Crime bill to return to House of Commons with a few changes

By Jordan Press, Postmedia News February 27, 2012 4:06 PM

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Crime+bill+return+House+Commons+with+changes/6218050/story.html

The federal government's omnibus crime bill will be heading back to the House of Commons after senators in Canada's upper chamber, pictured here, approved changes to Bill C-10 early Monday. Photograph by: Dave Chan/REUTERS, National Post

OTTAWA — The federal government's omnibus crime bill will be heading back to the House of Commons after senators approved changes to Bill C-10 early Monday.

The changes, proposed by Ontario Conservative Senator Bob Runciman, were approved easily, but changes Liberal senators wanted to the Safe Streets and Communities Act received a tougher ride, including a failed proposal to raise the number of marijuana plants one could legally grow to 20 from six.

The Conservative senators on the Senate legal affairs committee used their majority to reject all 17 changes the Liberals proposed.

Liberal senators also raised concerns about provisions in C-10 that could hit aboriginals harder than others, but Tories on the committee said the bill focused on crime regardless of who was responsible.

"If they're trafficking, they know what they're doing," said Conservative Senator Daniel Lang. "They are affecting young people within their villages."

Lang said victims believe there has been a miscarriage of justice over the last few years, and it was time to change that by having politicians set "the moral compass" for law and order.

The Liberals unsuccessfully proposed changes to the drug laws in the bill, including increasing to 20 from six the number of marijuana plants required to be charged with trafficking.

"I'm concerned that when we pass a bill that . . . people will believe their streets and communities will be safer and I'm not convinced that's the case," Liberal Senator James Cowan said in an interview Monday afternoon.

Cowan said there are some Tory senators who are critical of the bill and may vote with the opposition Liberals when the Senate as a whole debates Bill C-10 on Wednesday.

Liberal Senator Joan Fraser said police told the committee they were unlikely to hunt down Canadians growing as few as six marijuana plants and would focus instead on large producers.

"It's very strange to pass a law when the police tell you they that they probably wouldn't enforce it," Fraser said.

Other changes that were rejected include: making previous jail time of at least one year a requirement of the two-strike rule that mandates a minimum one-year jail sentence for a second drug offence of any kind: restricting information a victim can receive about an offender to their rehabilitation progress stemming from the specific crime; and prohibiting the reporting of any information about a child offender under the age of 14.

The only changes that were accepted were the six proposed by Runciman.

Those amendments were similar to the six that Liberal MP and justice critic Irwin Cotler proposed when the bill was in the House of Commons. The Conservatives rejected Cotler's recommendations, but had to have its own amendments presented in the Senate because the government waited too long in the House of Commons legislative process to legally make changes to Bill C-10.

The six changes adopted include defining what it means to support terrorism and giving victims of terrorism the ability to sue the group or state that supported the terrorist act.

jpress@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/jordan_press

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Crime+bill+re...l#ixzz1ne3xE7Gr

You know, the Liberals make me as sick as the Conservatives. They had their chance to fix these drug laws for years and they sat on their asses. The lib's have promised us legalization since the Piere Trudeau era and shit happened. Too little too late as far as I'm concerned. "Your either with legalization or your with organized crime", is my new saying.

Your either with legalization or your with organized crime, I like that saying.

Vic Toews would be proud.

Common's final vote tonight in the house..... I'm NOT hopeful.

Powerful saying Banty. And so true.

I remeber reading many posts where people felt as though the ppl and dgl would be revoked and MMAR holders would be subject to purchase only.
From what I have read thus far all liberals changes were refused one of which was changing the limit of plants from 6 to 20.
Well from 6 to 20 doesnt make sense if originally our battle was to simply to keep dgl's and ppl's in effect and not taken away. Only to allow a big pharmaceutical company in "Kahoots" with the government, to become our source for medication.
I mean we already know the government grows shitty weed and what about the people that cannot afford to purcase in that manner.
Bottom line question is where do MMAR stand after the voting update on bill c-10 took place today? And what are the future events tied to it?

Wait a sec here....does C-10 affect those with MMAR at all? From what I've read I thought it was mandatory minimums for more than 5 plants, etc...but didn't think it has anything to do with those who are licensed or their DGs????

It would be very difficult for me to condemn any political party for not legalizing another intoxicant. I watched video of Brother michael baldasaro and a Canadian politician debate legalization of marijuana and Brother Baldasaro did well until he claimed that marijuana is less harmful and then posted immediately on his Facebook Wall that marijuana is harmless. In the final summary of the issue, the politician said that the Canadian government has an awful lot of more important issues to address than debating whether or not to legalize marijuana. As for Liberal politicians, they are very desperate to find something, anything which will galvanize the rift created by the Sponsorship Scandal. They have actually floated the idea of backing marijuana legalization but felt that the compromise of decriminalization is their best hope, probably because they fully understand that legalization has the ptential to blow up in their faces.http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2012/01/will-legalization-light-up-or-blow-up-liberal-prospects/ Take heed ladies and gentlemen! DML and a very large number of activists and growers in both Canada and California betrayed California`s Proposition 19 and came out against it; why in the Hell would they do that?IN B.C, AN INDUSTRY WILL GO UP IN SMOKE

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...article1779071/ "Money talks","Bullshit walks."
"Your either with legalization or your with organized crime", Is my new saying. `Ol Johnny reb wants to be a made man; or what? Since when does anyone have to be,"With", Organized crime to smoke a little reefer? When med pot dispensaries and activists ranted against Proposition 19, they were all(every single one of them) with organised crime. But what if 19 had passed? The answer is too easy to figure out; the liberal politicians of California addicted to federal taxpayers money sent to fund their pet projects would have rolled over onto their backs and pissed all over themselves in mortal fear when the DEA showed up/they were threatened with denial of federal funds. Canada`s Liberals will shit themselves if legal weed blows up in their faces. I bet you America gets it done before Canada though.

Amybee I just recently got signed and was asking questions on here about the growing aspect and the laws surrounding it. Such as if I have a child can I grow, and if there was any reason that I would be permitted to possess but not to grow?
All the answers seemed to be quite correct and what I wanted to hear untill I had the odd person with the opinion that " hey man you better get growng because when C10 passes the right to grow will be pulled.
Actually one second ill copy and post what was actually said....