HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:55:09 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

In article <14915@mindlink.bc.ca>, Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
|> Ken Mcvay mentions the "scrapping of rep by pop." A frequent argument I've
|> heard (even from my journalist colleagues) is that we never really had rep by
|> pop or places like PEI would have had much less representation etc.
|> 
|> This may well be true, but it doesn't justify formally abandoning even the
|> ideal of rep by pop. "We never had rep by pop" is in essence the fallacy of
|> common practice. One might as well argue that since women historically never
|> had the vote, they shouldn't have it now. (And what an uproar THAT would have
|> caused if it had appeared in the new deal!:))

This analogy is wrong.  The argument is that since we do not have and have
never had rep by pop, is it absolutely necessary that it be included in a
new constitution?

I believe that we should not stray too far from rep by pop, but I
have no problems with underpopulated regions having a slight over-
representation.  As for Quebec, the difference between 25% and 24.x%
doesn't count as being the least bit significant in my book.

If French and English Canada can finally get over this business and
get on with other things, I am confident that the province of Quebec
will continue to develop apace with the rest of the country and easily
maintain its quarter of the population.   The inclusion of a guarantee of
representation in the House of Commons should be seen as a gesture of
faith in a common and succesful future.  Such gestures are absolutely
necessary in light of the history of this country.  If things turn out
differently, we can deal with it later.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:45:59 GMT
Distribution: can,world,on
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:

>It was a major embarrassment for Canada to have to approach another
>country's parliament to make internal legislative changes.

"Embarrassment" is not a serious problem.  Everyone knows that Canada was
formerly a colony, and is now a fully independent state.

>Trudeau's achievement of patriation was a major step forward for Canada.
>The "Bill of Rights" was simply a federal act that could be changed by
>Parliament at any time. It did not bind provincial governments at all.

The Charter can less easily be changed, but can still be easily evaded
using the notwithstanding clause.  It could have been extended to
provincial laws using the federal power of anullment.

But this is all water under the bridge.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Why I will vote Yes on Oct.26 (DSY)
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:36:33 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep14.154219.24062@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>If you think this is bad, the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec, whom
>voters in eight provinces and two territories have no say in electing,
>will name 6 of the 9 Supreme Court justices...we might as well rename
>the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Central Canada. 

Are you sure about 3 justices from Ontario?  Quebec has a different
law system than other 9 provinces.  So, it must have 3 justices (in case
of differences in a judgement, you must have 1 or 2 vs 1, not 1 vs 1).

Ontario has a common law system and is then the same kind of system
as 8 other provinces, making it not necessary to have a special
treatment.
>
>Gerald


-- 
  \_\    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 !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 02:03:33 GMT

In article <Bu4rBE.40r@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>In other words, someone having some strong bilingual background
>will not take the same decision as someone else having a unilingual
>background.

Comme la difference entre moi et toi, n'est-ce pas, Denis?

>One point that appeared here recently was that recent PM were
>quebecois and francophones and that this gave Quebecois more
>power than they should have providing they are 25%.  The 2 PM
>in question : Trudeau with an English speaking mother and thus
>born in a bilingual family, Mulroney born in an English-speaking
>family.  I don't believe both are representative of a typical
>Quebecois.

One point about the predominance of PMs and high-level ministers
from Quebec:

From an interview with Joe Clark, in today's Citizen:

   If I knew then what I know now about the difficulty of Quebec, of a
   unilingual person trying to go into Quebec, I may not have run in
   1975 or '76.  When I think of going into townships and trying to
   speak to farmers in French[....]

And of course, in 76 Trudeau defeated Clark in the federal election, in
large part because of a massive sweep in Quebec.  Today's political
reality demands that top-level politicians be bilingual, and this of
course favours Quebec politicians.  (Even Parizeau recognizes the
importance of being bilingual...)

Of course, this only remains a requirement as long as francophones
(specifically Quebeckers) remain a significant voting block.  Hence the
concerns of Quebec nationalists about not losing population share, the
need (real or perceived) to have immigrants join the French rather than
English community, the constitutional amendment to guarantee Quebec MPs
25% of the seats in the Commons...

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
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: 14 Sep 92 20:03:53 GMT

Thomas Hood (thood@corvus.matrox.com) wrote:
>
>If people living in the regions think they cannot be fairly governed
>by the federal government, then they should fight for decentralization:
>the transfer of power to their own province.  They should not try to give
>themselves unequal votes.

One problem with this, however, is that there are some very strong voices,
mostly in Ontario, who have a problem with decentralization. I would say,
though, that this is a possible alternate approach to addressing Western
grievances. And, I would not be very surprised if in the future Alberta and
BC (post-Harcourt) team up with Quebec in order to see more powers
transferred to the provinces. My concern is that decentralization not
result in more inter-provincial barriers to the free movement of goods,
people, services, and capital; we already have too much of this idiocy. 

>The dual-chamber system you describe is not a compromise because it
>has been entirely defined by you.  Now, Quebec nationalists demand
>extra representation for Quebecers on the grounds that they live in a
>distinct society.  Feminists demand a quota for females in the Senate
>on the grounds that they are systematically oppressed.  Aboriginals
>demand representation for their distinct races on historical and
>pragmatic grounds.  By demanding inequality for voters outside central
>Canada, EEE promoters have opened a Pandora's box of collective rights.

Unfortunately, Thomas seems to have a point. Personally, I would rather see
the Senate abolished than have it turned into the chamber of equality of
result.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:36:50 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

>I don't know if screaming is the right word, but .....

>[...] In other words, it has been
>explicitly and implicitly stated by EEE supporters from day one that they
>desired a system that contained one house that was rep-by-pop and one house
>that was rep-by-province/region. Thus, there is no inconsistency in now
>voicing opposition to changes that would move the Commons further away from
>rep-by-pop.

Okay.

>As well, so far most of the support for the 25% floor has consisted of
>berating opposers for being hypocritical or being into Quebec bashing.
>Indeed, the only semblance of an argument that has been put forward for the
>25% floor is that the Commons is not now pure rep-by-pop, so it's no big
>deal to move it even further away from that ideal. It seems to be that EEE
>supporters have been basing their arguments on principles/ideals (equality
>of the provinces, protection from the tyranny of the majority) and have
>been providing working examples of what they would like to see
>(US/Australia/Germany). So, could Rheal or anyone else who supports the 25%
>floor possibly tell us what principles/ideals this arrangement is supposed
>to embody and possibly also show us some working examples?

You assert the principles of rep-by-province and rep-by-pop, but ignore
what is most important to nationalist Quebecers, rep-by-nation.  It is
the latter principle which is implicit in "sovereignty-association."  You
can't make the principle go away by ignoring it, because Quebec is threatening
to separate.

Bourassa's aim under the principle of rep-by-nation was to assure Quebec's
share of power in the federation, now and in the future.

The 25% HOC floor is nothing but a concession made in hard bargaining in
return for acceptance of an EEE/province Senate.  Had Getty et al. accepted a
EEE/region Senate (with Quebec getting 25% of seats), Bourassa would not
have demanded the 25% HOC floor.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English school: quotes
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:05:44 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Steve Potter) writes:
]] Obviously you do not understand the
]] concept of a Confederation (even if it is debatable that Canada is
]] really a Confederation). England is part of the European Union, and it
]] doesn't mean that it is bilingual (or X-lingual).
]
]When did England sign the "European Union"'s Constitution? :-)

When did Quebec sign the '82 Constitution?

]Both levels of government have responsibilities for official language
]matters, don't they?

I'd like to hear what's the role of the federal government in official
languages, outside of providing its own services in both languages.
Looking at the job it did english-Canada in protecting french, I'm not
overly impressed by the quality of the job.

]It is probably debatable whether Bill 101 was necessary at the time, at
]least in its extent. (Ref. Jacques Henripin etc.).

A lot of people provided examples of the abuses of the anglophones in
Montreal before bill 101 (affichage, langue de travail, etc.). I will
not go back on that again.

]The rest of what you say here seems to me to be quite reasonable.
Thanks.

]As more people accept that - it becomes more likely that the "extreme"
]provisions of Bill 101 may be abolished or "softened".

When a calmer situation comes, I think that some "irritating"
provision of Bill 101 will be softened.

]Section 23(1)(a) the "mother tongue" criteria for minority language
]schooling (usually badly referred to as the "universal" clause, which
]is NOT "universal" because it is restrictive in at least two respects).

That's part of the '82 "agreement" that wasn't agreed-to at all isn't?


-- 
                                                       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: BNA Act and bilingualism (was Re: Access to English ...)
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:19:13 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 697

From article <11SEP92.10551890.0069@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, by CZ94000 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> Tom Box writes:-

> Does anyone have a breakdown of the population of each province by
> language at or near the time of Confederation?  Such data might
> help put this question in a clearer context.
> 

I would like to have this information too.

If someone posts it - please quote source, of course :-)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: tdwebste@stylus.uwaterloo.ca (Timothy D. Webster)
Subject: What is the best situation for Quebec?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:24:08 GMT

The obviously counter question is what is the best situation for Canada.
I don't believe these question necessary conflict. I wonder about both
questions with no idea how to answer either one with certainty.

I will probably vote yes, because I am so DAM tired of this constitutional
bickering. I don't think I am alone with these feelings. No, the deal
is not perfect. I once had strong interest in this country (Canada).
I think Canadians are losing interest in their own country and are now
considering themselves citizens of the world, where ones country of
origin is secondary. Canadians are Lions governed by Donkeys. Over 
the last few years our politions and ESPICIAL our mass media has 
turn us against each other.  Why? I guess it makes a good story. 

I would like to find out from a Quebec Nationalist just how bad you
consider this deal and WHY. Secondly just how is a separate Quebec
going to work? Will groups who don't want to be part of this new
Quebec be allowed to go it alone? It seems fair to me. Obviously new
international deals will have to be negotiated?	What happens to the
St. Lawrence? Will it become internation waters?

-Tim.
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Which way to vote in this damn Quebec?/Quoi voter dans se beau
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:15:02 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep14.230941.5650@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>From article <BuKwIv.K67@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
> Denis Beauregard writes:-
>
>> Le Quebec est une societe distincte, avec ou sans accord.  Avec l'accord,
>> il y a simplement quelques pseudo-droits illusoires et une signification
>> diluee.
>> 
>Salud Denis!
>Veuillez, expliquer "simplement quelques pseudo-droits illusoires"?
>
>Est ce que c'est comme le non-application de para. 23(1)(a) a cause de
>para 59? :-)

Avant de s'occuper d'une minorite parmi une minorite, il faudrait peut-etre
s'occuper de la majorite et lui donner plus de droits qu'aux minorites.
Sinon, c'est la dictature de la minorite.

Par exemple, les5 droits de veto que Bourassa pretend avoir recu.
Par exemple, les soi-disant pouvoirs que Bourassa pretend avoir rapatrie,
des pouvoirs qui etaient initialement reserves aux provinces, alors que
le rapatriement en question est simplement la possibilite pour le Quebec
de faire son propre programme apres qu'Ottawa aura decide quoi faire avec
cet argent.  Aucun controle de cet argent, simplement avoir la permission
de copier ce que fait le federal.  Meme en matiere de langue, le Quebec
risque de perdre le droit de promouvoir la langue de la majorite!

>  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||

-- 
  \_\    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 !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: Senate/House of common
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 13:25:27 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <SBO.92Sep8085100@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca
(Stephane Boucher) writes: 
> Here's a little question:
> 
> In this country, in order to pass a law we have the
> following (roughly):
> 
> 	   1. Someone get's a brilliant idea !
> 	   2. It is proposed and debated in the house of common
> 	   3. It is voted on by the house of common
> 	   4. If it passes in the house of common it now
> 	      has to be approved by the senate

Don't forget that the Senate can also introduce legislation, then ship
it to the Commons.  That's why you hear legislation referred to as
"C-17" or "S-2".  S refers to the Senate, C to the Commons.

- terry -
======================================================================
"It is our duty to attack unsparingly the miserable system which would
 make all civilization end in a society of rich and poor, of slaves and
 slave-owners."
 - William Morris
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Our brilliant leaders
Date: 7 Sep 92 13:22:02 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1261

From article <1992Sep6.161845.27817@bcrka451.bnr.ca>, by nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau):
> From the front page of Saturday's Citizen, about the question for
> the upcoming constitutional referendum:
> 
>    After conducting several polls, the federal government found
>    that people preferred simplicity to long-windedness.
> 
> Oh boy.  No wonder we've grown so cynical about the abilities of
> our leaders!  (What next?  They'll find out we prefer honesty to
> cheating?  Competence to blundering?  Nah, can't expect TOO much!)
> 
> Heck, maybe I should submit the above quote to rec.humour.funny.
> 


It is right in there with the study I heard about on the radio this
morning which revealed that people who own a fish or a cat excercise
more than people who don't.

How do people get money to study this stuff and do these ridiculous
polls?

Maybe I could get a grant to do a study to find out if politicians
prefer smoked salmon over jellied eels :-)
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: thood@twitus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "Individual"/"Collective"
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:58:51 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

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

>Seems odd to impose a handicap just to preserve a culture.

Consider the deliberately poor English-language training in
Quebec's French schols.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 14:36:08 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: can

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>[Stuff about the importance of a Senate to balance the House]
>
>Your "right to self-government" is a red herring.  Individuals share
>interests in domains ranging from their own homes, to the world (e.g.
>on environmental issues).  This range of domains is supposed to
>be reflected in our federal system.  The citizens of each province
>have the right to govern themselves within that province in areas
>of provincial jurisdiction.  The citizens of Canada govern themselves
>within Canada in areas of federal jurisdiction.  There is no reason
>why voters living in sparsely-populated regions should have more
>influence than voters living in densely-populated regions over federal
>policies.
>
The problem with "areas of provincial jurisdiction" is that the Feds
keep pushing their way in.  Consider health care:  the Quebec gov't
is considering a $5 charge on non-emergency use of emergency rooms.
Now, whether you agree with this charge or not, you have to agree that
health care is specifically assigned to the provinces in our 
constitution, so Quebec has the right to do this.  But there's this
federal law that says for every dollar the province charges patients,
that province loses a dollar in revenue.  Quebec (and every other
province) thus has one arm tied behind its back on health issues.

Similarly, it is widely agreed that day care is a provincial area of
responsibility, but the pressure groups (dominated by by central
canadians because, after all, they're the most populous group) are
targeting the federal government to set "national standards" (like
the national standards on health care).  What chance is there that
these groups will find standards that are acceptable to their Ontario
members and yet take into account the special situations of PEI and
Newfoundland?  

Natural resources are a provincial responsibility.  Do I have to say
more?

>If people living in the regions think they cannot be fairly governed
>by the federal government, then they should fight for decentralization:
>the transfer of power to their own province.  They should not try to give
>themselves unequal votes.
>
And if the people they are fighting are the people who are benefitting
from central control, and who further dominate the centre because of
their numbers?

No, a country as lop-sided as ours requires some sort of equitable
Senate that can, if not initiate bills, at least block the ones that
benefit the populous regions at the expense of the unpopulous ones.
One that not only prevents future fiascos identical to past ones, but
that prevents fiascos of the same ilk (do I need to mention those
three letters that so enrage westerners?).

..mark young
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:43:49 GMT

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>The B.N.A. Act was a perfectly good constitution and should not have been
>repatriated.  Instead of creating the Charter, Trudeau could have strengthened
>the Bill of Rights.  The amending formula has proven to be unusable, as
>expected.  The hard copy was best left in Great Britain(*).

I don't like it, but I have a hard time arguing against this :-)

>The best thing about the Charlottetown Agreement is that it is almost
>equally insignificant.

Except the amending formula is even more unusuable.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]