Try to at least gain a modicum of understanding of the issues before posting nonsense.

Have you ever encountered an aggressive much less an over aggressive screener at LPIA?

Not quite following your rationale or explanation. DonAnthony and John above are both correct. The primary purpose of the holding Co. is to take advantage of the double taxation treaty between Canada and Barbados which is a very basic component of the corporate structuring of the Canadian banks and other Canadian companies with foreign operations. This does not impact the Parent/subsidiary relationship.

Are you saying that by merely structuring a blocker Co. wholly owned by them between themselves and RBC-Finco changes the Parent/subsidiary relationship?

While you are being embarrassed be embarrassed also for being so judgemental about people. Is it not possible for persons to have a different opinion from you and not be ignorant. Your position presupposes that there is only one logical and reasonable option available. One may have agreed with the concept of one or two of the questions but also believed that changing the constitution was not the way to accomplish the results and that if ever there was a reason to vote no on an unfair process this was it. The irony is that for a process that claims to want to correct discrimination and prejudice the process was fundamentally discriminatory and prejudicial due to the government funding one over the other.

Silly!

A very diplomatic and measured response to Archbishop Gomez, which is really much more than he deserves for his hypocritical positions on these issues.

You seem to suggest that the two are mutually exclusive. You have ascribed the false moral equivalence to persons who may consider a no vote to ignorant bigots. But, is it not reasonable for a person in good faith to ask, if I am minded to be guided by the learned Archbishop's opinion should it be his opinion in 2002 or 2016 because he has expressed both a no and a yes vote position with equal fervor without repudiating the earlier position. If such a honorable and learned man is having such difficulty in deciding his position on these issues why is an average man a bigot or ignorant for struggling with the same issues.

Blah, Blah, Blah. The fact that one has to prepare a legal opinion to defend this question is itself the problem. The good QC knows full well that once the constitution is amended with such general language it is not just about political intent but also about judicial interpretation.

If this is indeed his true position then, as a "religious leader" he should simply apologize for intentionally misleading us in 2002 and the operative word being intentionally.