Guy Lauzon Speaks – Not to Us – Guy Tough on Crime in Canada – Cornwall Ontario – March 2, 2010

Our MP Guy Lauzon is up to his wicked political ways again.      A concerned reader sent in the following.

“NO MORE 2 for 1!!!!

The Conservative government’s Truth in Sentencing Act finally became law February 22, 2010. I say “finally” because we have been trying to enact legislation to correct this flaw in our justice system since we formed government in January 2006 only to have the Liberal dominated Senate thwart our efforts at every turn. The Conservative Party has always believed that law abiding citizens have a right to have confidence in their justice system.

During the former Liberal government’s 13 year tenure, it became standard practice for criminals held in custody to receive 2 or even 3 days of credit for every day they were held in custody awaiting trial. When in opposition, we urged the former government to address this injustice on many, many occasions. The Liberal government of that day always rebuked our efforts and accused us of being too hard on criminals. The rationale given by the Liberals for maintaining this practice was that the facilities used for holding criminals awaiting trial were not offering the same programs as prisons where criminals actually serve their sentence.

Upon taking power, our Conservative government set out to correct this unjust practice. We consulted victim groups, police officers, parole officers and people working in the corrections and justice systems. Based on their feedback it became very obvious that the process was greatly flawed and was being abused.

Criminals were advising each other of the advantages of postponing their court appearances in order to take advantage of the “2 for 1 bonus”. Courts were becoming severely back logged because defense lawyers were negotiating remands so that their clients could qualify for abbreviated sentences. Because of the 2 for 1 option, convicted criminals were being released only days after they were found guilty of serious crimes. The “2 for 1” sentencing option became a standard clause included in almost every sentence given.

Our Government found this unacceptable and we acted. The Truth in Sentencing Act will strictly limit the amount of credit granted for time served in custody prior to sentencing.  We are delivering on our commitment of ensuring that criminals serve the sentence that reflects the severity of their crime. We regret that unelected, unaccountable Liberal senators tried to block this action to get tough on crime.

Our Conservative Government puts the safety and security of law-abiding families first. We believe that victim’s rights should be placed ahead of the rights of criminals.

No more 2 for 1!!!

Guy Lauzon, MP

Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry

Well as the reader pointed out;

“Jamie, this all sounds so great but if it was law February 22, how did one of the Toronto 18 get to plead guilty and walked away from the court as his sentence was easily covered by the 2 for 1?”

What do you think Cornwall?  Do you agree with our MP?  Post your comments below.

please visit our amazing sponsors:

41 Responses to "Guy Lauzon Speaks – Not to Us – Guy Tough on Crime in Canada – Cornwall Ontario – March 2, 2010"

  1. grimalot   March 2, 2010 at 3:24 PM

    To the MP’s about to hopefully be sanctioned for their roles in covering up the Afghanistan detainee issue. I hope, if you both have to face any jail time, that you do not get any 2 for 1 for it. Afterall, this is what you wanted in the first place.

  2. Destructo   March 3, 2010 at 7:14 AM

    Clever how they call it “truth in senencing”….who can argue with the truth? More propaganda rfom propaganda specialists.

  3. Spanner McNeil   March 3, 2010 at 1:58 PM

    Guy Lauzon knows that this Crime Bill C-15 will result in labeling about four million Canadians as indictable criminals for smoking a joint. Threatening such a huge percentage of the population with mandatory jail time is remarkable. It’s criminal to put people in jail for doing something behind closed doors that’s of no real consequence or danger to anyone else. The marijuana prohibition laws are dangerous. The Conservative Party is very dangerous.

  4. Cornwall Harry   March 3, 2010 at 3:27 PM

    Spanner McNeil, unfortunately, most people are not just smoking marijuana behind closed doors. They are everywhere, in all industries, and yes, in most schools. We and our children are being forced into breathing this second-hand marijuana smoke whether we choose to or not. So please don’t say there is “no real consequence or danger to anyone else”…..thats a crock and you know it!
    Marijuana prohibition laws are dangerous, the Conservative Party is very dangerous……YES, TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU!

  5. grimalot   March 3, 2010 at 4:57 PM

    Most of the drug laws were created at the time based on lies. Someone had to gain from it, and its easy to see that the government certainly does gain from it. As well as the people/businesses that support them.

    Seasonal Mexican migrants would come in to work in America, and would do it from time to time. And then someone got the bright idea of coming out with “Reefer Madness” and the notion that these people would rape women and children in America, and then it was made illegal. Canada followed suit. Of course, the whole policing made jobs, and the incarceration system was expanded and made more and more into a profitable business than most many other businesses at the time. Other than oil or other big business. It costs what, something like 85000 dollars to incarcerate someone for a year. Follow the pay structure and see how many jobs are created from this lie.

    And Spanner McNeil has hit the nail on the head with his comments. These actions are forcing the country into more and more of a police state. More incarceration, more money to be made from it. Plus it also helps to suppress the masses for fear of ending up in the incarceration system if they “step out of line” in the governments eyes.

    The USA has already realized after their almost 40 year war on drugs campaign, that it was useless. They even advised Canada during the discussions of Bill C-26 and Bill C-15, not to go through with it because they realize that 10% of the US population is in jail, and a lot for the most useless of crimes. The war on drugs campaign has failed. And they know it, and wanted to extend this knowledge to Canada. Of course Rob Nicholson, Harper, and the others, are pig headed about it and choose to snub this information and go ahead with their own agenda. They’ve even managed to find a way to turn their backs on a very prominent Canadian Citizen/Activist, and political contender, Marc Emery.

    Then you hear the arguments, that pot is traded for heavier drugs, such as cocaine or heroin, meth, oxy’s, etc. Even weapons and guns. Well if the US and Canada were both smart, they’d put their heads together and legalize pot as well as growing it (within certain limits of course). Maybe make zones as they have done in Amsterdam where people can enjoy it without any problems. Just because it is legalized it doesn’t mean everyone will do it. But in legalizing it, they remove singlehandedly one of the quickest money makers to the black market. Pot is easy to come by and sell for quick profit, even if it is illegal. Only they give it meaning and cause the propagation of a black market over it. In the meantime, if it wasn’t illegal and being traded for harder stuff/weapons, then that means that all the busts get streamlined even more. So remove pot from the equation, and then every bust after that will usually be for hard chemicals/drugs/weapons. Its a win win win. And they aren’t blowing money on trying to stop something that they will never be able to do. Its all about profit in this case as to why they have these restrictive laws. Profit from the justice/incarceration system that is.

    In the meantime, that hapless person whom would be placed in jail for smoking a joint, won’t in turn be turned into a hardened criminal. Pot smokers, you don’t usually hear about them going all nuts and getting into all sorts of trouble or pulling robberies, rapes, etc. But you certainly hear about the hardened criminal’s doing all that. So why turn a peacenik into a hardened criminal? It doesn’t make any sense.

    As well, in legalizing it, and even regulating it, they stand to make some money from it instead of blowing wads of money to fight it. Again, repeating the vicious circle that will never end.

    C-15 is extremely regressive of a bill, it is too vague in many senses, and it doesn’t make sense to pass it. And at least the Liberals seem to understand this. Which is why I think they locked it up in the senate.

    But of course, it was one of those 34 bills on the table when Harper “Illegally” prorogued parliament, and of course can be re-submitted now. To of course be passed by his stacked senate. Again, forcing this country more and more into a police state. Think about it Cornwall Harry. Things do not have to be this way, if some people could just look at the bigger picture!

  6. Stan   March 3, 2010 at 5:20 PM

    I can just envision the surgeon bending over me, puffing on a roach in his mouth, asking me where I want to be cut….thats the bigger picture I see!

  7. grimalot   March 3, 2010 at 5:21 PM

    By the way, legalizing pot would probably put a major dent in the Mexican cartels whom are using pot to make quick profits as well. Again, if it weren’t illegal, then this could not happen. You want to put a true dent in crime, legalize pot and see what happens.

  8. admin   March 3, 2010 at 5:24 PM

    I think eventually Marijuana will be legalized. It makes far more sense. The money spent in the US dealing with the legal and policing issues are insane. The fact that our current Federal government seems to be embracing that societal view scares the crap out of me.

    If pot were legalized the quality would be safer instead of some of the nasty crap floating around which is what is a real issue. Tax it. Regulate it, and let’s move on to the real issues like saving medicare.

  9. admin   March 3, 2010 at 5:25 PM

    Now Stan would a surgeon do that with a glass of single malt in his hand either? No, he’d drink it in the dressing room before the surgery 😉

  10. Stan   March 3, 2010 at 5:38 PM

    Yes it costs a fortune to chase after criminals dealing drugs. You suggest letting marijuana become legalized…..and what then? Will we also legalize heroin, crack, meth and all that other sh*t just because it costs too much to police?
    And as for the single malt, that is just a memory for me, I loved it so.

  11. grimalot   March 3, 2010 at 5:55 PM

    Keep Heroin, Crack, Meth, and all that other stuff illegal. What I’m saying is legalizing pot streamlines the process. Wouldn’t it be nice to see that pot isn’t involved. And in the meantime, most busts will always be for the harder stuff. How many more pot busts do you see than hard drug busts or weapons busts? In fact, pot is almost always involved with those other busts. Do you know why? Because of exactly that, it is used to make a quick and easy profit to gain access to the harder stuff. Pot in itself is not the gateway to the harder stuff, its the dealer that has the pot that is the gateway to the harder stuff. Because it falls in that same “Illegal and wanted blackmarket item” category. So in turn, legalizing it will also help to remove the gateway to the harder stuff, not make it worse in my opinion.

    When the Netherlands (Amsterdam), legalized pot, did they also legalize crack, cocaine, heroin, and the likes? No. They didn’t. And it is still illegal there. Their process is more streamlined to go after the real hard criminals, then the pot smokers. Which is what we need here.

    Again, you saw my comment about the Mexican Cartels above? those same Mexican cartels that are murdering Americans and Canadians alike over the drugs over there? Well one of their biggest and easiest to move commodities is “pot”. Remove that commodity, streamline the busts, and ultimately, start to deal a real blow to the hard criminals. Its just using common sense really as far as I’m concerned.

  12. willie191   March 3, 2010 at 6:05 PM

    I agree with grimalot. In fact, it was up for decriminalization under Paul Martin. When King Stephen took over, King George Bush told King Stephen to stifle the bill.
    In my opinion, alcohol makes people violent and aggressive. The pot smoker stands back and laughs at them.

  13. Stan   March 3, 2010 at 6:39 PM

    Yes, I can see where it would have been up for decriminalization under Paul Martin and the “entitled to their entitlements” Fiberals. They would have had everyone smoking pot and their Adscam millions would have turned into billions. Pathetic!

  14. grimalot   March 3, 2010 at 9:15 PM

    Wow. You’re really caught up on this ADSCAM. I say the Conservative cancellation of the Avro Arrow project put our country in way more detriment and behind the times than any Adscam scandal. And to top it all off, there is a department that was enacted under the power of Stephen Harper, which he tried to appoint a crony to and when everyone cried foul, he pulled the crony. Problem was, he didn’t shut down the department, which is currently costing money for nothing. Put together a bunch like that, and you have a little adscam all over again. Only the conservatives seem to be better at hiding it.

    Regardless, Adscam as you mentioned it, has nothing to do with this debate.

  15. Destructo   March 4, 2010 at 7:40 AM

    Well grimalot, that’s the problem with conservatives. They don’t debate, they just throw muck.

  16. Joe   March 4, 2010 at 9:22 AM

    The adscam was bad. BUT there was a full inquiry on it and it was called by the governing Liberal government. They were open enough to let democracy work, even if it cost them re-election. The current government does not believe in telling the truth and does everything, even shutting down Parliament, to avoid inquiries. They have no guts, no openess and they must think that we are all stupid. The majority of us are not stupid in that the UNPROGRESSIVE Conservatives have never won a majority.

  17. Stan   March 4, 2010 at 9:37 AM

    Joe, just watch the next election.

  18. PJR   March 4, 2010 at 9:56 AM

    Stan, give your head a shake. Joe has it right. What was adscam compared to the Harperites’ continuing assault on our democracy?

  19. Joe   March 4, 2010 at 10:12 AM

    “A one-man democracy is not something Canadians bargained for.” This is a quote from senior writer Lawrence Martin in The Globe and Mail this morning. We did not elect a dictator we elected a Parliament.

  20. admin   March 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

    Joe sometimes it’s better to have one strong person than a bunch of incompetent system destroying professional politicians running willy nilly. I was reading a story today in the US. Michael Moore was essentially saying that while the ideas may be crazy he had to give Republicans doing what they say they would.

    I think one of the reasons Mr. Harper is getting free reign is because we as Canadians sometimes are too politically correct and fargin polite for our own good. Until a leader or leadership group comes into play that can out punch and out nasty Mr. Harper I think he’ll be around.

    As someone who has always had the inner conflict of having one grand-father who was an undefeated pro boxer, and one who was a member of the clergy, I’ve always wanted to reason and be peaceable, but sometimes you have to knock out someone’s teeth. Metaphorically speaking of course 😉

    Someone needs to knock out Mr. Harper’s teeth if they want to become Prime Minister.

  21. Joe   March 4, 2010 at 10:42 AM

    To admin. I love your last line. ” Someone needs to knock out Mr. Harper’s teeth if they want to become Prime Minister.” By voting, and that is the way democracy works in Canada, knocking his teeth could be by continuing to go after his weaknesses, his arrogance and his lack of truthfullness. I think that Iggy and the Liberals are up to the challenge. On the to next round.

  22. admin   March 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM

    I’m not so sure Mr. Ignatieff is the solution. I’ve grown quite benign towards his candidacy. It’s very conflictive as I’d really like to see Mr. Harper removed from office and forced to watch reruns of Little Mosque on the Prairie.

    I personally would prefer a Jean Chretien/ Frank McKenna type leader challenge Mr. Harper. I’m not sure Mr. Ignatieff is up to not only beating Mr. Harper, but playing strongly enough to spur down the NDP numbers. Mr. Layton as increased their votes each of the Federal elections he’s led.

  23. Stan   March 4, 2010 at 11:13 AM

    admin, you said it! Ignatieff’s candidacy is unthinkable, it would be like electing another Stephane Dion, who at least had a vision (carbon tax). Iggy has no vision, no insight, no really good ideas, nothing. He has NO platform! He couldn’t beat Harper and may not beat Layton.
    As you mention in your comment, Laytons numbers have increased with each Federal election, but then again, so have Harpers.

  24. admin   March 4, 2010 at 11:15 AM

    Now Now Stan; I didn’t say that. I think Mr. Ignatieff would be preferable to Mr. Harper; but then I think my dog Melly would be preferable to Mr. Harper too. Frankly the most able Federal leader right now for me would be Mr. Duceppe, but he is more interested in Quebec’s interests than Canada’s.

  25. Joe   March 4, 2010 at 11:44 AM

    Ignatieff is the leader of the Liberal party and it is developing a specific platform by listening to voters.. Ignatieff is also learning on the job and will be ready by the next election. Over its history, the Liberal party that shows that it cares about average Canadians. It is a party that offers progressive solutions to challenges and it believes in democracy. It even left a surplus to Harper and Harper wasted it all. PS – Admins preference for his dog Milly over both Ignatieff and Harper is an insult to democracy. Hopefully it was meant as a joke. If not, you can vote for your dog Milly if you want to, but it sure won’t get my vote, no matter how loud it barks.

  26. grimalot   March 4, 2010 at 11:57 AM

    Yep, Duceppe is the most honest out of them all. At least you know exactly what he’s thinking. Stand up character in that guy as far as I am concerned. Just too bad its pulling for the wrong side of things.
    .
    I cannot believe Ignatieff is bringing up abortion again. I think thats going to be his downfall. I would honestly love to see a clean election campaign. No finger pointing and mud slinging. In fact, whomever pulls the cleanest campaign as possible, showing me THEIR VIRTUES, and not the DRAWBACKS OF OTHERS, will get my vote. Providing I like their platform.
    .
    I originally liked Harpers platform, the first time. But then I quickly realized he’s no better than Dalton McGuinty!

  27. admin   March 4, 2010 at 11:58 AM

    Joe I can assure you that Melly has a proven platform that she’s cultivated over her 9 years chasing squirrels in the back yard and chewing on her kibbles. While she’s left of centre she still has quite the bite; like her dad 😉

  28. Joe   March 4, 2010 at 12:10 PM

    Woof Woof . I guess I was barking up the wrong tree. Enjoy the budget this afternoon.

  29. admin   March 4, 2010 at 12:16 PM

    grimalot I don’t think there’s a platform that I’d sign my name to or give an endorsement of. For me it’s simply having to vote for the best option to defeat Mr. Harper as I see his vision of Canada far too American for my liking.

  30. PJR   March 4, 2010 at 12:17 PM

    What I hear you all saying is there’s a leadership vacuum. I agree…very dangerous when there’s bully on the street. Who has the right stuff to take him down?

  31. willie191   March 4, 2010 at 2:42 PM

    It’s pretty simple folks. The only candidate that cares about health care is Jack Layton. He is going through the health system daily for Chemo and radiation. We will all be ill at some point in our lives. We will all need a hospital bed sooner or later, no matter how healthy we may be now. However, that elusive hospital bed we need could very well be in Ottawa or Toronto. I will be at my cancer clinic on Monday……………., in Toronto. I don’t even have a GP in Cornwall, Think about it folks, what do we have to lose with and NDP government. I truly believe it is time. That being said, 33% of people polled said that Jack Layton would be a good Prime Minister.

  32. Stan   March 4, 2010 at 3:49 PM

    Anyone who gets in will eventually be far too American in their vision for Canada. It’s understandable, we are stuck right on their border for 8,891 kilometres long (Wikipedia info). No surprise, after all, we do share this continent.

  33. admin   March 4, 2010 at 4:11 PM

    willie I’ve been in Cornwall six years and still do not have a local doctor. It’s a good thing I have an amazing doc in Montreal still; but he’s going to be retiring one of these years.

  34. admin   March 4, 2010 at 4:15 PM

    Well in my very humble opinion PJR the only candidate I see who can is Frank McKenna.

  35. willie191   March 4, 2010 at 4:47 PM

    admin, when you do need a new doctor, I hope you can get another one in Montreal. Why would a doctor come to Cornwall and be forced to provide limited services due to cut backs. I asked the student interns/doctors at sunnybrooke hospital to consider practicing in Cornwall. The last intern I had was from Ottawa. I explained the benefits of being in Cornwall, ie, low real estate cost, proximity to Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and the USA. He wasn’t one bit interested. He joked and replied,” are you trying to recruit me”, I told him yes I am.

  36. admin   March 4, 2010 at 5:25 PM

    Hi Willie,

    I doubt I could easily get another Doc in Montreal either. Healthcare is the number one issue facing Canadians whether they realize it or not. It’s not the National Anthem. It’s reality.

  37. PJR   March 4, 2010 at 9:30 PM

    admin, I believe you are right. Faute de mieux, we can only hope the bully finds a good banana skin. He’s come close twice.

  38. Spanner McNeil   March 5, 2010 at 1:41 AM

    I remember a time when 18 year olds flooded the streets of Canada demanding the right to vote and the right to vote right now. They got it. Today, most people under 30 don’t vote. Ironically this is the same group where Lauzon will find most of his prisoners. It’s kinda of a case of those who don’t vote actually will go to jail. They take your property, they take your kids, they put you in prison for doing nothing wrong. People hide and live in terror of fascists. Grimalot has got the reality down cold. If they have kids they will be kidnapped by Child Services. It impacts us all to wrongfully imprison and punish people. There is another group, currently labeled ‘aging baby boomers’. With mandatory prison sentencing many boomers will be surprised to find out that they aren’t allowed to have walkers, canes or wheelchairs in the penitentiary.

    It’s hard to see the future but it’s an easy prediction that April 20th Tuesday on Parliament Hill and across the country will be quite memorable. Millions and millions and millions of adult Canadians are very tired of being told they are criminal when they know they aren’t. They are also feeling less guilty about it. Homosexuals went through this. Women who wanted the vote went through this. People who wanted to read D.H. Lawrence went through this. I’ve no doubt Lauzons’ intellectual ancestors persecuted them all with glee. Lets face it, if this was about Health and Safety we’d all be focused on sugar products. Canada will spend 4 billion on diabetes this year. Sugar overdosing causes blindness, death and amputations. Sugar babies get big and fat because their sugar parents are out of control in their sugar houses. So marijuana prohibition has zero to do with health. The reason for prohibition laws are far more sinister and evil than that. If Mrs Babushka next door can grow legal pot in her backyard the stuff will have the same commercial value as apples and who wants to take nine billion dollars a year away from organized crime? We wouldn’t have to cut down trees to print our crappy newspapers either. Harper has to apologize to and release all marijuana prisoners. This government exists by sufferance.

  39. grimalot   March 5, 2010 at 9:29 AM

    I remember that time too Spanner. When people used to be proud to vote. This again is why the Conservatives are in power. They are banking on voter apathy.

  40. Cornwall Harry   March 5, 2010 at 9:47 AM

    Spanner McNeil you seem to live in a paranoid smoke obliterated world. To you, everything is wrong around you and you are the only right. Stop smoking and get real man!

  41. PJR   March 5, 2010 at 1:56 PM

    Time to bring out George Orwell again, everybody, and take a look at how we are being governed through the lens of Animal Farm …following up with Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.