HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN)
Subject: Re: INTolerance in Quebec
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:51:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.201901.9142@bnrmtl.bnr.ca> phallard@bmtlh209.BNR.CA (Philippe Allard) writes:
>Please, consider the following points when you write again about intolerance
>in Quebec ...
>
>Since 1763, french Quebecois have had to fight to maintain their culture
>and language alive. Bill 101 is just another chapter of that fight.
>People have to realize that the french speaking Quebecois are only a
>tiny minority in the mostly english speaking North America, and that if
>they don't fight, nobody will fight for them, and french in Quebec will 
>slowly die. 
>
>It is understandable that immigrants coming to Quebec would want to learn
>english before french. After all, in a North American context, it is hard
>to find a good job without knowing english (one can do without french but
>not without english). Before bill 101, most immigrants coming to Quebec
>would indeed concentrate on learning english, not french.
>
>It is also understandable that a Montreal store owner would  want to
>post his sign in english. After all, in a North American context,
>everybody should be able to read english. This is indeed what we used to
>see before 1977 in downtown Montreal where the commercial signs were
>prominently english.
>
>I surely think that there could be some modifications to bill 101 (and 178).
>My opinion is that a second language (like english) should be allowed on all
>commercial sign, providing that the french portion be given at least
>equal importance. However, bill 101 is very important to me and to many
>Quebeckers. Of course, such a law violates the individual rights of
>citizens (this applies to all Quebeckers if you consider that french parents
>cannot send their children to english school). However, it should be seen as
>the price to pay to keep the french language and culture alive in Quebec,
>and particularly in Montreal.
>
>Philippe G. Allard
>
>I have given here my personal opinion, which should not be confused
>with that of my employer.

  The ends do not justify the means...

-- 
	               / )/ )/ )        /    /
			/  /  /      --/----/--
                       /  /  /  / \   /    /
		      /  /  /   \_/\ /    /  
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Tolerance in Quebec ("Foreign" != "Etranger")
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:41:46 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2173

From article <1993Jan22.204153.1780@cerberus.ulaval.ca>, by duquet@astro.phy.ulaval.ca (Jean-Remi Duquet):
> In article <1993Jan21.095755.18407@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
> 
> [.....]
>
>>I am in contact with a number of anglophone families whose children have
>>had, and are having, severe problems as a result of being forced to
>>attend french schools in Quebec. That is NOT to say that there is anything
>>wrong with french schools. I mean that these children have problems as a
>>result of being placed in an environment that is totally foreign to them.
>                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Hmmm. I don't want to start this all over again, but how can a french
> environment be "totally foreign" to quebecers[?]

An English speaking child coming from an English speaking country
who has already completed a number of years of schooling in English;
with English freinds and family find themselves suddenly placed in
a totaly French classroom with French clssmates (mostly). Some of
these children adapt after the initial trauma has been overcome -
some do not!

A French classroom full of French speaking classmates, books and
teachers is a "totally foreign" environment for these children.
This has nothing to do with the language of the majority of the
population at large - try to see it from the child's point of
view. (I wish some ardent Quebec nationalists would see this
problem that way!)

The problems faced by these families are forced upon them
unnessecarily by restrictive legislation in Quebec. There are
French immersion programs available in publicly funded English
schools in Quebec. These schools should be made avialable to
anyone that wants them - Especially to families from English
speaking countries!!!!!

"Foreign" doesn't translate very well to French "etranger" does it?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven@spxtech.qc.ca                       |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Apology deserved! (Was: Tolerance in Quebec...)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:24:01 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 732

From article <1993Jan21.135834.10029@cerberus.ulaval.ca>,
by beaucham@astro.phy.ulaval.ca Dominique Beauchamp suggests:-

> In fact, Steve, with his paroles full of hatred, is going to give a
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> completely false image of Quebec to the rest of the World...

Hey! That is a complete misrepresentation of my position and deserves
an immediate and unconditional apology! :-((((((((

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven@spxtech.qc.ca                       |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 11:46:59 GMT

In article <93022.0220182893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <C11uK0.B8n@mach1.wlu.ca>, dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
>says:
>>>

>>Perhaps Bob Rae knows how to get Mulroney re-elected - he has taken to
>>accusing Mulroney for all his problems which is simply untrue. While I may
>
>Well, Mulroney cutting transfer payments to Ontario is largely the cause
>for the increased deficit in Ontario. So Rae does have reason to complain

I am familiar with federal transfer payments having written my doctoral
dissertation on federal transfers. I don't think the federal government had
any choice and I think that should be clear to anybody with a head on their
shoulders.
>
>>not want to see the present PM remain in office, I would prefer that to
>>seeing Bob Rae retaining influence so I am going to vote against Bob Rae
>>even if it means voting for his opponents. Who knows maybe the PM will carry
>

I am not a Mulroney supporter (even though I used those words that I would
prefer him to Rae. I find myself here being a realist. Rae can't blame the
federal government when he is responsible for his own deficit. The federal
government would have done this even had the Liberals or the NDP been in
power.

>So do you blame Bob Rae for all our problems? Sounds like it!
>
>Again, read up on the federal cut in transfer payments, effectively
>transferring part of Ottawa's deficit to Ontario.

Yes, and who is responsible for the federal debt? The federal Liberals were
the ones who got it up in a few years from zero to $38 billion and the
Conservatives have not been doing enough to control it - sounds like you
want them to continue it at many billlions more than it is currently - our
dollar would be in trouble, our interest rates would be with Swedens at over
300% per annum and we would be the laughing stock of the world for
mismanagement. I say the federal government took the only route it had and
Bob RAe is being less than honest to blame somebody else when it is only him
who can fix it.

>>


Xref: sparky can.politics:11763 soc.culture.canada:10517 soc.culture.new-zealand:3499 can.general:6454
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.new-zealand,can.general
Subject: Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 05:56:22 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #3, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Nuke me for placing this in can.general.  I wish there was a line like
Follow-up: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.new-zealand.

Facts:

-  The GST has caused caused inflation to soar.  According to Stats Can, the
GST was responsible for a 1.6% increase in the CPI in Jan 1991.  Consequently,
the implementation of the GST was in direct conflict with the government's own
inflation target.

- The GSt has hurt the small business sector. The Canadian Federation of
Independent Business has stated that the total cost of the GST to Canadian
business in 1991 was $9.6 billion -- resulting in 1000 000 jobs being lost.

- Recent figures ny the Finance department indicate that it cost taxpayers $900
000 000 to implement the GST

- the $ 6600 000 000 compliance costs associated with the GST means that it
costs Canadians business and the Canadian economy $.40 to collect every $1 of
GST revenue.

- cross-border shopping has increased.

FYI:

 - A regressive tax is one which leaves the rich virtually intact, but the poor
suffer.


  Explicit Liberal Position:

   -Replace the GST with a fair Tax

   - Tax Reform on 5 principles:
      1. Fairness - The burden of paying taxes should be based on the ability
                    to pay
      2. Simplicity - The tax systm should be made easier to understand and
                      comply with.
      3.  Integrated - Tax reform should NOT be undertaken in isolatin from
                         provincial and municipal tax refrom.
      4. Visibility - Canadians have a right to know how much tax they are
                            paying and to which level of governement
      5. Revenue Neutrality - Tax reform should be undertaken for the purpose
                              of making the tax system fairer,
                              not as a guise for raising taxes



Furthur, I heard that New Zealand has  a tax system of pay at based of 26% and
has streamlined the beaucracy.

C U

Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
 (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969, Redhill, Surrey, England, UK
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart)
Subject: Re: Deficit, Deficit, who's got the Deficit? was: NDP "communism?"
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:47:14 GMT

In <1993Jan25.182008.11320@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>As Doug already mentioned, equalization payments amount to
>approximately one third of the Federal budget.  Those payments have
>been increasing by between 10% and 15% per year, for quite a while
>now.  In order for the Feds to be able to continue this increase, YOUR
>TAXES have to rise by between 3% and 5% every year, just to cover
>transfer payments.  That ignores any growth in costs at the Federal
>level.

>It's a simple FACT.  If provincial spending is going to increase by
>15%, then that 15% has got to come from somewhere.  It comes either
>from provincial taxes, in which case that Bob Rae hits YOUR wallet, or
>Federal transfers, which means that Don Maz. hits YOUR wallet.
>There's no third choice.  (Other than that Mayor Holtzmann or Regional
>Chair Whatshisname hits your wallet.)

>If the transfer payments were kept at their exponential increase,
>you'd still pay, through GREATLY increased Federal taxes.  There's
>been some bad increases lately, but it could be WORSE, believe it or
>not.

I have no argument with you on those facts.  You are missing my point
however -- I'm trying to say that people in the socalled rich
provinces can no longer afford to provide transfer payments to the poorer
provinces, or at least we can't afford to increase them.

You talk about people having to make tough chices.  I believe it is only
a matter of time before the poorer provinces are going to have
to learn to live with fewer transfer payments.
-- 
John Stewart -- Computing and Communications Services, Carleton University
Internet: jstewart@ccs.carleton.ca or Mr.Canoehead@algonquin.carleton.ca  
"The average middle income family with two parents and children pays $2,945
more in Federal taxes than they would have under the tax policies in place
before the Tories first came to power in 1984."
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:35:49 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: On minimum wages
 <1993Jan26.201903.19780@sni.ca> <1993Jan27.034716.12266@ee.ubc.ca>

The basic arguments against minimum wage laws share one major
assumption: that treating labour as a commodity accords with
our ethics. I disagree. Since we measure labour by hours (in
dollars per hour), and we measure human lives by time, that
makes the labour market literally a market in human lives.
To see the the process of employment as a market phenomenon,
therefore, we must accept the definition of human lives as a
commodity.

For many reasons, I do not accept these definitions. I accept
the concept of employment, but I consider it a particular
relationship, different in kind from the usual buyer versus
seller relationship. In a usual relationship of buyer and
seller, a buyer acquires all the rights to an object. The
buyer may respect, disrespect, use, abuse or destroy the object.
When engaging an employee for compensation, however, none of these
rights applies. An employer enters a relationship with another
person, with all the obligations involved, of which respect comes
first. The economic aspects of the relationship come second.

Thus, the argument for the minimum wage rests on two premises,
neither of which involves the rules of "commodity" economics:
that employing people's times wastefully indicates disrespect, and
a decent society will discourage it; and offering a wage below
a certain minimum also indicates disrespect for the time, and
thus the lives, of employees.

Respect does not, therefore, proceed from a recognition of economic
value. It proceeds from recognition of shared humanity.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: Tolerance in Quebec (was Re: Political system 'axes')
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 18:54:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.193947.28704@bnrmtl.bnr.ca> phallard@bmtlh209.BNR.CA (Philippe Allard) writes:
>                                   
>I am quite surprised to read that you know of many anglophone families
>whose children were forced to go to french school. In fact, you should know
>that, even if bill 101 forces most immigrants to go to french school,
>anybody whose parents (one or both) went to english school has himself the
>right to go to english school. In other words, under the current law, no
>anglophone is forced to go to french school.
>
>Philippe G. Allard

??

I'm sorry, I seem to misunderstand.  "even if Bill 101 forces most
immigrants to go to french school, anybody whose parents..."  Does this
mean if your parents attended an english school *Anywhere*?  in Canada?  
Quebec?   In North America?   ????

It seems fairly obvious that either there *are* some restrictions, or the
poster previous to Phillippe is lying.  Given that, (in non-legaleez) what
are the restrictions?  It would be even more enlightening to see these
compared with similar restrictions in the other provinces; ie - if my
family speaks french and I live in Ontario/Alberta/etc..., how is it
decided, who decides, etc... whether my kids get to take all of their
classes in french?

These answers should be very simple for those who are familiar with the
system.  I would guess that most of us have never seen the regulations, nor
any worthwhile comparison.

-chris blask
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Deficit, Deficit, who's got the Deficit? was: NDP "communism?"
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:11:21 GMT

In article <jstewart.727989524@cunews> jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:
>
>House prices have dropped in some areas, most notably Toronto, and prices
>are stagnant just about everywhere else in Ontario.
>
>This is just another example of the decrease in wealth in Ontario.
>When houses appreciated in value at a rate well beyond the rate of 
>inflation people at least had the satisfaction of knowing that
>they were increasing their wealth even if their entire income was
>being spent on basic necessities and taxes.  Now that prices are
>stagnant (and likely to remain so for many years), a house can no longer
>be viewed as an investment.
>
>We ddidn't get into the house market until it was near its peak.  I wish
>I had been born 10 years earlier! :-)

Housing supply caught up with housing demand...the speculative and
inflationary real estate boom was not healthy for our economy and 
it is one of the reasons why the recession was so painful and the
recovery is so slow.  Bubble economies aren't sustainable...they
eventually come to a deflationary crash.

Stable real estate prices, and stable prices in general are good
for economic growth...wealth then is mostly earned, and shelter
is plentiful and affordable.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: The Liberal Puppet Can Read!
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:07:17 GMT


Well Jean Chretien read a carefully prepared statement by his
handlers yesterday mostly plagiarized from the Clinton campaign
of last fall promising billions more in spending, and deficit
reduction, and no GST, and no replacement for the GST.

A Mr. Subliminal version of the speech revealed continuous
repetition of "Hope", and "Trust us" like mantras.

Unfortunately, we know longer know if Chretien is capable of
thinking at all since he was not allowed to take questions
from the audience...the puppet was dangled out on stage, and
then quickly dangled off.

An army of spin doctors awaited outside to handle questions
from the media.

Excuse me, but I'm about to be sick...#%$#&%$^$&!

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:23:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.072648.17209@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>In article <kkelly.9.0@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca> kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca (Kevin Kelly) writes:
>>DO you know how unions operate. Many Unions in their own 
>>constitution call for a secret ballot on elections and other votes. In fact 
>>there is more democracy in a union than in most organizations I know. 
>>
>>The secret ballot on certification is a bit of red herring. If an individual 
>>does not wish to join a union or have one in the workplace they do not have 
>>to sign a card. Its as simple as that. 
>
>Oh sure. Then if they aren't union members they can be fired, effectively
>by the union. In the name of "democracy" (ie tyranny of the majority)
>others are FORCED to belong to a union, to go on strike, to pay union dues
>even if they don't want to. A union is not the moral equivalent of a 
>government, or society where arguably (on shaky grounds) you CAN be forced
>to comply with the will of the majority.
>
>If unions are so great, then people do not have to be forced to join a
>union as a condition of employment. Once again the good old statist,
>collectivist, anti-individual nature of Canada and Canadas laws and charter
>are used to crush individual liberty, in the name of the majority.
>As if the mob is right simply because of its numbers.

i wish i could get my hands on a full list of the outrageous laws that
exist to protect unions in Canada. i remember a friend of mine, who
manages a plant with unionized employees, telling me the following:
"if all the employees in my plant come to me and say "we don't want a union
any more, help us to get rid of it", then i am required by law not
to even *answer them*". whom is *that* protecting?

unions started out as a good idea, but they have (mostly) turned into
perversions where the rank-and-file are a lower priority than the
leaders. and the laws that protect them are criminal and without
a place in a free society.

>>And dont bother with responding with the "union intimidation" defense used 
>>by opponents of unions. Usually the intimidation comes from the company not 
>>the unions. I know I was there. 
>
>well don't tell me it's voluntarily. It's like "sign this confession, or
>we execute you". Unions are just one example of the way an indivual's
>liberty is sacrificed in the name of 'society'.

what he said.
and people are starting to realize this--union membership is on the
decline. in an age of total quality management, adversarial relationships
such as those caused by conventional unions (not enlightened ones like
(believe it or not) the UAW at Saturn in Tennessee) are incompatible
with success.

-=-
charles
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Labrador boundary (was Re: S.N.A.G.G.)
Organization: McGill University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:14:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.043235.22427@julian.uwo.ca> larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.012015.10051@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>
>>Newfoundland is part of Canada, you know, and I think it is not unreasonable
>
>Ever since Mackenzie King manipulated Labrador in the Newfie's favor and
>they foolishly voted for Confederation.....
>
Does this come from the same John LaRocque history text which has
World War 2 being started by the assassination of a Yugoslavian
politician in 1917?  Are you seriously suggesting that Nfld opted
for Confederation in 1949 because they had won the Labrador
boundary dispute 22 years earlier?  Care to provide details?

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Newsgroups: can.politics