Benz

Indeed. I thought every body knew it.

You are confusing evidence with saying. When we observe today's world. It is easy to notice that despite the knowledge and the technology, humans are struggling to communicate with each others. We often have te repeat and confirm to make sure we understand each others. That within one nation of the same language, same culture. Then we translate and adapt our message to other languages if we need to reach the highest number of people. That God is suppose to be so powerful that it can creates the world, all the physic laws, matter, life, etc... but that same God would have waited 13 billions of years before creating humans, and then it would have waited a long time to communicate important messages about the rules the humans are suppose to follow. Instead of telling everyone the same thing at once and make sure we all understand, it would always communicate to just few men at a period of time where communication just can't spread everywhere. Always to the same culture, only to the one that believes in it/him/her. Even if it means that the majority of humans can't have access to its saying. Really? Such a divine entity wouldn't be smarter than that? So lazy that it counts on few limited individuals to do the job of something that is supposed to so important to everyone? I mean come on. Only a simplistic individual could think like that. I think it is interesting to think and debate on the possibility of the existence of a creator like that. However, all the gods imagined by the religions sound way to wacky to be true. That said, I respect your belief and I know it makes you feel good to believe in it.

I am born catholic but, now I am rather atheist, or just agnostic. I am not saying it is impossible that a god can exist. What I think is, if there is a god, I am 100% sure it is not what the believers (whatever the religion) think. So my position is, god is irrelevant to the society we built and upkeep. From the day that Britain won against the French until the 60's, the churches were playing a major role in Quebec's society. Much bigger than when France owned Canada. The British used them to control the french (canadiens). Everything changed drastically in the 60's and after. We called that, the quiet revolution. The Québécois chose to kick the religion out of the politic and set a clear secularism. Now, in Québec, the place of the religion is only for spirituality. No room for politic. Unlike in the rest of Canada where people accept that the religious can play a role in politic. Like telling the people what to wear or not during a public job, even when it is a position of authority. Changing the rules so they do not apply the same way depending on your religion. This is a major difference between Québec and the roc. Neverthanless, English Canada is divided on that and a substantial number of english canadians share our opinion. The religion may not have today the influence it once had in the past but, it is true that the values of many Québécois, even among those who no longer believe in god, are very close to the catholic ones. So yes, you are right about the influences and how it translates to the difference between French and English Canadians. For the catholics, you get a better place in heaven if you are not materialistic. For the protestants, it's the opposite, the bigger is the wealth, the better is the place in heaven. Well, I over simplify it and it is more complex than that, but it explains a little why the French are more open to socialism than the English. I guess it makes me a flat earther as well. The LPC has redefined the word liberal and it is now synonymous to corruption. It's the only party where you can ask any member how much would you sell your mother and you can get a price. I do not see them as the lighthouse of the liberalism at all. They rather flirt with neoliberalism. Since 1982, the LPC never been popular in Quebec among the french. Only the entire english community and the huge majority of the immigrants were voting for them. Among the french, the LPC is rather third. The only exception was the 2015's election. A bunch of young voters were too young to remember the Chretien/Martin's era or had no clue who was father Trudeau. But that was temporary. The french are rather divided between Bloc and Conservatice. The NDP replaced the Bloc 2 elections but, that is also back to normal. So, no. Trudeau IS NOT Quebec. Not at all. Trudeau's vision of what Canada should be, is pretty much the opposite of what we would like. He is harmful to both Quebec and the West. The liberals always been good at using our divisions one against another.

That is what I said. Cowards!

Ahhh those Québécois... they are so strong, they managed to make stop the capital punishment for murder in at least half of the American states as well. So they will rule the entire world.

This is yet another example of Harper having no balls to do what needs to be done. I am not against the principle of cumulative sentences, on the contrary, it makes sense to me. A strategy some prosecutors were sometimes doing, they were not accusing the criminal of all the crimes they did and once one sentence was completed, then they were accusing again with another crime they had in reserve. If there is not prescription for that crime, of course. With that bill, they longer needed to use that strategy. The problem here is not the why, it's the how. Harper is coward and he did not want to do things the way it should. A modification to the constitution was needed but, he did not want to touch the constitution. So it was just a matter of time before the judges return that decision. You can't blame the judges. This is how the constitution is written. In a normal country, it is not difficult to modify a constitution and adapt it, when the modification is favorable for a clear majority needed according to the rules. This one could have pass. But this not a normal country and the constitution is the Pierre Elliot Trudeau's. Notwithstanding Clause? Yes, Justin Trudeau could use it. He could use it either way. If he uses it in the current context, he would be against the judges and the canadian constitution of its own father. That is why he is not using it. Now reverse the scenario. Harper does modify the constitution with the necessary support. It goes to the court and this time, the judges now agree with this new constitution. If Trudeau wants to use the Notwithstanding Clause and rejects the cumulative sentences. Now he would be against the judges and against the constitution. That would be an expensive political price to pay. Because it is a total different context. When you do a bad job, even if it is a legitimated one, you get bad results. Now learn from Harper's mistakes, or mumble alone behind your keyboard.

After you write something like that, do you think you have won something or made your point? Is it how you see yourself? "should be possible". It could be possible IF AND ONLY IF the prime minister of Canada is asking, by its own initiative, the provinces to provide a list of names. Nothing prevents a PM to do that if it what it wants. But you are misreading his "experts". You think it could be translated to, it is possible to force the next PM to proceed that way without changing the rules. When I said nothing, I meant nothing intelligent. I should have been more precise. So I told you, I give you that, he did something... something stupid but, he did. Once he has been told that no, this is not how to do things. He should have did it to proper way. Then he did not even tried. He did not have the balls to reopen the constitution. That's the most important point and my point from the start is, he did not do the necessary to make his promise happens. More pathetic, he did not give the example and he was choosing senators among his "friends". No matter how hard you try, you cannot escape that reality.

lolll experts! Harper has always been selective on who he wants to listen to. He should have listen to our experts instead of his. He tried to force the federal to accept a list of names coming from the provinces, even if the CONSTITUTION gives 100% of the power to the federal on that matter. Where the ---- he found his experts? In a crackerjack box? When the time came for him to name new senators, did he required a list of names coming from the provinces? Who did he chose in Quebec's names list? ? ok, I can give you that one. He did try very hard to fail on purpose. He did not try to do the right thing that needs to be done though. If he really wanted to make it happen, after his ridiculous fail, he would have open the discussion for the constitution and Quebec would have been an ally. But he has been raised to hate Quebec and blame Quebec for everything like so many other small size ones. You wish. How old are you? Facts are facts dude. Don't play the victim with me. You are the one arguing it is a necessary move, while it is only momentary one that can't last forever. Because the next government can reverses everything and even make it worst. Admit it, it was far from enough. At this point, the best word to describe you is pathetic. You failed miserably. You need to learn that it is ok to lose sometimes. I know that you know what Harper did is not what should have been done. You also know that if he really wanted to make it happen, he would have done the right thing afterward. He rather used that as a lame excuse to not do it and only fanatic supporter can swallow that. Harper was more focus on fighting for the power, than fighting for his convictions. Liberals have a total different mindset. They are not capable to differ good from wrong regarding the administration of public funds. It is systematic. They put their hands in the cookie jar and then they try to figure out of way to not being caught. They see that as a game, a game in which they want to be the best.

1. Anyone that has at least one single cell functioning, knew you need to change the constitution for that. Harper tried to change the system without changing the rules of the system. It was a planned fail and you are one super naive to believe that trap. How more stupid this can be. One does not attempt to change the rules and then ask the court to avoid the rules. Harper needed to reopen the constitution but, he was too chicken to attempt to do that. This is the worst lame excuse to defend a coward. 2. Giving a little bit more money to the province IS NOT the same thing as real decentralization. Now you are sounding like an old liberal trying to justify the system. It's always the same thing, over and over. The provinces are whining and sticking up together until the federal is breaking their unity one by one by giving a little bit of money the easiest whores. The only time I saw 2 real province leaders standing up against the federal and make it back down, it is when Mike Harris and Lucien Bouchard teamed up in 2000. This is not what I said. No matter how bad and terrible Trudeau is, it does not excuse Harper's fail. One big bad does not excuse a smaller one.

Liberals have raised lies, hypocrisy and corruption to a level they are the only ones that can reach it, to a point we can label their name on it. But pretending that would give a free pass to the conservatives and Harper, it's a big no. There are two major promesses Harper did so may times and did the exact opposite, he clearly f---ed his own supporters with it. Senate: He was totally against partisan appointment and he wanted a triple E senate (the Preston Manning's dream, it rings you a bell?). One of the E was for Elected. Not only he did not hold that promise, he did not even tried and he end up with the Canada's new record of partisan appointments. He so screwed you on that. Decentralization: Harper did promise that the federal would become more decentralized to the benefit of the provinces. Especially in the area where there are duplications of the roles. He promised that at the golden age of the liberal era when the centralization and the liberal way became a liberal dictatorship. The new CPC was just born out of a painful pilgrim path going through Reform party and Canadian Alliance party. The canadians and mostly the westeners could not stand the federal government anymore. Bottom line, not only he did not do any step toward that direction, he was abusing it himself when it was his turn. So whenever a liberal is getting back the power, it still can abuse of a very centralized système at the expenses of the provinces. No matter how big the liberals could screw things up, it cannot shadow those Harper's betrayals. I suggest a little more humility in your critics.

I did not say Harper win because of Quebec. I do not know what I could have said that make you think that. One thing for sure, it helped a little bit that the LPC was not popular in Quebec. Only the english citizens of Quebec were voting for the LPC. Foreign companies, other provinces or outside were allowed to sell milk products in Quebec. What you mean is, they had to use Quebec milk first and since we were producing enough milk, there were no issues. Now foreign companies can bypass Quebec milk. Consumers won't win anything. Producers will lose for sure. The quality will no longer rely on us but, on foreigners. It's a lose-lose deal for us. Ontario producers are losing as well, not only Quebec. Better now? Quebec DID NOT SCREW THEM. At the time, nobody knew the oil industry would rise that much, nobody knew the nuclear industry would become so expensive, nobody knew the coal and other polluting industries would go down like that. No body knew, neither NFL, nor HQ. No one else than HQ were ready to do the project. So at the time, it was very risky and NFL DID NOT want to take any risk. That is why the deal was setup like that. Of course, when you look back with the context of today, HQ did clearly get the best part of the deal. NFL must regrets to not take at least a little part of the risk. but that was their choice. The federal does fund the entire water cable. Trudeau signed a blank check. I still do not understand why you guys let this one passes. No matter what it does cost, the federal will pay. Perhaps you do not understand that clause Trudeau just gave them. Whatever the deal that has been signed 50 years ago, Muskret falls was a new project. NFL could have easily negotiate with Quebec about how to share the profit with the participation of HQ. But the NFL's leaders were so stupids, they chose incompetent foreigners and they failed badly. It cost them a fortune. I think NFL has better leaders now. Legault was invited to meet them regarding another new project coming. NFL would let HQ participate in, and in exchange, the old deal's sharing profit would be renegotiated. That is more clever and I am all for that. If HQ adds more assets to its repository and the NFL gets more profits, it's a win win. Even the other provinces would win since they would probably not have to pay for that very costly under water cable. Then stop pretending we are sucking up money. Sometimes those companies receive unnecessary subsides and they do not create more jobs. It's just a way to thank the friendly donators to the party. I totally admit this is sometimes happening. Quebec people do not benefit from it. The liberal friends do. I am just asking you to be honest about it and do not blame my people for those suckers mostly supported by the english Quebecers. Quebec people are as honest and proud as any other canadians. We ask for our fair share of the overall federal fundings and nothing more, nothing less. But it is so easier to look at only one side of the road, avoid many sections of the big picture and conclude to Quebec bashing. Sometimes it is like it's the real motto of the country. Instead of Coast to coast, it would be, Blame it on Quebec.

Where I do live in Laval, several english and french are living in the same area. Despite they do not go to the same schools, anything else is done together. I am the head coach of the hockey team of my son, and half of the kids, plus my main assistant that follows me for several years now, are english. Although I always use the french language at first, I allow the kids to talk to me in english and I can repeat in english if they did not understand the first time. I do not need to do it because the english kids have a good level of french and they understand well. The french kids are starting to learn english, they can understand when I or my assistant is speaking english. I have been coaching hockey and sometimes soccer for several years now and I never witness any kind of animosity between the two cultures. No conflict of what-so-ever, not even once. Hatred to each others is something they learn when they get older and hang out with other adults entertaining hatred. Or from medias. Kids see other kids and it does not cross their mind to build a mindset of hatred based on the language. Kids, trainers, parents... although they are all stronger in one language more than the other, they all feel 100% of the same group, same team. I can brag that we are a good example of what the relation between the two cultures should be throughout Canada. I know in Montreal there are areas where you can see unilinguals english and french but, I wonder what are the proportions of that, vs bilinguals. Our case in Laval is not unique at all.

Maybe. I was relying on the comparison between the elections regarding the comments and motivations of their choices. Maybe I misread. Then I would ask you, what did Harper offered more when he got elected vs when he did not. What Poilievre should have offer the last time that he did not. Not afraid, exasperated. When Trump wanted to renegotiate the free trade treaty, Trudeau chose to sacrifice Québec's economy on both the milk industry and steel. Ottawa always take decisions to weaken Quebec and then the bashers complain that Quebec receive too much equalization. But when the time comes to spend money against Quebec instead working with Quebec (Muskrat Falls and the electric line to avoid Quebec), it's a blank check with unlimited funds. Usually, this is the time where you remind us that back when Chretien and Martin were in power, they were giving subsides to their personal friends in Quebec and although only those friends could benefit from that money at the expense of honest businessmen, you pleased yourself to think we were all sucking money from your pockets, although we never saw the colour of it. Same old, same old...

At that moment, people voted for the "devil they know". The time spent in the opposition made Harper look less devil, and or, more familiar and therefore look less dangerous by the people that were not ready to vote for him. My point is that I think the same is going on with Poilièvre.

I think I would feel bad about it until my last breath. ? ? I am sure he has seen worst and like most of the artists, he learned how to spend energy and love to the people that love what is doing and avoid those who do not like. They learn how to build a shell and heal from that but, he probably got hurt for a moment. Before he became my favorite singer of all time, I thought he was just another boring singer trying to get attention with his weird videos. (I grew up in the Much Music channel era) Then I saw this average movie Say Anything and got impressed by the music played when Cusak made love to his girlfriend and when he brought his radio standing above his head. I thought it was a good song and I wanted to know more about the artist. I listened more carefully to his works and also when he was with Genesis and bang, I became fan for life.