Canadian Parents’ Charter of Rights

Connie and Vic


Parents’ Charter Rights

Canada is a nation of discrimination. Canada is especially biased against fathers and their children. We currently have a default model of sole custodial mothers, during and after divorce.

The Judicial System is hopelessly anti father and treats fathers like they are criminals. Separation and Divorce have become the most prominent social injustice in Canada with lifetime repercussions to families and relatives. This must stop now! As long as judges and not parents make decisions regarding the children, there is no freedom or justice in Canada.

We recommend equal shared parenting for all parents in the spirit of raising healthy, loving children.

  1. Parents are both considered equal custodial parents with a goal of 50/50 shared custody.
  2. Parents are to care for their children in their own homes.
  3. Parents are to share important decisions equally.
  4. Parents are expected to share extra ordinary expenses according to income when necessary.
  5. Parents have the right to refuse to pay for extra ordinary expenses in situations that they do not approve of or can’t afford.
  6. Parents are to have access to children at all reasonable times, electronically.
  7. No parent shall suffer from alienation by the other parent and the children.
  8. Alienation is a crime and children should be removed from an alienating parent’s home immediately and returned to the other parent.
  9. Denying access to the other parent when it is their turn to have the children is cause for immediate transfer of children to the victimized parent.
  10. Parents are to share the children during long vacations and have reasonable access during one day events like Halloween, Valentine’s Day etc.
  11. No child support is required when parents are caring for their children as equal custodial parents.
  12. One parent can not withhold important information from the other parent like educational information or health information. If this is done, the schools and doctors etc. will be notified to send written material to the other parent for every occasion.
  13. Both parents are required to provide irrevocable life insurance listing the other parent/children as beneficiaries until the age of majority.
  14. If one parent does not qualify for life insurance to protect the welfare of the children, then they should retain the other parent as beneficiary in personal property.
  15. All government family benefits are to be shared by both parents.
  16. All pension sharing plans will be equally enforced to include pension sharing with the women’s pensions too.
  17. Matrimonial property to be shared equally between both parents. This means the home(s) need to be sold and the profit shared equally.
  18. Fathers to have equal reproductive rights. No child can be aborted or adopted without the fathers’ permission or opportunity to have sole custody of the child himself.
  19. Parenting classes are mandatory for both parents to get along with the other parents after separation and divorce.
  20. Troubled children to have mandatory counseling. Children are often encouraged to hate the other parent by one parent and this causes a lifetime of pain and suffering for everybody.
  21. In the event that one parent can’t spend 50/50 time with the children and must pay some child support, that support should be non taxable to the payor.
  22. Only a criminal conviction of child abuse, neglect or child endangerment is cause for terminating or limiting a parent’s right to their own children.
  23. Maternity and Paternity leave offered to both parents in equal amounts.

Connie Brauer

1061 Mines Rd.


Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0


Phone 902 791 0958 Cell


My Fax: 1 519 968 3678

Bitter custody battle leads to two courts making opposite rulings at same time over same case


TRENDINGSenate appointees | Donald Trump | Canadian dollar | Dr. Saren Azer | Leafs | Bosma

Bitter custody battle leads to two courts making opposite rulings at same time over same case


Adrian Humphreys | August 16, 2013 5:55 PM ET
More from Adrian Humphreys | @AD_Humphreys

The case highlights how contentious custody battles can force courts into complex decisions and how emotionally charged evidence is presented to a judge can prompt different outcomes.

Postmedia News/FilesThe case highlights how contentious custody battles can force courts into complex decisions and how emotionally charged evidence is presented to a judge can prompt different outcomes.

Two courts in different provinces hearing the same child custody dispute arrived at opposite decisions, with an Alberta judge granting the mother sole custody and a British Columbia judge ordering sole custody to the father.

The unusual conflict led to special concurrent hearings — with the mother and the father each having two lawyers, one each in both the B.C. and Alberta supreme courts — to figure out which court has jurisdiction to make a final custody decision in the acrimonious marital split.

The case highlights how contentious custody battles can force courts into complex decisions and how emotionally charged evidence is presented to a judge can prompt different outcomes.

The couple moved to New Westminster, B.C., after living in Calgary, where they were married in 2009. About a year later, after their son was born, their relationship deteriorated. During a brief separation, the mother lived with the boy in Calgary before a reconciliation and reunion back in B.C.


During last Christmas holidays, however, the mother alleged she and the child were assaulted by the father. She called police and he was taken into custody. The next day the mother flew back to Calgary with the child.

Within days, the mother appeared in Calgary provincial court and obtained an ex parte interim parenting order granting her sole custody of the child, with the father having supervised visitation rights. The father was not able to present evidence at the hearing.

Meanwhile, when the father learned his wife had taken their son out of the province without his consent, he went to court in B.C. where a judge granted an interim order giving him custody of the child; the court also granted an order for police to help enforce the return of the child to the province.

(The National Post has declined to name the couple in the interests of the child.)

The B.C. order has not been enforced as the couple, through their lawyers, argued over the conflicting decisions, leading to concurrent hearings on joint applications in courtrooms in both provinces last month. The judges reserved their decisions at the time.

“The father says [the child’s] removal from British Columbia was wrongful. He denies any behaviour entitling the mother to remove [the child] from the jurisdiction,” a ruling issued last week said.

“The mother asserts that her removal of [the child] was warranted in the circumstances given the father’s abusive behaviour, and says that Alberta is the appropriate forum for determining [the child’s] ongoing custody, given his now seven-month residency there with her.”

This time, the two courts were of the same mind.

“Both courts have come to the same conclusion as to the matter of jurisdiction,” wrote Justice John S. Harvey of the Supreme Court of B.C. on behalf of both courts.

“We find that the proper jurisdiction in which the trial of this matter should take place to determine custody and parenting arrangements with respect to the child is B.C.”

As reasons, Judge Harvey said his province was where the couple lived when their son was born and throughout their marriage until the mother’s removal of the child, which was done without consent and based on disputed facts. As such, the best evidence in the case will come from B.C.

In the meantime, however, the child is to live with his mother in Calgary, while the father will have reasonable access for visitation.

“There are allegations of family violence which, although unproven, make both courts cautious in calling for a return of [the son] and his mother to B.C. pending trial,” Judge Harvey wrote.

An allegation of abuse and accusations of moving a child without consent are two major “red flags” of a high conflict family law situation, said Susan Boyd, a professor of family law at the University of British Columbia Faculty of Law, commenting on the case. She is not involved in it.

In some cases, a parent moves quickly to get a court judgment to help them later in the proceedings, other times there are urgent reasons to have a court quickly add stability to a teetering situation.

“Because this can happen, the provinces have taken steps to decide on which court is going to trump the other when there is competing claims,” she said.

The dual courts’ ruling is in line with B.C.’s new Family Law Act, which came into force in March and stipulates the court should only take on a custody case when a parent is habitually living in the province.

“A more fulsome set of all evidence needs to now be given to the court,” said Ms. Boyd.

The trial date will be set on an expedited basis to be heard by Judge Harvey but the earliest date could Oct. 28.

National Post

• Email: | Twitter: AD_Humphreys

Fathers-only parental leave could improve young families’ lives, Trudeau muses during UN trip

Fathers-only parental leave could improve young families’ lives, Trudeau muses during UN trip

The Canadian Press | March 16, 2016 2:15 PM ET
More from The Canadian Press

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau arrives at the United Nations in New York on Wednesday, where he talked about increased parental leave to help young families.

Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty ImagesPrime Minister Justin Trudeau arrives at the United Nations in New York on Wednesday, where he talked about increased parental leave to help young families.

NEW YORK — Setting aside parental leave that can only be taken by fathers may be a way of improving the flexibility available to young families, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Wednesday.

The prime minister was explaining his thoughts on gender equality before a clearly approving audience at the United Nations.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesJustin Trudeau, flanked by members of his Cabinet, takes questions from the media during a visit to the UN.

He said it is important to encourage parental leave and even single out leave just for dads.

“Not just saying, ’Oh that it’s parental leave that can be divided as you like’, but actually highlighting — in some cases there’s been successes on this — that, no, no, no, this is a number of weeks that can only be taken by the father of a young child.

“That goes a long way towards changing the thing.”

He said he and his government are trying to make Parliament more family friendly, saying it’s time to update an institution “designed for old, white guys.”

Parliamentary travel requirements and sitting hours can be barriers to women with young children, but it is time to challenge institutions and find ways to make them work better, Trudeau said.

Businesses and organizations can be encouraged to be more open to equality, he added.


“One of the things that has shown effectiveness is just making people report explicitly on the gender balance within their organization, within their boards at the highest levels,” he said. “That incentivizes positive behaviour in meaningful ways.”

The Harper government’s last budget in 2015, included a proposal to change the business corporations act to require companies to either put a gender equality policy in place or explain publicly why they don’t have one.


FacebookFind National Post on Facebook

No safety net’: How a divorce rips a tornado through your finances, and what to do about it

No safety net’: How a divorce rips a tornado through your finances, and what to do about it


Danielle Kubes, Special to Financial Post | February 19, 2016 12:04 PM ET
More from Special to Financial Post


Divorce sucks.

Whatever else you may think of divorce, or marriage for that matter, we can all agree on that. 

In fact, I looked up the word “trauma” in the Oxford American’s Writer’s Thesaurus while writing this article. To my delight: “Trauma, noun, 1. The trauma of divorce.” There you go. Divorce is known as so universally crappy that it’s used as the example for a word whose synonyms include “torture” and “war-weariness.”

Reaching beyond the obvious emotional implications though, a major consequence of divorce is the absolute tornado it rips through your finances.

Few couples realize that no matter how conscious the uncoupling, no matter how determined they are to dissolve their marriage congenially, their finances are likely to be, if not decimated, then at minimum thrown into disarray.

“I really don’t know if there’s a watershed mark when people look at this thing and say ‘I have no money left’,” says Donald Baker, a family law specialist at the Toronto firm Baker and Baker.

“During the divorce what happens normally is that they don’t even think of the financial ramifications because, you have to remember when they go through this process, it’s an incredibly emotional process. Even a so-called simple divorce … they aren’t really thinking that clear.”

That is, until they are confronted with the raw numbers.


To determine asset split and spousal support, Canadians must fill out a financial statement, which is a document of about 15 pages detailing income, expenses and assets.

“This is sort of the first point in the process for people who are saying, ‘I didn’t realize it costs me this much to live,’ and it usually comes as a bit of a shock for most people,” Baker says.

Greg, who asked not to use his real name, is 48, works in sales and had two sons with his wife of 15 years. They divorced last January in what he describes as “amicable” circumstances.

“Almost no one talks about how you’re going to manage your finances when you’re separated before you actually go out and educate yourself at that time,” he says.  “And you’re dealing with a short window of time to bring yourself up to speed…. You’re not an expert and you’re learning things that surprise you.”

How to make the financial side of divorce less horrible

1. Sign a Marriage Agreement

Commonly called a prenup, creating a Marriage Agreement before your wedding will allow you to tabulate your assets before marriage. If you ever divorce, says Baker, you’ll be able to prove that you did indeed have savings of $30,000, for example, before entering the marriage, which will then likely be entirely yours to keep.

2. Consider going through a mediator

If your divorce is amicable, you may be able to save money by going through a mediator instead of hiring two lawyers. Greg says he wishes he and his wife went to a mediator first “given we were so close,” and because they were so “surprised at how quickly the (lawyer) fees added up.”

3. Recognize divorce law is not what you see on TV

Canada has totally different divorce laws than the U.S., and trying to get tips from your favourite lawyer show won’t help you at all. For example, behaviour has zero effect on how much money you’ll walk away with. The division of assets is a purely mathematical calculation.

4. Know your expenses

Ultimately, the divorce process is likely to catch you off-guard and throw you into the ocean where you’ll be gasping for air. The only real way you can prepare for your post-divorce financial situation is to know what you’re spending now. By tracking your expenses, you can figure out where you can cut back once you’re on a single income and you’ll feel much more confident taking a firm grasp on your expenditures.

The biggest surprises for Greg were not the obvious hefty expenditures, like child and spousal support, but the smaller legal and administrative costs.


For example, both Greg and his ex-wife had to take on critical illness insurance.

“There’s no fall back. Even in a situation where two people are married and one is stay-at-home, that situation can be changed and that other person can go back to work,” he says. “I don’t have that option (now).”

They also spent thousands on legal fees.

The cost of an uncontested divorce ranges from $1,000 to $3,500, according to 2015 Canadian Lawyer’s legal fees survey, but you also have to consider the cost of things like making a new will (another $430 to $750).

“I was still surprised, despite how amicable (we were) … how expensive the legal system was to navigate through,” Greg says. “And we did as much as possible ourselves in terms of the paperwork.”

Baker says that the court’s main fiscal aim is to ensure both parties “leave the marriage as equal partners.”

That means all property is generally split 50/50 and the spouse with the higher income pays the spouse with the lower income an equalization amount so that one party doesn’t experience a huge drop in his or her standard of living. (Any assets, besides the marital home, that you can prove you brought into the marriage you usually get to keep.)

But no matter how careful a couple is, there are almost always expenses that don’t make it into the calculations.

For example, Greg was required to split his pension plan with his ex-wife. Although he found the concept of the division fair, what really irritated him was that the pension plan administrators charged $800 just to find out the present value of the fund — a fee he was responsible for paying in full, since it was his asset, even though both parties would benefit.

He also got his taxes reassessed this year because he and his wife agreed to split the Child Tax Benefit, which seemed fair to them since they share custody. But the CRA told him the party receiving any kind of support is the one that can claim the entire tax credit.

“I still don’t understand why the system is set that way. It’s hard to comprehend where the equality is,” he says. “As far as I know we’re trying to set up each household with roughly equal income, so we naturally assumed that (credit) would be split as well.”

Ultimately, whichever way you split it, running two households is simply more expensive.

“It’s like single people,” Baker says. “You have two separate lives financially. Instead of paying one rent or one mortgage payment you have two of them. Those are after-tax dollars, so that’s pretty painful financially.”


Greg dealt with this by going through his budget line-by-line. Luckily, he was fiscally aware enough to know what he was spending and managed to trim his expenses by about $300 a month.

“The biggest thing I recommend everyone to do is go through your expenses twice,” he says. “Once to eliminate what you don’t need and, for the things you want, ask how you can get that stuff as low as possible.”

Even if you can cut back a bit, having higher overall expenditures means that saving for retirement often gets put on the back burner after a divorce.

Greg and his ex-wife used to put money in their RRSPs, but there’s simply not enough cash to go around right now.

“I’m not making progress on building security for myself and a buffer,” Greg says. “It’s a very thin line for me and I would be in a situation, if I were to lose my job, I would almost inevitably have to put up the house for sale immediately.” 

Despite their experience on either side of the issue, neither Greg nor Baker can see any real way to prepare yourself for a divorce.

I don’t have a safety net and neither does she

Baker does suggest that people draw up a Marriage Agreement, sometimes called a pre-nuptial agreement, before they wed: Taking inventory of any assets you have before exchanging vows makes it easier to deduct them from your calculations upon dissolution.

Greg suggests taking a more practical and serious view of marriage and divorce.

“I believe in love and romance and marriage and all that stuff,” he says. “The only thing I’ve changed slightly is that I believe both parties should receive independent legal advice before they get married. That does need to be considered because you are essentially asked to sign a financial document without representation. It’s a legal document.”

It’s true that part of the reason divorce catches us so off-guard is because it’s a reminder of what we’re dissolving: not just an affair of the heart, but a covenant between two parties who once agreed to combine and share assets within a conjugal relationship.

“This is really permanent,” Greg says. “I don’t have a safety net and neither does she.”

Illustrations by Chloe Cushman/National Post

Judge blasts warring parents who squandered $500,000 on custody battle


Judge blasts warring parents who squandered $500,000 on custody battle




judgeJudge Alex Pazaratz.



It was an astounding plea for sanity from the family court bench — an outspoken Hamilton judge blasted warring parents for squandering $500,000 on their bitter child custody battle.

“How did this happen?” asked exasperated Ontario Superior Court Justice Alex Pazaratz. “How does this keep happening? What will it take to convince angry parents that nasty and aggressive litigation never turns out well?”

Following an incredibly lengthy 36-day trial — longer than some murder trials I’ve covered — Pazaratz awarded sole custody of the eight-year-old to her father, a Toronto Police ETF officer, in January. Now the judge has released his judgment on the question of legal costs sought by each side — and his comments are scathing.

He opened his ruling by quoting an e-mail from the father to his estranged wife: “We are both reasonable people and I really think we can work this out without spending $40,000 to $50,000 a piece in lawyer fees only to have a judge tell us something we could arrange ourselves. Please I’m begging you to be reasonable.”

It was written Aug. 8, 2012. “An e-mail by a father wanting to see more of his young daughter, written more than a year after separation. Months before this court case started.” the judge noted.

“Fast forward 3 1/2 years: ‘This trial has been financially disastrous for both parties.’ That was Feb. 10, 2016. A concluding statement in the mother’s written costs submissions following a 36-day trial.”

The husband ended up spending $300,000 on legal fees, the wife, $200,000.

“Pause for a moment to consider the overwhelming tragedy of this case,” Pazaratz continued. “These are nice, average people. Of modest means (now considerably more modest). They drive old cars and probably pinch pennies shopping at Costco.

“And yet somehow, between them, they spent more than half a million dollars on lawyers ‘to have a judge tell us something we could arrange ourselves.’

“No matter what costs order I make, the financial ruin cannot be undone. They’ll never recover. Their eight-year-old daughter’s future has been squandered.”

The judge had particularly harsh words for the “unreasonable behaviour” of the mother, who balked at many settlement offers and ended up getting a deal far worse than those she rejected. He accused her of “poisoning” the child against her father, “manipulating and falsifying evidence” and engaging in “provocative and dangerous behaviour,” such as stalking and driving behind his car after he picked up their daughter.

In denying her sole custody, Pazaratz said the woman became determined to alienate her ex from their daughter as soon as she learned in 2012 that he was moving in with another woman. “A cold war set in — with disastrous consequences” for their only child.

“The (husband) had decided to move on without her. And now he wanted to take his half of the assets with him. The (wife) vowed to punish him for his betrayal; for threatening her world.

“And (their daughter) got caught in the cross-fire,” he wrote in his January custody ruling.

The mother was “overt, manipulative, scheming, deceitful and oblivious to the needless family suffering she perpetuated for at least the last three years,” he added in that 822-paragraph judgment. “Our family court system has zero tolerance for this type of emotional abuse of children.”

He was equally tough on her in this costs ruling. Pazaratz ordered her to pay her ex-husband $192,000.00 to cover almost two-thirds of his legal bills.

His judgment should be required reading for all parents contemplating litigation war.

The judge concluded by returning to that initial e-mail of 2012 when the husband urged his ex to settle their issues between themselves.

“In retrospect, his sombre warning about ‘spending $40 – $50,000 a piece in lawyer fees’ now amounts to wishful thinking,” Pazaratz said wryly.

“All of this could have been avoided. All of this should have been avoided. Courts have an obligation to deliver that message, so parents will stop pretending that hard-ball custody litigation is ‘for the sake of the child.’”

Justice Alex Pazaratz’s judgments are considered a must-read by family lawyers.

His literary prowess can be traced back to his days as a newspaper intern before entering law school. A few of his compelling quotes:

“Somehow, no matter how hard we try, we don’t seem to be getting the message out to separating parents:

“Nasty doesn’t work.

“Withholding the child doesn’t work.

“Sarcastic e-mails don’t work.

“Bad-mouthing the other parent doesn’t work.

“Twisting the child’s life to create a new status quo … doesn’t work.

“Selfish decisions which may be emotionally satisfying in the short term, never look good in a courtroom.

“In the classic Christmas movie ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ there’s an extended fantasy sequence where Jimmy Stewart anguishes over how badly things would have turned out if he’d made a reckless, impulsive decision.

“Perhaps family court should fund an instructional movie about this type of custody battle. ‘It’s a Terrible Life.’ There could be a fantasy sequence about how happy a child might have been. If only …”


“Breaking Bad, meet Breaking Bad Parents,” he wrote about another case in 2014. “The former is an acclaimed fictional TV show … The latter is a sad reality show playing out in family courts across the country.

“Breaking Bad Parents: When smart, loving, caring, sensible mothers and fathers suddenly lose their parental judgment and embark on relentless, nasty litigation, oblivious to the impact on their children.

“Spoiler Alert,” Pazaratz continued. “The main characters in both of these tragedies end up pretty much the same. Miserable. Financially ruined. And worst of all, hurting the children they claimed they were protecting.”

Read Mandel Wednesday through Saturday.

Washington rolls out the red carpet for Trudeau




Panetta, The Canadian Press
Published Tuesday, March 8, 2016 4:34AM EST
Last Updated Tuesday, March 8, 2016 10:10AM EST

WASHINGTON – The most famous street in Washington is lined with Canadian flags. People are trying to finagle invitations to witness a Halley’s Comet-type rarity in international relations: a political celebrity from Canada.

And somehow, in the midst of all this, amid the pomp and preparation for the first U.S. state dinner for a Canadian in 19 years, and the even rarer show of interest in Justin Trudeau, and the decorations along Pennsylvania Avenue, one unavoidable, inescapable name looms behind the fluttering red-and-white flags.




Canadian and American flags fly in Washington

Canadian and American flags fly on Washington’s Pennsylvania Avenue in front of a Trump International Hotel sign on Monday, March 7, 2016. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Alexander Panetta)

That name stands out, in all-caps of course, on billboards at the new hotel project being developed on Pennsylvania Avenue by the ubiquitous real-estate titan who happens to be the Republican presidential front-runner.

Trudeau was asked about him this week and tried avoiding the subject. It’s fair to assume he’ll be asked again during his three-day visit starting Wednesday.

He won’t have the same luxury of anonymity as some past prime ministerial visitors whose travels might have landed closer to the crossword puzzle than the front page of major American newspapers. This Vogue-magazine-appearing, refugee-hugging, proclaimed progressive-rock-star has already been dubbed the “anti-Trump” in one Washington Post headline.

Canadian officials can’t help but notice – they’re being hammered with ticket requests for Thursday’s state dinner. One joked there’s probably a book to be written about these last few weeks.

“I never realized how popular I am,” one official deadpanned, without discussing secret trip details on the record.

Canadians don’t actually control the guest list. They only have a token few tickets to hand out, and there’s already some grumbling and rumours about who got one and who didn’t.

A few famous names will be in attendance. For the 1997 dinner involving Jean Chretien, guests included Howie Mandel, Diana Krall, Dan Aykroyd and a newlywed couple, Alan Greenspan and Andrea Mitchell of NBC News.

They feasted on maple-cured salmon and herb-crusted lamb before heading to the East Room where guests sipped champagne and then-first-lady Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore bopped to the Beatles’ “Eleanor Rigby.”

One irony is that the rare wonks in this town who actually spend their working lives thinking about Canada aren’t the target audience for the big party.

“Nobody I know is going to the state dinner,” said the head of the local Canada Institute at the Wilson Center, Laura Dawson, when asked about the guest list.

“I think the idea is to keep the bureaucrats and the wonks to a minimum and really focus on high-level people who exemplify important attributes of the relationship – whether they’re from culture, entertainment…

“I know people who are incredibly well-connected to the White House and they are just getting rebuffed… Trudeau’s got a lot of star power in Washington – people want to get up close and see if this guy’s for real.”

A larger crowd will see him arrive at the White House.

Hundreds are expected on the South Lawn. Unseasonably warm 26C weather is forecast for the main day of the visit Thursday – which begins with a meeting in the Oval Office, followed by a press conference with Barack Obama, lunch at the State Department, then the black-tie dinner at the White House.

The trip starts Wednesday with an evening reception. It ends Friday with Trudeau speaking to a university, attending a gathering of think-tanks, and laying a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery.

The actual substance of the meetings, sources say, likely includes announcements on intelligence-sharing at the border; climate-change co-operation; and possibly on a path forward to avoid another softwood lumber war.

But some skeptics – including Trudeau’s political opponents at home – note that some of these things sound suspiciously similar to files already in the works under the previous government.

They’ve also questioned how much might get done given that the president has 10 months left, and no hope of getting the Republican Congress to approve a Supreme Court justice let alone a substantive climate plan.

The advice from the Canadian ambassador for the 1997 dinner? Trudeau should start making connections that’ll be useful when Obama’s gone, and rub elbows with other influential actors.

Raymond Chretien has another suggestion for the prime minister. It involves Trump. And it’s based on personal experience.

Chretien says some media exaggerated simple observations he made about the two presidential candidates in 2000 – some apparently even interpreted his non-verbal communication as favouring Al Gore over George W. Bush.

His advice now:

“Don’t get involved in American politics. Don’t take sides in your words, don’t take sides in your moves, don’t takes sides with your smile. Don’t take sides – period… My advice would be to be very careful – it’s not just words, but everything. The whole demeanour…

“We have to live with the Americans, whoever’s in power.”


Federal government pulls out of Mother Canada project in Cape Breton

Federal government pulls out of Mother Canada project in Cape Breton

By The Canadian PressThe Canadian Press — Feb 5 2016

<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = “[default]” NS = “” />

OTTAWA — Parks Canada’s decision to pull its support of the controversial Mother Canada monument has been met with emotions as polarized as the four-year debate over the proposed statue on Cape Breton’s famed Cabot Trail.

Parks Canada said Friday there are too many unknowns about the towering Never Forgotten National Memorial ahead of the July 1, 2017, target date, including funding and a definitive design for the monument at Green Cove, N.S.

“Parks Canada will no longer be working towards the realization of the memorial in Cape Breton Highlands National Park,” Parks Canada CEO Daniel Watson said in a statement.

“Parks Canada appreciates the Never Forgotten National Memorial Foundation’s vision in honouring Canadians who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country and wishes the Foundation success in its on-going pursuits.”

Meg Stokes of the Never Forgotten National Memorial Foundation said Friday the group is disappointed and shocked. Stokes suggested that the statue, which had support in the former Conservative government, had become a political pawn.

“We are heartbroken that our project has fallen victim to politics and deeply saddened that so many people in Cape Breton … were treated in this shocking manner by Parks Canada,” said Stokes in a statement.

“This is disappointing to veterans across the country and the current members of the Canadian Forces who support this project.”

The 24-metre statue depicts a doleful woman with her arms outstretched toward Europe and the Canada Bereft monument at Vimy in France.

The draped figure, meant to embrace soldiers who never returned from distant conflicts, is the brainchild of Toronto businessman Tony Trigiano, who was struck by the number of young Canadians buried in a European cemetery he visited.

The memorial fuelled many water cooler conversations since first being proposed, and attracted the support of a former prime minister, business heavyweights, prominent journalists and the president of the Calgary Flames.

But the ambitious project also cleaved opinion.

Sean Howard, spokesman for the Friends of Green Cove, said the project would have destroyed the rugged coastline and turned Green Cove into “Concrete Cove.”

“We applaud Parks Canada for coming to what we believe to be the only sane and sensible decision,” said Howard in a phone interview on Friday.

“This was not responsible development. This was an ill-advised adventure that would have lead to the destruction of Green Cove — a very special and important place geologically, culturally and in many other ways to many other people.”

Howard said Parks Canada would have been going against its own mandate to preserve the ecological and cultural integrity of its lands and coastlines.

“This project should have never been given serious consideration, and it only was by the previous federal government that was prepared to ride roughshod over the Parks Canada mandate and the National Parks Act,” said Howard, who also teaches in the political science department at Cape Breton University.

“It looks like that dark era is now over and hopefully we can now begin a new green era of looking after and responsibly developing the national parks.”

Former Conservative cabinet minister Tony Clement said he’s disappointed Ottawa has pulled its support of the project.

“Regardless of what you think of the project itself, something that can embrace our sacrifice for Europe at a very dark time should be pursued, and it should be pursued in the province of Nova Scotia,” said Clement, who was in Halifax on Friday attending the provincial Tory party’s annual general meeting.

Meanwhile, NDP national parks critic Wayne Stetski said the “monstrosity” should never have been considered in a national park.

“New Democrats have long understood that this location posed an ecological threat to the park and lacked the support of Canadians,” he said in a statement.

The Never Forgotten foundation said it spent four years on the memorial and believed it would not harm the environment as some critics argued.

— By Aly Thomson in Halifax.

The Canadian Press

2016 MLK Day. Fathers still have no rights in Canada.


Published on Jan 18, 2016

MLK Day and still no Freedom in Canada. Government, judges and ex spouses decide who can be parents in Canada.

Divorce default is sole custody of children for mothers. Fathers are denied all say in raising their own children.

They are used exclusively for child support. Nothing else. In our case we haven’t seen our children for 20 years.

Missing. No one cares. This has to stop! Get involved.

Former ombudsman ‘gob-smacked’ it took Ottawa five years to track homeless vets

There are some good facts in this story and in the Ombudsman’s book.

It is easy to conclude that the hostility, discrimination and neglect that the federal government exhibits toward men’s issues shows up in the following areas:

1. Voting against equality for men as parents.

2. Shelters and services for women in DV and other areas, while neglecting men.

3. A commission to study missing and murdered aboriginal women while suppressing and not collecting data on the larger number of male victims.

4. Discrimination against single male Syrian and Iraqi refugees.

5. Services and recognition for female veterans, while neglecting men.

6. Add your own issue here

Note the opposition to fair treatment from the “entrenched bureaucracy.”

After all, it was the federal government who paid a known gender extremist to come to Canada from the US and tell Canadian gender apartheid advocates to “get men jailed or get them killed.” And they paid a known extremist to come to Parliament Hill for a conference of Status of Women Canada in January 2005 and proclaim that the aim of the federal government and SOW was to “marginalize men”

Their policies amount to a stealth war against men and fathers. Their statements show they are committed to a war against men and fathers. Their actions show that they are doing it.

The history of such extremism and bias is that it gets worse and worse, unless confronted. Write your MP about this issues and tie it to opposition to equal parenting. Story follows:

Former ombudsman ‘gob-smacked’ it took Ottawa five years to track homeless vets

By Murray Brewster — Jan 10 2016

OTTAWA — Pat Stogran, Canada’s first veterans ombudsman, vividly recalls being hauled into the minister’s office one day in late 2008, where an angry, red-faced Greg Thompson — the veterans minister of the day — upbraided him for making public the issue of homelessness among ex-soldiers.

It was not an issue, Thompson allegedly told the extra infantry colonel, who had been selected for the watchdog post by a Conservative government eager to demonstrate that it was the best friend of the troops.

The encounter, chronicled in Stogran’s book Rude Awakening: The Government’s Secret War Against Canada’s Veterans, was the beginning of the end of the rapport they’d enjoyed. And it eventually led to the Harper government not renewing Stogran’s position in 2010.

Stogran says he tried unsuccessfully throughout his mandate to get the former Conservative government to recognize that homelessness among ex-soldiers was not only an issue, but a growing concern.

“They weren’t going to do anything unless they got hit in the head with a hammer,” said Stogran, who indicated the reluctance to acknowledge the problem extended to the veterans department as well.

What got him in trouble was the high-profile visits he made to homeless shelters across the country, where in 2009 — despite being chewed out — he began asking staff to collect data on whether shelter residents had any military service.

That data didn’t make its way into the national registry in a co-ordinated way for five years.

“I’m gob-smacked it took until 2014 for them to actually pick up on it,” Stogran said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

Last week, Employment and Social Development Canada released a report to The Canadian Press that estimates 2,250 former soldiers — about 2.7 per cent of the total homeless population — use shelters on a regular basis.

Some groups, such as the Royal Canadian Legion, say they believe the estimate is too low and point to the fact that a Legion outreach program has dealt with 425 homeless ex-soldiers in Ontario alone since 2009.

The current veterans ombudsman, who worked for Stogran, says he also recalls the former government balking at the notion that veterans were — for one reason or another — ending up on the streets.

“There was some argument with the minister at the time whether it was an issue. Obviously it is,” Guy Parent said last week, reacting to the social development report. “Even one homeless veteran is too many.”

Thompson was actually quite vocal in dismissing Stogran, telling The Canadian Press in a 2009 interview that his ombudsman produced no evidence of such a problem.

“He’s never taken down one name of the homeless veterans that he’s met. That is just beyond the pale,” he said in May 2009.

“Why hasn’t he forwarded those names to Veterans Affairs Canada, knowing full well we have the programs there to help them? Why would he be so insensitive to veterans as to not provide those names? It makes absolutely no sense.”

The force of his argument may be somewhat diminished given that 2007 briefing notes, obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information, warned Thompson that the issue was something the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans in Canada wanted to talk to him about at the organization’s annual meeting in May of that year.

“There have been a number of reports over the last year of people identifying themselves as veterans accessing food banks and homeless shelters in Alberta,” said the May 10, 2007 note.

A few months after that interview, in November, Thompson introduced a trial outreach program meant to identify ex-soldiers on the streets.

Parent noted that the veterans department is working with an outreach group to combat the problem. And Kent Hehr, the new Liberal minister, told CBC Television’s Power n’ Politics last week that his ministry is working aggressively to reverse the trend.

But Stogran says the new minister is facing an entrenched bureaucracy that needed as much convincing as the Conservatives


2015 Christmas message to save families in Canada.

Christmas message to Canadians how Canada is not safe for families.
Fathers have  no reproduction rights, parental rights and no legal rights.


Fathers have no say during pregnancy. If a mother wants to abort her baby, she can without consent

from the Father.

PM Trudeau has made it mandatory for members of the Liberal party to be in favour of abortion.

Pro Choice. The killing of babies. For Shame.

During separation and divorce, fathers are still not treated as equal parents but as slaves.

It’s all against the law, but it is happening daily.

This is atrocious and it is a hate crime. It must stop!

Connie Brauer