HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gordon@madmax.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon R. Strachan)
Subject: Re: Denied access to English schools?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:58:34 GMT

In article <12751@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article <Btx3Kq.102@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> gordon@madmax.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon R. Strachan) writes:
>
>A huge fraction of them has already been assimilated. Are you denying

No I do not and never had tried to deny this.

>this? All statistics show that they are rapidly being assimilated.

I know of no such statistics that show this.

>That's just a fact, and I don't think its stoppable.
>
>Furhtermore, the assimilation pressures, au contraire, are a lot
>bigger today than they were yesterday. People are no longer stuck into
>farms for their entire life. If they go at University, they will
>probably be educated in English. If they move away from their village
>(to get a job), they will integrate an english-speaking majority.

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

Gordon

>-- 
>                                                       Francois Audet


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<Bu0DH7.4wI@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:28:48 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <Bu0DH7.4wI@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

   In article <1992Sep2.215130.12179@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
   >From article <BtywH3.8o@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
   >>
   >> There is some trouble at the level of language.  Immigrant anglophones
   >> may feel discriminated in regards of natives anglophones, but since they
   >> choosed to come here, then they should not complain (i.e. they choosed
   >> their situation).
   >
   >NO! They did not! - They are not informed of the situation here before
   >they come!
   >

   Why don't you tell us WHY they are not informed?

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

   Because changing from a privileged status to a non-privileged status.

I hope that Anglophone citizens of Quebec remain a privileged
community, by having access to an interesting and existing French
Quebec culture while continuing to feel safe and secure with their own
cultural tradition.
--
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 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Gender reserved seats
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:54:54 GMT


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

-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
From: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Robert Meunier)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Oui ou Non (was Re: Election sun rising
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:48:58 GMT
Reply-To: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Organization: Hydro-Quebec (IREQ)

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.



---
Robert Meunier                     Institut de Recherche d'Hydro-Quebec
Ingenieur                          1800 Montee Ste-Julie, Varennes
Internet: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca  Qc, Canada, J3X 1S1 
maintainer: BASIC mailing list request to basic-request@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English school: quotes
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:16:34 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2221

From article <12744@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):
> ........ I view Quebec as a francophone society, with a sizable
> english minority that has a lot of privileges for a minority (i.e.,
> services, hospitals, education in english, etc.).

English is _NOT_ a foreign language in Quebec. (Denis himself, de facto,
declared Quebec to be bilingual yesterday.) English is an official
language in Canada; a country of which Quebec is a province.

Quebec is _NOT_ "a francophone society, with a sizable English minority
that has a lot of privileges for a minority...". It is a predominantly
French but bilingual society.

> Therefore, according to that logic, it is normal that immigrants go
> to french schools.

The logic is based on a false assertion. Conclusion is therefore invalid.

> No one would say that England is racist because if you move there, you
> are expected to speak english.

You can speak whatever language you want in England.

You can send your kids to school in any language you want where there is
sufficient demand for schooling in that language to make it economically
viable. (Welsh, Hebrew, Gujarati, for example).

You can put signs up in language you want.

Yes, England has significant racist elements (National Front, some groups
of Skinheads). Simple discrimination is prominant too (ask any Pakistani
living in London!).

> The difference here is the importance of the minority, and the rights it
> acquired.

How important is the English minority in Quebec?

Which rights did the English community in Quebec "acquire"?

> 
> 
> ]With all due respect, however, it is not their decision to make, and so
> ]long as they continue to discriminate against the English in this way,
> ]there will be no peace in Quebec... only fatigue.
> 
> If this is discrimination, then not having spanish schools for all
> children is also discrimination.

Is it? - Please explain!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:6279 soc.culture.canada:6173
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: frais d'hopital
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:05:21 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
]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.

PS: This is a Quebec Liberal Party proposal; it has nothing to do with
the PQ.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re: more on rep.by pop.
Organization: McGill University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:59:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.172033.9044@thinkage.on.ca> dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:
>CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>>Several postings have expressed strong objections to the latest
>>proposed constitutional deal, because it violates the principle
>>of representation by population in the House of Commons.  In a
>>previous posting, I tried to show that the rules for apportioning
>>seats in the Commons have changed frequently with time, and have not
>>always respected the principle of rep. by pop.
>
>[...]
>
>>In the past, every single province has benefitted at one time or
>>another from a departure from the strict rule of rep by pop.  Quebec
>>was the very last to do so.
>
>What's your point? Yes, they've always done this. That doesn't make it right.
>In 1867 women weren't allowed to vote; does that make it okay to take away
>their vote now? Is beating your wife okay because you've always done it?
>We should be righting wrongs, not perpetuating them.
>
I wasn't trying to "make a point" in my previous posting.  The whole
question of representation in the House of Commons has been stirred up
in this last week.  I have been interested in this question since the
time of the Representation Act of 1974.  I think I know a little more
about the subject than most people posting to this news group, and I was
trying to share some of this information.

If you want my opinion, I'm in favor of representation in the House
of Commons being determined strictly by population.  I wrote to MPs
in 1974 to protest against the ineqities of the scheme adopted that
year.  I can't help wondering why people like Gerald O. and Crawford K.
have suddenly discovered rep by pop as a sacred principle when we've
been moving away from it for a long time.

If I had my way, we would adopt the system used for apportioning
seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.  (I know that borrowing
anything from south of the border will seem like sacrilege to many
Canadian nationalists, but it's a much fairer system than what we
use.)  For a House of Commons of 300 MPs, this would give the following:
Nfld 6, PEI 2, NS 10, NB 8, Que 75, Ont 110, Man 12, Sask 11, Alta 28,
BC 36, NWT 1, Yukon 1  (using 1991 census data).

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Quebec law :: It's racist, Separation is unavoidable
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<4820@daily-planet.concordia.ca>
	<1992Aug31.160556.19150@pandora.matrox.com>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:02:32 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug31.160556.19150@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

   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.

   Separatists had better concentrate on winning the referendum.


Remember what happened after the 1980 referendum.  The NON side won,
but the PQ, with its separatist plank removed, won the next provincial
election nonetheless.  I have no doubt that Parizeau is as much a
pragmatist as Levesque.



--
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 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca (Marc Frappier)
Subject: Re: The Accord and the future
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Distribution: can.politics
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 03:15:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.225121.22303@cunews.carleton.ca> rwood@lance.carleton.ca (Richard Wood) writes:
>...  But what is it going to get us?  My guess is at most a few years of 
>constitutional peace, and ...

agreed!

>  I think this accord is a waste of time because it doesn't solve the basic
>problem, that Quebecers think of Canada in terms of Quebec vs the rest, while
>everyone else sees Canada in terms of 12 (semi-equal) provinces and territories.

It is more "english provinces share a vision of Canada:a strong central
government, and everybody is equal.  Quebec has another one, a strong
provincial government.  As a consequence, it is Quebec vs the rest.

>...  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed to me that what Quebec wanted was to 
>get out (as much as possible) of that boat.  'Maitre chez nous' is not a 
>concept that lends itself much to a triple-E Senate.
>  I think we would have been better off making Quebec an 'autonomous' province,
>(ie, asymmetry), having the powers described in the Allaire report.  Powers
>shared with Ottawa would be managed by some sort of joint government.

agreed!

>  Instead, we're locking ourselves into a structure that Quebecers will soon 
>find unacceptable.  Far from solving the problem, the accord strikes me as 
>a big step towards the separation of Quebec. 

Not necessarily separation, but the same debate over and over again, while
other important problems are not solved.
-- 
Marc Frappier				| e-mail: mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca
Department of Computer Science          |
University of Ottawa                    | phone : (613) 564-9232
Ottawa, Canada, K1N 6N5                 | fax   : (613) 564-9486
From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Subject: Re: We are all foreigners, save the NATIVE Aboriginal Canadians!!
Reply-To: marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 21:57:50 GMT

In article <BtIpIE.BDF@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>COncerning the Northern Quebec.
>
>One major point Steve forgets : Quebec government gave many millions (or something
>like that, not sure how much) to the crees to "buy" Bay James territory.

One major point that Denis forgets: whether or not the Quebec government
"bought" the James Bay territory is not clear.  The Natives look at the money
as compensation for the use of the land, however they still lay claim to it.
The Quebec government (or at least some parts of it) believe that the natives
relinquished any right to claims within this land.
-- 
Marc Riehm      Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
marc@meadow.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: can.politics
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:55:57 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep1.222033.19720@cunews.carleton.ca> rwood@lance.carleton.ca (Richard Wood) writes:

   >In article <1992Aug27.194008.1402  Marc Frappier writes:
   >>Why is asymmetrical federalism so unacceptable to the rest of Canada?
   >>Why is the devolution of powers to Quebec perceived as a "privilege"?
   >>
   >If there is significant asymmetrical federalism, you will have members
   >of the Quebec National Assembly voting and legislating on an issue
   >as it pertains to Quebec, and Quebec MP's in Ottawa voting on the same
   >issue as it pertains to the rest of Canada not including Quebec.
   >

   Assymmetrical federalism has been operating in Canada's Parliament for
   a long time now.  For example, Quebec has it's own Pension Plan and 
   contributes nothing to the 'Canada Pension Plan'.  Nevertheless, Quebec 
   MP's vote on issues relating to the federal plan in the Commons.  

Quebec manages its own Pension Plan, but I believe that it collects
the money allocated to it from the Federal government.  I am almost
positive that Quebec has the same federal tax rate (in contrast to
what actually gets paid to Revenue Canada, since the other provinces
let Ottawa collect their taxes for them).

   We have even had Quebec MPs administring the plan as Ministers of
   Health and Welfare (Monique Begin for example)

Once again.  HEALTH AND WELFARE IS A PROVINCIAL POWER!

   We are going to see a lot more of this in the future, I'll bet.

Probably.  The feds have the power to grant management power to
provinces as it sees fit.  But the money still comes from Ottawa.

--
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 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Les interets collectifs
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<plante.715372664@iros1> <1992Sep1.205618.27772@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
	<BtyCtA.KB6@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:30:15 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <BtyCtA.KB6@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

   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?

Pourquoi penses-toi que la culture americaine aide la culture
anglophone quebecoise?  La communaute anglophone quebecoise est
distincte. 

--
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 15213-3891, USA
Xref: sparky can.politics:6411 soc.culture.canada:6258
From: alawrenc@sobeco.com (a.lawrence)
Newsgroups: can.politics,mtl.general
Subject: Re: Quebec law :: S.A. law re school access
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:47:54 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Sobeco Ernst & Young

Je pense que vous avez manquer le point.  Vis-a-vis l'education dans la
province de Quebec c'est les francophones et les immigrantes que doivent
faire face a la discrimination de la loi 101.  

Pour mon point de vue personel, j'aime la loi 101 meiux que sa precedent
, la loi 63 de M. Bourassa, parce que avec la loi 101 je sais d'avance
si mes enfants peut ou peut pas etre eduque en anglais.


-- 
On a clear disk you can seek forever.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Lawrence, Informaticien Conseil           |  alawrenc@sobeco.com
3605 St-Urbain, #1605                            |  uunet!sobeco!alawrenc
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:24:43 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep2.215130.12179@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>From article <BtywH3.8o@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
>>
>> There is some trouble at the level of language.  Immigrant anglophones
>> may feel discriminated in regards of natives anglophones, but since they
>> choosed to come here, then they should not complain (i.e. they choosed
>> their situation).
>
>NO! They did not! - They are not informed of the situation here before
>they come!
>

Why don't you tell us WHY they are not informed?

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

Because changing from a privileged status to a non-privileged status.

>
>> .... school in French for immigrants
>> results of a choice by the same immigrants.
>
>NO! It is not a choice!

Yes, it is a choice.  Your choice of Quebec among the complete
earth as places to immigrate.

If some spanish thought all the south america is spanish speaking and
immigrate to Brasil, will he have to blame the brasil for not
allowing his child to go to spanish school?  No.  He shall blame
himself for not being better informed, or he shall blame those who
informed him.

It is the responsability of an
immigrant to learn something about where he is emigrating.  And if he
is lied, he should blame those who lied, not things about which the
other person lied.

>  ||| 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 !
Xref: sparky can.politics:6269 can.francais:487