HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:33:22 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

I am a supporter of rep by pop, but not a supporter of the Senate in any
particular form. In a federal state, a senate may work as the forum of the
autonomous governments that have federated themselves into a larger union; it
works (debatably) in the US where Rhode Island and California have equal clout
as governments. The effect is to modify (if not subvert) rep by pop.

We are a much smaller nation than the US, and perhaps our problem has been to
tie ourselves in knots over the concerns of provinces rather than of people.
The province, as a unit of government, may have outlived its usefulness; the
Maritimes make more sense, on a continental or national scale, as a single
political unit. We might consider a unitary state with regional governments
looking after blocks of a million people or so, rather than the crazy quilt of
large and small fiefdoms we've been stuck with by historical accident.

By dismantling the big central provinces, the smaller populations of east and
west and north would have less to fear from the sheer weight of numbers;
northern Ontario, as an autonomous entity, might well have more in common with
rural Manitoba than with metro Toronto.

I'm not advocating such a measure, just suggesting it as a way to change
perspective on the problems we've been wrestling with.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:34:30 GMT

nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>(BTW, I still don't understand why breaking the rep-by-pop principle
>is OK when it benefits BC or PEI, and wrong when it benefits Quebec.)

Has anybody been arguing this? I can see breaking it for PEI, since I think
every province should have a member in the house of commons (maybe even two,
a backup for wayward trucks or lightning bolts). The alternative is to allow
a riding to cross provincial boundaries; I haven't anything against that,
but I can believe there are good reasons why it's a bad idea. Any takers?
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the deal
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 19:11:23 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes
>robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>This agreement represents a further movement away
>>from rep-by-pop. So, it is not just a matter of maintaining the status quo
>>as the above question would imply. It is a matter of further degrading a
>>principle that just about every liberal democracy considers basic.
>
>As I recall, many contributors to this newsgroup supported the idea
>of an EEE senate almost equal in power to the House of Commons, and remote
>as hell from rep-by-pop.
>
>Now, Quebec wins a concession that may give it a few percent more seats than
>its population share sometime in the distant future, while accepting
>an immediate drop from 23% to 10% of the Senate, and there's complaining?
>
>
>Hypocrisy!
>
>---------
>
>The following people think it is wrong to give Quebec a guarantee of
>25% of seats in the House of Commons.  (Please see references below.)
>I do not recall which of them, if any, expressed support for an EEE Senate.
>
>David Adrien Tanguay
>John Paul Morrison
>Ken Mcvay
>David Joseph Tegeczi
>Crawford Kilian
>Jim Robinson
>emd
>
>----------

Lots of other quotes deleted
>
>From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
>Look, let's put it in perspective. Sure, the agreement is flawed in many 
>ways - not all the senators will be elected, they sure aren't going to be 
>effective, I don't agree with the 25% floor for Quebec, and nobody has 
>yet defined for me exactly what aboriginal self government means, etc.
>Be that as it may, there is no way at all that Quebec will agree to less 
>than the current proposal. 

Speaking for myself, it seems to be a trade-off for, at best, a 1 1/2 E
Senate. Equal, some elected, some appointed, and uneffective. When the 
trade is for a SYMBOLIC Senate, and the power is in the Commons, why
would we think it a fair exchange? I don't, by the way, have any 
problem with Quebec having 25% of the seats in the HOC when it has 25%
of the population. Why we should expect they should have 25% of the 
seats forever (regardless of population %) is beyond me. 


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: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:43:08 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <12789@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article <12785@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>>You seem to making some distinction here that prevents certain people
>>from being true citizens of Quebec. Will you please give an explanation
>>of why you are making this distinction, how you are applying it, and
>>any rational explanation for what the distinction is.
>
>Read again what he said: "Trudeau is an anglophone" because his mother
>was anglophone and it is therefore its "langue maternelle". He never
>talked about a Quebec citizenship. Once again you are imagining
>something.

The statement "Trudeau is an anglophone because ... " is simpleminded.
However I believe that it is both simpleminded and something else.
I am just trying to confirm this since it has some importance on the
credibilty we should give to the originator.










.


-- 
i.sinature
From: thood@twitus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:21:41 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:

>The problem with "areas of provincial jurisdiction" is that the Feds
>keep pushing their way in.  Consider health care  [...]
>Similarly, it is widely agreed that day care is a provincial area of
>responsibility, but the pressure groups  [...]
>Natural resources are a provincial responsibility.  Do I have to say
>more?

Note that, as a result of Quebec's demands, the current constitutional
agreement severely restricts the ability of the federal government
to spend in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.  You should
be rejoicing.

>And if the people they are fighting are the people who are benefitting
>from central control, and who further dominate the centre because of
>their numbers?

You are mistaken.  Quebec (half of what you call "Central Canada")
is fighting like mad for more decentralization.

>[We need a Senate] that not only prevents future fiascos identical
>to past ones, but that prevents fiascos of the same ilk

There's an idea!  A second chamber consisting only of fortune-tellers and
psychics!

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Xref: sparky can.politics:6493 soc.culture.canada:6329
From: smith@gramian.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: History of North America Re: REpublicanisn vs. Monarchists (Was Re: Beauregard vs. Yadallee)
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:41:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: gramian.SMITH.92Sep6094120
	<SMITH.92Sep3113952@minerva.harvard.edu> <12779@grayt>
Organization: Harvard Robotics Lab, Harvard University

As I am soon leaving for a couple of weeks to go bicycle riding in
Nova Scotia -- the land of freedom-hating Tory lackeys -- I can't give
a thoughtful response to this post.  I will only remind you that I
never cast aspersions on the accomplishments, hard work, and
sacrifices of Canadian founders while asserting British interests in
Canada.

Regarding your national childhood songs: My family (which descended in
part from Icelandic and Serb immigrants who settled near Winnipeg and
in Minnesota's Mesabi range) still has a hearty laugh whenever it is
recalled that the Winnipeg great-grandmother thought that the American
national anthem was ``God Save the President.''

Steven Smith
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:10:57 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Sep11.003643.10644@thinkage.on.ca> dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:
>audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>>And yet we are supposed to be a Confederation. We also have the
>>2nd largest country in the world, and we have 2 Nations. Federations
>>only work properly when the country has a unique nation.
>
>You don't consider Newfoundland to be a part of Canada? Or are you
>refering to the First Nations? We have many nations, depending upon who
>you ask.

Fundamentally, Canada has two Nations: English Canada & Quebec (french
Canada).

You may want to add the so-called First Nations if you want, but
that's just rethorics. I can hardly see Canada as a 3-Nation state
when one of these Nations consist of 2% of the canadian population and
has a set of values which are not the same at all as the other 2
Nations, are are not at all cared off in the Canadian system. (I'm not
saying that it's alright).

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Xref: sparky can.politics:6774 soc.culture.canada:6557
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Why I will vote Yes on Oct.26 (DSY)
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:48:51 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Sep14.043656.14137@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>As I understand it, provinces other than Quebec (and P.E.I.) are on an equal
>footing.  CHQ will move closer to rep-by-pop.
>
Not so.  Here is the number of seats and the
average population per riding that will result
from the proposed deal:

BC    36  91168
Alta  28  90913
Ont  117  86196
NS    11  81813
Nfld   7  81211
Man   14  77996
Que   93  74150
NB    10  72390
Sask  14  70638
PEI    4  32441

PEI and NB both benefit from the "Senate floor" of 1915.  Sask and Man
benefit from a rule that provinces can't have fewer sats than it had
following the 1971 census.  These inequities are produced by the
existing rules, not by the proposed accord.

Quebec benefits not from the 25 % rule, but from the 18 MPs it gains
to compensate for the loss of senators.  I'm surprised that all the
attention has focused on the 25 % rule, whose application is still
hypothetical, and not on this immediate windfall for Quebec.

Ontario benefits in the same way, but to a lesser extent, since it was
due to get more MPs.

You can bet that these numbers of seats will quickly become minima
which can never be reduced, so the only way to move closer to rep by pop
will be by further expansion of the House of Commons.

I wonder how and when this deal will be implemented.  I doubt that
new riding boundaries can be drawn up in time for the 1993 federal
election, so these new numbers of seats may not come into use
until later (1997?).  But if Ontario and Quebec don't get their
extra MPs right away, will they agree to give up their Senators?

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:14:41 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:

>Better two good countries than one bad one.

The agreement would not create a "bad" country.

Please read the amendments again.  For the most part, they mean nothing:
they say nice things, or they simply recognize the status quo.
Some of the amendments clarify the relationship between the two levels
of government -- a good thing because it may prevent some squabbling.

Representation: in a pessimistic scenario, House of Commons ridings in
Quebec will be, on average, 2/3 the size of ridings outside Quebec by the
year 2020. This imbalance is much less than the current imbalance
favouring rural ridings, the smallest of which are less than 1/5 the size
of the largest.  CHQ will still have 75% of House of Commons seats.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:28:06 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1669

From article <12840@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):

> Quebec is still a francophone nation. The presence of 1/6 of
> anglophones doesn't change a thing (especially since most of them
> don't consider themselves as "quebecois").

Another denial of the English community in Quebec's existence. This one
followed by a disclaimer?

Then an admission that anglos are a part of Quebec after all but they
don't count.

Some of them do consider themselves "quebecois", some of them don't. It
depends whether "quebecois" means 'of Quebec' (which some anglos consider
to include the English) or not.

I don't think anglos in Quebec, even those who consider themselves
"quebecois", much like being ignored in phrases like "Quebec is a
francophone nation".

I suppose that's much like the "visage". :-)

> 
> Is France not the French Nation (and a francophone one) even if there
> is 6% arabs (maybe more)?

Hmmm. I suppose one might say that France exists as a nation in the
hearts of the French. It is also more commonly known as a country
with borders that can be shown on a map.

> 
> Quebecois stopped calling themselves "Canadien" because the original
> meaning of the name changed. Originally, "canadien" meant
> french-canadian, and the english-canadians were simply the "englsih".

Interesting. I didn't know that.

What does "acadian" mean?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:20:47 GMT
	<1992Sep2.025956.3731@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
	<1992Sep02.045731.8357@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
	<1992Sep2.200213.26540@pandora.matrox.com>
	<1992Sep8.195838.18202@bnr.ca>
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <1992Sep8.195838.18202@bnr.ca> yali@bnrca (Yawar Ali) writes:
> My crystal ball shows the following:
> 
> The new constitutional deal passes the referendum.
> Federal elections are held in Spring '93:
> BQ disintegrates; PCs sweep Quebec.
> NDP shut out of Ontario; Liberals and PCs split Ont. seats.
> Liberals take most Atlantic Canada seats.
> Liberals and PCs split Manitoba and Saskatchewan seats.
> Reform and PCs fratricide in Alberta, resulting in a virtual NDP sweep.

Never happen.  The NDP will take 0-2 Alberta federal seats, tops.  Pity
that, but Alberta, being a right-wing one-party state, isn't very
coomfortable with the concept of democracy.  Tories should take 8-10
seats, leaving Reform with 9-10 seats (Reformers and Tories are just
different wings of the same party).  I think the Liberals might get one
seat in Alberta, with Bob Blair, formerly of Nova, running for them.

  =======================================================================
  Terry Labach              "Then raise the scarlet standard high
                             Beneath its fold we'll live and die
  labach@acs.ucalgary.ca     Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
                             We'll keep the red flag flying here."
                                     - The Red Flag
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:36:49 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <Bu1B4r.96p@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.213751.912@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>
>>But Denis just said Trudeau was an anglophone!! :-)
>
>How do you define an anglophone?  Some one who's mother language is English?
>This is an adaptation to English of the French expression langue maternelle.
>
>Mother of Trudeau was Grace Elliott, no?  And she was anglophone, no?
>Thus, Trudeau is an anglophone!  
>In the context, Trudeau should not be used as a perfect example of
>a pure francophone since he was not educated as a pure francophone.

You seem to making some distinction here that prevents certain people
from being true citizens of Quebec. Will you please give an explanation
of why you are making this distinction, how you are applying it, and
any rational explanation for what the distinction is.

>ANd please don't flame for this : it is a fact, period.  The same way,

Why shouldn't we flame you for it. It seems to fit the pattern for
which you are flamed.  Doesn't Trudeau fit your idea of a true
Quebecker?

>Mulroney was rised in English.  BUt, this is another story.
>

Please give us this story as well. We can all flame you for it
if it turns out to be what I suspect it is.


-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Senate election scenerio
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:01:36 GMT

"Good evening, and welcome to the National.

Tonight's top story is the dillema of Bob Rae. Last year, the premier
of Ontario promised he would set aside half of Ontario's six Senate
seats for women.

Well today was the final day to file nomination papers, and only two
women have placed their names in nomination. Seven men will also run
for the new elected Senate.

What does this mean for Rae's promise. His office wouldn't comment
today, but an insider speculated that Rae may disqualify one of the
men elected to appoint another woman.

We have more from Terry Molesky...."

CUT TO THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION

Globe & Mail front page story

Female senate candidates don't make the cut
Rae under intense pressure from all sides

"In Canada's first ever Senate elections, the two women candidates
finished seventh and eight, putting Ontario Premier Bob Rae in a very
unenviable position.
"Last year, Mr. Rae promised half the senate seats in Ontario would be
reserved for women. When only two women filed nomination papers, Mr.
Rae said he hoped they would finish in the top six. He did not say
whether he would appoint a third woman to the Senate.
"But now neither of the two women received enough votes to be elected.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women is insisting Mr.
Rae either declare the election void, or step aside and ensure his
party elect a female premier for Ontario. 
"Mr. Rae did suggest last night he may subvert the democratic process
to disqualify the three lowest vote getters of the new senatoinstall
the two female candidates, and then appoint a third female senator."



Nahh....this could never happen....could it?
Xref: sparky can.politics:6759 soc.culture.canada:6543
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Why I will vote Yes on Oct.26 (DSY)
Date: 14 Sep 92 04:36:56 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>Alberta and BC and Ontario are all set irreversibly on a path to less
>than representation by population...

> [...] ...in thirty years Quebec
>and BC could both have 20% of the countries population...Quebec would
>have 25% of seats...BC would have perhaps 17% of the seats.  For
>every vote in BC, a Quebec voter would have 1.5 votes.

As I understand it, provinces other than Quebec (and P.E.I.) are on an equal
footing.  CHQ will move closer to rep-by-pop.

The 75% HOC ceiling for CHQ is a bitter pill to swallow: about as bitter
as the equality of provinces in the Senate  pill that Quebec had to gag down.

>It is not 100% elected...Quebec wants to appoint their Senators...and
>we are about to introduce chromosome testing of candidates to test
>for the amount of femaleness and the amount of frenchness.

This francophone/non-francophone and female/male discrimination is the
worst part of the package.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:21:47 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1869

From article <1992Sep9.033739.12475@bcrka451.bnr.ca>, by nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau):
> In article <12774@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>>
>>                                                         There is no
>>such thing as a bilingual society unless EVERYTHING is bilingual,
>>including people. You can have bilingual institutions, bilingual
>>services, bilingual people, etc. but only a very naive person would
>>believe that a "bilingual society" exists. We can't even have a
>>bilingual City! (Some part of some cities might be close to it
>>however). Your principle of Quebec required to be bilingual (I mean
>>really bilingual, not just by proclaiming itself to be like Canada) is
>>based on false impressions that were forced through your brain by
>>propaganda.
> 
> In article <12798@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>>
>>BILINGUAL (for a country) means that different regions (in Canada
>>these regions are called Provinces and are a political entity) have
>>different languages.
> 
> I think the only possible followup to this is to quote from Lewis
> Carroll's "Through the Looking-Glass":
> 
>    "When *I* use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful
>    tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor
>    less."
> 
>    "The question is," said Alice, "whether you *can* make words mean
>    so many different things."
> 
>    "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -
>    that's all."
> 
> :-)

Appropriately interjected, sir. I agree! :-)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||