Seconded.
They should put that on the Weather Network. 
I’m sure Chad Kroeger and Nickelback will come out with some pro- tar sands anthem any day now…
Hahaha! I bet it’ll sound like their other songs.
This is what we’re doing this week - spending a few days in Radium Hot Springs, soaking in the hot pool. Aaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.
And on a completely different note, PMO versus Neil Young. Fascinating!
And this is the pool itself. Nothing like a long soak in a hot pool on a chilly day. 
How come there’s police tape on your balcony? And where exactly is Jim, huh?
I need some time off, where I’m not attending to my father, in southern Ontario.
My father has lost his mind. He is no longer my Dad; he’s a kid in 1930s Belleville, Ontario; who never married and had children. I visit every few months, but it gets harder and harder each time. He has no idea who I am, who his wife was, who my sister is.
I hate Alzheimer’s/dementia. I need a holiday.
I’m so sorry to hear about your dad. Some diseases are just cruel, there’s no other way to describe them.
Geez Spoons, that sounds tough man.
Hang in there. I really don’t know what else to say.
Oh Spoons, I’m so sorry to hear that. It’s tough.
That’s to keep people away from the awesome ice and light show, I think. And Jim is behind me - he seems to be camera shy.
Come on down! We’re here for another day! (Very sorry to hear about your dad - that is a cruel disease, indeed.)
Thanks, folks. I should make another trip to see Dad in Toronto sometime soon, and I really don’t want to. It gets harder and harder each time.
And in other news, it seems that Jean-François Lisée (Quebec minister for the Montreal area and for international affairs) has taken his case for the Quebec Charter of Values to the op-ed pages of the New York Times:
I’m wondering what New York Times readers would make of this; but more importantly, I’m wondering what our Canadian Dopers think, both of the op-ed and of M. Lisée’s decision/attempt/whatever to garner support outside of Canada.
Me? Well, the item contains a large inaccuracy (“It is one important reason Quebec … has refused to ratify [the Canadian constitution]…”). Quebec doesn’t have to ratify the constitution, and it’s likely too late now to do so. Enough other provinces with enough population did at the necessary time, and so Quebec is governed by the constitution, whether it wants to be or not. But this inaccuracy–and IMHO, M. Lisée should have known better than to phrase things as he did–worked to cause me to wonder just what else he’s fudging, weasel-wording, or skirting.
Thoughts?
Super Jealous! Have dinner at Helna’s and make my day complete.
Spoons, you have me deepest sympathies.
I don’t see it. Quebec is still beholden to it even though they didn’t ratify it, which he says in the article, so how is that inaccurate? As I understand it, they may use the Constitution it didn’t approve of to defend the Charter in a court challenge. This was discussed last year and in some ways I agree with the premise that a secular, taxpayer funded government position should be blind to all religious accoutrements.
Interesting article, thanks for pointing it out.
He makes it sounds as if it’s an ongoing issue; as if Canada wants Quebec to ratify the document, and Quebec continues to refuse:
“It is one important reason Quebec … has refused to ratify [the Canadian constitution]…”
Emphasis added. It would be one thing if he said, “Quebec refused to ratify the constitution at the time,” or “Quebec didn’t ratify the constitution but we’re governed by it anyway,” or similar.
Remember also, that this piece was written for a mainly-American audience, who is likely unaware of our history and political conventions. They may not know that the issue of Quebec’s ratification doesn’t matter any more.
It’s a well-written piece, but from my perspective the Charter of Values is attempting to solve a problem that doesn’t exist: well, not in the rest of Canada.
I work in the public service in Ontario. There are plenty of people wearing religious headgear. Now, we don’t interact directly with the public, but from a relationship perspective at work, no one seems to have any issues whatsoever.
My previous office-mate, a female Muslim, didn’t wear any conspicuous symbols. The gentleman moving in with me at the end of the month is a Sikh and wears a turban. I honestly cannot for the life of me imagine why this should be a problem.
I realize Quebec thinks their culture is unique. They’ve passed language and sign laws to help ensure the French language doesn’t get supplanted with English, and I guess this latest move is to ensure that they maintain a visible homogeneity wherever they have control of the situation: the public service.
I suppose the thought process is that if they continue on the current path then in 50 years hospitals and schools and the legislature will be filled with people wearing niqabs and turbans and yarmulkes. And I say, “so what?”
Sorry, no can do - they were closed until February. We were very disappointed (The Old Salzburg was also closed - we were able to have German food at the Black Forest Steak and Schnitzel Haus outside of Invermere, though). Mmm, schnitzel, spätzle, and red cabbage.
The problem is conflating a personal, individual expression of belief with a institutional expression of belief. The PQ have chosen this as a wedge issue despite the fact that people are (and have) managed to express a “secular” government despite people having nonsecular beliefs.