HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:15:49 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <0#t-5m+@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
]Similarly, it is widely agreed that day care is a provincial area of
]responsibility, but the pressure groups (dominated by by central
]canadians because, after all, they're the most populous group) are
]targeting the federal government to set "national standards" (like
]the national standards on health care).

Central-Canadian? Say Ontario if you want, but Quebec never expressed
anything in favour of "National Standard" in anything.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:36:31 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <12781@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>Quebec was created at the time of Confederation as a political entity
>that could protect the French Canadian culture. There has been agreement`
>from the beginning that French has a special place in Quebec.

You are doing it again. QUEBEC WAS NOT CREATED AT THE TIME OF THE
CONFEDERATION. It existed long before that for a while officialy under
the name "Nouvelle-France", then "Canada", then "Bas-Canada" and then
"Province de Quebec". Howere the name "Quebec" to designate it was
used long before the Confederation. Canadian history did not start in
1867.

>Provincial governments were created in Canada to allow local control
>of culture. 

Provincial governments were created because there would have been a
Revolution if the French and the English at the time were under the
same unitary totalitarian government. The politicians couldn`t care
less about culture at the time.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: BNA Act and bilingualism
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:43:28 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1581

From article <BuIyDA.90u@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
> In article <11SEP92.10551890.0069@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000) writes:
>>
>>Does anyone have a breakdown of the population of each province by
>>language at or near the time of Confederation?  Such data might
>>help put this question in a clearer context.
>>
>>Tom Box
>>CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
> 
> What I found:
>                                               QC ethnical origin 
>       Canada     Quebec      French canadian  Fr.   Brit.  Other
> 1871  3869257 1191516 32,3%  1082940  31,1%   78,0% 20,4%  1,6% 
> 1901  5371315 1648898 30,7%  1649371  30,7%   80,2% 17,6%  2,2% 
> 1931 10376786 2874662 27,7%  2927990  28,2%   79,0% 15,0%  6,0% 
> 
> Interesting : British origin dropped of 25% between 1871 and 1931,
> more than fifty years before law 101  :^) 
> 
> extracted from: Histoire du Quebec contemporain 1867-1929 Boreal, 1989
> Rien pour les "provinces" (l'index ne montre pas : province, Nouveau-Brunswick
> ou Nouvelle-Ecosse).
> 

I have some demographic data on this subject too - I'll dig it up soon
(My PC at home got a virus in it from somewhere (one of the "stoned"
varieties) it damaged my disc partition table)

I'll post some data soon.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Collective rights in the new constitution
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:40:54 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>What we need is a moratorium...the way to get it is to vote NO!
>
>With the constitution then safe again from politicians, they will
>have to turn their focus again to the economy and getting re-elected.
	 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You say that as if it were a good thing :-)

-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:01:00 GMT

emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>It has been two years since Meech, and in case YOU haven't noticed, Quebec 
>is ON it's way to independence. Or did you think October 26 is just 
>for show? 

I'm not sure. On the balance, though, I would prefer a Canada without
Quebec than one under the current deal. At least then there would be the
hope of a country of which I could be proud.

>Why on earth do you think I think it will be better or easier next 
>time around? Of course it won't! At least if we vote Yes we'll have
>a chance to still have a country in 10 years!

But it won't be a country worth having. Better two good countries than one
bad one. And, maybe Quebec won't separate.

>You may have the illusion that Quebec is of no economic importance to B.C. 
>It's just that - an illusion. We're not just talking inter-provincial
>trade here, either. Don't you know what the dissolution of Canada - and 
>the economic uncertainty the break-up will bring - will do to the value
>of the Canadian dollar? And do you realize what interest rates will
>have to be pushed to keep investment in Canada? And what that will do to 
>businesses, jobs and borrowers evrywhere in Canada? WHAT THE HELL 
>DO YOU MEAN "IT CAN'T HURT" !!

Why should the economic links be broken? If some people try to turn it into
a "war", and succeed, then things could get bad. If the politicians keep their
heads, the split will be almost unnoticeable. The separatist politicians
seem too pragmatic a lot to fall into this trap. It would depend upon TROC's
politicians, whoever they would be. (aside: Would TROC be "Canada"?)

>No, it's not. As you'll eventually find out, life is a sequence of
>compromises.

It's also a series of stands for rights and principles. Otherwise, there
would be no democracy, and no Canada.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:39:24 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2194

From article <plante.715890507@iros1>, by plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante):
> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
> 
>>The book is called "L'invention d'une minorite: Les Anglo-Quebecois."
> 
> [Extraits du livre de Josee Legault]
> 
>>I think you have also been reading this book recently, Frederic.
> 
> J'attendais justement que quelqu'un me dise cela.
> 
> Je n'ai pas trouve que ce livre etait tres bon (il m'a semble un peu
> confus, et peut-etre un peu revanchard).  Mais quand elle parle de la
> defense cachee des droits collectifs (en ce qui concerne l'education,
> l'affichage, c'est une autre chose), je crois qu'elle tape dans le 
> mille.  C'est tres evident dans le discours de M. Potter (qui reprend
> celui du parti Egalite), quand celui-ci, dans le meme texte, parle
> du libre-choix de la langue d'enseignement, du fait que 10000 enfants
> anglophones ne peuvent aller anglaise et que les reseaux scolaires
> anglophones deperissent. 
> 
> Faut pas se le cacher, les anglophones defendent leurs droits
> collectifs avec ce discours.  C'est seulement un peu hypocrite de
> se draper dans ce qui est presque devenu une religion ici (et qui l'est
> devenu aux Etats-Unis), la notion de droits individuels.  
> 
> Frederic Plante
> 


Are these limits reasonable and can they be demonstrably justified
in a free and democratic society?"

That is the question.

Limiting access to English schools for the children of individuals or
from a significant portion of the English community in general is not
a reasonable limit and can not be demonstrably justified. 

The next obvious question: Is this a free and democratic society?

No? - Then shall I be disillusioned?

Yes? - Then those limits must be done away with!

It matters not, in fact, whether I argue for individual liberties or
for collective rights or for Scouts Honor. The principle is the same.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Just Can't Wait To Vote!
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:48:31 GMT

In article <92247.231708BURGER@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Bob Burge <BURGER@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>Don't know about the rest of you, but I just can't wait to vote on October 26!

Oh yes, the excitement make me tingle.
-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegomony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca (Marc Frappier)
Subject: Re: Which way to vote in Quebec
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 20:36:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.084522.23728@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>C'est interessant.
>
>Isn't it interesting:
>
>Mulroney, et Bourassa, qui veulent que l'entente passe, menacent[?]
>qu'une vote contre l'entente est une vote contre le Canada.
>
>Mulroney, and Bourassa, who want the agreement to pass, threaten us
>that a vote against the agreement is a vote against Canada.
>
>Parizeau, qui veut que l'entente ne passe pas, assure qu'une vote
>contre l'entente n'est pas une vote pour l'independence.
>
>Parizeau, who wants the agreement to be rejected, assures us that
>a vote against the agreement is not a vote for independence.
>
>Quoi doit-je faire? <:-}
>
>What must I do? <:-}

Just read the question.  A no simply says you don't want to renew the
constitution on the basis of this agreement.  That's it.  As a citizen
of a country with three dominating cultures, just remember that you
are doomed to negociate constitutional deals until the end of times.
-- 
Marc Frappier				| e-mail: mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca
Department of Computer Science          |
University of Ottawa                    | phone : (613) 564-9232
Ottawa, Canada, K1N 6N5                 | fax   : (613) 564-9486
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Access to English school: quotes
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:49:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.143447.16737@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:

>What is wrong with allowing English speaking children to go to English
>school?

OK Steve, just for the sake of argument.

How do you define "English-speaking children"?  If law 101 is softened
to allow your kids to go to English school, how do you propose to do
this?  Remember that few Quebeckers will be willing to give complete
freedom of choice to all immigrants, so what would you consider a
reasonable compromise?  How do you define the immigrants who do get
their choice?

I've been thinking about this, and don't have a solution.  Just add
England to the list (along with the Canadian provinces)?  But that
leaves out other English speakers.  Consider, for example, that English
is one of the two official languages of India; it is no doubt the
official language (or one of the official languages) in many other
countries and political entities (South Africa, Hong Kong, etc).
Should immigrants from all these countries be allowed to attend
English-language schools?  (Even those whose first language is not
English?)

If you allow those, what happens to people from other countries
(without English as an official language) who happen to speak English
(as a first or second language)?

Wherever you draw the line, you'll create arbitrary situations - some
people who reasonably should be allowed won't be, and some people who
shouldn't qualify will slip in through the loopholes.

A side question:  anyone know the stats for country/language of origin
for immigrants, both to Canada as a whole and to Quebec in particular?
I would think this would be essential knowledge to answer the above
questions.  I doubt many Quebeckers would oppose reasonable
modifications to law 101, but hardly any will accept having the
majority of immigrants learn English first, and then maybe French.
(Heck, I've known immigrants here in Ottawa who could hardly speak
either of our official languages, even after years here!  They usually
drive taxis, or teach Physics courses at Ottawa U :-) )

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: The 1-800 number to order a copy of the "agreement"
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:35:44 GMT

> As heard this morning on CBC Radio, the number to call for a copy
> of the text of the agreement for constitutional amendments,
> which we are being asked to vote for or against in October,
> can be obtained by phoning 1-800-561-1188 .

I think it would be a public service, if legal, for someone having
suitable equipment and having obtained this document to scan and
post it.  Or are the government people who were promoting electronic
communications still around?
-- 
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com
	The lawgiver, of all beings, most owes the law allegiance.
	He of all men should behave as though the law compelled him.
	But it is the universal weakness of mankind that what we are
	given to administer we presently imagine we own.  -- H.G. Wells

This article is in the public domain.
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English school: quotes
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 19:27:32 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

> 
> >Which rights did the English community in Quebec "acquire"?
> 
> Well, actually, if you want to be precise, they didn't acquire rights
> (and priviledges) They gave them to themselves after they INVADED the
> country. Simple but true. And then, they kept for a while until a lot
> of the priviledges were denied.
> 

Oh for Pete's sake, Francois! Are you now going to pretend that the 
French didn't also INVADE what is now Canada? Silly arguments that people 
acquired rights depending on which group of invaders their ancestors 
belonged to are just that - SILLY! 


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

The way to get things out of a government is to back them to the wall, 
put your hands to their throats, and you will get all that they have. 
- Agnes McPhail
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Rights of members, and rights of collectivities
Date: 14 Sep 92 04:15:16 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

Let me reiterate more briefly what I said before:

There are two kinds of rights that have been called "collective" rights.

First, there are rights that individuals can claim as members of a group.
   We may call these "member's rights."

Second, there are rights that a group "has" as an abstract entity, without
   reference to its members.  We may call these "rights of a collectivity,"
   or "group's rights."

Member's rights are discriminatory, and group's rights are chimerical.

Examples of member's rights: (1) the right of only some Quebecers to send
their children to the school of their choice; (2) the rights of aboriginals
to self-government.

Examples of group's rights: the right of the francophone liguistic group to
predominance in Quebec.

Curious as it may seem, nationalists really are concerned with the health of
the group proper.  If Quebec nationalists cared only about the rights of
individual francophones, they would work for equality.  But because their actual
concern is with abstractions -- the Frenchfact, the Frenchface  -- they venture
into mass psychological therapy, banning of enemy languages, and giant sheep.

So...

nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>So the conflict is between francophone collective rights and anglophone
>collective rights, with the francophone rights being judged more
>significant because there are more francophones in Quebec?

No.  The rights of the francophone linguistic group are judged more
important than the rights of the anglophone linguistic group
_and_ the rights of individuals, by the provincial government.  The
government was democratically elected by a francophone majority.

Why do people _care_ about the rights of a sociological abstraction?
1) The best reason is that defending "French" has helped francophone
   individuals overcome a handicap left over from an era of apartheid.
   In other words, it's a quick 'n' dirty way of defending individual rights.
2) The stated reason is that the group is threatened and should be protected
   (like the Bald Eagle, say) because it is unique.
3) For many, patriotism and sentimentality.
4) For a few, xenophobia.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)
Subject: Re: gender reserved seats
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 15:10:15 GMT

"stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com> writes:

>Shawn Kenny writes:
>SK>robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

>SK>>Mike Harcourt is now strongly considering gender allocated seats in the
>SK>>proposed revamped senate. Nova Scotia and Ontario have already committed to
>SK>>this. Does anyone know if any other industrialized country does something
>SK>>similar with any of its democratically elected institutions?

>SK>I dunno. However, I think it is absolute CRAP! (s'pose I put on my flamesuit
>SK>for all those politically correct types). Although underepresentation
>SK>may be a problem - this depends on whether or not the concerns of a
>SK>particular group are being heard and acted upon - I don't think that this
>SK>is the best solution. For sake of argument, then instead of having "x"
>SK>number of seats alloted to women/minorities have "x" number of
>SK>candidates up for election alloted to women/minorities. So if there are
>SK>8 senators to be elected then throw out a field of 8 men and 8 women.
>SK>Let the voters decide which person they want in "office". Although this
>SK>is still based on quotas (of which I disagree).

>(rest deleted)

>Women are not a minority in Canada.  They are 52% of the population.
>They make of 52% of visible minorities and the disabled as well.

>- Stephanie.
>---
>  SLMR 2.1a  Continued on next tagline...

I never said women were a minority and unless the disabled population is
so well evenly split (i.e. 50% are female) then they aren't 52% of that
group.
>--
>Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
>World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
--
=================================
skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca
St. John's, NF, CANADA
"Have a touton or do without'n !"
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:38:29 GMT

nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>Am I imagining things, or are the people who are screaming about the
>sacred principle of rep by pop the same ones who want the EEE Senate,
>which would give PEI the same representation in the Senate as Ontario?
>I'm sure some of them are the same people!
>
>Weird.  :-)

Maybe no so weird as you think. The Charter of Rights is supposed to protect
individuals from the tyranny of the majority (no, you can't enslave
telephone solicitors!), and it operates against the strict rule of numbers.
The Senate (according to the EEE proponents) is supposed to protect provinces
from the tyranny of the larger population (no, you can't enslave Newfies!).

I don't think the Senate is the best way to do this, but I can understand
why many are looking to the Senate to provide this protection.
Many provinces are fighting for it in one way or another: Quebec wants a veto
and lots of autonomy, Ontario wants strict rep-by-pop, and the rest see a
EEE Senate as the only attainable device close to a veto.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: gender reserved seats
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 21:14:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.711.9336@dosgate> "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com> writes:
>
>Women are not a minority in Canada.  They are 52% of the population.
>They make of 52% of visible minorities and the disabled as well.
>

Exactly...women comprise 52% of the population, and we have elections
with secret ballots, and women have 52% of the votes...exactly where
is the disadvantage that necessitates violating fundamental democratic
principles with affirmative action for women via gender-reserved seats.

Affirmative action is justified only where discrimination exists...
how do the rules of democracy as we practice them discriminate against
women?                                       

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics