HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: Canada without Quebec
Organization:  Ontario
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:28:22 GMT

In article <CLAMEN.92Nov11003351@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>
>   >It angers me to hear lots of people saying that we should let Quebec go...
>   >I read somewhere that if Quebec separated, we could kiss our G7 membership
>   >and other important posts goodbye, because we would become too small.
>
>   They're the ones that are (and have been for years) belly-aching to
>   separate, so blame them.
>
>A minority of Quebecers support a unilateral declaration of
>independence.  Most want changes to the relationship they have with
>the Federal government, and have been try to achieve it since the
>1960s.

The way I understand it, the nationalists in quebec seek more power and
control because they feel that they need to excercise that power in order
to maintain their culture in the face of some ambiguous non-francophone
threat.

Will someone tell me what the Nationalists would do with their new-found
powers (if given them) in order to satisfy this seemingly grass-roots
cry for francophone survival?  What specific measures would they take,
which (apparently) they can't do now?  I would imagine that these measures
have something to do with (1) minimum HofC representation, (2) 3 out of 9
federal judges, (3) ambiguous distinct society clause, (4) a non-elected
(and maybe non-EEE) senate.

The way I See It (tm), the aspiring nationalist leaders in Quebec have always
had a hankering for independance, based on a somewhat strong and diverse
economy, and a rather huge north with untapped natural resources.  Resources
which Ottawa (and the natives) seem to keep putting roadblocks in front of.
So, in their ever increasing need for power and control, the nationalists
concoct a francophone culture crisis which only they they can combat, all
in the name of creating their own empire, complete with natural resources.
Xref: sparky can.politics:9386 soc.culture.canada:8308
From: riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: "Canada is like a dull party"
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:38:51 GMT
Followup-To: can.politics


"Glug glug", le son que fait un bateau qui coule, est le titre d'un 
article sur le Canada dans l'edition de "The Economist" du 31 octobre.

"The bog in which [Canada] now comes to rest is deeper and
stickier even than the one from which it started, and it is not clear
that there is a way out. Canada may well be mired for years. 
[...]
The disaffection is nationwide, and any attempt to reduce it in one
place is certain to increase it elsewhere. 
[...]
Quebec could well vote to pull out by 1995.
[...]
Westerners might calculate that they would be better off joining the
United States - at which point Ontarians might reckon that their
economy is so closely tied to America's that, well, they might as well
join too. This is the boring party theory of break-up:
Canada is like a dull party which the guests are too polite to leave;
but, once the first person makes a move to go, the others each claim
a pressing engagement and head for the door.
[...]
For many, not being an American is central to being a Canadian.
Yet that could change. If asked to describe in more positive terms
what Canada stands for, Canadians will often cite their health-care
system, their broadcasting service (CBC), Canada's compassionate
attitude to the old, the poor, the unemployed. Tellingly, all these
marks of Canadianism depend crucially on government. Yet on Monday
[October 26th] Canadians delivered a savage rebuke to those they have
elected to run their governments, all of whom had recommended the
Charlottetown agreement. Now wonder: it is becoming even plainer that
Canada owes much of its mess, both economics and political, to excessive
government. Province is at war with province, and often with the centre, too.
California, with a bigger population, has but a tenth of the number
of cabinet members.
[...]
Meanwhile, all Canadians can pay attention to things they have been
neglecting, especially the question of how to live with deindustrialisation -
the loss of more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs in less than four years.
[...]
In their current morass, with the eventual break-up of the country looking
more probable than ever, Quebeckers are likely to see more jobs,
people and investment go elsewhere; and other Canadians are likely to 
go on watching their young drift south and their economy suffer from
paludinous uncertainty. This week's No will have echoes for years."


Marc Riese
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
Suisse
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:42:28 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Mulroney succession

FILE: 2893684  NETPOST  A1                VM/ESA Conversational Monitor System
PAGE 00001


Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:36:51 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics, soc.cult.canada, list.bitserv.politics
Subject: Mulroney succession
Canada--
Yesterday's Star had an article speculating on BM the PM's possible resignation
 and perspective candidates for Tory Chiefdom.

 Listed were: Joe Clark, Kim Campbell, Jean Charest, Bernard Valcourt,
 Barbara McDougall and Perrin Beatty. No handicaps were given. Do you think
 Brian will go soon? Who will run? What are their odds? Who will win?


Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Quebec
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:42:25 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 895

From article <Bx9J56.FB8@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Denis Beauregard writes:-

> In article <1992Oct27.140016.13677@bmerh85.bnr.ca> viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
> writes:
>>
>>And racism is not rampant in Quebec?  Talk to the Cree or Mohawks.
> 
> Compare the number of Natives being educated in their own language
> to that in other provinces and you will find that your remark is
> absolutely irrelevant.
> 

There are about 12,000 English-speaking children in Quebec who are declared
"ineligible for instruction in English". Can Denis have forgotten that fact
so soon? :-(

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: afsipmh@cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel)
Subject: Re: Mulroney succession
Reply-To: afsipmh@cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel)
Organization: Environment Canada
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 12:54:22 GMT


In article <schuck.721591966@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce
Jonathan Schuck) writes:
|> afsipmh@cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> Years? Thats stretching it. You are right that he had to call an
|> election because he couldn't count, but he didn't get reelected
|> because Quebeckers rarely if ever vote for parties led by
|> non-Quebeckers. Joe couldn't win in Quebec against Trudeau.
|> 

Oh gee, and how do you suppose he got in for his nine months?

|> 
|> >PET is a Quebecer..I'd
|> >rather have him on the "other" side of tha table than say Joe who
|> 
|> I'd rather have neither on 'our' side.
|> 

That's just your Quebecophobia talking talking again.

|> -- 
|> ============================================================================
|> "We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
|> ============================================================================
Pat Hertel                 Canadian Meteorological Centre
Analyst/Programmer         2121 N. Service Rd.        
phertel@cmc.aes.doe.ca     Dorval,Quebec             
Environment Canada         CANADA           H9P1J3

"Its not a bug..its an undocumented feature." - unknown
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Mulroney succession
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:22:00 GMT

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:

>In article <schuck.721291542@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>
>>>Yesterday's Star had an article speculating on BM the PM's possible resignation
>>> and perspective candidates for Tory Chiefdom.
>>
>>> Listed were: Joe Clark, Kim Campbell, Jean Charest, Bernard Valcourt,
>>> Barbara McDougall and Perrin Beatty. No handicaps were given. Do you think
>>> Brian will go soon? Who will run? What are their odds? Who will win?
>>
>>The Tories have to win Quebec to win the next general election. 
>>
>>A non-quebecker has a snowballs chance in hell of being elected Tory leader.
>>

>how did Joe Who manage it then? Was Diefenbaker from Quebec?

I wasn't talking history, I was talking the future.

By the way, Joe only last 9 months in a minority government because he
couldn't win Quebec -- Pierre Trudeau could.


-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Plan B
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 20:50:07 GMT

In article <schuck.721245605@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>If such a case were to come about, then BC would be *much* better off
>leaving immediately.

What you're talking about, then, is NOT any issue about what CANADA
should do if Quebec decides to separate, but rather what British
Columbia ought to do if Quebec decides to separate.

And it's finally come down to "Plan B."  ("So, it's not working.
Let's try... Plan B!")  The separation of British Columbia.

You think Quebec couldn't get into NAFTA, or FTA.  Why would BC get
in?

And it's coming to sour grapes about "Oh, Ontario and Quebec are evil.
They're too powerful, and just because they happen to hold most of the
population of the country, that's no excuse for being powerful."

You think that unilateral and ruthless action is a good idea.  Great
start for the new state of British Columbia.

You don't like Quebec, and like the idea of hurting its people.
That's hatred in my books.  Not a good way or reason to start a new
country.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |===================================
University of Ottawa              |  The Personal Computer:  Colt 45
Master of System Science Program  |  of the Information Frontier
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: southiea@JSP.UMontreal.CA (Southiere Alain)
Subject: Re: Americans on English schools in Quebec (Was: Quebec)
Organization: Universite de Montreal
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:47:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.171343.25353@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>And by the way: the provincial police force will (officially!) not give
>interviews to the Montreal Gazette on the grounds that it is "against
>the QPF and anti-Quebec."

   If it is so, they at least got the right reason ! Just read some editorials
or articles in the Gazette, you'll see that it's against Quebec and 
francophones, at least some journalists are...

-- 
Alain Southiere           | You can't always get what you want,    
southiea@jsp.umontreal.ca | But if you try sometimes,              
--------------------------| You might find you get what you need ! 
 * This space for rent *  |                   - The Rolling Stones 
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: "Canada is like a dull party"
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:42:16 GMT

In article <5071@disuns2.epfl.ch> riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese) writes:
>
>I posted an extract of an article by "The Economist" (Oct.31) about
>the Canadian referendum results and their possible consequences.
>My original posting included no comments from myself.
>
>Kevin F. Speichts then responded:
>>This brings to mind the Kids In The Hall skit ...
>>titled "I Hate the Swiss" :)   Did anyone else see this it was great.
>>I'd tell this guy to go jump in an ocean .. but they don't have any. :)
>
>This is the most well-reasoned and relevant response I've
>ever seen on the Internet.
>Person A, a Canadian, posts an extract of a British article about Canada;
>Person B replies by making a vague negative comment about the Swiss
>and a negative comment directed at Person A.
>Bravo Kevin F. Speichts.
>

Oh humph! You're no fun (no wonder we hate the Swiss! :-) 

you should have replied something like:
"did you see that Monty Python skit about Canada?

Im a lumberjack and I'm ok
I sleep all night and I work all day

I cut down trees, I eat my lunch
I go to the lav-a-try
On Wednesdays I go shopping
And have buttered scones for tea.

Im a lumberjack...

I cut down trees, I skip and jump
I like to press wild flowers
I put on women's clothing and hang around in bars

I'm a lumberjack...

I cut down trees, I wear high heels,
Suspenders and a bra
I wish I'd been a girlie, just like my dear Papa"

>Marc Riese
>Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
>Suisse


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Xref: sparky can.politics:9486 soc.culture.canada:8390
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:01:38 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Releasing Results B4 the polls close (was Re: Referendum and the w
 <1992Nov5.021059.1037@ee.ubc.ca> <1di0rtINNrpl@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>

I think the concern wasn't as much that people in the West would switch their
vote but simply that they wouldn't bother voting because the election was seen
as over. In 1988 Bush was declared elected at 6:30 Pacific time, observers
noted a sudden 50% or so drop of the number of people who voted following
the announcement.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Americans on English schools in Quebec (Was: Quebec)
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:22:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.115614.3846@spxtech.qc.ca>
	steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:

>Is it your belief that English must be suppressed in Quebec or French
>will die?

Steve, I'm surprised you're still asking this question, even rhetorically.

Of *course* this is the main underlying belief behind the sign laws, the
education laws, and the desire for ever-increasing power over immigrants'
choice of language and adopted culture (which you have experienced
personally).

Haven't you realized by now that Quebecois have taken the lazy way out
of their cultural dillemas? It's far easier to repress English than to
encourage French, it's cheaper for the provincial government, and it
has the (unspoken but very real) aspect of revenge. A lot of francophone
Quebecois who support these repressive measures, take some obscene comfort
believing that the English in Quebec are finally getting a dose of what
they've been doing to Quebecois francophones for generations.  Of course
this doesn't make it right, but it's one hell of a rationalization.

Part of the reason I voted no, was because the CA proposed to legitimize
this laziness. The whole reason for entrenching the Distinct Society in
law, is to give some legal legitimacy to existing and future cultural
repression. Rather than change 178, or continue to invoke the NWC on it,
Quebec would most love to have it declared legitimate by changing the
guidelines for legitimacy.

While languages from Bengali to Yiddish to Mandarin to Czech flourish in
Canada merely because of the will of those who speak it, it is ironic that
French in Quebec can seemingly survive only by repressing other languages.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: "Canada is like a dull party"
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:54:19 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
: In article <1992Nov6.221851.15367@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
: >
: >You are forgetting about western Canada alienation and aboriginal
: >concerns. Once Quebec, the West, and the aboriginals have their
: >concerns addressed, then Canada can get on with things. What is left
: >of it that is.
: >
: 
: The Indian Act isn't in the constitution...50%+1 in the House of 
: Commons can change it.  The Prime Minister, if he truly supports
: an elected Senate, can start appointing only elected Senators.
: Democracy doesn't need a constitutional amendment...  

"Appoint elected senators"... an oxymoron.  Should the aboriginals
decide upon the form of self-government they want, and if the senate
is to truly be EEE for western and maritime concerns, then a constitutional
amendment is what should happen.

However, it won't happen in a long time.  And the status quo will continue
to pull apart the country.

: Senate reform and aboriginal self-government do not need constitutional
: changes...they just need a government that is committed to them.

Non-trivial senate reform and aboriginal self-government need 
constitutional enforcement. Good intensions cannot change the
form of government institutions.

-- 
Brian Ross                         "How do we arrange lures in our tackle box?
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     From left to right, according to size and 
                                    frequency of use." -- Anal-Retentive Chef.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: What would you do?  
Organization: BC News and Mail
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:29:45 GMT

>
>What else is there to do :-)
>

>(That's enough babbling for a month or so of flamage, so I'll quit while I'm
>behind :-))

Well if you *really* want me to flame ok. But I didn't see anything in your
list that wasn't at least a good start in the right direction.

-- 
Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.bc.ca> ....................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................. ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................. ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/pub/wimseypd
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Prospects for Quebec independence
Date: 07 Nov 92 16:04:43 EST

In <1992Nov3.155814.24917@pandora.matrox.com>
thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
separates, maybe:

> The prospects for Quebec independence look good.
> Here is my own rough estimate of Quebec opinion:
> Firm separatists:   30%

	My estimate is 35%

> Swing voters:       40%
> Firm federalists:   30%

	25%, but who is counting?		|8-)

> The "swing" voters are ambivalent francophone Quebecers.

	... and a number of rational Anglos who see no great
	problem with an independant Quebec.

> [ ... ] 
> A referendum on sovereignty might win today.  Parizeau will fight the
> next election on the issue.  If he wins and proceeds to declare
> sovereignty in principle without calling a referendum, he will
> precipitate a crisis, but could succeed in establishing a separate
> state.

	If he did this, he would get a fight from a number of
	people who have mild nationalist sympathies, and no
	overwhelming argument against independance, but still do
	not feel an outright separation is necessary (I would
	be one).

> Federalists will have to rely more on Quebecers' willingness to reject
> separatist ideology outright, less on their amenability to threats or
> warnings.

	You betcha...

	But a I have a question: 

		Why are Federalists assuming that Quebec's
		nationalism, and even separatism, are not
		in the common best interest?  (Note that I
		do not exclude the possibility of minor
		hardships and incidents, but I don't believe
		it should matter in a large scale, long term
		choice)

	I have a feeling that here, as in church, the basic
	tenets are not being questionned.  It is a shame.



--
 Alain
 [ ... usual disclaimer... ]
Xref: sparky can.politics:9546 soc.culture.canada:8438
From: root@catnix.UUCP (Wonder user (M.Simond))
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: An intentional slip? (WAS: Re: Americans on English schools in Quebec (Was: Quebec)
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:00:56 GMT
	    <1992Nov8.093445.6529@spxtech.qc.ca>
Organization: Rhinoceros, chargez!

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>
> If the mother tongue criteria had been adopted in Quebec in 1986, there
> would have been 10,335 more children eligible for education in English
> in Quebec than the 111,178 actually enrolled.

I couldn't convince myself hard enough not to take this one out
of context... :-)  In any case, aren't you saying here that you don't
care what happened from 1986 on... because you wouldn't be concerned?
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: The October Crisis (was Re: Quebec)
Date: 8 Nov 1992 03:45:54 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov04.210255.21421@microsoft.com> robertfe@microsoft.com (Robert Ferguson) writes:
>It is, of course, impossible to determine whether the intent of 
>his kidnappers was to kill him; but the law holds that anyone who
>is killed in the commission of a felony is considered to be a victim
>of murder, regardless of the circumstances.

Please don't talk about "the law" when you really mean "U.S. law". In
Canadian law, there is no such thing as a felony.

Mathew Englander.
Newsgroups: can.politics