FTA Lawyer

tml12, Maybe you can provide some insight then to a small "c" conservative who would vote for anyone who would just stop stealing from and lying to me... What will it take for voters like yourself to actually NOT vote Liberal? I mean a small sampling of the Liberal highlights include: Redbook promises broken...including immediate abolishment of the GST. Jane Stewart misplaces a BILLION dollars (that's a thousand million you know) at HRDC - she's not disciplined by the party...and she's re-elected?!?!?!? Liberals budget a couple million for the Gun Registry...and spend a few BILLION (and counting) without keeping Parliament in the know. Healthcare...hundreds of millions in studies...not a single identifiable action / policy change / initiative to implement anything of substance. Paul Martin vehemently pledges to reduce Western Alienation and promote democratic reform...then enforces strict party discipline on the "Gay Marriage" question. (Stephen Harper by the way allowed a free vote...and didn't punish those members of his party that voted against their official position...my Lord he's scarrrryyy!!!) ADSCAM - We'll see next month just what Gomery J. has to say... I'm sure other posters will add to this list, but I don't want to belabour the point. I'm not an old-timer, but cannot think of a time in history when RCMP investigations and criminal prosecutions related to a governing party have ever been so commonplace. The notion of the "scary Conservatives" is laughable. Much like a combat-hardened soldier who has actually been to hell and therefore is no longer scared of anything, Canadians should fear nothing ever again having endured the wrath of the ruling Liberals. Don't get me wrong, this is not just a Conservative vs. Liberal rant (although I traditionally vote on the right side of the table). Vote for some other party if you please, but at some point when you have been outright lied to and stolen from repeatedly, shouldn't you pull your vote? Truly, it's the only direct action you can take in a democracy to police politics. To bring this back to the topic here, what does it matter where Gomery specifically places the blame...the only thing no-one doubts is that he will find indisputable corruption. Isn't the fact that the only debateable question is WHICH government minister (including present or former PM's) will get the finger pointed at him the most and not IF a government minister will be implicated enough to conclude that we've got a problem requiring a change in government? As a member of a democracy, I cannot fathom casting a ballot in support of proven contempt for the system and its participants. No matter who benefits from the fallout of Gomery, don't all principled persons have to agree that the loser in the whole scenario MUST be the Liberal Party of Canada? Now, it may not seem like it, but if you can put together a logical explanation of why I should vote Liberal in the next election (despite the above) I could in fact be convinced...but It's gonna have to be pretty good to overcome the really bad taste I have in my mouth over all of this. FTA Lawyer

Pollution Watch is an activist group, so let the spin begin. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Stats are useless unless we know the underlying information. For example, if the U.S. was at levels of air pollution 2 times that of Canada to begin with, then a 45% reduction would still leave them way behind us. Using numbers that are completely made up, if Canada was emitting 100 units of air pollution per capita, and the US emitting 200, then after the quoted percentage reductions, US would be at 110, and Canada at 98.2. I'm not saying there is nothing to this story, but we need raw numbers, not inherently misleading percentages, if we want to really assess what is or is not going on. FTA Lawyer

I don't do these drugs primarily because they are dangerous...less so because they are illegal. BUT...I'm not so sure that when I was 18 (and invincible) it wasn't more because it was illegal. Worse yet...I was probably 14 when I first got ill drinking alcohol...without my parent's knowledge of course. If cocaine were offered to me at that same party simply because it was readily acceptable for cocaine to be out at a party I can't say I would not have taken it. I'm for legalizing marijuana, but nothing else for now. FTA Lawyer

I agree that the issue is anything but black and white. In fact, the singlemost concern with allowing euthanasia is that it opens a huge potential for abuse of the most weak and vulnerable in society. For the clear-cut case of a lucid individual who has made the decision to end their life, but has not the physical ability to do so, we can see how this may make sense. But what of the old ailing senior who would cling to their very last breath no matter how horrible it may seem, who happens to have a boatload of money and a kid or two who never really liked the old buggar anyway? Really...he asked me to kill him...honest...where do I pick up my cheque? Think this won't happen? Just ask estate litigators how frequently they deal with cut-throat family members who circle the dying parent like vultures. What of the child with cerebral palsy who actually gets a hell of a kick out of life (for what life they know) but has a single parent who simply no longer has the patience or the money to endure? Really, she didn't want to go on with such a poor standard of living...I'm her mom, I could see it in her eyes... The problem really does become where do we draw the line? And the "we treat animals better" analogy really doesn't fly for me. I'm from rural Alberta where you do in fact shoot your dog when he gets too old to get around without pain. My grandfather on the other hand got a hip replacement, arthritis meds and everything else we have to make him get by. I would hate to think that we would just "give up" and put him down in the future instead of fighting to keep him going. Human life has always been given a level of sanctity in our society that other life does not enjoy, and I for one think that we need to tread very cautiously before we just start making it easy to kill people because they "ask for it". FTA Lawyer

Argus, you're the last person I'd expect to be demanding more government regulation and less parental responsibility. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> IMT, You miss the point... Imagine the cliche "dirty old man" somewhere between 40 and 50 who has the most revolting standards as to what is "appropriate" sexual behaviour. Now imagine how hard this man would have to work to play enough mind-games to get a young teen to "fall in love" with him and to consent to entering his deviant sexual world...I suggest to you not very difficult... Now consider that unless the teen he preys upon (and make no mistake, he is being a predator) is 13 or less...there is absolutely no societal sanction against his behaviour. Ask the mentally demolished teen when she cannot have a normal relationship later in life whether she is applauding the government for not imposing some form of control in these situations. And really, parental control??? The very teens who are preyed upon and taken advantage of by these "dirty old men" are the ones who don't have stable home-lives. They are the perfect victims. Besides, the proposal is not really for more government regulation...we already have this very system in place. The suggestion is simply to increase the age before which we choose not to offer societal protection to our youth. FTA Lawyer

Perhaps the strongest policy argument against raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 is that it would place unprecedented limits on the sexual freedom of young persons. So? We put all sorts of restrictions on the freedom of young people, from curfews to not being allowed to drink, or drive or vote. Hence, proponents of such a change may be challenged to provide empirical evidence demonstrating that adolescents under 16 are being sexually exploited or, alternatively, that the incidence of pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases among that age group calls for an expansion of the existing prohibitions. Why? I think we can take it as a given that is bad social policy to have 14 year olds beig seduced by forty year olds. Is there empiracl evidence that says 12 year olds are being exploded? No? Then why is there a law against them having sex with forty year olds? How about ten year olds. Is there empirical evidence of ten year olds being exploited sexually and having a high incidence of pregnancy or STDs? No? Then why isn't it legal for them to have sex with adults? It must be noted that simply raising the age of consent to 16 would criminalize sexual activity between adolescents that is now legal. Nonsense. The proposed law would have allowed a four year window between partners. Thus a 14 year old could still have sex with an 18 year old boyfriend, but not a thirty year old boyfriend. I'll tell you about a kooky situation: It's where everyone falls all over themselves to criminalize any kind of pornography or even naked pictures or stories which involve people who are under 18 but then line up to defend allowing adults to have sex with 14 year olds. How nuts is that? We'll put someone in prison for up to 5 years for even visiting a web site which has pictures of a 17 year old naked, but we'll let them have sex with a 14 year old. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Argus has hit the main points dead-on here. I literally two days ago met with a 40 year old potential client who was convicted of making child pornography. In a nutshell, he took photos of a 14 year old girl in a hotel room. No sexual depictions or crazy exploitive fetish stuff or anything...just pictures. She's under 18, the photos are pornography, he goes to jail - 15 months. Arguably this is a good law. It sets the bar pretty high, and simply sends a message that we don't want to put anyone under the age of 18 at risk of the exploitive harms of pornography. The outrageous problem is that instead of taking essentially "harmless" pictures, had this 40 year old man had sexual intercourse with this 14 year old girl, it would have been 100% completely legal...state sanctioned. Admittedly, I did not read the private member's bill that was voted down due to the concerted efforts of our Justice Minister...but dare I assume it was not aimed at criminalizing what Mr. Cotler referred to as "puppy love". And if it was (intentionally or not) then AMEND it as necessary to ensure that old men are not having sex with 14 year olds, but that the 16 year old boyfriend is exempted. It's exactly how our law is currently structured...only the whole exemption provisions deal with 12 year olds. Yes...a 12 year old can legally consent to have sex, so long as their partner is less than 2 years older than them and there is no relationship of trust / authority / dependency. What a lovely thought. As for the worldly and wise 14 year old...they can have sex with anyone they want to. Now, of course, it has to be consensual sex...and coersion and deception can vitiate consent. But really, come on, are 14 year olds really in a position to properly evaluate and make a decision to have sex with a man older than their own father? Even if they can, do we want to sanction this behaviour in our society? And how do we reconcile this logical disconnect with the child pornography laws? I mean really...not to be graphic, but if the 40 year old who is having sex with a 14 year old (legally) takes a snapshot to honour the occasion, he has gone from law-abiding citizen to criminal facing a couple years behind bars? How can this possibly be? Go ahead and have sex with little girls, just don't take any pictures or write any stories about it. Does anyone defend this? FTA Lawyer

However, if you have as much as posession of a single joint on your record, you can forget being admitted into the "land of the free", just south of us.... Which, given the magnitude of the crime, in many circumstances is an unreasonable punishment... It could result in loss of employment with an international firm.... Inability to attend family funerals, etc.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Felony" and "misdemeanor" are U.S. terms, and they don't really properly translate across in these circumstances. In our system we have indictable (more serious) and summary conviction (less serious) offences. Many of our criminal offences are "hybrid" because the Crown can choose to proceed either way, depending on the facts and the accused's previous history. Decriminalization doesn't mean reducing from indictable to summary (as theloniusfleabag suggests with the felony to misdemeanor analogy). In fact, possession of 30g or less of marijuana is already automatically a summary conviction offence under the current version of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). These convictions currently lead to the criminal records and subsequent associated problems that err is talking about. Decriminalization means literally you would get a ticket if an officer catches you in possession (of what will likely be around 7g now...thanks again shoop). No criminal offence, no criminal record, no court at all (unless you dispute paying the fine and want to set a trial date). If found holding more than the prescribed amount, then you will still be charged and dealt with per the status quo in the criminal justice system. The whole point of decriminalization, therefore, is to recognize that: 1. Pot is not the horror drug the U.S. would make it out to be; 2. Lots of youth are being condemned with criminal records for an offence most people don't really see as an offence (i.e. smoking a joint) and therefore, are less motivated to avoid further criminal convictions; 3. Many citizens, across all demographics, are at risk of major repercussions if caught with a single joint...most of which are way out of proportion to the gravity of the "crime"; 4. The police and Justice system are spending WAY TOO MUCH time and money to "criminalize" otherwise law-abiding citizens for very minor possession offences. I'm still for full legalization (including regulation and taxation), but decriminalization may be a baby step that needs to be taken first so that opponents can ease into the idea. FTA Lawyer

Quite right that I don't smoke...but I do recall the reduction from the originally proposed amount due to U.S. pressures. It was a compromise position because the U.S. was pushing hard for Canada to scrap the whole idea. Rather than do that, they agreed to reduce the amount that would be decriminalized. My apologies for any confusion shoop...I have my hands full keeping up to date on enacted legislation...makes it pretty hard to keep track of all developments with "proposed" legislation. Thanks for pointing out the error. FTA Lawyer

Decriminalization means that possession of marijuana would still be "illegal", but would be punished by way of a small fine...like with a traffic ticket. Legalization would of course put it in the same status as alcohol...still some rules and regs, but otherwise fully legal to possess. Of course, the current position being put forth by the feds would be to decriminalize possession of only small amounts (under 30 g). Growing and trafficking would still be criminal offences. FTA Lawyer

I agree with that statement. Marijuana is either completely legal or illegal. No half measures that just provide easy profits for organized crime.However, I would like to see it legalized completely because I believe prohibition of marijuana makes it impossible to have sensible conversations with kids about the really dangerous drugs (because of the 'i know they are lying about dope so they must be lying about crystal meth' logic). That said, I agree that it is not a practical thing to do at this time because of the US political environment. I also have a theory about why marijuana may be a 'gateway' drug: have you ever gone to the beer store and been told by the clerk that you should try this coke because it is 'great stuff'? Forcing people to consort with drug dealers in order to get a product that is not particularly dangerous makes it infinitely more likely that they will try other drugs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I could not agree more with Sparhawk on this one...and generally speaking, the Senate Review Committee on Cannibis said the same thing. They recommended full legalization in part because decriminalization meant that you'd still have to be in contact with criminals in order to get your joints...plus, the criminals would still make their boatloads of cash with their illegal grow-ops, and there would continue to be absolutely no quality control aspect to greatly reduce the risks of getting some "bad shit" laced into your bud. One of the issues raised by the Senate Committee however, was the issued of "impaired driving" when the impairment was due to marijuana. The practical problem is twofold: 1. The impairing effects of marijuana are greatly increased when the individual also is drinking alcohol (i.e. the combination of the two is particularly troublesome and quite common) 2. There is no simple test for marijuana impairment like the roadside screening device and breathalyzer that we all know is used for alcohol. As I say, practically speaking, as a society, if we want to legalize marijuana we will have to develop something to fill this gap, because there is too much risk in having people stoned on yet one more readily available drug. FTA Lawyer

Well...pretty good...it took 5 pages before this topic became 100% partisan political rhetoric. Alas, it nevertheless became 100% partisan political rhetoric. Thanks to Argus and a few others for the meaningful debate. I too plan to vote Conservative with the hopes of breaking free of the status quo on a number of issues and we'll see where the chips fall. FTA Lawyer

Alright then, what are you prepared to DO about it? (Aside from this blog, which of course is something constructive towards advancing the debate and maybe bringing about actual change). And I make this comment to every Canadian, not just Argus...if changing the system is necessary...and it is a priority...then do something. While you and others posting here maybe correct that when asked for an articulation, many will take your side in the verbal debate...on my side is inertia and the fact that it cannot be nearly as bad or as much of a priority as we all say...or we would be doing not complaining (as we have for how many DECADES now?). The harsh reality is that in day to day life, most people are more worried about missing the next episode of Survivor, or getting their hair done, or going to an NHL game than trying to create or develop change in the healthcare system. I don't profess to align with Ralph Klien on many of his ideas, but this is one where I say he's got it right. If we all start from the proposition that healthcare is in trouble and it needs a re-design, then rather than debate, argue and quibble for 30 years over what will work or what won't, Ralph is just going ahead and making changes. History may prove his changes to be unsuccessful or even ill-conceived, but attempting something different is much better than simply sitting around and complaining while going on with a system that everyone seems to say is broken. And who knows, something he tries might work famously. As far as my original statement which started this topic, I guess I just count myself lucky for not having experienced the horror stories that others have. FTA Lawyer

By "your whiny family" I was referring to your story of the family that bitched so much because it was flu season, even though every possible step was taken to accomodate them". As to my "sore wrist", RSS can be a career ending injury when one's career depends on rapid keyboarding. That's total BS. We're not talking perfection. We're talking competence. A nine or ten hour wait is nowhere in the neighborhood of satisfactory by any reasonable measure. Like, in France, you mean? There are no rules guaranteeing speedy delivery and easy access, but the public demands it. Anne Durand, a French citizen who works in Montreal as a translator, says that if the French were made to queue and wait interminably for care like Canadians do, "there would be 10 million protesters in the street tomorrow." She says the French love their health system and are willing to pay top dollar for it because the care is not only rapid, but superb and intimate It's late Friday afternoon in the emergency waiting room at Lariboisière Hospital. Unable to sit still, Mathilde Huet springs to her feet. "Am I going to die of old age before I see a doctor?" she inquires to no one in particular. Her rant is cut short by a hacking cough. "It's shameful," she mutters hoarsely. Mrs. Huet, 67, slipped on the stairs of her apartment, landing hard. Minutes later, she was transported to hospital by the pompier-ambulancier, examined by a nurse, and in less than 10 minutes after her arrival, ushered into an exam room by a doctor. In France, the emergency room is for minor health problems like this one. Serious cases like trauma or strokes go directly to a specialized ward. Mrs. Huet's arm was bruised and cut in the fall, and she has an unrelated chest infection, but gets the full treatment: X-rays (negative), a dressing, and a prescription for painkillers and antibiotics. The whole ordeal takes less than an hour, but she is indignant. "The doctor should have come to my home. This is humiliating," she growls I'm not saying there is no room for improvement...there always will be. But medicine is an inexact science and when one considers the mammoth task of keeping every citizen in Canada as healthy as possible, so long as the person gets the treatment they need, the wait to get it is not necessarily inherently unacceptable. Andrepicard <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Okay...misunderstanding on the "whiny family" thing...my apologies. I can't speak with any knowledge of the French system...but I will note your comment that the French are willing to pay "top dollar" for their health system because it is "rapid, superb and intimate." I guess I'm saying that I don't really want to pay any more than we already do for our system because it seems to be taking care of me and my family quite well. And I would argue that the majority of Canadians agree with me on this point. No, I don't have any polls or stats...I'm just going by the fact that, in spite of all the political bantering about healthcare, I haven't seen 10 million or 1 million or 1,000 protesters in the streets rising up against the deplorable system. Again, I'm always willing to try to improve things where we can... I just don't think that the amount of criticism and the painting of a system on the verge of collapse is warranted. Also, the quotes that you have "surgically removed" from the article you cite are misleading. You leave an impression of the perfect system which provides everything we have and everything we lack. You leave out the other side which is in the same article in paragraphs like this one: In the government's own report card, it states candidly that France promotes access to health services rather than promoting health. The emphasis on access has also translated into duplication, waste and few cost controls. "It's a system utterly devoid of checks and balances," said Gilles Johanet, a former director of the state insurer. He estimates that spending could be cut by at least 10 per cent (15 billion euros) just by eliminating unnecessary duplication. The examples of excess are legion. By some estimates, the number of prescriptions could be halved. In Paris alone, there are 64 hospitals and clinics that do heart surgery; in the Netherlands, there are six. France has 500,000 hospital beds, at least 30,000 more than it needs. Jean-Pierre Davant, head of Mutualit française, an insurance company that sells supplementary health coverage, points to the plethora of operating rooms as proof of inefficiency. "On average, there are only two operations daily per operating room. Obviously there are far too many," he said. But with local mayors serving as chairmen of their local hospitals, the politics of closing institutions in France is even more complex than in Canada. And there is virtually no central control that would allow cutbacks even if politicians dared. "We have a system where rationing is non-existent, a taboo," said Philippe Georges, principal adviser to Health Minister Jean-François Matti. "Most systems have a codified set of rules, but the health system is like a factory where workers come in willy-nilly." Convincing ourselves that the system is "improved" if we have non-existent wait times but only due to massive excesses in unchecked spending is simply putting our collective heads in the sand...much like mindlessly spending billions of dollars on the gun registry...but that's another post altogether. And yes I am playing the Devil's Advocate a bit here...that's why I started the post off with the comment that I was trying to stir the pot. As for my final comment about your wrist being okay...I put it after the "P.S." because I meant it to be sincere and not caught up with the rest of the message...I hope it was not taken as a personal insult. FTA Lawyer.

My elderly mother is unstable on her feet. Three times she's fallen in the past three years, and clearly broken bones all three times. Average wait in ER before a doctor saw her - 8 hours. She has a urinary tract problem now which her doctor's pills aren't fixing. She'll get to see a specialist in two months. I have a brother in law who is a trades worker. He injuried his wrist badly. Rather than keep him waiting for months to get an MRI Workman's Compensation paid to get him an MRI in a private clinic in Quebec. Then he had to wait another couple of months before a specialist would look at it. I once hurt my wrist. I suspected it was a form of RSS but my choice was either to keep working at the keyboard or wait until I could see a specialist - in 3 months. Luckily, it didn't turn out to be RSS or I'd have been in trouble. But I wasn't going to take three months off work in case it was RSS and I aggravated my wrist. I don't care about your whiny family. I can give you a dozen more such exaples. Long waits for even routine services are not a matter of perception. You have no case, councellor. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Argus, Not quite sure of your logic in calling my family "whiny" when I'm saying we're not complaining about the system, and all you did in your post was whine...about such horrible things as your sore wrist. In fact, my case is probably summed up by YOUR whiny post...in general, Canadians expect perfection from both the healthcare system and medicine itself. This is simply unattainable. In a perfect world your elderly mother would not wait 8 hours in the ER to have her fractures fixed up...but it was a non-life-threatening injury (in spite of which she lived) AND she got fixed up...again without needing to mortgage her house. Would it be more pleasant to go straight through the door and into 1st place in line every time you are ill or hurt? Of course. Is that possible? Of course not. I'm not saying there is no room for improvement...there always will be. But medicine is an inexact science and when one considers the mammoth task of keeping every citizen in Canada as healthy as possible, so long as the person gets the treatment they need, the wait to get it is not necessarily inherently unacceptable. I had to wait one month to see a neurologist after an unexplained seizure when I was in university. Many like yourself would scream in outrage. I however choose to analyze like this: 1. I was managed on medication prescribed by an ER doctor duirng my wait (I won't even get into the background dollars behind the research and development of the medication that was simply there at the ready for me); 2. My life was not at risk during the month wait; 3. Had my situation become emergent I would have been put to the front of the line immediately; 4. I received access to a pre-eminent neurologist at the University of Calgary medical centre; 5. I was given CAT, EEG, MRI testing (again, tens of thousands of resource dollars); 6. The decisions with respect to above tests were made based on my need for such tests, without any consideration of what they cost; 7. I got the treatment I needed. Bravo again Canadian healthcare system... FTA Lawyer. P.S. For fun, ask your elderly mother...I bet she can tell you of times when a broken hip from a fall would never have even received attention from a medical doctor, let alone state of the art treatment in a hospital (albeit with an 8-hour wait). By the way hope your wrist is okay.

Obviously, I'm attempting to "stir the pot" with this topic...but I ask everyone in advance to please leave rhetoric aside in hashing this one out. It seems to me the issue is largely one of perception. Let me give you an example. A while back, a family in Calgary had a very premature baby born at the Foothills Hospital...where all high-risk births go for southern Alberta. It was during Christmas time and there was a bout of the flu that had taken out a number of the already reduced number of nurses on the unit. Now appreciate that in a NICU, the nurses are specially trained, and it is extremely vital not to come to work with even so much as a hint of a cold or flu...so the situation couldn't be fixed by nurses just "sucking it up" or bringing in some casual non-NICU nurses to cover. The family was outraged when they were told that their son could not stay there due to the staff shortage and went on a media blitz slamming the dilapitated state of our healthcare system. Everyone jumped on the "bash healthcare bandwagon" and went on an on with the kind of rhetoric I've asked be left out of this debate. The thing is, I was giving a standing ovation for our healthcare system because I was looking at the situation very differently. They were not told "sorry your baby will have to die", they were not forced to go to an ill-equiped alternative unit to cross their fingers and pray. No, as a matter of course a state of the art STARS air ambulance whisked their son hastily to the University of Saskatchewan Hospital NICU (U of A in Edmonton had no free beds) and they were taken by ground to meet him there. While in Saskatoon the family stayed at the Ronald McDonald House. The son recieved top notch care throughout and came out on the other end healthy and happy. The cost to the family, $0...(yes I know, healthcare premiums, user fees, Blue Cross benefits etc. rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric) The reality is that tens of thousands of dollars were instantly expended (and completely at the ready) to ensure that the best possible care and the best possible outcome would occur. No questions asked. And the amount expended by the family compared to that covered by the system is miniscule. One more example... My grandfather is now 86 years old. At 85 he was diagnosed with bowel cancer. He had immediate access to first-rate surgeons and specialists and an assessment was made that the potential benefits of surgery likely outweighed the risks and that he would likely get a significant improvement in quality of life. So, likely in excess of a hundred thousand dollars was immediately allocated (for the surgery and some 6 weeks of hospitalization)...again no questions asked. My grandfather is recovered now and back living in the farm house where he was born. Is he bankrupt? Of course not...his bill was, you guessed it...$0. (Yes, same as above rhetoric would apply here). Now consider that over the course of his lifetime, my grandfather has been treated and "cured" of prostate cancer, had a state of the art hip replacement, and open-heart triple by-pass surgery. If we lived in the U.S., the family farm would have been gone long ago, and maybe too my grandfather. So when people rave about the horrible system we have I can't help but have a slightly different perspective. Bring on the comments... FTA Lawyer

I guess we'll have to wait and see if the Crown appeals the sentence. Seems to me they have no choice if they want to be seen to be acting in the public interest. While I don't profess to know what might happen out there, back here in Alberta us criminal defence lawyers do our clients the worst disservice if we get them a sentence at trial that is way too lenient...because then the Crown appeals and the client is faced with the prospect of being re-sentenced by the Court of Appeal...and no-one wants to be sentenced by the Alberta Court of Appeal! He who laughs last... FTA Lawyer

Does anyone know the full terms of Mr. Coffin's Conditional Sentence Order (CSO)? I have not yet been abel to find them. If what has been reported in the mainstream media is it, then I agree it's way too leniant. However, I won't automatically agree that a CSO is a "joke sentence." In many cases, the terms of a CSO can be even worse for an offender than jail. For example, if an offender is in line for a 9 month jail sentence, for whatever crime, if he is a good boy in jail, he will be released after only 6 months, and will have little state-control over his liberty other than reporting to his parole officer. The same offender could instead be given a CSO of 2 years less a day with various conditions to control his behaviour for the entire term of the CSO like house arrest, curfew, reporting, attending treatment or counselling, random drug and alcohol testing, community service, and so on. The conditions are limited pretty much only by the imagination. And...if he breaches one of the conditions, the court can convert the CSO to jail time...for which he will receive no early release (i.e. he serves every day of the sentence, rather than 2/3 of a standard jail sentence). The benefits of a CSO are that, for a first offender, or someone with high likelihood of being rehabilitated, they can continue to be contributing members of society and can be hopefully groomed back into line for the eventual completion of their sentence. At the same time, the taxpayer does not have to pay for their residency in an institution. As for Mr. Coffin, I again say that for a CSO to be appropriate, it should have particularly onerous terms...and so far I have not seen terms that would fit that bill. However, I would be surprised if he was not ordered to repay the full amount of money he admitted to defrauding from the feds. And if not, he can still be sued for the remaining $500,000. As for what we know, the fact that he has already scraped and scrounged to repay $1,000,000 is pretty significant...he could have just said "come and get it" and played a game of hide and seek. Also, if his lectures to business schools prevent a new crop of entrepreneurs from taking their shot at the public purse...or better yet, motivate them to be whistleblowers when they see bad practices...then the taxpayer might get pretty good return on investment. Anyway, those are some of my initial thoughts on this. FTA Lawyer

I'm conflicted. Generally I agree that big government surpluses are wrong because it means they pillaged too much out of the hands of the citizens in the first place. So giving the money back is the right thing to do. On the other hand, I can see how the logistics of the whole thing are quite troublesome. For example, my sister-in-law just moved to Saskatchewan after living in Alberta for 28 years...tough luck for her I guess. How long will someone have to be a bona fide Albertan to qualify for the cash? Further, some pretty compelling arguments can be made by Health, Education, Justice and other provincial departments that they remain underfunded and that the public interest is best served if the money were given to them...once again, tough luck I guess. But when all is said and done, I (with my wife and daughter) could really use the $1,200.00 so I guess I'm on board. Long live King Ralph! FTA Lawyer

An all black high school as a solution to lack of recognition of blacks in the public school system? Seriously? Can people actually be this stupid and still remember to breathe? Will these schools be fashioned after the highly successful Aboriginal Residential Schools or the more enlightened model of WWII Japanese internment camps? Once these underprivileged (and now culturally segregated) kids graduate are they going to build all black towns for them to live in? Wow...

I have to agree with Burns on this one... Regardless of whether there are union ulterior motives here or not, the nature of the job dictates the officers should have sidearms. If some officers feel they don't want to be armed, then they may be forced to find other employment. I look at the court security officers known as "CAPS" officers in Alberta. There could be no more safe and controlled environment for a peace officer than one where everyone you deal with is already handcuffed and shackled. If ever a peace officer could be safe with only batons and pepper spray, I suggest this is the situation...but CAPS officers all have a standard issue 9mm Glock on their hip. Why then, would anyone consider it safe for a border-crossing officer, who is in the same random contact with the same dangerous elements of the public that any RCMP or city police officer would be to have no sidearm? When you as a citizen are the target of a mugging or an armed robbery...the best advice is to simply comply with the offender...do not attempt to stop or apprehend them. If we want our border patrol to be these compliant citizen-victims when faced with a drug or weapon smuggler, or a fleeing murderer etc., then maybe no guns is the right choice. I however, would like to think that border patrol officers should be just one more cog in the law-enforcement system, and that they should be equipped and expected to intervene with a purpose...for that, they should be armed...even if it means we pay them a little more. FTA Lawyer.

Seriously, these "urban legends" are great fantasy...like who would win a fight between a unicorn and a talking pickle... I simply quote again, from my first post: Well, s. 91 (3) of the B.N.A Act (which became the Constitution Act 1867 when Canada became a country) enumerates one of the powers of the Federal Government as: "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation." So Sir Chauncy, or anyone else who wants to assert that there is no legal basis for taxation in Canada...please post your detailed constitutional law analysis that explains why, in your view: 1. Income Tax is not "the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation" 2. s.91 (3) of the Constitution was just a joke, not really part of the rest of the real Constitution, or 3. Where we can sign up for the armed revolution to overthrow the current government to replace it with one that understands 1 or 2 above. FTA Lawyer

Did you even glance at my post? or the Supreme Court ruling you keep referring to? or the Constitution? You simply have no idea what you are talking about. FTA Lawyer

And why would Ralph cut off his nose to spite his face? The province owes its success to the oil and gas sector: stopping production of these resources would be economic suicide. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why would Ralph get drunk and throw money at a homeless person and tell them to get a job like everyone else? Why would he say that people on AISH (assisted income for the severly handicapped) didn't look handicapped to him so they should quit complaining that their $850 / month payment was too little? Why would he openly push the Canada Health Act to the point of massive fines / penalties by the feds? The bottom line is he doesn't want to do it, but go ahead and play chicken with him and see if he blinks... What you don't seem to appreciate is that economic suicide for Alberta is really murder-suicide because Canada goes down with us...that's why Ralph has the hammer on this issue...coming after Alberta's resources is economic (and therefore political) suicide for Paul Martin and he knows it. On his trip out here for Alberta's Centennial, Martin has been asked repeatedly about whether another NEP scenario is on the horizon and he has outwardly stated he will never do such a thing because "Alberta's successful economy is a great asset to Canada" He even went so far as to outright say that "the NEP was a mistake", and one which he would "never repeat." (loose quotations...you can look at today's Calgary Sun for the actual wording). Eureka's suggestion of the "national welfare" concept is an interesting argument. In case law the concept is referred to as the "National Concern" doctrine. However, I suggest that the feds cannot use this power unless there becomes a "national emergency" or crisis. The following comment from a decision of the Supreme Court called R. v. Crown Zellerbach is helpful: "the national concern doctrine, in the absence of national emergency, could not give Parliament jurisdiction with respect to matters which would otherwise fall within provincial legislative jurisdiction" Section 92A of the Constitution Act 1867 reads: NON-RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES, FORESTRY RESOURCES AND ELECTRICAL ENERGY Laws respecting non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources and electrical energy 92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to (a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province; ( development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and © development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy. Clearly the feds cannot put their nose into the situation (to justify actually going in themselves and extracting provincial resources) unless they can establish a "national emergency". Could that happen? I suppose so. We are a pretty cold climate in winter and if people's lives were actually in danger because they couldn't afford to buy natural gas or heating oil, then the feds could probably come in and take it from Alberta (on a temporary emergency basis). That being said, when the feds have exorbitant fuel taxes and successive billion dollar surpluses, it will hardly fly to call expensive gas & oil a "national emergency" to justify pillaging a province. So I modify my earlier statement...the feds can't do a damn thing to force Alberta to pull the oil out of the ground UNLESS people are freezing to death because they can't buy natural gas or heating oil, AND the feds have already suspended their fuel taxes AND they have rebated a significant portion of their current multiple-billion dollar surplus. FTA Lawyer

It's all fine and good for the feds to try to force Alberta to share the profits of their resources...but the one thing they can't do is force Alberta to actually drill, extract and market those resources. Like it or not, the oil belongs to Alberta, and if Ralph wants to leave it in the ground there is not a damn thing the rest of the country can say about it. Of course, this would mean Alberta would take a big hit in the bank account...but then no worse than having Ottawa with it's siphons open wide. The cost of oil and gas would skyrocket even further than it has already, and the Canadian economy would be crippled. Seems like a disastrous scenario, but I ask you, does anyone think for a minute that Ralph wouldn't do just that to prevent being raped of his resource revenue? He's already said publicly that he would! Seems to me that Canada should be happy with the billions in transfer payments and hundreds of millions in taxes that Alberta residents pay every year...its not such a raw deal. FTA Lawyer

You need to change your name to "anythingbutthetruth"... The Supreme Court case you refer to is indexed as: Attorney-General of Nova Scotia v. Attorney-General of Canada 50 D.T.C. 838 The case says nothing about "scrapping the Income Tax Act". It is a specific ruling that says Nova Scotia can't have the feds collect tax directly for a provincial purpose...if they want to collect such tax for such purpose, they have to do it themselves. If you want to organize a protest movement, perhaps reading any one of the documents you seem to profess so much knowledge about would be a good idea? In your senseless diatribe about the Federal Government illegally collecting income tax you leave a link to more garbage which states that "s. 91 and 92 of the B.N.A. Act do not allow for the Federal Government to be in the Income Tax business." Well, s. 91 (3) of the B.N.A Act (which became the Constitution Act 1867 when Canada became a country) enumerates one of the powers of the Federal Government as: "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation." I'm not sure what hallucenogenic substance it is you have to be on to read that provision and conclude that the feds can't collect taxes...or perhaps you and the members of your "movement" are just interested in selling your "income tax avoidance kits" to as many people as you can lie convicingly enough to. If quoting obscure old court cases is your thing, consider the following excerpt from a 1998 Tax Court of Canada decision called Guillemette v. Canada where the court quotes from an 1877 decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (superior to the Supreme Court of Canada back then): "It is true that by the provisions of s. 92 the Legislature in each Province may exclusively make laws in relation to certain matters coming within the classes of subjects which are there enumerated, and that one of these classes of subjects is 'direct taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial purposes.'" The Privy Council then goes on and says: "As such particular direct taxation is reserved to the Province, to that extent there is some deduction to be made from the totality of power apparently given exclusively to the Dominion Parliament to raise money for any purpose by any mode or system of taxation." Then it goes on to say: "Upon any view there is nothing in s. 92 to take away the power to impose any taxation for Dominion purposes which is prima facie given by head 3 of s.91. It is not therefore ultra vires on the part of the Parliament of Canada to impose a Dominion income tax for Dominion purposes;" For those who don't speak Latin, "ultra vires" means "beyond jurisdiction". With all due respect, I'll continue to comply with the Supreme law of Canada (i.e. the Constitution) and pay my taxes. Whether or not I like it, the Income Tax Act is perfectly valid law. FTA Lawyer P.S. Ever heard the expression "If it seems to good to be true..."?