 |
|
| |
|
From time to time, Libertarian Party of Canada Policies on current issues will appear on this Web page.
Party policies are normally developed according to the following process:
The Board of Directors of the Party usually assigns an individual to head a policy committee of Party and non-Party members to address the issue and develop a policy proposal.
Work in progress policy proposals are sometimes released on the Party's Web page by this policy committee in order to invite public comment.
Usually, members of the Board of Directors are made aware of the development of the proposed policy by the policy committee well before this point, and it is likely that the policy will be adopted without major changes.
This process is designed to facilitate rapid adoption, as official party policy, of liberty-based recommendations made by third-party organizations regarding issues that affect their members.
Libertarian Party of Canada policies are always consistent with the Statement of Principles and usually expand upon particular objectives addressed in the Party's Statement of Objectives.
Adversarial process of the courts induces ongoing damage to all parties, parents, children, and extended families. A mandatory* mediation program will enhance a non-adversarial divorce solution and largely reduce the loading on the court system. Imbalance of power, such as one parent having sole custody, invalidates successful mediation and often requires enforced access.
Within our suggested pro-equal alternating shared parenting, supported by mandatory* mediation, financial obligation and human care and love for children will be filled by both parents and extended families. We will also be in harmony with the Charter of Rights.
* "Mandatory" in this policy means that the courts will not apply final judgment in cases where mediation has not first been tried. A judge shall order the disputing parties to mediate prior to issuing any other judgment.
For those who are interested, here are some sources of additional information that describe the benefits of joint parenting and the flaws of Canada's current legal presumption of sole custody.
Albiston, C.R., Maccoby, E.E., & Mnookin, R.R. "Does Joint Legal Custody Matter?" Stanford Law and Policy Review, Vol. 2, 1990.
Arditti, J.A., Factors Related to Custody, Visitation and Child Support for Divorce Fathers; an Exploratory Analysis." Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 17, 1992.
Buchannan, C.M., Maccoby, E.E., & Dornbush, S.M., "Caught Between Parents: Adolescents Experiences in Divorced Homes." Child Development, Vol. 62, 1991.
Burnett, M.C., "Impact of Joint Versus Sole Custody and Quality of Co-parental Relationship on Adjustment of Adolescents in Remarried Families." Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Vol. 9, 1991.
Canacakos, Ellen, "Joint Custody as a Fundamental Right." Arizona Law Review, Vol. 23, 1981.
Clarke, S.C., "Advance Report of Final Divorce Statistics, 1989 and 1990." Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 43, No. 9, 1995. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Health Statistics.
Donnelly, D., & Finkelhor, D., "Who has Joint Custody? Class Differences in the Determination of Custody Arrangements." Family Relations, Vol. 42, 1993.
Dudley, J.R., "The Consequences of Divorce Proceedings for Divorced Fathers." Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 16, 1991.
Emery, R.E., & Wyer, M.M. "Child Custody Mediation and Litigation: an Experimental Evaluation of the Experience of Parents." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 59, 1987.
Emery, R.E., Matthews, S.G., & Wyer, M.M. "Child Custody Mediation and Litigation: Further Evidence on the Differing Views of Mother and Fathers." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 59, 1991.
Grief, J.B., "Fathers, Children, and Joint Custody." American Journal of Orthopsyciatry, Vol. 49, 1979.
Ilfeld, Holly Zingale, "Children's Perceptions of Their Relationship with Their Fathers in Three Family constellations: Mother Sole Custody, Joint Custody and Intact Families." Ph.D. Dissertation, 1989. U. of California, Davis.
Kauffmann, Karen., "Custody Arrangement and Children's adjustment After Parental Separation." Ph.D. Dissertaion, Yeshiva University, 1984.
Kline, M., Tschann, J.M., Johnston, J.R., & Wallerstein, J.S. "Children's Adjustment in Joint and Sole Custody Families." Developmental Psychology, Vol. 25, 1989.
Lerman, Isabel A., "Adjustment of latency age children in joint and single custody arrangements." Ph.D. Dissertation, 1989. California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego.
Luepnitz, D.A., "A Comparison of Maternal, Paternal, and Joint Custody: Understanding the Varieties of Post-divorce Family Life." Journal of Divorce, Vol. 9, 1986.
Maccoby, E.E., Depner, C.E., & Mnookin, R.H., "Coparenting in the Second Year After Divorce."" Journal of Marriange and the Family, Vol. 52, 1990.
Maccoby, E.E., & Mnookin, R.H., "Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody." Harvard University Press, 1992.
Mann, David Joel, "Children's adjustment to divorce as related to sole and joint custody." Ph.D. Dissertation, 1984. United States International University.
Noonan, L.P., "Effects of long-term conflict on personality functioning of children of divorce." Ph.D. Dissertation, 1984. University of California, Berkeley.
Ricci, I., "Mom's House, Dad's House." Macmillan, 1981.
Robinson, Holly, "Joint Custody: Constitutional Imperatives." University of Cincinnati Law Review, 1985.
Rockwell-Evans, Kim Evonne, "Parental and Children's Experiences and Adjustment in Maternal Versus Joint Custody Families." North Texas State University, 1991.
Roth, A., "The tender years presumption in child custody disputes." Journal of Family Law, Vol. 15, 1976.
Shrier, D.K., Simring, S.K., & Shapiro, E.T., "Level of Satisfaction of Fathers and Mothers with Joint or Sole Sustody Arrangements: Results of a Questionnaire." Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 16, 1991.
Trevisano, Marne Ann Anderson, "The Effects of Sole and Joint Custodial Arrangements on the Emotional Functioning and Behavioral Adaptation of Children of Divorce." Ed.D. Dissertation, 1982. U. of San Francisco.
Today, honest citizens are cheated by our legal system in five ways.
Crime victims are further victimized by a legal system that regards them merely as witnesses, and then compels them to pay taxes to house and clothe and feed their assailants. Our laws have been diverted from their basic purpose, and Canadians are demanding the establishment of an effective legal system.
The Libertarian Party of Canada believes that every Canadian should enjoy personal freedom and exercise personal responsibility. Everyone should be held accountable for his or her actions, and the courts are available to make and enforce judgments in cases of disputes between honest individuals. But if, and only if, individuals take actions to intentionally aggress against or defraud others, they should be subject to Canada's criminal law.
The most important responsibility, some would say the only moral responsibility, of government is to protect honest citizens from those who would initiate force against them or defraud them. Government is failing at this basic task. While getting its nose into countless areas of our lives, it has blurred the moral distinction between legitimate action and criminal action and has failed to address this country's crime problem.
The Libertarian Party of Canada proposes a series of reforms designed to simplify and improve Canada's system of criminal law.
Restitution to the victim must become the prime component of sentencing. Those who hurt, defraud or steal from others must be made to repay their debt before being allowed to fully rejoin society. Furthermore, those convicted of violent offenses as well as repeat non-violent offenders must and will be automatically jailed for certain minimum lengths of time, depending on the seriousness of the offense.
All prisoners should have to work or otherwise support themselves. Excusing convicted criminals from work while sentencing the honest taxpayer to support them is simply wrong, and we will end this injustice.
The Libertarian Party of Canada also wants to reform this country's parole system. Those who recommend halfway houses, probation and any other alternatives for people previously sentenced to jail should be required to become personally responsible for their decisions. Accordingly, the inefficient, bureaucratic and detached Parole Board shall be replaced by a system of Bonded Agents who will be financially responsible to see that the persons to whom they give a second chance are properly supervised and complete the payment of restitution to their victims.
A Libertarian Party Government will send out a clear message: Crime shall not pay.
The focus of the Libertarian Party of Canada is to restore the viability of Canada by requiring that all governments in our federation respect the constitution and by implementing the system of checks and balances that was intended to ensure us, the people, of limited and responsible government.
In 1980 the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the role of the Provinces in the government of our federation is to determine what constitutes good government for all of Canada through their representatives in the Senate1.
The role of the Senate is to limit the spending power of the federal government to those jurisdictions which the Provinces agree are for the "peace, order and good government of Canada"2.
Why has the Senate never fulfilled this role? Why has the Senate always been a waste of money? It is because the federal government appoints the Senators to further its own ambitions rather than to limit them. The Senators are appointed not to represent and protect the interests of the Provinces but rather to protect the interests of the federal government in power. Rather than curb the natural ambition of the federal government to control every aspect of power, the Senate reinforces this central control.
The Libertarian Party of Canada proposes that each Province appoint, remunerate and mandate its Senators so that they effectively represent and protect the interests of the Province.
The effect of this shift in the balance of powers to the Provinces will end the federal government's duplication of the expense and regulation in provincial jurisdictions.
In short order, we will see the federal deficit disappear and federal taxes reduced.
We will see the Provinces work together in the Senate to regain their exclusive responsibility over their civil law in accordance with article 92(13) of our constitution.
We believe this will satisfy the needs, be they economic or cultural, of all Provinces to determine the rules of civil society most in harmony with the distinct values, interests, abilities, resources and environment of their residents.
In order to prevent the Provinces from abusing their power, the constitution set up a system of checks and balance of powers that would have the effect of limiting the actions of not only the federal government, but also of all provincial governments. The system was designed to make it in the interest of our politicians not to obstruct our freedom.
Essentially, the exclusive jurisdictions of the federal government are to protect us from aggression (defense and criminal law) and to establish international personality. The Constitution also stipulates that the Provinces can raise revenue only through direct taxation so as not to obstruct free trade among the Provinces. This restriction ties provincial revenues to residency in the Province.
Together, these three elements - free trade, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Provinces over their civil law and the tax base tied to residency - set up a competition among the Provinces for our wealth. This competition to establish the best system of Provincial government, similar to the competition in private enterprise to attract customers, would normally ensure that our provincial governments apply their efforts to best serve us.
Our governments have arranged, however, not to respect our constitution. Through administrative agreements they reshuffled their powers to their mutual satisfaction. To avoid competition, the Provinces agreed to give up their exclusive jurisdictions in order to establish, by law, federal norms that maintain a rigid and uniform system of government controlled health care, education, welfare, pensions, etc.
This reduces the distinctiveness of the Provinces, eliminating within Canada our most fundamental recourse against inefficient and obstructive government: the freedom to vote with our feet for a better life.
The Libertarian Party of Canada asserts that the rules that govern how the people fulfill their needs and interests are properly within the domain of civil law which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Provinces. The Libertarian Party of Canada will act to repeal those federal laws that regulate or spend our wealth in this domain and will reduce federal taxes accordingly.
The British North America Act created Canada founded on an agreement in 1864: the Resolutions of Quebec. These resolutions set out the jurisdictions and the structure of our federation3. Every Province in this federation undertook to respect this agreement. Bent since confederation, this agreement was broken outright in 1982.
The Libertarian Party of Canada asserts that the Constitution Act of 1982 does not have the legitimacy to found Canada. We will act to nullify those provisions that modified the intent of our agreement so as to eliminate any legitimacy to the claim by residents of Quebec that they owe no allegiance to this federation.
The Libertarian Party of Canada proposes that the courts be mandated to strike down laws that obstruct free trade among the Provinces or deny the exclusive jurisdiction of any Province to determine the rules governing its own distinct society.
From the the Supreme Court of Canada, in Reference to the Senate (1980 1 R.C.S. 54).
1Sir John A. Macdonald: "In order to protect local interests and to prevent sectional jealousies, it was found requisite that the three great divisions into which British North America is separated, should be represented in the upper house on the principle of equality. There are three great sections, having different interests, in this proposed Confederation... To the Upper House is to be confided the protection of sectional interests..."
The Honorable George Brown: "But the very essence of our compact is that the union shall be federal and not legislative. Our Lower Canada friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House, on the express condition that they shall have equality in the Upper House."
2The power to enact federal legislation was given... by s. 91 of the Act:
91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, to make laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada...
Thus, the body which had been created as a means of protecting sectional and provincial interests was made a participant in this legislative process.
3Lord Sankey: "Inasmuch as the Act embodies a compromise under which the original Provinces agreed to federate, it is important to keep in mind that the preservation of the rights of minorities was a condition on which such minorities entered into the federation, and the foundation upon which the whole structure was subsequently erected."
|
Page created by Rene S. Hollan. Modified by Cameron Neumann on:16/11/98 Please report problems to webmaster@libertarian.ca. Copyright © 1997 by The Libertarian Party of Canada. |