HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:41:04 GMT

warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>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.

I disagree, here. I expect the western provinces to eventual fill out to
populations comparable with those of Ontario and Quebec. With relatively
even industrialization, Quebec could easily be 1/6th to 1/8th 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.

With this deal, separation will be the only way to deal with it.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 00:59:40 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: can

dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca (David Joseph Regeczi) writes:
> [...]
>Veto for all provinces : I believe every province will have a veto on future
>constitutional changes (ensuring this deal will forever keep Central Canada
>in control).  If we take this, we have to live with it forever.
>
Can anyone explain what changes (if any) are suggested for the way to amend
the Constitution?  The quote above makes it sound like the 2/3-50% formula is
being completely abandoned.  It seems that such a change would have made a
bigger splash (like being mentioned as one of the main points of the deal).

...mark young
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: NAC-SOW votes No
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:18:11 GMT

Just heard on the news update that the National Action Committee on
the Status of Women is coming out against the constitutional deal.
They will campaign on the no side.

Well, that settles it for me! I'm voting Yes!  :)

Michael
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:15:07 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2035

From article <1992Sep10.205334.19418@IRO.UMontreal.CA>, by robichau@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Benoit Robichaud):
> In article <1992Sep9.134650.14110@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>>>Because I am not accepted as a fully legitimate member of my own
>>>>linguistic community; I do not have access to public services that
>>>>are available to other people; .......
>>> 
>>> Because you emmigrated to a FRANCOPHONE province. The anglo-quebecois
>>> minority has its privileges (or rights as you like to say). It doesn't
>>> mean that all british immigrants are entitled to it.
>>
>>Why not?
>>
> 
> Parce que vous etes d'abord et avant tout (au yeux du gouvernement) un
> "immigre".

So what?

> Le fait que vous parliez une des langues officielles du
> pays (maternellement ou non) ne vous donne pas necessairement le droit
> de jouir de certains services (puisque le reglement concernant l'acces 
> a l'ecole publique s'appuie justement sur cette distinction 
> immigrant/non-immigrant pour trancher).

... and I thought this was a civilized democracy. :-(

> 
> Vous devriez plutot militer pour ces pauvres francophones hors-
> Quebec qui, malheureusement et de moins en moins, parle francais
> meme a la maison ... 

They certainly don't get any help from the Quebec government!

> 
> J'espere que dans l'eventualite d'un changement a cette loi, vous
> continuerai a envoyer vos enfants a l'ecole francaise 

Just until about grade 4 or 5, probably.

> (puisqu'il
> sont maintenant membre d'une communaute bilingue-francophone) et

What does "communaute bilingue-francophone" mean?

> que contrairement a vous (:-)) il sauront mieux manier cette belle
> langue qu'est le francais.

I prefer Lewis Carroll :-)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Where to get the text of the agreement (was Re: The new 
    agreement)
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:07:51 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 577

We have the following sources:-

  Globe & Mail, September 1st

  Ottawa Citizen, September 5th, page B5 (thereabouts)

  Montreal Gazette, September 5th, pages A6-A7

  Canada Communications Group
  47 Clarence Street
  Ottawa
  (613) 941-1824 or 1-800-561-1188.

Thanks!
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Why I will vote Yes on Oct.26 (DSY)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:42:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.141539.29734@bnr.ca> alanw@bnr.ca writes:
>
>-- Abandoning representation by population in the House of Commons, with Quebec's
>   guarantee of 25% of the seats.
>

The Senate is supposed to be the chamber that accounts for the
particular characteristics and compromises necessary to effect 
region compromise in representation.  The House of Commons should
be as close to rep. by pop. as possible.  25% for Quebec in the Commons
is wrong, but so is equality in the Senate, which is not a good solution
for Canada.

>
>-- Election of senators by the legislative assembly, which is hardly different from
>   having them appointed by the Prime Minister.
>   

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. 

>-- The provision that allows reserving senate seats for certain groups, such as
>   gender based seats.  Once again, this is officially sanctioned discrimination.
>   Let's work toward reducing the barriers in the system that hinder the election
>   of (women, aboriginals, ...), instead of just reversing discrimination.  I
>   support efforts by political parties towards putting together a more
>   representative slate of candidates.  But let's not put it in the Constitution.
>

The discrimination against "disadvantaged" groups is in the political
parties, not in the electoral system itself...so the remedies should
be directed at the political parties, not at the electoral system.

The electoral system provides for a secret ballot, and hence is not
discriminatory against anyone.  If we need quotas, political parties
should impose quotas on themselves...50% women candidates...rather
than on the electoral system, which gives women 50% of the votes.

Gerald
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Which way to vote in Quebec
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:39:48 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1363

From article <BuDFwL.4D0@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
> In article <1992Sep10.084522.23728@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>Quoi doit-je faire? <:-}
>>
> 
> Voter au sujet de l'accord.  Point.
> 

Then I must reject it - it does me more harm than good!

I haven't seen the full text yet but what I have seen does not mention
"education". 

The "mother tongue" criteria (usually misnamed the "universal clause" which
is NOT universal because it is restrictive in at least two respects!) that
is s.23(1)(a) is still not applicable in Quebec.

English mother tongue children landing in Quebec since 26th august, 1977
still do not have the same rights as French and English children anywhere
else in Canada.

This issue has not been addressed.

Even if the preamble stuff in the agreement DID mean that the Quebec
government had to do something positive for the English minority in
Quebec (and it doesn't seem to) it doesn't help me. Section 59 is still
in the Constitution.

I must vote "NO!".

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Why I will vote Yes on Oct.26 (DSY)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 21:05:53 GMT

In article <1RF2qB3w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>I have read the text of the Charlettetown Accord,   and this certainly no Meech
>lake, Meech lake which would have been our version of apartheid.
>
>What I have in fact read is the Globe & Mail version of the text from 1 Sept
>1992.   This accord recognize within Canada that:
>
>1) All provinces are equal.

Alberta and BC and Ontario are all set irreversibly on a path to less
than representation by population...

>
>2) French and English are the official languages of the country and deserve
>   protection righ accros the board.
>
>3) Quebec's Distinct Society is now subject to the Charter, and not the other
>   way around.
>

Wrong....the Distinct Society clause applies to the whole Constitution
just like in Meech Lake.

>4) The Multicultural aspect of Canada is recognized and to be protected.
>

Nope...we're at the bottom of the list behind Quebec distinct society
and aboriginal self-government.

>5) The Senate is Equal, eventually 100% elected and give time would become very
>   effective.
>

It is not 100% elected...Quebec wants to appoint their Senators...and
we are about to introduce chromosome testing of candidates to test
for the amount of femaleness and the amount of frenchness.

>6) I have heared the rep. by pop arguments acc the constitution, however since
>   1st-past-the-post is how we elect the HoC, it doesn't matter.  What would
>really matter would be if the HoC was based on proportional representation.  As
>it is now, it is based on party discipline.
>

Another person in need of remedial mathematics...in thirty years Quebec
and BC could both have 20% of the countries population...Quebec would
have 25% of seats...BC would have perhaps 17% of the seats.  For
every vote in BC, a Quebec voter would have 1.5 votes.

>7) The aborginals are basically citizens of Canada just like the rest of us,
>wiht there Treaty right entrenched.
>

Not after this Constitutional agreement...Chinese Canadians won't be
able to have their own school boards, etc. etc. like aboriginals will
in the midst of our cities.

>Let's discuss content, not propaganda.  I am voting yes due to content, not due
>to rhetoric.
>

You misunderstood almost all the content.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Collective rights in the new constitution
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:26:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.173509.16638@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>I must concur with Don McPherson, who has come closest in his column in the
>Gazette to capturing the phenomenal absurdity of these negotiations:
>"Somebody please stop them!"
>

The way to stop them is to vote NO!

Nothing bad will happen...because there is no time for anything bad
to happen before the elections which will be imminent in both Quebec
and Canada.

The worst thing that can happen is that in two years, after the
next Quebec election, there will be a referendum on sovereignty.

The rest of Canada is stupid for not trusting the common sense
of the average Quebecers in such a referendum.

What we need is a moratorium...the way to get it is to vote NO!

With the constitution then safe again from politicians, they will
have to turn their focus again to the economy and getting re-elected.


Gerald
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 22:28:52 GMT

nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>Or maybe you do have the perfect solution - the one that will please
>all Canadians more than the current (admittedly imperfect) deal.  If
>so, please let us know!

I suspect separation would please Canadians more than the current deal,
except for the fear of the associated uncertainty.

I prefer the original Clark agreement (July 7).
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: rep by pop
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:49:56 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

In article <1992Sep07.143530.17819@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep7.054312.5938@thinkage.on.ca> dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:
|> 
|> >25% for Quebec:
|> >Civilization has been fighting for centuries to win the ideals of liberal
|> >democracy, but here in Canada we're thinking of throwing them away.
|> >If a constitution isn't a place for principles and ideals, what is?
|> >This kills the deal for me.
|> 
|> Ditto here - a resounding NO on acceptance. The rest of the package seems
|> immaterial in light of scrapping rep by pop.

Those who fanatically defend rep by pop might take into consideration
the fact that Canada does not truly have it.  Does every riding have
the same population?  No, far from it and Ken McVay should know it well
since he lives in British Columbia, a province where for years the region
of Greater Vancouver was seriously under-represented in the legislature.

The impression I receive from this discussion is that the real problem for
the self proclaimed defenders of "the ideals of liberal democracy" is
that they feel that, once again, Quebec is getting "special" treatment.
The message that comes through is not one of the man of principle defending
his ideals but one of folks giving vent to the same old tired carping.
Can.politics seems full of it these days.

Wake up folks and smell the pulp mill (it's the morning breeze from Crofton).
We either take the deal, warts and all, and get on with our lives or we
throw it out and step into the wonderful world of "interesting times".
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Which way to vote in Quebec
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:46:26 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep10.163949.5761@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:

   From article <BuDFwL.4D0@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
   > In article <1992Sep10.084522.23728@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
   >>Quoi doit-je faire? <:-}
   >>
   > 
   > Voter au sujet de l'accord.  Point.
   > 

   Then I must reject it - it does me more harm than good!

   I haven't seen the full text yet but what I have seen does not mention
   "education". 

   The "mother tongue" criteria (usually misnamed the "universal clause" which
   is NOT universal because it is restrictive in at least two respects!) that
   is s.23(1)(a) is still not applicable in Quebec.

   English mother tongue children landing in Quebec since 26th august, 1977
   still do not have the same rights as French and English children anywhere
   else in Canada.

   This issue has not been addressed.

   Even if the preamble stuff in the agreement DID mean that the Quebec
   government had to do something positive for the English minority in
   Quebec (and it doesn't seem to) it doesn't help me. Section 59 is still
   in the Constitution.

   I must vote "NO!".

If the right to educate your children at English sector schools is
your primary/sole grievance, than you should vote based on this issue.
You might choose, however, to consider the political repercussions of
a NON victory.  

It is my opinion (probably shared by many others) that a NON vote will
move Quebec "federalists" even further away from Ottawa.  In the next
provincial election, the PLQ will run on something resembling the
Allaire report (perhaps Bourassa's "associate state status for
Quebec"), while the PQ will run on "sovereignty association" or
outright independence.  You, of course, will be free to vote for
Equality, which, if it lasts that long, will be the only remaining
federal party.

It is an open debate whether an independent Quebec will grant its
non-francophone minorities more or fewer language privileges.  While I
personally do not consider it such a relevent question (English
education rights for a dying anglophone community does not excite me),
I cannot speak for others.  If you would not at all mind turning in
your newly-acquired Canadian passport for a Quebec one, for the right
to send your children to English sector schools (assuming that the
numbers following the Third Anglo Exodus still warrant them), then I
see no reason why you should not vote against the agreement.


--
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,can.general
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Q&A Session with Joe Clark
Originator: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca
Keywords: deal, Clark
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: net
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:21:14 GMT

I am a law student at UBC; on Thursday, Sept. 17 Joe Clark is going to
address my class and there will be a question-and-answer session
following. I invite readers of this group to email me some interesting
questions to ask him. Of course I can't promise anything, but I'll try.
Deadline is Wednesday night.

I'll post a report afterwards.

Mathew Englander.
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:58:25 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>I suspect the whole individual versus collective issue is mainly a
>smoke screen, one of those tricks people seem to like to pull with
>words and definitions to make their case look stronger.  If I'm wrong,
>I'm sure people will tell me why.

No, you are right: that's the whole point. The anglophones description
of their rights as being "individual" (thus the nec-plus-ultra of
rights) and the francophones as beign "collective" (thus oppressive)
is just a way to legitimize their complaints. 

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: Senate election scenario
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:27:44 GMT

In article <mjenkins.716562096@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>"Good evening, and welcome to the National.
>
>Tonight's top story is the dillema of Bob Rae. Last year, the premier
>of Ontario promised he would set aside half of Ontario's six Senate
>seats for women.
>
>Well today was the final day to file nomination papers, and only two
>women have placed their names in nomination. Seven men will also run
>for the new elected Senate.
>

Yeah, right. Of more than 5 million women in Ontario, only two have any
desire to be a Senator.

The problem with quotas is not _finding_ women to run, or even finding
_qualified_ women to run. The problem is that in a democracy individuals
are supposed to be able to choose for themselves _which_ qualified
candidate they want to be represented by.

Mathew Englander.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<CLAMEN.92Sep8162159@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> <12808@audetf>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:40:34 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


In article <12808@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

   In article clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
   >Each of these countries, however, has bilingual
   >regions/cantons/provinces.  It is not black and white.

   In Belgium, only Brussels (the Capital) is bilingual (Brussels is in
   Flandres), because of PAST domination of the wallons over the flemish.
   Sounds like Montreal...  :-)

The Brussels metropolitain area represents 10% of the Belgian
population.  If you include environs, that is a sizeable chunk of
Belgians. 

   Wallonie is far from being bilingual; most wallon don't speak
   flemmish.
   Flandres is much more bilingual (although people might not like to
   speak french...) because of the very small population base of
   flemmish-speakers.

Actually, the Belgian population is 56% flemiphone (?), 32%
francophone, and 12% "legally bilingual" (presumably born that way)
according to the 1990 CIA World Factbook.

And returning to my previous post, I always thought it was the case
that there were some bilingual (French-German, German-Romanche)
cantons in Switzerland.  Perhaps Michelle can enlighten us.
--
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