HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Monument to de Gaulle
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:05:26 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

Recently, a monument to Charles de Gaulle was unveiled in
Montreal with some fanfare.

This was a substitute for renaming Sherbrooke Street after
the famous former French President, an idea promoted by
La Societe St-Jean Baptiste.

M. de Gaulle is famous in Quebec because he pronounced from
the balcony of Montreal City Hall, "Vive le Quebec _libre_!",
during a state visit in 1967.

The fact that de Gaulle is a hero to separatists is
interesting, because in all respects other than the merely
convenient, his act was contemptible.

Here is a man who as "leader" of the French resistance against
the Germans, benefitted from the generous and courageous
assistance of Canada -- despite resistance from Quebecers --
including the sacrifice of thousands of young Canadian 
soldiers.  This man had the gall (forgive the pun) to
come over here, and interfere uninvited in the internal
affairs of Canada, in an extremely ignorant and disruptive
manner, by saying something he never bothered to justify,
even in his memoirs.  The bad taste is very strong.

And now we have erected a monument to this man!

Instead of naming Sherbrooke Street after him, I suggest
we move the new monument beside the bust of John F. Kennedy
on "President Kennedy Street," and rename the latter,
"Boulevard of Obnoxious-Foreign-President Infatuation."

There are over 200,000 Canadian soldiers buried on French soil.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Richard Holden & compulsory bi-elections
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:34:54 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1473


  Richard Holden is the best reason I have seen for a long time for
  introducing a mechanism for  compulsory bi-elections.


  When a politician changes to a position that is radically different
  from that for which he was elected (e.g. changing party, announcing a
  totally different opinion from that voiced during his election campaign,
  and other morally unacceptable practices) there should be a mechanism
  for constituents in his/her riding to force a bi-election.

  One method might be to require a certain number or percentage of
  constituents making an official request for a bi-election, citing their
  reasons, to the elections officer. There would have to be a way to stop
  simple disgruntled opposition supporters from endlessly trying to force
  bi-elections. There ought to be a way.


  We have those non elected "Bloc-Quebecois" M.P.s in Ottawa. One of them,
  Gilbert Chartrand for Verdun (he happens to be my fed. rep., bummer!),
  crossed the floor twice.

  We have a number of others who have changed parties or demonstrated
  positions radically different from that for which they were elected.

  We have Richard Holden!


  Any ideas?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Quebec not at the Table (Was: God Save your Queen)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 17:14:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.130852.1766@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> panisset@lightning (Jean-Francois Panisset) writes:

>I hate to point this out, but (at least until this week) Quebec has not been
>part of the constitutional wrangling which has been going on between the
>9 other provinces and the federal government. 

I hate to point this out, but it's not as if Quebec was excluded from
the table.  Boubou said "I'm not coming.  Negotiate all you like, and
once you've got something YOU like, give me a call.  Don't call us
until then."

You can't call refusal to negotiate "exclusion from the process."  If
Bourassa had wanted to be at the talks, he certainly could and would
have been there.  Nobody else said "you can't come."

>Look at how long it took
>to come to *any* form of agreement, and look at the sheer impossibility
>of the agreement which they arrived to.

What precisely is "impossible" about the agreement?

>You can't claim that this is
>the fault of Quebec any longer, since said agreement completely ignores
>Quebec in the first place. Although it may once have been true that
>Quebec as the "troublemaker" in Canada, I believe you no longer need
>us for that...

I'm sure there's quite enough troublemakers in any given province;
indeed, there seems to be more than enough troublemakers in any
arbitrarily chosen group of 10 people (particularly if they're
provincial premiers).  :-)

-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Monument to de Gaulle
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:05:18 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> original text              [translator's comments...       Vive le Net libre!]
= unauthorized translation   [~] [?] [??] approximate, uncertain, uncomprehended
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

robichau@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Benoit Robichaud) writes:

>In article <1992Jul23.160526.1822@pandora.matrox.com>, thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>|> Recently, a monument to Charles de Gaulle was unveiled in
>|> Montreal with some fanfare.
>|> [...]
>|> There are over 200,000 Canadian soldiers buried on French soil.

>Il ne faudrait pas oublier que cette genereuse et courageuse assistance
>du Canada a ete mise sur pied en vue d'empecher l'avance des forces allemandes
>en territoires anglais (ou tout du moins faire cesser les bonbardements
>sur la Grande-Bretagne).
= One must not forget that this generous and courageous assistance
= of Canada was offered in order to prevent the advance of German
= forces into English territory (or at least in order to end the
= bombardment of Great-Britain).

>Soulignons aussi le fait que le Premier Ministre de l'epoque (M.King) a fait
>campagne au Quebec en promettant qu'il n'y aurait pas de conscription
>s'il etait elu ... 
= Let us underline as well the fact that the Prime Minister at that
= time (Mr. King) campaigned on a platform promising that there would
= be no conscription if he was elected...

>Pour ce qui est de la rue Sherbrooke ... peut-etre devrions-nous
>trouvez autre chose ... et peut-etre devrions-nous aussi bannir
>l'effigie de la Reine du Canada (car tel est son titre) sur les
>billets de banque canadiens.
= As for Sherbrooke Street ... perhaps we should find something else ...
= and perhaps we should banish the image of the effigy of the Queen of
= Canada (because that is her title) from Canadian banknotes.

>A la memoire de ces 200000 Canadiens qui ont, de gre ou de force,
>ete emmener a se battre au nom de M.King et de Bethy ....
>Benoit 
= To the memory of those 200000 Canadians who were, willingly or by force,
= sent to fight in the name of Mr. King and Bethie ...

[end of translation]
--
Thomas Hood

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: the new constitut 2/2
Date: 21 Jul 92 02:48:38 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1451

From article <BrpIty.B5D@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 Robert Meunier writes:-

> In article 29919@spxtech.qc.ca, steven@spxtech.qc.ca 
> (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>>From article <1992Jul15.711.7959@dosgate>, by stephanie.fysh@canrem.com
>> stephanie fysh writes:-
>>
>>
>>>  ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ My Canada includes a distinct Quebec.
>>
>>Does this "distinct Quebec" include English-speaking families coming to
>>Quebec as legitimate members of their own language community?
>>
>>(It doesn't now! - and as a member of that group I have to ask what the
>>hell a "distinct Quebec" in a "new" constitutional deal will mean to us!)
> 
> 
> 	It may mean that you move to Toronto!
> 


      Absolutely out of the question!

     (Don't ask me why I haven't got enough time to deal with that
      one as well.)

      I'd sooner go back to Europe :-) -

      and may have to if I can't get people like Frqancois and Denis to
      accept the fact that my family comes from England, is English,
      speaks English and demands to be accepted as members of the ENGLISH
      community in this unofficially but de facto bilngual province.


-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: canada is too great a
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:42:17 EST
Reply-To: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Distribution: can
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

TH>>It's my
TH>>view that a truly "representative" government represents not only the
TH>>individuals who voted for them, but the social groups that make up
TH>>society at large.  Obviously, you disagree.
TH>>- Stephanie.

TH>The Senate is being redesigned to represent groups that have already
TH>been distinguished politically: provinces and aboriginal nations.

TH>Although women and men have not been distinguished as groups by
TH>constitution, it is worth thinking about doing so.

TH>What would you think of a Senate in which half of each delegation
TH>was women elected by women, half men elected by men?

Actually, I vaguely recall reading something recently that suggested
that a gender-balanced Senate was under consideration.  As to your
voting suggestion, I wouldn't go for it.  I wouldn't want to be
restricted to voting only for people of my own gender.  What if I want
to vote for a man that I think would be particularly valuable in the
Senate?  What if my husband wants to vote for a woman candidate?
Probably the best way to go is by proportional representation.  That
puts the big parties less in control, and means there's a greater chance
of the "little person" getting in.  Maybe.

- Stephanie.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  My Canada includes a distinct Quebec.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Richard Holden & compulsory bi-elections
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:05:52 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2077

From article <SBO.92Jul24184712@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>, by sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca
 Stephane Boucher writes:-

>>>>>> On 24 Jul 92 17:47:33 GMT, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) said:
> 
>   >   How Mr. Holden can state that he would join a party so opposed to
>   >   the principles of individual liberty and freedom after declaring his
>   >   support for tearing up parts of Bill 101 is incomprehensible.
> 
> I tought he said he would not mind to join the PQ in an
> independant Quebec because he believe that things would
> improve for the anglophones in an independant Quebec...
> 
> From what I know, he seemed coherent. Whether or not he's
> right is another question.
> 

  He has opposed a number of PQ policies, including the limitation of
  access to English schools. Now he says he would like to join the PQ
  if Quebec separates.

  He has stated that he does not think the PQ is the best party to look
  after the interests of the English community in Quebec. Now he says that
  he thinks the PQ would be the best party to look after the interests of
  the English community in an independant Quebec.

  What is coherent?



  I stated that I thought Richard Holden was the best reason I had seen
  in a long time for introducing compulsory bi-elections when an elected
  representative radically changes his position from that for which he
  was elected. E.g. changing parties or leaving a party to become
  independant.

  Such radical shifts in position should be challenged in a bi-election.
  When an elected representative changes his position so radically from
  that for which he was elected he should be forced to seek a new mandate.

  Why is there no mechanism to enable constituents to precipitate (for want
  of a better word) a bi-election?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:5464 can.general:3506
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: Olympic Musing
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:19:30 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Jul27.154040.11394@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>From article <Bs217F.6Fy@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
> Denis Beauregard protests:-
>
>> As for Olympic spirit, I am very disappointed to see (again, sigh)
>> the federal government using the event to promote politics.\
>> The advertisement is showing all those Olympic athletes and says
>> how great Canada is.  This is crap and abusing the olympic spirit.
>> Without Canada, Quebec athletes would say they are representing
>> Quebec, that's all.  Olympic spirit is supposedly related to the
>> athlete and the individual (or participating team), not to countries
>> or political bodies.
>>
>
>  Quebec isn't a country.
Out of subject here.

>
>  Athletes from Quebec, Ontario, B.C., etcetera are all representing
>  Canada.
>
>  For my part, I wish them the best of luck and hope they are all proud
>  to represent Canada - whatever province they come from.
>
>  You are seing things through smoked glasses again, Denis.
>
The point here is that the Federal government is constantly trying to
use _propaganda_ in favor of Canada.  This is politics and there is
no relation with the Olympic spirit.  What point, main of my posting,
you just forget.

>
>  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: So is it all over?
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:13:19 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:

>I don't have the details of everything about this question,
>but suppose that Newfoundland gets split in 100 provinces.
>You now end up having Newfoundland deciding a LOT because of
>its strenght in the senate. (I know it is an exagerated
>example, but the principle is there).

A more realistic supposition is that the North-West Territories
get split into three (as is planned) and then the territories
become provinces.

The North would then control 4/14 of the Senate as against 1/14
for Quebec.

(Caution: The territories will not become provinces in the near
future.)

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Bilingualism at universities (was Re: Bla, bla)
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:50:58 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Est-ce que c'est suffisant d'offrir un cours en anglais en automne, et
>le meme cours en francais en printemps?

Bonne idee! Faudrait que quelqu'un le suggere... Surtout pour la
quatrieme annee ou les cours n'ont pas un ordre chronologique particulier.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: fveillet@veietto.uucp (Francois Veillette)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.followup
Subject: Re: Bill 178
Date: 26 Jul 92 04:58:21 GMT
Organization: Veietto, Private Site, Montreal, Canada

From article <BryAF9.ADI@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
> In article <BABY.92Jul24110856@watson.info.polymtl.ca> baby@info.polymtl.ca (Philippe Grant) writes:
>>In article <920723278@veietto.uucp> fveillet@veietto.uucp (Francois Veillette) writes:
>>
>>>     . This made a hole in the law and the Bill 178 patches it.
>>>
>>
>>You are quite right.  The Supreme Court of Canada has deemed the law
>>unconstitutionnal, but our constituion allows a province to invoque the
>>infamous "notwithstanding clause" which allows a province to disregard a
>>Supreme Court decision for 5 years (I'm not sure if it's 4 or 5 years).  I
>>think it is very dangerous for provinces to have such power since it could
>>allow an entry port for a dictatoship.  It may seem far fetched for now,
> 
> This is to impeach dictatorship that there is a 5 year period.  Within
> 5 years, the provincial governement _must_ be renewed, then if the NWC
> is used to extend this for another 5 years, it is because there is
> something wrong in either the system or in the original Court decision.
> BTW, Court decision is supposed to use the law as a base, not to do the
> laws (they are not legislative).  Also, because someday, the opposition
> will be the government, some laws against every body won't survive.

The supreme court has been the trigger, but they had to judge some articles
of Bill 101.  Their reference to judge a law is the Canada constitution.
This is why this constitution renewal is so important.  The goal of
Quebec gouvernment is to make the constitution compatible with the Bill 101.
Then the Court will agree this law is compatible with the constitution.

By the way, there is much more in Bill 101 than the articles contested.
The section about the language of the entreprises has made some big
headquarters to move in Ontario.  It hasn't been contested yet, maybe
because it was cheaper for the targeted enterprises to move than to
engage dispute with the gouvernment.
The section about the education is still fully valid despite the
protestation of Steven Potter... 8-}

	A bientot,

--
Francois Veillette, Montreal CANADA
E-mail: fveillet@veietto.UUCP 
UUCP: ..!uunet!sobeco!comback!veietto!fveillet 
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: gordon@madmax.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon R. Strachan)
Subject: Re: The Senate reform
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 13:02:49 GMT

In article <920723285@veietto.uucp> fveillet@veietto.uucp (Francois Veillette) writes:
>I'd like to know what is the Big Deal about the Senate reform?

Senate reform is such a big deal because the current politcal system just
isn't working.  In fact, only people in Ontario and Quebec think its working.

>
>Why is Alberta pushing so much for an equal Senate?
>

Because Alberta has been the province which has been screwed the most by the
current system.  I am not from Alberta so don't accuse me of being biased.  If
you look at the policies that Trudeau brought in during the 70's when he only
had two seats west of Ontario then you will understand why senate reform is
such a big deal.  Laws like the National Energy Program were a direct assault
on the Alberta economy and simply destroyed it.  To put it more perspective,
suppose the federal government today decided we need more Canadian ownership
in the auto industry and passed a law which gave massive tax incentives to the
auto plants in Ontario to shut down and move to the federally controlled lands
in the North West Territories?  This would kill Ontario's economy and is
exactly what was done to Alberta by a government in which no Alberta voters
were represented.  There are even more recent examples of the fed's abuse of
the smaller provinces such as the CF18 contract being awarded to a Montreal
company simply to buy votes.

The point of the elected senate is to make it very politically expensive for
a federal government to pass unfair laws like the NEP.  The senate is merely
a check on the power of the House of Commons and, given the current proposal,
its not even that powerfull a check.

>For me, the Senate should be abolish.
>If it sould stay and be elected, the senaters must be distributed 
>by population ratio.  I'm mad at the idea that P.E.I. could have
>1 elected senater for 100 000 people (8 senaters for 800 000 electors)
>and Quebec or Ontario 1 elected senater for 1 000 000 people!!!

I really can't understand why people keep raising this point.  The senate was
never intended to be proportionally represented house.  It isn't now so why
should it be in the future?  The people who raise this point seem to
conveniently forgotten that Quebec and Ontario will still hold the balance of
power in the House of Commons so they haven't lost any power.  Under the
current proposal the Senate isn't even very powerful.  It can't introduce
legislation and can only block legislation with a 70% majority vote.  That is
an extremely large number of votes one has to acheive, particularly when one
considers that the party loyalties will still be in affect.

Our current political system is the tyranny of the majority which many people
think in amoral.  The proposed senate is designed to make the federal
government more considerate of the regional differences and needs.  Its nothing
more than that.  It takes nothing away from Ontario and Quebec than they
could morally use anyway.

Gordon
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: L'histoire du Quebec (was Re: Biliguism)
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:07:37 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <BrvHoq.J71@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.133423.14018@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>>  No! - You are denying the English part of Quebec's hostory.
>
>Will you understand that, _YOU_ are not part of Quebec history.
>Before 1976, _YOU_ were a foreigner.
>
Quand est-ce que l'histoire du Quebec a pris fin?  En 1760?

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics