HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: European Union
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:39:39 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

I finally found the information I was looking for in relation to the
allege "all countries are equal" in the European Union.

Basically, the union has 5 parts:

1) Le Conseil Europeen - constituted of the chief of the
   member-states. It is the superior authority. One representant per
   member-state. 

2) Le Conseil des Ministres - which adopts the "laws" of the union. Is
   constituted of 12 ministers per member-state.

3) La Commission - proposes texts for the Conseil des ministres and
   makes shure they are put in application. The Commission is named by
   the governements of the member-states.

4) Le Parlement Europeen - composed of 518 elected deputies (for 5
   years). Adopts the budget with le Conseil and is consulted on
   projects proposed by the commission. With Maastrich, it now has "un
   pouvoir de codecision". It's proportional to population.

5) La Cour de Justice - to warrant that everything is respected

BUT... Both the Conseil des Ministres and the Commission are assisted
in their duties by two commitees:

1) Comite economique et social
2) Comite des regions

Each of these commitees consist on a fixed number of members per
member states:

Germany: 24
France: 24
UK: 24
Italy: 24
Spain: 21
Belgium: 12
Grece: 12
Netherlands: 12
Portugal: 12
Irland: 9
Denmark: 9
Luxembourg: 6

-- 
                                                       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: Usenet newsgroups covering the US presidential election
Organization: Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 03:42:49 GMT

Here they are:

talk.politics.misc
alt.politics.elections
alt.politics.clinton
alt.politics.bush
alt.politics.perot
alt.politics.correct
alt.politics.marrou
alt.politics.democrats.clinton
alt.politics.democrats
alt.politics.democrats.house
alt.politics.democrats.senate
alt.politics.democrats.governors
alt.politics.democrats.d
alt.politics.usa.misc
alt.politics.usa.constitution
alt.politics.reform
alt.politics.libertarian

I thought I'd mention them since lately the traffic has been
heavy, and a few of the threads feature truly original and
sometimes insightful opinion.

Those Americans can be rather colourful at times!

I already know that the Canadian elections in 1993 will never
generate that amount of traffic.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: sex and the senate
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 14:43:44 GMT

In article <dregeczi.716367043@sfu.ca> dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca (David Joseph Regeczi) writes:
>
>                                                Get more _qualified_ women
>on the ballet to vote for rather than just assigning them into the Senate.
        ^^^^^^

Karen Kain for Senator?  Sounds good to me...  :-)

(Sorry, couldn't resist!  Heck, I didn't even try to resist.)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:53:52 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 541

From article <12839@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):

> Fundamentally, Canada has two Nations: English Canada & Quebec (french
> Canada).
> 

There is another denial of the English community in Quebec's existence.
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 8 Sep 92 11:45:40 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <Bu4rBE.40r@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>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.


Most people who achieve extremely high public office show
abilities which would make them "untypical". Now why
do you say that people born of French speaking and English
speaking parents in Quebec, people who immersed themselves 
in the culture of that entity to the extent of leading
the Quiet Revolution, are incapable of representing the
interests of Quebec.

I believe as I have stated before, it is because you
do not share the ideals of the Quiet Revolution.
You would wish to turn the clock back to the time
when the rural regions of Quebec knew nothing of the
outside world.

-- 
i.sinature
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Which way to vote in this damn Quebec?/Quoi voter dans se beau 
    Quebec?
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:09:41 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 738

From article <BuKwIv.K67@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 Denis Beauregard writes:-

> 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.
> 


Salud Denis!
Veuillez, expliquer "simplement quelques pseudo-droits illusoires"?

Est ce que c'est comme le non-application de para. 23(1)(a) a cause de
para 59? :-)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| 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: rep by pop
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:45:31 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:

>Except Quebec is a province not a nation.  They are not the "French nation"
>either - they are 1/6 anglophone [...]

That's not what many Quebecers claim.  You may disagree, but Quebec is
insisting, and threatening to separate.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:46:40 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:

> But I truly wonder why the many past and present deviations from rep by pop
> in favor of other provinces draw so little comment, while one (potentially)
> in favor of Quebec is seen as outrageous and unacceptable.

Maybe the other provinces received the benefits as a side effect of federal
politics (they didn't ask for it), while Quebec screams for benefits that it
claims it deserves (and TROC doesn't agree).

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: RE: election sun rising
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:45:30 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Sep6.711.9334@dosgate> stephanie.fysh@canrem.com (stephanie fysh) writes:
>
>Actually, they were elected just as much as Mulroney or Bourassa or
>whoever else was elected.  We don't ever vote for a PM or Premier in our
>parliamentary system.  We vote *only* for our own riding's MPs or MPPs
>or MLAs.  Then, the Gov-Gen or Lt-Gov asks the clearly winning party to
>form a government, and that government then chooses the Premier or PM.
>Traditionally, this person is the party leader.  However, a party leader
>who did not win his or her own seat could not become PM or Premier, even
>if 40 or 50% of the province's voters *thought* that's who they were
>voting for.
>
Party leaders defeated in their own riding *can* become Premier/Prime
Minister.  They do have to find a seat via a by-election within a
reasonable time, but they can be appointed Premier/PM before winning
a seat.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Senate/House of common
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:51:00 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal


Here's a little question:

In this country, in order to pass a law we have the
following (roughly):
        
        1. Someone get's a brilliant idea !
        2. It is proposed and debated in the house of common
        3. It is voted on by the house of common
        4. If it passes in the house of common it now
           has to be approved by the senate


Suppose now that we have a "true" EEE senate (50%+ against
any law rejects that law for good)


In order to finally get a law you need to reach "bingo" So
what is the difference, to obtain the end result, between?:

        a) rep. by pop house of common and "true" EEE senate

         bright        rep by pop    yes  Equal  yes
         idea   ----->house of common---->senate------>bingo
                           | no             | no
                           v                v
                         kapute           kapute

        b) rep. by pop+EE senate and Equal rep. in the house
           of common
                                         rep by
        bright           Equal       yes  pop    yes
        idea    ----->house of common---->senate------>bingo
                           | no             | no
                           v                v
                         kapute           kapute
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:42:22 GMT

In article <12815@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>This is also the definition of a Confederation (Canada is therefore
>not a Confederation, and Switzerland is) as opposed to a Federation
>(where a "strong" central government rules (Russia, Canada, ...).
>

Canada has a weak central government as far as federations go...
the ratio of provinical to federal spending is at least the
second largest, if not the largest for any federation in the world.

>]-The provinces elect an equal national government to represent its interests.
>I'm not shure I would still favour a totally provincaly equal system.
>PEI (maybee even Yukon or the NWT!) is still an aberation. Europe did
>not go for this approach (even if all Countries are free to join or
>not the EEC). The UN does not work that way either, with 5 superpowers
>having a veto.
>

The governing council of the EC which wields the power has 1 vote
per country regardless of size.  The European Parliament is 
an essential powerless body.

>I doubt however that most Canadian Provinces would agree with a real
>decentralized government.

We have one of the most decentralized federations in the world.

Gerald
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English school: quotes
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:23:55 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 789

From article <SBO.92Sep5113645@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>, by sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher):
>>>>>> On 5 Sep 92 12:44:11 GMT, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) said:
>   > X-Bytes: 6368
> 
>   > I repeat: Quebec is a *predominantly* francophone society. Le "visage"
>   > francais du Quebec est un masque!. C'est bien evident.
> 
> A moins qu'il y ait deux visages, dont l'un d'eux soit
> predominant et francais :-) 

Good, that's much better. Now we are making some progress.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Where to get the text of the agreement (was Re: The new agreement)
Date: 7 Sep 92 01:48:54 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

>>>>> On 6 Sep 92 14:25:17 GMT, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) said:
  > X-Bytes: 845

 > From article <14861@mindlink.bc.ca>, by Walter_Gorlitz@mindlink.bc.ca
 >>I would like to read the entire text of the agreement before I vote on it.
 >>--
 >>             Signature?  I'm a Mac user, why do I need a signature?
 >> wgorlitz@wiz.wimsey.bc.ca        walter gorlitz
                        ^^^^^
 > Page A6-A7 of saturday's Gazette.
                            ^^^^^^^
Je ne savais pas que The Gazette etait publie en
Brittish-Columbia! :-)
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
Xref: sparky can.politics:6794 soc.culture.canada:6567
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Why I will vote Yes on Oct.26 (DSY)
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:08:38 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

>>>>> On 14 Sep 92 12:50:28 GMT, pasward@maytag (Paul A.S. Ward) said:

  > In article <1RF2qB3w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:

  > >3) Quebec's Distinct Society is now subject to the Charter, and not the other
  > >   way around.

  > Which still has the not-withstanding clause (Why, why, why does Quebec
  > want more power to promote the French culture, when the not-withstanding
  > clause allows them (or any other province for that matter) to do whatever
  > they please?)

Oh! Mais vous ne mentionnez pas que des que la clause
nonobstant est utilisee, une avalanche d'insulte se produit.

Je ne crois donc pas que la clause non-obstant soit un
mecanisme qui pourra etre utiliser sans provoquer des
remous.

Voyez-vous, la clause non-obstant est moyen de dernier
recours. Ce qui veut dire que cette clause est utilise pour
renverser des decisions. Des qu'une decision sera renversee,
il y aura invariablement des gens qui viendront dire: "Why
can't they do like evebody else? They are a bunch of this or
a bunch of that...they can't respect the charter of this or
that law... Quebec is a province like every other
provinces..." Et la pagaille aura repris.
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:32:58 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.

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.  :-(

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:51:57 GMT

In article <12807@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>I didn't read the book, but from the [subjective] interpretation that
>was given on the net, I would say that, even if her vision seems
>somewhat of an exageration, there is some truth in it as well. Most
>notably, the theory that the anglo-quebecois try to have their
>collective rights as "individual rights".

Frankly, all this talk about "individual rights" and "collective
rights" is confusing me.  (And if you don't believe I'm confused, read
my version of history that substituted Napoleon for Louis XV.  Oh boy!
:-) )

Now, what is the difference between individual and collective rights?
I've seen this used in discussing the sign law - but if someone puts up
a sign saying "McKenna's Flowers", is he exercising his individual
right as a businessman, or is he an agent-provocateur for the
anglophone oppressors?

This dichotomy keeps coming up in discussing Steve's complaints about
his kids going to French school.  Is Steve claiming individual rights,
or rights as a member of a collectivity?  And when Denis opposes Steve,
is he defending HIS individual rights, or the collective rights of
French Canadians?  (In Steve's case, it sounds at first like individual
rights, till we realize that this applies only to anglophones in Quebec
because they form a sizable minority and have their own school system.
So, collective rights there, and collective rights for Denis as well,
since HIS individual rights aren't affected by which school someone
else's kids goes to.)  Obviously, some people are making distinctions
here that escape me.

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.

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca (David Joseph Regeczi)
Subject: Re: sex and the senate
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:50:43 GMT

nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>In article <gill.716249219@physics.ubc.ca> gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill) writes:
>>
>>             Or the more likely situation, that only 3 women decide to run 
>>and enter the Senate by acclamation.

>Hmm, this brings up an interesting thought.  Wouldn't such a scenario
>encourage MORE women to run?

>In an ideal world, all people would have an equal chance at any
>opportunity, with ability the only factor.  Unfortunately, in the
>modern world, too many people (women, minorities, even some of us white
>males) believe they DON'T have an equal shot at it (whatever "it" may
>be).  So they don't try - why court failure?  So women avoid "male"
>professions (from engineering to politics), members of various
>minorities let their ambitions die.  And of course, this only
>perpetuates the stereotypes.

I think everyone (or nearly everyone) is agreed that women, today, are at
a disadvantage in most areas, including politics.  But we should be taking
on the problems of why women aren't going into politics (funding, etc) rather
than forcing women in politics through quotas.  Get more _qualified_ women
on the ballet to vote for rather than just assigning them into the Senate.

If elections were only about a persons sex, then women should win every time
as women make up 53% of the population.  Just my $.03 plus GST worth.
                         
>The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
|   David Joseph Regeczi              |  If crime fighters fight crime...    | 
|   Simon Fraser University           |  and fire fighters fight fires...    | 
|   Vancouver, BC, Canada             |  then what do freedom fighters fight?|  
|   dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca            |  G.Carland                           |
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Future "Projections"
Date: 7 Sep 92 20:04:36 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <417@catnix.UUCP> michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond) writes:
>
>Although Bill 101 has its place, there is no excuse, no
>justification for Bill 178.  It is humiliating for every
>single citizen of the province of Quebec.  Although
>it was triggered by the defeat of the Meech Lake Accord,
>it's a piece of shit, a huge piece of shit.  I sometimes
>wonder if Boubou did not take too many laxatives before
>promulgating (?) this crap.

Bill 178 was *not* triggered by the defeat of the Meech Lake Accord.
It preceded that defeat.  IMO, it caused that defeat.  At the
time Bill 178 was passed, Meech had been approved by every province
except Manitoba and New Brunswick.  The ratification process was
proceeding in Manitoba, and I feel quite sure that if N.B. was the
lone holdout, it would have quickly fallen into line.

The passage of Bill 178 greatly strengthened opposition to Meech
in Manitoba (and elsewhere).  Even though there was no formal
link between the notwithstanding clause as used in 178 and the
distinct society clause in Meech, the events surrounding 178 raised
many fears about how the distinct society clause would be used.
>
>Before Bill 178, my Irish neighbour was very happy in Quebec.
>Even Bill 101 was not causing him too much problems.  He sent
>his last 2 children to "french immersion", was proud and
>happy to speak to me in French although I could speak good
>English with him.  Since this Bill 178, he hasn't stopped
>complaining about Quebec, and will not talk to me in
>French anymore.  It is very very sad, because he is
>such a nice person.  But he has been hurt, deeply.
>And so was I... par ricochet.
>
I doubt that your neighbor really liked the sign provisions of
Bill 101.  Most anglo-Quebecers were patiently awaiting
the Supreme Court decision on these provisions, confident
of victory and also aware of the Liberal Party's explicit
promises to allow bilingual signs (with French predominant).
I think it was the betrayal of this promise, and the implicit message
that one's language is evil/dangerous, that hurt people the most.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics