HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:13:00 GMT

clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>If APEC had any serious political weight in CHQ, I would vote for
>Quebec sovereignty.

...and I would then move to Quebec!
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Subject: Re: Quebec
Organization: Matrox Ltd.
Distribution: can.politics
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 17:10:41 GMT

beaucham@astro.phy.ulaval.ca (Dominique Beauchamp) writes:

>Malgre le fait que le langage de Pierre soit un peu gras, je crois
>qu'il exprime tres bien le probleme que nous vivons.  Nous, les
>Quebecois, nous nous votons des lois pour proteger notre culture (loi
>101 par exemple) alors que les anglos croient que nous faisons ca par
>racisme.  Il faut vraiment etre bas et inculte pour croire ca.  Je ne
>connais pas beaucoup d'anglophones qui ont eu de la difficulte a se
>faire "servir" en anglais au Quebec.
>...

Je crois que je parle pour les Quebecois non-francophones quand je dis
que la promotion du francais ne leur fait rien.  C'est explicitement la
prohibition des autres langues qu'ils rejetent.

>A moins que de vouloir proteger sa langue et sa culture soit
>raciste...  Pourrait-on m'eclairer la-dessus? s.v.p.
>Dominique Beauchamp

Le mobile des prohibitions (I.E. Loi 178) etait la peur, ce qui peut
porter le nom "racisme" si on est peu compatissant.

--
Thomas Hood                                                     thood@matrox.com
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:08:52 GMT

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

>In article <schuck.721590352@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>>No...I said "we (the Allies) deemed that evil and immoral acts (on
>>>our part) were necessary to win the war"...war is basically an evil
>>>business...because we sometimes find ourselves unable to avoid it,
>>>does not make it morally acceptable or justifiable.  
>>
>>I'm sorry. Run that by me again. Defending your country from attack
>>and invasion is immoral and evil?
>>Is there any difference in evil and immorality between defending your
>>country and gassing 6 million jews? Are they morally equivalent?
>>Do you just lump them in together as equally immoral and evil?
>>
>>Thats sick.
>>

>I make no comparisons between our actions and Nazi actions...any
>comparison is irrelevant.

>As I said before....

>>
>>>Because the other side committed greater and more numerous atrocities
>>>than our side did, does not give moral sanction to the atrocities we
>>>committed.
>>

I'm still waiting for the list of 'our' atrocities.

>My sins are no less sins because someone else was a greater sinner.

What sins?

I'll remind you that no German Officers were prosecuted as war
criminals for conducting bombing campaigns against British cities,
just as our weren't for bombing German cities.

Germans were prosecuted for war crimes involving the 'final solution',
execution of allied prisoners, executions of civilians as punishment
for supporting partisan activity, etc.

To equate "war crimes" with legitimate military action is very ugly.



Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:37:15 GMT

robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

>Bruce Jonathan Schuck (schuck@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
>>
>>I think Canada should separate peacefully, but I think there should be
>>almost zero relations with the secessionist province until
>>relationships with our trading partners and political allies are
>>stabilized.
>>
>>Why buy goods and services from a secessionist province when people
>>need jobs in the provinces that remain?

>Countries trade because it benefits them to do so. Should in the future
>Quebec separate I would expect CSQ to immediately attempt to negotiate a
>mutually beneficial trade arrangement (along with a multitude of other
>things); 

Such treaties take years to negotiate. Do you really think Canadians
would accept favorable treatment of a newly secessionist province.

>and in the meantime I would hope that some sort of interim measure
>would be taken, e.g., apply the terms of the FTA to CSQ-Quebec trade.

Out of the question. Many provinces would be horrified if the federal
government did not favout the provinces staying in trade matters.

> Yes,
>there would be a lot of hard feelings after a Quebec separation; but I
>don't see how it is in anyone's interest to initiate a trade embargo or
>war.

War is out of the question.

However, consider many of the products produced by Quebec. Should
Ontario auto workers jeopardize the free trade pact with the US by
unilaterally extending such provisions to Quebec? I think not.

Most goods and Services produced in Quebec could be bought in the rest
of Canada, the loyal part. 

-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: "Canada is like a dull party"
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:17:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.221851.15367@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>: In article <5038@disuns2.epfl.ch> riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese) writes:
>: >
>: >"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.
>: 
>: Their reporter obviously has too many establishment friends...the NO
>: vote cleared up the bog...not made it worse.  Quebec now has a clear
>: choice to make, and once Quebec makes its Canada can finally get on
>: with things.
>
>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...  

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


Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:55:38 GMT

robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

>Bruce Jonathan Schuck (schuck@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
>>
>>Since our biggest trading partner is the US, it would be insane to
>>allow Quebec free access to our markets, thereby jeopardizing
>>*Canadian* jobs. Why should Canadians buy Quebec products when
>>buying Canadian products would produce new jobs in Canada.

>Others have already replied to Bruce's post, but I cannot resist
>reiterating one basic tenet: free trade benefits *both* trading partners;
>it keeps producers on their toes wrt efficiency (and thus price) &
>innovation, and it benefits consumers by providing more choice. Indeed, in
>a free trade arrangement between CSQ and Quebec I suspect that CSQ, at
>least initially, would benefit more due to the transient instability that
>Quebec would experience due to separation.

Free trade between provicnes would benefit all provinces.
Free trade with Quebec would probably *just* benefit Ontario, Quebec's
natural trading partner. Until free trade between the remaining
provinces is established, trade between Quebec and Canada should not
be free.

>>Why give a *competitor* free access into our markets?

>For the exact same reasons that Canada gave the US free access to Canadian
>markets.

>>What's in it for us? 

>The same advantages that were accrued by signing the FTA.

>If you, like the NDP, do not believe in free trade, then no amount of
>arguing will make a difference. But, if you think that the FTA is good (as
>I do), then how can you argue against extending it to a sovereign Quebec?

I think the FTA will eventually benefit BC tremendously.

I think the FTA is killing manufacturing in Ontario and will continue
to kill it in the absence of tax reform, regulation reform, etc in
Canada. 

Until *Canada* cleans up it's act to make us more competitive,
the FTA will be a disaster for most manufacturing.

The same applies to free trade with Quebec.

Quebec likes massive government subsidies. How can Canada compete with
that?


-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:37:05 GMT

cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:

>In article <schuck.721092172@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>Why give a *competitor* free access into our markets?
>>
>>What's in it for us? 

>I suppose that free access into THEIR markets is something that you
>wouldn't bother asking for?

Do you think they would give it to us?
Would it jeopardize the FTA with the US?
How long would it take to negotiate?

Free Trade would be much more important between the remaining
provinces than free trade between Canada and a sovereign Quebec.

If BC had a choice, would we want access to Canadian markets for our
forest products *without* competition from Quebec? The answer is yes.

The West is alienated from Central Canada now. Imagine the alienation
if Ontario *insisted* on buying goods and services from Quebec with no
tariff barrier instead of buying goods and services the West can
produce, even if transportation costs would increase a little bit.

If Ontario *insisted* on carrying on it's traditional trading
patterns with a sovereign Quebec, instead of establishing new ones
with the rest of Canada, then the country would be finished.

There would certainly be *no* point in BC or Alberta staying within
such a ludicrous situation.


-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: rcano@bnr.ca (Bob Cano)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Reply-To: rcano@bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 16:34:52 GMT

|> In article <1992Nov7.211408.29426@julian.uwo.ca> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
|> 
|>    A while ago I got this pamphlet from APEC.
|> 
|>     .....  
|> 
|>    What must remain part of Canada?
|> 
|>    1) Rupert's Land
|> 
|>     ......

|>    2) A Canadian Corridor
|>
       ........... 
|> 
|>    3) Federalist Quebec:
|> 
|> 
( the above shortened to save bandwidth )

What APEC (and some others) forget, is that in a divorce between
Canada and Quebec, Quebec with ~25% of the population of Canada
would be entitled to 25% of the assets (including land) of Canada
and 25% of the debt. 

If a majority of quebecois wish to separate, it is in our and 
their interest to negotiate an amicable settlement. 

A settlement I could support would have quebec keeping her
existng boundaries, with guarantee of passage between ontario
and new brunswick. Canada would have custody of the children
(territories) and the name. 

Bob Cano           Bell-Northern Research    | When all else fails,   
rcano@.bnr.ca      P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C     | read the instructions.
                   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada   | 
(613)763 4086      K1Y 4H7                   |   
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: tdwebste@sparta.uwaterloo.ca (Timothy D. Webster)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:53:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.171020.25030@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Bruce Jonathan Schuck (schuck@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
>>
>>I think Canada should separate peacefully, but I think there should be
>>almost zero relations with the secessionist province until
>>relationships with our trading partners and political allies are
>>stabilized.
>>
>>Why buy goods and services from a secessionist province when people
>>need jobs in the provinces that remain?
>
>Countries trade because it benefits them to do so. Should in the future
>Quebec separate I would expect CSQ to immediately attempt to negotiate a
>mutually beneficial trade arrangement (along with a multitude of other
>things); and in the meantime I would hope that some sort of interim measure
>would be taken, e.g., apply the terms of the FTA to CSQ-Quebec trade. Yes,
>there would be a lot of hard feelings after a Quebec separation; but I
>don't see how it is in anyone's interest to initiate a trade embargo or
>war.
>-- 

With all due respect you have forgotten the human factor. Economically
Canada is rough shape. As case in point, Canada's credit rating is now
done from AAA to AA. Quebec has been threatening separation for sometime
now. In affect holding CSQ hostage. Who is everyone going to blame if
Canada fails? Answer Quebec. Separation or the breakup of Canada is NOT
going to be smooth. 

Instead lets all work for a more productive tomorrow. (Efficient Economy)
There is no reason for Quebec to separate from Canada for cultural
reasons. The only justifibiable reason for separation is economic or
military. Case in point, look what is happening in Europe. The European
countries do not share a common culture. They are however uniting for
economic and military reasons. Thus Canada should stay united.

I sometimes wonder if all politicians lack the forsight to manage
economic affairs. Most politicians think they are elected on a platform.
Purhaps they would better serve us if they considered the effects of
their polices a little more instead of being pig headed.

-Tim.

Newsgroups: can.politics
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: Americans on English schools in Quebec (Was: Quebec)
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 20:38:43 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

southiea@JSP.UMontreal.CA (Southiere Alain) writes:

> In article <1992Nov3.171343.25353@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com
> >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 editorial
> or articles in the Gazette, you'll see that it's against Quebec and 
> francophones, at least some journalists are...
> 


And don't you see anything wrong with this? That a public agency would 
refuse equal treatment to someone based on their alleged political 
beliefs?


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Ladysmith B.C. 604-245-5531
Hams always know WATTS UP!
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: afsipmh@cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel)
Subject: Re: Americans on English schools in Quebec (Was: Quebec)
Reply-To: afsipmh@cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel)
Organization: Environment Canada
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 12:59:49 GMT


In article <1992Nov10.052303.24579@cc.umontreal.ca>,
southiea@JSP.UMontreal.CA (Southiere Alain) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov8.105159.6767@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca
(Steve Potter) writes:
|> >> in a french school, it might be because they wouldn't do it in the first
|> >> place, no ?
|> >>
 And what if someone doesn't want to have their kid learn french?
 Right or wrong it should be their choice. Not the state's.
 They would have to live with that choice.

|> >
|> >Such a law is not needed. People are demanding more and more French
programs
|> >in English schools. Many anglophone families place their children in French
|> >schools in Quebec by choice (about 10,000 of them).
|> 
|>    If it's not needed, why so many people complain about it ? If a law is
|> not needed, noone would even notice it !
|> 

Ditto to most of the rest of your comments.

|> >
|> >>    I don't mind of immigrants coming to Quebec, but hey, if they want to
|> >> live in an English community, there's all other provinces in Canada and
|> >> all of the USA they can go to !

Whether you want it to exist or not there IS an english community
in Quebec. As I have pointed out before, it is larger than some of the
english communities in so-called english provinces (probably some
states like Rhode Island too :) )

|> >
|> >There is also an English community in Montreal that is on the decline -
|> >why shouldn't they join that English community if they want to?
|> 
|>    The english community on the decline ? Well, not here ! There's an
english
|> school just in my backyard and each year, there's more and more children
|> attending. BTW, a great deal of them are immigrants, not even knowing a
|> single word in french and very little in english ! It would seem that there
|> are some ways to get around the law...

There reason there are  "more and more" students at your school is
simply because there are fewer and fewer schools so they pack them into
the ones that are left.

|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> 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 
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: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Canada without Quebec
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:33:56 GMT
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Nov11.043752.19090@julian.uwo.ca> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:

   In article <BxJ78F.30G@mach1.wlu.ca> scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca (stephen cooper 9209 U) 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.

   That works both ways.  If the politicians in Quebec feel that their
   sacred francophone way of life is on the verge of extintion and
   that they feel the G7 membership can take a back seat, then what
   does that say about them?

   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.


--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 681 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: irbrodie@acs.ucalgary.ca (Ian R. Brodie)
Subject: Re: Voting Systems (was Re: Proportional representation)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 22:08:53 GMT
Organization: Department of Political Science, The University of Calgary, Alberta
Followup-To: irbrodie@acs.ucalgary.ca


My friend Mathew tipped me off to your fascinating discussion of
electoral systems on this list.  I dont usually read can.politics
because, hey, I'm a political scientist.  Like I dont already
read enough about Canadian politics.

Mathew pointed out the existence of Kenneth Arrow's theorem.

(a) Arrow was one of the Nobel prize winning economists that
supported Clinton.  Just thought I'd throw that one in.
Actually, Arrow won the Nobel for his work on aggregation of
preferences, or "Arrow's Theorem".  It was his PhD dissertation.

(b) The Theorem was popularized in political science by William
Riker's _Liberalism versus Populism_.  Before you post anything
about electoral systems, read it.  It's very easy to follow and
contains proofs of many of its points.

In general, his finding is that, as Mathew pointed out, no
electoral system is perfect.  Dont think you will find one that
is.  Afterall, he won a Nobel by proving that there wasnt.


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Quebec
Distribution: can.politics
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 15:39:05 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1458

From article <1992Nov5.132132.7992@cerberus.ulaval.ca>,
by beaucham@astro.phy.ulaval.ca
Dominique Beauchamp writes:-

>
> .....
>
> ...  Nous, les Quebecois, nous nous votons des lois pour proteger notre
> culture (loi 101 par exemple) alors que les anglos croient que nous faisons
> ca par racisme.  Il faut vraiment etre bas et inculte pour croire ca.

Je suis "bas et inculte" :-)

> Je ne connais pas beaucoup d'anglophones qui ont eu de la difficulte a se
> faire "servir" en anglais au Quebec.

Je connais "beaucoup d'anglophones qui ont eu de la difficulte" a faire
eduquer leurs enfants dans les ecoles de leur propre langue au Quebec.

> 
> A moins que de vouloir proteger sa langue et sa culture soit raciste...
>  Pourrait-on m'eclairer la-dessus? s.v.p.
> 

"de vouloir proteger sa langue et sa culture" ne soit pas du tout raciste.

De nier le droit de faire eduquer ses enfants dans l'ecole publique de
son choix est un violation des droits et libertes humaines.

De forcer des familles a envoyer leurs enfants aux ecoles francaises quand
il y a des ecoles anglaises publique disponibles est raciste.

Comprends-tu? Je pense que non! :-(


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