HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:52:03 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

>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. 

Dividing all demands into "individual" and "collective" can be confusing.
For example, Josee Legault defines collective rights to be rights
claimed by a person "as member of" or "on behalf of" a group, as opposed to
individual rights claimed by a person "as an individual".

But: individual rights are often called "Human rights" which we could say
are claimed "as a member of the human race."  Animal rights groups claim
rights for animals "as beings capable of suffering."  Are human rights
then collective rights?

Do the terms have any meaning at all?

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Challenge
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:44:02 GMT

For those who are voting yes to the referendum question,

I challenge you to state what in the deal you support that
cannot be achieved legislatively, or which is already
the norm or custom via tradition.

Gerald
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:55:36 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1021

From article <12824@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):
> 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. 
> 

Is Francois trying to suggest that "individual" rights are not
legitimate?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
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 02:57:44 GMT

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>The following people think it is wrong to give Quebec a guarantee of
>25% of seats in the House of Commons.  (Please see references below.)
>I do not recall which of them, if any, expressed support for an EEE Senate.
>
>David Adrien Tanguay

Just for the record, I would rather have the Senate abolished. Give the
provinces more (and better defined) autonomy, and maybe a Charter of
Provincial Rights.

If we must have a Senate, it should be EEE, since there's not much point
of having two rep-by-pop chambers. One's of those E's might be Equitable.
-- 
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: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<BuDswF.J8C@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>
	<CLAMEN.92Sep10232241@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> <12840@audetf>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:02:41 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <12840@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

   In article lamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
   >   They are not the "French nation" either - they are 1/6 anglophone,
   >
   >You are right.  Quebec includes anglophones, Inuit, Cree, Mohawks,
   >italophones, hellonophones, Vietnamese, etc.

   Quebec is still a francophone nation. The presence of 1/6 of
   anglophones doesn't change a thing (especially since most of them
   don't consider themselves as "quebecois").

They might not be ethnically "quebecois", but they are Quebecers,
since they are citizens of Quebec.  Et en francais, nous devons les
appeller Quebecois.

   Is France not the French Nation (and a francophone one) even if there
   is 6% arabs (maybe more)?

France is/should-be a country of all its citizens, J-M LePen
notwithstanding. 

   Quebecois stopped calling themselves "Canadien" because the original
   meaning of the name changed. Originally, "canadien" meant
   french-canadian, and the english-canadians were simply the "englsih".

But the name change also excluded those french-canadians outside
Quebec, did it not?

--
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: Re: The new agreement
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: 7 Sep 92 20:47:19 GMT

Steve Potter (steven@spxtech.qc.ca) wrote:
>From article <14861@mindlink.bc.ca>, by Walter_Gorlitz@mindlink.bc.ca (Walter Gorlitz):
>> I would like to read the entire text of the agreement before I vote on it.
>> Does anyone have a copy of it?  I would like a copy of it E-Mailed to me (at
>> the first address below).  If it's not too long or too inappropriate perhaps
>> posting it here as well.
>
>Page A6-A7 of saturday's Gazette.

Unfortunately, I believe that that is not the legal text. The legal text is
still being made up, and from the sounds of it won't be available until
shortly before the referendum. Given the history of the Meech Lake affair
where there were "mysterious" changes to agreed upon texts, I am somewhat
concerned about this situation.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:11:20 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

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...  :-)

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.


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:42:05 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Could I lure participants away from the usual nostalgia plus personal attacks
on one another to spend some time actually discussing and evaluating the
present constitutional deal on which we are to vote in less than two months?
Can people in Quebec tell the rest of us why they like or dislike the deal, and
can people elsewhere in the country give us a sense of how the deal seems to
affect their interests?

With any luck at all, we ought to be able to get sub-discussions going on
topics like native self-government, rep by pop, the actual function of the new
Senate, and so on.

I really don't know what to think of the deal yet; I worry about the vagueness
of the native self-rule concept, the guaranteed 25% for Quebec, and the odd
variations in rep by pop from province to province. But for all I know, those
are non-issues and some really serious problem is lurking in the fine print.

Comments?
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:56:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.133837@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.225736.10384@thinkage.on.ca>, dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:
>|> If the agreement passes, I would prefer that Canada does break up.
>
>Better dead than red.

The YES side seems to be saying "Better red than dead". Nobody seems to be
making an argument that the deal is any good, just that NO will have
catastrophic consequences. I see it more as "Better part of a country that
I can be proud of, or at least have hope for, that a country I am ashamed
of and disgusted of". (That sentence might disqualify my anglophone status :-)
There are alternatives to both "dead" and "red".

nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>How about:
>
>"If you don't play by my rules, I'm taking my ball and going home."
>
>Unfortunately, that's what much of the complaining about the accord
>sounds like to me.  :-(

Isn't that what Quebec has been saying all along? When they say it, it is a
genuine issue for which compromise should be sought; when anybody else says
it, it is nothing but pettiness?

In defence of both Quebec and me, it is more along the lines of "I don't
like this game anymore, so I'm going home.". Quebec wants to play hockey,
I want to play basketball, and we seem to be getting basketball on skates
with lacrosse sticks in Florida. It's just not cricket!

Can we dispose of the absurd metaphors now? :-)
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:28:50 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <12829@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
> Does the nationalist approach have the approval of the English population
>of Quebec, or the Mohawk population of Oka, or the Cree population of the
>North or the various other ehtnic groupsin Quebec.

Probably not, but what can you do? You'll never get 100% agreement on
anything.

The Cree argument is pretty slim. Total indian population represents
no more than 1% of Quebec's population. Difficult to compare to
Quebec's share of the Canadian population. The indians do not (yet)
form a political entity and they do not possess their own land. They
don't have an economy either.

The minorities of Quebec does not prohibit the creation of an
independant state. It has nothing to do in the debate: it's the kind
of justification the Serbs have to oppose to the independance of
Croatia and Slovania. (PS: I'm not comparing Canada to Yugoslavia).

>You speak of "pan-Canadian crap" and unity as if these were not solutions
>to the real problem of governing a country of multiple cultures. Why do
>you think these problems of cultural clash would not exist in an
>independent nationalist Quebec. Do you think that the Warriors of Oka
>will become docile because of Jacques Parizeau's rehetoric.

So Quebec should not secede because of fear of Warrior violence? Come
on! There will always be cultural clashes everywhere. And the
"Canadian Unity" never did and never will exist with Quebec in Canada.

>This is just another Quebec nationalist pipe dream which criticizes and 
>demeans a Canadian system which was ceated to face reality. A reality
>which will explode the nationalist fantasy if Quebec independence ever
>comes to pass without acceptance of a multucultural Quebec.

That's a null statement. Independance does not prohibit
multiculturalism. 

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: rep by pop -- a proposal
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:56:43 GMT
Organization: McGill University

Here's how I'd allocate the seats in the House of Commons between
the provinces:

Let P0 be the population of the least populous province (in practice
this will always be PEI).  Let P(i) be the population of the ith
province, and N(i) be the number of seats in the House of Commons
allocated to the ith province.  Then N(i) is to be determined by

N(i) = IFIX((1.+SQRT(1.+8.*(P(i)/P0)**2))/2.)

For those who don't read Fortran, the procedure is:
- divide the population of the province by the population of PEI
- square the result
- multiply by 8
- add 1
- take the square root
- add 1
- divide by 2
- drop the fractional part

I know this will sound like a totally crackpot notion, but it
really works, better than any more "obvious" way I know of for
achieving rep by pop.  I leave it as an exercise to the reader to
discover the motivation for my formula.

Here's a comparison of my system and the system which was really
used, for the reallocations following the censuses of 1971 and 1981,
and the proposed reallocation in the Charlottetown Accord.  I show
the number of seats for each province, and the average population
for each riding in each province.

             1971                  1981                  1991
         my        system      my        system      my       proposed
       system       used     system       used     system      system

Nfld   7  74586   7  74586   7  81097   7  81097   6  94746   7  81211
PEI    2  55821   4  27910   2  61253   4  30627   2  64883   4  32441
NS    10  78896  11  71724  10  84744  11  77040  10  89994  11  81813
NB     8  79320  10  63456   8  87050  10  69640   8  90488  10  72390
Que   76  79313  75  80370  74  87005  75  85845  75  91946  93  74150
Ont   98  78603  95  81085 100  86251  99  87122 110  91681 117  86196
Man   13  76019  14  70589  12  85520  14  73303  12  90995  14  77996
Sask  12  77187  14  66160  11  88028  14  69165  11  89903  14  70638
Alta  21  77518  21  77518  26  86066  26  86066  28  90913  28  90913
BC    28  78022  28  78022  32  85765  32  85765  36  91168  36  91168

One can see that my system gives a much smaller varitation in riding
size from one province to another.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 6 Sep 92 00:14:01 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <12785@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>In article <Bu1B4r.96p@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep3.213751.912@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>>
>>>But Denis just said Trudeau was an anglophone!! :-)
>>
>>How do you define an anglophone?  Some one who's mother language is English?
>>This is an adaptation to English of the French expression langue maternelle.
>>
>>Mother of Trudeau was Grace Elliott, no?  And she was anglophone, no?
>>Thus, Trudeau is an anglophone!  
>>In the context, Trudeau should not be used as a perfect example of
>>a pure francophone since he was not educated as a pure francophone.
>
>You seem to making some distinction here that prevents certain people
>from being true citizens of Quebec. Will you please give an explanation
>of why you are making this distinction, how you are applying it, and
>any rational explanation for what the distinction is.

My point is that Trudeau should not be considered as a _typical_
francophone.  Part of his characteristics are that he was fully
bilingual (I remember now he started using Elliott at Andre Grasset
college because there was another Pierre Trudeau).  Thus, being
very egocentric, he may believe everybody can be fully bilingual
and may forget this will give some frustration to many people.

In other words, someone having some strong bilingual background
will not take the same decision as someone else having a unilingual
background.  And Trudeau should not be used as an example of a
francophone that did a lot for french-speaking.  He was born in a
bilingual family and tried to give to Canada the same aspect.

>>Mulroney was rised in English.  BUt, this is another story.
>>
>
>Please give us this story as well. We can all flame you for it
>if it turns out to be what I suspect it is.

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.

>
>
>-- 
>i.sinature


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:38:13 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <12786@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
]I know that this is just a restatement of what I said but your
]comments were so off the point that I couldn't determine their meaning.
]There was a pre-existing French culture in Canada East at the time
]of Confederation. The province of Quebec was created to preserve the
]insititutions of this culture. 
]The Province of Quebec was created at the time of Confederation
]as the poloitical entity which could protect the French culture within
]Canada.
]Do you disagree with this? If so why was Quebec created?

Quebec was a political entity long before that, with politicians, a
culture, etc. Being given the status of "Province" didn't do anything
to it. 

At the time of the Confederation, there were (like always) two
proposals on the way the "Confederation" should be dealt with. The
opposition (I believed the Liberals at the time) had in mind a
Confederation where the Provinces would be much more autonomnous.

]The politicians at that time cared very deeply for their culture.
]Cartier from Canada East insisted on and won the rights of the
]French culture in Quebec. The representatives from the Maitimes with
]their distinct cultures gained local autonomy with their provincial
]governments.

Cartier also said "Nous sommes des anglais parlant francais" (" We are
englishmen speaking french") about the french-canadians. So much for
culture.

]Now you cannot have it both ways. If Quebec and the other provinces were
]created to preserve local cultures then their must have been cooperation
]between cultural groups.

You are the one saying that the provinces were created to preserve
local culture, not me. Quebec existed long before the Confederation
and it did not do anything to preserve its culture. I wonder where you
got that idea. Haut and Bas Canada used to be more separated than the
Provinces.
-- 
                                                       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: The Referendum
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:33:12 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 770

I looked over the "agreement" as printed in saturday's gazette.

I didn't see one mention of the word "Education".

Despite commitments and promises over the years from both Quebec and
Federal governments, Education rights have been deliberately
left out - again!

Personally, I believe I will vote to reject the package - it does not
begin to address my concerns about legal right to access to minority
language schooling in Quebec as everywhere else in Canada.



-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: School names (Was: Adding insult to injury?
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:29:43 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:

>That raises an interesting question:-

>Does the name of a school belong to the building, or to the 
>administration operating within its walls?
>This might generate some interesting philosophical discussion.
>Any comments?

    > YAWN <

:-)
--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 05:34:00 GMT

In article <413@catnix.UUCP> michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond) writes:
>
>That is the way Switzerland functions.  To the federal level, 7 or
>maybe 8 levels of power (Defence, Post & Telecom, International
>Relations, etc.); to the cantons : education, income (the cantons
>make the transfers to the federal, not the other way around like here),
>and other goodies.  The way things work in Canada, there exists too
>much duplication of tasks. Some may argue that it creates, or keeps, jobs.
>But in the mid and long term, it proves very counter-productive.

Sounds like a reasonable enough way to run things (especially the upward
flow of tax money). A minor problem: they wouldn't let you vote in Swiss
elections! ;-)

>
>>Do we really need TWO sets of buffoons in Canada? For me, the provincial
>>govts. in canada are enough to laugh at: Bob Ray, VanderHarcourt etc.
>>the federal circus is just too much of a good thing...
>
>Don't forget the clown we have here in Quebec.  As for the federal
>circus beeing too much of a good thing, I can't believe it would
>be better with Cretin and what's her name again? Ah, yes, "Make me laugh".

didn't you forget to mention a twit? I'm sure there's another...

maybe we should let messrs. Manning and Bouchard step in and straighten out
the country for a few years...a bit of a cathartic to clean out all the
sh*t out of Canada's system.
>
>Time for a real Rhinoceros to step in!
>
>
>
>--
>Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ......  B.P.: michele@catnix.UUCP
>(514) 671-8820				   OU :	michele%catnix@cam.org
>
>"Vous avez une araignee au plafond?"
>- Non. Plutot une toile d'araignee entre les jambes.


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegomony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________