HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:04:56 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1617

From article <12993@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):
> In article <1992Sep24.160221.24211@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>Quebec has no legal or constitutional right to separate.
> 
> Why not?
> I've never seen any clear legal statement for or against it.
> 

I'll see if I can find a reference for you.

> My personal oppinion is that it would probably be (in a world context)
> one of the most easy separation to ever occur. The USSR Republics did
> it, Croation and Slovenia did it (with a lot of trouble),
> Czecoslovakia is doing it:

Quebec history does not compare with that of baltic or slavic countries.

I think the phrase "with a lot of trouble" could be an understatement w.r.t.
Quebec.

> I don't see why separation would not be
> recognized here, where the country is a lot more stable than the above
> mentioned, and where Quebec already has a democratic Governement, as
> well as official representants in quite a few countries.
> 

How stable do you think Quebec would be if an attempt to declare independence
was made?

> Furthermore, there is the "droit a l'autodetermination des peuples", a
> principle defined by the United Nations.

The English community in "English-Quebec" could use the same argument to
separate from "Nouveau-Quebec".

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| 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: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:16:01 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <BvG97p.ILD@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>C'est quoi ca?  Il y a des endroits au centre-ville de Montreal ou il
>est impossible d'avoir une reponse en francais.  Pas necessairement
>des restaurants.  Je connais un certain stationnement ou l'employe
>refuse systematiquement de repondre en francais.
>

And I know of places where people refuse to give service in English.
A I also know of net posters who complain about lazy immigrants.
So before you begin to claim that ignorance and insensitivity are
properties of English Canda, you had better procure a mirror.





-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:35:00 GMT

In article <BvEFsF.5DF@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>Except that "What we get" is what we asked for. Rep by pop. Native rights.
>Gender rights. Linguistic rights. Federal sharing of power.

Of course we in BC do not get Rep by pop.

Native rights is one of the "areas where the consensus is to proceed
with a political accord."

Gender rights are in the Canada clause, provided of course, one is not
an aboriginal women in which case your rights are one of the "areas
where the consensus is to proceed with a political accord."

Linguistic rights provided of course that you do not happen to belong
to the wrong language group in the wrong province.

Federal sharing of power is, of course a series of clauses indicating
"areas where the consensus is to proceed with a political accord."

Out of curiosity, just when did we ask for "the consensus is to proceed
with a political accord"?
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Boubou - Capitaine Bullsh*t
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:26:32 GMT

In article <13068@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>Y a-t-il quelqun qui a entendu Boubou hier?
>Incroyable sa logique.

Not just his...

>Lorsque on lui demande ce qu'il pense des
>declarations de Willehmny-Tremblay, il repond que ca va probalement
>aider sa campagne car les gens auront le raisonement suivant:
>
>	C'est mieux que la conversion de Willehmny -Tremblay soit
>	fausse et que l'accord en realite soit bon, que l'inverse ou
>	la conversation est vraie et l'accord n'est pas bon.

Gee, a politician trying to put the best face on an embarrassing
situation. What a novel concept!

It's a wonder none of the other have thought of this idea...

Not.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
From: "ronald sabourin" <ronald.sabourin@canrem.com>
Subject: a thought for the tru
Reply-To: "ronald sabourin" <ronald.sabourin@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: can
Date: 4 Oct 92 22:16:41 EST


RW>  "Why the word 'class' and the careful manipulation of the argument away
RW>   from the joy of including dissatisfied elements of Canadian society (back)
RW>   into the fabric of the nation, to the highly inflammatory knee-jerk
RW>   catchwords of a discreditted ideological struggle ... why, and
RW>   particularly why now?"

 Funny, I think you know why.

    Ronald
---
  DeLuxe/386 1.25 #10295  Carpe Diem.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Why I will vote NO on Oct. 26
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:51:56 GMT

In <1992Sep29.185132.4251@sco.COM>
rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
takes the high moral ground:

> In article <14003@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca> alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon) writes:
> >	I understand those who wish to vote OUI.  There is not
> >	much of a choice.  My support for NON is because I object
> >	to being cornered, blackmailed, browbeaten when there is
> >	no urgency, no crisis.  The desperados are creating the
> >	crisis.  They are scared.  As they should well be.
>   The timing of this vote was set over 18 months ago, by the Quebec
> legislature.

	Since you mention selective memory, further down this message,
	let me refresh yours: The Quebec Legislature was sworn to
	have a referendum on the subject of sovereignty.  The "accord"
	was rushed to a referendum of its own, in order to spare Robert
	Bourassa, and Canada, the embarassment.  The Quebec referendum
	has been hijacked.  The fact that it was a rush job shows in 
	the weakness of the YES side.  The fact that it was a hijacked
	referendum will show in the overwhelming defeat of the "accord".
	In fact, this Charlottetown rough has managed to gather more
	opposition than the Nationalists would have support for their
	cause.  The idiots have shot themselves in their collective and
	proverbial foot.  Even Flaky Clyde smells the blood...

> [ ... ] 
>   No one (especially the QUIs)

	The who?
	Sorry, I could not resist it.  The pleasures of bilingualism...

> [ ... ] 
>   Moral indignation is an interesting, but somewhat transparent political
> weapon, especially when used by the hypocritical or those with selective
> memories, ie those that use it most often.

	Moral indignation is a transparent political ploy, when
	it is used as such.  There can be real moral indignation,
	such as what I feel when the goons in Ottawa, and their
	buttons in Quebec gang up with the thugs in Toronto to
	sink the $ and then blame Parizeau.  I happen to disagree
	with Parizeau on many things, including the viability of
	Quebec as a stand alone package (8-), but you can bet it
	doesn't make me a friend of the gangsters who promote the
	YES side.

	Did this sound indignant and moral enough for you?  I rather
	enjoyed it myself.

> Ross W. Wetmore

--
 Alain
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:11:15 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Oct1.230442.2671@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>The Charter comes with a notwithstanding clause...it did not change
>the powers of the Quebec National Assembly.
  [ ... ]
>Trudeau changed hardly anything...all he did was patriate the damn
>constitution...the current gang is the gang that wants to change
>everything.
>Gerald

  Then since nothing was changed, I take it you do not object to an 
amendment to drop the Charter and its Notwithstanding clause from the 
current Constitution and return completely to the former status quo.
---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: What "Manning-Trudeau" manifesto?
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 04:33:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep22.195432.12545@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
	bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:

>nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>: This is your idea of discussing content, Brian?  "Trudeau-phrenic",
>: "Trudeau-zoid", "crapping on", "bitter has-been", "massive head
>: injury"?  Hey, with such strong arguments on your side, how could
>: anyone disagree with you?
>
>Hey, unless this newsgroup and the rest of the usenet has suddenly
>changed, my colourful metaphors you list are quite appropriate
>(and are actually pretty good)..

Ah, yet another poster who participates on Usenet in order to look at
his posts as they spread across the country, and revel in how clever he is.
Welcome to the application of Usenet as "the poor man's vanity press"...

Rabid Trudeau-hatred is no more useful in this discussion than rabid
Trudeau-worship.

I don't care if Pierre's views on this issue are shared by Preston Manning,
Clyde Wells, Jim Keegstra or Mister Dressup. Can they be debated on their
merits, please? The side-issue of "who's bedfellows with whom" is
interesting trivia, but of far less relevance to those of us who are
still undecided on the vote.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: What we need... (was October  26th Referendum
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:57:16 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep24.085918@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch writes:
>
>No, not the dreaded constitutional convention!  If we've learned
>anything from the Clark deal it is that a constitution drafted
>by a (large) committee is a camel.  C'est affreux!  A mon avis, il faut
>poser au peuple des questions simples et claires.

[stuff deleted : a multi-question referendum, each on a specific point]

I agree with Ken.  The best referendum would consist inshowing the major
points and voting yes or no for each point, not for a package deal that
nobody want.  And if Quebec sovereignty is the best possibility, this
should be prepared to reduce harm for both future partners.

-- 
  \_\    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: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:53:11 GMT

evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
: In article <1992Oct4.222517.20571@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
: 	bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
: 
: >A Lesson in Watching People Put their Feet in their Mouth...
: >
: >ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
: >: 
: >: [...] You confuse political disagreement, and disagreement
: >: over economic strategy with stupidity.  Just because you happen to disagree
: >: with someone over how something should be done, does not make that person
: >: an idiot.  
: >
: >But meanwhile...
: >
: >ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
: >:
: >: No.  99% of YOUR postings are and always have been biased emotional rantings.
: >: 
: >: I have heard many intelligent things from both sides of the debate.  I
: >: have heard nothing intelligent from you.
: >
: >:-)
: 
: Yet another post by Brian that proves Paul right on both counts.
: 
:  Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario

Yet another post by Evan proving that males with strange first
names grow up with learning and social difficulties (not to mention
problems in recognizing beautiful places -- Brampton?!).

-- 
Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists 
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens and
                                    confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: David Crane on the Accord
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:09:53 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: The trouble is that a YES vote is the vote for greater disunity...it
: doesn't solve the Quebec "problem", exacerbates Western alienation,
: and leaves the country less able to meet the political and economic
: challenges of the future.

The trouble is, that is only your opionion. In my opinion, a YES vote is a
vote for unity. I think this because all provinces agree to this deal. You
think YES is a vote for disunity because you think a NO vote will solve the
issue, and never bring it up again. I'm pretty sure most people will agree
that a NO vote will not keep Canada the way it is anymore than a YES vote
will.

: 
: We will ultimately have to challenge the Quebec nationalists, but
: appeasement is not the way to do it...we have to offer Quebec
: the chance to make an informed choice about their future...i.e.
: we have to lay out in detail the Canadian option and lay out
: in detail the sovereigntist option in a systematic way and in
: a non-threatening and non-emotional environment...and let 
: Quebeckers choose.  Appeasement is not a solution...we lose
: Canada and hurt Quebec by slow disintegration.
: 

The Canadian Option is laid out. It is called the Charlottetown Accord. The
Parti Quebecois has been laying out the sovereigntist option for some time
now. The debate will never be non-threatening, non-emotional. It involves
people.
--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:32:57 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 574

From article <Zl1-pCC@engin.umich.edu>, by marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young):
> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>
>>Quebec doesn't have a right to declare independence!
>>
> Perhaps not, but it does have the power.
> 

Over some dead bodies! :-(


-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: The Can. Chrtr. of Rts. & Frdms. (Was: PLAN B - aside)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:35:30 GMT

In article <BvIEGM.GMM@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>You are so wrong. Look at the things discussed again (for the first time, I
>suspect)
>
>The Social and Economic Union provides for,
>
>        providing high quality primary and secondary education
>        to all individuals resident in Canada and ensuring
>        reasonable access to post secondary education;

Oh no!  We're not going through this silly rehash again.  How many times
do I have to say it to get it through to you:  THE SEU IS NON-JUSTICIABLE.
It commits the gov't to nothing.  It's a nice sounding statement that means
nothing.

Suppose you think your gov't is not providing reasonable access to post 
secondary education.  You sue.  The courts through out your case.  The 
section is NOT JUSTICIABLE.  Can you not get that into your head?
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: NHI ( was: Canada Clause)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:43:04 GMT

In article <BvEF0y.4Cr@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>The Social and Economic Union section commits governments to certain basic
>ACHIEVABLE social goals. Health care is one, housing, food, etc are others.

No it doesn't.  That's the whole point of non-justiciable.  If the gov't
decided to remove health care, and someone took them to court under the
SEU section, the court would simply say "Case dismissed."  That is what
not justiciable means.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Quebec's percentage of the population
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 5 Oct 92 05:00:03 GMT

Ken Warkentyne (warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch) wrote:
>Can we agree that French Canadians have gotten the short
>end of the historical stick, especially in Acadia and
>Manitoba?
>
>If so, is it possible to understand why French Quebeckers
>look for some guarantees that this will never happen again?
>
>If you find the 25% allotment an unacceptable way of doing
>this, please suggest an alternative.

Are language rights not already entrenched in the Constitution? Just what
is the 25% floor supposed to accomplish that these language rights do not
- especially in the cases of francophones in Manitoba and Acadia

>Personally, I am for more devolution, and not just to the provinces
>but to the cities as well.

I have no philosophical problem with this, for the most part.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:13:08 GMT

In article <CLAMEN.92Sep30205419@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:

>All provinces except for Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan were
>created by the British.  

'ere, now there's a thought.  Why don't we sue the Brits for lost economic
potential as a result of the constitutional mess they left us with. :-)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 10:11:35 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: can

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <Zr1-BY_@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>>>
>>> [...]        Of course, as Gerald has already pointed out, the Feds could
>>>easily enact a law making the present Senate elected.  [...]
>>>
>>Actually, under section 42(1)(c), it would take a constitutional amendment
>>(general formula 7/50) to start electing Senators.  It could be done without
>>Quebec's agreement, but then Quebec would have more evidence of Canada's 
>>lack of concern for its feelings.
>>
>
>The prime minister, subject to a few requirements, can appoint anyone
>to the Senate, he could easily appoint people nominated by the provinces
>or elected by the provinces.  It doesn't require a constitutional
>change...after all Stan Waters ended up in the Senate...and he was
>elected.
>
>Gerald

The Feds could not pass a law to make the Senate elected; it is beyond their
jurisdiction.  The provinces could not pass a law making Senators elected;
it is beyound _their_ jurisdiction.

What you are describing is a political accord, by which the Prime Minister
agrees to appoint people proposed by the Premier, and the Premier agrees to
propose people selected by plebescite.  This is technically feasible, but it
has no force of law anywhere in the country---which means that it could be
abrogated by any First Minister at any time.

And while it is _technically_ feasible, it is not _politically_ feasible.
Quebec wouldn't even agree to an elected Senate that was eviscerated by the
Charlottown Accord.  When Alberta tried to force the issue with Waters'
election, Mulrooney only agreed to appoint him after Alberta agreed not to
do it again.  Clearly _someone_ was upset that the current Senate might
get to be largely elected---someone with some pull.  If Cha'town goes down,
that someone will be in the same position they were in before, and so no
more likely to support (even partial) election than before.

It is misleading to say that the Feds could "easily" make the Senate an
elected body.

...mark young
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:03:02 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Sep28.143809.10290@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>Quebec doesn't have a right to declare independence!

Any nation has the right to independence (self-determination).
However, it is up to the countries of the world to recognize it or not.


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: UIC and labour market training
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:30:28 GMT

In article <BvGCp3.9sH@animal.er.bell.ca> alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney) writes:
>
>There is a need for collective rights too. There is a need to trust others
>with their own affairs. The Accord does give more powers to the Aborigines and
>the Francophones but why must we anglophones be paternalistic to them? We've
>got so much, and it is not threatened.

The is no need whatsoever for collective rights.  People can look after
their own affairs quite simply with individual rights - in fact collective
rights denies them the ability to look after their own affairs.  Individual 
rights is NOT paternalistic.  Quite the contrary, it requires that people
look after themselves.  Collective rights is highly paternalistic.  It 
implies that people cannot protect their own identity, but need some gov't
to force identity upon them.
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:37:51 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <BvG2rJ.zu@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>I'm Canadian.  I'm not committed to collective rights.  In fact, I strongly
>oppose them.  Therefore that statement is false.  At least one Canadian (me)
>is not committed to collective rights.

There is a word for a Canadian who doesn't believe in collective
rights: an American.

:-)


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM