HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dale@dale.CAM.ORG (Dale Wharton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: NAFTA analysis--authors, resource people
Date: 18 Dec 92 01:52:25 GMT
Organization: private


         NAFTA analysis--authors, resource people
Date:    16 Dec 92 07:56 PST
Source:  Kai Mander <kmander@igc.apc.org>
         Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

U.S. CITIZENS' ANALYSIS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Authors and resource people:

Environment
John Audley (coordinator)
Sierra Club
408 C Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
phone: (202) 675-6276

Alex Hittle
Friends of the Earth
218 D Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
phone: (202) 544-2600

Energy Trade
Cam Duncan
Greenpeace USA
1436 U Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
phone: (202) 462-1177

Agriculture
Nancy F. Danielson
National Farmers Union
600 Maryland Avenue SW
  Suite 202 West
Washington, DC 20024
phone: (202)554-1600

Karen Lehman (coordinator)
Mark Ritchie
Institute for Agriculture
  and Trade Policy
1313 5th Street SE, Suite 303
Minneapolis, MN 55414-1546
phone: (612) 379-5980

Leslie Nutly
United Food and Commericial
  Workers International Union
1775 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
phone: (202) 223-3111

Kathy Ozer
National Family Farm Coalition
110 Maryland Ave. NE, Suite 205
Washington, DC 20002
phone: (202) 543-5675

Labor
Mark Anderson
AFL-CIO
815 16th Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
phone: (202) 637-5178

Lance Compa
National Lawyers Guild
  Task Force on Free Trade
1511 K Street NW, #900
Washington, DC 20005
phone: (202) 393-0808

Pharis Harvey
International Labor Rights
  Education and Research Fund
100 Maryland Avenue NE
Box 74
Washington, DC 20002
phone: (202) 544-7198

John Howley
Service Employees
 International Union
1313 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
phone: (202) 898-3343

Mehrene Larudee
University of Massachusetts
Department of Economics
Thompson Hall
Amherst, MA 01003
phone: (413) 549-0116

Thea Lee (coordinator)
Economic Policy Institute
1730 Rhode Island Avenue NW
  Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
phone: (202) 775-8810

Dave Ranney
University of Illinois
P.O. Box 4348 (M/C 348)
Chicago, IL 60680
phone: (312) 996-2126

Investment
John Cavanagh
Institute for Policy Studies
1601 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20009
phone: (202) 234-9382

Automotive Sector
Steve Beckman
UAW
1757 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
phone: (202) 828-8500

Rules of Origin
Mark Anderson (see Labor)

Steve Beckman (see Automotive)

Pharis Harvey (coordinator)
(see Labor)

Dispute Resolution
Lance Compa (see Labor)

Lori Wallach
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20005
phone: (202) 546-4996

Preemption of State Law
Lance Compa (see Labor)

Intellectual Property
Beth Burrows (Coordinator)
Fair Trade Campaign
c/o Washington Biotechnology
  Action Council
20319 92nd Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98020
phone: (206) 775-5383

Financial Services
Nikos Valence
Fair Trade Campaign
410 West 25th Street
New York, NY 10001
phone: (212) 627-2314

Enterprise for the Americas
Karen Hansen-Kuhn
Steve Hellinger
The Development GAP
1400 I Street NW, Suite 520
Washington, DC 20005
phone: (202) 898-1566
Xref: sparky can.politics:10905 can.general:6064 soc.culture.canada:9489
From: mousseau@convex.cl.msu.edu (normand mousseau)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Legalized Discrimination in Quebec
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:15:38 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University, East Lansing

In article <1992Dec14.102807.29392@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca 
(Steve Potter) writes:

>Article (26)(3) of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
>Freedoms reads:-
>
>"Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be
> given to their children."
>
>That right to chooses is denied from most people in Quebec, and in particular
>from English-speaking families who would like to send their children to
>existing, publicly funded English schools in the province!
>

   Faux, le droit de choisir est garanti pour tous les parents du Quebec.
La charte ne mentionne pas que l'enseignement doit etre gratuit.  Au Quebec, un
parent peut choisir le type d'enseignement qu'il desire pour son enfant.
Toutefois, il est possible que le gouvernement refuse de payer pour ce choix
et dans ce cas, le parent devra debourser de sa poche les couts de l'education
de son enfant.

	Je ne vois pas en quoi ceci viole l'article 26(3) de la declaration
des Nations Unies.

	Normand 
Xref: sparky can.politics:10731 can.general:5957 soc.culture.canada:9364
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Legalized Discrimination in Quebec
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:57:01 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2141

From article <1992Dec11.161153.19042@cerberus.ulaval.ca>, by duquet@astro.phy.ulaval.ca (Jean-Remi Duquet):
>
> Ok, can we settle this fallacy for a while ? 
                         ^^^^^^^

???

> 
> [comments comparing availibility of minority language schooling in Quebec
>  versus ROC deleted]
>

More then 99% of French mother tongue children throughout Canada are currently
enrolled in French schools. (Statistics were posted not so long ago.)

Even if less than 1% were enrolled in ROC, it would NOT be a justification for
denying access in Quebec.

> 3) Hence, if the premices are right of course, Anglo-quebecers are not denied
> any right granted to any other linguistic minority in the country as far as
> education is concerned.
> 

Quebec is the ONLY province that has legislation specifically denying access
to minority language schooling. :-(

> 4) Now, granted that the english community in Quebec have access, as a whole,
> to a better education system in their own language, the government has the
> right to fix the limits of the population who can use this service.

Accepting the assertion that the English education system in Quebec is better
than the French (and I'm not sure that it is), why should a government have
a "right to fix the limits of the population who can use this service"?

Does the same government have a "right to fix the limits of the population"
who can benefit from medicare in certain health care institutions? :-(

> 5) So, as someone posted earlier on this network, a far as education of the
> minorities is concerned, Quebec has no lessons to receive from any province
> in Canada. Clean your own backyard first.

"I'm not the only one."

"I didn't start it."

:-(

>
> [comparison with other provinces]
>
> Still 7 provinces missing...
> 

Is there a need to post the statistics again?
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: No Senate Elections
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 21:40:52 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: can

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <f-T=k=#@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>
>>I suspect that if Mulroney were to start selecting elected senators, that
>>someone (probably from Ontario or Quebec) would challenge the senate election
>>law under section 42(1)(b) of the Constitution.  I figure they'd win (since
>>the wording is quite clear), but others have argued differently (tho' none of
>>us are actually constitutional lawyers).
>>
>
>There is nothing in the constitution to stop Mulroney from appointing
>anyone that meas the qualifications in the exisiting constitution...
>and that means he can appoint anyone who is Elected who meets the
>constitutional qualifications and any other qualifications he might
>impose as prime minister.
>
>Appointment does not preclude democracy...and democracy does not
>require a constitutional amendment. 
>
The constitution specifically says that changing the method of selecting
senators requires a constitutional amendment (42(1)(b)).  Mulroney _can_
appoint whoever he chooses, including those that have been selected by
electoral processes.  But electoral processes require laws to govern
them, and such laws are arguably unconstitutional -- and would (I am
sure) be challenged in the courts.  The court _might_ strike those laws
down as being a _de_facto_ change of the method of selecting senators.

Of course, the court _might_not_ strike down those laws, either.  But 
then the election/appointment combination would still only continue at 
the will of the Prime Minister (since the power to legislate the 
appointment process would definitely be _ultra_vires_).

To summarize, democracy is _possible_, but it would be a tenuous thing
at best.

...mark young
From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Mulroney's stand on censorship
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 18:08:20 EST
Reply-To: marc@tanda.isis.org
Distribution: na
Organization: Thibault & Friends

Gentlefolk,

        An interesting juxtaposition in this week's news:

        - Brian met with Virginie Lariviere, the 14-year-old stooge
        for a multi-million-dollar lobby to control TV broadcast
        content, and promised to take personal charge of the cleanup.

        - Brian sent a flunky to meet with Salmon Rushdie.

        Have we all got the message?

        Cheers,
                Marc


-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQBNAiqxYTkAAAECALfeHYp0yC80s1ScFvJSpj5eSCAO+hihtneFrrn+vuEcSavh
AAUwpIUGyV2N8n+lFTPnnLc42Ms+c8PJUPYKVI8ABRG0I01hcmMgVGhpYmF1bHQg
PG1hcmNAdGFuZGEuaXNpcy5vcmc+
=HLnv
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

                
Xref: sparky can.politics:10658 can.general:5905 soc.culture.canada:9309
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Legalized Discrimination in Quebec
From: bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca (Brad Crockett)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 21:27:45 PST
Organization: Private system in Duncan, BC, Canada

O2NY <O2NY@UNB.CA> writes:

> Quebec has not had a positive population growth, compared to the rest
> of Canada in thirty years. The french culture has not grown, you have
> simply gotten rid of any competition. The people who don't like the
> rules leave, eventually you will have your french culture, but it will
> not grow, it will remain stagnant until you finally decide to join the
> rest of it and grow.

It seems that we have a tendency to equate 'growth' with 'getting
bigger'.  We can't all continue to get bigger.  Maybe Quebec just
wants to stay the same size and develop socially.  A stable
population does not necessarily mean a stagnant society.

Brad Crockett, Duncan, British Columbia, Canada
INTERNET: bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca
     CIS: 72570.2154@compuserv.com
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Legalized Discrimination in Quebec
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:55:01 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <12DEC92.14087944.0063@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> O2NY@UNB.CA (O2NY) writes:
]Well Denis, for you, I checked. My roomates father is on the parent
]teachers association for the french school board here in NB. I asked
]him about French students having english textbooks. Do you what his
]answer was?!

I think he was talking about universities, not high school. I had to
use almost exclusively english books at Ottawa U (in rare french
course that I had). Their excuse was that "french books" don't exist.
I am sure France uses english books in its universities... And I'm not
talking about graduate studies.

](i) NB allows anybody to choose to educate themselves in any language
]    they wish. Quebec does not.

What about the other provinces?
Quebec not only allows english canadians to be educated in english,
but it provides publicly-funded schools to do so virtualy anywhere.
Quebec has three english universities. French education is NOT widely
available in Canada.

](ii) the UN has declared the Quebec legislation unfair and oppressive
]    to minorities in Quebec.

When? I've never heard of that. In fact, I've heard the opposite. The
UN said that the anglophone minority in Quebec was among the
best-treated in the world.

](iii) the French culture cannot use the excuse that there culture is
]    in danger, because they have sufficient population to maintain it
]    already.

What do you know about this? In a few generations, the only place
where there will still be francophones in Canada will be Quebec. 

](iv) citing NB as an example freedom to choose the language of
]    education is a RIGHT which can and should be provided if the
]    population of minorities warrents it.

New-Brunswick is a BILINGUAL province. The only officially bilingual
province in Canada. NB has a 60/40 anglo/franco population while
Quebec has a 85/15 franco/anglo population.

](v) Quebec, for  the most part, has a population which warrents this,
]    as well as facilities already in existance. These facilities are
]    are currently running at under capacity.

Canada has succeeded in marginalising french in all provinces but
Quebec and NB by means of oppressive laws which were removed after
they achieved their goals. 

]So we have gone through the facts, now why does the Quebec government
]still insist on these oppressive laws?

What "oppresive" law? The law that says that immigrants into a francophone
province must go to french school? I don't see why anglo immigrants
shall be treated differently than other immigrants.


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics,talk.politics.guns
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Gun Control Petition
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 13:43:31 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Followup-To: talk.politics.guns

brycerw@brandonu.ca wrote:
:And guns are not designed to kill, as is too eagerly pointed out.  It is
:designed only to fire a projectile accurately.  It is the person who adds the
:intention to kill.

brycerw@brandonu.ca writes:
>O.K.  Let's talk about this a bit more.  Obviously the point I was trying to 
>make here wasn't as evident as I thought it was.
>
>Let's go back to the 1800's for a sec.  [Oh, Boy!]
>
>Sure, you can kill someone with a gun.  But that means running up the the guy
>and using the gun like a club.  Just as you would a club, a pipe, etc.  Falls
>under the same general category as killing someone with a car.
>
But what about the oft' quoted "Guns don't kill; people kill"?

The only way a person can kill someone -- using your argument -- is by going
up to them and throttling or pummeling them to death.  Using a gun to fire
bullets "accurately and safely" into that person's body doesn't count as a
gun killing, so it can hardly count as a person killing.

>But you'll say that since the gun is designed specifically to fire that
>projectile designed to kill something, that the gun is designed to kill
>something.  I disagree.  Some calibres are not designed with the intent to
>kill.  Some are designed for target shooting.  (think the .177 calibre fits
>here).  Now, it can be used to kill someone, but it was not designed to.
>Now the gun designed for the target calibre is only designed to more accurately
>fire that projectile.
>
This is SOPHISTRY.  The gun designed to fire the bullet designed to kill is,
by extension, designed to kill.

The existance of certain calibre guns/ammo designed for other purposes no more
denies the general statement than the existance of suicidal people denies the
fundamental human desire to live.

>The point I'm trying to make here is, while you can use a gun to kill someone,
>that is not it's designed purpose.  I haven't heard of many instances where
>someone has used a gun as a club to hit a guy enough times to kill someone.
>It is the bullet that is designed to kill/stop someone/something for a
>particular situation.  The gun is designed only as a tool to accurately and 
>safely fire that projectile.  Nothing more.  And we don't need that gun to
>fire that projectile.  A fire will work fine, as will my example following.
[BS deleted]

Your "Bullet Sequencer" is a home-made gun.  It falls into the same category
as sharpened screw-drivers.

Followups directed to talk.politics.guns.

...mark young
Newsgroups: can.vlsi
From: rslade@fraser.sfu.ca (Robert Slade)
Subject: Questions - NOT! (H2H)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:07:55 GMT

INTRVW7.H2H   921123
 
                         Questions - NOT!
 
As the vernacular phrase has it, there are some very popular
questions that really do not provide you with helpful information.
 
Let's say you're in an interview situation.  What question do you
use most?  No, not that one.  No, I mean when you are trying to find
out what a candidate would do on the job.  Well, *suppose* they got
the job.  Yes, that's right, a hypothetical question.
 
Avoid hypothetical questions.  Interviewers make two mistakes when
asking situational questions, often both at the same time.  On the
one hand, the question can be completely "blue sky" with no basis in
reality.  The only thing an answer to this can tell you is whether
the candidate is either a mindreader, or has an imagination that is
identical to yours.  (In either case, don't hire them.)  The other
mistake is to present a current problem as a hypothetical one.  In
this case, the interviewee is never presented with sufficient
information, and has only about a ten percent chance of hitting on
the "right" answer.
 
Often inexperienced interviewers use the hypothetical question as a
"stress test".  This is absolutely ridiculous.  "Suppose you are
overworked, under resourced and have a short deadline.  Suddenly, an
impossible task lands on your desk.  What do you do?"  "Well, sir, I
work with the strength of ten, because my heart is pure."  An
unrealistic question is going to get an unrealistic answer.  I once
saw a question put to a secretarial candidate to the effect that it
was Friday morning, she had a noon deadline, the system with the
information had crashed, and suddenly a huge photocopy run had to be
done *right then*.  Her response was that she'd cry.  If it had been
up to me, I would have hired her on the spot.  She was obviously the
only honest candidate we'd seen all morning.
 
It is possible to find out a lot about the candidate's experience
and problem solving skills by giving them the beginnings of a real
situation and then letting them question you.  The questions that
they ask, and the routes they pursue, will give you good
indications.  Remember, however, that their may not be only one
"path" to the solution.  Someone who may appear to be departing on a
tangent, may suddenly zero in on the solution much faster than you
thought possible.  (Hire this person.)  Also, note that you should
have all possible information in order for the "test" to be fair.
 
copyright Robert M. Slade, 1992   INTRVW7.H2H   921123
Newsgroups: can.jobs
From: ttocek@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Tomas Tocek)
Subject: Re: MAKE MONEY WITH PC
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:58:44 GMT

>>>>>-> 1. Sell it
>>>>>   2. Rent it out
>>>>	3. Get people to pay for time to beat it over the monitor with
>>>>	   a sledgehammer.
>>	4. Sell tickets to watch MS Windows programmers pull their hair out
>>	   trying to make a useful GUI application.
>       5. Provide a hardcopy atmospheric motion dispersal prevention
>          service. (Rent-a-paperweight) P->
        6. Copy games on it and sell them for half price.
        7. Sell its UPS (uniterruptable power supply) and monitor
           as a light source in case of a power failure.

Newsgroups: can.jobs
From: goldfish@panix.com (Paul Goldsmith)
Subject: Re: Working Temporarily in Canada
Summary: first hand experience
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:46:35 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC
Keywords: Canada,CEC,employment,visa

In article <1992Dec17.184700.28889@sol.UVic.CA> mbond@ugly.UVic.CA (Michael  Bond) writes:
>
>Since we are we are talking about temporaroutside our native country....
>
>What is required for a Canadian to work in the U.S. ?
>What is the difference if the scenario is permanent?

Speaking from first hand experience (note the return address) what
you have to do is contact the American consulate and ask for the
brochure on working in the States on a "TC" visa.

This brocuure will outline which jobs are applicable.  (the categories
include about two pages of mostly professional type jobs) 

Go and talk to your friendly local immigration officer ant an American
border corssing near you :-) and get from them a list of what to do.  I
ended up making a total of two trips to the border, one for information,
and one to actually do the thing.  The first trip was invaluable because
the officer gave me a detailed list of what I needed, including
dictating verbatim the letter my employer should write.  (they are a big
company and the personnel people thought they knew what to write, so
that was a hurdle in itself.)  I read the text to the personnel officer
and convinced her to use the immigration officer's wording.

Get your passport in order (sort of obvious after the fact)

If you show up, as I did with a folder full of papers (including a 
second copy of everything to leave with immigration) you can be through 
in about half an hour.  It was a very pleasant experience, and the 
border guards thanked me when I left for being so organized and
preparing everything in advance.

in brief:

	1) check with the American Consulate
	2) visit American immigration and have them tell you what
	   documents to bring
	3) do a "dry run" to verify that all the documents are in order
	4) on the "big day" go well fed, well rested, keep your humour
	   up and remember that the guy on the other side of the desk
	   wants things to go smooth also.

(-:
	5) If you feel cockey enough when you leave and say something
	   like "aren't you guys supposed to hastle everybody?" you
	   might have him say "sorry, we're not all assholes" like
	   I did.
--
	goldfish
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Working Temporarily in Canada
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:53:18 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1079

From article <coast-a_724582802@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, by periodic@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Periodic Manager):
> ***************************************************************************
> In response to the numerous inquiries Coast Personnel Services Ltd.  has
> .....

Anyone arriving in Quebec with children should apply for their "eligibility
for instruction in English in Quebec" certificates while they have "temporary
resident" status.

Once "Landed Immigrant" status has been obtained there is no way of enrolling
one's children in English schools in Quebec without using expensive, un-
subsidised, private English schools.

That's right. Tempoorary residents have more rights than permanent residents
in Quebec! (At least as far as access to schooling is concerned) :-(

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.jobs