HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: southiea@JSP.UMontreal.CA (Southiere Alain)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Which way to vote in Quebec
Date: 14 Sep 92 03:08:21 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Universite de Montreal

In article <1992Sep10.084522.23728@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>C'est interessant.
>
>Isn't it interesting:
>
>Mulroney, et Bourassa, qui veulent que l'entente passe, menacent[?]
>qu'une vote contre l'entente est une vote contre le Canada.
>
>Mulroney, and Bourassa, who want the agreement to pass, threaten us
>that a vote against the agreement is a vote against Canada.
>
>Parizeau, qui veut que l'entente ne passe pas, assure qu'une vote
>contre l'entente n'est pas une vote pour l'independence.
>
>Parizeau, who wants the agreement to be rejected, assures us that
>a vote against the agreement is not a vote for independence.
>
>Quoi doit-je faire? <:-}
>
>What must I do? <:-}
>
>-- 
>  ///==================================================================\\\
>  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
>  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
>  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||

Souvenons-nous que Trudeau a dit "un non a la souverainete est un oui pour
le Canada"... Les federalistes ne se sont pas plaint a l'epoque.

Remember, Trudeau said "no to sovereingty is a yes to Canada"... Federalists
didn't complain about that.


southiea@jsp.umontreal.ca
----> .SIG to come...
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
Subject: Re: Our brilliant leaders
Organization: York University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:36:14 GMT

Steve Potter, in a proxmirish mood :
> Maybe I could get a grant to do a study to find out if politicians
> prefer smoked salmon over jellied eels :-)

I prefer smoked politicians.

--
tony@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada
From: myahgula@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Michael Yahgulanaas)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: test
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 14:42:42 PDT
Organization: Questor|Free Usenet News|Vancouver, BC: +1 604 681 0670

this is a test for posting .


--
  Michael Yahgulanaas (myahgula@questor.wimsey.bc.ca)
    | QUESTOR:  Free Dial-in Public Access to Usenet Health, Medical News |
    | & AIDS forums, and Info on Global Environment at  +1 604  681 0670. |
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: cal@ee.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam)
Subject: Re: Why I will vote Yes on Oct.26 (DSY)
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:51:50 GMT

yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>This accord recognize within Canada that:
>
>1) All provinces are equal.
>

But, each provice will have a future veto over changes to "national
institutions" (the Crown, Senate, House of Commons, and Supreme Court).

This will make any future institutional reform extremely difficult and
block the evolution of the Senate toward greater effectiveness.


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

But changes to legislation on language and culture will require the
separate approval of francophone Senators, usually (but not necessarily)
from Quebec.

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

It will be Equal, and partly Elected.  Provinces will not be required to
choose Senators by popular election.  However, the Senate will
be ineffective in representing and safeguarding regional interests
with the exception of those pertaining to natural resource taxation.

Any other legislation, if defeated in the Senate, will be sent to a joint
session of the Senate (62 members) and the House of Commons (337 members).
It doesn't take a math genius to figure out that this joint session will
provide Quebec and Ontario with an imbalance -- in fact, their MP's will
outnumber the entire Senate.

>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.
>

It will not exactly be based on proportion to population.  In fact, it
will move farther than it is now.

With 18 new members:

Quebec:        1 MP per 70,000 people
Ontario:       1 MP per 86,000 people
BC & Alberta:  1 MP per 90,000 people

Additionally, Quebec will be guaranteed 25% of the House of Commons even
if its proportion of the population drops below that point.



As tired as many of us are over constitutional wrangling, where on earth
do so many people get the idea that by voting YES, this will be over and
done with?!?

YES or NO, there will still be arguements, first ministers conferences,
discussions, etc, ad nausiem!

By voting NO, this will continue as it has.
By voting YES, this will continue with greater difficulty with the possibly
of tearing this country apart like nothing we have seen so far.

Don't forget, under this constitution, any province has veto power!


Calvin Henry-Cotnam, CATE            |    MY CANADA INCLUDES CANADIANS!
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute      | I would really like this to include
Toronto, Ontario, Canada             | Quebec - but I won't hold my breath.
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Citoyen ou immigre
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:45:47 GMT
Reply-To: warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

From article <1992Sep10.205334.19418@IRO.UMontreal.CA>, by robichau@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Benoit Robichaud):
|> Parce que vous etes d'abord et avant tout (au yeux du gouvernement) un
|> "immigre".

Je me trouve souvent en desaccord avec M Potter mais la contribution de
M Robichaud ne peux passer sans commentaire.

Stephen Potter est d'abord et avant tout un citoyen.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: rep by pop
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: 9 Sep 92 22:00:35 GMT

Rheal Nadeau (nadeau@bnr.ca) wrote:
>Am I imagining things, or are the people who are screaming about the
>sacred principle of rep by pop the same ones who want the EEE Senate,
>which would give PEI the same representation in the Senate as Ontario?
>I'm sure some of them are the same people!
>
>Weird.  :-)

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

EEE supporters have often put forward the Australian and the US systems as
potential models. Both of these countries, to the best of my knowledge,
have one house that is designed to be rep-by-pop and another house that is
designed to be rep-by-state. Another model that has been tossed around is
the German model in which the upper house is equitable not equal, but the
lower house is nonetheless rep-by-pop. In other words, it has been
explicitly and implicitly stated by EEE supporters from day one that they
desired a system that contained one house that was rep-by-pop and one house
that was rep-by-province/region. Thus, there is no inconsistency in now
voicing opposition to changes that would move the Commons further away from
rep-by-pop.

As well, so far most of the support for the 25% floor has consisted of
berating opposers for being hypocritical or being into Quebec bashing.
Indeed, the only semblance of an argument that has been put forward for the
25% floor is that the Commons is not now pure rep-by-pop, so it's no big
deal to move it even further away from that ideal. It seems to be that EEE
supporters have been basing their arguments on principles/ideals (equality
of the provinces, protection from the tyranny of the majority) and have
been providing working examples of what they would like to see
(US/Australia/Germany). So, could Rheal or anyone else who supports the 25%
floor possibly tell us what principles/ideals this arrangement is supposed
to embody and possibly also show us some working examples?
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
From: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Constitution and Laws
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:32:11 GMT
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Originator: mackenzi@gauguin.mcrcim.mcgill.edu


Steve Potter writes:

|> Paragraph 23(1)(a), which is in the Canadian Charter of
|> Rights and Freedoms says:-
|> 
|>    "Citizens of Canada whose first language learned and
|>     understood is that of the English or French linguistic
|>     minority population of the province in which they
|>     reside ... have the right to have their children
|>     educated in that language."
|> 
|> 
|> Is that a law or a basis for a law?

That's a basis for a law.  Any talk about 'rights' belongs in a
constitution to prevent laws from acting against these rights.
Of course, not every single detailed right can be put into a 
constitution, but that's what we have the courts for - to apply
the rights in the constitution to specific cases.

Paul
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Our brilliant leaders
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:59:24 GMT

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

Ah, yes.  The one thing ALL Canadians can agree on.  The real referendum
question should perhaps be:

Do you prefer a Canada with or without politicians?


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep12.053250.11320@thinkage.on.ca> <12859@audetf>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:52:28 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <12859@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

   In article (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:
   >That's how YOU see it: us and them. (Don't take that as an insult. It's how
   >most everybody sees the world, it's just a question of defining which us's
   >we each belong to.) Alberta sees Central Canada, lumping Ontario and Quebec
   >together. The natives see it as Europeans/Asians/Africans & the old nations.
   >Quebec sees it as Quebec vs TROC, but much of the rest of the country sees
   >Quebec as just another element of "them".

   Look, instead of pure abstract rhetoric like this, consider the facts.
   Canada originated in the forced merging of a FRENCH and an ENGLISH
   colony. Period. TWO nations. This "union" didn't have anything to do
   with the natives, they were not consulted (altough some may argue that
   even the natives were involved in the french-english wars :-). The
   immigrants who came here integrated (in a few generation) one or the
   other of these "nations", including language and culture. Canada
   expanded to other regions (new provinces) who all eventually became
   anglophone, or where anglophone from the very begining.

ani yehudi.  ani mdaber anglit, tsefartit, v-ivrit.  mishpachi
mdaber anglit, az ani "anglophone", aval yesh l-mishpachi minhagim
yehudiim c-moh hayehudim b-eropa, b-aretz, v-b-artzot ha-brit.

yesh yoter m-derech ahat l-saveg canadim. lashon v-tarbut, hem lo
ha-oto davar.

--
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
From: michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Quebec law :: It's racist, Separation is unavoidable
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:21:00 GMT
Organization: Rhinoceros, chargez!

sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes :
>
>Ben moi je me dis qu'il n'est jamais trop tard pour bien
>faire. Il suffit d'aller a l'encontre de leur position.

La majorite des gens le disent, mais peu le font en dehors
des structures conventionnelles (elections).  La resistance
active, on n'est pas tres fort la-dessus... et c'est bien
dommage.  Et je ne parle pas de sortir les fusils, ni
les canons, mais de dire haut et fort ce qu'on pense
tout bas.  Et en choeur SVP!  Parce que tout seul,
le souffle et la voix finissent par manquer.

>On
>finira par les balancer par la fenetre. Evidemment, ca ne
>regle qu'une partie du probleme. Il faut ensuite les
>remplacer, ce qui n'est pas tellement evident.

C'est le coeur du probleme : par qui remplacer la bande de
polichinelles que la majorite a elu?  Ben voyons!  Par une
autre bande de polichinelles contre lesquels nous exprimerons
les meme frustrations, les memes revendications, les memes
plaintes, le meme mecontentement.  Et que la roue tourne...

>Peut-etre que
>je devrais me presenter comme candidat a la succession...

T'es Rhinoceros?  Ca mettrait au moins un peu d'humour.
Par les temps et la temperature qui courent..


--
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.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep9.215832.3106@mdivax1.uucp>
	<1992Sep10.183650.28754@pandora.matrox.com>
	<BuDswF.J8C@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:22:49 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <BuDswF.J8C@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:

   In article <1992Sep10.183650.28754@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

   >You assert the principles of rep-by-province and rep-by-pop, but ignore
   >what is most important to nationalist Quebecers, rep-by-nation.  It is

   Except Quebec is a province not a nation.  

You are right.  Quebec is not a sovereign entity (yet?), so it is not
a sovereign, political nation, such as those who get voting rights in
the General Assembly of the United Nations.

   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.

   and there are many, many francophones outside of Quebec.

You are right.  Quebec is not the "French Canadian" nation.  This is
why Quebec nationalists stopped calling themselves "canadien" towards
the end of the 1960s (a term that had survived from the 18th century),
and began to call themselves "quebecois".

But all resident citizens of Quebec are Quebecers, and thus (to all
non-racist Quebecers) Quebecois, since the words (should) mean the
same thing.









--
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
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Which way to vote in this damn Quebec?/Quoi voter dans se beau Quebec?
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:28:07 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <SBO.92Sep10120640@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>
>Tu aurais pu ajouter qu'il semble qu'un non du CSQ veut
>simplement dire un non a l'entente. (pourtant le Quebec
>n'est pas une societe distinct tant que l'entente n'est pas
>ratifie :-))
>
>  ,                          ,                           ,
>Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
>sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
>sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078

Le Quebec est une societe distincte, avec ou sans accord.  Avec l'accord,
il y a simplement quelques pseudo-droits illusoires et une signification
diluee.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Rebick on Canada AM
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:58:48 GMT

Judy Rebick, prez of NAC-SOW, was on Canada AM this morning. I only
saw a clip of it, but in it she said that one of the reasons she was
opposing the constitutional deal was that some governments would use
it to take away women's rights.

Did she ever say which governments? I can only assume Messrs. Rae and
Harcourt, they of the politically correct stripe, are not on the list.

I would hope if this is her main reason for opposing the deal she come
clean and identify exactly who she thinks will do this. Otherwise, I
will assume this is merely politics on her part.

Michael
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:42:26 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (John Paul Morrison) writes:
]I have noticed. What's your point? The rest of Canada should drop 
]everything just to save Quebec? Why should I be prepared to sacrifice my
]future in BC, any more than those in Quebec?

Especially when the deal is not that popular in Quebec.

]I don't believe the breakup of Canada would benefit anyone. Even in
]Quebec, they could would gain control of their future, but at great
]burden. This would be OK if there were no alternative, but I think there
]is a viable alternative.

I think there at least a few viable alternatives. However, from what I
see, the current "trend" in politics in english-Canada is 180 degrees
away from them. All we here is about "unity", pan-Canadian crap, etc.
And strangely enough, this comes from the Provinces rather than the
federal gvt (countrary to the Trudeau days). That's why, "nationalist"
approaches are being examined in Quebec.

]This is at least the second time we face Canada seperating because of
]Quebec. How does the rest of Canada react? They come up with a patchwork
]quilt which barely pleases anyone. We don't need a constitution that 
]just covers up the cracks. We need to start from scratch, and work
]out what will truly satisfy each province.

"because of Quebec". Hum. I would rather say "because of a system that
does not satisfies Quebec as a political entity".

]If we can't or won't do this, then we shouldn't be surprised if Quebec
]gets impatient, and wants out. If Quebec isn't really restless enough
]to leave, then we should be practical, and leave things alone. Chipping
]away at things will just bring the whole house down.

Exactly. Canada needs a MAJOR rework, not a little patch that doesn't
was away any of the fundamental problems of the country.

]Prelimanary polls suggest we've done a half baked job: there is a good 
]chance of a NO vote in Quebec. If it does pass, I bet it'll be out of
]fear. Is that what we aspire to? fear? Anyway, I strongly suspect that
]Bourrassa probably sold out Quebec for his own short term political
]interests. Quebecers" correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you are right. Bourassa did just that, and the deal might very
pass, and it will be because of fear and fatigue.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 00:49:54 GMT

In article <14893@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>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.

The Ottawa Citizen newspaper on page B5, Saturday 92-09-05, noted that
the complete fine print of the deal may be obtained from Canada
Communications Group, 47 Clarence Street, Ottawa, or by phoning either
613-941-1824 or 800-561-1188.

>Comments?

Read it before any of you say anything. If the Canada Communications
Group people are reading this, I highly encourage them to simply post
the complete text to this and many other relevent newsgroups so that
the entire world will have instant access to this very significant
document.

On those same pages of the newspaper is a summary of the deal.  Don't
bother looking it up in your library. It's far from detailed enough for
any of us to make any comments on.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada