HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: The Queen vs the Queen
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 20:09:19 GMT

In article <SBO.92Apr16084235@gunther.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>
>A few days ago I heard that the environment ministry (the queen) was suing
>the "ministere des travaux publics" (the queen). What an interesting way to
>waste tax payers' money...

I don't see the problem.  It is normal for government agencies, with
different mandates, to find themselves in conflict at times.  If the
two parties can't work out a solution between themselves, the next step
is to take it to a neutral party for resolution.  (And I prefer to see
such conflicts resolved in the open, rather than by some backroom
deal!)

"Suing" sounds like a very confrontational tactic, but is the recognized
way of resolving such problems.

An example, outside of government.  A few years ago (in Kingston, I think),
a man was accidentally tripped by his mother, and broke his leg.  He sued,
won, and collected compensation.  This shocked most people at the time -
how could he be so heartless as to sue his poor old mom?

What most people forgot was that the accident was covered by insurance,
and the proper way to collect that insurance was to establish the facts
through the mechanisms established for that purpose.  In effect, the
man sued the insurance company (which, I guess, hoped the people would
not press their claim...)

So the choice was to leave the problem unresolved, or go through the
appropriate channels to get it resolved.  What's so strange about
that?  (Or course, there are those who seem to view conflict as
unnatural, as proof of ineradicable hostility...)

The Rhealist (Rheal Nadeau)                 |  Bell-Northern Research
Internet:  nadeau@bnr.ca                    |  Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 
BNR neither endorses nor censors my views   |  (613) 763-4266
From: 881277m@ace.acadiau.ca (WALLACE MCLEAN)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Newfoundland and Labrador
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:31:06 GMT
Organization: Acadia University

In article <DALTON.92Apr6191431@gafs.Geop.UBC.CA> dalton@gafs.Geop.UBC.CA (David Dalton) writes:

>Sorry for misunderstanding.  If the name in the Terms of Union is
>still Newfoundland, then it should be changed.  However, in practice
>the provincial government has referred to itself as `Government of
>Newfoundland and Labrador'  for  years, as on the piece of official
>government letterhead I have in front of me.  Clyde Wells
>refers to himself as premier of Newfoundland and Labrador,

 sometimes. He's also said some pretty disparaging things about Labrador, 
such as when he said it was merely another region of *Newfoundland*, no 
different from the Burin Peninsula or Fogo Island.

>and licence plates, among other things, read Newfoundland and Labrador.
>Hence the name is in effect `Newfoundland and Labrador'.

To some extent. However, we still have things such as the Newfoundland 
Liquor Commission, and my birth certificate, which do not include Labrador.

>It should be easy to convince the MHAs and premier that the name
>in the Terms needs changing, but it might be hard to convince them
>that it should be a priority given the other pressing local and
>national issues.  How difficult would it be to implement the name
>change --- would it require the participation of all the other
>provinces, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador  and the federal
>government?  Would Quebec try to veto any change as a backlash
>against the Meech Lake failure and because Quebec still claims
>Labrador, and might bring such a claim to an international court
>if they separate.

The Terms, being an agreement involving only the federal government and one 
specific province, are amendable by passing amending legislation in the 
House of Assembly and in Ottawa (Commons and Senate). Apart from individual 
MPs voting nea on the basis that their province might not like it, other 
provinces would have no say. 

>    Given all that, I support your lobby effort and may write
>a letter to Wells as you suggest.

Thank you. Wish there were 52 people like you in the House of Assembly.

  At least he should issue an
>intent to make official the name change when the national and
>local political and economic roCugh seas abate.

Garfield Warren, Opposition MHA for the Labrador district Torngat Mountains, 
is introducing a resolution tomorrow, calling for a change of name.
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Une opinion
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:13:50 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <29E78010.3B79@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>
>In article <1992Apr10.130459.20843@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
>	julie@eecg.toronto.edu (Julie Payette) writes:
>
>>I am tired, tired, tired of reading Mr. Leibovitch constant whining
>
>Ohmigawd. I guess I can't please everyone.
>
>I won't bother to dignify this flame with a logical response. My only
>regret is that M. Payette didn't have the class to take a private complaint
>to e-mail. Sorry to bother y'all.
>
>As for you, Julie, I gladly invite myself into your kill file if what I
>write bugs ya. Indeed, ignorance for some *can* be bliss.


Just for the sake of balance, let me admit that I 
enjoy Mr. Leibovitch's articles more than most.
(Except when he gets mad at ME.)

Frank
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: adrian@splunge.uucp (Adrian Ashley)
Subject: Re: Alberta Conservatives & Bilingualism
Organization: Ashley, Howland & Wood
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:20:28 GMT

warkent@ltisun9.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:

>adrian@splunge.uucp (Adrian Ashley) wrote:
>> I guess I don't know how a "friendly climate" is to be "started now";
>> you're assuming that Alberta is currently an unfriendly place for
>> Francophones, which it isn't, and that we'll all have to learn French
>> to convince them to come here.
> 
>A francophone would undoubtedly feel welcome if government services
>and schooling were available in French.  They are not, even though
>francophone communities have existed in Alberta since before its
>inception.

Yes, but according to statistics quoted in a recent posting, the
francophone population in Alberta is around 2%.  I don't know if
this is enough to justify government support for a francophone
education system.

>> What are we to do with the French schools in the years after we've
>> established them but before there are any Francophones to go to them?

>But there are already francophones in Alberta who want to send their
>children to a French language school.

They should be able to provide their own school, I think, if they can.
Otherwise: well, it's sad, but sometimes we can't have everything we
want -- it just isn't practical.  (We can't demand everything we want
from the government, either.)

>> Why, apart from sheer numbers,
>> should we treat French differently than other languages?

>Because French is an official language of Canada.

Circular argument.  "French should be an official language because it
is an official language, and therefore important enough to be made an
official language."
-- 
Adrian Ashley in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada  ||  adrian@splunge.uucp
"... Motif is very simple.  However, it is hard to see the simplicity because
 Motif is surrounded by a mass of complexity." --Motif book ad in comp.newprod
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: tcifelli@bmerh326.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli)
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations.
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 15:16:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.143823.22566@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.151954.3717@cunews.carleton.ca> rwood@superior.carleton.ca (Richard Wood) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr10 schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>>   For us, there is no such thing as "the nation of Canada". there is 2
>>>   nations, and as long as TROCians won't recognize this, sorry, but
>>>   there will be troubles...
>>>Sylvain Chamberland
>>>Dept. of Biology
>>>University of Waterloo
>>>Waterloo, Ontario.
>>>
>>
>>  My opinion exactly.  There are two nations, but TROCers are determined to
>>press ahead with the pretence that there is only one Canada, requiring that all 
>>10 components must be equal.  The end of this road will probably be something
>>like a Commonwealth of Independent Provinces.
>>  Quebec is not the same and should, I think, stand apart from the other 9 with 
>>some form of independence (with a TROC equally independent of Quebec).
>>  There will never be a united Canada.  What I want is a united TROC.
>
>
>I think the two-nation theory of Canada is a myth.
>I accept that there is a Quebec nation within Canada. I reject the 
>concept of english-canadian nation.  
>
No. There is no "Quebec nation within Canada".  There is however a
province called Quebec in Canada which has some properties different
from the others (which for some reason beyond any rational human being's 
comprehension, must be recognized formally in the constitution).  The 
same however can be said about all provinces.  Each province has unique 
or distinct properties.  These too could be formally captured in the
constitution, but they are not crying like babies.

Canada must be united across ALL provinces and be bound by the
constitution to survive as one nation.  Strong central government
is required to administer and manage the common national agenda.

I also do not agree with an English-Canadian nation.  I like
the cultural differences we have.

Tony.
--
[Tony Cifelli              ][Phone:    613-765-2798   ][BNR is not accountable]
[Bell-Northern Research    ][FAX:      613-765-4777   ][for the opinions      ]
[P.O. Box 3511, Station C  ][Internet: tcifelli@bnr.ca][expressed herein.     ]
[Ottawa, On. K1Y 4H7 CANADA]["Still looking for a dramatic quote to put here!"]
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: areid@mary.fordham.edu (Darin Reid)
Subject: Personal SURVEY: U.S. Presidents and Dates (two questions)
Organization: Fordham University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 05:56:00 GMT

Hi,

      Since I finished high school I've always had two questions in my mind. 
The first concerns U.S. Presidents the second U.S. dates.  In fact I bet
everyone else has had these questions cross their mind.

     Well being a junior in college and discovering the Usenet has finally
given me a chance to ask these questions of everyone else.  Please send your
responses to me by E-mail as I don't regularly read the groups I'm posting this
to.

  The survey is simple.  Please send answers with reasons behind them i.e. no
cheerleading or slamming for one Pres over another.  If you choose one Pres
over another tell me why.  

   I'm posting this with a _world_ access because I'm _very_ interested in
non-U.S. views on the U.S.  So let me see some answers from everywhere
(especially British, French and Africans).

Please answer the following two question:

              1) Who do you think is the greatest/most important U.S.
                 President of all there have ever been.  Answers don't
                 have to be long but should have reasons (no so-so's the
                 greatest. stuff)

              2) What time in America's history (WHILE NOT AT WAR) do 
                 you think was/is it's most important.  This could be _any_
                 non-war time in U.S. history - 1780's, 1850's, Reconstruction
                 (the period after the U.S. Civil War), 1960's are a few
                 examples.

  _Most_ importantly, I am NOT a CIA operative!  I will not create a file with
names of the people who answer.  This is for my own personal consumption and
knowledge.  Like I said I've wondered how other people feel about these
questions for a long time.  And remember have fun at it.

Thanks in advance to all that answer,
- Darin

----
Fordham University
Internet:Areid@Mary.Fordham.Edu
Bitnet:Areid@Fordmulc
AT&Tnet:(212) 749-8187
From: galbrth@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations.
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:55:59 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes

|(Richard Wood) writes:
|>  My opinion exactly.  There are two nations, but TROCers are determined to
|>  press ahead with the pretence that there is only one Canada, requiring that
|>  all
|>  10 components must be equal.  The end of this road will probably be something
|>  like a Commonwealth of Independent Provinces.
|>  Quebec is not the same and should, I think, stand apart from the other 9
|>  with
|>  some form of independence (with a TROC equally independent of Quebec).
|>  There will never be a united Canada.  What I want is a united TROC.
|
|This is exactly what I think. Maybee there is hope afterall.
|
|However, I doubt that most of TROC share your opinion.

I sure don't.

|People don't even acknowledge that Quebec is different from P.E.I.

You don't even acknowledge that P.E.I. is different from TROC (excluding
P.E.I).  Ditto for Cape Breton, Acadia, Newfoundland...

Like many Quebecois, you probably think TROC is like Toronto...
 _____________________________________________________________________________
 Peter Galbraith       [Phone: (902) 494-7007] |  GALBRTH@AC.DAL.CA (InterNet)
 Dept. of Oceanography,  Dalhousie University  |  GALBRTH@DALAC     (BitNet)
 Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3H 4J1         |  rhogee@dalcs      (UUCP)
From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:20:25 GMT
	<SBO.92Apr12121903@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>
	<1992Apr13.215633.9275@tsltor.uucp> <1992Apr14.192118.7162@bnr.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: can
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <1992Apr14.192118.7162@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:

   In article <1992Apr13.215633.9275@tsltor.uucp>, stevew@tsltor.uucp (Stephen M. Webb) writes:
   |> Okay, time for an informal survey.  How many here worship, adore, or favour the
   |> Queen as sovereign of Canada, or even think it's a good idea, and how many
   |> participants of this news group feel we should turf the old biddy and her silly
   |> offspring and get on with it (did my bias show though)?

   I favour the Monarch because it symbolizes our attachment, both socially and
   economically, to the British Commonwealth.  I assume that separatist oppose
   it for the same reason.  Without this connection we are just the 51st state
   (or is it 53rd - never did learn much about US history or geography), and 
   that is something I find offensive.

The majority of the Commonwealth nations do not have the Queen E as
their Head of State.  (eg. Cyprus, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan,
Zambia, Zimbabwe.)

Some even have their own monarchs.



--
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 15213-3890, USA
From: schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: O Canada, O Quebec  - reaction
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:50:24 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1992Apr13.194127.14902@watserv1.waterloo.edu> schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.134326.13629@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr13.005631.8885@watserv1.waterloo.edu> schamber@watserv1.waterloo.edu (CHAMBERLAND S - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>>In article <1992Apr10.163958.6038@bmerh2.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>>>Being one of the few people who has apparently bothered to
>>>>read the book, I have difficulty understanding how ANYBODY
>>>>can claim that this book is hate literature or really so
>>>>offensive. 
>>>>
>>>>I read it, enjoyed it and recommend it.
>>>>Richler doesn't play footsie with the chauvinists outside of
>>>>Quebec either. He craps equally on the APEC dinosaurs as he
>>>>does their equivalent in Quebec, his own province.
>>>
>>>Precisely. But newspapers talk only about the bad parts of Quebec.
>>>We just see "the head of the coin".
>>>
>>>Richler is only guilty of bad timing. He should never have written
>>>such a book in the middle of a constitution crisis...    :)
>>
>>The time to engage in a debate is while the issue is still unsettled...
>>the timing of the book is most appropriate.  
>>
>>>The book may be used against Quebec by chauvinists...
>>
>>How...Quebec nationalists claim this...but how can a book which
>>comdemns intolerance and stupid unilingualist policies be used by
>>bigots?  
>
>In proving that Quebec is fundamentally bad, racist, antisemite, antidemo-
>cratic...
>
>Quebec has many ("defauts" in French????), but it's not THAT bad.
>Quebec is not only bad.
>
>Even Richler acknowledges that: he's still in Quebec, isn't he?
>
>Newspapers and chauvinists only use what suits them in such a book,
>to convey a biased image of Quebec.
>
>About the timing of the book, publishing it at such a time does not
>open the eyes of faulty Quebeckers: it only serves to get them angry,
>because right now, Quebec is "le point de mire". There is a lot
>of Quebec-bashing right now. This book is seen as the drop which
>makes the cup overflow, as we say in French...
>
>At a more peaceful time, maybe people would have seen some truth in it
>and be more prepared to change the faulty attitudes...
>
>>
>>Gerald

Sorry, I forgot to sign:

Sylvain Chamberland
Dept. of Biology
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Aboriginal nationalism?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 14:46:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr05.080413.16078@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca> root@oneb.wimsey.bc.ca (Ken McVay) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.063149.18692@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>>they can form their own *countries* and make whatever laws they wish.  Or
>>we settle up with them and they remain in Canada as Canadians, subject to
>>Canadian laws and the Constitution. This notion of opting out of the
>>Charter opens up a can of worms and does nothing but weaken *my* Charter
>>rights.
>
>One problem, Jim - many Natives do not, and have never, considered
>themselves Canadian, or subject to Canadian law. Ergo to those who fit
>within that camp, the phrase "remain in Canada as Canadians" is less
>than meaningless - as far as THEY are concerned, they aren't IN
>Canada.

Canada has become a geographical, but also a political entity.
Anyone who wishes to dispute the political entity (and to withdraw) has
the inherent right to do so. Those who claim that they do not belong
to Canada or have never been Canadians, must put their money where their
words are: refuse to accept subsidy or passport and establish their
own states. If, being anarchistically inclined, they refuse to form
states, then they will be subject to those states that have formed.
That is an historical reality.
I suppose they could vote to secede and then set up anarchistic states.
Or non-states states.....
However I detect a sense of *victim status* martyrdom in the words of
some. The majority of aboriginals prefer to remain within Canada.
Of the minority that don't, a majority do want statehood.
Of course there are *non-aboriginals* that are anarchists too. I
suppose that they are reject the fact that they have Canadian
citizenship -- something they were *born* with.
I do have some sympathy with the rejection of nationalism also.
However, I don't then make historic claims to my descendants!


>The Mohawks from Akwesasne, for instance, have yet to accept Canada's
>right to govern them, impose laws over them, or impede their lives in
>any way. They have never forgotten the history that our government 

"OUR government"? Why do you assume the crimes against the aboriginals
were your and my crimes. Don't we both denounce such?

>
>(I have a Mohawk acquaintance who I see from time to time, and once
>when I asked him if he wasn't afraid of being killed by the army -
>this when he was leaving for Oka - his response was "The white man has
>been killing my people for hundreds of years - we are used to it.")


And all white men are the same, of course.....


Frank








Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pierre@chaos.phys.ualberta.ca (Pierre Rouleau)
Subject: Re: Canada, 2 nations.
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 00:26:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.211559.13018@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>  
golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

> And Canada is the most decentralized federation in the world
> already...Quebec as a member of a federation already has more
> autonomy than any subunit of almost every other federation.
> 
Quebec has more autonomy in matters of law, language, culture,
and immigration relative to other Provinces of the Canadian
Federation. But Canada is not the "most decentralised
federation in the world" by far. Switzerland is. Look at
their taxation structure: only 10 % goes to the federal
level, the rest is divided between the three linguistic parts
and individual cantons, the latter administering the largest
piece of the pie ... Swiss have the pyramid standing right, us
in between two potential wells i-e at a point of instability.

Pierre ... fellow physicist :-)
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Queen of Canada
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:44:49 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1992Apr13.215633.9275@tsltor.uucp> stevew@tsltor.uucp (Stephen M. Webb) writes:
>
>Okay, time for an informal survey.  How many here worship, adore, or favour the
>Queen as sovereign of Canada, or even think it's a good idea, and how many
>participants of this news group feel we should turf the old biddy and her silly
>offspring and get on with it (did my bias show though)?

	Put me as mildly non-hostile, for the following reasons:

	1: Better to have sort of people who worship the head of State 
worshipping a more or less powerless old woman several thousand klicks
away than the PM. It can be inconvenient to have a ruler who is considered
above reproach because of their position as head of State.

	2: The Saxe-Coburgs, it can be argued, are not the rightful Royal 
family. As someone of a primarily Irish/Scots background, it amuses me to see
England and its subjugated neighbors ruled by German pretenders to the throne.

	Sidenote 1: The 'real' Royal family is also, as it turns out, currently
German. 

	Sidenote 2: Bonnie Prince Charlie was a powerful argument for
birthcontrol in the Stuart family.

	Anyone know what Betty Saxe-Coburg *costs* us? If we manage her
right, she might even pull in money for Canada.

								James Nicoll