babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Sask Labour Relations Board Fired

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Chair and Vice-Chair of the Sask Labour Relations Board Fired
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 March 2008 03:10 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Larry Hubich President, Saskatchewan Federation of Labour has issued a press release:

quote:
News Release

For immediate release March 6th, 2008

Labour Relations Board terminations unjustified

The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour has learned that the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the Labour Relations Board were terminated, effective immediately, this afternoon in the middle of a hearing in Regina.

“These terminations are totally unjustified. The Sask. Party government has shown once again that they have no respect for the Trade Union Act and the Board that is in place to administer and enforce it,“ said SFL President Larry Hubich this afternoon.

“Our information is that over 30 cases are pending before the Board. There are workers and employers who are mid-way through hearings. Where is the due process for these workers and employers? How can they be guaranteed that justice will be served? Workers’ organizations and employers’ representatives have spent thousands of dollars in legal fees to have their cases heard. Who will pay the costs associated with these pending decisions?”

“Terminating the Vice-Chairs and the Chair of the LRB in the middle of a hearing is like walking into a courtroom and firing the judge, effective immediately, in the middle of a trial. To fire these adjudicators summarily, without notice, shows a complete lack of respect for those individuals and for the labour relations community,” said Hubich.

“The Sask. Party Government has launched yet another attack on working people and their rights. Why is the government so determined to disrupt labour relations, and the peaceful, legal mechanisms in place to govern it?” added Hubich.


http://www.breadnroses.ca/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22141&start=0


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 March 2008 04:36 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Were any reasons given?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 06 March 2008 05:02 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Reasons aside, Unionist, this is a serious matter. If those who are independent adjudicators have no independence and tenure, then they are pawns politically. Harris did this and the courts slapped him hard.

It is sick, disgusting and totally improper.

[ 06 March 2008: Message edited by: munroe ]


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 March 2008 05:07 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munroe:
Reasons aside, Unionist, this is a serious matter. If those who are independent adjudicators have no independence and tenure, then they are pawns politically. Harris did this and the courts slapped him hard.

You may be correct, munroe, but I don't know Saskatchewan law, I don't know the powers of the Minister, I don't know whether the Sask Party had mentioned this before publicly or even if they had promised to do this during the election, and I'd still like to know what reasons they gave.

Alfonso Gagliano, acting on urging by the Reform Party, did the same thing (with the full support of the Liberal cabinet of the day) in 1997 when he fired the chair of the then-Canada Labour Relations Board based on scandal-mongering about expense claims but no actual wrongdoing, let alone any finding of wrongdoing.

Anyway, if someone has more info than just a condemnation of the firings, please post. I'm too lazy to go dredge it up myself just now.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 06 March 2008 05:32 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I hear you, Unionist. The question of true "cause" looms, but the idea of "cleaning house" for political reasons is really frightening.
From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 March 2008 05:39 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here is a little more information. It seems it's tied in with some new anti-labour legislation, which is far more sweeping than this firing - but I don't have the details on that yet.

quote:
A spokesperson for the government confirmed Thursday that chair James Seibel and vice-chairs Angela Zborosky and Catherine Zuck, the only full-time permanent members of the board, were terminated by the provincial cabinet. [...]

Kathy Young, executive director of communications for the Sask. Party government, said a new board chair will be announced Friday.

She described the firings as routine for a new government and denied there was a political agenda.

"We don't think it's vindictive at all. In fact, the person that's going to be replacing the chair is someone with a great reputation who has been around on both sides of the labour equation," said Young, who declined to name the new chair. [...]

Young said The Trade Union Act provides for the chairs and vice-chairs to be able to continue to hear cases that were already ongoing when their term expires.

She said the three board members were verbally told by officials that they could continue their cases.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 March 2008 05:41 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, this unfortunately makes the firings look like a sideshow:

quote:
The Saskatchewan Federal of Labour (SFL) says two anti-labour bills introduced this week by the province's pro-business government are among the most regressive in Canada.

The first, the Public Service Essential Services Act, would force employers and unions to establish essential services agreements 90 days before existing contracts expire. Where no agreement is reached, employers could dictate.

The second, which amends the Trade Union Act, would require a written support level of 45% for new unions to win certification.


If that's accurate, it gives Saskatchewan the most anti-worker legislation anywhere in Canada on both essential services and certification.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 06 March 2008 05:49 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry, Unionist ... it's patterned on the Liberal's B.C. Labour Code. Worse still is the "free speech section, again from B.C., that lets employers interfere in organising campaigns with nearly any restrictions.
From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 06 March 2008 06:02 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munroe:
Sorry, Unionist ... it's patterned on the Liberal's B.C. Labour Code.

Are you saying that if there's no agreement on essential services, the employers dictate (I'm going by the NUPGE release)?????

In the private sector????

That means no right to strike anywhere ever.

I must have misunderstood something.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
kyall glennie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3940

posted 06 March 2008 06:04 PM      Profile for kyall glennie   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
apparently the minister will speak tomorrow (Friday.)

Question Period question #1 for the new session???


From: Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 06 March 2008 06:11 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unionist, it is obviously more complicated but esential services are applied broadly (yes in the "private" sector, for example on highway maintenance) and picketing rstrictions and service continuation does significantly restrict workers from applying pressure.
From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 07 March 2008 01:34 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
She described the firings as routine for a new government and denied there was a political agenda.

So, their position is this is not "political" -- they're not doing this to try to influence the outcome of adjudication at the SLRB. Aside from that ludicrous statement, they also confidently declare that this type of action is routine for new governments. That is a blatent endorsement of the practice of graft in awarding administrative tribunal positions to party faithful; the spoils of war to the victor.

Frightening. Even Harper pretends to support a transparent, merit-based appointment process.

Should help these folks out in their lawsuits though.


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 07 March 2008 08:29 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by triciamarie:
That is a blatent endorsement of the practice of graft in awarding administrative tribunal positions to party faithful; the spoils of war to the victor.

Are you seriously suggesting that any party doesn't behave this way?

I had friends from the Prairies who used to pack their bags when the NDP were defeated and get similar jobs in other provinces (shuttling between B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and yes even Ontario for one stint).

To call this "graft" is to have no dictionary on one's shelf.

It's called "patronage", and it's legal. Doesn't make it less offensive, but do you think Calvert made appointments based on "merit"?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 07 March 2008 03:33 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry, Unionist, but you missed this time. If you are an adjudicator on an independent tribunal you must be above the sway of the politics. If that does not occur or your impartiality is compromised by partisan considerations, then you should not ethically, morally or legally participate.

Let me put it this way - in all the time I spent as an adjudicator I refused to have anyone who either was before me or may before me, buy my coffee.

[ 07 March 2008: Message edited by: munroe ]


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 07 March 2008 04:25 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Gordo didn't even fire the LRB when he came into power. He did appoint assholes to replace the board as their appointments were up but he at least had the decorum to wait till they either resigned or their terms were up.

It is the final nail inn the coffin of that 70's idea of a neutral third party labour boards where unions and companies could go for a fair hearing. It has been eroded immensely over the last decade but if they are just political hacks and changed when the government changes then they are no longer a specialized quasi judicial tribunal and instead have become a star chamber.

Edited because I originally wrote Harpo instead of Gordo. Sorry having a hard time telling them apart.

[ 07 March 2008: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 07 March 2008 04:52 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munroe:
If you are an adjudicator on an independent tribunal you must be above the sway of the politics. If that does not occur or your impartiality is compromised by partisan considerations, then you should not ethically, morally or legally participate.

I understand about adjudicators and arbitrators. But we're talking about political appointments here.

I would like to understand how they can fire a vice-chair or chair in midterm without alleging wrongdoing. Are they acting lawfully? I'm not an expert on the Trade Union Act of Saskatchewan. That's why I asked for the reasons, right from my first post.

And from my years of experience with labour boards, I'm far more concerned with the new legislation (mentioned above) than the particular names of the persons on a board. Ultimately it's the laws that determine what the labour board will decide, not the feelings and biases of the board members.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 07 March 2008 06:38 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Unionist, it is a position well taken. The law, the statute does inform the decisions. Nevertheless, those who interpret and apply the law also play a fundamental role. The BC Code, for ecample, did not undergo extensive changes under Gordo and even the legal tests have not changed, but the weighting of the tests and the approach to the law has been fundamentally altered by the new faces.

The "who" does matter.


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 07 March 2008 09:40 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's a website with some more relevant information.
From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 08 March 2008 08:49 AM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks sgm. I see there appears to be two other matters worthy of comment. The proposed legislation appears to be intended to narrow the organising window from 6 months to 90 days. This again mirrors B.C. and can cause problems. Secondly, the language on "interference" is somewhat amibiguous compared to B.C. In the B.C. Code, an employer is specifically allowed to say what it will EVEN if it interferes with the formation of a Union. The proposed language in Saskatchewan may be interpreted in this manner, but that depends on - tah dah - WHO is doing the interpreting....
From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 08 March 2008 10:02 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by munroe:
Thanks sgm. I see there appears to be two other matters worthy of comment. The proposed legislation appears to be intended to narrow the organising window from 6 months to 90 days.

Worse still, the number of signed cards required before a vote will be called is increased from 25% to 45% of the unit. So the number is almost doubled, while the time for recruitment is cut in half.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 08 March 2008 10:32 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know if you guys have mentioned this but it bears repeating anyway. It's a common practice of implementing a neo-conservative approach to government to simply fail to enforce whatever legislation/regulations exist. Or, alternately, to short staff a department so that it is effectively impossible to do their jobs. And these sorts of things can be in a clever manner; e.g., simply don't replace staff as they leave or retire.

I realize that these practices probably apply more to other bodies, such as Landlord-Tenant regulatory matters, but the same sort of this is undoubtedly done in bodies having to do with labour management relations. A delay in processing a new application can be fatal to its success.

Anyway, carry on.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
munroe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14227

posted 08 March 2008 01:35 PM      Profile for munroe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So true, Beltov and Unionist. Mt thoughts were never meant to be exhaustive analysis. You may add to this the priority of the right wingers to squelch worker rights. In B.C., the changes were number two - after tax cuts for the rich. In Saskatchewan, well....

On par... can I say it? Screw the workers here today and sunday. These guys are well organised; we are not.

[ 09 March 2008: Message edited by: munroe ]


From: Port Moody, B.C. | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Larry Hubich
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7866

posted 09 March 2008 04:33 PM      Profile for Larry Hubich   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Check out this link for further information on the matter:

Sask. Party government attempts to mislead public


From: Regina | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 09 March 2008 06:01 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you, Brother, and keep the information coming on your excellent blog. How can we help in your fightback?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Larry Hubich
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7866

posted 09 March 2008 08:50 PM      Profile for Larry Hubich   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hi Unionist,

Thanks, keep checking my blog, and also the SFL web-site at: sfl.sk.ca

Also, CUPE Sask has a fight-back site called: dontgiveuphope.ca

And finally, very soon there will be an action campaign put up on the LabourStart Web-site. We could use that campaign pushed widely through e-mail broadcasts and list-serves.

Larry


From: Regina | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 09 March 2008 11:00 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow. What a great blog.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 10 March 2008 06:21 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The BC case of McKenzie v. Minister of Public Safety and Soliciter General et al. (2006 BCSC 1372) is concerning a well-respected landlord tenant arbitrator who was terminated without cause one year into a five-year fixed term appointment.

The court found that the SCC's decisions in the PEI reference and Ocean Port left it unclear the extent to which quasi-judicial tribunals (in contrast to regulatory tribunals) "may require constitutional protection of a fair and independent arbiter, or may be left to whatever cowed or needy syncophant the government, in its absolute discretion, thrusts into the judgment seat. This is such an affront to the notion of a "fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal," guaranteed in writing elsewhere in the constitutional firmament, and is so fundamentally illogical and arbitrary, that it cannot be reconciled with the concept of the rule of law itself." (at para. 150)

(Looks like The Honourable Mr. Justice McEwan has a dictionary on his shelf. )

The government agreed that the termination order must be quashed and Ms. McKenzie was reinstated. The law that the government had relied on in terminating her was repealed as "violating the constitutionally protected principle of independence required in the circumstances."

The government's appeal from that decision was dismissed as moot, on a finding that the lower court decision had been narrowly based on the specific governing legislation that was struck down (2007 BCCA 5070).

Ms. McKenzie has applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (32398).

http://www.bccat.net/News/More.asp

[ 12 March 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 March 2008 09:27 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Larry, great to see you on babble. Thanks for joining us. I see you made the news. Looks like the new guy has been no friend of labour in the past, huh?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 23 March 2008 05:00 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Larry Hubich, President of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, was requesting babblers' support up thread in their fight against the virulently anti-labour actions of the new Saskatchewan Party majority government.

quote:
And finally, very soon there will be an action campaign put up on the LabourStart Web-site. We could use that campaign pushed widely through e-mail broadcasts and list-serves.

Larry


The campaign is up now:

http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=350


From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 29 March 2008 01:19 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

Greetings,

This e-mail is in response to your recent e-mail message to the Premier of Saskatchewan and to the Minister of Advanced Education Employment and Labour calling for the withdrawl of the Sask. Party government's two anti-democratic, anti-worker, anti-union pieces of legislation.

As of today, over 400 letters have been sent and we truly appreciate the time you've taken to assist working people in Saskatchewan to fight back against this new Sask. Party government.

I hope you will be able to assist us further, by sending an e-mail (or forwarding this one) to the people in your e-mail address book to encourage them to send in a letter as well. We need to take over campaign to the next level and continue to push the government to do the right thing!

Thank you for all you've done so far!

In Solidarity and sincere appreciation,

Larry Hubich

____________________________________________________
STOP Bills 5 & 6 - Click here: http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=350



From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 02 April 2008 06:00 PM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The first thing all right wing governments do when they get in power is attack union rights. From Hitler to Harris they have all done this. They correctly see these laws as the glue that holds a just society together

If only our "left" governments were as committed to improving the rights of workers when they come to power. Instead we get endless attempts at "balance" and "fairness" that the corporate elites will never accept and disillusioned workers who see no meaningful improvements in their conditions will never fight to defend.

Freedom of Association is a constitutional right, its time the labour movement starts pushing this right in light of last summer's ruling.

These proposed Sask Party laws might be a good place to start, as they both severely curtail this right.


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 06 April 2008 05:39 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by a lonely worker:
Freedom of Association is a constitutional right, its time the labour movement starts pushing this right in light of last summer's ruling.

These proposed Sask Party laws might be a good place to start, as they both severely curtail this right.


Absolutely.

As of April 2 the SFL letter-writing campaign was up to 2100 responses.

quote:
Dear Friends,

On behalf of the workers and citizens of Saskatchewan, I want to personally thank you for taking the time to send a letter to Sask. Party Premier, Brad Wall and his Labour Minister, Rob Norris calling on them to withdraw their anti-worker, anti-democratic labour law bills (5 & 6).

As of the writing of this e-mail more than 2100 of you have sent in an e-mail.
See here: http://larryhubich.blogspot.com/2008/04/global-disapproval-of-anti-worker-brad.html

Please share this e-mail reply with all of the people in your e-mail address book and ask them to go to the LabourStart web-site and send a letter as well. We need as many as possible.

Let's keep the letters coming in.

In Solidarity,

Larry Hubich

From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970

posted 21 April 2008 09:46 AM      Profile for triciamarie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:


April 18, 2008

Thank you for expressing your concerns on the government’s proposed labour legislation, the Public Service Essential Services Act and amendments to the Trade Union Act.

Our government is committed to establishing a fair and balanced labour environment that respects the rights of the province’s workers and employers, while remaining competitive with other Canadian jurisdictions. We are determined to protect the health and safety of Saskatchewan’s people by ensuring that essential services are maintained in the event of a labour disruption.

On November 7, 2007, our platform received the endorsement of the people of Saskatchewan and now forms the priorities for our government. To meet these priorities, our government introduced two labour bills in December, 2007. Subsequently, the Honourable Rob Norris, Minister of Advanced Education, Employment and Labour, received submissions and personally met with representatives of labour and employer groups as well as interested stakeholders to discuss this legislation. Additional consultations by Ministry officials were conducted and public input was requested on-line and through newspaper advertisements that ran across the province.

While I note your concerns, I can assure you that these two Bills will continue to be open to the scrutiny of the Legislative Assembly, the media, and the people of this province. Ultimately, the Public Service Essential Services Act will provide for the safety of our families and neighbours, while respecting the rights of unions to take strike action. The amendments to the Trade Union Act ensure greater freedom and democracy in the workplace and help to enhance Saskatchewan’s competitiveness.

Thank you again for sharing your views on this matter.

Rob Norris
Minster of Advanced Education, Employment and Labour



From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca