Important News for Canadian Seed Breeders

[ToughGirl]

Might as well start calling it the 51st state of the USA, eh?

That would be Puerto Rico technically.

 

[Chunkybuddha]

Better stock up on dope in the next couple months. Prices are going to go through the roof.

 

[TheCuriousOne]

If Bill C-15 comes to pass, I hope that future bean breeders/traders start labelling their seed packs with a "pre-billc15" date on them. Could help your defense one day in court if the worst was to happen.
If they raid your home and find seeded female plants in your grow, plead ignorance as your defense and blame it on "the hermaphrodite", and pray for the best...
Wishing everybody safe and plentiful grows
Kind regards

 

[Kirk Tousaw]

Remains to be seen, I think

Remains to be seen, I think

I wanted to draw this to the attention of Canadian ICM members who, from time to time, cross various plants and trade seeds with other growers on ICM via the mail, who sell via SeedBay, or who donate seeds to Gypsy.

Under the current provisions of the CDSA, it is against the law to traffick in viable cannabis seeds. It is, however, a law that is very rarely prosecuted, as the nature of the charge requires that the Crown prove the seller knows the seed is viable or represents that it is. That is extremely difficult to prove. Moreover, the sentence in respect of the crime is also very low. A fine or, at most, 1 or 2 months.

Consequently, it's a provision of the CDSA which is honoured more in the breach than in the observance.

As many of you probably know, there are many large Canadian Seeds Banks who operate retail store front operations in Canada's largest cities without trouble because of the practical impossibility of the Crown securing a conviction for trafficking in viable cannabis seeds in Canada.

I think the lack of enforcement has more to do with police priorities than perceived difficulty getting a conviction in a case against the seed merchants. In R v. Hunter (2000 BCCA 363; you link to this in the OP) the Court discussed the viability issue and essentially agreed that since Hunter was operating a seed sales business advertising seeds that would grow (and that did indeed grow) he meant to sell viable seeds. I don't see that issue as particularly hard to prove as against the merchants.

Bill C-15 does not change the law in connection with trafficking in viable cannabis seeds. But what it DOES do is change the law in connection with the production of viable cannabis seeds.

If you produce viable cannabis seeds for the purpose of trafficking, the minimum mandatory penalty is 12 months imprisonment. There are, in addition, a number of possible factors which, if present, will raise that mandatory minimum to 18 months.

18 months, for growing a single seed for the purpose of giving it away. I know it's crazy - but there it is.

To be clear: trafficking does NOT mean sale. It includes trading seeds and even giving them away.

Proving the intention to create viable seeds is far easier than proving an intention to traffick a viable cannabis seed is. And the penalty which, previously, didn't make the charge worth pursuing has now changed. It's at LEAST 12 months minimum in jail if they prove that charge.

Worse, if:

(a) you grow your cannabis seeds in rented property or in a house not registered in your name; or,

(b) there are children present at the property where the grow occurs who are subject to a "security, health or safety hazard" by reason of the grow; or,

(c) the grow house is in a residential area, and presents a public safety hazard; or

(d) there is a trap present in the grow area,

Then you will go to prision for a minimum of 18 months for growing those seeds with the purpose of trafficking in them.

Yes. I'm dead serious. Growing even one damn seed.

Where does it Say That in Bill c-15?

It says it here:

3 (a.1) if the subject matter of the offence is a substance included in Schedule II, other than cannabis (marihuana), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment

(i) for a term of one year if the production is for the purpose of trafficking, or

(ii) for a term of 18 months if the production is for the purpose of trafficking and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply;

[Subsection (3) deals with the property ownership, children, public safety hazard, and trap provisions of C-15]

Because the minimum sentence imposed refers to CDSA's Schedule II - and viable Cannabis seeds are covered in the general definition of Schedule II, although not specifically referred to, they are not covered in the "other than cannabis (marihuana)" reference in s. 3(a.1). Viable Cannabis seeds are simply covered in Schedule II as part of the general definition of "Cannabis, its preparations, derivatives and similar synthetic preparations". This has been settled in prior case law .

The penalties for production for the purpose of trafficking in "cannabis (marihuana)" are specifically excepted and receive a lesser penalty under Bill C-15. But that exception does not apply to viable cannabis seeds, so the general sentencing provision prevails with viable seeds.

This is a very interesting comment and one that I frankly had not considered before reading this post. I do think, as a wise person said to me in a different post, that we need to be careful about predicting how this change will be applied in the courts.

While it is possible that viable seeds will be considered to fall into the general definition, it is also possible to argue that seeds (particularly those still on the plant, ie, in production) do not attract the mandatory sentence because (a) criminal statutes must be narrowly construed; (b) cannabis seeds on the plant are more appropriately considered part of "(2) cannabis (marihuana)" than a stand-alone category or somehow captured by the general definition - as it applies to sentencing. This would be bolstered by the legislative history which does not support an inference that Parliament intended to crack down on seed breeders.

The absurdity of reading the legislation this way becomes clear if you think about comparing a ten-plant garden that has unfortunately gone to seed with a ten-plant seedless garden. Both to sell, both in a rental unit. With all other circumstances the same, the garden with seeds appears to attract a mandatory sentence of 18 months (producing seeds for purpose of trafficking) while the seedless gardener faces 9 months (producing cannabis (marihuana) for the purpose f trafficking). Of course this is only if Crown so charges. But you get my drift.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post. Seed breeders should certainly take note and be alarmed.

Kirk Tousaw
Executive Director, Beyond Prohibition Foundation
www.whyprohibition.ca
www.tousawlaw.ca
www.johnconroy.com

 

[Black Ra1n]

I found this portion of the bill very vague. They only have to prove that you had intent to produce viable seed for the mandatory to apply? So if you have a plant that has thrown nanners, and their are seeds you are pretty much screwed?

 

[Blimey]

They have to prove that the viable seed was intended for trading, donating or sale?

If just for your own grow, sounds like the heavier minimum won't apply.

Of course, if you are running a seed co, and they can prove it....that might be a hard bullet to dodge.

Madness.

 

[mr noodles]

isnt against nature ?

i mean a male and a female can be found in a pack without any magic...its the base of vegetal reproduction . id like to see that in a legal challenge. a mmar patient can need seeds for essential oil and food consumption .

hemp farmer....they produce shitload of seeds ....if a field is polluted by an illegal patch of growing male and the hemp is corrupted by viable pollen.....are they going to prosecute the hemps farmer ?

they will have to prove the intention , is canada teaching grower to remove male ? are they suggesting that for real ?

is the whole california movement make these stupid law looking retarded like they never been before ....think about it

 

[Black Ra1n]

My take on it as such..... We can't let Canadian genetics die because of stupidity. If Canadian breeders leave, seeds will still end up in the country. They come from all over the planet, you can't stop the underground!

 

[corky1968]

stupid laws

 

[dmt]

too bad for those illegal producers. it would be hard for the rcmp to prove med growers were breeding.

the med man might be one of the only guys left in canada with a leg to stand on, almost everyone else mentionable went to spain because of the whole marc emery fiasco. and those who stayed stopped or are always at risk of being raided or robbed, d

 

[Che]

Canada is forcing the switch to trees. Bigger the better, lets see some seeded 10 lb'ers

 

[Reverend Mojo]

lets see some seeded 10 lb'ers

Give me a few weeks (minus the seeds) HAHAHHAHAHA.

FUCK HARPER

 

[westcoastgirl]

Wow this is going to cost some people their jobs

 

[teemu shalanie]

Isnt this gonna be the new s10 bill? , or is that different? The future here is to have big trees low plant#, as i recall over 5 gets you a mandatory 6-9 months. This is gross , thats why im already filling out my MMAR application, Fuck it !if you cant beat em , join em?

Peace TS

 

[carpster]

cocksuckinmotherfuckers is all i have to say...

 

[kingjames488]

not sure if it was this bill... but the S-w.e that was for harsher penalties for growers was thrown out of congress at basicly the last second...
the reason?
it would put a lot of minor offenders and young people in jail and not really help large scale crime.

maybe the gov is finally getting it