HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:54:43 GMT

cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:

>In article <schuck.721174910@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>
>>>Obviously, ROC would have to elect leaders not associated with Quebec.
>>>I do not agree that they should be ruthless.
>>
>>If we are not ruthless, Canada will not survive.

>If "we" ARE ruthless, Canada would also not survive.

>Parliament, which is the "we" that is the primary decision making body
>of the government of Canada, doesn't have any way of becoming as
>ruthless as you suggest, without it being effectively (or actually)
>dissolved, which would mean that Canada would be GONE as we know it
>now.

Parliament would have "zero" legitimacy if it was not dissolved and an
election called with no memebers of a secessionist province allowed to
run. That is the only way we could go on as a country.

>Any of the alternatives involve dictators, which certainly counts as
>Canada not surviving, in my books.

Nonsense. The ruthlessness I talk about is necessary to legitimize the
national institutions after secession is chosen.

If it isn't done Canada will cease to exist.

My Canada doesn't condone ruthlessness against Quebec.

Then your Canada will split apart into several pieces the minute a
quebecker attempts to exercise power within Canada because we were too
gutless to kick him out.

-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: afsipmh@cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel)
Subject: Re: Plan B
Reply-To: afsipmh@cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel)
Organization: Environment Canada
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 12:47:33 GMT


In article <schuck.721358888@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce
Jonathan Schuck) writes:
|> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
|> 
|> >Nationalists in Quebec DO happen to be individuals that live in
|> >Quebec.  They may make up a majority of Quebeckers.  You've answered
|> >the question that I asked.
|> 
|> If you think nationalists are in the majority, why hasn't Quebec
|> seceded yet? I don't think they will.
|> 
One point of clarification here. Quebec nationalists are not all 
"seperatists" as we have come to use the phrase. For example,
Bourrassa calls himself a federalist nationalist.
You are also not entirely wrong because in my view they are also
seperatists ... sort of have-the-cake-and-eat-it-too seperatists in that
they seek the power of a sovereign state while reaping the advantages
of being part of a greater whole.
As to the general tone of your postings..I haope not everyone in B.C. 
is as much of a yahoo.
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> ============================================================================
|> "We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
|> ============================================================================
Pat Hertel                 Canadian Meteorological Centre
Analyst/Programmer         2121 N. Service Rd.        
phertel@cmc.aes.doe.ca     Dorval,Quebec             
Environment Canada         CANADA           H9P1J3

"Its not a bug..its an undocumented feature." - unknown
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Americans on English schools in Quebec (Was: Quebec)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:11:26 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2514

From article <1992Nov3.154855.8747@news.columbia.edu>, by gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare):
> mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Normand Mousseau) writes:
>>
>>However, the 12 000 children  mentionned here are from parents who 
>>emigrated to Canada in their adult life from English speaking country and 
>>are now Canadian citizens.  These Canadians do not have a historical right 
>>to go in schools financed publically in the language of their choice. No 
>>more than you would give the right to a Chinese the right to  be educated 
>>in a Chinese school financed by the government.
> 
> I will throw my hat into the ring with Normand.  My family had moved
> from China to Canada slowly, from the turn of the century through the
> 1950's, and did so with the full knowledge that by landing in western
> Canada, we were entering an English-speaking society.  Later on, when
> more immigrants came over and had a stronger upper-class and ethno-
> centric cultural element, there were private Chinese after-schools set
> up in churches or in local Chinatown community halls.  But not even
> the snobbiest of those community pillars expected to impose their own
> system on the greater society.

At the risk of being accused of possesing a colonial viewpoint, ;-),
I must point out that an English-speaking person coming to Quebec has
every reason to expect that he may join the English community in Quebec
with the all the rights and privileges enjoyed by that community as
one of the official language communities in the country.

He/she might also expect to be welcomed by francophone neighbours who
offer him ample opportunity to learn/improve/perfect his/her french.

Naturally, since more than 80% of the population in Quebec is francophone,
he/she would be pretty stupid not to have his/her children learn french.
This can be done in perfectly good immersion programs in English schools.

Denying English parents the right to place their children in English
schools in Quebec does not encourage them to improve their French - it
makes them angry, bitter, resentful, and leaves them feeling unwanted,
rejected, and unwelcome!

As for the question of private schooling - class privilege is another issue!
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Mulroney succession
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 06:45:42 GMT

andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>Yesterday's Star had an article speculating on BM the PM's possible resignation
> and perspective candidates for Tory Chiefdom.

> Listed were: Joe Clark, Kim Campbell, Jean Charest, Bernard Valcourt,
> Barbara McDougall and Perrin Beatty. No handicaps were given. Do you think
> Brian will go soon? Who will run? What are their odds? Who will win?

The Tories have to win Quebec to win the next general election. 

A non-quebecker has a snowballs chance in hell of being elected Tory leader.

-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,can.general
From: afsipmh@cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel)
Subject: Re: Americans on English schools in Quebec (Was: Quebec)
Reply-To: afsipmh@cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel)
Organization: Environment Canada
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 12:52:13 GMT


In article <1992Nov3.171922.25420@pandora.matrox.com>,
thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
|> smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
|> 
|> >I think that I would never even contemplate living in Quebec, and
|> >would think thrice about moving to Canada again.
|> >Steven Smith
|> 
|> Insofar as this is the general view of anglophones outside Quebec,
|> it is bad news for the anglophone community inside Quebec, since the
|> latter relies upon immigration to replace heavy emigration.
|> 
|> Anglo leaders should not suggest that Quebec is (all in all) a bad
|> place to live.
|> 
|> --
|> Thomas Hood                                                    
thood@matrox.com

Yes, but its not all that simple. If you are here its not all that bad
a place (provided you can get along in french) but if you were on the
outside looking in could you honestly say that you would contemplate
moving here.

Pat Hertel                 Canadian Meteorological Centre
Analyst/Programmer         2121 N. Service Rd.        
phertel@cmc.aes.doe.ca     Dorval,Quebec             
Environment Canada         CANADA           H9P1J3

"Its not a bug..its an undocumented feature." - unknown
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:36:20 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <schuck.721338938@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
]Free trade between provicnes would benefit all provinces.
]Free trade with Quebec would probably *just* benefit Ontario, Quebec's
]natural trading partner. Until free trade between the remaining
]provinces is established, trade between Quebec and Canada should not
]be free.

Huh?!?!? 
Thus you are against free trade. I see that you have great confidence
in your competiveness. 

]The same applies to free trade with Quebec.
]
]Quebec likes massive government subsidies. How can Canada compete with
]that?

By also giving massive government subsidies of course...  :-)

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics,sci.anthropology,sci.environment
From: fskanes@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: S.N.A.G.G.
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:20:26 GMT

X-NEWS: leif alt.activism: 22260
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.environment,sci.energy,alt.activism
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Anthropological News Network
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 22:36:35 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

There's an activist newsletter for anthropologists you may be interested in.
It's called the ACPAC Newsletter and is published by the American
Committee for Preservation of Archeological Collections.  They fight
the efforts of people who want artifacts to be returned to native peoples
for reburial, etc.  There have been several outrageous cases of modern
native Americans demanding and receiving artifacts which have absolutely
no connection to existing tribes.

The newsletter is free.  Write to:
ACPAC, P.O. Box 1171, Whittier CA 90609-1171
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:00:05 GMT

(Gerry Gryschuk) writes:

>>Bruce Jonathan Schuck (schuck@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:

>> 
>> Ok. How about a *free trade* issue. [This one has little to do with BC]
>> 
>> Quebec makes auto parts and sells them to Ontario and to the US to be
>> used in Cars with no duty because of the FTA.
>> Quebec will not automatically become part of the FTA, it may take
>> years for such a thing to be negotiated, just as the FTA took years
>> and the NAFTA took years.
>> 
>> 1) Quebec auto parts are now competing with Ontario auto parts which
>> get put into US and Canada cars. Do we let this continue or do we
>> exclude Quebec with high tariffs and keep the jobs in Ontario.
>> 
>> 2) Quebec parts in Ontario cars will count as foreign parts. We all
>> know that cars made in Ontario with too many foreign parts get big
>> duties slapped on [ex. -- Japanese parts] Do we continue to buy parts
>> from Quebec and jeopardize duty-free status for Ontario cars or do we
>> slap a big duty on Quebec parts to keep duty-free status and keep jobs
>> in Ontario.
>> 
>> The above example is applicable to *all* manufactured items in Ontario
>> destined for US markets.
>> 

>First Bruce let me say that unlike your other posts on the issue this
>actually shows some thought went into forming it.

No, it's just the first time you noticed.

>If Quebec does decide to seperate I highly doubt they would become a
>sovereign nation the day after the referendum was held. The whole process
>of seperation would take years of negotiations to decide who gets what
>and why. 

To me that is a completely unacceptable prosepect.

I would detest the idea of my taxes going to pay MP's, Senators,
Judges, civil servants, soldiers, police etc in Quebec.

I would detest paying the operating budgets of government
departments and Crown Corporations in Quebec.

I would rather emigrate than allow myself to be ruled by Quebeckers
who have announced they were leaving or to pay one red cent to a
province that will be leaving when the money could be better spent on
other parts of Canada.

Allowing Quebec to remain while negotiations take place is a recipe
for hatred, resentment and violence. 

The federal government and civil service, dominated by Quebeckers
would be completely illegitimate. No taxes should be paid to it. No
laws should be valid.

If such a case were to come about, then BC would be *much* better off
leaving immediately.

-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: afsipmh@cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: afsipmh@cidsv01.cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel)
Organization: Environment Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 18:02:31 GMT


In article <schuck.721174910@sfu.ca>, schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce
Jonathan Schuck) writes:
|> 
|> If we are not ruthless, Canada will not survive.
|> 
  substitute the word "Quebec" for "Canada" and you sound just
  like the "other side" i.e. pretty silly
|> -- 
|> ============================================================================
|> "We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
   "They've got the guns but we've got the numbers" - J. Morrison
|> ============================================================================
Pat Hertel                 Canadian Meteorological Centre
Analyst/Programmer         2121 N. Service Rd.        
phertel@cmc.aes.doe.ca     Dorval,Quebec             
Environment Canada         CANADA           H9P1J3

"Its not a bug..its an undocumented feature." - unknown
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:12:40 GMT

clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:

>In article <schuck.721013835@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>			[...]

>   Most goods and Services produced in Quebec could be bought in the
>   rest of Canada, the loyal part.
>                       ^^^^^

>It has been shown time and time again that most Quebecers do not want
>Separation.  Most would only vote for it if 'forced to' by certain
>political conditions.  Such Quebecers would not consider themselves
>disloyal in voting against Canada: they would more likely consider
>Canada disloyal for having forced them out of Confederation.

Pleeaaasssseee? Forced out???? Are you crazy?

Let's see -- off the top of my head:

1) A Quebecker has been Prime Minister for 23 out of the last 24
   years. How dreadfully we treat them.

2) Billions each year in equalization payments. Much more than they
   deserve because they aren't a poor province.

3) Multi-billion dollar megaprojects every year or so. Tough isn't it.

4) Half the civil service -- hundreds of thousands of jobs.

on and on and on.

The *only* valid reason for Quebec separation is self-determination.
If they no longer want to share a country with english-canada, then
fine , I can understand that.

But if I hear one more hard luck story about how badly they are
treated, then I am going to puke.

Canada has destroyed any chance of it being a wealthy country because
of it's national obsession with sucking up to Quebec. Billions wasted
on Meech and the CA. Years wasted. 

People hate the national elites because of this obsession.

It disgusts us.

It is time to treat Quebec as 1 out of 10 provinces and 2 territories
[soon to be 3]. Thats it. And if the Quebec psyche can't handle that
and wants to stalk off and start it's own country, then fine. But
don't expect a penny or an ounce of sympathy.

Let me end with a response to all those who say we should have free
trade with QUebec.

I've posted this example before and it's still valid.

Quebec dairy producers get 50% of the national quota.
BC with 12% of the population gets 5% of the quota.
Other provinces are similary shortchanged.

Do you think that BC will accept for one second Quebec keeping that
quota? Ha! Not a chance. Quebec will get 0 quota and the rest will be
distributed creating wealth and jobs in the dairy regions of Canada.

There are 1000's of situations like that one going on right now.

If you really think Canadians would accept continuing *any* of the
perks Quebec gets now -- you are as out of touch with reality as the
eiltes were on the YES side. It won't happen.



-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: ab.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy"))
Subject: Re: ATTENTION!! Conventioning New Democrats. We want information!!
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:59:22 GMT

yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:

>American (n) - A person resident or born on the Continient of America

Quick question, though. Would you rather call us
United Statesians? 

I'm sure the media outlets would hate it! :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bri Farenell (an American)	  	    |  GO CLARKSON HOCKEY!	
Clarkson '95			  	    |  GO ARIZONA FOOTBALL!
farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu            |  GO ARIZONA BASKETBALL!
AHL and ECAC contact for rec.sport.hockey   |  GO USA HOCKEY!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE 1992 CALDER CUP CHAMPION ADIRONDACK RED WINGS!	
	     Calder Cup Champs: 1981 1986 1989 1992	

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Subject: Re: Two/three/four Canadas ? Two Ontarios !
Reply-To: marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 17:08:28 GMT

>In article <1992Oct28.184832.13713@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>The problem with our parliamentary system right now is that the choice
>>at election time has been reduced to vote the party in power out of
>>office, and that elected politicians have abdicated their responsibility
>>to obtain mandates for their policies, even though they may be 
>>legitimately in office.
>>
>>This is true of the Tories in Ottawa, who should have sought a mandate
>>in an election for the GST, and for the NDP in Ontario, who before
>>proceeding with their agenda, should return to the voters for a mandate
>>on their policies.  The last election was a vote against the Liberals
>>and not a vote for NDP policies, and it is morally illegitimate in a
>>democratic society for the NDP to proceed with their policies without
>>another election, just as it was morally illegitimate for the federal
>>Tories to proceed with the GST or the constitution without another
>>election, because their previous mandate was for free trade.
>

The Tories discussed the GST during the last federal election campaign.  No-one
paid any attention, however, because all of the focus was on the FTA.

I almost voted NDP during the last Ontario election.  But I was scared off
by the spectre that Rae might actually get into office.

If leaders were expected to go to the voters for a mandate, referendum or
plebiscite every time some tough decisions were at hand we would never get
anything done.
-- 
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
Subject: Re: What would you do?  
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 18:56:06 GMT
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac

In article <chp.10.720798409@unb.ca> chp@unb.ca (Calvin Pert) writes:
>Its easy to critisize.

What else is there to do :-)

>If you were running for political office, what things would your 
>platform address (economy, jobs, social programs, debt...). And how 
>would you address them? 

Hmmm - here in B.C., I think I'd begin by banning the export of raw timber..

Cut entitlements to anyone earning > $40K a year (or thereabouts)
Combine welfare and unemployment programs into some sort of assured annual
income plan, with manadatory training for able-bodied folks who cannot find
jobs, legislate a balanced budget within twenty years or so, to get serious
about cutting the debt... increase R&D spending and encourage joint
government-industry planning to target potential high-tech markets, much
like the Japanese model, dump the CBC completely and let the marketplace
determine what sort of entertainment is aired... privatize the postal
service (sell the Crown corporation, or contract it out), contract prison
services out, freeze the civil service and target it for a 30% staff
reduction over perhaps ten years - attrition should accomplish that - and
provide incentive programs so that productive civil servants could be
rewarded, initiate federal education guidelines and encourage local
governments to pay educators according to the quality of their product,
based upon national testing, scrap the Indian Affairs portion of the DIAND
and mandate settlement of Native land claims within a fixed period (25 years
or so should make that possible), and grant Native bands financial control
of the funds now wasted by DIAND (some 80% of the DIAND budget is spent on
staffing and administration - very little gets to the folks who need it),
openly abrogate all Native treaties and provide a period of time during
which First Nations citizens would be entitled to all benefits of Canadian
citizenship (this might take 50-100 years, but it would be worth it in the
long run, imo), and reduce Native funding to zero by the end of this
period...
         
(That's enough babbling for a month or so of flamage, so I'll quit while I'm
behind :-))

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay)
Newsgroups: can.politics