HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: phallard@bmtlh209.BNR.CA (Philippe Allard)
Subject: Re: Tolerance in Quebec (was Re: Political system 'axes')
Reply-To: phallard@bmtlh209.BNR.CA (Philippe Allard)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 19:39:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.095755.18407@spxtech.qc.ca>, steven@spxtech.qc.ca
(Steve Potter) writes:
|>From article <20JAN93.10484054.0076@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, by CZ94
<CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> Tom writes:-
|>
|>(Hello Tom. Nice to have you back with us.)
|>
|>>
|>> [.....]
|>>
|>> The one exception to the general picture of Quebec as an open and
|>> tolerant society is in the domain of language.  Some aspects of
|>> Bills 101 and 178 can be seen as intolerant (I'd really rather not
|>> debate this at length right now).  Even concerning language, most
|>> Quebecers, both anglo and franco (and allo), are quite tolerant in
|>> everyday life.  In one-on-one conversations, most of us do our
|>> best to communicate in whatever language is mutually convenient.
|>
|>Agreed. (Pretty much).
|>
|>> It's only when we start talking about abstract principles and
|>> thinking of the "other" linguistic group as a faceless mass that
|>> the discourse on language tends to become intolerant.
|>> 
|>
|>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.
|>I don't think the parents of these children would agree that intolerance
|>in Quebec society is confined to discussion of abstract principles.
|>
|>-- 
|>  ///==================================================================\\\
|>  ||| Steve Potter:         steven@spxtech.qc.ca                       |||
|>  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
|>  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
                                   
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
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian Ross)
Subject: Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:34:06 GMT

yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
: 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.

What inflation? Isn't the current rate something < 4%? It's been that way
for the past few years.

: - cross-border shopping has increased.

Not recently.

:   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

Instead of citing vacuous general principles to which any political party
can give lip service, why not give some hard figures? 

[ Actually, the reason for the perpetual Liberal silence is clear: 
  Cretin simply  refuses to take a hard stance on any issue, for fear
  of ambushing their election prospects. ]

: 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

What was your birth weight and length? We need to know.

-- 
Brian Ross                          
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A new twist
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 06:14:47 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #1, Edmonton, AB, Canada

bspencer@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian SPENCER) writes:

- I read in the paper the other day that according to the latest poll, the
- Bloc Quebecois has lost 15 points and now now trail the Liberals in
- Quebec, who have 40 points (to the BQ's 31). A Liberal victory in Quebec
- can almost ensure the Liberals a majority government. We'll see if the
- latest poll is just a fluke, because the shift seems rather drastic, or
- a real reflection of how Quebec's going to vote in the next election.

  Hey! there is hope for this country and Quebec as well.  If only the
Republican BQ and PQ would either self-destruct or become distinct, MANY
Canadians would be happy to see these trouble-makers and few other
troublemakers like CoR, reform, WIP and other parties aong those lines go the
way of the dinosaur.

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
Xref: sparky can.politics:11569 soc.culture.canada:10200
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Type of jobs lost -- gender wage gap
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Distribution: can
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:57:01 GMT

Jim Robinson (robinson@mdivax1.uucp) wrote:
>doug mccready F (dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca) wrote:

>>Did it say whether single women the same age earn 91% or is there an age
>>difference too - I suspect that if you removed the age difference, single
>>women the same age make much closer to 100%.

>The article I saw did indeed say that there was an age difference as well
>w/ younger women earning more than older women. Unfortunately I cannot
>remember the numbers, but I will take a look for the article.

Found the article. Wage ratio based on age:
	15-24 year-olds		86.4%
	over 55 		63.6%

(As well, Bruce was correct - the 91% applied to single never married
women vs single never married men, not "average" men)
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: Deficit, Deficit, who's got the Deficit? was: NDP "communism?"
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:36:23 GMT

In article <jstewart.727977919@cunews> jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:
>In <C1Epw1.IAH@mach1.wlu.ca> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:

>Whatever statistics you can pull out of a hat to show that Ontario is
>still a rich province don't change the reality that my wife and I 
>see when we look at our family budget.  Inspite of an above average
>income there is nothing left after we pay our taxes, the mortgage, and
>other basic expenses (food, clothing, heat, lighting).  We are just 
>praying that the car lasts another three years at which point the children
>will be in school and my wife can get a job.  Our situation is by
>no means unique, many families in Ontario have had their budgets 
>stretched to the breaking point by tax increases -- primarily Federal
>tax increases.  It's a myth that Ontario is still rich enough
>to subsidize the poorer provinces.
>
I agree with you that it is difficult to live in Ontario and Ontario taxes
have gone up faster the last two years than federal taxes - in 1992, the
Feds lowered the surtax and Ontario took it all and then some. I know the
Feds took a bigger bite than the province back a few years ago but that was
when the Feds were trying to avoid having to cut provincial payments (or the
increase to those payments). 

The fact that I am ready to leave Ontario may have something to do with the
fact that I also have trouble paying bills with a decent income because of
high taxes. I blame Rae most but I want to see the Feds also cutting taxes.
Yet, I point out that if I leave Ontario Rae will have less revenues and
will have to raise the money elsewhere (like raising taxes on the remaining
people) and Ontario is now losing 500 people per day. If I leave Canada for
one of the many places where taxes are lower and so are living costs, then
the Canadian government is going to have to spread the tax take out amongst
more people but the effect is the same. That is why Canada and Ontario must
be nice to firms to keep them here but must also cut spending and taxes. I
would rather see a few social programs go than be saddled with higher taxes
than my American cousins.

>take into account the higher expenses of living in Ontario.  We 
>would need a lot less money to attain the same livestyle in one of
>the porrer provinces.
>-- 
>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."


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henrikson)
Subject: Re: Labrador boundary (was Re: S.N.A.G.G.)
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 13:41:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.171636.27770@julian.uwo.ca>, larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
|> >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?  
(deleted)
|> 
|> Was the World War 2 thing a typo? It probably was or I was really
|> wasted when you read that history text. But if you really

I guess you must have been wasted.  You didn't just get the date wrong,
you got just about every historical aspect wrong.  By the way, as I said
in my original response, it was NOT a Yugoslavian politician that was
assassinated - it was Archduke Ferdinand of the Austro-hungarian Empire!
God, do you people even know how to spell history?
 
|> 
|> Let's ask the Newfies the question that Uncle Ron asked Americans 
|> 12 years ago "Are you better off today then you were 50 years ago?".

Given the evidence of your historical knowledge, do you even know WHERE
Newfoundland was 50 years ago?
|> 
|> >Tom Box
|> >CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> ***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
|> **  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be  **
|> **  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW  **
|> ***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**

--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: CZ94000 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: Tolerance in Quebec (was Re: Political system 'axes')
Organization: McGill University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:00:19 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.
>
A lot of people in this group disagree with Steve Potter's opinions.
I first posted in this thread to disagree with Steve.  But at least
he gets his basic facts right.  Philippe Allard's posting is simply
_wrong_.  Only those whose parents went to English school *in Canada*
have the right to attend English schools in Quebec.  Children of
anglophone immigrants do not have this right. Steve has
explained this N times, where N is a very, very large number.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Ethnic origin of Canadians (was Re: Misleading stats)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:45:51 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1637

From article <21JAN93.18453436.0153@VM1.MCGILL.CA>,
by CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>:
Tom supplied the figures I requested (in disbelief!):-

> Here are figures from the 1986 census.  In that census, 20 % of
> households received a "long form".  One of the questions asked
> on that form was (roughly) "What is your ethnic origin?"  Multiple
> responses were allowed.  The following  are the percentages who
> gave a "British" response to this question, either as a single
> response or part of a multiple response.
> 
> BTW, British includes Irish, as well as English, Scottish, Welsh,
> and "Other British", whatever that is (Manx?).  Irish nationalists,
> flame StatsCan, not me.
> 
> Nfld   95.3 %
> PEI    86.5
> NS     83.4
> NB     62.3
> Que     9.9
> Ont    62.0
> Man    47.8
> Sask   51.9
> Alta   58.0
> BC     63.0
> Yukon  61.7
> NWT    32.0
> -----------
> Canada 48.8
> 

Well I never!

However, the figure includes people whose families have been in
Canada for several generations. 

If I were to ask those 48.8% what they thought about some among
them who were forbidden from sending their children to English
school in Quebec I venture to suggest that the vast majority of
them would ask us why we stay in this province rather than help
us put the legislation right.

Thanks for the figures, Tom. I am surprised.


-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven@spxtech.qc.ca                       |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:11699 soc.culture.canada:10374
From: nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: Deficit, Deficit, who's got the Deficit? was: NDP "communism?"
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Princeton University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:36:24 GMT

In article <jstewart.727977919@cunews> jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:
>
>I think the problem is that your fancy equilization formula doesn't
>take into account the higher expenses of living in Ontario.  We 
>would need a lot less money to attain the same livestyle in one of
>the porrer provinces.

Well, there's always a simple solution.  Why don't you write to Bob
Rae and suggest he pass legislation cutting the price of houses in
half?  That should solve the "higher expenses of living in Ontario"
problem.

Norbert
nfs@cs.princeton.edu
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 05:13:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.073421.17307@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.020040.6051@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>
>[ regarding Bob Rae ]
>
>>labor laws. maybe it is the result of subconscious repression; they made
>>me almost literally ill when i first read about them. and then he wonders
>>why businesses are leaving the country. the man is the biggest
>                                                        ^^^^^^^
>>ass ever to hold office. ( -10 pts, misuse of superlatives)
>
>Bob Rae is not the biggest ass ever to hold office. In fact, there
>is no upper limit to how big an ass (thief, liar, cheat, moron, crook) 
>any given politician can be, so there can be no *biggest ass*.
>
>:-)

good point, John. i should have said "so far"--after all, there *is* a 
federal election this year, right?

:^)

-=-
charles
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Ethnic origin of Canadians (was Re: Misleading stats)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:03:57 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1945

From article <20JAN93.10616941.0076@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, by CZ94000 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>:
> In article <1993Jan19.213722.19738@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>From article <C1484H.7o2@ecf.toronto.edu>, by pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN):
>>> In article <1993Jan19.063014.8618@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not exactly, but I have some numbers that should be close enough, from
>>>>>the 1993 Canadian Global Almanac.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of Canadian residents, 40% are of British, 27% French, and 20% other
>>>>>European ethnic origin.  (No date is given for this statistic; I would
>>>>>suspect it comes from the 1986 census.)  Depending on who is doing the
>>
>>40% of Canadian residents are of British origin !????
>>
>>My first reaction was "Rubbish!"
>>
>>My second reaction was "Cod's Wallop!" (Or is it 'Wallap'?)
> 
> Why?  Are you suggesting the real figure is far higher or far lower?
> Either way, what is the basis for your assertion?

Gut reactions. 

Annunciated disbelief.

>>
>>I'll check the data .... stand by please ...
>>
>>I only have figures for Quebec:-
>>
>    Steve's data omitted
> 
> Isn't it totally obvious that figures for ethnic origin of
> Quebecers are not at all representative of Canada as a whole?
> 

Yes.

Can someone supply figures on percentage of population of British
origin by province?

Could someone also provide the definition of "British Origin" used
by the source to be quoted?

British origin people living in Quebec have different rights depending
on their date of arrival in Quebec and citizenship status.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| 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: 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 16:05:19 GMT

In <C1Epw1.IAH@mach1.wlu.ca> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>Well, I have just explained where his comments are wrong. Sorry, the federal
>government has a formula based on tax revenues for equlaization grants - it
>has a formula for EPF and they have not changed the formula. The formula
>works to hepl poorer provinces but Ontario still does not qualify. There is
>sympathy and the numbers aren't fixed in stone - the formula is. Therefore,
>you are wrong and RAe cannot be supported.
> 
>The formula for equalization is based on the tax collections of 29 revenue
>sources (see my textbook for the 29 taxes) and measures it against the
>potential revenues if the base was average to determine what the payment
>will be - Ontario does not qualify.

Whatever statistics you can pull out of a hat to show that Ontario is
still a rich province don't change the reality that my wife and I 
see when we look at our family budget.  Inspite of an above average
income there is nothing left after we pay our taxes, the mortgage, and
other basic expenses (food, clothing, heat, lighting).  We are just 
praying that the car lasts another three years at which point the children
will be in school and my wife can get a job.  Our situation is by
no means unique, many families in Ontario have had their budgets 
stretched to the breaking point by tax increases -- primarily Federal
tax increases.  It's a myth that Ontario is still rich enough
to subsidize the poorer provinces.

I think the problem is that your fancy equilization formula doesn't
take into account the higher expenses of living in Ontario.  We 
would need a lot less money to attain the same livestyle in one of
the porrer provinces.
-- 
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."
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Tolerance in Quebec (was Re: Political system 'axes')
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:57:54 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1654

From article <20JAN93.10484054.0076@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, by CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> Tom writes:-

(Hello Tom. Nice to have you back with us.)

>
> [.....]
>
> The one exception to the general picture of Quebec as an open and
> tolerant society is in the domain of language.  Some aspects of
> Bills 101 and 178 can be seen as intolerant (I'd really rather not
> debate this at length right now).  Even concerning language, most
> Quebecers, both anglo and franco (and allo), are quite tolerant in
> everyday life.  In one-on-one conversations, most of us do our
> best to communicate in whatever language is mutually convenient.

Agreed. (Pretty much).

> It's only when we start talking about abstract principles and
> thinking of the "other" linguistic group as a faceless mass that
> the discourse on language tends to become intolerant.
> 

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.
I don't think the parents of these children would agree that intolerance
in Quebec society is confined to discussion of abstract principles.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven@spxtech.qc.ca                       |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics