FTA Lawyer

Excellent. I would say that you put the thread to an end. Except.... do we have such an agreement with the US? Well, no...I'm just proposing such a scheme be put in place. FTA

New technologies have a different character than old technologies, so new approaches are needed. There are examples of suspicious activity that automatically triggers reporting in non-digital society. If you deposit large sums of cash into a bank account, the bank will note that activity and pass it on. If you receive packages that look questionable, or from agencies that are suspicious, then you will be reported. There's no question of people "listening in" on the phone calls of average Canadians here, it's a question of being able to trace communications. Bank reporting is not gratuitous, it's pursuant to money laundering legislation...and of course, legislation is how the government keeps tabs on us. Your example is actually in support of GostHacked's original point, not yours...it is just another instance of government collecting information about us...if not constantly kept in check, the potential for abuse is huge. Really, what business is it to the government if I deposit $10,000.00 or more in cash into my bank account? It makes it far more liekly that I am a successful businessman than a terrorist or a money-launderer. Does this reporting requirement make society safe from these evils? I can't see how. And really, with how easy it can be done (and maybe Gosthacked can enlighten us about the security of VOIP phone conversations i.e. how easily they can be intercepted) what other than blind faith makes you say "there's no question of people "listening in" on the phone calls of average Canadians here..." How do you know this with such certainty? And I'm not a conspiracy theorist...I have information from a police officer acquaintance who tells me that it is commonplace for them to use illegal wiretaps to help further an investigation...the cops just don't document them and don't try to introduce the recordings or statements contained therein as evidence in court...SO NOBODY OTHER THAN THE COPS WHO DID IT EVER KNOW IT WAS DONE!!! FTA

I don't mean to put this thread to an end but I think I've got the answer to this issue... The presumption of innocence is the same on either side of the border...so it seems to me this refugee claimant puts himself in an awkward position. Even under our Charter, a claim for protection must have a sufficient factual foundation to bring an "air of reality" to the claim. That is, Charter rights are not determined speculatively, you must demonstrate that the facts of your situation actually invoke the Charter sections you seek to rely on. So...it seems to me the only way to get Charter protection from the possible cruel and unusual punishment of the death penalty is to formally admit guilt for the alleged offence. Otherwise, there is no air of reality to your claim for protection (i.e. innocent people are not put to death). Now I'm one of the first to point out that the system isn't perfect, and Canada unfortunately has way too many high-profile wrongful convictions to prove this point. However, it seems to me a fair and balanced trade-off to make by both governments, and it balances an individual's rights versus those of the collective whole. If you admit guilt and clearly put yourself in jeopardy of the death penalty, then Canada would be justified in withholding extradition until the punishment is taken off the table. In the circumstances, the monetary and collateral benefits to the US would be huge...no trial resources devoted to proving guilt, no mandatory appeals before death sentence etc. etc. They should welcome such a situation. If you don't admit guilt, and want to try your luck at trial, then we must presume you to be innocent, and as such, you are not subject to the death penalty in any way but by speculation...and we don't adjudicate Charter rights speculatively. Back home you go for your trial to prove your innocence...if you fail to do so, well then you are stuck with facing whatever punishment the country of jurisdiction deems appropriate. Now, this proposal only applies for countries which have criminal justice systems equivalent to our own...so if you don't have the benefit of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial in the other jurisdiction, then we would likely have to deal with the situation differently. With respect to the U.S. though, where geography dictates that most of these refugee claimants will come from, I think my system makes sense. Comments? FTA

I'm not sure how, but I guess you missed the part of my post where I wrote: As for the remainder of your comments, if the WCB is as murderous a bunch as you say they are, and if you are the indeed the persuasive published journalist you profess to be, then instead of gratuitious rants on this forum, why not apply to Bill Gates for a piece of the Buffet pie and write a tell-all collection of emotional anecdotes and expose the WCB and the satanic government officials for the pure evil that they are? I'm serious by the way...why not write this story...if you're a writer...and there is a story here... FTA

Yes, I find it not alarmed, ie. I'm not alarmed All that's being monitored is your web activity. The urls that you visit, presumably if they're on a watch list. YOU are not being monitored. What freedom is this ? Freedom to download detailed instructions on how to build explosives without anybody knowing ? I'm willing to forgo that freedom for more security. If you walk in a major urban area, you're being videotaped constantly as you pass by store windows and banks. Do you feel violated knowing that ? I don't. If there's a security advantage in putting cameras in public, and I think there is, then we should do it. Terms like 'big brother' and so forth evoke strong feelings about a police state, but we're nowhere near such a thing happening, and if it did eventually happen it wouldn't matter anyway. People have to let go of these knee-jerk reactions to security and surveillance and think about the real advantages that these technologies bring. Would you give up the person you love the most for the knowledge that you can walk down the street without being videotaped, or the knowledge that the police can't trace your calls (if they wanted to) ? It seems like a pretty easy question to me. I'll give you that the "Big Brother" thing is often way overdone, but I am with GostHacked in the sense that he is trying to actually get people to critically think about the issue of their privacy and trying to combat complacency. Our Supreme Court has said that it is okay for police to hover over your house in a helicopter with FLIR infra-red radar and track the sources of heat emanating from your home without a warrant...many people do not know that. Now, we're some distance away from a true police state, but a few more of these kinds of decisions, and we start dangerously eroding our ability as citizens to be unmolested by our government. You also have, as most people do, a strong sense of trust in the "authorities" to not misuse their powers for improper purposes. As someone that has seen police fabricate a 911 call in order to effect a warrantless entry to a home, make up confidential informants or anonymous tipsters in order to justify unlawful surveillance and intentionally refuse to disclose information to prosecutors about questionable interrogations or investigative techniques, I do not have the same level of calm comfort. Take a look at this link for example: Edmonton Police Shenanigans When you read the whole thing you can see this is senior police officers inventing a story of an anonymous caller to give them reasonable grounds to detain an individual and attempt to charge him with impaired driving...unfortunately for the hundreds of unlawful man hours put into this b-s "sting" operation, the "target" took a cab home... I think more people ought to stay in touch with just how far the government and the police are allowed to go...and just how far they go even when not allowed...to ensure that we are not going down a dangerous path all in the name of the ever-elusive "security" of a nation. FTA

You're kidding right? How much actual research have you done and how many diabled people have you actually spoken to ? Do you think they would admit this to the FTA?If a person hasn't experience first hand the kind of treatment they receive from WCB, Social Services, and employers when they become disabled you really have no idea how obstructive these agencies and individuals can be. Look, I didn't say that disabled people are not marginalized...I didn't say that they don't deserve better treatment...in fact, I criticized Geoffrey for his harsh and simplistic comments. You have more of an ally in FTA than you think. The problem is, and I reiterate, you open yourselves up to being summarily dismissed by those in positions of power and influence as being nut jobs with nothing important to say when you suggest that the people (and they are actual human beings) who administer WCB and other disability insurance programs are Nazis who are intentionally trying to get the disabled to kill themselves. Believe me, the nut jobs are out there...and they bog down politicians, judges, tribunals, even lawyers with their insane ramblings. If you cover your valid and persuasive arguments with insane ramblings I can almost guarantee you the result you will get every time. I act for clients taking on "the man" in many ways shapes and forms. I have brought legal proceedings against the City of Calgary, the Alberta Government, the Crown Prosecutors' Office, Revenue Canada, and even multinational insurance companies. I have clients on AISH and others who literally live in a gutter. I know more than I care to admit about the plight of the less fortunate in this country. BUT...I turn away raving lunatics as potential clients every month. If you walk through my door spewing about Auschwitz and WCB Storm Troopers, you will likely get a kind referral to a social service agency or free law clinic after our initial consultation...I simply don't have time to take up unmeritorious and outlandish causes. And it is not necessarily a question of money...I have acted for free or incredibly reduced rates on a number of occasions where I felt it would be unjust not to assist someone. Don't get me wrong...I am not saying that your positions are unmeritorious or outlandish...to be honest I haven't made up my mind yet, because it would take me 2 hours to critically review the amount of material you have posted here. My point is, you have to learn to stir the pot in such a way that the person you intend the message for actually hears it...in many cases, screaming the loudest just makes people cover their ears...tone it down, lose the Nazi angle and have another go at it. I can't guarantee a different outcome, but it's better than just repeatedly smashing your head against that brick wall over and over again. FTA

Here's my favourite part: It is generally not illegal under Florida law for a physician to prescribe medication in a third party's name if all parties are aware and the doctor documents it correctly, said Mike Edmondson, a spokesman for the state attorney in Palm Beach County. He would not discuss specifics in the Limbaugh case Tuesday. If the bottle of pills was prescription-strength sudafed, or frankly, ANYTHING but an erectile disfunction drug, no one would even know about this. And the fact that more citizens don't strongly denounce this type of "reporting" is disheartening. Rush very likely has been smattered in public for not breaking any law, not doing anything wrong, and being in possession of a legal substance. Here's a thought...maybe investigate the alleged crime and decide if there has been any unlawful activity before writing a bunch of innuendo and speculation with no other purpose than to embarrass and slight someone with a public reputation. FTA

All law, including criminal law, is only valid and enforceable if the people to whom it applies are willing to follow it. Case in point...the prohibition of alcohol as a colossal failure. Failing to recognize that young teenagers are having sex is foolish. Trying to outlaw it...futile. Putting up reasonable limits which have the effect of putting the onus and responsibility on the older, more mature person in a relationship...relatively sensible. I am in favour of this change...mostly because, at present, our law permits a 12 year old to consent to sex (with someone who is less than 2 years older mind you). 12 is simply too young, in my view, for society to sanction sexual intercourse. By moving the consent age up two years, I'm not convinced that it is wrong to then expand the close-in-age exception to 5 years instead of two. Under the current law, a 14 year old can legally consent to sex with a person of ANY age. A new law where a 14 year old can still consent to sex with someone up to 19 seems reasonable to me. As for the comments about legally drinking, driving and voting...these are simply different issues. Sex is purely biological, none of the other activities are. It is a hell of alot easier to restrict access to car keys (and cars for that matter), booze, and ballots than it is to stop a kid from using their bodies which are fully equipped for sex long before most parents would like. Other legal age limits may make sense (or not) for different reasons, but generally I support the new proposed age for sexual consent. FTA

I'm going to jump in...on BOTH sides of this one. Geoffrey is indeed being awfully general in his comments about how simple it is for disabled people to find work. What he is really against is people who overstate or use their level of diability as an excuse not to work...but he is painting the entire group with that brush. In my experience, I can assure you that it can be incredibly difficult for disabled people to find and keep a job...there just aren't that many employers out there who see fit to make meaningful accomodations...and yes, the legal battles can drag on for years. That being said, it does not take "x-ray vision" to walk the streets of Calgary and see many people who have no physical affliction whatsoever begging for money from people who actually work to make it...I can understand Geoffrey's frustrations to an extent when you travel down any street in the city and literally 8 out of 10 stores has a sign that says "now hiring". I can accept that many mental health afflictions are not readily apparent, so I do not suggest that all of these people are freeloaders, but I can assure you that many "panhandlers" choose not to work in a normal job setting. I recall when the City was imposing increased by-law penalties on "squeegee kids" that it became a media circus for some time. An upstart entrpreneur with a house-building business went to the main area for squeegee kids and offered anyone and everyone a job as a framer / labourer at far more than minimum wage...not one person took him up on his offer. This is not directly related to disabled people, but is analogous. Now, having ctiticized Geoffrey for his overbroad argunments...it is difficult to comprehend that Geoffrey has been so venomously pounced on for his rhetoric, and yet, injusticebuster is getting whole-hearted unconditional support for his / her position with comments such as: "just like 60 years ago in Auschwitz..." "This crusade of marginalization and devaluation is orchestrated by the Ontario Human Rights Commission...' "In reality government, employers pretend not to be like Nazi and by shifting liability instead of killing someone they marginalize a person so he or she commits suicide. Clean hands policy" Just as it is wrong to presume that all disabled people are to be suspected of malingering or attempting to get paid for nothing, it is outrageous to suggest that the people involved in administering disability benefits are attempting to marginalize people until they kill themselves...all with a view to avoiding feeling responsible for not paying out enough benefits! Take a principled stand for the conditions that disabled people are faced with and I will have no cause to criticize...but keep in line those you are supporting with the same level of scrutiny as those you wish to denounce. C'mon...the OHRC are akin to Nazis in Auschwitz who focus on how to kill disabled people with a clean conscience?!?!?!? Pathetic. FTA

Well, I certainly do not suggest that I am an authority on family law, but the basic premise is that where one spouse sacrifices their autonomous ability to support themselves in order to assist the other spouse in becoming successful / wealthy, then upon the break-up of the marriage, it's not right to let the now successful spouse go off and live the high-life and leave the now economically non-viable spouse to struggle in near poverty. Does this effort to level the playing field encourage mooching? I suppose it does to some extent. BUT, it's a far more palatable result than our old system where the 55 year-old wife of 30 years whose only skill was being one hell of a mother to the 5 kids of the marriage and who had not had a "real" job since the wedding date got NOTHING because at the time of the divorce all of the marital property was held in the husband's name alone. Spousal support payments are open to potential abuses just like anything else, but generally speaking it is a method that for the most part does provide a degree of fairness when couples part. FTA

It does not - i used the example of a permenant injury to better illustrate why the court wanted to revisit the issue.My take on the double negatives: the court upheld the principle that bad behavoir is not a factor when calculating support. In other words, support cannot be used as mechanism to punish a misbehaving spouse. However, the court said that consequences of misbehavoir can be used if those consequences affect the spouses ability to earn a living. What makes this case confusing is the court's willingness to accept that the woman could not work because of her bitterness over his infidelity. That judgement is appalling and basically encourages ex-wives to fabricate mental illnesses in order to get more support. In my view, it is always advisable to read the actual judgment rather than some journalist's interpretation. Everyone can get easy access to SCC judgments at this site: SCC Judgments Riverwind has it basically correct. The SCC confirms unequivocally that a spouse's misconduct cannot be considered as a relevant factor in determining the issue of spousal support. Where they draw the distinction is that it has always been relevant to consider the means, needs and other circumstances of the spouses in deciding spousal support, so, if a spouse is unable to become self-supporting for reasons which happen to be the result of misconduct, you shouldn't ignore those reasons. As clarified by Riverwind, it doesn't matter if the factor is a permanent or temporary one. I suggest that if quotes from the judgment were left in the broader context by the reporters, that the actual reasoning of the SCC would be both easier to understand and to swallow: It is clear from the parts of the judgment that I have emphasized in bold that the courts all the way up to the SCC are ruling in this woman's favour because she has various difficulties in her situation that leave her in a disadvantaged position to her ex-husband as a result of the break-up of the marriage. His future ability to earn money and take care of himself has been enhanced by participation in the marriage, hers has been correspondingly harmed, so she continues to be entitled to support. The SCC is very specific to rely on the B.C. Court of Appeal remark that the ruling is "not because of any self-imposed disability". So, Riverwind's concern that the SCC has endorsed this woman's "bitterness over infidelity" is misplaced. FTA

I don't disagree, but you do have to be careful with trying to quell an increasingly volatile protest by way of force...it's not that easy to do without causing a whole lot more violence. Should we be looking to the Feds to send in troops? FTA

Good rant, but misguided for a number of reasons... The SCC is doing "simply a interpretive role only"...problem is that PET gave them the Charter as the Supreme Law of Canada...i.e. they must interpret, according to the law passed by PET's government, all governmental activity (including legislation) to determine if it is in accordance with the Charter. In this context, mere interpretation leads to the striking down of laws determined to be inconsistent with the Charter. BUT, here's the good news, we don't need to "through legislation limit the powers of this unelected and undemocratic body" because within that same Supreme Law of Canada is a often blasphemed little provision known as the "Notwithstanding Clause". That's right, recognizing the potential for exactly the status quo that you are complaining of, those reluctant to sign off on the Charter lobbied for and got an internal veto. If the SCC in doing its job properly interprets a law to be unconstituional and strikes it down...but that doesn't sit well with the people of Canada at the time...then the government can simply re-enact the law "notwithstanding" the Charter. So there you have it...your hellfire and damnation ought to be directed at politicians who have set out to pass the buck and shirk their responsibility by demonizing anyone (read Harper) who would ever consider using the Notwithstanding Clause and thereby acting like they don't make the decisions and that they are stuck with whatever the SCC gives them. FTA

How about Dueceppe has negative opinions, which don't really count for the rest of Canada. Duceppe makes a fair point. There's only 2 possibilities: either the Liberals and NDP intended to oppose the budget, or they didn't. If they intended to oppose the budget, then letting it pass unanimously was a huge display of ineptitude. If they didn't intend to oppose the budget, then saying that they intended to do so but missed the chance because of a procedural mix-up is simply a lie. Here's my suspicion: -they didn't want to vote against the budget because they didn't want to go on record as opposing the cut to the GST. "They voted against cutting the GST" is something Conservative strategists would have loved to have stated in next election's campaign ads. -abstaining wasn't an appealing option either. They'd promised their supporters to fight aspects of the Conservatives' budget. And, of course, the Liberals had heckled the Conservatives last year for choosing to abstain rather than vote against some pieces of legislation. -k I happen to think that Mr. Duceppe is a very effective politician who knows how to capitalize on opportunities but keep his comments concise and easy to grasp for his intended audience...Bravo Mr. Duceppe. Aside from that, I think that criticizing the opposition only on this (and particularly suggesting ulterior motives) is very misguided. Was it not Diane Ablonczy standing up to speak her piece on the budget when she and everyone in the House was made aware that a procedural f-up had meant that the budget was already passed? The point is that the government didn't even know...so how can we cast the opposition as incompetent and spare the equally unaware ruling party? This incident is nothing more than an example of why we desperately need Parliamentary reforms. Everything in Parliament is form over substance. Even the law has slowly morphed itself in efforts to remain practical and relevant in today's society...whereas Parliament today looks just like 1867 but with different clothes on the MP's. When everyone in the House was expecting further debate (both gov't and opposition) then why in the hell would an arbitrary time limit prevent that? We have huge books of rules governing courtroom procedure, but virtually any rule can be relaxed or set aside in a particular instance if there is consent of the parties involved and it is in the interests of efficiency / practicality / justice. We allow warrants to be sworn by telephone, documents to be filed by fax, and prisoners to appear in court by closed circuit t.v. rather than paying to bus them every day. In an election, you can vote by mail or at an advance poll, and in the world of business you can vote by proxy or conference call. In Parliament, every member who wants to vote needs to waste airfare at taxpayer expense so that they can physically stand in their seat to register a vote. No one is entitled to cooperate in the public interest and agree to proceed with a planned debate when it turns out the time limit has passed. In short, form defeats substance wherever the two conflict. In my view, all MP's should be embarrased by the mysterious passing of the budget and should start looking at ways that they can cooperate to bring the Parliamentary procedures into the current century. FTA

Nope...just need to actually use the Criminal Code we have when there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing by a politician and not allow the b.s. that "they will be punished at the ballot boxes". FTA

Entrapment is probably an overstatement. But we do live in a society that still has habeus corpus. My one concern with this case is that they were some angry young kids on the internet who were offered weapons and explosives by CSIS. The kids then began to escalate their plans facilitated by the CSIS and RCMP involvement. There was probably one or two older guys who are dangerous and should be charged, but i feel that most ofthe arrests will prove unwarranted as there would be no proof these kids would have done anything if not offered the chance by CSIS and the RCMP in the first place. (i dont really know since not all of the details have been released, so i am certainly just speculatiing here). Perhaps Harper needed an excuse to make Canada a militant nation. And now he has an excuse to invade some random Arab nation with the Americans..... Think Iran.... Andrew Andrew, I don't really understand your comments...and I'm not sure that you do either. The writ of habeas corpus is a remedy for an unlawful arrest / detention / imprisonment. I'm not sure how you were intending to use the term in the context you have put it in your comments. Entrapment is a technical and complicated area and I am sickened that the media has tossed it out there flippantly for the uninformed masses to discuss unintelligently. A relatively simple explanation comes from a Manitoba Court of Appeal case in 1987 known as R. v. Biddulph: Mere solicitation of an offence by an undercover officer is not enough to raise the defence. There must be evidence that the accused had been pressured, threatened, or deceived, and conduct on the part of the police so shocking or outrageous as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Offering someone who is espousing hate over the internet the opportunity to escalate their behaviour into full-blown terrorism is not entrapment. With the incredibly minimal details available at this stage, there is no responsible basis for anyone to be suggesting entrapment is in play. And it should be kept in mind that entrapment, procedurally, is only a defence in a criminal case after the Crown has proven the accused is guilty. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called R. v. Pearson said: Once the defendant is found guilty, he alone bears the burden of establishing [on a balance of probabilities] that the conduct of the Crown and/or the police amounted to an abuse of process that deserves a stay of proceedings. Further, it is well settled law that a stay of proceedings will only be granted in the "clearest of cases" where an abuse of process is so serious that there is no other available sufficient remedy. Please resist the temptation to give your opinion on issues unless you first research and understand them. FTA

Chuck Guite is presently behind bars after a jury found him guilty of all 5 fraud counts he was facing. Guilty Verdict The matter has been put over for a couple of days to allow Guite to prepare his sentencing submissions. Anyone have predictions for what he'll get for punishment? Anyone have views about what they feel he ought to get? FTA

Having previously "taken my ball and gone home" on this thread, I'm not sure why I'm jumping back into the mess that it has become, but here I go... Police searching for a suspect in a murder based on an eyewitness description is not racial profiling...it is searching for a suspect based on an eyewitness description. Racial profiling involves directing investigative efforts based on race. For example, undercover police in an airport using drug dogs to search black people getting off an airplane from Jamaica but not searching the non-black passengers getting off the same airplane based on prior statistics that support a conclusion that indigenous Jamaicans are more likely to be drug dealers. Your misinterpretation of racial profiling is similar to your misinterpretation of Morgan's comments. Love him or hate him, his comments do not even come close to standing for the proposition that "all Jamaicans are inherently violent" or that they are "natural born killers" as you have attempted to argue. If you wish to be treated respectfully then you need to be intellectually honest with your assertions. I am happy to welcome someone with differing views so don't take my comments as me being offended because you may disagree with me. However, referrring to other posters with nicknames that you have created for them and taunting someone about where his family was during the war of 1812 are disrespectful, unintelligent and unwelcome on this board. Stick to the topic at hand and be passionate but not inflammatory with your remarks and you will be welcomed as a valuable contributor. FTA

I am obviously not arguing that we ban cars, but what I am saying is that guns attract unwarranted attention as something which needs tighter laws and even calls for outright bans when the "problem" of gun deaths is largely manufactured by alarmist media trying to sell papers and increase ratings. The problem of automobile related deaths on the other hand is one which, if even a tenth of the attention that guns get was devoted to it, we could substantially reduce the number of dead Canadians. A billion dollars toward better driver training, better roads, better policing would have been money well spent. Just watch...count how many people are killed this long weekend by guns and compare that to how many are killed by cars. Sure, the ones that are shot have more seductive story lines, but they are no more no less dead with no more no less suddenness and tragedy than the ones that are run over. We are stupidly wasting our resources fighting a battle which simply doesn't need fighting. FTA

The problem is not that Harper didn't get the guy he wanted...it is that the guy he wanted was publically accosted in the media by the opposition for strategic partisan purposes. I don't know Gwyn Morgan from a hole in the ground. I'm prepared to accept that he might not have been a good choice for the committee. BUT, no one is offering a principled non-partisan argument for why he was not a good choice. The purpose of the committe was to ensure that appointments were made based on merit. A highly successful businessman who is considered Canada's best CEO is someone who knows a thing or two about merit vs. patronage. You argue that because he is successful and he made completely legal and in no way unethical contributions to the political party of his choice that he is a bad candidate. That is plain idiocy. Dump the partisan b-s. Are we really saying that the only people we will accept on committees are those who have taken no interest in our country's politics (and as such have never made a legal political financial contribution), are not successful businessmen / women because every successful businessman / woman is unethical by definition?, have never tried to be socially engaged and therefore never made a single politically incorrect statement in public. Who would we appoint? Give me a legitimate reason why he was a poor candidate and I'm all ears. Give me partisan rhetoric about his political tendencies and I'm with Harper...I'm taking my ball and going home. FTA

That's a great idea, why don't we get rid of cars while we're at it...that way we can eliminate the over 400 deaths per year on Alberta highways alone. See, the thing is that even with recent shootings in Toronto and elsewhere, Canada does not have a gun violence problem. The number of gun-related deaths per year is miniscule compared to workplace accidents, car crashes etc. Scrapping the gun registry does not mean scrapping gun control. Prior to the doomed from conception registry, Canada had one of the most stringent set of gun laws in the world. We can quit wasting hundreds of millions on a useless program and still have first-rate gun control. I think many people who still argue in support of the registry think that with it gone, we'd be left with no gun laws at all...couldn't be farther from the truth. FTA

If Canadians view revelations of dishonesty and malfeasance by their elected officials as "beating a dead horse" simply because the revelations come at some time after the actual wrongdoing, then we will truly get the government that we deserve and we will continually suffer such outrageous and offensive conduct at the hands of every government we elect no matter what the name of the party. The Liberals cannot be said to have lost the last election due to this issue because we have just been given the Auditor General's report. For Fraser's conclusions to carry any substantive value, as Canadians we must make the hiding from Parliament of how our tax dollars are being spent a main issue in the next election whenever it may come. I make it no secret that I am a conservative-minded voter and that I oppose the long-gun registry. That being said, I am a firm believer in the democratic process. If the Liberal government had been open and honest with Parliament about their program, and in spite of the cost overruns and difficulties, the majority of Canadians maintained their support for it, then I would dutifully register my firearms according to law. Instead, the Liberal government deliberately misled the people of Canada in order to disguise the true economic status of the registry. There are Enron executives in U.S. prisons right now nodding their heads in a manner of empathy and solidarity for the methods used by Cretien et. al. to deceive. This is a matter with which all Canadians, and I dare say in particular Liberal party members / supporters, should be appalled. An executor of an estate worth mere tens of thousands of dollars is required to accurately account to the Courts where the money is going, millions of employees with expense accounts are required to account to their employers where the money is going, corporations are required to account to their investors where the money is going, every taxpayer is required to account to the CRA where their money is going etc. etc. In each case, the person reporting is required to be honest, forthright and use generally accepted accounting principles to convey their information. We are not talking about some outrageous concept or outlandish and onerous principle...it is daily f-ing life...those who hold other people's money are required to fairly and accurately account for it. The government's deception regarding the cost of the gun registry is an affront to our political system and an unforgiveable breach of public trust. No party should be let off the hook for such transgressions by the mere stepping into opposition of a minority Parliament for a few months. Barring a similar bout of fraud by another government, this issue should translate into a decade of Liberals watching from afar trying to RE-EARN the public trust...you don't get it just because you put your name on the ballot. FTA

I'm sorry, it is not racist to highlight the truth that Jamaican immigrants in Toronto and Asian gangs in Calgary are problems which may very well be unintended results of our muticulturalism policies. Racist would be to say something like "Asians are drug-dealing scum" when clearly not all Asians fit that description. Why is it that by and large Canadians demand their politicians be buffoons, people who couldn't be successful in their own life, people without ethics, and when anyone comes along who might not fit the mould we attack them until they quit out of disgust or the media convinces the public that the person is sheer evil? Again, our country is being choked from reaching its potential due to pathetic partisan rhetoric. God forbid we have a successful and highly respected businessman who calls things as he sees them, even if his view is unpopular, heading a committee to ensure that government appointments are based on merit and not patronism...how could we ever live with such tyrrany?! Damn, there I've done it again, I made a reference to God...there goes any hope I might have had for a career in politics. And I can throw the criticism around evenly...why pray tell is it a huge black mark that Mr. Ignatieff is a Harvard professor?! There may be reasoned arguments for or against him as a viable Liberal leader, but being a Harvard professor is impressive and ought to give him a huge leg up in the minds of Canadians who are looking for good leadership in government. Damn, I said "pray"...I guess I'll never learn... FTA

Your credibility is very much on thin ice when you make very broad generalized statements that don't stand up to scrutiny. I am currently bringing in $60,000 per year and would hardly call myself "wealthy". My wife stays at home with our 2 1/2 year old and 4 month old children, and when logged as income in her hands, we will get 100% of the 2,400.00 per year coming to us. Of course I can only speculate, but I am relatively confident that there are thousands of other Canadian families in exactly the same situation as ours. As for the sport tax credit, I'll give you that those families going to the food bank will not benefit from this, BUT, I again venture to say that thousands of kids will actually be playing sports like soccer or baseball (which are relatively inexpensive compared to hockey or football) as a result of this tax credit where their parents otherwise couldn't pay the sign-up fee...and these are far from "wealthy" families. Why arm border guards? Because a guard who runs away from his post is guarding nothing. And who decided we don't need military recruitment because we are "supposed to be keeping the peace". Afghanistan hardly represents the first time Canadian soldiers have been active in military theatre in other than a peacekeeping role. Whether you agree or not, we are not just peacekeeping right now, and so we must properly approach our military deployments to minimize risk to our soldiers...which includes not over-extending deployments because we have no other soldiers to rotate with. There may be valid criticisms for the budget, but you have to work a little harder if you want what you say to be taken seriously. FTA

Hold on a minute newbie and betsy... Both of you are saying that the registry is wrong because it is further punishment after an offender has already served the punishment that society has deemed appropriate...this is wrong. The requirement to be registered is actually part of the statutorily proscribed punishment for "designated offences" by way of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and s. 490.012 of the Criminal Code. Society, through Parliament has dictated that these offenders need to be in a registry in addition to any other punishment they get, unless they can establish that they should be exempted from such registration. As with any other offence, the offender is deemed in law to know the consequences of committing the crime, and one of the consequences includes being registered. The wording of the section compelling the court to order registration shows that this is not a punishment added on after punishment is served, it is punishment given together with the specified sentence: A court shall, on application of the prosecutor, make an order...requiring a person to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act...as soon as possible after it imposes a sentence on the person... Also, the wording of the exemption section goes a long way to demonstrating that the registration requirement has not been imposed without much consideration of all of the competing interests to ensure a fair and just scheme: The court is not required to make an order...if it is satisfied that the person has established that, if the order were made, the impact on them, including on their privacy or liberty, would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society through the effective investigation of crimes of a sexual nature, to be achieved by the registration of information relating to sex offenders... Registration is no more an unjust ad-hoc punishment than the actual jail sentence itself for these sexual crimes, and there is a 100% fool-proof way to prevent yourself from being in a sex-offender registry...don't commit sexual crimes. FTA