HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Les interets collectifs
Date: 3 Sep 92 01:17:42 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2035

From article <plante.715459277@iros1>, by plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante):
> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
> 
> [Repeated stuff deleted]
>
> 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. 

Those whose individual liberties have been denied would certainly gain
something from having them granted/restored. I am tending to use the
collective interests of the English community in an effort to gain my
individual liberties. Is that hypocritical? I think it is a supporting
argument, rather.

>
> [Prediction of Denis' reaction deleted]
>
> 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. 
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 

!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


     Hello?

                                        Excuse me?

            OI!           
                      OVER HERE!


!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Indecence [F>E]
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:52:17 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge) writes:

>What choice or action are we talking about? Obviously, some people are
>extremely unhappy with Quebecois nationalism; although I think they'd
>be smarter (given the way they feel) to live outside Quebec, they have a
>right to live the way they want, and they have the right to express their
>opinions of the government. Chronic discontent may not make much sense,
>but anyone has the right to lie on a bed of nails if they want.

And Daniel Cote has a right to tell Steve Potter he's being a pain in
the ass, and Steve Potter has a right to snap back with accusations
of racism, and ...

Oh no.  I feel myself slipping into this pit of snarkiness.
Somebody save me!   Aaaaaa...

"Hard-line Quebecois nationalism may be annoying, but not nearly so annoying
as radical Ontario liberalism."

Glob. Glub.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Les interets collectifs
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:15:10 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep1.205618.27772@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>
>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.
>
>Le Rhealiste - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Parlant pour moi-meme

Je vais plutot dire:
C'est que la majorite francophone quebecoise devrait avoir le droit
pendant dix ans d'etre aussi rigide que la majorite anglophone
manitobaine l'a ete.  Si les francos de l'ouest ont conserve leur
langue, pourquoi les anglos du Quebec, plus nombreux et avec plus
de ressources (y compris celle d'un pays anglophone a 60 milles au
sud) craignent-ils tellement un Quebec francophone?

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:03:18 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
]]If a jurisdiction is devoluted to the parliament of Quebec for the province
]]of Quebec only, and to the federal parliament for other provinces, what
]]difference does it make for citizens of other provinces?  Nothing is gained,
]]nothing is lost.
]
]Quebec MP's would be voting on issues that then apply only to the rest
]of Canada, while Quebec MNA's would be voting on these issues for
]Quebecer's.  There is particularly wrong with the devolution of 
]powers to the provinces so provincial politiicians can decide the
]issue, but if the powers are devolved only to Quebec asymmetrically
]then when Quebec MP's are voting on these issues in Ottawa, for
]the rest of Canada it becomes an undemocratic government since
]they did not vote for these MP's...why should these Quebec MP's be able
]to decide on these issues in the rest of Canada, but not in Quebec.

Obviously something will have to be worked out. Note that this does
not only apply to Quebec, but to all provinces. I could easily
envision Alberta retrieving itself from a federal energy program for
example. It's a fundamental principle of a federation. Note also that
there are currently domains where Quebec has its own system, contrary
to the rest of Canada, e.g., Civil Code, Income Tax, etc. In another
domain, Quebec is the only province aligned with the federal policy of
the GST.

There is at least another case I know where a similar situation will
exist. In the Maastrich agreement, 11 of the 12 countries will
eventually share the same currency. Great-Britain might be excluded.
In this case, the agreement says that Great-Britain will be excluding
from the voting on questions touching the monetary policy.

Why do we have provinces if we can't accept the differences between them?
-- 
                                                       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 school: quotes
Date: 1 Sep 92 03:03:40 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1193

From article <1992Aug31.223510.20377@pandora.matrox.com>, by thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood):
> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
> 
>>From article <plante.715113702@iros1>, by plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante):
> 
>>> yet you would support discrimination based on country of origin,
> 
>>  I am in favour of total freedom of choice.
>>
>>  I do not support discrimination.
>>
>>  I see the Chambers' Task Force recommendation as a step in the right
>>  direction.
> 
> I hope you will admit, Steve, that freedom of choice for all immigrants
> is something that Quebec and Canada are not bound to allow, and something
> that is never likely to be allowed.
> 

  One can advocate an ethically and morally desirable position to
  illustrate one's lack of support for an ethically and morally
  undesirable one. Whether or not one believes it is politically
  viable.
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: coady@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Coady Michael)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:45:30 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Universite de Montreal


	One of the more reasonable arguments that I've read about
asymmetrical federalism postulates a scenario (not at all far-fetched)
where a majority government exists in a house that contains MPs
from Quebec, but another party forms a majority government in the
house that lacks Quebec MPs and governs the jurisdictions that apply
to CSQ (Canada sans Quebec, for any newcomers).  Thus we would effectively
have two national governments of different parties, squabbling over the
allocation of money and resources between them.  Given that we have no
separation of legislature and executive branches, I think that the
otherwise logical arguments of M. Frappier in favour of asymmetrical
federalism would not be workable.

Mike Coady
COADY@ERE.UMONTREAL.CA
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Oui ou Non (was Re: Election sun rising
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:01:51 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1171

From article <Bu20xM.C6E@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Robert Meunier):
> In article 0063@VM1.MCGILL.CA, CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>>
>>I agree with Stewart that it's good, from the federalist point of view,
>>to be on the "yes" side.
>>
> 
> Il me semble qu'on peut etre federaliste mais contre l'entente.
> 

I agree with Robert. 

If I don't like the package - I can vote to reject it. That doesn't mean I
want Quebec to separate!

I haven't seen the details of the package yet.

If the Equality Party decide to reject it (even though the P.Q. may
still try to claim that a "NO" gives them a mandate) then I will have
another reason to consider rejecting it.

If a significant number of anglophones in Quebec reject the package
(say, because they feel they have been given a raw deal) then it is
not so easy for PQ to claim a mandate.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:42:35 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <Btypxn.49p@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> gordon@madmax.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon R. Strachan) writes:
]This is all true. Perhaps you and I hold a different idea of what it means to
]be assimilated.  I suspect you feel that one is assimilated if you don't
]spend your entire, or at least the majority, of your day working and
]interacting in French. While that is certainly a valid poid of view there are
]others.  I believe that it is possible to go to university in English and
]work in English and still not be assimilated.  That is because I define the
]French culture as something more than the language one works in.Specifically,
]just because you work in one language doesn't mean you have to speak in
]that language at home or with your friends and is certainly has no bearing on
]what language you teach your children.  To me the family value is the core of
]the culture.  It is in the home where it is taught. In the west you will find
]3rd generation ukranians who speak Ukranian and still hold their culture
]dearly.  All with out any formal government help.  If a respects his culture
]and does not want to lose it then no government law can assimilate him.  This
]is why a lot of people outside of Quebec do not understand the need for laws
]like Bill 101 and 178

This is, in my opinion, a very idealized view of the situation. Of
course I know of X-generation french speaking acadians,
franco-manitoban or albertan.  However, they all had one thing in
common: they are issued of a small rural francophone community. They
are of the first, or at the maximum the second, generation to move out
of the little nest. When you do that, you don't have much choice, you
need to integrate the anglophone society you live in. Their children
will most probably be anglophone unless their spouse happens to be
francophone also. After only a few generation, it's done: you are
assimilated. "Family" only has so much power. You would need a very
stong sentiment of family to carry over a language over a few
generations. It happens, but not very often because of the all the
difficulties associated with being different.  In many cases, the
parents decide that they don't whant their child to be "different"
from the others. I know some children who speak almost no french, and
who's parents are both francophone, simply because they were "posted"
(in most cases by the army) in anglophone regions for some time.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Quebec law :: It's racist, Separation is unavoidable
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: can
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:58:45 GMT

Thomas Hood (thood@corvus.matrox.com) wrote:
>patrice@cs.concordia.ca (SCATTOLIN patrice) writes:
>
>>	The greater concern all are forgetting is the unavoidable PQ election
>>win. Eventually the PQ will win a provincial elections and, now as then,
>>their main purpose is independence. Their recent statements are to the 
>>effect that referendum is no longer needed once they win an election since
>>their central policy is independance no if's or but's
>>[...]
>>The  consequence of this is simply that get ready for separation. 
>
>No one will be in the mood for constitutional upheaval after October 26th.
>_If_ the referendum passes, separatism will be discredited for at least
>another ten years.  A P.Q. government will have no mandate to negotiate
>independence and the Government of Canada will be quite right to refuse
>to discuss the matter.

But a PQ government *could* (I am not saying that it would) manufacture a
number of incidents which "prove" that Quebec is "dominated" by Canada and
that a sovereign Quebec is the only answer to this "humiliating" state of
affairs. IMHO, if done skillfully these incidents could indeed re-ignite
separatist feelings which do not seem to go away, but merely lay dormant.

For example, earlier on Quebec was talking about charging people who
*inappropriately* use hospital emergency facilities a small fee as a form
of discouragement. This seems reasonable to me, but as it is prohibited by
the Canada Health Act, Quebec could not do so without repercussions. I
suspect that a PQ government could, if it wanted to, come up with a million
"reasonable" things that it would like to do but is prevented from doing
due to "domineering federalism". By making mountains out of numerous such
molehills, a PQ government move public sentiment.

BTW, I am not saying that a PQ government would necessarily consciously
embark on such a campaign, but it wouldn't be surprising if it did (after
all, a politician is a politician is a politician :-).

-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:06:57 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <12748@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>                                                       Note also that
>there are currently domains where Quebec has its own system, contrary
>to the rest of Canada, e.g., Civil Code, Income Tax, etc. In another
>domain, Quebec is the only province aligned with the federal policy of
>the GST.
>
I would define asymmetrical federalism to be where a field is under
federal jurisdiction in some provinces, but under provincial
jurisdiction in others.  The Canada/Quebec Pension Plan is a good
example.  Immigration seems to be another, though I am not entirely
"au courant" on the division of powers in this domain.

   Another example was control of natural resources in the Prairie
provinces.  Ottawa retained control of this field when it created
these provinces, though this was a provincial field of competence
in the other provinces.  The Priairie provinces only gained control
over their natural resources in the 1930s.

The examples Francois cites above are not asymmetrical federalism,
by my definition.  Civil law is under provincial jurisdiction in all
provinces.  In all provinces except Quebec, this law is based on
English common law, so it is very similar from one province to
another, but it is still under the control of the provincial
legislatures, not the federal Parliament.

Similarly, all provinces retain the right to levy income tax, and
each province sets its own tax rate.  It just happens that all
provinces except Quebec have their taxes collected for them by
Revenue Canada.  Likewise, Quebec retains the right to set its
own rules for a provincial GST; it hasn't ceded this right to
Ottawa.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath)
Subject: Re: Future "Projections"
Reply-To: heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath)
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 01:34:47 GMT

In article <12695@audetf>, audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
|> 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.

As I had stressed in the previous paragraph:
  I must emphasize that these numbers are pure speculation and should
  only be used as a basis for discussing possible outcomes (rather than
  PROBABLE outcomes).

Noone knows what the populations will be in 5 years, let alone 50.
I stated the assumptions these projections were based on and stated that
they are not intented to be a scientific "prediction". They are merely
presented to illustrate some "What if..." impacts of the 25% floor.

|> 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.                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, that is my point. In practical terms, the "Equal" Senate dilutes
representation by population now and on into the future. The smallest
provinces will always be more heavily represented in Parliament than
the larger ones. At the same time, Quebec has gained a significant
concession in that it has an insurance policy on future representation
which ensures Quebec will not lose relative power in the future.

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

Yes, my point also. A number of people have been loudly proclaiming
that Quebec will have this 25% floor "in perpetuity". Nonsense!
This is not a constitution for a 1000 years. It is simply an
accomodation which is drafted to meet the general needs of most
citisens today and hopefully, sometime into the next century.

|> 
|> Third, I also would not bet that Quebec would still be part of Canada.
|> -- 

Agreed, I wouldn'y either.
I very much expect that the next 50 years will see a
total transformation in the "nation state" as the central political
institution. If Canada survives, it will be in a very different form.
If Quebec is an independent "nation state", it will be quite different
from that envisioned by today's separatists. 
|>                                                        Francois Audet
|>                                                            '
|>                                       Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
|>                           Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM

-------------------------------
Gord Heath              - Opinions are my own.
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:41:43 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
]In article <xtech.qc.ca] steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
]     More than 10,000 English-speaking children are not allowed to attend
]     school in their own language.
]     Quebec is part of Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
]
]Actually, I don't see much of a difference one way or another.
]Whether Quebec is part of Canada or not, the same liberal democratic
]principles should hold.  (Rene Levesque realized this, by the way, and
]Parizeau might too.  An example of someone who didn't was Camille
]Laurin.)

Good point. Camille Laurin is a dinosaur (like Jean Cretin for
example).

It would be nice also if english Canada realised the same thing in its
own land. Anyone has the figures for the number of french-speaking
children who do not have access to school in their own language?
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
                                      Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM