FTA Lawyer

LOL... Okay, I'll stop trying to cross-examine you...but only because you otherwise agree with my suggestions... FTA

People who choose not to vote give up their right to complain about anything politicians do.I think the original poster is doing the right thing: if enough people spoiled their ballots (let say 20%) then it would become the story of the election - the politicians would like to ignore it but it could trigger a national discussion on voting reform. Simply not voting will change nothing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I guess the idea of spoiling your ballot in protest is not so bad...but the poll question is whether or not eligible voters should be fined or jailed for not voting. It's one thing if you are making an informed and principled decision to spoil a ballot as a form of protest...but people showing up in masses to spoil ballots (or worse yet to vote for someone when they have no clue what they're doing) just to avoid a fine or jail might make the stats look better, but would hardly improve the state of our democracy. That's why my vote is a "NO". FTA

Well, you know then that I would have followed your "answers" with a pointed... "So your answer to my questions is Yes?" and then you would say "Yes"...without the spew. And no, I don't agree that casting a ballot for a party makes it "my party". I am not a member of the CPC...even though I was once a member of the then Canadian Alliance. My views are not endorsed by the CPC, nor in fact do they accord with the CPC on many issues (e.g. I was in favour of the Liberal bill to decriminalize marijuana). In many ways, this my party vs. your party mindset is what is wrong with Canada's system. If the Liberals enact a sensible law, the Conservatives almost routinely oppose it because it is a Liberal proposal...and vice versa. Everyone wants to say that anything coming out of an NDP mouth means bankruptcy for the country or that anything coming out of a Bloc mouth means the end of Canada. We need to get beyond this ridiculous, childish fighting if we want to truly see our country achieve what it can, economically, socially, etc. Whether Trudeau screwed things up with the Charter or whether Mulroney is to blame for the GST or whether some past NDP leader whose names escape me proposed something economically stupid...has nothing to do, in my view, (and contrary to almost everyone on this board's view apparently) with what Harper will do or Martin will do or Layton will do. There is no reason that a debate about the merits of Harper's baby bonus plan vs. Martin's universal state daycare plan should be pitting long-gone administrations' records against each other. I'll admit, my post about Liberal failure over 12 years to implement a plan comes perilously close to falling into the trap...but the point I was trying to make was an assessment of Martin's plan versus Harper's, and which one is most likely to be 1)implemented and 2)successful. So if we can, I propose that we go back to that topic, minus the pure bickering about who is the worst historical party in the country. FTA

Well, you've proven my point 100%...you can't actually make non-partisan statements, nor can you respond to a simple question. One of the arts of trial tactics is to let someone on the stand hang themselves...which you've done. If I ask someone to agree that the capital of Alberta is Edmonton, they'll either agree with me or look foolish. I asked you if the Liberals have promised a national day care program over the past 12 years...your answer, instead of yes or no is that "Childcare has never been on the Conservative agenda since Mulroney dropped it". I asked you if there is a national day care program in Canada at present and your answer is that Canada is "dragged" by "excessive Provincial powers" and that a Conservative government would make such a programme "unaffordable". I suppose the capital of Alberta is now Lethbridge? FTA P.S. The CPC is not "my party", nor do I suggest the Liberals are "your party"...such terminology is true partisan discourse. I will vote CPC this time because of a number of factors that I am hopeful they will implement from their platform, including the baby bonus concept. Vote any way you like, the Liberals have promised national daycare over the past 12 years and we don't yet have it...fact.

Well, I'm glad we agree that young people should not have permanent criminal records for simple possession but it remains the case that they do. As you know, even a pardon won't erase that record as far as US authorites are concerned. Yes, not smoking marijuana is one solution. It's a solution perhaps as effective as not drinking alcohol was during Prohibition. Another solution is to vote for any party other than Harper's party. The NDP, BQ and Liberals support decriminalization whereas Harper has said he won't re-introduce the decriminalization legislation tabled by the Liberals. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you for the rational discourse on my last post Norm...it unfortunately is all too often the exception and not the rule on this board. If the #1 issue for you or any other voter is the decriminalization of marijuana, then absolutely, you should not vote CPC in this election. In reality, I suspect for the majority of Canadians, their votes will be determined by other issues, irrespective of any party's position on marijuana...but that's just my opinion. And I only pause to reiterate my point...no matter who is elected, unless and until the law is changed, you ought to not possess marijuana...or if you do, don't come crying for sympathy about your criminal record if you get caught...it's a calculated risk that you take. Thousands of people have picked up criminal records while the Liberals have been tossing around the proposed decriminalization of marijuana...it's not a defence to tell the judge that proposed legislation might be coming into law soon... For any individual person who wants to keep their record clean, not possessing the illegal substance is a 100% effective solution...same as not possessing alcohol would have been a solution during Prohibition. FTA

Read the fine print: In other words, not before hell freezes over given the current constitutional stalemate. It sounds like a promise he can make without ever being obliged to deliver. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> BINGO! This is actually something that Martin has been consistent on. Right from his first interview with Peter Mansbridge after getting the job, Martin said he's totally in favour of Senate reform, just it has to be all or none...no baby steps allowed. Which, as you have pointed out means it will never happen in a Martin government. FTA

WHO should drop the partisanship? Mulroney isn't the CPC leader anymore. Let's assume every bad thing you have to say about Mulroney is correct...he hasn't been at the helm for the last 12 years. This is not a partisan argument, its a simple factual reality...the current governing party has been in control of the legislative agenda in this country for 12 years (less so in recent Parliament). They promised to implement a day care program...they are still promising. By your own statements, they had the necessary reports from the commissions for the entire 12 years. Unless there is in fact a national day care program in place, then arguing that someone else is responsible for its non-existence is the definition of partisan rhetoric. I don't want you to abandon the Liberal party, declare you'll never vote for anyone but the Conservatives and agree with everything I say, but objectively, to have any credibility at all, you must accept that national daycare is a Liberal promise made but not delivered over the past 12 years. And it is not an answer to the criticism to say "But Mulroney didn't do it either..." fine, I accept that as true...but the question is what did the current administration do for the portfolio (and the question for voters this time around will be...who will deliver on their promises if elected). So please eureka, just please admit two things: 1. The Liberals have promised national daycare over the past 12 years; and 2. Canada does not yet have national daycare. FTA

Actually, the law you are referring to is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), not the Criminal Code, and truth be told, canabis has its own category (Schedule II) separate and apart from all other controlled substances. Meth is found in Schedule III along with magic mushrooms, LSD and a number of other hallucinogens. Opium, cocaine and other similar-acting drugs are found in Schedule I. So, if your mythical pot-smoking kids were making their decisions about drug experimentation based on the provisions of the CDSA (as opposed to say peer pressure), then they would not be misled by the criminalization of pot into thinking it was okay to smoke crack. And, lets actually point fingers where they belong...if you want to "eliminate a primary source of revenue for organized crime" then don't illegally consume pot daily for 20 years. Quite simply, the only way for there to be a "black" market is for there to be a market at all. I for one happen to think that pot should be decriminalized but until it is, it is an illegal substance and you either 1) follow the law (and lobby for change if you want); 2) break the law and risk a criminal record; 3) choose pot over Canada and move to Amsterdam. I think the gun registry is total B-S, but I registered my guns and will comply with the bad law until it is repealed. You won't see me cry injustice for a gun owner who has willingly refused to register if he ends up with a criminal record for his actions. I will still think it completely unnecessary, but what I think does not dictate Canadian law. If we allowed people to pick and choose the laws they follow based on personal belief, we'd have anarchy and chaos. Do I think kids should have permanent criminal records for minor possession? No. Do I know how they can guarantee not to suffer such a consequence? Yes...don't possess pot unless and until it is decriminalized or legalized. Otherwise, smoke up at your own peril. FTA

FTA, I agree. Let's lower taxes and let people spend THEIR money on whatever the hell they want to, or have as many kids as they want to support. To be fair, did you not make the decision to have kids knowing full well you were being taxed at 40%? And didn't you decide to have kids anyway? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, but what I'm saying at this point is that if I get to choose between me paying to raise other people's kids via a state-run daycare program or me getting some of my previously taken money back so that it makes it easier for me to raise my own kids, I pick the second option...that's why the Conservatives will get my vote. It's one thing to help low-income people who cannot help themselves...it's another thing altogether to provide childcare to families who choose to put both parents into the workplace, while snubbing the families that choose to keep one parent at home. And obviously we are of the same mind in responding to the "popcorn and beer" comment that started this thread...the government should not be in the business of telling parents how to raise their children...we're quite capable of making our own spending decisions / choices with our own money. FTA

I would say definately not. If parents think find it too expensive to have kids why then do they opt to have kids? The choice to have kids is theirs alone so the fiscal responsibility should be theirs alone. This is true regardless if parents are rich or poor. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Renegade, No problem...quit taxing the ever-living hell out of me and I'll raise my kids famously without a damn bit of government benevolence...but don't take 40% of what I earn and then tell me that I make too much money to qualify for the fabulous Big Brother Day Care Program so have fun paying the bills...and by the way, don't complain because its your own fault for having kids in the first place. :angry: FTA

This is the precise argument that "deadbeat dads" (and less often moms) use to justify not paying child support. And the courts have repeatedly said "tough luck"...you can't put the money in a trust fund, you can't restrict how your former spouse spends...just pay the damn support. So, I guess the Liberal-minded on this topic are suggesting that we scrap that part of our legal system? Yeah...I didn't think so... FTA

And the point really is that the government has no business whatsoever telling me how to raise my children...so, it's wrong to set up a scenario that has huge economic incentives favouring one method over another. We pay for our daughter to go to swimming and gym classes and all kinds of "daycare equivalents" with respect to socialization...the only difference is either my wife or myself take her to all of these things, not a federally funded public servant. I really resist using inflammatory statements about communist ideologies, but on this issue, I don't see it any other way. Big Brother wants to raise my kids while both of the real parents are forced to toil away for the "public good". Can someone explain to me why I am being forced to fight this fight with the State? Why can't I be given funding to take care of (read responsibility for) my own family when everyone else gets funding for the government to do it for them? FTA

Anyone wanting to discuss child porn and its effects should really read the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Sharpe...it is a very well written analysis of the purpose behind the current Canadian law as well as the Charter exceptions that were carved out of the original legislation to ensure that it's coverage was not too broad. Here's the official link for searching SCC judgments: Supreme Court of Canada Judgment Search FTA

It is only public money after it has been taken from the individual who made it in the first place. Just don't take it from me, and I'll do what's best with it thank you. FTA

Currently, my wife and I are just making ends meet. We have a two-year-old and another baby due in February. Yes, I am a lawyer...but a young self-employed criminal lawyer...and I am currently bringing in $4,000.00 per month (before taxes). I have no benefits and no pension plan. Our family income was slashed in half after our daughter was born because we feel it is far better to raise our own children than to have a daycare worker do it for us. As it stands, we get totally screwed by the federal government...and would continue to get screwed by the Liberal plan. Stay-at -home parents are worthless in the Liberal's minds. My wife gets $18.00 per month from the Child Tax Benefit cheque...and income tax laws forbid her being paid a "salary" for taking care of our children and running our household. I will vote Conservative on this issue alone...and I guarantee I would not spend one cent of the $1200 per child on beer or popcorn. Now I accept that it is our choice to have one parent stay at home, but can anyone, Liberal or otherwise, explain to me why those who choose to seek more family income get a leg up while we just have someone stand on our heads? FTA.

I can't quite figure out why handguns and pot have been put in the same thread...the issues are completely unrelated. In any event, the thread appears to have developed more along the marijuana lines, so I put in my two cents on some of the comments: In Alberta, it has become absolutely commonplace for grow-operators to do jail time...and typically about 12 months worth for relatively "small" operations (my last grower client got 14 months for a 170 plant 3-stage hydroponic operation). Jail for grow-op For those who don't want to read the judgment, a quote shows the Alberta Court of Appeal's view on these things: As far as minor possession, jail is rare...and I have no reason to suggest that the stats cited are not accurate. It is not uncommon to see a $50 fine for a first offence. For those cases where jail is given for simple possession, it would not only be the amount that would be a factor, but more important would be the offender's past record, and whether or not he was on probation or bail at the time of the offence. No matter how small of a joint you have, if you've done time for drugs before, and you're in breach of court order not to possess pot, you may very well hear the cell doors clang behind you. The question of permanent criminal records is a valid one. Young people who get caught with a joint can have very disastrous long-term consequences and that is really the main reason for the push to decriminalize small possession. In Canada we have pardons for summary offences...but you must wait 2 years to apply, and it is taking about 2 years to process the request. During that time, most young persons will be travelling around the world, going to university, or starting careers...and until you have a pardon, every application form that asks about a criminal record must be filled in with a "YES". Also, the U.S. and some other countries do not recognize the Canadian pardon system, so even if you get your pardon, you may still have problems crossing international borders...and believe me, out of all possible convictions to have to disclose to a border guard, drug possession is a very bad one. The point really is...if you get a $50 dollar fine as punishment, how can we continue to regard simple pot possession as criminal? In Alberta, the lowest possible fine you can get for a traffic offence is $57.00...and most are more like in the $150 to $250 range...and there's no criminal record for traffic tickets... FTA

Scrapping the gun registry will in no way whatsoever act to "relax" gun laws in Canada, and there is no such suggestion in the Conservative platform. Before the implementation of the registry, Canada already had some of the most restrictive gun legislation in the world...which by and large had been in place since the late 1970's with the introduction of the FAC (firarms acquisition certificate) to license gun owners. I don't have the date of the implementation of the hand-gun registry, but it was in place for decades prior to the long-gun registry also. A ban on hand guns in response to recent gun violence in Toronto is like banning automobiles after a bad stretch of impaired driving cases. The idiot driving drunk is already disobeying the law...as is the thug shooting at people in the inner city. What possibly can be achieved by writing on a new piece of paper that re-confirms that it is unlawful to shoot at someone? Lawfully owned handguns are not a problem. Lawfully owned rifles and shotguns are not a problem. I'd like to see a stat where someone looks at every single gun-related crime and asks the offender whether they were in lawful possession of the gun the moment before they committed the crime...I can already tell you the answer will be no virtually 100% of the time. I've handled cases where guns have been involved in crime where charges were not even laid under the Firearms Act...so don't put all the blame on Defence lawyers Argus. The reality is that no matter what we try to offer as plea bargains, it is the Crown Prosecutor who decides to accept or reject a proposal. My point overall on this issue is that Martin et. al. could have used the entire budget of the long-gun registry and whatever money they propose to blow on a futile ban of handguns to employ people to find and destroy illegal guns that are in the country...and to stop the import of more. FTA

The Government of Canada has an up-to-date, chronological website where one can follow softwood lumber developments including NAFTA, WTO, appeals, decisions, etc. http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/what-en.asp I see no indication that there will or can be any further appeals to NAFTA. Five NAFTA panels have ruled in Canada's favour. If you have evidence of a pending or even possible further appeal to NAFTA, please provide it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good link. I'll concede I may not have been accurate about remaining NAFTA appeals...it appears from the link that the U.S. was making motions seeking clarification of the latest NAFTA rulings (as opposed to filing appeals). A delay tactic? Of course. Justification for us to impose illegal duties of our own? Of course not. In fact, the link does demonstrate my point quite clearly...a December 5, 2005 appeal ruling in the WTO going against the U.S. and then a December 6, 2005 announcement that the U.S. was cutting its duties. We'd look pretty dumb right now if we had just recently announced our plan to breach NAFTA in respect of oil and gas as a retaliatory measure... Of course the process is long, drawn out, and allows for stalling tactics, but that's the process...we've followed it apparently to the end, and now we can expect to see changes...like the December 6 announcement. Do we back off on our negotiations for return of the improperly collected duties? No...but we aren't going to do ourselves any favours by "hinting" that we'll slap tarriffs on oil and gas. FTA

Yup... Unless you are a member of the Canadian military you can't legally possess an operating automatic or "assault" rifle in this country. And even then, you can't own it, or take it home with you, you can just possess it on a CFB or where otherwise authorized for military purposes. Now the question of what an "assault" rifle actually is brings a little bit of grey area into things, but not really, because there is an extensive list of "prohibited" and "restricted" weapons. Most people cannot obtain legal authority to possess a gun that fits within either category. FTA

I was under the impression that 'breach of promise' has been deleted from the books as an offence. There used to be a lot of cases of it regarding 'engagements to be married', but as I hear that the courts will only deal with matters that are 'breach of contract' now. Would a 'class action suit' be possible? (for, say, false advertising?) Some of these 'election promises' are offering specific dollar values, and it would be easier to prove 'demonstrable loss' in these cases, possible even in the case of the Liberal's failure to abolish the GST. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I guess I should apologize because my last post was actually going off-topic. The private prosecution notion was only directed at situations of past conduct which could be potentially fraudulent...like the sponsorship scandal. On the issue of election promises made but not kept, I'd have to do some research to figure if any common-law cause of action could be made out. As far as I'm aware, you can still sue for breach of promise to marry if the circumstances are right, but the reality is that you will at best win a small fraction of the total cost you incur for running such a claim, so nobody does it anymore. FTA

eureka, You really missed the point...there are APPEAL PROCESSES that have not yet run their course...in NAFTA as well as the WTO. The reason for appeals is because sometimes mistakes are made by lower decision-makers. I can't say one way or the other...all I know is that if I was on the losing side...but I had appeals left to pursue that I thought I could win, I wouldn't be paying up either. FTA P.S. I didn't have a chance to read the paper but I think I saw a headline today saying that the US was "slashing" its softwood duties. Far from repayment of billions, but sounds like a great first step...

About all you can do is vote against them next time and make them pay for their dishonesty...which us Canadians are pretty poor at. I suppose you could lobby government to institute recall legislation like in California, but I'm not so sure that such a system actually leads to better government. You do raise an interesting point though...with the number of "political extremists" out there, I am totally surprised that no-one has tried to file a private prosecution for fraud against the Liberal Party following the Gomery Inquiry. Environmental protectionist groups have been using private prosecutions for years to attempt to gain control over issues of importance to their agenda...with mixed success. The process would be a nightmare for the Attorney General of the Province in which the private prosecution was started because convention dictates that the AG reviews all private prosecutions and by prerogative, stays those without merit and takes over carriage of the prosecution of those that are potentially valid. Maybe this idea has legs...who out there wants to pick up where Alan Cutler and Sheila Fraser and John Gomery left off? FTA

Ah yes, the intelligence and logic Martin demonstrates with this move is astounding... People who are breaking about 14 different laws by using a handgun to commit murders will be stopped with ease...by simply making it MORE illegal for them to do such acts. This is the same fundamental flaw of the long-gun registry...law abiding gun owners are not the ones committing the crimes...and those who are have already mastered the challenge of getting a hold of a gun illegally. The saddest part is that many big-city voters will blindly fall for this idiocy. I hate to be harsh, but James Rosko demonstrated with horrific clarity that you cannot prevent gun tragedy with firearms bans (i.e. Rosko was banned from possessing any firearm by provisions of the Criminal Code at the time he slaughtered four Mounties with a firearm...the ban didn't work so well did it?) It's political exploitation of the grief of a community at its finest (worst) for Martin to make this kind of announcement which any reasonable person can see has no hope at all of helping the problem. I guess we can hope that the leak of this announcement was a trial balloon and he won't actually go through with it once he gets some feedback...wishful thinking? FTA

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> If Harper is saying something and doing something about softwood lumber, please provide the evidence. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Everyone has missed the boat here completely...the only thing to be "done" about softwood lumber is to allow the appeal processes of NAFTA and the WTO to run their course. One of the only sane commentaries on this issue has come from former U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci. The WTO ruled in favour of the U.S., NAFTA ruled in favour of Canada...both rulings come with appeal rights / procedures. These are the treaties we have, so we have to follow the process. We cannot demand money be paid before final rulings are made...it's that simple. And to breach NAFTA as a way to force compliance with NAFTA is stupid. At least right now we can show the tribunals that we are in compliance and the U.S. is not. If we ever want to see duties refunded we can't put ourselves in a position where a tribunal can say...oh well, you guys are doing it too... And besides, what makes anyone think that the U.S. will just pay whatever we say they should for oil & gas? They won't. And before they are totally screwed due to lack of supply, we'll be long since destroyed due to a lack of an economy. Unless someone can tell me how we re-route our pipelines across the ocean to China, we'd best just do fair business with the U.S. on oil and gas. FTA

I agree...I have always thought it inappropriate that supporters of gun control / registration have routinely used this abhorrent incident to further their agenda. And at risk of turning this into an attempt to make a political point of my own, I will leave it at that... FTA