HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: news@access.usask.ca (USENET News System)
Subject: UofS NNTP summary Thu Aug 27 05:02:17 CST 1992
Organization: University of Saskatchewan Gateway
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:04:34 GMT


NNTP peer article transfers

Article Reception (they contact us)
System                  Offered  Took  Toss  Fail Toss   Elapsed       CPU  Pct
ccu.umanitoba.ca            132   122    10     0   8%   0:18:52   0:04:01  21%
scapa.cs.ualberta.ca         53    15    38     0  72%   1:53:30   0:00:59   1%
uucp-gw-2.pa.dec.com       1432  1432     0     0   0%   1:26:29   0:09:53  11%
regina.cs.uregina.ca          7     7     0     0   0%   0:01:20   0:00:23  29%
jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca      475    49   426     0  90%   0:15:45   0:01:46  11%
kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca     17784 17711    72     1   0%  16:01:53   0:46:10   5%

TOTALS                    19883 19336   546     1   3%  19:57:51   1:03:15   5%

Article Transmission (we contact them)
System                    Offrd  Took  Toss  Fail  Pct   Elapsed       CPU  Pct
ccu.umanitoba.ca          17826 17817     9     0   0%   6:04:39   0:12:05   3%
scapa.cs.ualberta.ca         35     2    33     0  94%   0:03:59   0:00:33  14%
uucp-gw-2.pa.dec.com      16142    98 16043     0  99%   2:10:39   0:02:32   2%
regina.cs.uregina.ca      17936 17936     0     0   0%   5:27:15   0:12:15   4%
jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca     1407  1407     0     0   0%   1:12:09   0:02:06   3%
kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca       288   234     0     0   0%   0:18:12   0:01:22   8%
softy.softwords.bc.ca      1456  1456     0     0   0%   2:41:15   0:02:03   1%

TOTALS                    55090 38950 16085     0  29%  17:58:10   0:32:59   3%

Transmission Connection Attempts         ------errors-------
System                     Conn    OK    NS   Net   Rmt  Pct
ccu.umanitoba.ca             71    70     0     1     0   1%
scapa.cs.ualberta.ca         24    24     0     0     0   0%
uucp-gw-2.pa.dec.com         71    69     0     2     0   3%
regina.cs.uregina.ca         72    72     0     0     0   0%
jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca       52    51     0     1     0   2%
kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca        54    54     0     0     0   0%
softy.softwords.bc.ca        51    51     0     0     0   0%

TOTALS                      395   391     0     4     0   1%

Unknown NNTP server explorers
System                     Conn
herald.usask.ca               1
dvinci.usask.ca               1
kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca        18
jester.usask.ca               8

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:53:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.200741.16567@csi.uottawa.ca> mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca (Marc Frappier) writes:
>>The other problem with assymmetry is that it undermines support
>>for equalization...
>
>The principle of equalization can also be respected.  It has nothing to 
>do with taxation without representation. If provinces agree to share 
>their wealth, money received should be managed by provincial 
>governments, who are closer to their people than the central government, 
>and hopefully understand their needs better.  Ask the people of 
>Newfoundland if the central policy of unemployment insurance during 
>winter and subsidized overfishing during summer were intelligent 
>measures for them.  Ask the farmer of the prairies if they are in a 
>better position now, after years of subsidized agriculture.  Ask any 
>province how they manage to respect national guidelines in health system 
>without the appropriate funding.
>

With asymmetrical federalism, equalization to Quebec becomes taxation without
representation for Canadians in the rest of Canada.  Quebec cannot have
its cake and eat it too.  If you want to be more sovereign, you have
to expect to pay the price of more sovereignty.

>For a majority of Quebecers, the new agreement does not correspond to 
>their vision of Canada.  Bourassa may succeed in convincing Quebecers to 
>accept this deal, but it will not bring constitutional peace.
>

No one should expect that it does...there is no clause in this
agreement where Quebec is giving up its right to self-determination, 
and the PQ isn't going to disappear...many Canadians are going to
wake up in a few years and be awfully perturbed to discover that
appeasement doesn't work.

>The current federation is in deep trouble, financially, politically and 
>spiritually.  Canada has been buying peace for the last twenty years, 
>refusing to face its problems.  The concept of a Santa Claus central 
>government is over.  The consequence is a huge debt (only Italy is doing 
>worse in the G-7), undermining the future of everybody.  We have to face 
>reality now, not hide behind ineffective symbolisms.
>

They why are you a sovereignist...Quebec's per capita provincial debt
is worse than Alberta, BC, and Ontario...if it were to separate, it
would have a worse debt burden than the rest of Canada per capita,
and separation would undoubtedly cause interest rates in Canada and
Quebec to be higher and perhaps significantly higher, making that
debt even more burdensome.

As an independent nation, and not a provincial government, Quebec Inc.
would be put out of business by both GATT and NAFTA.

It is the sovereignists who are hiding behind ineffective symbolism
and not looking at the hard economic reality.

Canada is not perfect, but Quebec has had a pretty decent existence
within Canada and can have a pretty good future.

Gerald
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:49:59 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article  steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>  We have been thinking of going back to England ever since we came
>  here. The house is falling apart; the '79 Chevy is going rusty in
>  the front yard. We still don't feel welcome or settled here, Denis!

Gee... I wonder why.

You are surprised that "you don't feel welcome or settled here" but
you spend all your time complaining about Quebec, its schooling
system, its language laws and everything. You are definitively not
"settled" here if you still try to live the way you lived in England.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Canada and Boer War (was Re: History of North America)
Organization: McGill University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:10:03 GMT

In article <12759@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>In article <02SEP92.17044880.0098@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>|In article <12721@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>|>
>|>Canadian soldiers did not fight in any British colonial war.
>|>This was a major point of contention in Canada. Volunteers
>|>were allowed to participate but there was no official
>|>Canadian participation in any British colonial war.
>|
>|Do you not consider the Boer War to be a British colonial war?
>
>There was tremendous division in Canada about participation in British
>colonial wars. In the case of the Boer War Canada played a passive role,
>It allowed contingents to be raised in Canada to be paid and commanded by
>the UK. Canada as a nation did not participate in it. The general
>view in Canada was that its only role in the defence of the empire
>was to defend itself.
>
I'll agree that there was division in Canada on participation in the
Boer War, but I can't agree with the rest of what you say.  There
were Canadians volunteering to serve with the British forces in
South Africa, but this was not what British Colonial Secretary
Joseph Chamberlain wanted.  On October 6, 1899 he wrote Governor-
General Lord Minto: "We do not intend to accept any offer from
volunteers.  We do not want the men and the whole point of this offer
would be lost unless it were endorsed by the Government of the
Colony (sic) and applied to an organized body of the Colonial forces."
Chamberlain wanted not military support, but a show of Imperial
solidarity.

Chamberlain got his way.  On October 13, 1899, a minute of the
Canadian cabinet said that "The Prime Minister (Laurier)... is
of the opinion that the moderate expenditure which would thus be
involved for the equipment and transportation of such volunteers
may readily be undertaken by the Government of Canada..."

Canada paid to raise, equip, and transport 1000 volunteers.  After
they arrived in South Africa, they were paid by the British.
Other units were later raised by the same method.

Henri Bourassa quit the Liberal caucus over this issue.  He
also resigned his seat in Parliament and ran for reelection as
an independent (Lucien Bouchard, Richard Holden, et al. please
take note).

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:28:44 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Sep2.180837.16883@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>Why don't you just go check the difference in GATT rules for
>national governments vs. subnational governments.  Are Quebec
>nationalists so self-absorbed that they will not even inform
>themselves as to the details of international and multilateral
>trade treaties before independence?     

That's not an answer: you are merely deflecting the question. (And
please, stop putting these "Quebec Nationalist" every two words,
especially when it doesn't have anything to do with what being
discussed). Tell me what so-called Quebec Inc. (another of your
buzzwords) part will be abolished by the GATT. 

And please, don't tell me about the usual milk-producers...


>Do you honestly think Quebec, Inc. will fare better when Quebec
>has to sit down directly opposite the US to negotiate terms
>for entry into NAFTA?  

Look, Quebec was backing the Free Trade agreement: Ontario was dead
against it.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: hallin@QueensU.CA (Aksel L. Hallin)
Subject: Re: Future "Projections"
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:26:04 GMT


I have a hard time understanding why people are so concerned about 
representation in the House of Commons.  Except for selecting the 
Prime Minister, and providing a group out of which ministers are selected,
the House is basically symbolic.  I cannot recall an instance when house
acted independently of the government- have bills passed that orginate on
the floor?  Or has the government been unable to pass legislation that it
desired.  Very infrequently, if at all.
	The fact is that in our system the executive branch is essentially
all powerful, and that within the government there is neither representation
by population or by region.  (Although both factors enter into it's election. )
Although it is based on population, the legislative branch of the government
is basically an historical accident, like the Queen, and could be abolished
without any practical consequences.  Certainly the guarantee that Quebec have
25% of the members of parliament is irrelevant- or maybe, about as relevant
as the stipulation that the Monarch is not allowed to be Roman Catholic.

	Practically, the current politics of Canada dictates that the 
prime minister and half the cabinet will be from Quebec (that has been the
case for my political memory, with only a brief interlude) and there is
no reason that Quebec should expect that will change, unless it is tired of
running this large and unruly nation.

Aksel 
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)
Subject: Re: Gender reserved seats
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:20:39 GMT

robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:


>Mike Harcourt is now strongly considering gender allocated seats in the
>proposed revamped senate. Nova Scotia and Ontario have already committed to
>this. Does anyone know if any other industrialized country does something
>similar with any of its democratically elected institutions?

>-- 
>Jim Robinson
>robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
>{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

I dunno. However, I think it is absolute CRAP! (s'pose I put on my flamesuit
for all those politically correct types). Although underepresentation
may be a problem - this depends on whether or not the concerns of a
particular group are being heard and acted upon - I don't think that this
is the best solution. For sake of argument, then instead of having "x"
number of seats alloted to women/minorities have "x" number of
candidates up for election alloted to women/minorities. So if there are
8 senators to be elected then throw out a field of 8 men and 8 women.
Let the voters decide which person they want in "office". Although this
is still based on quotas (of which I disagree).

Personally, I think rather than allocating seats for women, minorities,
etc. procedures/policies should be setup to encourage and allow equitable
treatment of people NOT special interest groups. Maybe I am wrong, but
as far as I understand this policy of allocating seats is not undertaken
in Scandenavia (where the UN has rated this area as the best for
equality of the sexes) nor was it used in the political "transformation"
of Iceland -- where if I remember correctly they formed their own
woman's party! BTW, what stops the NACSW from doing that in Canada??
--
=================================
skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca
St. John's, NF, CANADA
"Have a touton or do without'n !"
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:08:37 GMT

In article <12749@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>]As an independent nation, and not a provincial government, Quebec Inc.
>]would be put out of business by both GATT and NAFTA.
>
>You have anything to back this up? Examples?
>

Why don't you just go check the difference in GATT rules for
national governments vs. subnational governments.  Are Quebec
nationalists so self-absorbed that they will not even inform
themselves as to the details of international and multilateral
trade treaties before independence?     

Do you honestly think Quebec, Inc. will fare better when Quebec
has to sit down directly opposite the US to negotiate terms
for entry into NAFTA?  

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: momtahan@bnrca (Parham Momtahan)
Subject: Re: The Accord and the future
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
Distribution: can.politics
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 13:58:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.225121.22303@cunews.carleton.ca>, rwood@lance.carleton.ca (Richard Wood) writes:
[..stuff deleted..]
|>   I think this accord is a waste of time because it doesn't solve the basic
|> problem, that Quebecers think of Canada in terms of Quebec vs the rest, while
|> everyone else sees Canada in terms of 12 (semi-equal) provinces and territories.

Not necessarily a waste of time because it could buy time. 

Who would you trust in our present state of leadership :-(
to represent Canada in negotiations for separation with Quebec? 

It would be better for all concerned to have a planned
seperation over a reasonable time interval that would minimize 
mutual damage. This time is what the constitutional accord could buy. 
This is what we should be planning for now.


Parham Momtahan.  ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
X.DISCLAIMER: Contents (if found) may not represent my employer's views.
From: plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Les interets collectifs
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:41:17 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Universite de Montreal

nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>In article <plante.715372664@iros1> plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante) writes:
>>
>>Mais ce qui m'enerve le plus, c'est la rhetorique utilisee par les groupes
>>de pressions anglophones, tres bien illustree par M. Potter.  Ils utilisent
>>la notion sacro-sainte de droits individuels pour defendre la notion
>>de libre-choix de la langue d'enseignement (libre-choix?  et l'immigrant
>>polonais, lui, il a le libre-choix?), quand, finalement, il est evident
>>qu'ils defendent les interets collectifs de la communaute anglophone
>>(empecher le declin du reseau scolaire).

>Ce qui s'oppose, bien sur, aux efforts de ceux qui defendent les
>interets collectifs de la communaute francophone.  Les uns valent-ils
>plus que les autres?

Eh, je n'ai jamais dit que les anglo-quebecois n'avaient pas le droit
de defendre leurs droits collectifs.  Ce qui m'irrite, c'est l'utilisation
de la notion de droits individuels pour defendre des interets collectifs
(car il s'agit bien de ca; a qui profite le libre-choix?).  Je trouve
que c'est un discours hypocrite. 

>Je sais ce que va dire Denis - la communaute francophone est la
>majorite, donc elle a raison.  Par contre, il critique fortement la
>decision de la majorite anglophone protestante au Manitoba, il y a 100
>ans, d'avoir voulu proteger "democratiquement" leur "interets
>collectifs", en tentant d'imposer un "visage anglais" a leur province.

On ne peut comparer la situation des anglophones du Quebec en ce moment
avec celle du Manitoba il y a cent ans (et meme maintenant).  On a jamais
enleve le droit aux anglophones d'avoir leurs ecoles au Quebec. 


Frederic Plante
Newsgroups: can.politics,mtl.general
From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Subject: Re: Quebec law :: S.A. law re school access
Reply-To: marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:44:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.045523.7932@cc.umontreal.ca> pilon@JSP.UMontreal.CA (Pilon Guy) writes:
>
>	I was reading my news, quietly, when I read the position of Steeve, who
>compare the Quebec English people position with the South Africa's blacks peoples.  I can say now, this reading made me mad.

[ examples deleted ]

(I did not read Steve's original posting)

I agree with Pilon.  Too many times on this net (and in conversations, letters
to the editors of newspapers, etc.) people discuss laws (or social trends,
or whatever) of other nations or other cultures which they don't like and then
make comparisons with Nazi Germany or South Africa under Apartheid.  I remember
being incensed when some Canadian Natives were parading around making
comparisons between their living conditions and those of the South African
blacks.  By doing this, they trivialized the black S.A. cause and played into
the hands of the white South Africans.

I submit that there is _nothing_ in any region of Canada which even remotely
approaches the conditions of Apartheid or the Nazis' excesses.  Law 101
included.

People should think very carefully before making such comparisons, because
they serve to trivialize the horrors of the concentration camps and the
killings and institutionalized injustice in South Africa.
-- 
Marc Riehm      Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
marc@meadow.UUCP
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Future "Projections"
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:34:49 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath) writes:
>I do think they indicate that the 25% floor is not a big issue in the
>short term future but may become more of one in the longer term future,
>if the earth is still around to fight issues like this, if the political
>institutions are at all in the form they are today...etc.

First, I doubt that your predictions mean anything, especially after
50 years. Even if it would, it would mean that Quebec have a 20% share
of the population in 50 years, not too far from the 25% minimum.
Almost rep-by-pop. In any case, closer to  rep-by-pop than the senate
scam.

Second, I doubt that the Constitution (and the whole canadian system)
will remain unchanged.

Third, I also would not bet that Quebec would still be part of Canada.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:21:17 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <12733@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>No that is not correct. THere are people in the west who are fighting
>to maintain their French culture.

Of course, but this is beside the issue: in a few years, there will be
none left. Give one or two generations.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:51:30 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1807

From article <BtywH3.8o@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
> In article <1992Sep2.175853.26178@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
> The Quebec remains a leader in language : despite laws 101 and 178,
> there is a much larger number of bilingual individuals in Quebec than
> in Canada (at least proportionnally, and I would not be surprised this
> would be true absolutely, then comparing CSQ and Quebec).
> 

Denis! You just said Quebec is bilingual, didn't you?

>
> There is some trouble at the level of language.  Immigrant anglophones
> may feel discriminated in regards of natives anglophones, but since they
> choosed to come here, then they should not complain (i.e. they choosed
> their situation).

NO! They did not! - They are not informed of the situation here before
they come!

>
> [stuff deleted]
>
> And what is wrong with French predominance in Quebec? 

Nothing.

>  There are 9 other provinces and USA for an immigrant prefering English
> predominance.

There is Quebec, with its own English community in a French environment,
for anglophone immigrants who see an opportunity to imrove their French
and have bilingual children.

> 
> I think what hurts most the anglophones are the fact that now a lot
> of them will have to learn French to keep social status.

How does this hurt them?

> .... school in French for immigrants
> results of a choice by the same immigrants.

NO! It is not a choice!

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