Remiel

Under the proposed plan Quebec would still end up with slightly more favourable population to seat ratio than the average province. Also, we have had a non-partisan commission that determines federal electoral boundaries since the 60s. There is no gerrymandering of the sort found in the US.

I would consider myself relatively tolerant of extra consideration for Quebec, but everyone has their limit. The idea that Quebec should always have ~25% is complete horseshit. I could see a formula that allowed for their percentage of seats to decrease more slowly than their population, but that is it. None of this " forever " crap.

Of course one man will break the back of the industry. I mean, there are only thirty million or so others asking for more...

Tell Ford he can pay for his own damn campaign promises. Why should the everyone else in the province pay to save his ass?

I am sure there are plenty of Hindus that are just as or more outraged by our treatment of cattle.

That is a lot like asking how necessary your signature is to a contract...

I think a lot of people will like going back to the old names. All I caution is that if they are thinking of changing more than that back, they ought to be careful that each change is for prudential and not nostalgic reasons.

I would tell this guy that he should be careful of those who have fantasies of "cleaning up" people who see themselves as "social janitors" .

I do not care to read that whole article, but I am curious as to how this is meant. Does it mean simply that it is more likely to be murdered by a non-firearm wielding neighbour, or more likely to be murdered by a neighbour that has a firearm but not legally? Is it relying on absolute rates of murder, or is it relative to number of legal firearm wielding neighbours? I mean, the odds of your being killed by a neighbour with a legal firearm are not the same as the odds of someone with a legal fire arm killing a neighbour, depending on how you are presenting the data. If this seems crazy to you, imagine a person owning a gun has a 1/100 chance of killing one of their neighbours. But the neighbours only had a 1/100 chance of having a neighbour with a gun. This gives the person a 1/10000 chance of being killing be a neighbour with a gun. Now, the odds of your neighbour having a knife are pretty much 1/1. Now, for any given person with a knife say there is a 1/9999 chance they stab a neighbour. This means that for any person there is a 1/9999 chance of being stabbed, which is technically higher than the chance of being shot. Yet obviously " neighbours with guns are less dangerous " is an entirely wrong conclusion from this example.

Sounds like the system could easily be gamed with such a guarantee. Find a big group of people that need to renew, all go at once to destroy the 20 minute count, and pool the savings among everyone.

I believe this is what they refer to as " Dutch disease " .

I think a ban on parents who cannot deal with their kids would be more appropriate. I mean, to a reasonable extent, babies cry, and young children too. People who cannot suck it up in limited amounts should stop acting like babies themselves, . Anyway, I found this interesting: Can any posters who have had children comment on this?

It is also not illegal to be party to the death of another. Unless, of course, it was your negligence or actions that caused the death.

I do not understand the double standard. I do not recall anyone ordering for the SEC and its international counterparts being issued guns and being told to use them on the people rampaging through the economy.

Just when you did not think CPC could get any dumber... Anyway, I was reading an article the other day which suggested that climate scientists, of all people, have had a relatively good track record of predicting where wars would break out in Africa. I wonder why, .

Accusing Bonam of lying about his scientific credentials is the folly of an idiot.

Why did this thread not die on Page 1?

How do you expect anyone to take your seriously if you do not post sources for your claims about Israeli textbooks?

If scientific findings are not properly considered by politicians, it is the fault of the politicians, not the science.

So does science. What is your point?

Car exhaust is, at least, the result of something we could not as a civilization do without though: modern transportation. There is no such mitigating benefit from tobacco.

Politics is not economics any more than it is science. By conflating them you commit the same sort of error as the one you are speaking against.

Comments on news websites are a crapshoot. They world they portray is incredibly distorted. Almost any comment section on any article on any subject should be able to demonstrate that. While you should take individual comments seriously, it is spurious to paint an entire group with them. I mean, if I took newspaper comments that seriously, I would have to think all Conservatives were brainwashed schills for the leadership.

Who exactly would Quebec go to to plead its case for all of Northern Quebec not staying part of Canada? The UN? The same UN that has pretty much all signed the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples? The same peoples who live in Northern Quebec? It does not really matter though, I suppose, at the end of the day who gets emotional. That is what we have international organizations for these days. And on the debt and territory, I doubt they would come down on Quebecs side.

Not that you are here anymore, but the East gets most of its oil from overseas. Most of the oil from the West goes to the States.