Molly

Hah! Prohibition, working as well as ever... I'd likely support almost any party that offered to devote every dime of provincial tax collected from cigarettes to stop-smoking treatments and aids- not ads, not enforcement, not research, not punishment, not prizes or lecturers or 'no smoking' signs', but directly covering the entire cost of nicorettes and Champix and lazer treatments, herbal remedies and hypnotists and whatever the heck else anyone needs to get that monkey off their back. Tobacco taxes are largely a special burden reserved for the poor. Funny thing... if everyone who didn't want to be a smoker managed to quit, there wouldn't be a smoke shop in Ontario making a profit. That'd sure save anyone fussing or wondering whether any given smoke shop is operating legally or not. And meanwhile... Conservatives stressing punishment,enforcement and blame (even when standing on very doubtful legal grounds) over actually helping people... no surprise. (That's what makes it hard to vote Conservative, even though Canadians, on the whole are a very conservative lot...)

I lived under both administrations, and have had some good laughs at the wild rhetoric about the harshness and destructive nature of the Harris cuts/ the bold fiscal responsibility , morality and humanitarianism of the Romanow NDP. The two greatest differences that I percieve - functional, 'what it actually does to people' differences- are that: 1) Harris started with a system that was truly bloated, and ended with one that was still plush and well-served compared to other provinces; Romanow started out with one that more or less provided basic services and turned it into one that didn't even try. 2) Harris cuts applied province-wide, whereas Romanow seems to have made the cold-blooded calculation that if the cities voted NDP, then they didn't need a single rural riding... and so he threw rural Saskatchewan under the bus.

......So, I'm sitting here thinking of Roy Romanow and some of his caucus members, like Doc Draper and Glen MacPherson.

It'll be very, very interesting to read more, but honestly, so far it looks like Hurricane Hazel's reign has been marked with a higher level of integrity than almost any other municipal unit you can name. There has certain been less hanky-panky exposed there than folks seem to figure they know about in minicipalities in this vicinity. On with the repudiation and indictment... but I bet folks will still be comfortable voting for her.

Wow. I wonder how far we'd have to go to find two people who know less about the subject they're arguing over. Esq, you might want to figure out whether you are talking rape or sexual asault- occurences, reports or convictions, per year or lifetime per capita.. (not 'per woman'. 4 of the rape victims that I know are male).. and then you should question whether the source you have consulted is in any manner qualified to offer a numerical report, regardless of which statistical sliver they've chosen to report. Saipan, get a grip. NOTHING tops "The rapists are well known criminals." for pulling a laughably obtuse falsehood out of thin air.

You don't, then, consider Reform/Alliance/CPC to be a regional rump that grew... Yes, they tend to be flashes in the pan- but that's because they are formed by folks who are idealistic and optimistic, but not politically savvy. The list, though, is huge, and theay are largely cookie-cutter replays of legitimate disgruntlement that simply goes unaddressed- even unacknowledged- by 'national' parties.

..mmm... We've also had a plethora of regional parties started up by disenchanted folks who feel- often quite rightfully- disenfranchised. To me, that's a symptom suggesting a serious problem. If so many people feel disenfranchised, maybe it's because they are.

It's not a binary situation. There's a tremendous amount of room to loosen the party stranglehnold without stripping parties of all relevance.

The thing all these new parties have in common is the attempt to escape the national party whip- the circumstace in which member after member is asked to hold greater loyalty to his party than to the folks he is supposed to be representing. If we moved away from so rediculously empowering the parties -- start with little things like removing party affiliations from ballots, and shuffling some campaign spending rules to makie affiliation less valuable.... maybe even vote for the best available candidate ... then we wouldn't need new party after new party.

TimG : The payer would get the moral victory knowing the ex won't get the money till access is provided. Bonam: Moral victory is a bit hollow when you are being bled dry while not even being allowed to see your child. Lots of folks would consider it a fair tradeoff. Lots do avoid seeking child support in order to erase that second parent form their own, and their child's lives. From my own perspective, that 'moral victory' seems extra hollow, on the grounds that... well, the custodial parent wants you gone, so you comply by being even more absent from that child's life? In a dozen years when the kid asks, you say, "Your (custodial parent) didn't want me hanging around, so to spite them, I abandoned you completely." It seems to me that a caring, loving parent would want to be making sure that child has what they need even if there is an impediment to day-to-day contact. I know that I woudl be worrying about my kids doing without.

That's what you are! You are a BIRTHER! (Hyphenated, of course.)

..... which is part of what makes one wonder why this is listed under federal politics. All provinces, of course, have some sort of maintenance enforcement system, and they all have their own support value guidelines which are more likely to apply and be applied than are the federal, limited use guidelines. All operate on similar philosophies- like the part about child support being all about supporting children- but no two are quite the same.

Cute. Extinguishes responsibilities... but not the rights, as opposed to extinguishing claims to children, but not responsibility for them. Would that also apply to biological mothers, or are we confining this conversation to single-income families in which the income earner is male and whose income is double or more that of the average household (not incdividual) in Canada.... and, of course, in which the women are cold-hearted money-grubbing bitches with something on the side, both in the marriage and out? Yeah. Right. That's exactly the model we should use to write the laws. How about if both parents decide they want those rights, but none of the responsibilities?

Tim... I think Guyser has given you a pretty straight answer. Providing for your children to bare survival levels, regardless of your means? That's not worthy of respect. It's mean and grasping and self-absorbed. However, I don't know if you checked out that link. I plugged in $40,000 gross income and two kids, in Ontario- probably pretty common, if not leaning a little to the plush side for young parents... and came out with $600 and some odd, which wouldn't pay half the rent on a mediocre two bedroom apartment, much less provide food, clothing- Walmart or otherwise, entertainment, transportation, glasses and dentistry and the odd prescription... just wouldn't even come close, even at a subsistence rate. Never mind dance lessons, or a pet. How much less should be asked?

What about 'em? Those parents have options, particuarly including the right to challenge custody, and become the one in that driver seat. Don't get me wrong here, Bonam- I have huge sympathy for folks in such a situation. I've never been in the situation, but folks I care about have been. It's a truly awful place to be, often with no real solutions, and no good answers... but what is the states interest? How do 'the neighbours' benefit by putting up tax money to... monitor and enforce that relationship.. to, in effect, babysit the babysitters? The state benefit and obligation in the cash transaction is obvious, but in the social arrangement? Not so much. It is always in a childs interest to be provided for (and the state could be stuck picking up the shortfall if the parents don't do it), but the company of an estranged parent is not always a good thing.

The practical reality is that the amount demanded for child support would not likely cover even half of the cost of raising children, in spite of 'reaching for the average' being the goal of the guidelines. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-fea/lib-bib/tool-util/apps/look-rech/index.asp?Income=40%2C000&Children_No=2&Province_ID=6&Search=Lookup You did catch that: the goal of the guidelines is to name average cost of raising a child, for folks of particular income levels, so "If it was really child support... the amount would be based on the amount it costs to raise a child" is how the number is determined. However, since the amount folks spend on their children varies with their income level, the part about " and not on the income of payer" can't, in practical reality, be accommodated.

Bambino, your post #9: gold star for sweeping away the BS. Refreshing.

Ab-so-lutely not.

PIK is a Liberal? Who knew?!

I'm glad someone has the wits to base their opinion on something of substance, instead of simply misrepresenting both the subject and it's context, supporting that leap of faith with vehemence alone.

Pfffththb! I say that YOU aren't Canadian because you don't speak English or French like any Canadian that I know. If I restrict my experience of the nation enough, stick my fingers in my ears and shout LALALALALA, then I can probably strip millions of their citizenship and nationality, but right now, I'll just settle for you. You don't sound Canadian to me.

Did anyone catch Mercer's rant last night? He pointed out that he's spent aboout as much time away from Newfoundland for work as Ignatief has, but if someone tried to tell him he was no longer a Newfoundlander, there'd be blood. He mentioned Gordon Pinsent, too...

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/LEGAL47A-eng.htm

Sorry, but that particular 'private deal' is the obligation of an adult to a dependent child- not another adult- and when that obligation is abandoned, as often as not it falls to the state to make up the shortfall. The interest and the obligation of the state is obvious. Apples and oranges may both be displayed in a single bowl, without being the same fruit. Let's run that by again... Those non-custodial parents are the ones who deem the custody/visitation issue to be of too little importance for 'the nuclear option'. If it is of so little importance to them, then why should it be of great importance to me, and other taxpayers?