I know we should always have the best interests of the children at heart. What strikes me most in the current legislation that’s in place — the federal legislation and the federal Divorce Act and the Family Orders Act — is the fact that in many cases it’s an adversarial type of arrangement, and oftentimes one parent’s money is good enough

but they aren’t. I think that’s a discussion or debate we might have here as soon as tomorrow, and it’s a discussion that’s happening around the world: equal, shared parenting and a move towards that in the best interest of the child by having both parents in their life.

Like I said, money causes a great deal of concern to both parties, obviously. But if you’re on unemployment insurance, everybody knows what rent costs and food costs and gas costs here in Yellowknife. If you take away somebody’s unemployment insurance…. It’s hard enough to be unemployed in the Northwest Territories to start with. If you start garnisheeing somebody’s wages, they can’t pay their rent, they can’t buy food, and then how are they going to look after the children if they get the children in their care and custody for whatever period of time the other party is going to let them have the children for?

I think it’s a big issue. I do appreciate where Ms. Shaner is coming from with the prescribed exemption under subsection 5, but it just bothers me that we can do that to individuals and just go in there and…. They’re on unemployment insurance, they’re down and out, and we kick them squarely where the sun don’t shine when they get that maintenance order imposed upon them by the courts. I know they have recourse through the courts, but if they don’t see it coming it’s one heck of a ride.