FTA Lawyer

I'm behind you 100% leafless. Freedom of speech and expression is THE cornerstone of democracy above all else. We must defend this or lose democracy. I'm a big backer of freedom of speech, but I do like the comment made by a young editor of a University paper (I think it was on CBC news) who decided not to print the cartoons saying, "just because we CAN print something doesn't necessarily mean we should..." I can't help but be very skeptical about the motives of a number of papers that printed the cartoons well after they first appeared...is this really about free speech or selling papers? Seems to me that anybody who is printing them now for the first time is just being sensational and not journalistic. I also caution those of us commenting to draw a distinction between violence / terrorism and valid protest. "Civil disorder" or disobedience based on Islam is in itself of the same protected content that protects the expression of the cartoons themselves. Burning Danish flags ought to be supported, burning Danish embassies condemned. FTA

As Larry the Cable Guy is currently in Calgary, my response is borrowed from his act... I don't care who you are...THAT'S FUNNY right there... FTA

He's probably been convicted of a number of traffic offences also...hardly cause to preclude him from being a Justice Minister. FTA

Can't help you with that, sorry. I don't think the federal govt should be involved in day care as some sort of social beneift/program. In fact , the feds shouldn't be involved at all and ity has zero to do with partisan politics. Simply put, having children is a matter of personal choice. I chose to have mine, and I accept all that comes with that choice- and that includes some financial sacrifice. I don't see any reason why my government or fellow citizens should subsidize my personal choices. I am willing to help pay for child care for those who are in tough situations not of their choosing: single parents, welfare people and so on. Otherwise - no. I can't really argue with you on that. FTA

I repeatedly hear from various critics that the $1,200 child care payment will scarcely pay for a month of daycare for many Canadians...so we need to have the type of national programme as proposed by the Liberals in the last election. The question I have is, how much money per child under six would the Liberal programme cost? And as a follow-up, you people understand that the Federal Government only has money when it takes it from us in the first place right? "Government money" is actually YOUR money that never made it into your bank account...your employer skimmed it off (I'd say the top, but really, it's the middle and part of the bottom too) before you ever saw it. Somehow, we think that if the service is being provided to us by the Feds that it is free...it's a glorious "social programme" that costs nothing and helps everyone... If it takes the average Canadian $10,000 per child to provide childcare, then it will take the Feds at least that...even if we assume zero beauraucracy. And that $8,800 difference is made up by...you guessed it...US!! Now, I get that social programmes are a way to redistribute wealth, to make sure we don't get an ultra rich and ultra poor polarity in society, but I guess I'm saying enough is enough. The programming that I get in exchange for the amount of taxes I pay is ridiculously insufficient, and if I don't want to burden the state with raising my kid, then why should I pay for everyone else's childcare as well as my own? Right now I get $0 in government assistance for childcare (oops, I lied, my wife gets $18.00 per month from the Child Tax Benefit)...under the Liberal plan I would get $0...under the Conservative plan I get $1,200.00 to use as I see fit to raise my kids. I am not an unenlightened red-neck who wants to stamp out the unfortunate of society, but can anyone make the case to me for why I should want national daycare that does nothing for me but uses my tax dollars over getting some of my own tax dollars back? And PLEASE...I really don't want a "Conservatives rule" vs. "Liberals suck" vs. "NDP will bankrupt us all" bunch of crap. I really want someone to, in a non-partisan way, make the case for why I should not be happy with the proposed $1,200 per kid. FTA P.S. My $1,200.00 in Ralphbucks is going into RRSP and RESP...not beer and popcorn...and no-one has convinced me that wasn't a great idea! Long live King Ralph!

There are several questionable points here but the most serious is that this is not a legal question, it is a political question. FTA, you don't seem capable of making that distinction. That has happened. Bombardier has just cancelled a project for which it received government subsidies. None of those subsidies will be returned to the taxpayers, yet the money was never used for purpose that it was given.Your arguments make make it seem so simple and so black and white. It's not. One political party should be very cautious in accusing another political party of a crime. The reason we have democracy is to provide an ultimate judge of politicians. Courts cannot and should not fulfil that role. Given the recent election results, if need be, Harper should issue, if possible, some kind of pardon. I never said anything about charging the Liberal Party with a crime...I said, if the LPC has ended up with $ that doesn't belong to it, then the current government has an obligation to the people of Canada to bring action to get it back...I only gave the law on unjust enrichment as the ideal way (in my view) to get any such money back, without having to fly off the handle and accuse people of crimes. I get the political question, and my argument is that the politically appropriate thing is to keep hammering away at the message of ethics and accountability in government...starting with doing whatever possible to get our money back (if in fact the LPC has some of it). It is absolutely routine (in fact it is now legislated as mandatory) in personal injury cases, for example, for the Government of Alberta to add itself as a Plaintiff and sue for recovery of health care costs that it has to incur as the result of the negligence of the Defendant...and why the hell not?? If a Liberal candidate actually took a hundred bucks out of your wallet and used it for campaign signs, I suppose you'd just say, "oh well...he won't get my vote...and I'm not calling the police because this is politics"?!?!? I repeat, in my view, there is absolutely no reason that the Federal government should not pursue all available legal remedies to recover losses it can prove it suffered at the hands of the LPC. FTA P.S., as for a "pardon", your suggested inaction is all that would be required.

The difference is that you can actually be principled and ethical in leaving a party to sit as an independent as opposed to switching sides and...oh, look, I get a huge PERSONAL BENEFIT from my shenanigans...now how did that happen? My vote is a resounding NO to switching parties. FTA

There is no such thing as a preterm fetus that can live by itself outside the womb (i.e needs nothing more than food and water). Preterm fetuses require extraordinary medical intervention and must live in an artificial womb (a.k.a incubator) until they are viable. In many cases, preterm babies have nothing to look forward to but a life with multiple severe disabilities. As a result, some parents (with the co-operation of medical professionals) choose to let nature take its course and provide only food and water to the baby. Whether that is an ethical thing to do or not depends entirely on your religious convictions.Which brings me back to my original point: there is massive grey area between conception and birth where a fetus becomes human. WTF does this have to do with jail sentences and bail conditions for violent crime????!!!!????!!!!???? Start a new thread. FTA

This is a bit lengthy, but here is what the unanimous SCC said about prison as punishment in its 2000 decision called R. v. Proulx (interpreting the 1996 amendments to the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code): I'd be all for the lock 'em up and throw away the key approach...if it worked...BUT our own experience and the majority of available science says it doesn't. FTA

geoffrey, Thank you for getting my point and trying to explain to others what I am actually saying! Army Guy, We do not really disagree...we've just crossed wires somehow. What we both agree on is: 1) Prison is harsh for most prisoners; 2) It is supposed to be; 3) It's okay that it's harsh, and maybe there should be even less privileges; geoffrey's summary of my point hopefully clears things up...people often go around spouting how good prison life is because of privileges like cable t.v., free libraries and gyms etc. and all I am saying is that no matter how many privileges one has, if they have no freedom, life isn't so grand...and yes, it's not supposed to be if you've committed a crime...I don't advocate changing that...just trying to make sure people like Spike22 get the alternative viewpoint. Spike 22, 99.9% of Crown Prosecutors (figure of speech...no I don't have actual stats) have never seen the inside of a prison either, so citing the viewpoint of my "opposition" really only helps to demonstrate my point. All I can say is that knowing what I know about life on the inside, there is no amount of "privileges" great enough to ever convince me that I'd be better off in jail than out...and in my opinion, those who have seen both sides of the coin will almost unanimously agree with me. FTA

What i was trying to say here is that if ONE prisoner is being treated the way our media has pionted out then that is "one" to many, are you denying that thier are no Prisoners in Canada being treated this way. If your trying to provoke feelings of sympathy for these convicts, your talking to the wrong guy. Although i've never been to prison ( except the kingston riots) , i do know what it is like to have your freedom severly curtailed. I served in Kubul Afgan in the early stages when the camp was just being built. we slept in Recce tents (small pup tents 2 to 3 men per, smaller than your 6x8 cell), with an air matress on the ground, No showers for days sometimes a week, in temps over 50, The men and women that serve our country got along just fine, there were no stabbings, beatings or bending over your roommate. We acted like civilized people in conditions that are much worst than any maxium security prison here in Canada. Your protrayal of the prison gaurds as uneducated thugs is a little much. Perhaps a couple days in thier shoes would change your tune. Random inspections are done for a reason, to ensure convicts obey the rules that have been set out by the courts. IE no drugs, wpns, etc. If the convicts were as sweet as you prtray them then why would there be a need for searchs. As for strip searchs there must be a cause to order a search. And if there is no cause then you as a lawyer should do something about it. NO the bottom line is this, if our tax dollars are being spent on luxery items such as cable,dildos, etc, those tax dollars would be bettrer spent on additional homeless shelters, tax breaks for low income earners, basically anything that would improve the lives of those that have chosen to obey the law. Bullshit, my 3 year son knows what is right and wrong, he knows exactly what he can do or what he can not. and he knows the punishment. So you are telling me that an adult does not already know the consequences, that they don't know right from wrong. Again bullshit, tell the SCC to do thier research in a military prison, ask them how many reoffenders they get. not to many. Ask anyone that has done time in a military prison would they do the crime again. These soldiers that come back to thier units from prison are model soldiers. Why is that. To sum-up i understand your piont, prison is not a fun place to be. But those convicts have chosen thier plight in life ,well most have, and now there are paying the consquences. what concerns me is that there are Canadians here in Canada struggling to make ends meet ,to feed thier families,put a roof over thier heads etc and doing all this and still obeying the law. And these convicts have a roof over thier heads are feed 3 square meals a day, have access to books, tv, schooling, medical and mental care. all this on our tax dollar. How many times do I need to say...I'm not saying feel sorry for prisoners??????? That should hopefully answer your question about whether or not I am trying to "provoke feelings of sympathy for...convicts". I won't deny that there are some prisoners getting special treatment in Canada, and I won't criticize your opinion that one such instance is one too many...the point I keep making is simply that you cannot easily quantify what it means to have no freedom. Your example of being in Afghanistan means you understand better than most how important physical and mental freedom is, but it is not quite the same as the "loss of freedom" that I am talking about. I am particularly proud of our military, and I don't for a minute minimize your comments about how admirably our troops perform in deplorable conditions...and I absolutely agree that the conditions you describe are a thousand times worse than the physical conditions any inmate will ever see in Canada. BUT...performing the duties of your chosen career in a voluntary military with a professional team of other civilized members doing the same thing as you is not the same as being physically and forcibly confined to an institution with a bunch of others who are there because they can't coexist in normalcy either. Again, don't feel sorry for these inmates, but I have always hated it when people try to compare prison scenarios to military ones because it is extremely offensive to the soldiers...who by and large are some of the best citizens we have...so why would someone think that they wouldn't demonstrate excellent ability to endure tough conditions?...and why would someone expect that prisoners would ever be able to demonstrate the same type of integrity? Anyway...moving on... My father-in-law is a deputy warden of a Federal Penetentiary with 30 years as a corrections officer...I do know a bit about what its like to be in the shoes of a guard. I fully understand the need for random searches and other various losses of rights that inmates face...I'M NOT ARGUING AGAINST SUCH THINGS!! I am again just pointing out the side of prison life that no-one else, particularly in the media, cares to make mention of. As to "cause" for strip searches...in theory you are right, but the cause of security and protection of life is omnipresent inside a prison, and so too is the ability to conduct strip-searches. If you don't believe me, the regulations that tell guards what the boundaries are for Alberta provincial jails read in part as follows: 10(1) An inmate may be searched on admission to an institution and at any other times as the Director may require. (2) A search may be conducted in any manner as the Director may direct. Pretty broad latitude. As far as recidivism...maybe the SCC should look at some military prison research...don't really have any insight to add on this point. Thankfully, your final paragraph underscores the point I am making about loss of freedom. In spite of the 3 squares a day and books and warm beds etc. that prison offers, people virtually always choose the struggle to make ends meet in freedom over getting their needs met while in custody. FTA

I'm in prison regularly as presently 95% of my practice is crminal and appellate law. Recently, I have been involved with a high volume of cases where I act for inmates facing internal disciplinary hearings for breaking rules while in jail. I also have a current case pending for a Queen's Bench judicial review of the treatment of an inmate at the Calgary Correctional Centre. I consider my opinion to be a relatively well-informed one. I repeat, I'm no lefty when it comes to crime and punishment (in spite of being a criminal defence lawyer), and I'm not losing any sleep over the fact that conditions are harsh for most inmates. All I am saying is that conditions are harsh for most inmates and the notion that prisoners have a more comfortable life than people on the outside is largely fictitious. Go to any large urban centre and look at the number of homeless people living on the streets or in shelters...the numbers are often staggering. Many of these same people have seen the inside of a jail or two in their day, and if it was as good as so many Canadians seem to think (becuase they don't use chain gangs anymore) then all of those people would be on the inside...not barely surviving on the curb-side. Freedom is totally taken for granted by those who have it and disparagingly unattainable for those who have lost it by committing a crime...and the lack of the "luxuries" of prison is of no consequence to a street-dweller because he has the far more valuable asset of being free. Sorry if I got a bit tangental there, but I'm just trying to give perspective to those who assume that a few privileges automatically mean that prison life is better than the ones the rest of us lead. FTA

I'm not saying feel sorry for prisoners...I'm quite content with the notion of doing the time if you do the crime. What I'm saying is that many people have a totally screwed-up media-driven view of what it is like to be in prison. You have no idea what it does to a man to be held against his will and to have his every movement dictated to him. Even if you were in a nice hotel room with cable t.v. you'd be surprised how bad that can be when some uneducated thug gets to randomly come in and ransack the place, strip-search you forcibly, tell you where to go, when to do it, how to do it, with whom you can do it etc. Add to this the constant watching over your shoulder for other inmates and all the Seinfeld in the world won't make you like prison. Bottom line is, having cable and a dildo hardly equates to being "treated better" than alot of law-abiding citizens...its simply not true. Prison f-ing sucks (as it should) despite what those of you who have never set foot inside one might think. And by the way, you're really out of touch if you think more than one in 10,000 criminals ever sits down and weighs the consequences of his actions before committing a crime. That's why the SCC in Proulx took note of the research that tells us prison, no matter how "tough", really doesn't work as a method of deterrence for future situations. FTA

Sure have. That's the fund that, thanks to Klein's brilliant fiscal managment policies, has managed to "grow" from 12.8 billion in 1985 to $12.1 billion today. Whoops! The technical term for your last line is "sucking and blowing". If the Heritage fund were being grown since 1985 then you'd really be up in arms over your perception of the government's failure to spend on infrastructure, social programs etc. But since Klein hasn't unreasonably grown the fund, nor has he unreasonably liquidated it, you blame him for failing to grow it?!?!?! Face it, Alberta has a sound fiscal policy...it just doesn't accord with your view of the role that government should play in our economy. You are welcome to challenge what Klien has or has not done, but the initial question was why Alberta completely shut out the left, and the answer keeps coming back to you that the majority of Albertans are happy with Klien's policies because they seem to be working here just fine. Generally speaking, I don't want a day-care program or EI or CPP...I just want a bigger cut of my own damn paycheck and I will take care of myself much better than the government can. FTA

Okay... I'll accept that some of the privileges that seem to be afforded to inmates in Canada are unwarranted, but show me a person who opines about how good prison is and how much incentive there is to go there and I'll show you a person who has never set foot inside the perimeter fence of a Federal Penetentiary. If prison was as good as you say it is, then no one would be on welfare because they'd just keep committing crimes en masse. The vast majority of even the poorest of people know it's far better to go to a shelter or soup kitchen than to be kept in a 6 x 8 cell with one or more "roommates" of questionable character, with testosterone-filled guards looking to kick your ass whenever they can catch you ignoring their often arbitrarily enforced "rules" or looking to degrade you with a random strip or even body-cavity search, where assault and rape are more common than you'd care to believe, etc. etc. In my tenure as a criminal lawyer, I've never met an inmate who didn't want one thing above all others...to get out of jail. And, I've never had a client whose first worry and ususally first question to me wasn't, "am I going to go to jail for this?" For every one or two extraordinary instances that can be splashed in the media to make prison look like a spa, there are hundreds and hundreds of instances that demonstrate just how unappealing life behind bars really is...even in Canada. FTA

To the extent that public money wound up wrongfully in a bank account belonging to the Liberal Party of Canada, then the party should unquestionably be sued for its return. It really doesn't matter how it got there or who passed the actual cash-filled envelopes. The law of unjust enrichment states that compensation should be ordered where there is 1) an enrichment (to the LPC), 2) a corresponding deprivation (to the public purse), and 3) the absence of a juridical (lawful)reason to not order compensation. This is a made-to-order area of the law to address such a breach of trust by politicians. If your local MP misappropriated budget funds and they ended up financing his wife's new company, no one would even think twice about suing the MP, his wife, and her company to get the money back. There is absolutely no reason to balk at such a process just because it is bigger in scale and the "company" is actually a political party. This concept of compensation for unjust enrichment is totally separate and apart from laying blame...in either the criminal or the civil sense. If the Liberal Party has money that they did not obtain lawfully it must be repaid...it's that simple. Whether anyone will go to jail or not, we'll just have to keep an eye on the criminal trials. Parliamentary privilege prevents MP's from suing each other for saying nasty things in the House of Commons...it hardly has any application as a protection for breach of fiduciary obligations or fraud against the Canadian public. If the consequence of forcing a political party to repay money they stole from the taxpayers is to wipe out that party then so be it...don't steal and you need not worry about such grave consequences. FTA

Alberta has a fiscal policy? You'll forgive my surprise. I've been left with the impression that spending decisions here are made on a purely ad hoc basis and are based more around ensuring perpetual Torydom than creating any lasting legacy. Have you heard of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund? As ad hoc as things like energy rebates and "Ralph Bucks" appear to be, we have the freedom to do such things because we have billions of capital dollars stashed away in a rainy day fund that is set to make over a billion in income this year alone: Heritage Fund forecast to earn over $1 billion in investment income in 2005-06 Second Quarter Update November 16, 2005 Heritage Fund Let's see...save for the future...don't spend if you can't afford it...make tax environment appealing to business...etc. Sounds like a stable, conservative (and proving to be very successful) fiscal policy to me. That's why I vote for Klein, and why I reject the left on the Federal level. FTA P.S. My family will make the most of our $1,200.00 in Ralph Bucks...now if only "Harper Bucks" can get pushed through for my now two children under 6...I'll be looking at plenty of beer and popcorn!

Congratulations Greg! My wife and I had our second arrive on January 17, so I know full well what you will be going through...I promise I'll stay out of trouble. FTA

He's not sworn in until Feb 6, so don't be too sure we soon won't be singing the Star Spangled Banner and producing passports on demand of armed Canadian National Guardsmen...I mean, it must be going to happen because the left has been telling us so for years!! FTA P.S. Heil Harper!

Well put. FTA

Speaking out about things that are bad in your country (when you feel they could be better) is called free speech in a democracy...it doesn't mean you hate your country. On the contrary, many of Harper's comments can just as easily be construed as a true patriotic Canadian merely longing for something more deserving for our citizens. My grandfather talks about the whole country going to hell almost every day...not because he's a Canada-hater, but because he lived in a Canada that was very different (and in his mind better) than the one we have today. Ironically, this exact concept is occurring for the Liberal Party right now...a number of Liberal candidates have gone on record saying they are disgusted with the Party for running these attack ads. One candidate refused to wear red for a while to show her disdain. Are these candidates Liberal-haters? No, they do this because they are disappointed in their colleagues and are expressing their points of view. Remember, freedom of expression is actually one of the things protected by the beloved Charter...and people are allowed to express things that you don't buy into. No wonder things like health-care and democratic reforms are stalled...because anyone who criticizes the status quo is branded a "Canada-hater". If you ask me the more dangerous thing is to surround oneself with a big pile of "yes-men" for too long, because then you never have to consider that something you do might not be the best and only option. (PM PM are you listening??) FTA

I formed that conclusion about you long ago eureka... FTA

This is why I wholly dismiss 'blogs'. There is no credibility whatsoever, no one with a reputation to lose for 'getting it wrong'. It is like reading news in the National Enquirer. Plus, many of them can't be bothered to spell properly. from your second link... That being said, there is a similar potential case with the a candidate-cum-smuggler that has been ostracized from their party. Are people like this able to keep running on the party ticket, or must they now run as 'independents'? I would think that hte party itself should be able to sue for false representation or copyright infringement, or something. At least a cease and desist order, anway. thelonius... Seriously man, you can't rake somebody over the coals for bad spelling and then not proof-read your own post...I think "the" is spelled t - h - e. But really, your faux pas is I'm sure a typo just like the source you tried to criticize...take a look at what letter is beside the "v" on your keyboard...no, on the other side...that's right...a "b". Perhaps "brivery" was an honest mistake and not supportive of "hte" shot you wanted to take at 'blogs'. FTA

As an Albertan born and raised I feel it's my duty to say that the west needs to quit whining about the Liberals for things that happened 30+ years ago. My conservative MP sat securely on the back benches behind Brian Mulroney and had as much pull as his predecessor who sat far behind Robert Stanfield in opposition. My current MP will move from the back benches on the opposition side to the back benches on the government side. I find it humourous that people here think that things are going to change if the Conservative party forms the government this time around. Your point is well taken, however, I do think that if elected Stephen Harper will actually implement some of the democratic reforms that he has been pushing for since he was an underling to Preston Manning. Don't forget, Harper was in Ottawa twice before becoming the Leader of the Opposition, and both times he left because he was disgusted with the status quo of our Federal government. Once positive democratic reforms become reality, particularly Senate reforms, then the West will start to feel like they have a much larger say in the direction of the country. I will remain cautiously optomistic. FTA

This paragraph would seem to weaken you claims of objectivity. You apparently expect the SCC to make overzealous decisions that parliament will have to rectify. As you presumably know, the SCC's authority runs to assessing if a particular law does or does not violate the Charter. They can not ammend the Charter in any way. We have a mechanism to ammend it. Yes it is slow and ponderous, principally because it requires majority support in most regions of Canada which is precisely what something as momentous as ammending the Charter should require. We also have a mechanism - one forced by political expediency and not favoured by the drafter of the original Constitution - to allow provinces to "opt out" of specific provisions by invoking the notwithstanding clause. We also have a mechamism (the federal ability to invoke the notwithstanding clause) which gives any federal majority government (and a majority these days is well under 50% of the popular vote) the ability to - in effect - erase any existing Charter provision at will. It would seem logical to me that if the Conservative party truly believes in greater regional autonomy they should welcome a move to abolish the ability of the federal government to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Clearly it gives the feds greater power than any province as they can strike out any provision of the Charter at will and this would take effect ACROSS CANADA. Provinces can only opt out of clauses in their own province. So again it comes down to "We got this power and we wanna hang onto it in case we want to go against the SCC in accordance with our particular political views." Comforting. Well, thank-you for making me re-read my own post...because the Notwithstanding Clause doesn't amount to temporarily amending the Charter...more correctly it amounts to temporarily suspending a particular protection in the Charter for a particular purpose. As for your first comment, I don't expect the SCC to be overzealous, but I KNOW that the SCC commonly prevents Parliament's will because what Parliament wants to do does create a Charter breach. In most cases, this is appropriate, and Parliament will be more than happy to make changes to ensure that Charter compliance is made out. However, there may very well be cases where the will of the Canadian people is so strong on a particular issue that they want a particular law passed in a particular form, whether or not it infringes upon someone's Charter rights in a way that breaches the Charter. In those situations, I want Parliament to be able to do the will of the people, "notwithstanding" what the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court say. It's not about weilding power in a partisan way to screw minorities...it's about protecting the democratic process to ensure that appointed judges do not trump elected legislators. Paul Martin's example of using the NWC for protecting priests from having to marry same-sex couples is a perfect example of why it is vital to maintain the clause. A preist in the situation would be on his way up to the SCC arguing that his Charter right to freedom of religion is compromised if forced to marry a same-sex couple and his religion is against that. The same sex couple denied a marriage would be responding that their s. 15 Charter rights are violated, because the only thing keeping them from getting married in the church where the priest resides is they are homosexual. Both parties have a perfectly valid complaint, and the SCC will be saddled with making a call...to choose one right over the other...either the priest has to marry them or he doesn't. For the sake of argument, let's say that the SCC does a thorough, fair and proper legal analysis and concludes that legally, the priest has to conduct the ceremony. Let's also then say that 96% of Canadians from all walks of life disagree with this decision, and MP's are being outright told by their constituents to set it right. Absent amending the Charter to somehow take away the couple's equality rights enough so that the SCC would have to then find in favour of the priest, the only way for the 96% of Canadians to be governed by the law the way they want it to be is if the NWC is there to allow the Parliament to simply pass a statute that says the priest doesn't have to marry the couple. THIS IS WHAT PAUL MARTIN SAID HE WOULD DO IF THIS SITUATION CAME ABOUT!! And I, as a conservative totally agree with his view on it. The NWC is not a tool of partisanship, that only CPC members want or can benefit from...it is a tool of democracy, that when used appropriately, is of vital importance to Canadians...that's why I started the topic to say that Martin probably hurt himself with this suggestion of removing it, and most political commentary and opinion polls would suggest that I was right. FTA.