"Court Orders" versus "Common Sense": how can we reconcile our child custody policies?

It has been a strange December with respect to battles over the custody of children involving both Canadian and American jurisdictions. First, Myriam Bedard has been in the news for weeks for having abducted her 12 year old daughter, Maude, her arrest in the United States on an international warrant, and her continued detention in a Maryland jail.

Now, a 49 year old American woman has been arrested in Ottawa for not returning her 17 month old twins to the couple in North Carolina who had adopted the twins at birth. The mother, Allison Lee Quets, had visitation rights as a custody battle following the adoption this year from December 22 to December 24th. Ms. Quets and the twins were discovered in Ottawa after Custom officials confirmed the place and time that she had crossed into Canada from the United States.

Ms. Quets now claims that she agreed to give up the twins under questionable circumstances. She says she had panicked and made the wrong choice because of her insecurities about adequately being able to take care of the babies, but changed her mind 12 hours after their birth. The parents adopting the children refused and a custody battle has emerged. Unlike many jurisdictions, the laws in North Carolina do not provide a grace period for mothers who plan to give up their children at birth to change their mind.

Orders of the court are the supreme measure of what is right and what is wrong in cases such as this. It is the same if the children involved were instead someone's property. However, because we are talking about children and not just property, should we consider whether the State also has an obligation to use some "common sense"?

In Canada and in the United States, family policy affects in some way close to 50% of the population. Most involved agree, family policy is cumbersome, inequitable and inaccessible, and also one of the most profitable areas of law for lawyers. This is in spite of the fact that decisions made in by an "inadequate system" directly affect the lives and futures of our society's children and their families.

Some argue that the current system is gender discriminatory: patriarchal principles that have been abandoned otherwise or are considered to be inappropriate in other aspects of life remain at the heart of policies surrounding custody, child support and child access.

From a policy perspective, a primary sign of a failed policy is when those who are served and affected by policy choose not to comply with it voluntarily. So, whether it is Ms. Quets who risks everything to be with her children, or a non-profit father's group who shuts down a bridge in Montreal (to protest fathers collectively not having appropriate access to their children), those who set the agenda should take note.

Since the 1990s changes to our family policies have been in the queue. Federal reports in 1998 and 2002 called for such change. What if those recommendations had been implemented? Is possible we could have avoided these situations? These are clear signs of failed family policy.

Of course, there are other priorities from year to year. And, special interests continue to profit from how the system is set up now. However, there comes a time when those setting the agenda need to consider what policies within their jurisdiction and responsibility are most acutely out of balance, and act on them for the sake of our striving to have a "just society".

I trust that by the end of 2007 we will be able to count on Canada being a more equitable and fair society because those setting the agenda will choose to do what is right for children, women and men from all types of families.

Montreal: Has winter finally arrived? What about global warming?

Well, it seems the coldest temperatures this winter (2006-2007) were recorded today in Montreal. The low temperature was at 8:00 am today: -18 C.

Some people I spoke to before Christmas did not seem to think they would ever experience cold again. As silly as it might seem, this thinking was kind of contagious. Still others were musing that our weather patterns had changed drastically. How long would our boots would remain in the closet?

"Are we were going to have a winter like in Vancouver?" asked the Korean-Canadian man at the depanneur near my house.

"This will be the first green Christmas in my lifetime" I replied to the small talk.

I also recall at the time considering briefly what I was going to do with my new winter coat. Was this a silly "pipe dream" or acceptance that there is no going back to the winters that our ancestors experienced 100 years ago?

Ironically, in previous years warm Decemeber weather would have been seen as a "good fortune". This year some had replaced any sense of enjoyment/convenience with their guilt over global warming.

So, did the warm December of 2006 help place global warming squarely on the political agenda and for good? Will Steve ever again be in a position to say with any credibility the "so called global warming"? What were Steve and Rona thinking when they set the environmental agenda and responded so inadequately?

Is it serendipitous for Liberals that in a period leading up to a federal election that Canadians were made to reflect about our own contributions to this environmental crisis? Did a particularly warm December in 2006 elicit "common regret" about the choices we make as a society? We may never know: the answer may be buried in the environmental policies and promises that will surface in the months to come.

Is it too late for the Conservatives to "save face" on this issue? The election results will provide a clear and definite answer to that question.

Myriam Bedard's child abduction: the impetus for domestic policy change or "status quo"

If you had asked me one-week ago to predict what I expected Myriam Bedard’s "defence" to be for the alleged child abduction, my guesses would have been quite close to what Myriam Bedard's Quebec lawyer, Me. John Pepper jr., spoke about today.

Why are there excuses? In an adversarial system, there will always be excuses. It is how the system works, even when it is hard to see beyond one's suspected "hidden agenda". In reality, Myriam may be paying the price for parents who "legally" commit domestic abductions of their children every day in Canada.

These excuses are a microcosm of what "parents tell their friends", what "lawyers tell the judges" and what the "lobbyists tell the policy makers". These excuses are also why patriarchy drives the agenda around family policy, the laws and the courts who administer it. It is why current practices violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and why children and second families suffer while lawyers and other special interests continue to profit.

Myriam Bedard's lawyer said:

1. Myriam is being persecuted for being a "whistle blower". This is also apparently why she switched hotels in Maryland several times.

2. Myriam Bedard has "sole custody" and daughter Maude's father, Jean Paquet, had Maude's cell phone number and knew how to reach her, so this search for Maude was unnecessary and irresponsible.

3. Jean Paquet is in violation of not having exercised his visitation, and should therefore be seen as a disinterested father.

When it comes to issues of parenting involving divorced couples, unreasonable decisions are often made, even when otherwise "reasonable people" are involved. Mothers say they act on behalf of children's "best interests", which are often congruent with the mother's preferences i.e. Would it be in Maude’s interest to be in the USA (or Iran?) because of her mother's persecution, even if that means she will not see her dad very often.? The child’s best interest is therefore a very subjective measure and it often pits the care of one parent against another, and asks the State to prioritise.

The most common stereotypes are that "dad's are deadbeats with respect to child support" and that "dads are not sufficiently interested in being with their children". The spin of Me. Pepper is very familiar. Fathers are often painted as being not sufficiently responsible enough (or interested enough) to take care of their children. Studies and statistics show these stereotypes that have led to our current failed policies are incorrect.

So, why does Myriam even have sole custody when it is likely in Maude's interest for her parents custody to be shared? The system is setup that way. After all, how else could one justify treating fathers as second parents exclusively because of their gender, in a society known otherwise to be mostly fair and equitable.

Why is Myriam Bedard making lots of news - front-page news in Quebec? Is it because Myriam is a convenient example for the State? She is a whistleblower, after all. But, there are also benefits from an optics perspective for our institutions enforce a family abduction by a high profile Canadian mother and Quebec woman.

Will this take some heat off the provincial Superior Courts who are under much public pressure to be more gender equitable in family law in order to offset the allegations of gender bias? Enforcement of this case clouds allegations that the system is biased. It also dispels the allegations that the enforcement of access is a second class priority when compared to the enforcement of child support ( even though there are no non-litigious or institutional remedies for domestic access denial due to a lack of federal policy).

Nevertheless, it must not be easy for the system. There is a a lack of federal legislation on access to back up family court decisions. When this is combined with decades of gender discrimination in family law, change day to day must be quite difficult.

What would be most sustainable would be if access were made a priority on the political/policy agenda regardless of whether the offending parent enters another jurisdiction or not. Domestic child abductions are not treated with the same level of seriousness as this case involving a former Canadian Olympian.

Should we not fix this thing for the sake of all Canadians, equitability and the credibility of our Charter? Going after Myriam is either a next step or a smoke and mirrors “band aid”.

Unfortunately, if time shows the latter has prevailed, domestic injustices will continue sadly because of a lack of will and responsible action .

Part 3: "Pulp" Leadership Convention clips on YouTube

Just as his speech gets rolling, delegates from other camps show support for Ken's vision for "A Big Canada". December 1, 2006 at 6:40 pm (5 minute original clip).

Part 2: "Pulp" Leadership Convention clips on YouTube

This front row clip is only a minute or so into Ken's speech ... coast to coast campaigning was ... unbelievable.

Part 1: "Pulp" Leadership Convention clips on YouTube.

A highlight moment...

Following Ken's speech...

from the floor...

at Palais des Congres...

on December 1, 2006.

1535, The First Christmas in Canada

Historical contributions ... the following first Christmas in Canada article was first published by the Montreal Star. Imagine what it was like for Jacques Cartier and others in 1535 in a strange land at Christmas. It is currently available also at this website.

Jacques Cartier, 1535

The first Christmas observed in Canada, that of 1535, was kept -- but scarcely enjoyed -- by one hundred and ten souls in a tiny palisaded fortress on the banks of the Ste. Croix River (now the St. Charles), near the present City of Quebec. On the site of the latter was then the Indian Village of Stadacona.

...............................................

Jacques Carier and his advance guard of settlers were by --Christmas time beginning the struggle with the terrible hardships which during the winter beset the little band, killed twenty-five of its members, and reduced the remainder to a state of helplessness for many weeks.

..............................................

The French ships had come bravely up the river during the previous summer, and had been joyously welcomed by the Indians, who were well supplied with gifts by the newcomers. The Isle of Bacchus (the Island of Orleans) and the land on either side of the great river of Canada had been explored, and a plot of land at the mouth of the Ste. Croix Croix had been selected as the most suitable location for winter settlement. Jacques Cartier had made his way up as far as Hochelaga, and had returned to his band in time to over-see the final preparations for the cold weather.

.................................................

It became noticable before winter set in that there was a change of attitude on the part of the Indians. Outwardly they were friendly, but the Frenchmen soon became convinced that the two guides, whom they had carried off to France on a previous expedition and had brought back to serve as interpreters, were sowing disaffection among the people of Stadacona.

...............................................

Their influence on Chief Donnacona was marked, and the settlers took as their mottos thenceforward, "He who is watchful loses nothing." By the end of November the ships were frozen in and the little colony was beginning to discover the weak points in the winter preparations. The buildings could not keep out the penetrating cold. There were no cellars in which to keep supplies. All the drinkables were frozen hard, and melted snow had to be used for water, as rivers and streams were soon locked fast by the ice. Salt meat and stale vegetables formed the greater part of the diet, and by Christmas time health was beginning to suffer and the first whisper of the dread disease of scurvy was apparent among the whites.

..........................................................

The Indians hovered round, always watching. Sometimes they came to visit the settlement, and often they tried to entice the whites to visit their village on one pretext or another. There were ceremonious protestations of friendship on both sides, but the French were always conscious of the silent and observant movements of the natives. They, therefore, determined, above all, no matter how sick they were, to maintain a show of activity and strength about the fortress, lest, tempted by the obvious weakness of the garrison, the Indians should decide to attack it.

..............................................................

Christmas in those circumstances couldn't be a very merry affair. It came, however, before the worst of the winter trials, while the settlers were still buoyed up by the hope of future discoveries and by the tales of Donnacona -- a man of some imagination, apparently -- who told them of precious stones and metals to be found in lands beyond the country of Saguenay; of white men dressed in cloth like themselves who inhabited a region near a great inland sea of fresh water; of lands of luxurious vegetation south of the Great River, where other red-skinned people lived; and of a mysterious race of one-legged people living in some ill-defined territory far from the district known as Canada. All these things interested the adventurers mightily, and imagination, combined with a taste of the most precious of their food supplies, probably helped to make Christmas Day a little more cheerful than those which had preceded it. It was certainly far more cheerful than many which followed it, for there came a time when all but ten of the party were near death from scurvy. Courageous hearts alone enabled the little colony to hold out until the spring, and to deceive the Indians into thinking the band strong and prepared for attack in the days when they were threatened with utter extermination. - Montreal Star

_________________________________________

Merry Christmas 2006.

Edgewater Views

Myriam Bedard arrested in USA: how she could have gotten away with child abduction...

Myriam Bedard is not alone in “pushing the system” to maintain sole possession of her daughter. This is at the expense her 12 year old daughter Maude's relationship with her father.

These types of shenanigans go on every day in Canada. Then, why is Myriam Bedard under arrest? Why are other parents who do the same thing in Canada able to get away with it without penalty?

Myriam Bedard is high profile Canadian, a divorced mother, and a "whistle blower". Not surprisingly she is amongst 90% of mothers in Canada who have sole custody or at least "primary care", which means 75% of time the child is with the mother and 25% of the time is with the father. This is when access between children and fathers is not denied altogether, which happens up to 40% of the time.

In these cases, child support is paid by the father to the mother regardless of whether there is access between them. Child support is paid to the mother who collects on behalf of the child and presumably spends it on the child (and not on legal fees to block access through the courts). There is no accountability for how these monies are spent.

Some consider this to be “gender discriminatory to men” and a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Canada, reports commissioned by previous Liberal governments in 1998 and 2002 stressed that children and families would benefit if the language around custody were changed to "shared". In spite of this, custody today is still defined adversarially as "joint" or "sole".

Under most circumstances, Myriam would have been able to make her ex sign the papers permitting an extended trip to the US, or litigate. Unless she were considered a “flight risk”, the court would unequivocally award the trip by the judge who would also almost always make the father pay also the mother’s court costs.

Arguably and ironically, if Myriam had "joint" custody that was not supported by court order rather than "sole custody" by court order (because that is the “default” in cases of separation or divorce), she would have been in a much stronger position to get away with such an abduction. Flaws in the system would allow her to set up the abduction legally in Canada, first, before leaving the jurisdiction, even if the child and father could not have access to each other.

This could be done by choosing to deny access of her ex while in possession of the child (for no particular reason) to force her ex to litigate on the custody issue. The reason could be something completely unrelated and provocative, such as knowing her ex is short on money to litigate, for example.

If her ex did not take the bait and litigate right away, or if he really could not raise the money - $5,000 for starters - at that moment, she could make the access denial more or less permanent. This would happen because of a "passing of time" without the father seeing the child. If this window to challenge the access denial were missed, it would at a minimum take years of court processes and tens of thousands of dollars for the father to break that status quo.

Myriam Bedard did not know how to beat the system and she is now under arrest and in “shame”. Was her “whistle blowing” about the sponsorship scandal a factor? Did it contribute to her being ostracized by some, as she claims, and a “victim of persecution”? Did the system see this as an excuse for the abduction? No.

It is a bloody shame that such travesties can be allowed to continue in a progressive society with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is good that Myriam was found and that Maude will see her dad this Christmas. What would be even better is if the penalties and remedies for this kind of abduction were equitable and could also resolve “domestic kidnappings” in a similarly efficient way.

50th post at Views from the Waters Edge...

What a jouney it has been since this new blog was created. Problems with the Beta Blogger upgrade made it impossible for me to continue with my "namesake" blog, Edgewater Views. There have been many twists and turns since that day in late September.

Here are the top 10 highlights, in chrolological order:

1. Karma or Accountability? Quebec recount a premonition for who should lead a pure and fair Liberal party.

2. Broken delegate election system series: 2 votes earn Rae 14 delegates in rural Quebec. (Parts 1-4).

3. LPCQ General Council and debate: observations only available to someone on the floor.

4. Policy Dictatorship at LPCQ: policy approved or not behind closed doors (Policy scraped in favour of Nation resolution and angry Quebecers).

5. The "Kill the Nation Resolution series", which ended with Ken Dryden bravely saying "no" to Harper's undefined position, much to the delight of "most" Canadians.

6. The Institutionalised Conservatism series (Parts 1-3): Harper, the nation, constitutional change and Duceppe.

7. Dion's fresh start for the Liberal party.

8. Advocacy funding and Charter implications series: be careful good Liberals...

9. Political Philanthropy: the man in red.

10. The Gay Marriage series: What should one do when their Liberal MP behaves like a Conservative?

Let's rock the world with the next fifty!

All the best for the Season,

Edgewater Views

Who will vote first? Quebec or Canada

A federal election is pending now that our Liberal leader is in place. This is especially so with the NDP and Bloc Quebecois threatening to bring down Harper's government sooner rather than later.

The assumption has been that a federal election will happen before a Quebec provincial election, which is due later in 2007. The Globe and Mail reports today that "the timing of the election call is partly expected to be decided by the fate of the minority federal government". Charest’s Liberal caucus has been recalled to return to work two months ahead of schedule presumably to prepare for such an event.

What does this mean? Does the Quebec factor need to be considered more carefully now in relation to when federal opposition parties finally pull the plug?

I think some further analysis is required here as to what are all the possibilities, options and implications. What is for sure is that these two pending elections have become intrinsically interrelated.

Conservative style "bad news" before "good news" agenda adapted for Harper's minority

Did Brian Mulroney pull off two consecutive majorities by executing a classic "bad news" before "good news" style governance, agenda setting and political prioritization?

Quebec Liberal Premier and former Progressive Conservative, Jean Charest, has attempted similar things it seems with his Liberal government majority in Quebec. Over his one term in power, Charest's use of this classic conservative formula may or may not prove in time to have been effective. In the face of voting patterns that are defined more by centralisation -decentralisation voter preferences than by left - right political ideologies, this classic conservative approach to governance may not be transferable to Quebec.

Has Stephen Harper tried to make use of aspects this approach too? Why were the Conservatives governing until recently like they have a majority? Without a Liberal leader in place (and similarly very little chance that the opposition parties would bring down the government), Harper's conservatives had to get as much out of this "leaderless" period as possible, and use the time to get tough things through (and ruffle any feathers if necessary).

Now that this "unaccountable" period is over (in spite of good opposition led previously by Mr. Graham and Mr. Goodale), Harper seems to be "cleaning up". He is preparing to remove the environment portfolio from Rona Ambrose and dump her into intergovernmental affairs (or something like that). Is a fresh start on the environment even possible for Steve's government?

The same thing applies to Harper's comments today with respect to Canada's role in Afghanistan. He says Canada's troops will return to a traditional peacekeeping role after the mission and because of the mission. He also says all Nato members must do more to support the military approach for now.

OK. Perhaps Harper's bad news (ahem, basically risk free fumble period) ended with the declaration of Stephane Dion as Liberal leader. The immediate deployment of a Liberal dream team who can hit the ground running makes each mistake by Stephen Harper from here on in that much more serious in leading up to another federal election.

Stephen Harper has been forced into "good news mode" by the election of our Liberal leader and the Liberal party's healing. What good news could Steve be "hiding up his sleeve" for an election he has known since last January would come sooner rather than later?

Liberals, please beware of attempts by shrewd Steve to force Canadians to question their values by dangling CPC driven "ballot box questions" specifically for centrist Canadians who typically vote Liberal. Prior to the next election, Steve will likely try to disrupt traditional voting patterns by supplanting some current issues and replacing them with other issues that could transcend or disrupt traditional left - right ideological voting patterns.

Liberals, please beware because it was exactly this strategy on "free trade" that led Mulroney to his second consecutive majority. Both Brian and Steve know that "breaking out of traditional ideological moulds" is the CPC's best shot at continuing to govern and/or that majority so dearly sought by Steve and other Canadians whose ideologies are less than progressive.

Judicial Review: Exploring how judges and lawyers survive in a biased system.

Judicial appointments can be as partisan in Canada as in the United States. Judges tend to be appointed also for political reasons.

Ontario Superior Court appointees are responsible for presiding over areas of law in which they may have little or no experience. When criminal or civil lawyers are appointed to the Superior Court of Ontario, they also will oversee a certain percentage of Family Court cases.

How is this working out and does this help or hinder the administration of justice? The Family Court raises a controversy, because of alleged Charter violations that are built into its existing procedures, which also fall under the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.

Is it possible to explore the successes and failures of judges in a random way? In theory yes, because it is all in the public domain. Some of it is organised in Canlii.

Judges, especially those who are appointed for being more political and less meritorious, are sometimes criticized for their decisions. Is this because of the rules, because they are too political or because they have too much discretion within legal procedure? It is hard to say.

With family policy and its administration by provincial courts being arguably Canada biggest social problem at the moment, it is important to also consider the role of judicial appointments.

Here is one scenario:

The Honourable Justice Roydon Kealey was appointed to the Ontario Superior Court in 1996 by the Attorney General and Justice Minister, Allan Rock. Kealey, an expert in legal accounting, criminal procedure and general litigation, takes on his share of family law cases.

Whether it is by accident or a part of Ottawa Master Beaudoin's process, Mr. Kealey seems to end up with at least his fair share of "unrepresented" fathers in family court for various reasons. He is also no stranger to the appeal, such as this case involving former NHL player Chris Simon, and this case involving lawyer Hunter Phillips of MacKinnon Phillips, who represented the mother.

I am aware of more than one 'unrepresented' father case before Justice Kealey where the mother's lawyer is (Aharon) Ron Paritzky, who practices with Mr. Hunter Phillips at MacKinnon Phillips. Because lawyers like Mr. Ron Paritzky and Mr. Hunter Phillips are effective in using legal procedure to their clients' advantage, they seem to have developed an expertise in extracting 'costs' from child support paying fathers who represent themselves in court.

This is almost always because self-represented fathers lack the appropriate financial resources to have access to appropriate representation and justice, even if they make too much to be eligible for legal aid. After all, Ontario's Family Responsibility Office has estimated that as much as 90% of child support flows upon gender lines from men to women because of how custody is awarded. This is in spite of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is in part because MOST men pay their child support in after tax dollars and MANY then cannot afford representation costs in after tax dollars also to ensure visitation with their children. This is in part why close to 40% of divorced dads are denied any visitation to their children. For many it is not affordable to enforce access, after they have paid their taxes and child support, which legislatively are priority expenditures that will be enforced by publicly funded insitutions.

In contrast, women of a certain ethical strain can dip into their child support (tax free) to ensure they are always well represented. This is a minority of mothers but a statistically significant proprtion nevertheless. Furthermore, for some strange reason, monies spent to collect child support (mostly by mothers) are tax deductable unlike monies spent (mostly by fathers) to ensure reasonable access, which are 100% taxable. This typically means $1 to lawyer and $1 to the tax department.

Let's face it, fathers need to be in the highest tax bracket to have a reasonable likelihood of scraping together a retainer, without selling the "farm" - assuming there is one after the divorce - and/or the "soul". There is no dignity in that.

For lawyers of this type, who focus on legal procedures, female clients tend to be more profitable. Mr. Paritzky and Mr. Phillips know which clients have the money available to dispose on litigation and which do not. Is this within the rules? Yes. Is anything wrong with this? That is a more complicated ethical question.

In assessing how to fix Canada's broken family law system, is it best to look at only the federal and provincial systems, or do we need to also evaluate the Judges (like Roydon Kealey) and the lawyers (like Ron Paritzky and Hunter Phillips)? Or, do we need to consider how all of the aspects have contribute and maintained the problems with the family court system?

This is a chicken and egg type situation. Is Justice Kealey contributing to a broken family law system? Is biased procedure created by lobbying from special interests beyond Justice Kealey's control? Are Ron Paritzky and Hunter Phillips simply making an honest living by doing what the system will allow? Should they be blamed for continuing to profit from well funded moms who need vigorous advocates to ensure their child support monies continue to flow and that they will always remain the primary parents?

Equitability standards will in time eliminate the gender biases, even though children and second families suffer in the meantime - and special interests continue to profit.

If anyone disagrees with me that this should be on the agenda for change by the "new" Liberal party, I would like to hear from you.

Otherwise, I trust those Liberals who still yearn for a just and fair society will speak up at the appropriate time and support change in family policy at both the macro and micro levels.

Attention fellow Liberals ... be prudent with your technology.

This goes without saying. We all make mistakes but...

... let's not end up hurting ourselves ...

... or our party.

We have a great thing going now ....

In spite of this, the party is still unscathed, this time.

...but a "slip of the hand" could do much damage, especially in an election year.

Besides, what is with the "jockeying for positions"?

Isn't that for the old Liberal party? May merit play a larger role, Monsieur Dion ... and collectively we will be in better hands for the long run.

Andrew Coyne criticizes Ken Dryden's speech at convention

On the National tonight, Andrew Coyne suggested that Ken Dryden is the most overrated politician in Canada. He explained on a panel tonight that this is because of Ken's speech at the Liberal leadership convention was "too partisan".

Coyne suggests that Ken's inspiring words (and I was there) would only appeal to Liberals. He said that Canadians would not identify with Ken's vision or approach.

I don't trust these comments by Mr. Coyne not to be self-interested. How can they not be?

First of all, Ken Dryden's speech was unequivically the best speech made by any candidate convention. All Liberals I spoke to agree with this. Ken went after Stephen Harper primarily (as opposed to the other candidates).

Does not mean that Canadians outside the Liberal party would not support his vision? Would other viewers be offended by his criticizms of Harper? Perhaps hard line conservatives would not agree, but Ken's speech was crafted and delivered to inspire Liberal members and also ideological liberals.

Conservatives need not apply if the message does not resonate.

Ken delivered the speech of a lifetime primarily to an audience of Liberals. The goal of this exercise was to win over the delegates on site. Even though other Canadians were watching on TV, they had no vote.

What is with the jaded criticizm by Mr. Coyne? In the opinion of many that I talked to, Dryden's performance was beyond reproach and inspiring.

I met Andrew Coyne at Convention and I had multiple conversations with him. He seems reasonable. He is clearly smart. Nevertheless, his comments criticize one of the best political performances on record and I am confused. Ken inspired an audience of Liberals and Canadians.

Andrew Coyne split hairs tonight. Mr. Coyne has previously written about the extent his political predictions were way off throughout this leadership race. In retrospect, the last person Mr. Coyne should be critical of is Mr. Dryden, who brought vision, ethics and leadership to this race.

Furthermore, Ken's endorsement of Mr. Dion over Mr. Ignatieff on the last ballot represents Dion's margin of victory.

Ken had an impact on the issues that made the agenda. His ethical standards are a primary reason the other candidates did not go down the road of "broken rules". Throughout the campaign, other candidates borrowed Ken's "Big Canada" content. They obviously understood his vision and could not resist using it themselves.

Perhaps the "shadowing" of Mr. Dryden's policy by the other leadership candidates is a form of flatery for Ken. Should Mr. Coyne have given equal time to the universal adoption of Ken's vision before identifying Ken's brilliant speech as a failure? You tell me!

Child abductor? Canadian Olympic Gold Medalist wanted by police.

In a situation that represents the extreme exception rather than the rule, Olympic medallist in 1992 and 1994, Myriam Bédard, is wanted by Canadian police for disappearing for over two months with her 11-year-old child.

In a country with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, women nevertheless overwhelmingly retain custody of their children. As such, it is ironic that the "mother" in this case is being pursued by police.

Why is this even news? The abduction involves another jurisdiction. And, because Ms. Bédard is known. Because another jurisdiction is involved, it is now a criminal matter.

What if the abduction were in Canada? What if Ms Bédard simply began "denying access" to her ex-husband for no particular reason (and if there were no court order on access)? The Family Courts would preside. Because Canada's Family Courts make decisions that favour one gender over another, the accountabilty for Ms. Bédard would be much different. This would not be a criminal matter and she would unlikely even get a "slap on the wrist".

Why? Myriam's ex-husband would likely have to spend his own after tax dollars to do a private prosecution to overcome the abduction. If he were to involve the Criminal Courts, the matter would be referred back to the Family Court and the onus would be solely on him.

Because gender is important in Canada's Family Courts, he would be swimming against the current. His potential to generate an affordable, timely or equitable remedy would be limited and unlikely.

Why is this type of blatant injustice as a part of Canadian domestic policy not on the agenda for change? Is this not Canada's greatest social problem at the moment, especially when one considers the Charter?

If someone were to ask me, I would attribute the lack of change to "special interests" that have had funding resources to block equitable change, as well as special interests with access to decision makers.

Most would agree that such influence in our policy design and implementation processes does not make for balanced or sustainable public policy.

Could we have some attention here? Let's evaluate and fix some very bad domestic policy, at the very least for the sake of our nation's credibility, please.

Further proof ideology is a "horseshoe": Left-Right Political boxes are not quite linear

In a world where civil liberties seem best protected by left-leaning politicans, articles like this one create doubts about which end of the political spectrum better preserves the rights of all citizens.

Advocacy funding in UK goes after the "dead beat dad", again!

Thousands are protesting today the closing of Status of Women's offices by Stephen Harper's Conservatives. The Honourable Bev Oda, Minister of Status of Women, is currently overseeing this changes.

She justifies the move by suggesting the cuts ensure that 17 cents out of every dollar of funding (instead of 31 cents) is needed only for administrative costs, which means more money is available to benefit women directly.

Such spin from all sides is neither here nor there.

The bottom line is that advocacy funding is only legal under the Charter if it does not put the rights of one gender ahead of the other. Therefore, it is inappropriate for these funds to flow to organizations who seek to delay further changes to the federal Divorce Act. All funding should meet the gender neutral standard demanded by the application of Canada's Charter principles.

Some funding by the Status of Women has been paid to lobbies who seek to delay changes to the Divorce Act, especially since 1998, when a federal report recommended changes that would ultimately make "access" as much of a priority as "child support" in Canadian law and would arguably stop the unilateral flow of child support from men to women. The current situation has been preserved in part via advocacy funding. This is simply innapropriate due to its patriarchy.

Nevertheless, advocacy monies are used to lobby for the status quo.

Ironically, on a day when thousands march on behalf of highly organised advocacy organisations defence of advocacy funding in Ottawa and across Canada, the UK announces (like in the USA) that the names of "deadbeat dads" will be published on the internet to encourage compliance.

Please remember:

· 90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
· 79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
· 44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
· 37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
· 66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.

Simple analysis of these data suggest that there is a relationship between fathers who have access to their children and fathers who voluntarily pay child support. Connecting the issues of access and child support it seems would go along way to making almost all fathers comply voluntarily with their obligations.

Or, if one insists on being punitive, why doesn't the UK publish the names of mother's who deny access of their children to the other parent, and stigmatise those types of persons in the same way?

In Canada, where Harper's conservatives have reopened the debate, it is essential that Liberals encourage the government either restrict the flow of advocacy funds to those organisations promoting gender discrimination, or fund men's groups who seek to change the Divorce Act for the sake of children, men, women and second families.

Perhaps western democracies who make advocacy funding available to organizations that seek to make gains at the expense of the other gender should listen less to highly organized pitches and politics by certain lobbies and focus instead on the objective criteria of gender equality.

Fairness would suggest that either advocacy funding must be made available to those seeking to make access a priority in family policy or restrictions on inappropriate gender funding are needed.

Consider This a protest by "methods", which, like protests by marches, has its place in Canadian civil disobedience.

Peace Prize Winner Jimmy Carter Rebukes Canada

Well it seems Jimmy Carter, a credible international voice, is critical of Canada's lack of balance in its approach to the Middle East. In particular he spoke out yesterday (using diplomacy as always) against the Harper government's choice to impose sanctions along with other countries on Palestinians.

His issue is that sanctions were imposed because Palestinians chose to elect a political party whose roots began as a militant organization. He thinks this type of decison making by democratic nations is very dangerous.

The former president is in Canada to promote his book "Peace not Apartheid", and he was interviewed on CBC last night. In this morning's print version of La Presse, Mario Girard writes a front-page story (which is not available online) quoting Carter as saying it is a crime that Palestinians are punished via sanctions for voting for their choice of candidates. The subtext when interviewed by the Canadian media is the lack of balance Harper's conservatives are taking to decisions about the Middle East, which closely resemble the approaches taken by George Bush's Republicans.

This is front page news in Montreal, as Quebecers collectively tend to view this issue somewhat differently.

The wisdom of this Nobel Peace Prize winner and father of the Camp David Accord is worth considering. Given that this is a dangerous issue politically, it is positive that Carter has the courage to critisize Harper's unbalanced approach to the Middle East while he visits Canada.

It seems Harper's Conservatives continue to embarass Canada on the world stage on multiple issues. We can't solely blame our deteriorating international reputation of "Canadian belligerence" on Rona Ambrose anymore. Other Conservatives must share in that blame.

What should one do when their Liberal MP behaves like a Conservative?

This is the scenario:

One lives in one of the safest Liberal ridings in Canada.

It becomes apparent over time that one's MP uses an elected position to support personal preferences that differ considerably from the preferences of most riding constituents.

One's MP's church constituents are major campaign contributors; all funds raised at the riding level are applied to that member's election fund.

Local Liberals are either "in or out" depending upon whether they blindly follow the lead and quietly accept all decisions. Disagreement at any level or on any issue is seen as a lack of unequivocal support. Nay Sayers are ostracised.

One's MP votes against the majority of the Liberal party on legalizing gay marriage last year, even though the riding that one's MP represents is amongst the most progressive in Quebec and Canada.

One's MP votes along with the Party and the Conservative government in support of the Nation motion, even though the motion demotes 75%+ of constituents who are Anglos and Allophones to second tier citizens in Quebec.

One's MP votes against the Liberal party and the status quo in favour of re-opening the gay marriage debate this past week, much to the chagrin of many Liberals and local constituents.

Is this just one's personal philosophy on the role of elected officials in representative democracies, or is this strategic in going after the votes of ideological conservatives in the riding as well as steadfast Liberal supporters who will never vote another way?

Could this be a formula to govern in perpetuity? Is this brilliant or despicable?

Shhhh. Anyone who says anything may be muzzled or ostracised. Can we please keep this as our little secret?!

Gay Marriage Vote: did Mps vote on behalf of constituents, themselves or their church?

The gay marriage free vote today raises questions about the decision making processes utilised by our of our elected members of parliament. What is one’s responsibility to their constituents in Canadian federal politics versus their own values. While I know what Plato’s answer would be, our members interpret their responsibilities in different ways. This was demonstrated by the voting patterns today.

One interpretation of representative democracy would suggest that elected officials have been voted in by their constituents because they have superior decision making skills. Once elected, they have free reign in theory to make decisions that will best serve their constituents. Elected officials who are proponents of this interpretation will only be held accountable for these decisions at election time - and that is about it as far as accountability. In the meantime, constituents need to respect that there is a method to the decision making process and that they will be better off at the end of the day. This is a top-down approach.

This is one interpretation of the responsibilities of elected officials in a representative democracy.

Yet another interpretation of representative democracy is that elected officials are surrogates of their constituents. They have a responsibility to consult with constituents on key decisions, and vote on their behalf, in spite of personal beliefs or preferences.

Somewhere in between these two interpretations lies the optimal representative role.

Then, what does it mean when one’s MP votes with their church (a campaign contributor) before the collective preferences of those who live in the riding?

I don’t know. This seems to have happened today for the second time on this issue. More than a few resididents and Liberals have taken note. Perhaps coincidentally or not, this same member voted against the preferences (and arguably) best interest of a majority of riding constituents on the Nation motion last week.

On the western side of the island of Montreal, the approach subscribed to most by those who serve is obviously the former.

When is advocacy funding gender discriminatory?

While I am a proponent of advocacy funding (unlike the slash and burn cuts by this CPC government), poor administration has led to many programs becoming gender discriminatory according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Where does the accountability lie in fixing social problems that have been created by the misuse of advocacy funds? Should the Auditor General be looking at this much like they did to discover the misuse of funds at Children's Aid in Ontario this week?

To clarify, I am only a proponent of advocacy funding if it does not put the rights of one gender behind those of the other. Yes we need to fund shelters and rape centres and educational programs. We need advocacy funding. But where it has failed is where patriarchal principles are insitutionalised because funding is made available to (1) make gender the determining factor in who gets custody of children in cases of divorce; (2) to make child support (which is 90% paid by men to women because of how custody is determined) a priority over access (which affects mostly men and has been in limbo since the 1990s). There is a definate gender hierachy and advocacy funding has been misused to create these dynamics and to preserve the status quo. In the meantime, men, children and women from second families have become second tier citizens to first families, and children suffer.

Unfortunately, the present system is way out of balance. It takes tragedies to elicit change. When one considers this tragedy and this other tragedy, people lament in retrospect "how could this happen. While when one considers this, people tend to think that is what men tend to do rather than this is what "disturbed people" do. Statistics show that breaking down psychotic behaviour on gender lines is pure propaganda and without merit. Meanwhile, public policy is developed unfortunately in accordance with these myths, in part due to advocacy funding.

As citizens, we need to look at what impact the misuse of advocacy funds have created and maintained in promoting these myths and gender based power dynamics.

I urge my fellow Liberals to bring back advocacy funds with appropriate measures to ensure they cannot and will not be used to further the agenda of one gender over another.

Our very own Political Philanthropist

I have waited a few days before posting anything about Ken, because I am pleased in the end with Stephane as our Leader. But, I cannot say enough about Ken Dryden's approach to politics, which is different from anything else that I have seen in a very good way.

Last week I protested that silly article out of the UK comparing Ignatieff to a 'philosopher king'. The author got it wrong - Ken Dryden is much more in line with those characteristics as described by the ancient and great political philosopher.

Stated simply and as a condition of functional democracy, Plato needed representatives who would innately act on behalf of the 'collective interest' rather than their own 'self interest'. Only those who were enlightened were capable of behaving this way, and this is what Plato wrote was central to functional and pure representative democracies.

This is where modern democracy breaks down and why western and Canadian governments rely on external mechanisms of accountability, such as parliament (an adversarial one) and the Auditor General. However, these institutions are not adequate in making effective the functioning of political systems without the risk of scandal.

Nothing can even compare to Plato's vision, even if modern ones are still called democracies. What we have instead perhaps is the best of many bad form of government (except for Harper's, which lags much farther behind).

After having observed number 29 make his political decisions over the last few months from a sort of "side car" view, I see what doing politics differently is all about. This great man did not enter politics or seek the leadership because he is ambitious. He is not involved because he wants to exert further influence because of his ego. Nor is he doing it for his own gain.

Ken Dryden is involved in politics because he believes in sincerely in making this country better for all Canadians. His Big Canada is all about making Canada stronger by making its component parts stronger. As Pierre Trudeau adopted official bilingualism across Canada as a means to unify and identify, Ken's vision does the same, without the backlash.

The Liberal party is very lucky to have this man sitting in the front row in the House, one seat away from our new Liberal leader.

He was a hero of mine when I was a boy and now he is even more so.

Way to go Ken!

Day one in the House: Advocacy funding a possible timebomb for Dion opposition

The brand new Stephane Dion led Liberal opposition took on a seemingly harmless and sensible grievance as its inaugural issue. Stephane Dion led the charge by asking about the absence of advocacy funding and the closing of Status of Women's offices across the country.

Not all Liberals agree this is the best starting point. Advocacy funding is important as a means of assisting grassroots movements in creating fair change. If it were to end there, this would be a non-issue.

Where this is dangerous politically is when advocacy funding crosses the line to favours one gender at the expense of another. This variation can be seen as a possible violation under the charter. Stated simply, when funding to advocacy groups becomes "blind advocacy" in support of one group over another, the Liberal value - to be able to challenge the establishment in an organised way via funding - becomes problematic and something the Conservatives could use to divide Liberals if Mr. Dion does not clarify his position.

If Stepahne Dion wants to protect against a possible backfire on this issue, he should clarify that Status of Women funding should not be used to maintain the status quo in federal family policy any longer unless an equitable amount of funding is provided to organisations who advocate on behalf of non-residential parents and second families.

Second families are typically concerned with "access" issues, while parents with whom children of divorce live are mostly concerned with child support, for obvious reasons. Status of Women has funded groups who have advocated the prioritisation of child support issues and delays in perpetuity to changes to the Divorce Act to scrap divisive terminology and gender hierarchies in the awarding of custody and access. This is in spite of recommendations by federally commissioned reports in 1998 and 2002.

Arguably, advocacy funding is also where the myth of the "dead beat dad" was spun up. After all:

· 90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the support due.
· 79.1% of fathers with visitation privileges pay the support due.
· 44.5% of fathers with no visitation pay the support due.
· 37.9% of fathers are denied any visitation.
· 66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to the inability to pay.

With respect to the Charter question, in 1998 a Canadian, Pat Ellis, argued that sex-specific funding by any level of government is prohibited by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Below is an excerpt from a legal opinion from a prominent Toronto legal firm regarding his action.

"Mr. Ellis had discovered an anomaly in the law under the equality rights provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") More specifically, he has found that subsection 15(2) of the charter with respect to the prohibited ground of 'sex" conflicts with subsection 28 of the Charter. It does not appear as though the issue of the conflict between the two provisions of the Charter has been litigated.
In that respect, this would be a test case. What might be required is an authorization to do a Constitutional Reference on this point to the Supreme Court of Canada."

"Section 28 of the Charter, provides that, "Notwithstanding anything in his charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons." Whether this provision supersedes subs.15(2) of the charter is an issue. The override clause of the Charter, section 33, does not apply to section 28 but does apply to section 15. This is further evidence of the anomaly."

"It appears to us that the gender bias argument of Mr. Ellis has merit, and is of considerable importance to about half the population of this country, who happen to be male, and have been or are likely to be subjected to the gender bias in the various laws of Canada, which may conflict with the supreme law of the land."

As a Liberal who cares about the future of the party, gender neutrality and fairness, it is important that Mr. Dion clarify that such advocacy funding not be meant for blind advocacy at the expense of others. Otherwise the "dream team" will be vulnerable to counter-critisism.

Dion can provide that fresh start: Out with the old... in with the new

As delegates were leaving Montreal today, the season's first snow fell briefly this morning in Montreal. There was much traffic on the 20 and I hope nobody missed their flights.

In the meantime, it was still very peaceful by the water's edge.

I trust Liberals are also at peace with with the outcome of the leadership convention. Certain types of Liberals went the Ignatieff route. What are the distinguishing features of Liberals who went that route last April when the roster of candidates was still unclear?

Some wrongly anticipated Liberals would be admiring of Mr. Ignatieff having benchmarked himself as a standout amongst bright people globally. Others felt his academic smarts would translate into political smarts. Still others felt that superior organisational skills of his machine would carry the day.

The bottom line is that the Mr. Dion overcame the organisational machines that split and have dominated the party since Mr. Turner and Mr. Chretien's leadership battle in the 80's. Following that the organisational machines were born.

As a result, that power base is gone and the party can now heal - and that was clearly what this convention needed to pull off as an outcome at the end of the day for the sake of the Liberal party of Canada. Mr. Dion's victory was the cherry on top (because this would not have happened if the new leader were Iggy or Rae), which followed the very powerful messages that were sent along with Mr. Martin's rare praise of Mr. Chretien and vice versa. Mr. Turner was in the mix too for good measure.

The convention process and Mr. Dion's victory together represent renewal on a far more significant scale than could have been created alone by the Red Ribbon Campaign or the Renewal Commission, which were not at all immune from the influence of those same machines. The Nation resolution is just one of a series of bad ideas that only came about as a result of those self-interested power dynamics.

Now, Mr. Dion needs to ensure that those who at most missed the obvious risks from the Iggy route and at least those who lost control of the spin can no longer take such liberties without accountability. Those who would seek seek to manipulate interal processeses for personal gain or the collective gain of one part of the party at the expence of another must not be allowed to do so anymore.

This way, the potential for the Liberal party to emerge from its previous mistakes (which caught up with the party at the last election) and move forward in a way that will make the healing and renewal experienced by Liberals and non-Liberals watching at home over the last few days sustainable.

If Mr. Dion is able to ensure that the same power structures do not return (or creep back in), I am very confident he can successfully pull this off.

Well done!

Ken Dryden says "NO" to Harper's secret plan to force open the Constitution

While most of the other candidates went along with it for no good reason, Ken Dryden showed leadership. What are we actually voting for in a leader this weekend? Is this someone who will just go along with something that does not feel right (perhaps out of fear), or someone who will stand up for what is not right and who will stand up against what is wrong. Do Liberals want a leader who will say "yes" or "no" because of what is right regardless of the status quo.

Laurence Cannon explained what this really is: it is recognising an ethnic nation and not a geographical or inclusive one - what is symbolic about that? That's a hierarchy. That means Anglo Quebecers, like me, are a little less important in our province right now. The gains of "francophone Quebecers" should not represent a loss for "other Quebecers". That is what everyone but 16 members of Parliament voted for today. What about the Charter?

Harper's key to insitutionalising conservatism in Canada is absolutely about re-opening the consitution, no matter what he says. He could never do that in public and hold onto his rural and Western "Canadian" support. So, he put it on the tee for the Bloc to drive it open. This is definately where this will now go politically.

After Meech and Charlottown, didn't Canadians swear we would not play with consitutional "fire" without being sure? Iggy either missed the point or was very imprudent.

Harper will now have "carte blanche" to decentralise, with the BQ blazing the trail to constitutional talks. Once open, Harper will have support to dilute the federation and to "give away the farm", if need be to hold the country together. That is far to much power for such an ideological conservative, if we want to maintain our current identities.

If Liberals can win the country back the federation will mean that much less. The writing was on the wall months ago that this is Harper's agenda - his anticipated legacy. This is very dangerous.

Which of the leadership candidates would stand up to this "garbage" on behalf of Canadians and Liberals? This became quite clear vith tonight's vote. Way to go Ken!

This will be a very interesting week. I look forward to experiencing this convention with my fellow Liberals from across the country in my home town. Welcome to this great city and I will see you on the floor.

EV

Part 3: Institutionalised Conservatism - Was Harper's Nation flip flop about forcing Liberals to vote?

Last week at this time, it looked like the LPCQ's Nation Resolution was about to be pulled from the policy convention because of bad procedure. The Bloc did not want to lose the opportunity to split hairs by watching this thing die with Iggy. To avoid a lost political opportunity, the BQ chose to put a tough question to the house. Fear crept in, and Harper duped members of all parties and the party leaders (except the Bloc at the time) to support his way of thinking. A massive flip flop for the Prime Minister it seemed to be at the time. The way this was being reported at the end of the week, Harper had saved Canada and Liberals were bowing to his leadership.

Did Harper force Duceppe's hand too? The Bloc flip-flopped yesterday and will now be supporting the motion tomorrow. Some say it is just a flip-flop. Others think this vote now represents something very different than what Bill Graham encouraged the leadership candidates that are currently a part of the Liberal caucus to support last Wednesday morning at the 9:00am meeting.

With Duceppe's flip flop, our Liberal caucus members are voting on something that is purely symbolic for now. And, symbolically, this forces Liberals to support or reject Quebec (the francophone nation). Thanks Ig!

Where this get dangerous is if and when the BQ and PQ are successful in swaying soft nationalist public opinion that this nation symbol means nothing without constitutional renewal. Next they twist Harper's rubber arm a bit, and now we have an election issue over re-opening the constitution or not (unless it is Iggy).

After that, constitutional discussions will amount to either successful repatriation or not. If not successful, nationalist sentiments would be fanned and another Quebec referendum could be on the horizon. Great. Thanks.

Or, Harper will transform Canada into a place that is more conservative by giving away the farm to seal the deal. And, at the same time, he will limit federal spending on matters of provincial jurisdiction to save money and set a trap for Liberals, who will find it hard to govern any differently in this new diluted Canada.

Duceppe's flip flop changes everything, so Liberal caucus might want to think about changing its tact tomorrow before the vote. If this becomes an unanimous love in, Harper will have gained in a series of very strategic chess moves.

Politics can be tough and Liberals need to perform better or the convention will represent a lost opportunity in the struggle for momentum leading up to a possible spring vote.

Part 2: Institutionalised Conservatism - why Harper would rather face Ig even though he denies it

It is very strange that journalists like Craig Oliver and Don Martin think Harper’s Nation motion will put Iggy over the top at our convention. This is either stupid or strategic. Both have their conservative tendencies, but that simplistic type thinking is just ignorant. The fact is that the other campaigns don’t want Iggy! This is because Iggy will represent the greatest attrition of delegates to “anybody but Iggy” campaigns on the floor next week. If these journalists actually checked to see what is happening on the ground, they would not say such things so flippantly. It is not at all that simple at all.

But maybe they do know. Maybe they are being aloof about the whole thing just like the one they admire most, Stephen Harper. But are they really that daft to think this thing is really that simplistic. To offer the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Oliver and Mr. Martin, I do consider both to be intelligent men - so this must be strategic or some type of big corporate media spin.

If I were Steve I would realise that many of the people in the Liberal Party who are against Iggy are steadfast and could leave the party altogether. No other candidate will make Liberals scramble and/or at least reflect on their ideologies, their loyalties and where they place their efforts.

Steve also knows that Iggy automatically moves the Liberal party to the right with his stands on Iraq and other matter. Students of Weber will know this favours Harper, the incumbent in the next election

Iggy also represents the one candidate who will help and not hinder Steve’s hidden addenda to re-open the constitution and dilute federalism. This reminds me of what it is like south of the border where states have so much autonomy.

While we are at it, why don’t we begin selling or giving away contol over our freshwater? We could also combine constitutions and start trading greenbacks.

What the hell is going on here?

Who is going to stand up and say “no” to this tomorrow! Even candidates who are Mps (and are bound to party discipline) could reflect on whether this whole ending is the latest thing cooked in the IggyNation's kitchen.

To control a Canadian federation with decentralised power in perpetuty is a small price to pay...it is still some power, right Ig.

Institutionalised Conservatism: Harper, the nation, constitutional change and Duceppe

When I was a grad student at English university in Quebec, to graduate, I had to write a French test on the eve of my graduation to show I am worthy to have a graduate degree from a Quebec university. These rules were made in Quebec City and the onus was on my university (and program) to have such hoops in place, as a condition of funding - a provincial jurisdiction.

For the other students and me, this was for all the marbles. I still remember the topic: "centralisation versus decentralisation", which is serendipitous perhaps in light of evidence this week that confirms to me that Harper's primary goal while in office is to institutionalise conservatism in Canada and by using the Quebec problem (the Iggy nation) to do so. At the very least, this would lay down the tracks for future conservative governments to more naturally govern in a diluted/decentralised Canadian federation.

Stated simply, decentralisation is typically consistent with traditional conservative values /and inconsistent with traditional Liberal principles. Harper's vision it seems is more of a neutonian/reductionist approach to the distribution of powers and the redistribution of revenues which reduces the federation to the sum of its component parts (i.e. the provinces).

If this is consummated through constitutional renewal (which the CPC is denying but it will be hard to put the genie back in the bottle), the Canadian political spectrum will shift forever. It will be impossible for Liberals to govern from the centre because the centre will likely have shifted. Will our children and grandchildren have to be ideological Tories to avoid being off the off the scale left?...much like many Democrats have evolved to become in the United States?

So, history could show that Iggy's nation thing was the catalyst constitutional renewal, after all.

To avoid sovereignty via this process, Harper may re-open the constitution himself (or at least he will lay down the tracks for doing so) and in so doing pave the road to absolute decentralisation of Canada's federation . This would accommodate the political motives of those governing in Quebec (many of whom ultimately have sovereignist objectives). This will be rolling the dice unless the federation is diluted. The soveignists will take advantage of Harper's preferencess to weaken the federation, as long as at the end of the day Canada matters less and Quebec matters more: or no deal. As such, Canada will have a federation that is weakened considerably by these negotiations . There will be no going back.

What about the Liberal vision of federalism that would involve a stronger federation because the component parts are also stronger? To me, that is the Canadian vision. This is not about "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", is it?

This is where other scary conservative objectives may rear their ugly blue heads. While the constitution is open, why not limit federal spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction. This would save Steve some money if he is still governing, and, if he is not, his legacy will have been to have institutionalised conservatism in Canada, and the rest will be history. If I actually were ideologically conserative, like Steve, I would consider that to be a fine legacy, even if he governs only briefly.

Whether it is to sweep this under the rug before the leadership convention (or to save Iggy's butt), Liberals should be very cautious before voting for Harper's motion. Gigantic "flip-flops" like this one are usually about political survival, and not about good or sustainable policy.

Liberals should not walk into this "booby-trap".

Is Iggy Responsible for Nation fiasco? Ask Michael Bliss

Is this nation thing Iggy's responsibility? I will reserve comment in favour of Michael Bliss, who writes:

"None of this would likely have happened if Mr. Ignatieff had not deliberately fanned the embers of Quebec nationalism in his campaign for the Liberal leadership. Without Mr. Ignatieff's publicizing of the issue, it probably would have simmered harmlessly. He is a classic example of the irresponsible intellectual who advocates what seem like good ideas, and only afterwards comes to understand and regret the unintended consequences of the positions he has taken. He did not learn the lessons of his ghastly Iraq folly. After making mistakes that would have humbled and silenced most thoughtful men, Mr. Ignatieff instead chose to bring his carpet bag of ideas back to Canada. Millions pay the price of the Ignatieff ego."

Liberals should think twice before allowing Harper to go this way without opposition, giving him a "red carpet" to limit federal involvement in provincial matters and to weaken our federation irreparably by institutionalising conservatism like the Borg sought to do in Star Trek - assimilate!.

Why are the leadership candidates being encouraged to go this way?

How to take advantage of gender discrimination in Canada’s family courts now: time is running out.

People who have experienced Canada’s family courts (including divorcing couples, the lawyers working in the system and the judges), if they were to be perfectly honest, they would admit that gender plays a big part in the outcome. Some argue that gender is the single most important factor in determining custody. This is the worst kept secret by members of provincial bar associations. Loyalty to the higher order (and sheer profitability of family law for lawyers) has mostly contained any whistle blowing by barristers and solicitors. Because it is their discipline, they are overwhelmingly the ones who best understand this.

Whether this is a violation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted twenty-five years ago, it is hard to know for sure (though logic would suggest...what ?). This question has not yet been adjudicated.

When it is, family law as we know it will likely change forever. This will be much to the disappointment of lawyers and other special interests who profit from the way the system is right now. Monumental change is happening, so, if anyone looking for ways to use the present system to estrange one's children from an ex-spouse one really doesn’t like, the window is slowly closing - one had better get to it!

If this is really important, there is still time. There is still no non-litigious way of resolving a custody disagreement for divorcing couples on access. In the meantime, one could collect the maximum amount of child support (because child support is a priority and will be dealt with in a short number of days, for the sake of the children). One could use the child support money for litigation (nobody will check - it is paid to the parent :)) and those monies could be used to grind the resolution of the access issue to a snail's-pace via the courts. One's kids may never have to see their other parent, the one who gets in the way, again!

Therefore, the status quo can be preserved in perpetuity and child support monies will still continue to flow. Awesome isn't it!

The best part is that most non-residential parents facing such a system, while paying after tax dollars for their legal fees and their child support (and in Ontario, that means the non-reses paying the max no matter how much residential parents make or have) will just give up. The odds of getting away with it and not being held accountable are pretty good – so why not just do it if it - if it is that important?

So, if anyone is steadfast in having his or her children exclusively and at the expense of an ex-spouse one does not like, the pre-emptive approach will still work – but only for a short time still. If this is important, people had better get in line now.

This way one could retain a hired-gun lawyer and begin denying access to their non-residential ex-spouse right away. It will take them 3 years and cost them tens of thousands of dollars to expose and resolve the access denial, even if it is purely frivolous. The consequences of such a pre-emptive strike are much less than the benefits, especially if one is truly committed to having their children at any cost. Even if it affects the children emotionally later or worse, it could still be worth considering depending on how important it is. After all, some people would rather pay to be absolutely certain there are no doubts as to who is the primary parent, the better parent. If it works, why not?

Where could one find a lawyer who could make this happen within the rules of the existing system? In all cities there are lawyers who will 'play for pay'. The ultimate objective is a matter of content and is it typically of no consequence because of the discipline and the process used by thes legal representatives to remain vigorous advocates. With the window closing, most lawyers of this ethical strain will probably be especially busy, so it might be best to call soon.

The only problem is that parallel forms of accountability emerge when systems are biased or out of balance, like family law in Canada. So, the clients of such lawyers are rumoured to be currently being tracked by social justice advocates and father’s rights groups who will make the information public shortly and from now on.

There are those who are insisting that such legal practices cease now and that the accountability of transparency begin now. They insist such practices are needed to bridge the gap between now and when the rules change, since nothing else seems to dissuade hired guns from crossing the line some say is "criminal".

That is neither here nor there!

Because client information is in the public domain once a Change of Solicitor document is filed with the court, clients of such lawyers may find themselves to become known to share the company of some of Canada’s most successful (or notorious) parents who practice the denial of access of their children to another parent.

If this objective is really that important, fame is a small price to pay.

Is Iggy the preference of Harper and other Tories?

In Chicago, the institutions are a reflextion of the political reality of cosmopolitan mid-west America.

In parliament today, it was the federalists against the separatists. Some say the federalists won.


Harper's political statement that Quebec is a nation within Canada will represent different things for all Canadians.

Conveniently, Stephen Harper could be accidentally or deliberately throwing Michael Ignatieff a "life preserver". With CPC's decision to handle the Bloc motion this way, Iggy's bad publicity could be contained yet.

The suspected very strategic leak by the CPC the day before before super weekend in September is now mostly confirmed: Harper would rather face Ignatieff in the next federal election.

Why? Most political scientists would agree that a lack of political separation between candidates heavily favours the incumbent, Harper. And, Harper and Iggy are the closest ideologically, which also favours the incumbent.

Even Jane Tavers was assumptive tonight with Iggy about how he and Harper could be seen to be ideological twins. She questioned Iggy about Harper's possible deliberate gesture today to help him off the hook, and Iggy vehemently denied he has anything in common with Harper. This is very convenient Iggy.

If I were Stephen Harper, I think I would most want to face Iggy too! Odds are, Iggy will find himself in trouble again, which is bad new for Liberals if he becomes our leader. I don't think Jane is pro-Iggy at all.

However, I also observed CTV's Craig Oliver's comment that Harper's decision to recognise Quebec as a Nation within Canada could put Michael Ignatieff "over the top" at our convention. FYI, I identified CTV's Craig Oliver as an ideological Tory when I was twelve, so I am not surprised to hear this.

I interpret the self-interested analysis by Craig suggesting that Iggy will gain from the CPC's stand on the Nation issue as purely "convenient" and reflective of Craig's pipe dream of a conservative Canada. Craig's "political analysis" raises red flags with me as far as what he is analysing, who he prefers, what he is spinning, and why.

The bottom line is that ideological conservatives like Stephen Harper and Craig Oliver would rather the Conservative Party of Canada face the Liberals in a soon to be election with Michael Ignatieff as leader, most of all.

When Tories/reformers line up behind one Liberal candidate they most want to face in an upcoming election, it is important to ask, why? The pattern I see has much to do with the ideologies of those making the decisions and the spin.

Some think Iggy is firmly contained: Is Rae the new target for desperate campaigns?

Iggy may have isolated himself over the last few months from the other campaigns. And, as such, he is less of a threat to win. If Iggy is less of a threat, my question is this: has the anybody but Iggy movement been replaced with the anybody but Rae movement recently?

This question is only relevant following Iggy’s latest errors (from a very long list), including the Nation resolution. This has definately cost him if not eliminated him. Rae has made fewer errors and has run arguably a near flawless campaign. Does this make Rae more of a threat to the other candidates than Iggy? Is Iggy officially off the "critical threat charts”. Can an anti-Rae movement be fuelled by desperate campaigns who might bluff that they will make Iggy a contender again if anyone considers supporting Rae?

My point is not whether Rae should or should not be supported. My point is that this possiblity sounds like the Liberal party’s version of the game "hand-grenades". This seems too dangerous to be anything but an extreme survival strategy by candidates with nothing to lose ... candidates with a belief that gains can only be made via pre-emptive strikes.

Candidates should only be bluffing to do what they are seriously prepared to do, unless selling out for personal gain comes easily to them. Could it be that Liberals will end up with a Leader borne under conditions further tainted by destructive self-interest and ambition? Where would be the promise for the future?

Keeping Montreal beautiful: why won't we let this Nation thing go away?

Montreal. Ahhh. It is a beautiful city is it not. Let's keep it that way following the convention.

Debating the Nation resolution on the convention floor could have dire consequences. Consequences on the political mood that will remain in this city and in this province following Convention.

Why then are some people still talking about fixing a broken resolution rather than helping it to disappear. I agree with "if it ain't broke don't fix it". But I tend to agree more with "if it will go away without consequence because of bad procedure, let it go". This is possible and very simple because of this.

In spite of the perfect way out, some Liberals seem to continue to want to do it the hard way and dilute Iggy's original idea into a lie that does nothing but create false expectations amongst some Quebecers. This is where some Quebecers will be waiting in perpetuity for consitutional changes (let's be honest in that these probably won't happen for a while). This will take away from any positive Liberal accomplishments in the meantime.

Perhaps the magic solution that is under our noses is not being discussed that much publicly because it seem too good to be true. I don't know. Perhaps it is also because there is a reluctance to let another Liberal candidate off the hook for a bad idea to start with. I can't say for sure.

Either way, it seems that La Presse and the media keep writing about this so-called compromise resolution and about changes to the broken Nation resolution amongst the candidates to help fix it before it gets to the floor. What will this do? Tone down the debate? What does a watered-down version that barely dribbles do? I am not convinced about this approach.

Also, it seems this article in error made a big deal about Jacques Saada's words because they report he is a Dion supporter. The last time I checked he was running Bob Rae's Quebec campaign. M. Saada is approximately as much of an asset to Dion's campaign as is William Hogg, who must have made a deal with Iggy for the nomination in the riding where he is president. There is no other plausible explanation, but I disgress.

What the candidates need to do is agree to support another resolution that will make this Nation disaster disappear because of flawed procedure, and hold LPCQ to account for these procedural errors, if necessary. The final version is other resolution circulating, but in the meantime, feel free to check out the draft.

I trust Liberals will come to their senses and will make the right choice here.

The perfect amendment to the Nation resolution is the one that makes it go away...

Right across this Quebec bay, on this coolish day, Libloggers were invited to play along with a perfect way they say of making the Nation problem go away. Is there a better way to send it along its way? No way. Playing with the issue on live TV may cause Liberals to pay if the Nation Resolution is sent away packing - to the moon - because gangs of Liberals say no f-cking way.

Then, Boisclair and Duceppe can have a field day each and every day after that reminding Quebecers about that infamous day when Canada came to Montreal, MAY day in November, to say no f-cking way to that Nation Resolution, and the Quebec way too. There may be spin...

After all, one day soon there will be a provincial election and many still offended Quebecers won't think the topic of Canada is that gay (in a happy or sad kind of way).

Why don't we just say to no-way to Iggy's big idea - LPCQ's big lay in an ivory tower. This Nation power play should just go away if LPCQ and others belly up now and say OK - send it along its way. This is because procedural mistakes were made along the way, which is lucky because this issue is way too hot to play with right now. Please just make it go away today!

Please help LPCQ say go away today and not on the Convention floor in 10 days, on live TV - by supporting this. Most people seem to say that it is the very best way.

Let's stop trying to fix a broken resolution, OK?!

So, let's send it along its way without overshadowing what most say is the real reason Liberals are coming to Montreal in 10 days to play and to lay the foundation for a brilliant future, the party's new way.

See you on the floor and have a great day.