HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: "Canada is like a dull party"
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:18:51 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
: In article <5038@disuns2.epfl.ch> riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese) writes:
: >
: >"The bog in which [Canada] now comes to rest is deeper and
: >stickier even than the one from which it started, and it is not clear
: >that there is a way out. Canada may well be mired for years.
: 
: Their reporter obviously has too many establishment friends...the NO
: vote cleared up the bog...not made it worse.  Quebec now has a clear
: choice to make, and once Quebec makes its Canada can finally get on
: with things.

You are forgetting about western Canada alienation and aboriginal
concerns. Once Quebec, the West, and the aboriginals have their
concerns addressed, then Canada can get on with things. What is left
of it that is.

: >[...]
: >The disaffection is nationwide, and any attempt to reduce it in one
: >place is certain to increase it elsewhere. 
: 
: The disaffection in Canada is undoubtedly less than in the US, Britain,
: France, Germany, or Italy.  

"Undoubtedly"?! A brilliantly unqualifiable, imaginative, 
and Trudeau-esque statement!

: >Quebec could well vote to pull out by 1995.
: 
: So what...the simple fact is that Quebec is probably not going anywhere
: because the international investors who hold Canada's and Quebec's foreign
: debt will say NO!  

You don't seem to give a damn whether Quebec is happy in Canada or not
(or the west or aboriginals for that matter). 

: A Yes vote would have meant we would have chosen the fork that looped
: back upon this very same intersection.  The patriation era is over...
: the future can now unfold as it should.

Sorry to disappoint, but we are stuck firmly in the mire of the 
patriation era. The future will unfold as it will, not necessarily 
as it should.  Sorry, Gerald, but Reality is one tough bastard.

-- 
Brian Ross                         "How do we arrange lures in our tackle box?
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     From left to right, according to size and 
                                    frequency of use." -- Anal-Retentive Chef.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:37:56 GMT

Bruce Jonathan Schuck (schuck@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
>
>Let me end with a response to all those who say we should have free
>trade with QUebec.
>
>I've posted this example before and it's still valid.
>
>Quebec dairy producers get 50% of the national quota.
>BC with 12% of the population gets 5% of the quota.
>Other provinces are similary shortchanged.
>
>Do you think that BC will accept for one second Quebec keeping that
>quota? Ha! Not a chance. Quebec will get 0 quota and the rest will be
>distributed creating wealth and jobs in the dairy regions of Canada.

Preferential treatment is different from free trade. The example above
falls into the former camp, and I don't believe anyone was arguing for
preferential treatment for Quebec should it separate. What I would argue
for is a *mutually* beneficial trade arrangement a la the FTA.

>There are 1000's of situations like that one going on right now.
>
>If you really think Canadians would accept continuing *any* of the
>perks Quebec gets now -- you are as out of touch with reality as the
>eiltes were on the YES side. It won't happen.

Obviously, should Quebec leave it would no longer receive preferential
treatment wrt dairy quotas, aircraft contracts, etc. But this is a separate
issue from a free trade agreement. Unless I am mistaken, Bruce has been
arguing for little or *no* trade with a separate Quebec, and it is that
notion that I think is not in either Quebec's or CSQ's best interests.

I dunno, but it seems odd to hold it against Quebecers should they decide
that they do not want to be part of Canada anymore. Entities come together
to form units because they believe that it is mutually beneficial to do so.
When one entity decides that it is no longer receiving a benefit then it is
only logical that it would (and should!) leave. Hopefully, it will not come
to that with Quebec and Canada, but should it, CHQ should accept it and
move on - recriminating would be a waste of time and energy.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: news@s1s1.sx.mont.nec.com (Ellison Chan)
Subject: testing
Originator: ynecelc@s1s1
Organization: HNSX Supercomputers
Distribution: HNSX
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 20:34:45 GMT


kdfjkd
fkdjfkd
fkdjfk

-- 
Ellison Chan, Comp. Sys. Analyst               2350 Place TransCanadienne
HNSX Supercomputers Inc., NEC Corp.        Dorval, Quebec, Canada H9P 2X5
E-mail: ellison@SX.Mont.NEC.COM          (514)684-7705, FAX (514)684-8619
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: Matrox Ltd.
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 16:58:36 GMT

jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James or Brian) writes:

>In article <1992Nov3.233743.1087@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>This is the most important point.  Canada preserves its bargaining
>>power with the seceding province only if it has retained its
>>legitimacy, which means it has treated Quebecers fairly and with all
>>due respect.
>	
>	I think you are mislead by an oversupply of personal ethics.
>Look at the manner Biafra was 'bargained with'. Look at the delicate
>manner in which the Kurdish desire for an independent homeland is 
>handled by the Turks and the Iraqis.

I am not sure whether you are saying that Canada will act, or should act,
as Turkey or Iraq have in similar circumstances.

Either way, I disagree:  Canada is and should be more civilized than
those countries.

>There are a host of methods by which
>Canada can preserve  its perceived interests in the affairs of Quebec
>without using negotiation. Perhaps you confuse national policy with
>moral behavior; the two subjects rarely intersect.
>	'Only' as used above indicates wishful thinking.
>					James Nicoll	

I would be interested to hear what these methods are.

--
Thomas Hood                                                     thood@matrox.com
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Mulroney succession
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 06:04:42 GMT

In article <schuck.721291542@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>
>>Yesterday's Star had an article speculating on BM the PM's possible resignation
>> and perspective candidates for Tory Chiefdom.
>
>> Listed were: Joe Clark, Kim Campbell, Jean Charest, Bernard Valcourt,
>> Barbara McDougall and Perrin Beatty. No handicaps were given. Do you think
>> Brian will go soon? Who will run? What are their odds? Who will win?
>
>The Tories have to win Quebec to win the next general election. 
>
>A non-quebecker has a snowballs chance in hell of being elected Tory leader.
>

how did Joe Who manage it then? Was Diefenbaker from Quebec?

>-- 
>============================================================================
>"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
>============================================================================


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Mulroney succession
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:24:54 GMT
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <schuck.721291542@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

   andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

   >Yesterday's Star had an article speculating on BM the PM's possible resignation
   > and perspective candidates for Tory Chiefdom.

   > Listed were: Joe Clark, Kim Campbell, Jean Charest, Bernard Valcourt,
   > Barbara McDougall and Perrin Beatty. No handicaps were given. Do you think
   > Brian will go soon? Who will run? What are their odds? Who will win?

   The Tories have to win Quebec to win the next general election. 

   A non-quebecker has a snowballs chance in hell of being elected Tory leader.

Given the strength of the BQ, it's possible that no federalist has a
chance at winning Quebec.

--
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 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:24:53 GMT

In article <schuck.721181588@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>
>The Senate has as much right to question McKennas *version* of
>history.

As far as these old farty senators goes, just what is their job description?
They can be asleep for years as far as canadian politics goes, and as far
as being a service to Canadians goes, and then they decide to champion
the cause of prosecuting the politically incorrect V&H documentary.  Where
on earth are they coming from?  Aren't there more pressing issues that  
effect more canadians in which they can play a more direct role?

>The Senate is under no obligation to allow funding to continue to the
>NFB for revisionist history, just as they are under no obligation to
>allow funding for someone with Zundels point of view.

They can't stop a money bill, not now, and (to dig up a little recent
history) they wouldn't have been able to kill a money bill under the
now dead CA either.  

Hey, I wouldn't mind seeing the NFB "canned", but not for reasons concerning
the V&H.

>Free speach does not include the right of access to the public trough.
>
>McKenna can say whatever he wants , but I resent paying for it.

Then it's time the gov't got out of the entertainment business.  I'll
aggree with that too, but not for your reasons.  If McKenna knowingly
bent his account of the air raids, what was his motive?  They spent over
a year (I think) on that story.  They could have found out early on if
they had a bona-fide story...
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: svanegmo@zeno01.math.UWaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond)
Subject: Joe Clark next PM?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:39:14 GMT

Highly unlikely.  Recall that he formed a government around about a decade back
and was blown out of the water in 8 months flat?   I seems illogical to me,
but nonetheless I would expect that his party would be reluctant to support him.

On the other hand, if Brian Mulroney stays on as the current party leader (when's
the next convention?) that several higher-up Conservatives will make a run for
the Reform Party or the Liberals.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Van Egmond (Power Station)        svanegmond@descartes.uwaterloo.ca
| "Important to remember when dealing with people: it's `I think, therefore
|  I am,' and not `I am, therefore I think.'"

Newsgroups: can.politics
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:24:13 EDT
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Joe Clark next PM?
 <92313.1804212893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>

In article <92313.1804212893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, andy
<2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> says:
>
>The problem for the Tories is if BM leaves there really isn't anyone outside
>of Clark who is well regarded both in Quebec and English Canada. Though not a
>Quebecer, Clark is well regarded in Quebec and is seen as an honest broker.
>
>Other Quebec Tories such as Bouchard, Charest or other francophones like
>Valcourt are really not well known in English Canada. While english ministers
>like McDougall, Campbell or Beatty have no following in Quebec.
>
>As well, Clark is a Westerner and thus is hoped would be able to retain
>some support in the West. I think it's doubtless Clark (or any Tory) can
>win an election or at least a majority. I think the hope is that Clark could
>at least retain enough of a base in an election for the Tories to rebuild and
>perhaps even retain enough seats to make a minority or coalition government
>possible (or at least prevent a Liberal majority)
>
>I'm not convinced of Clark's popularity in the West, the irony is we may have
>a Quebec Liberal leader and an Albertan Tory leader who are more popular in
>their rival's province than in their own:)
>
>In any case, it's likely that outside of Clark and Mulroney, and English
>leader
>would result in the Tories being shut out of Quebec and any Quebec leader
>(maybe including Mulroney) would result in the Tories being virtually shut out
>in English Canada so if Mulroney goes, Clark may well be the only person
>capable of holding the Tory coalition together and keeping the Tories viable
>for the future.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:22:48 GMT

(Gerry Gryschuk) writes:

>From article <schuck.721174910@sfu.ca>, by schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck):

>> 
>> The federal government becomes illegitimate the moment
>> MP's from a secessionist province are allowed into the PM's office [a
>> distinct possibility], the cabinet [also likely], or vote on any bll
>> [also likely].

>Why the province has not yet passed formal declarations as being a new
>Country? Considering that negotiations detailing how Quebec would eventually
>secede would go on for years it would be imbecilic not to keep them as
>part of Canada. 

You are insane if you think Canada would allow Jean Chretien to sit at
a table with Jacques Parizeau to negotiate how much of the national
debt goes to Quebec, how much land it keeps, which region stays, etc
etc.

>> If such a move is not taken the federal government would and could not
>> play a role in the nations business. 

>Oh Bull. The nations business would continue to run while a mutually
>beneficial agreement was reached on exactly how Quebec would leave.

You are a wishful thinker. That is a recipe for civil war.

Nobody in the BC would allow a Quebec Prime Minister or Quebec
Cabinet Ministers or Quebec MP's to negotiate for us during talks on
such an agreement with a Quebec government.


-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Good news / Bad news : -)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:30:25 GMT

In article <BxKxsz.CsH@wimsey.bc.ca> sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne) writes:
>The good news: Mulroney is going to resign in February.
>
>The bad news: He's going to appoint George Bush to the senate first.

Well, at least he's not going to appoint HIMSELF to the senate!

>
>-- 
>Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.bc.ca> ....................... UNIX Facsimile Software
>Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
>uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................. ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
>PD Software for SCO UNIX .................. ftp.wimsey.bc.ca:~ftp/pub/wimseypd


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy"))
Subject: Re: Antidemocratic Elite in Canada
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:54:52 GMT

>In article <13427@grayt> Tom Gray, grayt@Software.Mitel.COM writes:
>>Has anyone else noted the comments coming from the current elite in
>>Canada aboutthe use of the referendum for the consitutional proposal.
>>These comments are coming primarily from university types in articles
>>in 'quality" newspapers.
>>
>>It seems that the only mistake in the Charlottetown Accord was the
>decision
>>to have it pproved by a referendum. It seems that the unwashed cannot be
>>trusted to make decisions on the future shape of the country.

It seems that YOU are the antidemocratic elite. "unwashed cannot
be trusted to make decisions..." Well, damn those ignorant average
Canadians for wanting to control their own destiny. That same argument
was used for the creation of the American Electoral College. The Electoral
College made a 5% (popular vote) Clinton win look like a landslide.
I understand why people dont like the pols but who else could come
up with a legal proposal and negotiations? Even keeping this in mind, 
I dont see a referendum as some evil horrible thing. I think that
every citizen should have a say in his or her own destiny, not just
a few hundred men and women in Ottawa. Besides, i heard the
referendum was non-binding anyways.

>> This
>>process
>>requires the informed discussion of our intellectual leaders and without
>>the
>>necessary preparation the general public cannot understand the subtle
>>compromises required to solve the current constitutional crisis.

Again, I don't see public participation as some satanically undemocratic
evil. 
============================================================================
BRI FARENELL			    "If you choose not to decide, you still have
FARENEBT@CRAFT.CAMP.CLARKSON.EDU        made a choice."  --RUSH ("Free Will")
CLARKSON '95			 	   
A politically incorrect, pro-life, liberal, card-carrying member of the ACLU.
===========================================================================
"We are not descended from fearful men... not from men who feared to write,
to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were, for the time, 
unpopular."		----Edward R Murrow
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Article from the Toronto Sun
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:04:14 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Nov10.173313.21590@cerberus.ulaval.ca> duquet@astro.phy.ulaval.ca (Jean-Remi Duquet) writes:
]The first episode I read shows a quiet manifestation of young
]canadians "reflecting on the future of their country" disturbed
]with no apparent reason by a violent guy wearing a "Bloc Quebecois"
]T-shirt, saying "The Bloc Quebecois say No,no,no! We will fight
]encore to the bitter end! No!". Then the superhero arrives and puts
]an end to the struggle while singing the national anthem.
]
]Second episode: Hidden in a dark secret cavern (!!!) under Mont Royal,
]a "more radical and potentially dangerous group of the bloc quebecois 
]is deciding (???) the country's future". There we hear them shouting:
]"We must stop the Yes vote.", "Sovereignty or death!". Then someone
]asks them to do it without violence, and someone answers: "T'es fou
]toi? You're crazy? No violence! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!". The strip finishes
]on the the reflection that it "Sounds like another FLQ crisis."

I've seen similar hate-propaganda once in University of Ottawa's
student newspaper. It was when the University was thinking of a
francophone residence at the University (a plan that of course died).
The drawing showed a Concentration-Camp like residence building, with
barbed wire, a gigantic poster of Lucien Bouchard, bill 101 signs,
etc. The armed guard had a french-like mustache and a french kepi.
Later in the same issue, a cartoon showed the federal cabinet
conspiring to give away the country to Quebec by giving the province
federal grants, etc. All in very poor taste, and all very racist and
paranoid. I have never seen anything that hateful anywhere. Note also
that Ottawa U is half french/half english.


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:45:05 GMT

Bruce Jonathan Schuck (schuck@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
>
>The series implied bomber crews were no better than Nazi concentration
>camp guards because they burned and killed civilians during their
>raids over Germany. "Just following orders".

The way I remember it, the bomber crews were under the impression that
they were bombing military targets, not civilian targets. It was the
higher-ups who were allegedly guilty of ordering these arguably immoral
raids.

At any rate, this is what happens once the government starts getting into
the act and making pronouncements of officially sanctioned versions of
history. The thin edge of the wedge was started with the criminal
prosecution & conviction of Ernst Zundel [see disclaimer], and now it is
not terribly surprising to see the Senate attempt to justify its pitiful
existence with this witch hunt. When you f*ck with free speech, you better
be prepared for the fall out.

disclaimer: At best I regard Ernst Zundel as a person playing with less
than a full deck, at worst he is an honest to goodness present day Nazi. I
do not believe anything he has to say re the Holocaust. However, I will
defend his right to say it, as I defend Brian McKenna's right to make
documentaries that question the spoon fed version of history. Freedom of
speech is just too precious a commodity to deal with in any other way
IMHO.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics