When Central Canada is seeking money to bail out their failing industries they shamelessly take well over $10 billion per year from Alberta. The energy wealth generated by Western workers is a Canadian asset to be shared by the West. Westerners who dare question the socialistic program of equalization are immediately labelled as greedy and selfish. While thousands and thousands of energy workers have been laid off in the West, it is considered a national disaster when an Ontario chocolate factory shuts down and lays off a few-hundred people. While EI is nearly impossible for an Albertan to qualify for, a maritime worker only has to work a few weeks to qualify.
The parasitic nature of Canada’s system is nothing new and there has been plenty of discussion on it. What is infuriating though is the ingratitude displayed by these bumming neighbors in confederation.
While activists and politicians are falling all over themselves to try and cripple their home economies by signing into unrealistic emissions agreements in Copenhagen, Ontario and Quebec representatives are whining that they should not shoulder any of the costs as Canada’s emissions are pretty much entirely Alberta’s fault.
Yes, while these provinces will happily siphon the profits from the West, they have no interest in paying the price for an active industry.
How about this then. Ontario and Quebec are welcome to kiss the collective asses of the West. As long as Eastern hands are out and begging for dollars from the West, they have no damn right to complain about it.
Ontario and Quebec are more than welcome to purchase blood-soaked Middle Eastern oil if they like as opposed to Alberta’s dirty oil. Rest assured, there are plenty of eager customers in the world for Alberta’s products.
I am sure that Alberta could make very good use of that $14 billion per year that we pay in federal taxes with no return in services. I am more than tired of the double standard of this nation.
That is sadly how the Canadian court system views men.
We have seen some insane rulings where men have lived for as little as a few months with a woman who has a child only to find themselves on the hook for child support well into the adulthood of a child that they did not sire. The shaky basis of that is that the man acted in the role of father to the child if even for a short period. In the most notable case of that (I believe it was Saskatchewan) the judge did recognize that the man had not really been acting as a father but since the biological father was incarcerated and unable to pay, the new man was therefore on the hook. Reality in circumstances has no bearing on these rulings. The goal is simply to make sure that some man, any man pays the bills.
The Canadian courts have hit yet another low now. In two courts in Ontario, it was ruled that Rod Refcio is obligated to support the twin-children of his ex-wife who were sired well after the couple had divorced and by another man!!
This could be written off as the judgment of one l0ony judge one would think. Sadly, this insane decision has held up in two courts now.
The judges did realize that if these payments were actually defined as child support that the man may have a defense. Instead they stated that the man had an obligation to his ex-wife’s twins that must be paid through spousal support. The alimony that should have been $180-300 per month has been jacked up to $1500 per month with the rational that she needs the support to raise the children sired from another man.
I don’t see anywhere why the judges did not pursue support from the actual father of the children. In light of other rulings, it can be pretty safely assumed that the real father simply has no money thus they pursued the next nearest wallet.
To any divorced man this ruling is terrifying. This literally means we may be on the fiscal hook for any kids that our exes may produce by any man over the course of the rest of her life. This will doubtless apply to common law relationships as well.
Our courts can’t seem to keep a repeat pedophile behind bars for more than a few days at a time yet they are incredibly effective at drawing money from innocent men who simply bedded the wrong woman at some time.
Where will this end? How low will the bar required for support be? I fear I may let my dog play with a neighborhood kid for an hour and suddenly be on the hook for support as I had acted as a father to the kid if only for an hour. That sounds insane, but in light of these kinds of court rulings is it really beyond the realm of possibility any more?
How do these people get on the bench?