HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Rep. by pop. (was Re: Getty has made Central Canada)
Organization: McGill University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:19:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.014314.16055@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.010156.15682@mprgate.mpr.ca> heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath) writes:
>>
>>You might find the tabular summary of the tentative agreement which was
>>presented in today's Globe and Mail to be quite informative on this issue.
>>According to these tables, Central Canada will have 62.3% of seats in the
>>House of Commons for 62.1% of Canada's population. To say that this current
>>representation is a violation of rep by pop would appear to be splitting
>>hairs.
>>
>
>This is today...this is an agreement essentially for perpetuity...you
>don't judge the principles agreed to on the basis of how it affects
>things tomorrow, but on how they are likely to affect things in fifty
>years...this agreement abandons representation by population, the core
>principle of representative government.
>
In a posting yesterday I tried to make the point that we are already
quite far from rep. by pop. for allocating seats in the House of
Commons, and have been for a long time.

Does anyone know how the premiers came up with the proposed number of
seats in the new House of Commons?  Is it based on some formula using
populations from the 1991 census, or is it purely ad hoc?  Has a
formula been devised to be used after future censuses?  Is it just
the current rules, plus the additional rule that Quebec must have at
least 25% of the seats?  Is this 25% minimum to be attained by
increasing the total number of seats (if necessary), or by taking away
seats from other provinces?

I note that in the new H of C, no province is to lose seats, even
though some are growing less slowly than the national average.  Has
this become another sacred principle?

In yesterday's posting, I also tried to make the point that the rules
for apportioning seats change frequently.  They were changed in the
wake of the 1941, '51, '71, and '81 censuses, and it looks like
they'll be changed again for the reallocation following the '91 census.
I believe 1961 was the only census in recent years which did not
provoke a change in the rules for reallocating seats.  So I don't
think we have any real idea what the H of C will look like in 50 years
time.

Could somebody post the province-by-province populations from the 1991
census?  I'd like to play with the numbers.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: PQ Reactions
Date: 22 Aug 92 12:58:10 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1076

From article <1992Aug21.140819.2602@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>, by mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie):
> 
> A slightly exaggerated version:
> 
> The Deal:
> 
> Quebec gets 98% of the seats in the House of Commons, all the seats in the
> senate, vetos over all Canadian institutions, resources everywhere and the 
> power to override the Charter of Rights by a vote of 10%.
> 
> PQ Reaction:
> 
> It's humiliating!  It's terrible for Quebec!  That 2% was the 2% that we
> wanted most!  The people of Quebec will never accept it.
> 
> 
> Just an impression, but the essence doesn't seem too far off the mark  ;^)
> 
> 
> Paul


   Your exageration is not far fetched.

   How could a PQ, whose very existence is for a sovereign Quebec,
   accept a "federal" deal?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: income tax rate in ca
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:24:01 EST
Reply-To: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Distribution: can
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Randy Armstrong writes:
RA>Trivia: The US is the ONLY major industrialized without a GST, (Europeans ha
RA>had it for years but they call it VAT and is at least 15%). It is the most
RA>economically sensible form of consumer tax.


I agree.  I just wish they'd take the GST *off* of reading materials!
Does anybody know if most European countries tax books, newspapers and
magazines?

- Stephanie.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  REALITY.SYS corrupted- reboot Universe (Y/N)?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Absolute Madness... Naturally.
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:39:54 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2121

From article <1992Aug19.204929.7091@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>, by bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross):
> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> : Our first ministers have gone mad...they are actually talking
> : about getting rid of representation by population in the
> : House of Commons...
> : 
> : What they are talking about will screw the West for perpetuity.
> : [...] 
> : If what they were discussing on the news this morning comes to
> : pass...Canada is doomed...maybe not in the next decade, but not
> : long thereafter.
> 
> I agree.  What is happening of course is that they are panicking, and are 
> trying to tackle too much in too little time.  It's akin to trying to build a
> Space Shuttle from scratch from common household appliances, in an hour.
> 
> The best thing that could conceivably happen right now is for Bourassa to
> be convinced to postpone his referendum.  If this isn't possible, then 
> cross ones fingers and let things fall where they may:  a poorly conceived 
> deal would be a greater disaster.  
> 
> My pet solutions are these. (A) Redefine the provincial borders based
> on current demographics, which might involve coalescing some provinces
> (the Maritimes) and breaking up others (Quebec, Ontario). Have a constitutional
> requirement that this should be done every 50-100 years. Then institute
> an equal senate based on these demographic areas.  But since this will never 
> happen in this time-space continuum, a better plan is probably (B) total
> national devolution. Why not? Everyone else is doing it.
> 



     WATCH THIS SPACE!!


     There will be no referendum in Quebec -

     Bourassa will likely call on election instead.


     The other possibility, which I think far less likely, is a
     Canadian referendum on the package.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:6022 soc.culture.canada:5875
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: REpublicanisn vs. Monarchists (Was Re: Beauregard vs. Yadallee)
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:45:16 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Peter Gogolek) writes:

>   For some reason the suggestion of electing a Governor General has
>been treated seriously.  It is a logical impossibility, because the
>GG is the representative of the (foreign) Monarch.

I do not want to start one of those long nit-picking debates, but...

It is not a logical impossibility.  The election would be held to
decide which man or woman would be recommended to the Queen as the
best candidate for Governor General of Canada.  The Queen would then
make the appointment.

>However, an elected Monarch is not an impossibility, and in fact
>has historical precedence in the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania and
>is current practice in the Vatican.

Electing the monarch _is_ an impossibility because she has _a priori_
the sovereign authority upon which democratic process and legitimacy
are based.

>The person is elected for life.  Would this work in Canda?
>Maybe.  Perhaps it would be a privilege of a reformed Senate.  Just
>imagine the negotiations for such a proposal.  :-)

I would prefer a President to an "elected monarch."  This would mean
rewriting the Constitution to vest sovereign authority in "The People."

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Richard Holden & turncoat politicians
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:10:23 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Aug11.040302.22913@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>
>   Remember Richard Holden discussions?
>   News conference today:-  He's joining the Parti-Quebecois.
>
>   Does he still claim to represent the constituents in his majority
>   anglophone riding of Westmount?
>

According to radio news, he says representing half of his electors.

FOr me, it is a good news.  Independence of Quebec means, among other things,
that foreign business will no more be done via Toronto, but from Montreal.
Also, it will mean a victory for nationalists.  ANd Quebecois are mercyfull.


>  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: More on language rights in Quebec: The other side of the coin
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:10:44 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:

>Just so that people don't get the idea that I am altogether content
>with the current legislation limiting English-language expression in
>Quebec, I should say that I expect/hope the following changes to occur
>in the next few years.

>- As per the provisions of the Notwithstanding clause, Bill 178 must
>  be renewed in 16 months.  A reinstatement of bilingual signs is a 
>  possibility.

>- As soon as the climate is conducive to it, the Education Ministry
>  will work towards allowing immigrants from English-speaking
>  countries to send their kids to English school.

I expect/hope so too.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Subject: Re: Republicanisn vs. Monarchists
Reply-To: marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 13:33:29 GMT

In article <2NsJPB1w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
>
>- Not that I mistrust your sagacity in these matters, but this does
>- flout the wisdom of Machiavelli, who wrote that of all cities or
>- countries, republics are the hardest to conquer and to govern, while
>- those ruled by a prince are the easiest.  Are you so sure that a
>- republican Canada would so quickly succumb?
>
>  All the US has to do is to issue an invite' and if Canada refuses, secret
>economic sanctions comes in so that we do bow down indeed.

But what has this to do with our status as a monarchy or a republic?  If the
U.S. wanted to do this, what would prevent them from doing so right now?  Fear
of Lizzie's wrath?

You're beginning to show signs of paranoid delusion...
-- 
Marc Riehm      Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
marc@meadow.UUCP
From: tech@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Richard Loken)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Labatts/Molsons
Date: 17 Aug 92 23:36:04 GMT
Distribution: can

warkenti@CAE.Mitel.Com (BJ Warkentin) writes:

>Things like taste, ingredients, process, tradition, aging... come to
>mind as "selling" points. Of course the average Canadian beer drinker,
>who insists on drinking the stuff at 34 F, probably cares more about
>the trendiness of his/her brand of choice than the taste and assumably
>the movers and shakers in the corporate brewing industry understand
>this. The biggies are out to make great money, not great beer... The
>end result is that we get advertising crap that shows lotsa flesh or
>perhaps goes the sophisticated route and blathers on about "cold
>filtered" or a light beer with three type of "malt" (I forget their
>word but the magic three are probably rice, corn sugar and <gasp> a
>teeny tiny bit of real malt)

>The solution: - buy from micro breweries
>              - brew your own
>              - buy imported 

>If enough people and hence buying power boycotted the biggies, their
>offerings would change. Simple supply and demand.

Unfortunately the only serious comptetition comes from a country that brews
even worse beer then Canada does.  You will note that all their whining implies
that they are being injured because they can't do what they do best - make
used dishwater CHEAPER then the Canadian brewers.  The typical beer drinker
is a boozer interested in buzz per buck and he wants his pseudo-lager ice cold
to kill what little taste is left.

If beer sales went to the moderate drinker who expected flavour there would
a lot fewer brewers and their facilities would be a lot smaller.  And there
might be no US brewers left at all (cheap bit of personal opinion there).

Labatts doesn't care doggy doo doo about the the three dozen Guiness that I
drink each year.

--
  Richard Loken VE6BSV                             : "ISDN (acronym)
  Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta Canada  : Innovations 
  tech@cs.AthabascaU.CA                            : Subscribers Don't Need."
  {atha|aunro}!cs.athabascau.ca!tech               : - some sorehead or other
From: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Robert Meunier)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Absolute Madness... Naturally.
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:34:43 GMT
Reply-To: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Organization: Hydro-Quebec (IREQ)

In article 28846@spxtech.qc.ca, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>
>     There will be no referendum in Quebec -
>
>     Bourassa will likely call on election instead.

Peut-importe ce que Bourassa negociera, il serait assez etonnant qu'il
appele une election puisqu'il est presque sur que le PQ sera elu. 
Peut-etre aura-t-il le courage de faire un referendum mais j'en
doute

>
>
>     The other possibility, which I think far less likely, is a
>     Canadian referendum on the package.
>

	Je crois cela beaucoup plus probant. Mulroney, avec un taux 
de popularite a 17% voudra tenter quelques choses pour amiliorer son
image. Il va donc se prensenter en reconciliateur des deux solitudes :-)



Nos politiciens sont de vrais gestionnaires. Pas etonnant que le pays
va si mal.




--
Robert Meunier                     Institut de Recherche d'Hydro-Quebec
Ingenieur                          1800 Montee Ste-Julie, Varennes
Internet: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca  Qc, Canada, J3X 1S1 
maintainer: BASIC mailing list request to basic-request@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canadian Collectivism
Date: 15 Aug 92 03:15:53 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2372

From article <CLAMEN.92Aug14021020@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>, by clamen@CS.CMU.EDU
 Stewart Clamen writes (among other things) :-

> 
> No legitimate political leader in Quebec has ever spoken about denying
> non-Francophones rights in a sovereign Quebec.  For consistency, the
> moment Quebec becomes independent (I don't want it to happen either,
> by the way), I would expect you to defend any Quebec nationalist who
> wanted to shut down publically-funded English schools on the grounds
> that every Quebecer is equal, and thus not entitled to anything more
> than the neighbourhood French-language public school.
>

  Stewart, your position on this is not clear here.

  I have heard the peculiar assertion that all Quebecers are equal and
  since Quebec is "French" all Quebecers must be "French"; or a complete
  failure to acknowledge that English is a legitimate part of Quebec life.

  Quebec nationalists make a habit of talking about English in Quebec as
  if it were a foreign language - particularly when they are trying to
  justify denying access to English school for English people (landed
  immigrants or Canadian citizens) who have come here since Bill 101 
  was passed.

> 
> Now personally, I hope that an independent Quebec would be at least as
> sensitive to the concerns of its English-speaking minority as it is
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> now, granting them certain rights and privileges that they would not
  ^^^ sensitive? - sensitive?

> have the political power to demand independently (at the founding
> constitutional convention).  Such actions would be the act of a
> Liberal Democracy.  But a more right-wing Quebec, committed to
> assimilating its minorities by granting everyone EQUAL access to
> French-language public education, French-language government services,
> French-language radio and television stations, a French-language
> judiciary, and French-language electoral ballots could still be
> democratic.

  So long as the English in Quebec accept the fact that they don't exist!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: More on language rights in Quebec: The other side of the coin
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:19:55 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1231

From article <1992Aug18.171044.22355@pandora.matrox.com>, by thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood):
> clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:
> 
>>Just so that people don't get the idea that I am altogether content
>>with the current legislation limiting English-language expression in
>>Quebec, I should say that I expect/hope the following changes to occur
>>in the next few years.
> 
>>- As per the provisions of the Notwithstanding clause, Bill 178 must
>>  be renewed in 16 months.  A reinstatement of bilingual signs is a 
>>  possibility.
> 
>>- As soon as the climate is conducive to it, the Education Ministry
>>  will work towards allowing immigrants from English-speaking
>>  countries to send their kids to English school.
> 
> I expect/hope so too.
> 

  So do I.

  I'm working very hard to make sure that these issues are dealt
  with together next year.

  Anyone interested in helping?

  See next posting.
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The tentative agreement of August 19th
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:23:46 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Gerald Olchowy is more relaxed than I am about the representation proposed in
this new deal.

If the new Commons is to have 337 seats, then on average each seat should
represent 81,110 Canadians (not all of whom are old enough to vote). On that
basis, some provinces emerge with much more proportional clout; in effect, some
of us will be more equal than others.

For example, Quebec ought to get 85 MPs; instead it will get 93, making 9
Quebecers the equivalent of 10 ordinary Canadians. Ontario will get 117 when it
ought to send 124 MPs to Ottawa.

Alberta comes up 5 MPs short, with 26 when it ought to have 31. BC is down 4 at
36 when it deserves 40.

Quebec and Ontario get more MPs than they deserve. So do Saskatchewan (gets 14,
deserves 12) and Manitoba (gets 14, deserves 13). New Brunswick gets one more
MP than it deserves, and PEI gets 2.4 more than the .6 of an MP its numbers
warrant. Yukon and NWT between them should have one MP; the former gets one and
the latter gets two. Only Nova Scotia and Newfoundland get the MPs their
population ought to receive. Everyone else is either under-represented or
over-represented.

As a Canadian I am prepared to pay more in all kinds of ways to ensure I have
my own country. I don't think I'm prepared to be 90% of a Nova Scotian, and
much less of a Quebecer or Ontarian.
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:05:19 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <80uBPB1w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin) writes:
>
>> In article <uZB8oB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>> >A monarchy doesn't only irritate the French, and it is wrong to cast [...]
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>  English is a dumb language, in that the placement of a word can be
>>  very ambiguous.  Would you care to clarify this, exactly.  `only' can
>>  be difficult.
>> >emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca (Robert Smits Ladysmith BC)
>> Richard.
>
>
>French speaking Canadians aren't the only people irritated by the 
>presence of a monarchy in Canada.
>

Richard : I only speak an approximate English and it is what I understood
the first time.  What else could that mean?

>
>emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca (Robert Smits Ladysmith BC)


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !