favorite Senator.
Tell them you refuse to allow their corporation to rob you, as it is felony by common law to put a true man into fear and then remove items (such as drugs) from his robe. (3 Inst. 67)

i like your point, but i have no idea what your saying at the end there. is it a quote from the book of common law or somethin?

http://www2.ubicee.net/sf/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/OfRobberyCapXVI3InstCoke.pdf

It is written in plain English, as far as I can tell.

GOOD LUCK

Justice minister prioritizes ‘tough-on-crime’ legislation before break


Postmedia News December 12, 2010




OTTAWA — With only a week left in the current session of Parliament, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson urged his opposition colleagues to help him pass some of the nearly 20 “tough-on-crime” bills currently before the government.

Nicholson pointed to four bills on Sunday currently before Parliament when asked which pieces of legislation he would prioritize for passage before the current session expires: Bills S-6, which eliminates the faint-hope clause for serious offenders, C-23, which eliminates pardons for serial sex offenders against children, C-48, which allows judges to sentence multiple murderers to consecutive sentences, and S-10, which introduces mandatory minimum sentences for growing marijuana.

Saying “the vast majority of people support us on this,” Nicholson said opposition MPs were delaying the bills over semantics.


SeaOfGreen

“the vast majority of people support us on this,” Nicholson said.

What a load of bull shit since nearly 61 percent are in favor of treating it like alcohol and cigarettes.

My 2 Kw's

When hasn't the Gov. lied to us? The whole cannabis prohibition thing is all based on lies and discrimination. It should be against the law to even uphold these racist based laws.

Peace

Tuesday, 14 December 2010 21:05

You will find attached a letter that Senator Cowan sent to Minister Nicholson at the end of last week concerning statements the Minister made in a press conference on December 8. I also join Senator Cowan’s letter, dated February 4, 2010, in which he also corrects the facts regarding the legislative progress of bills in the Senate.

I believe it establishes a troubling pattern, given that the Justice Minister’s first allegiance should always be to the truth, far beyond any political or partisan gamesmanship. Our system of justice depends upon it.

Minister of Justice

Room 105 EB

The House of Commons

Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Dear Minister Nicholson,

I regret that I must write to you yet again to correct statements you have made accusing Liberal Senators of “stalling” your crime bills.

In your press conference of December 8, you accused the Opposition of “stalling” on “very important bills”, and, when asked for particulars, you pointed to Bill S-10, the Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. You said:

“That bill has been before Parliament for almost two years. The Senate has had it for about a year and a half.”

This is incorrect and misleading.

As you know, Bill S-10 has not been before Parliament for two years. Your government chose to prorogue Parliament last December in order to avoid difficult questions about the treatment of Afghan detainees on your watch. Parliament only returned on March 3, 2010. You then waited to reintroduce the bill for another two months, on May 5, 2010. That is seven months that the Bill has been before the Senate – contrasted to five months that your Government delayed its progress.

Seven months is an eminently reasonable period of time for the Senate to study this bill. The bill has been controversial. Yet again, you have opted to put forward illusory solutions to serious issues. Instead of devising thoughtful policies that could work to address drug abuse, this bill – like so many in your law-and-order agenda – amends the Criminal Code to apply mandatory minimum prison sentences.

The problem is, mandatory minimum sentences do not work to deter crime. And this is a conclusion you yourself reached.

In 1988, you served as Vice-Chair of a Parliamentary Committee that recommended that mandatory minimum sentences not be used, except in the limited case of repeat violent sexual offenders. You said they are not effective and carry prohibitive costs. Your report also noted that they cause “distortions” in the justice process.

It is not “tough on crime” to impose ineffective solutions, especially those that you have noted could cause problems for the justice system. Frankly, it is irresponsible governing.

The costs of your crime agenda have been estimated to be in the billions of dollars – and this at a time when your government has already run up the largest deficit in Canadian history. Meanwhile, your government, which came to power promising a new era of openness and transparency, has refused to disclose the anticipated costs to Canadian taxpayers of this agenda. Most recently, you alleged “Cabinet confidences” prevent the disclosure.

I fail to understand how the costs of your policy program could be a Cabinet confidence, any more than any details of any policy reached by a government. One suspects that in fact, your government is hiding behind this spurious claim, because you are either unwilling to admit to Canadians how many billions this misguided prison spree will cost – or that you embarked on this folly of a crime policy for political and ideological reasons, and actually do not know yourself how much it will cost Canadians.

You attach titles to your bills such as “The Truth in Sentencing Act” – yet you are not being truthful with Canadians about your crime agenda. You are not being truthful about their ineffectiveness to deter crime – and you are refusing to be truthful about the costs that Canadians will have to pay for these ineffective steps.

As I wrote to you last February, justice above all depends upon truth. As our country’s Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, your first allegiance must always be to the truth, far beyond any political or partisan gamesmanship. Our system of justice depends upon it. Needless to say, I am once again disappointed that you do not concur with this very basic proposition.

It is a simple fact that the Liberal opposition – and in particular, Liberal senators – have not “stalled” your crime agenda. Once again, the facts speak for themselves:

Your government has introduced 17 crime-related bills in the House of Commons in this session. Of these:

One passed both Houses and received Royal Assent; 4 sit at first reading in the House of Commons, all since late October or early November, without your Government having brought them forward for debate or further action; 8 are being studied in committees in the House of Commons;

*
*

One is at report stage in the House of Commons;
*

2 passed the House of Commons in the past few days, and received 1st reading in the Senate on December 7;
*

One came to the Senate on November 18, passed 2nd reading in the Senate, was referred for study to committee, and reported back to the Senate on December 8. It is now at 3rd reading. (It spent more than five months in the House of Commons.)

It is clear that Liberal senators have not “stalled” any of these bills. The overwhelming majority – 13 of the 17 bills – remain in the House of Commons.

Your government also chose to initiate five of your crime-related bills in the Senate:4 of these 5 bills passed the Senate; one received Royal Assent.

* The 5th bill, Bill S-10, is currently being debated at 3rd reading.
* Fully 13 of these 22 bills had been previously introduced by this Government, some several times. They died on the Order Paper when Prime Minister Harper prorogued Parliament for his own personal reasons. In other words, their progress was delayed because of the actions of your government.

It reflects poorly on a government when its members must seek to cast blame on others for their own failings. When it is the Minister of Justice – the individual responsible for upholding our laws and regulations, and ensuring that Canada is a just country – then our justice system is eroded.

Minister Nicholson, you cannot expect Canadians to take responsibility for their actions, when you, the head of our justice system, do not. Accordingly, I am confident that you will wish to quickly correct the record, and acknowledge that the Liberal opposition in the Senate has not in fact “stalled” your Government’s anti-crime agenda.

I look forward – once again – to your clarification of these issues for Canadians.

Yours very truly,

James S. Cowan


SeaOfGreen

Peace

Justice Minister Wants Tough-on-Crime Bills Passed


Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced he wants four of the government's crime bills currently before the Senate and the House of Commons given priority.

On Dec. 12, 2010, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson sat down with the Canadian Press. With only one week left before the Christmas break, Nicholson told CP that he wanted the opposition parties to help the government pass the many crime bills that are currently before the House of Commons or the Senate.

Nicholson was quoted as saying, “the vast majority of people support us on this” and accused the opposition of delaying the various pieces of legislation by arguing over semantics.

When asked to prioritize the tough-on-crime bills, the Justice Minister named four pieces of pending legislation that he would like Parliament to give priority to.







Bill S-6: Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

When Canada abolished capital punishment in 1976, the offence of capital murder was replaced by the charge of first degree murder. First degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for 25 years.

A procedure currently exists where those who are not eligible for parole for 25 years can make an application or applications after serving 15 years of their sentence. Known as the “faint hope clause”, the main purpose of this bill is to require all persons convicted of first degree murder to serve at least 25 years before being eligible to apply for parole. It eliminates the faint hope clause.

If the bill is passed, it will only apply to those who commit murder after the faint hope clause is done away with. Those who murdered someone prior to the legislation coming into force will see the rules as to when they can apply for parole and how often, tightened.

Families of murdered victims have long complained about how often parole hearings are held for those who have been convicted of first degree murder.

The faint hope clause will also be eliminated for the offence of high treason.


Bill S-10: Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act

This piece of legislation that is currently before the Senate deals with Schedule I drugs (heroin, methamphetamines, cocaine) and marijuana.

Various mandatory minimum sentences would be imposed for trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, exporting, importing, manufacturing drugs and growing marijuana.

The imposition of the mandatory minimum will depend upon the presence of aggravating factors. Regarding Schedule I drugs, the punishment will be a mandatory sentence of at least one year if the offence is committed for an organized crime group, violence or the threat of violence is used or the person who committed the offence had been previously convicted of a designated drug offence in the last 10 years.

A mandatory two year minimum sentence will be imposed if a youth or youths were present at the scene and the sentence becomes a minimum of three years if the wrongful act is determined to constitute a serious hazard to health or safety.

Regarding marijuana, minimum penalties will apply to someone growing weed and the minimum will vary depending upon the number of plants involved. A six month minimum will be handed out for growing as few as six plants.


C-23: Limiting Pardons for Serious Offences Act

This legislation extends the time that those convicted of serious criminal offences must wait before they are eligible to apply for a pardon. As well, the Act allows the Parole Board of Canada to consider more factors when determining whether or not to issue a pardon.

The bill was introduced after Canadians became outraged after learning about the pardon given to Graham James. James, a hockey coach, pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting two teenage players including former NHL player Sheldon Kennedy. In 1997, James was sentenced to three and one-half years in the penitentiary.

In early 2010, it was discovered that James had been pardoned for his crimes and was living happily in Mexico. James is now awaiting trial on other sexual assault charges involving other young players.

The Bill also denies pardons to anyone who has been convicted of three or more indictable offences.


Bill C-48: Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act

Under the Criminal Code, no sentence can be imposed that is consecutive to a life sentence. Anyone who is convicted of first degree murder and other murders (either first or second degree) is eligible to apply for parole after 25 years in jail.

This bill gives discretion to judges to increase the parole eligibility period for those who are convicted of multiple murders. The judge may but is not required to impose consecutive parole eligibility parole periods for multiple killers.

The judge can take the surrounding circumstances of the offences into account and consider the jury’s recommendations, if any. The judge must provide written reasons as to the calculation of an increased period of parole eligibility.
Nicholson Accused of Playing Politics

Almost immediately after Nicholson’s comments, the opposition fought back. Marlene Jennings, the Liberal justice critic, was quoted as saying that it is the government, not the opposition that is stalling the crime bills.

Jennings said the government makes a big production when a bill is introduced and then just ignores it.

The opposition claims that the government is putting politics ahead of public policy.

The Conservatives’ crime legislation is popular with those who have kept them in power; if all the current bills become law, they would have little to run on in the next election.

Hansard – Canada, retrieved Dec. 14, 2010


SeaOfGreen

I love how they call Bill S-10: Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act. when all it is is war on marijuana. what a joke this government is

No one is laughing.
Arthur.

I reserve the right to refuse to recognize this new enactment.

What I did yesterday without persecution is tomorrow going to be a crime.

What I've been doing since 1975 is now cause for incarceration?

I think not.

Things are getting shitty people. Establishment is pushing for control.

Harper and Ottawa can fuck off.

BC be fine without you.

We make world class wine, some of the finest bud so fuck you.

I wanna move to California.

Hey everyone,
Absolutely disgusting and dismal behavior by the Conservatives. They should all be shot.
Does anyone know the current laws in Ontario for growing 1-5,6-200, etc. plants?

Why doesnt the different governments understand and see that pot is not a drug, it is a natural herb that god put here and is good for the mind body and soul. The governments need to concentrate on the man made chemical drugs that are truly harming people,and LEGALIZE POT.

the black market is a market the government does not want to lose out on, it is a huge cash cow for them. They will not let marijuana become legal because it's price will go down significantly and DEA agents that devote their lives to the pursuit of marijuana dealers/users will be out of work. It's a horrible system.

Thanks for the info....
_______________________
When entering the anus, use plenty of lube and push firmly yet gently, and you will soon find a can of

Dear Colleague,

As you may know, the federal government of Canada is currently considering Bill S-10, the Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act. Bill S-10 proposes a range of amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and other related Acts, including the introduction of mandatory minimum prison sentences.

This legislation and the provisions contained demonstrate an example of policy that is not evidence-based and that will likely not meaningfully improve health and safety in our communities. The Canadian Public Health Association, the Urban Health Research Initiative and the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS have partnered together to write an open letter to the federal government on behalf of doctors, scientists, researchers, and academics that are concerned about this proposed legislation, and particularly the potential impact of introducing mandatory minimum sentences.


We invite you to join us in voicing concern about this Bill by signing on to the letter.

Click here to read and sign the letter:

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/6452/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4894

Substance use and drug-related harms are a serious concern in communities across Canada. As health professionals and researchers, our goal is to improve public health and safety. Research indicates that the approach proposed by Bill S-10 will only serve to create greater health and social harms. Canada needs an evidence-based approach to drug policy that prioritizes public health, not costly incarceration schemes that will take resources away from effective prevention and treatment initiatives.

Please join us in supporting evidence-based drug policy by signing the letter and taking the time to circulate it to other concerned health practioners, scientists, researchers, and academics across Canada.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Thomas Kerr, PhD
Assistant Professor, Division of AIDS, University of British Columbia
Co-Director, Urban Health Research Initiative, BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS

Debra Lynkowski
Chief Executive Officer
Canadian Public Health Association

Julio Montaner, MD, FRCPC
Professor, Division of AIDS, University of British Columbia
Director, BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS
Immediate Past-President, International AIDS Society

Evan Wood, MD, PhD
Associate Professor, Division of AIDS, University of British Columbia
Co-Director, Urban Health Research Initiative, BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS
Director, International Centre for Science in Drug Policy

Took them long enough. Anyone know how the Bloq will vote?


http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-rele...g-prison-costs/

I believe that the Bloc and NDP have already come out against this. After all, unlike the Libs, they did vote against the similar C-15.

I sent Iggy my thanks via the LPC website.

The NDP will vote no or face the wrath of Miss Davies. I can't believe we might actually stop this, after so many years, feels like i'll wake up and the libs statement will not be real. As long as Iggy whips the vote.

Thank you, Mr. Ignatieff. Here's your hero biscuit.




http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-rele...g-prison-costs/

Liberals oppose Bill S-10 as Conservatives hide mounting prison costs
POSTED ON FEBRUARY 9, 2011
The Liberal Party of Canada announced today that it will oppose Bill S-10 over concerns that the bill disproportionately targets youth and would cause an explosion of costs to build new mega-prisons.

“This bill isn’t tough on crime, it’s dumb on crime,” said Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. “We’re all in favour of cracking down on serious criminals, but this bill doesn’t distinguish between massive grow-ops and a first-time offender with a small amount.

“What’s more, the Conservatives won’t tell us what the fiscal implications of this bill are. How many billions will it cost? How many mega-prisons will have to be built? For these reasons, we just can’t support it,” he said.

The Conservatives continue to stonewall opposition parties on the cost of this legislation despite repeated requests. The Parliamentary Budget Office pegged the cost of just one crime bill as $10-$13 billion after the Conservatives told Parliament it would cost $90 million. This week, Liberal Finance Critic Scott Brison accused the government of contempt of Parliament for refusing to disclose prison spending.

“Canadians know that spending billions of dollars on U.S.-style mega-prisons to lock up young people will only produce more hardened criminals,” said Liberal Public Safety Critic Mark Holland. “It’s a failed American crime policy, and it just doesn’t work.”

A disproportionate number of Canadians aged 18-25 would be harmed by the marijuana provisions of Bill S-10, which proposes a mandatory six-month sentence for possessing as few as six marijuana plants – the same sentence that would be applied to a trafficker with 200 plants. Liberal Senators tried to raise the minimum number of plants to 20, but Conservative Senators refused amendments to the Bill.

“Liberals support stiff sentences for large drug producers and traffickers – but we won’t support a bill that can’t tell the difference between criminals running grow-ops and mistakes often made by our young people,” said Liberal Justice Critic Marlene Jennings. “The government has shown no willingness to accept substantive amendments, so we’re sending them back to the drawing board.”

Conservative Senators also refused to amend provisions that will remove judicial discretion over minor drug offences by automatically invoking mandatory minimums for those with minor drug convictions in the last 10 years.

Canada’s churches, the Canadian Bar Association, the Assembly of First Nations, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and health professionals have all spoken out against the bill.

Wait, wait, wait, wait....and boom goes the dynamite!

Its not over yet but I am feeling relieved. The Conservatives are nothing but pure evil. I was totally losing faith in the Canadian political system all together until I heard the NDP, and Liberals are both voting against S-10. Ignatieff might be a douche but the Libs have my vote all the way.

We know that prohibition has never worked, and we know that mandatory minimum sentences only increase the violence in our society....

"We know that prohibition has never worked"

Actually, it works very well at what it was intended to do: provide jobs for the retarded people who were integrated into society post-WWII. Who do you think the drug war employs, the best and brightest?

Drug prohibition has never been anything more than a make-work project for marginal intellects. The prextext of "protecting drug users" is just a smokescreen to pay huge wages to people who, absent drug prohibition, would clearly be called THIEVES and ROBBERS.

Indeed, to support drug prohibition is a sign of mental retardation, that is, lack of mental development---the liberty cortex clearly never engaged.

The government has fallen, and we are now facing an election.

Bill S-10? It's dead, Jim.

He's what now?

this is the bill not surely in favor of the people .there may the old rules to follow in drug handling and crime .there should an interaction to implemnent any bill between Govt. and people

this has been ruined a couple of times before too and they are yet trying to get passed . i think this will not accepted even now .this is over money spending money on a problem already decided.

Now that Hooper has his majority he is in a big rush to get Parliament back to work and has stated that his crime bills like S-10 are a top priority.

The states are re-thinking the whole prison/industrial complex idea and I'd bet my last dollar that the prison folks from down south have offered Hooper a sweetheart deal to pull the same shit up here.

I've been checking out this site for S-10 info but they haven't updated in a while,

Cannabis Facts dot Ca

I'm watching tho.

On the plus side, it might encourage some more vociferous legal opposition in the courts, if it's the same sentence whether you plead guilty or not.

Nice call Canadica! lol

The courts are plugged up as bad as the prisons here.

Billions more to fix that too.

We are so f'ed now with Hooper running this floundering ship.

thanks for sharing.

More bs!

That big steaming pile of dog shit. Just got passed

So much for what the people want !!!

Hail King Harper hope you choke on it

Don't chop down your plants yet!

It still has to go to senate where the Cons have a majority too thanks to Harper stacking it with his bum buddies.

CBC Article re: Omnibus Crime Bill

I was told today that C-10 is signed, legalized, and already being challenged in the supreme court (along with a couple of other not so nice bills that allegedly went through attached to the budget)

Is there any validity to C-10 making it through the parliamentary process?

No.

It's in the Senate

Haha, definitly read the S-10 sticky as C-10... where'd that thread go? My bad.

P.S. I was told it passed on the 19th, and wondered why nothing had come up here. Maybe he was just confused... damn paralegal's need to learn to read.

Bill s10/c10, part of the omnibus bill package is currently at the senate level of government. It needs to have the senates approval before it makes royal assent (becomes law) Before that happens the senate will have hearings, organizations are preparing for this part now.
The vote will be sometime in February, but, there have already been requests to alter the bill, so, that would mean that the bill will be sent BACK to the house of commons, to approve the amendments. Not sure if it goes BACK to the Senate after that or not....

It DID pass on the 19th, in the house of commons. In order for a bill to become law in Canada, it has to pass in BOTH houses.

SW
sw

Yea and at the senate level its not as much partisanship going on.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Harper has been stacking the senate with coservative "sheep" that wouldn't dare go against him.

nods. Senate tows party line as well. The numbers dont work in our favour.

As the Bill is now before a Senate Committee, I think you can forward your comments to that Committee at:

Fax : (613) 947-2104
Email : lcjc@sen.parl.gc.ca
Mailing Address :
Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada, K1A 0A4

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/cana-j31.shtml


Canada: Conservatives’ reactionary “tough on crime” bill soon to become law
By Ed Patrick
31 January 2012

Stephen Harper’s new majority Conservative government has made pushing the Safe Streets and Communities Act, Bill C-10, through parliament a top priority.

Comprised of nine bills that were either defeated by the last parliament or died with its dissolution, the Conservatives’ omnibus anti-crime bill is a collection of socially regressive measures. Most of these would make the criminal justice system more arbitrary and vindictive. Some are petty. Taken together they represent a wholesale repudiation of the bourgeois liberal concept of rehabilitation, in favor of punishment and vengeance.

Among other things, Bill C-10 would:

Significantly erode the distinction between youth and adult offenders. Henceforth, the courts would be obliged to consider imposing adult sentences on persons as young as 14 convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault. Judges would also have the right to impose harsher sentences in cases involving violent or repeat offenders, including those found guilty of reckless behavior.
Allow police to arrest without a warrant “an offender who appears to be in breach of a condition of any conditional release.”
Eliminate judges’ discretion to impose conditional sentences or house arrest for many crimes, including manslaughter and drug trafficking.
Impose new or increased mandatory minimum sentences for those in possession of even small amounts of marijuana and other illicit drugs if deemed “for the purposes of trafficking,” and for persons convicted of child sex offenses.
Impose longer wait-time before persons can request a pardon and bar those convicted of serious crimes from ever obtaining a pardon.
Introduce new hurdles for Canadian citizens jailed abroad to serve the remainder of their sentences in Canada.

Claiming that they have a popular mandate, the Conservatives brushed aside opposition reservations about Bill C-10, including some 88 proposed amendments, and invoked cloture last month to ensure its passage by the House of Commons. The bill now only needs the imprimatur of the Conservative-dominated Senate and the Governor-General’s signature to become law.

The government claims stern action is needed because for the last 20 years the criminal justice system has “worked for criminals, not victims” and ordinary Canadians feel vulnerable.

In fact, Statistics Canada polls in 2004 and 2008 found that vast majority of the populace—about 93 percent—feels very safe. Moreover, crime rates, including rates of violent crime, have steadily declined for more than a quarter century.

Even some crime victim “advocates” have spoken out against the government’s emphasis on incarceration and retribution. As Steve Sullivan of Ottawa Victim Services pointed out, “Victims understand, better than most, that nearly all offenders will eventually be released from prison... The best protection victims, their families, and the community will have is if the offender can learn to modify negative behaviour before he or she is released.”

It is widely agreed among criminologists and others with expert knowledge about the criminal justice system that mandatory minimum sentences do not enhance community safety or lower crime rates. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association argues that mandatory minimum sentencing will make it impossible for the judiciary to respond to the particularities of individual crimes, resulting in prison terms way out of proportion with the crimes committed. By way of an example, it notes that under Bill C-10 a person who was coerced by a relative into participating in a marijuana grow-up would be subjected to the mandatory sixth-month minimum prison sentence.

As a result of Bill C-10’s mandatory-sentencing provisions, persons convicted of crimes will be treated less as individual human beings, responding to and operating within widely different circumstances, and more as members of a general deviant subgroup—“criminals”— all deserving of essentially the same penalty.

One of the inevitable perverse impacts of mandatory minimum sentencing will be a surge in the prison population. Bourgeois critics of Bill C-10, such as the Globe and Mail, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Liberals and the trade-union-supported New Democrats (NDP) have made this consequence a key point of criticism. Their objections, however, have chiefly to do with the huge increased cost to the state of housing all these new prisoners and whether, in a period of austerity, the government is making the best expenditure of taxpayer dollars in embarking on a major federal prison-building program.

To be sure, it is a telling indication of the government’s priorities that the criminal justice system and the military are among the only programs that will escape massive budget cuts in the coming years.

But even more important than dollars and cents is the suffering that will be inflicted on the prison population as the result of mandatory sentencing. Cramped conditions will lead to greater violence and force reductions in already inadequate services such as libraries, psychological and substance abuse counselling, and skills programs. All the more so, as the government is much more interested in building prisons than providing prisoners with programs aimed at their rehabilitation.

The government has cavalierly dismissed its bourgeois critics. When challenged over the statistics demonstrating a long-term decrease in crime, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson retorted,

“We don’t govern on the basis of statistics. If we see a need to better protect children or send a message to drug dealers, that’s the basis upon which we’re proceeding.”

The Conservatives’ law-and-order campaign has deeply reactionary political and ideological motivations that go far beyond the common media refrain that Prime Minister Harper is pandering to the religious social conservatives who constitute an important part of the party’s activist base.

The thrust of the Conservatives’ criminal justice policy is the repudiation of any notion that crime is rooted in poverty and other social ills and the resurrection of pre-Enlightment views of crime as a product of personal evil and original sin. Likewise, the Conservatives and the bourgeois establishment as a whole more and more present unemployment and all the other social injustices of capitalism as the product of individual failings.

Nicholson has promised that Bill C-10 is only the beginning of a massive “overhaul” of the criminal justice system. The Conservatives have already announced plans to significantly expand police powers, including to spy on the Internet, and to revive two lapsed provisions of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act that provide for detention without charge and set aside the right to silence.

Under the cover of their “law and order” agenda, the Conservatives are building up the repressive apparatus of the state; promoting the police, along with the military, as an elite owed special respect, indeed deference, from the public; and cultivating the most base popular instincts, with their insistence that criminals must be “made to pay” through ever harsher sentences and prison conditions.

This goes alongside the criminalization of popular dissent and workers’ resistance, as in the case of the massive security mobilization and police riot during the 2010 Toronto G20 summit and the government’s use of emergency strikebreaking laws to break last year’s postal and Air Canada strikes.

While some of the measures in Bill C-10 have caused handwringing in sections of the elite, the Conservatives’ authoritarian measures against working people have been backed with enthusiasm by big business.

Welcome to the Fourth Reich.

Consider moving to HELL (USA)?

RI has good medi laws..........
till the Feds crash you.....

You know a towing company that gives out green cards?

doesn't this bill go directly against clear parts of our bill of rights, i do not believe canada is running backwards so fast with all the progress we have. its a harmless plant!

See the loophole?


"IF the production is for the purpose of trafficking"

'for the purpose of trafficking' is simple as having baggies and a scale... fraid its not such a great loophole after all.

And who doesn't have baggies and some sort of scale in the house eh.

I'm a Libra and have a few different scales around. One that goes down to 1/10,000th of a gram. An old 1964 Mettler analytical balance. I wonder what the cops would make of that. lol

Rather not find out tho.

Scale and baggies to an extent. I have my mmar.. I need a scale. Don't need baggies, but I use for the kitchen.

"Production For The Purpose Of Trafficking" means the calculated harvest is larger than what's considered personal.. even for a heavy user.

So if you're an mmar holder, you have a documented record of your usage, as well as documented plant numbers needed to fullfill your daily/monthly needs. Evidence in your favour that it's personal, and not "pftpot". If you're a club member, your doc should already have asked you what your daily usage is.. so you have a record as well.

And if you're not an mmar holder, you can still claim personal.. as long as the numbers are believable. If they felt 6-200 plants were automatically "production for the purpose of trafficking", then they wouldn't have added the clause.. they would've grouped it in with 201+.. as it even states "if production for the purpose of trafficking" does not apply.. as 201 plus plants is obviously not "personal".



I took law for 2 years, and I was on my union's bargaining committee.. contract law. I can read and understand law pretty well, and that's how I'm reading it. 1-5 plants means no jail.. or at least no "mandatory" minimum. 6-200 plants gets "mandatory" minimum "if" the Crown can "prove" "production for the purpose of trafficking". And seeing as the clause was attatched to 6-200 plants catagory.. the judge can actually use his/her own discretion. 201+.. judge has no discretion.. automatic mandatory minimums.

200 sounds like a lot, but if it's like mmar laws right now.. maximum 4 gardens per house.. then maybe that 200 SoG'd plants, in various stages including rooting.. may be considered personal if shared in a house of 4. "Maybe.."