HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Subject: Re: History of North America Re: REpublicanisn vs. Monarchists (Was Re: Beauregard vs. Yadallee)
Reply-To: marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 11:53:51 GMT

In article <c291042.713652613@gsb015> c291042@cs.UAlberta.CA (David Yadallee) writes:
>smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
>
>>Dave, you didn't even get your Canadian history straight.  You
>>attributed the liberal policies of British rule in Quebec to Lord
>>Durham, who visited in 1839, when in fact these policies were granted
>>under the Quebec Act of 1774.  Your posts are filled with egregious
>>errors like this; it just doesn't seem worth it to point them all out.
>
>Let's put it this way then.  Canada is more open and more friendly than the USA is
>anyday.  Case and point, your articles.

So on the basis of one article by one person you say that the U.S. is "less
friendly" than Canada.  If Steven Smith reasoned in a similar manner, then
from your postings he would be forced to assume that Canada is a country full
of morons.  By the way, Dave, the expression is 'case in point', not 'case
and point'.

Dave: throughout the rest of the article you responded to Steven Smith's
ridicule without even recognizing it as such.  Why don't you ever learn to
think a little before posting?
-- 
Marc Riehm      Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
marc@meadow.UUCP
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: More on language rights in Quebec: The other side of the coin
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:10:01 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

An argument has been made that "there is the law, and then
there is its application."  The point is that although the
language laws are in theory strict, they are in practice
flexible.

I see few signs of flexility, but in any case I reject this
argument as irrelevant.  The law is asserts principles which
would have important symbolic weight even if they were not
enforced.  Those principles are what we are disputing.
There is no guarantee at all that enforcement will not be
hardened in the future, and this threat alone is a subtle
form of enforcement.

When the government cracks down on eligible English school
students who have not obtained their certificates at the
start of the school year, and when a shopkeeper is prosecuted
for posting "welcome" in multiple languages, little flexibility
can be expected.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Xref: sparky can.politics:6029 soc.culture.canada:5886
From: rob@bnr.ca (Rob Sutherland)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: We are all foreigners, save the NATIVE Aboriginal Canadians!!
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:26:20 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research

In article <wL7qPB2w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca>, yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
> Peter Gogolek refers to the head of state of this country as "foreign".
> 
> I would likle to ask and for net Canadians to consider the following:
> 
>   Aren't you from a foreign ancestory?
> 
> This is something the USers fail to see.  North America was inhabited by
> Aboriginals before the arrival of the Europeans!!
> 
> Let's admit it,  we are ALL foreigners here, except the Aboriginals.
> 
> Dave Shariff Yadallee
> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca
> God Save the Queen, God Bless us All!
> cowboy (n): A 20th Century extension of  the neanderthal caveman.

I was born here.  That makes me a native.
Ovide Mecredi was born here.  That makes him a native.

Some of my ancestors were born elsewhere (and moved here).
Some of Ovide's ancestors were born elsewhere (Asia) and
moved here (across the Bering Strait).

My parents were born here; and their parents.  How far back must I
go before I'm considered a native?  I have ancestors that were
born in Scotland, England and elsewhere.  Does that make me 
a native of Britain?  The world?  Nowhere?

-- 
Rob Sutherland
Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario Canada
From: hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Radio stations in Quebec, Western Canada
Date: 14 Aug 1992 18:45:48 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <Bsz4pF.FL5@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> gordon@madmax.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon R. Strachan) writes:

> ...  unfortunately the people of this country are more interested
>in make a constitution to reflect some time tainted view of the past and not
>to make one for the future.  The powers that be will never stray from the
>view of two founding nations no matter how inaccurate it may be.  So you and
>I have no choice but to live with it ... .
>

AMEN .



Xref: sparky can.politics:5869 soc.culture.canada:5680
From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: More on language rights in Quebec: The other side of the coin
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 03:52:04 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


Just so that people don't get the idea that I am altogether content
with the current legislation limiting English-language expression in
Quebec, I should say that I expect/hope the following changes to occur
in the next few years.

- As per the provisions of the Notwithstanding clause, Bill 178 must
  be renewed in 16 months.  A reinstatement of bilingual signs is a 
  possibility.

- As soon as the climate is conducive to it, the Education Ministry
  will work towards allowing immigrants from English-speaking
  countries to send their kids to English school.  It is pretty
  obvious to many people that English-language education in Quebec
  (even Montreal) is threatened by the combination of the end of the
  baby boom, migration, and French Language Charter (Bill 101)
  provisions that puts immigrant children into the French sector.

  The Montreal anglophone community has historically relied on
  immigration to maintain its numbers.  However, Quebec's
  English-speaking community has not grown since the 1950s.  The
  increase in anglo emigration (notably in the mid-1970s) and the
  current migration of talented, BILINGUAL, professionals aged 20-30
  (my generation) has signalled a crisis.  The education system is the
  first to see its affects.  The Chambers Commission suggested that
  the children of English-speaking immigrants be allowed to attend
  (and thus maintain the existance of) these schools.
  
  I believe that political considerations were the primary motivation
  behind the Ministry not beginning work to implement the Commission's
  recommendation.  Once the constitutional issues are settled, I
  suspect/hope that the anti-English attitudes will cool.


--
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:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA
From: "frank covello" <frank.covello@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: nafta
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:26:24 EST
Reply-To: "frank covello" <frank.covello@canrem.com>
Distribution: can
Organization: Canada Remote Systems


In article <1992Aug12.161255.28888#bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:


DC>To get away from this constant Quebec war that seems to be going on...

DC>The North American Free Trade Agreement was signed this moring.  What
DC>does everyone think?  Like it?  Hate it?  Need more info?

DC>A few of the details I've heard :

DC>  1. The rules have changed for what constitutes "North American" content
DC>     in cars, so that US Honda attack will now fail and the import duty
DC>     will be dropped.  North American content will now be 62.5%.

This is true, but the phase in period will be eight years.


DC>  2. The Environmental laws in Mexico will now be enforced.

Not necessarily, all members will be prevented from reducing their
environmental standards to attract investment.  Whether laws which are
not enforced will be considered a reduction in standards is unclear.

DC>  3. Canada and Mexico will retain control of natural resources but the US
DC>     will now have access to Mexico Oil in crises, like they do with Canada.

While Mexico will now allow foreign investment in its energy sector, it will
retain control of its oil supplies in a crisis.  Canada will follow the
provisions set out in the FTA.  Information taken from The Financial Post
Thursday August 13, and Friday August 14.

DC>Apparently it still has to be passed by all 3 political houses.  Will it
DC>pass in the US and Canada?  I'm sure the PCs will try to force it through
DC>before an election, but the US has no choice, the election comes first.

DC>Just some thoughts.

DC>Don
DC>P.S. This has nothing to do with the Queen in any way, shape or form!
DC>My brain, my thoughts, my words.
DC>4 Population: None
DC>  "It is know that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply
DC>  because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in.
DC>  However, not every one of them is inhabited.  Therefore, there
DC>  must be a finite number of inhabited worlds.  Any finite number
DC>  divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so
DC>  the average population of all the planets in the Universe can
DC>  be said to be zero.  From this it follows that the population
DC>  of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may
DC>  meet from time to time are mearly the products of a deranged
DC>  imagination." - THGTTG

frank.covello@canrem.com
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.12 #9571  A Spirit With A Vision Is A Dream With A Mission..
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Xref: sparky can.politics:5976 soc.culture.canada:5814
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: We are all foreigners, save the NATIVE Aboriginal Canadians!!
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:48:38 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <wL7qPB2w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>
>Let's admit it,  we are ALL foreigners here, except the Aboriginals.

Not exactly.  They have something like a 10000 years priority on one hand.
And many Natives have European blood on another hand.
And many European originates have Native blood on a third hand.
2nd and 3rd points are not easy to prove, however.  [2] just see the
European physical features that many natives have, but they avoided
to have papers in many cases (I know of a Huron who was trying to 
write a Genealogy of the Huron Indians).  [3] Besides a small number
of White-Indian marriages, many Natives have been adopted by White
without any paper, sometime to replace a died child, sometime just to
accomodate the Indians wishing to integrate into the White society.
This is demonstrated by some Indian villages that mysteriously
disappear without murders in a few years.

Finally, my ancestors are most born here since some 300 years.

>Dave Shariff Yadallee
>yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Subject: NAFTA
Reply-To: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:12:55 GMT

To get away from this constant Quebec war that seems to be going on...

The North American Free Trade Agreement was signed this moring.  What
does everyone think?  Like it?  Hate it?  Need more info? 

A few of the details I've heard :

  1. The rules have changed for what constitutes "North American" content
     in cars, so that US Honda attack will now fail and the import duty
     will be dropped.  North American content will now be 62.5%.
  2. The Environmental laws in Mexico will now be enforced.
  3. Canada and Mexico will retain control of natural resources but the US
     will now have access to Mexico Oil in crises, like they do with Canada.

Apparently it still has to be passed by all 3 political houses.  Will it 
pass in the US and Canada?  I'm sure the PCs will try to force it through
before an election, but the US has no choice, the election comes first.

Just some thoughts.

Don
P.S. This has nothing to do with the Queen in any way, shape or form!
My brain, my thoughts, my words.
4 Population: None
  "It is know that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply
  because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in.
  However, not every one of them is inhabited.  Therefore, there
  must be a finite number of inhabited worlds.  Any finite number
  divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so
  the average population of all the planets in the Universe can
  be said to be zero.  From this it follows that the population
  of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may
  meet from time to time are mearly the products of a deranged
  imagination." - THGTTG
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: We are all foreigners, save the NATIVE Aboriginal Canadians!!
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 19:57:14 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

In article <wL7qPB2w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:

>Let's admit it,  we are ALL foreigners here, except the Aboriginals.

I thought of that last night, while watching the National's coverage of the
Tuesday conference, during which they outlined the divergent viewpoints of
Alberta and Quebec.

Bourassa holds that Canada was the product of "two founding nations," while
Mr. Getty's Canada is an equal federation of member states. The Quebec view
seems flawed in that it completely ignores the contributions of the First
Nations, and makes absolutely no allowance for the changes wrought by the
expansion of the nation beyond French and English Canada.

If the Americans had held views similar to that of Mr. Bourassa, it is
likely we'd be subject to a stream of complaints and threats to succeed from
any one of the original thirteen colonies, since their political
representation, like that of Quebec, was constantly 'watered down' as the
nation expanded across the continent.

Personally, I hold with the Alberta view, which seeks greater equality. If I
understand what Mr. Bourassa had to say last night, it seems to be that
Quebec should be entitled to fifty per cent of the reins of power,
regardless of population shifts, new provinces, or anything else. I reject
that assertion completely, in favour of a bicameral system of representation
that includes both population (Commons) and geography (3E Senate). If the
voters of Quebec are unable to budge from Mr. Bourassa's view of Canada,
then it's time to wish them well and cut the cord.

-- 
|"In front of me, a pile of corpses balanced carefully on one another, 
|rose  geometrically like a haystack.  There was  no more room in  the 
|crematoria  so they piled up the corpses out  here."   Fania Fenelon, 
|"Playing for Time", Atheneum, New York, 1977. pg. 253.
From: charlesv@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Charles Van Duren)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The tentative agreement of August 19th
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:54:42 GMT

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

#The first ministers' agreement-in-principle of August 19th is
#the first agreement since the Meech Lake accord which looks like
#it could pass.

#------------------------------------------------------------------------
#The essential points:

#42 fewer senators: 6 senators/province, 1 senator/territory

Question: What happens to our current senators and the massive
pension liability that goes with them?

CvD
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Absolute Madness... Naturally.
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 00:08:32 GMT

In article <BtAM0G.H6F@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>Good!  With the stupid agreement they announced yesterday (the only
>use of a minimum 25% of seats for Quebec corresponds to a racist
>behaviour of stopping almost completely immigration), Bourassa will
>loose the elections.  I can't see any advantage of only 8% of senate
>seats excahged again some .5% more seats at common.  And if the EEE senate
>is actually operative, French speaking are loosing power.
>

It is a toothless Senate...the guarentee of 25% is a huge victory for
Bourassa...the rest of the country obviously has politicians who can't
add and who have no understanding of demographics.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Bou Bou made a boo boo (staying away from talks)
Keywords: Canada, Constitution, Quebec, Bourassa, Seperation, Distinct Society
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:11:58 GMT

In article <2A8A82E5.7469@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>
>The biggest fears the unions have is in NAFTA, and the open skies policy
>which the Tories are committed to. No matter what happens with Air
>Canada and Canadi>n, they will soon have to deal with competition from
>foreign airlines on Canadian domestic routes. One of the more logical
>solutions would seem to be a single strong Canadian carrier which could
>compete continent-wide on the same scale as the US biggies.
>

Cabotage was supposed to have been taken off the table in the
negotiations for a new air agreement between Canada and the US.

>
>>According to the union spokesmen out here, and CKNW's financial guru, who
>>also appears regularly on CTV-TV, Air Canada's books are in far worse shape
>>than Canadair's, which again raises the same question: why Air Canada, a
>>loser, and why now, when Bourassa is once again bellowing the Call Quebec,
>>"More, More, More?"
>
>There are enough real issues over which to criticize Quebec. This is not
>one of them.

I think there is a lot of propaganda being floated by the management
of Canadian and some Western politicians.  If the Conservative
government wanted a merger of the two airlines, they would have 
put a stop to the air war between the Air Canada and Canadian a long
time ago instead of waiting till both are basket cases. 

What likely happened is the financial situation of Canadian was getting
desparate, and they needed a huge cash infusion from somewhere to make
the American deal fly, and they couldn't get it from the BC or
Alberta government or their unions, so they turned to the federal
government...and the federal government isn't going to bail out
Canadian airlines just so American Airlines gets control of the
lucrative Asian routes.  The Conservative government wouldn't block
American, but they aren't going to finance American at the expense
of Air Canada, which was likely what they were being asked to do.

If Canadian needs federal assistance, the only way that money can
come is through a merger with Air Canada....otherwise the government
would be financing American Airlines to put Air Canada out of business,
or financing one American carrier to bail out Canadian, and then in
another year or so financing another American carrier to bail out
Air Canada.

Whatever the scenario, and neither is pretty, the cost structure
of both airlines has to be brought in line with the cost structure
internationally...and that means severe wage sacrifices by employees
in alliances with American carriers or severe job losses in
a merger of the two.  

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: kenb@ee.ubc.ca (Ken Buckland)
Subject: Re: The Hegemony Continues
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:05:25 GMT

jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes: 
> In <1992Aug21.065122.25961@ee.ubc.ca> kenb@ee.ubc.ca (Ken Buckland) writes:
> >We *were* completely ignored.
> 
> That's a pretty negative viewpoint.  The new senate will definitely be
> elected (with the possible exception of Quebec) and equal (by virtue of
> having the same number of senators from each province).  The only point you
> can dispute is whether or not the new senate is effective.  

What use is elected and equal, if the Senate is *completely* ineffective?
The idea of the Triple-E Senate was to provide regional representation.
There is *no* effective regional representation in the proposed Senate deal.

And of course I have a "negative viewpoint" - I have been screwed!

> >Regardless of how accurately these numbers reflect population, the fact is
> >that Ontario and Quebec will exert 55% of the political clout, and there 
> >will be no counteracting form of regional representation.  
> 
> You are neglecting to point out that Quebec and Ontario currently have over
> 60% of the population.

I don't care if Quebec and Ontario currently have 51% of the population or
99% of the population.  The point is that their population majority controls
the House of Commons (as it should), but there is *no* counteracting form
of regional representation.

> Since each province has the same number of senators,
> the smaller provinces INCREASE their share of power in the joint sessions
> of Commons and Senate while the large provinces LOSE some of their power.
> The effect may not be as dramatic as you would like but it is there!

You are trivializing.  I don't care about the fine points of the numbers,
all that matters is that Ontario and Quebec continue to control the House 
of Commons and there is no counteracting body.  If you wish to debate the
merits of regional representation, please do so.  But do not continue to
insult the intelligence of Triple-E supporters by asserting that this
bastardized "Triple-E" Senate deal in any way provides regional
representation - it doesn't.

Ken Buckland
kenb@ee.ubc.ca

Xref: sparky can.politics:5879 soc.culture.canada:5691
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: REpublicanisn vs. Monarchists (Was Re: Beauregard vs. Yadallee)
Date: 11 Aug 92 16:39:30 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <SMITH.92Aug10122030@gramian.harvard.edu> smith@gramian.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
>As loathe as I am to enter into rational debate with apparently
>irrational fanatics, I am sorely tempted here.
>
>
>> Canada was set up as a nation to rebuff the Republican influence of
>> the USA and to preserve the British, French Cultures and the
>> Aboriginal people.  In fact traditional lifestyles in a purely
>> European Culture.
>
>This is laughably disingenuous.  The country of Canada was established
>to protect British interests in North America.  Not even an Englishman
>would be able to keep a straight face if you told him that Canada was
>intended to both ``preserve ... the aboriginal people'' and
>``traditional lifestyles in a purely European Culture.''
>

This assertion is laughably disingenuous [sic]. Canada was set up to create
a national state within which the existing British and French cultures
could survive and flourish. MacDonald with his National Policy
attempted to create a national culture. Mercier and Howe with their
policy of provincial rights tried to preserve the local provincial
cultures.

Canada was not set up to protect British interests. It was set up to
preserve the existing cultures. I find Yadallee's assertion plausible.
Yours I find to be preposterous or as you point out "disingenuous".
For as we all know grammar and spelling are of great import but
semantics can be charmingly idiosyncratic.









.
 

-- 
i.sinature
Xref: sparky can.politics:6103 soc.culture.canada:5969