No Dogs or Anglophones



Thanks for the Memories....

For over four years I've written this blog in an effort to fulfill an inner desire to share some of my thoughts and experiences with you.

From a tiny following, the blog has blossomed, giving a small voice to a not so insignificant segment of Quebec Anglo society that the mainstream media doesn't seem to address. It has been, to say the least, entirely rewarding and I've kept going far beyond where I first thought I'd go solely because of the readership.

But all things come to an end.

With the election of the Liberals and the prospect of the PQ dim for the short and immediate term, there is less of an impetus for me to continue.

Can we as Anglos and Ethnics claim victory over sovereigntist forces?

Perhaps yes, but the real problem was never sovereignty, but rather the treatment of Anglos and Ethnics by all  Quebec governments.
It is sad to see that we continue to be viewed as interlopers, a people to be controlled not appreciated, an alien nation within the legitimate body politic of French Quebec.

Too harsh?
Nope, I don't think so. I continue to believe that if Quebec chooses to remain in Canada, it is simply an economic decision, the alternative of an independent and truly French Quebec a dream too costly and unrealistic for a generation whose real values include Facebook and Nintendo.

I remain convinced that if Quebec had the wealth of Alberta's oil sands, this province would have overwhelmingly voted for independence years ago.
It's really just about the money and when Quebecers finally realized how much money Canada lavishes upon them, the independence movement withered.

Such is the reality of our Quebec society, locked into a loveless marriage of convenience, forever unhappy and unfulfilled but financially comfortable, a difficult trade off to make.

As for myself, I look forward to the summer, sipping margaritas by the backyard pool, leaving the bitching and moaning to others, God knows, I've done my share.

To those who have been faithful readers and contributors I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your interest, friendship and lively conversation.

I would never have come this far without you.

and so I fade to black....

I'll leave the comments section open for a while and the blog itself open for research purposes.

Thank you all once again.....
PHILIP BERLACH

Read More

Posted on 1 July 2014 | 5:23 am

Justin Trudeau



Economic Action Plan?

You see their ads everywhere. But do you know how much you’re paying for them?

Read More

Posted on 18 December 2014 | 2:42 pm

Ezra Levant



Danielle Smith faces off with Ezra Levant

Many Albertans are upset with Danielle Smith for abandoning the Wildrose Party. Now she dukes it out with Ezra.

Read More

Posted on 20 December 2014 | 4:15 pm

Scott's DiaTribes



Pre-emptive pre-writ Liberal strike – radio style.

This got released yesterday on the radio. A nice little ad on the radio explaining why the Liberal Party is opposed to income splitting. Personally, I’m pleased to see we’re starting to fight fire with fire vis-a-vis the pre-writ campaign ads that the Conservatives have mastered in their attacking Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff (and not so successfully so far on Justin Trudeau. This ad, however, is based on policy, not personal attacks.

Take a listen

UPDATE: The Liberals have also released an ad on the radio today about Veteran Affairs – an issue that has been very prominent of late.


Read More

Posted on 17 December 2014 | 3:51 pm

Dawg's Blog



On satire

Most folks can tell an Onion-like piece when they see it, although we keep saying satire is dead, but we don’t really mean it, right? Deep down we figure there is still room to send up this already exaggerated, crazed...

Read More

Posted on 19 December 2014 | 10:25 am

Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff



Parliament Should Go Solar

Following up on my 2010 blog post on solar for the White House, it takes almost 3 years to get solar added to a historic national building. That’s why we should all get started with pressing Parliament Hill’s renovation to include commercially available PV solar panels to the south facing slopes of Canada’s iconic government […]

Read More

Posted on 19 December 2014 | 12:29 pm

Erich the Green



Confronting oppression begins at home

Recently I spoke at an interfaith luncheon themed “Confronting Oppression” on behalf of Elizabeth May, who was at a climate conference in Lima, Peru, trying to save all of Creation from our collective sins against Nature. I have always been fascinated by the variety of religions; my own family has Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish roots, but in the Green Party I have also enjoyed working with people who are Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, Quaker, pagan, Humanist, atheist, agnostic, or Unitarian. We each share different ideas on how to meet our common goals and benefit from the exchange. This diversity of the Green movement, and of Canadians, is not a weakness but a strength. Nature shows us that more diverse ecosystems are more resilient, and history shows communities comfortable with diversity can better weather adversity.
Confronting oppression is an important task, yet there are different approaches. The knee-jerk reaction is to defend those who are like us from those who seem different, the “other”, us vs. them. We see Christians or Jews persecuted by Islamist extremists in the Middle East, and retaliate by persecuting Muslims in our own country; then they see that oppression of Muslims and use it to justify their own violent actions. This kind of reflexive hostility can legitimize oppression. Confronting your own oppressor may also fail because we get little credibility or respect from them, which is the root of the problem. And we won’t achieve cultural reconciliation if we begin by branding the other as “barbaric”.
(Illustration by Pedro Molina)
So what to do? Well, while religious groups are often the victims of oppression, they are also often perpetrators. Virtually every major religion is being oppressed somewhere, but is also the oppressor somewhere else. That is where we have the opportunity to more effectively confront oppression, by looking to ourselves and seeing if there are ways our own group needs to internally confront its own oppressive actions and de-legitimize them.
We saw a wonderful example of this earlier in the fall when Barrie’s Muslim community gathered at City Hall to express support for peace and disavow the violent tactics of the Islamic State. Jewish Canadians can likewise speak up when Israel’s defensive actions cross boundaries. Buddhists can ask Burma not to persecute their Muslim minority, and Hindus can make the same request of Indian nationalists. In China, we see the oppression of Tibetan Buddhists, Muslim Uighurs, and Falun Dafa practitioners. While there is no Chinese state religion we can reference, certainly when China comes to Canada with bags of money to invest in the tar sands, we can say “before we deal, let’s talk about human rights”.
And Christians in Canada can reach out to churches in nations like Russia or Uganda which implicitly or explicitly persecute, even execute homosexuals. Or we can look at our own tragic treatment of our aboriginal population, whose genocidal* residential school legacy still impacts today, and missing or murdered women cry out for attention.
We have the most credibility with those of the same belief, hence that is where we can have the greatest effect in confronting oppression. Canada can show diverse peoples living and working in harmony, then speak with a strong voice to the many nations we came from and share that example. In this way, we can all work productively to create a more harmonious society free of violence and oppression.

Adapted from my remarks to the 10th annual interfaith meeting hosted by the Islamic Humanitarian Service and Interfaith Grand River and published as my Root issues column in the Barrie Examiner as "Canada can show others how to live in harmony" (Also in the Innisfil Examiner)

* for some reason, the word "genocidal" was edited out of the Examiner's version

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins is a director of Living Green and the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation

Read More

Posted on 19 December 2014 | 1:47 pm

Five Feet of Fury



I’ll be back Monday morning…

Although you may find me on Facebook until then. Here’s your black and white “Indian head” test pattern of the week:

Read More

Posted on 20 December 2014 | 4:30 pm

A Blog By James Curran



Happy Birthday Madiba

Nelson, the world needs more of you. We miss you kind sir. Happy Birthday!


Read More

Posted on 18 July 2014 | 12:29 am

Buckdog



Like A Rat Fleeing A Sinking Ship, Dick Cheney Throws George Bush Jr. Under The Bus On Torture Responsiblity


This is freaking hilarious! Dick Cheney, the former Vice President of the United States, has dismissed a key point in the report on CIA torture and has, as a result, thrown his former boss under the bus!

"Dick Cheney discussed the newly released Senate torture report Wednesday on Fox News, and in particular challenged a finding that former President George W. Bush hadn't been briefed on the CIA's harsh interrogation methods until years after they'd already been in use.

Fox News anchor Bret Baier asked the former vice president whether the agency deliberately kept Bush in the dark about its so-called enhanced interrogation techniques.
"Not true. Didn't happen," Cheney responded. "Read his book, he talks about it extensively in his memoirs. He was in fact an integral part of the program, he had to approve it before we went forward with it."
Asked if there was ever a point where he knew more about the CIA's activity than the President, Cheney said "I think he knew everything he needed to know and wanted to know about the program."
Baier then asked if the former President knew about the "details" of the program. The report -- which Cheney called "full of crap" -- described brutal interrogation methods including waterboarding, extensive sleep deprivation, threats to harm detainees' families and "rectal feeding."
"I think he knew certainly the techniques, we did discuss the techniques," Cheney said. "There was no effort on our part to keep him from that."
"The notion that the committee's trying to peddle, that somehow the agency was operating on a rogue basis, and we weren't being told or the President wasn't being told, is just a flat out lie," he later added."

TPM

Read More

Posted on 11 December 2014 | 3:00 pm

Mark Steyn



Frankincense, Myrrh, and Goldfinger

It's getting close to the wire for Steyn fans in Tuvalu and the Cook Islands, but we're still busy shipping our Christmas specials at the Steyn store, and we'll continue to ship until our New Hampshire post office closes on Christmas Eve. The

Read More

Posted on 19 December 2014 | 9:00 am

Huffington Post



New Brunswick's Opportunity to Reduce Pharmaceutical Drug Prices

The Liberal government of New Brunswick appears to be stepping back from the brink of mandatory prescription drug insurance. And so they should.

The Conservatives had pitched the drug plan as a better model than "catastrophic" drug coverage under which people would only receive public subsidies for prescription drug costs exceeding a given percentage of their household income. In a report published this month by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, my colleagues and I explain why such income-based drug benefits programs are not good for seniors or for the economy. That part the Conservatives got right.

But the drug plan chosen by the Conservatives was designed on a false premise: that the private sector can better manage things than government can. In many sectors, that might be true. But not in health care. And certainly not with respect to purchasing prescription drugs on the world market.

The Conservatives designed their drug plan to maximize the number of New Brunswickers covered by private insurers. To do this, they required employers offer such coverage to employees or face penalties if they didn't. Perhaps to remove the temptation of using a more efficient government program, they also and made the premiums for the public drug plan staggeringly expensive.

To participate in this program, most New Brunswick households would have faced monthly premiums representing about 3 per cent or more of household incomes. And that is on top of taxes they would still have to pay to subsidize the cost of medicines for lower-income families -- not to mention taxes paid for private drug coverage for public sector employees.

Couples with a gross income of $50,000, for example, would pay $2,800 per year in premiums under the compulsory program. That's more than 5 per cent of household income! And they would still have to pay up to $30 per prescription under the program -- which for many would still represent a barrier to filling prescriptions.

The problem with this is not that people shouldn't contribute in proportion to their incomes toward prescription drug needs in the province. The problem is that a well-run, single-payer government program could cover all New Brunswickers at much lower cost.

In our IRPP report, we make the case that any system having multiple payers involved in drug coverage will unnecessarily increase administrative costs and reduce the purchasing power of government drug plans. This costs everybody more than the system ought to cost.

New Brunswick is home to some of the longest serving, hardest working public drug plan managers in Canada. These people are competent and accountable managers of this important sector of the health care system. But they've never really been given an honest opportunity to do so on behalf of the population as a whole.

Currently, the government of New Brunswick pays for $208-million of the $746-million in prescription drugs that New Brunswickers use outside of hospitals every year. The government's 28 per cent share of the market gives them very little power to influences prices, prescribing patterns, and the use of cost-saving generic drugs.

But if the government of New Brunswick became a single-payer for pharmaceuticals by financing all medically necessary prescription drugs through a universal drug plan, it could use its bulk purchasing power to lower costs quite dramatically. Experience in other comparable countries suggests it could lower drug costs by 25- to 40 per cent.

This means that a well-run government program could cover the entire province at costs to taxpayers that are far lower than the premiums under the Conservative's drug plan. Moreover, employers would no longer be on the hook for the cost of coverage to their employees.

There are always opponents to policy reforms that save money -- after all, someone is currently making the money that would be saved in a better run, single-payer system. But to argue that New Brunswick needs a multi-payer system for prescription drugs is simply to argue that taxpayers should foot the bill of an unnecessarily costly system because somebody is making a profit from that system.

The private sector can do many things exceptionally well. Managing prescription drug benefits in the context of Canada's otherwise public health care system is not one of them.

New Brunswickers deserve better. With government acting as the single payer and system manager, taxpayers and companies would save hundreds of millions of dollars every year while New Brunswick patients would be assured access to the medicines they need.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:


Read More

Posted on 19 December 2014 | 6:12 pm

Andrew Coyne



Andrew Coyne: Some Christmas songs are listenable, but only one is an event

Christmas (Baby Please Come Home) has grown over the years into not just a classic, but the classic, the greatest Christmas song ever

Read More

Posted on 19 December 2014 | 7:54 pm

Blazing Cat Fur



Buy That Lottery Ticket


Read More

Posted on 20 December 2014 | 9:49 pm

Driving The Porcelain Bus



No One To Blame For Rob Ford But The Media And Ignorance

This article in the Toronto Star points to the voters as those solely to blame for Rob Ford being elected.

I disagree. The voters are partially to blame, but there were other major factors.


1) The Media
The Media is very much to blame for the election of Rob Ford. During the election campaign they, pretty much as a whole, focused much more on the celebrity of Rob Ford than on the policies of the candidates. This influenced the many voters who are more easily swayed by name recognition and celebrity than policies.

Also, the Media is largely to blame for discouraging people from voting, by convincing many that it is pointless to vote as it will change nothing. Remember, the vast majority of media is or is owned by large corporations. So, it is in their best interests for the most part to support Conservative ideology. It is known that the most avid voters are conservative supporters. So, by convincing those who disagree with and are disappointed by government policies and trends that it is a waste of time to vote, they are removing votes against the parties/people that support the conservative/corporate agenda/ideologies.


2) Ignorance
A large part of Conservative ideology is the celebration of ignorance over knowledge and reason. Just look at the popularity of the Tea Party in the USA, especially a couple of years ago, during the time of the last Toronto municipal election. Those people in Toronto who embraced this celebration of ignorance over knowledge and reason at the time of the election were/are at the core of Ford Nation. The popularity and sensationalizing of this ideology convinced many more to jump on the bandwagon of celebrating ignorance.

And now, with all that, there is the issue of trying to reason with those who have chosen to abandon reason.

It is easier to fool someone that to convince them that they have been fooled.

We have our work cut out for us. And it is made especially hard for individuals to fight against the Media for the attention of people, especially for those people who currently won't be reasoned with.

Read More

Posted on 24 November 2013 | 2:58 pm

BigCityLib Strikes Back



Life In Scarborough: The Celebrities Of Scarborough

I sat next to a gal at a bar today who claimed to have been in show-business once.  She said she knew Hugh Hefner and had visited the Bunny Ranch, back in the day.  In fact she said she had slept with Hef, and had offered him some life advice afterwards: "You've been around too many beautiful women," she said she told him. I have no idea what she meant.  She said she was 53 years old and that her name was "Vicky", or at least that was her old show-business name.  She is probably the first famous person I've met in Scarborough, or as we natives call it "The Scar", or as we also call it "The Bro", for obvious reasons I can't get into.  Celebrities are a bit thin on the ground out here.  Dunno why.

Read More

Posted on 19 December 2014 | 5:52 pm

Just Right



Obama's appeasement of Cuba

Krauthammer: "Is there no tyrant or anti-American centre in the world Obama will not appease for nothing in return?"


Marco Rubio: "[Rand Paul] has no idea what he's talking about". What's hurting the Cuban people isn't the embargo, it's the corrupt, incompetent, repressive, radically socialist policies of the Castro dictatorship:


Read More

Posted on 19 December 2014 | 9:42 pm

eaves.ca



Government Procurement Failure: BC Ministry of Education Case Study

Apologies for the lack of posts. I’ve been in business mode – both helping a number of organizations I’m proud of and working on my own business. For those interested in a frightening tale of inept procurement, poor judgement and downright dirty tactics when it comes to software procurement and government, there is a wonderfully […]

Read More

Posted on 6 June 2014 | 1:46 am

Bold Colours



(UPDATED): CNN anchor Carol Costello in shameful display of callous bias, Palin-hate

You know how you can tell when the liberal media is so liberal they don’t even know how liberal they are? When liberal news anchors at a major national news network report with utter contempt for a politician, in a manner in which they believe everyone in the room agrees with them. Enter CNN’s Carol […]

Read More

Posted on 22 October 2014 | 6:25 pm

Accidental Deliberations



Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Thomas Walkom discusses why politicians have thus far failed to take any meaningful action on climate change. But it's also worth noting that the question of whether voters are pushing for change may not be the only determining factor in government decision-making.

Most obviously, debt and deficits (which are no less distant from the immediate interests of voters than climate change) are seen as demanding constant and immediate action even at the expense of anybody's apparent short-term political interests - with unpopular and destructive policy choices regularly defended based on the accepted belief that no responsible government can ignore a greater issue. And while the fiscal scolding may be based all too much on a general aversion to government rather than any sane ranking of priorities, a similar and more positive principle might develop in the area of climate change: leaving aside the exact means chosen, there's surely some value in arguing that the end of not damaging our planet should be part of any reasonable set of governing principles.

- Of course, "a secure living for all" would also fit neatly into that category. On that front, Guy Standing makes the case for a basic income, while Neil Irwin points out that (contrary to the spin of the right) strong social programs strongly encourage workforce participation:
(M)ore people may work when countries offer public services that directly make working easier, such as subsidized care for children and the old; generous sick leave policies; and cheap and accessible transportation. If the goal is to get more people working, what’s important about a social welfare plan may be more about what the money is spent on than how much is spent.

That is the argument that Henrik Jacobsen Kleven, a professor at the London School of Economics, offers to explain the exceptional rates of participation in the work force among citizens of Sweden, Norway and his native Denmark.
...

There is a solid correlation, by Mr. Kleven’s calculations, between what countries spend on employment subsidies — like child care, preschool and care for older adults — and what percentage of their working-age population is in the labor force.

Consider Marianne Hillestad of Steinberg, Norway. She teaches kindergarten; her husband, Ruben Sanchez, installs heating and ventilation systems. Day care for their three children, ages 4, 7, and 9, works out to about $1,100 a month; Ms. Hillestad estimates that if she had to pay a market rate, it would be nearly twice that, eating up most of her paycheck.
...
Collectively, these policies and subsidies create flexibility such that a person on the fence between taking a job versus staying at home to care for children or parents may be more likely to take a job.
- Following up on Thursday's column, Don Cayo chimes in on Canadians' broad public support to fight inequality. And Dennis Howlett makes the case for strong enforcement against tax cheats to ensure wealthier citizens pay their fair share.

- Finally, Brent Patterson notes that the Cons managed to prevent a toothless NAFTA panel from even examining the effect of fish farms on B.C. salmon stocks by voting against any review. And ThinkProgress highlights Enbridge's recent Regina spill as yet more reason to be dubious of pipeline promises.

Read More

Posted on 20 December 2014 | 11:22 am

What Do I Know Grit



Happy Birthday Madiba

Nelson, the world needs more of you. We miss you kind sir. Happy Birthday!


Read More

Posted on 18 July 2014 | 12:29 am

Small Dead Animals



Those Moderate Muslims!

Gearing up for Folkfest: Two car bombs in Malmo...

Read More

Posted on 21 December 2014 | 2:23 am

Le blog politique de Claude Dupras



Le nouveau pont Champlain : pas trop tard pour bien ou mieux faire


Aujourd’hui, le trafic des ponts et du tunnel qui relient Montréal au territoire de la Rive-Sud est intense aux heures-de pointe, au point qu’il déborde partout et est souventes fois arrêté par des bouchons. Les périodes d’attente par les automobilistes sont longues et nombreuses. Pourtant du côté nord, on sort relativement facilement de l’île de Montréal. L’explication est simple. Sur le côté sud, il y a 13 voies de circulation de véhicules pour traverser le fleuve, dans chaque direction, alors qu’il y en a 22 sur le côté nord pour une population presque équivalente. Il n’y a eu aucune nouvelle voie de circulation pour traverser le fleuve Saint–Laurent depuis 1967.
 

Depuis de nombreuses années, les montréalais et les citoyens de la Rive-sud exaspérés, les industriels et les commerçants demandent un pont additionnel sur le Saint-Laurent pour desservir l’île de Montréal. Pont additionnel veut dire voies additionnelles. Malheureusement, le nouveau pont Champlain ne répondra pas à ce besoin car il ne comporte que trois voies dans chaque direction, tout comme l’actuel. Le même nombre et la même largeur de voies sauf pour un accotement additionnel et un train léger.
 
Il y aura donc encore des bouchons sur le nouveau Pont Champlain, et sur les rives de chaque côté, même si le nouveau train léger remplacera les dizaines d’autobus qui aujourd’hui font la navette. « Mais ce ne sera pas suffisant car le déficit en termes de capacité routière est trop grand » m’a confirmé un ingénieur spécialisé en circulation de véhicules. De plus, les camions qui viennent des USA auront toujours la même difficulté pour livrer leurs marchandises. Avec un accès rapide, les coûts seraient diminués.
  
Dès l’ouverture du pont, nous en serons presque au même point. Il ne me semble pas y avoir eu de collaboration entre Québec et Ottawa (conflit Harper-Marois) pour le design du nouveau pont en rapport avec les besoins de circulation des véhicules entre Montréal et la rive-sud. Où en serons-nous dans 10 ans, avec un nombre d’automobiles qui croît au rythme de 1,9% par année au Québec dont environ 50,000 par an dans la grande région de Montréal. L’autoroute des Laurentides nous démontre clairement les effets du boom automobile.
 
Une voie additionnelle dans les deux directions du nouveau pont serait un ajout, nécessaire, essentiel et minimum. Deux voies équivaudraient à un pont additionnel. D’ailleurs, cela est conforme aux conclusions de la très sérieuse Commission Nicolet, dirigée par le réputé ingénieur québécois Roger Nicolet, en janvier 2003 et qui a fait une étude intensive pour améliorer la mobilité entre les deux rives du fleuve Saint-Laurent. Elle a suggéré l’addition d’un tunnel à deux voies et deux niveaux dans chaque direction, parallèle au pont Champlain (alors en bonne condition). Il est inconcevable qu’aujourd’hui personne ne relève cette situation.
 
Une voie de plus, c’est 2 000 véhicules par heure additionnelles aux heures de pointes, dans chaque sens, soit une augmentation de 33% de véhicules.
 
Il nous faut demander, je dirais même exiger, l’ajout d’une voie additionnelle dans chaque direction? Ces voies ne coûteraient relativement pas cher. 
 
De plus, pour la construction du nouveau pont Champlain, le gouvernement fédéral n’a pas fait de concours international invitant les designers de ponts à présenter leurs propositions. Il a unilatéralement décidé d’engager le compétent danois Poule Ove Jensen. À ce moment-là, il a mis de côté la possibilité d’obtenir les concepts d’autres grands designers, tel sir Norman Foster qui a fait le superbe viaduc de Millau. 
 
L’architecte français Roger Taillibert est un de ceux qui auraient aimé présenter leur projet de pont mais n’en ont pas eu l’opportunité. Devant l’évolution du dossier, il a décidé de faire connaître, en catastrophe, son projet aux Montréalais. C’est un beau et spectaculaire projet, tout d’acier, qui, il me semble, leur plait plus que celui de Jensen. Taillibert assure qu’il est moins cher et peut être réalisé plus rapidement. Or, sa proposition arrive en pleine période de préparation des soumissions pour la réalisation du nouveau pont par les trois groupes de constructeurs choisis par le fédéral. Ils doivent présenter leurs propositions techniques dans un peu plus de 2 mois, le 4 février 2015, et leurs propositions financières le 1er avril 2015.
 
Les groupes choisis sont très compétents et regroupent chacun des ingénieurs et constructeurs de grande réputation au Québec, au Canada et à travers le monde pour la réalisation de grands ouvrages d'art semblables. Ils doivent respecter le design et le concept de Jensen, mais à la demande du gouvernement fédéral, ils pourraient soumettre un prix pour un pont à quatre voies dans chaque sens au lieu de trois et en faire les plans et devis. Un retard de quelques mois seulement pour la remise de propositions dans ce sens serait requis mais le résultat en vaut la chandelle.
 
Le projet actuel du nouveau pont Champlain doit être repensé. Il ne s’agit pas de changer les équipes de constructeurs choisis pour la compétition, mais plutôt de réfléchir davantage à sa capacité-véhicules et à son allure. Jensen devrait modifier son projet pour ajouter de nouvelles voies.
 
Malheureusement, cela n’assure pas que notre pont sera le meilleur possible à tous les points de vue car si d’autres designers, jamais sollicités, sont en mesure de proposer des solutions différentes, pratiques, moins coûteuses, plus spectaculaires, pourquoi ne pas les considérer ? Sur la proposition de Taillibert, le ministre Lebel a affirmé spontanément « il est trop tard ! » sans même demander à ses ingénieurs d’examiner le concept proposé par Taillibert avant de le rejeter du revers de la main.

Trop tard ? Pourtant, si un projet représente une solution permettant d’avancer la livraison du pont, il ne peut être question de retard. Et s’il était moins coûteux, cela diminuerait le coût du péage, non ? On n’a pas les moyens de refuser de meilleures idées ou de meilleurs concepts. Si le concept de Taillibert est acceptable au point de vue technique, pourquoi ne pas le soumettre aux soumissionnaires comme possibilité d’une proposition alternative.
 
Notre nouveau pont sera là longtemps et ces quelques mois supplémentaires peuvent changer beaucoup de choses. 
 
Les Montréalais ont débattu sur le nom du nouveau pont, mais ils n’ont pas eu la possibilité de discuter de son concept et design, ce qui est beaucoup plus important. Le temps est venu qu’ils s’impliquent.
 
Nous voulons le plus beau pont. Nous voulons qu’il réponde aux pressants problèmes quotidiens de mobilité pour les personnes et les marchandises. Nous voulons éliminer la pollution que génère la congestion qui nous confronte, de plus en plus chaque jour. Nous voulons que les économies montréalaise et québécoise cessent d’être pénalisées par les problèmes de circulation des véhicules. C'était le constat de la Commission Nicolet.

 
Claude Dupras
 


 

 

Read More

Posted on 9 December 2014 | 8:57 am

Mind of Dan



Gavin Schmidt: The emergent patterns of climate change


Read More

Posted on 4 May 2014 | 8:18 pm

Warren Kinsella



Dear Kim Jong-Un

Dear North Korea: Up yours. Signed, Everyone — Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) December 20, 2014

Read More

Posted on 19 December 2014 | 11:50 pm