HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robertfe@microsoft.com (Robert Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Quebec
Date: 04 Nov 92 21:02:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Nov1.042351.1719@cc.umontreal.ca> southiea@JSP.UMontreal.CA (Southiere Alain) writes:
>   Well, here's the story, according to some FLQ members, journalists and
>even police. Laporte was held hostage in a house somewhere. He tried to
>escape but badly injured himself (he tried to break out by a window or
>something like that). His kidnappers put it in the trunk of a car (he was
>still alive a this time, according to these sources) and they drove the car
>to a vacant lot. They called a journalist at a radio station, telling him
>where the car was and that Laporte was badly hurt. The journalist got there,
>and called the police. Once the police arrived, they waited for hours to
>open the trunk, giving the time to Laporte do die from his injuries.
>
>   For those who wants the sources of this strory, it's from a book on
>the October 1970 crisis and a TV special was made of it. But I don't
>remember the title of the book, but it came from the library. So if you
>want to read it, just go to the library, it should be easy to find since
>there's not that much books on the subject.

The book "Rumours of War" and the official Coroner's report both 
concluded that Laporte died from strangulation, probably as a result of
constriction of the religious chain and medal he wore around his
neck. The presumption at the time was that someone had attempted to 
restrain him by grabbing the chain and had crushed his windpipe. 

It is, of course, impossible to determine whether the intent of 
his kidnappers was to kill him; but the law holds that anyone who
is killed in the commission of a felony is considered to be a victim
of murder, regardless of the circumstances.

At any rate, this is the first I've heard of this new sequence of events. 
I would very much appreciate a precise reference for these new contentions.

------------
Rob Ferguson						robertfe@microsoft.com
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:40:26 GMT

rcano@bnr.ca (Bob Cano) writes:

>|> In article <1992Nov7.211408.29426@julian.uwo.ca> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
>|> 
>|>    A while ago I got this pamphlet from APEC.
>|> 
>|>     .....  
>|> 
>|>    What must remain part of Canada?
>|> 
>|>    1) Rupert's Land
>|> 
>|>     ......

>|>    2) A Canadian Corridor
>|>
>       ........... 
>|> 
>|>    3) Federalist Quebec:
>|> 
>|> 
>( the above shortened to save bandwidth )

>What APEC (and some others) forget, is that in a divorce between
>Canada and Quebec, Quebec with ~25% of the population of Canada
>would be entitled to 25% of the assets (including land) of Canada
>and 25% of the debt. 

I'm a firm believer in the equality of provinces when discussing
ownership of Canada.

Quebec is 1/10th of the provinces, and as such entitled to 10% of the
assets.

When it comes to division of the national debt only, I believe in the
'two nation theory' and Quebec is entitled to 50% of the national
debt. :)

Those at least should be the opening bargaining positions for Canada.


I believe the various reports in Quebec leading up to the CA suggested
that 18% of the debt be Quebecs because that is the percentage
of the GNP contributed by Quebec. [Allaire report?]

And I'm equally sure that they will claim all the land in the province
of Quebec as well as all the assets and Labrador which they feel is
theirs.

That will be their opening bargaining position.


-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "Canada is like a dull party"
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:46:00 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Nov6.235419.17364@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>: Senate reform and aboriginal self-government do not need constitutional
>: changes...they just need a government that is committed to them.
>
>Non-trivial senate reform and aboriginal self-government need 
>constitutional enforcement. Good intensions cannot change the
>form of government institutions.
>-- 
>Brian Ross                         "How do we arrange lures in our tackle box?

  Anything one government can pass trivially, another can revoke just as
trivially. One of the big elements of all the native and many other 
constitutional issues is that most of the beneficiaries do not trust
the track record of consecutive Canadian governments to follow anything
near the same policy.

  Unless many of these issues are backed by a Canadian consensus and legal
framework that is beyond the scope of a single government to revoke, most
of the benefical effect will be lost in the prevailing political cynicism.

  It boils down to the fact that you can't change the basic rules without
getting everyone to commit themselves to the change and bring it in in a
forthright process - sneaking in bits and pieces which wouldn't pass a
country-wide affirmation process is now a NO-NO.

  Clearly, more national debate is going to be required to reach such a
consensus, or at least to reach consensus on whatever components reach
the critical crisis level to get back on the national agenda.
---- 
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>
----
From: riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "Canada is like a dull party"
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:12:24 GMT

Oops.
I wrote:

>admitting the economic common-sense of the stability
>that all bankers always seek out.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anticipating future flames I guess I should have said: "that the vast
majority of bankers can generally be assumed to seek out, in my opinion."

I guess I should also add that I don't claim that the original Economist
piece was perfectly correct nor perfectly objective.
It is a point of view worth considering. No more, no less.

Marc Riese
Xref: sparky can.politics:9545 soc.culture.canada:8437
From: michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: "Canada is like a dull party"
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:33:45 GMT
	    <kspeicht.65.721075072@kilcom1.ucis.dal.ca>
Organization: Rhinoceros, chargez!


kspeicht@kilcom1.ucis.dal.ca (Kevin F. Speichts) writes:
| In article <5038@disuns2.epfl.ch> riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese) writes:

| >"Glug glug", le son que fait un bateau qui coule, est le titre d'un 
| >article sur le Canada dans l'edition de "The Economist" du 31 octobre.
| > [...]
| >Marc Riese
| >Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
| >Suisse
>
>	This brings to mind the Kids In The Hall skit ...
>	titled "I Hate the Swiss" :)   Did anyone else see this it was great.
>
>	I'd tell this guy to go jump in an ocean .. but they don't have 
>	any. :)

A few comments :

1) As far as I know, Marc Riese is Canadian.
2) As far as I understood, Marc Riese provided us with excerpts
   from "The Economist" of October 31st. The opening and closing
   double quotes are a clear indication of that.
3) Even if (1) and (2) were wrong assumptions - which I am 100% sure
   they aren't - I don't see why Mr. Riese could not voice his opinion
   on Canada.

In fact, opinions from others are often worthwhile, because they can
provide us with a different perspective. When one is entangled too deeply
in his/her own problems, one often looses the capacity to think soundly.

As for "jumping in an ocean", Lausanne is situated on Lac Leman (Geneva
lake for those who don't know better). But the water is a bit cold in
this season... :-)

--
Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ......  B.P.: michele@catnix.UUCP
(514) 671-8820				   OU :	michele%catnix@cam.org

La Liberte n'est pas une marque de yogourt.
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,can.followup
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Toronto Sun: another case of paranoia???
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:21:00 GMT
	<BxJ4KM.Eq6@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
	<1992Nov11.035510.10594@csi.uottawa.ca>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca's message of 11 Nov 92 03:55:10 GMT

It is usually impossible to judge a comic strip simply
by the dialogue.  However, have you folks ever heard
of irony?

D'habitude il est impossible de juger une bande desinee
seulement en lisant le dialogue.  Tout de meme, n'avez
vous jamais entendu de l'ironie?
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
	<schuck.721013835@sfu.ca>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:52:04 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.721013835@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

			[...]

   Most goods and Services produced in Quebec could be bought in the
   rest of Canada, the loyal part.
                       ^^^^^

It has been shown time and time again that most Quebecers do not want
Separation.  Most would only vote for it if 'forced to' by certain
political conditions.  Such Quebecers would not consider themselves
disloyal in voting against Canada: they would more likely consider
Canada disloyal for having forced them out of Confederation.



--
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: scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca (stephen cooper 9209 U)
Subject: Canada without Quebec
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:05:02 GMT

It angers me to hear lots of people saying that we should let Quebec go...
I read somewhere that if Quebec separated, we could kiss our G7 membership
and other important posts goodbye, because we would become too small.
-- 
Steve Cooper      |  Internet:  scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca
Waterloo, Ontario | "Je suis professeur.  C'est a dire que, hors d'une classe,
Canada!!          |  je ne suis bon a rien."  - Topaze
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca (stephen cooper 9209 U)
Subject: Re: Canada without Quebec
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:46:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.043752.19090@julian.uwo.ca> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
>In article <BxJ78F.30G@mach1.wlu.ca> scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca (stephen cooper 9209 U) writes:
>>It angers me to hear lots of people saying that we should let Quebec go...
>>I read somewhere that if Quebec separated, we could kiss our G7 membership
>>and other important posts goodbye, because we would become too small.
>
>That works both ways.  If the politicians in Quebec feel that their sacred
>francophone way of life is on the verge of extintion and that they feel
>the G7 membership can take a back seat, then what does that say about them?
>
>They're the ones that are (and have been for years) belly-aching to separate,
>so blame them.

I'm just saying that lots of us in ROC are too quick to dismiss Quebec.


-- 
Steve Cooper      |  Internet:  scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca
Waterloo, Ontario | "Je suis professeur.  C'est a dire que, hors d'une classe,
Canada!!          |  je ne suis bon a rien."  - Topaze
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
	<schuck.721246968@sfu.ca>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:59:49 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.721246968@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

   (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.

Why not?  Cretien's riding is in Nouveau Brunswick, and his official
residence is Ottawa. 

   >> 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.

Cretien is not a Quebec MP.  He is a NB MP.

--
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: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
	<CLAMEN.92Nov9222301@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Nov10.163452.495@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <schuck.721424426@sfu.ca>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:51:09 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.721424426@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

   rcano@bnr.ca (Bob Cano) writes:

   >What APEC (and some others) forget, is that in a divorce between
   >Canada and Quebec, Quebec with ~25% of the population of Canada
   >would be entitled to 25% of the assets (including land) of Canada
   >and 25% of the debt. 

   I'm a firm believer in the equality of provinces when discussing
   ownership of Canada.

   Quebec is 1/10th of the provinces, and as such entitled to 10% of the
   assets.

For your model to hold, each province would be required to pay 10% of
the federal tax base.  I'm sure you wouldn't want BC to pay twice as
much tax per capita as Quebec.

   When it comes to division of the national debt only, I believe in the
   'two nation theory' and Quebec is entitled to 50% of the national
   debt. :)

   Those at least should be the opening bargaining positions for Canada.

My, you are ruthless.  Obviously you are lacking that Canadian
characteristic known as "fairness".

--
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:	     +1 412 681 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan B
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 06:54:41 GMT

cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:

>In article <schuck.721245605@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:

>You don't like Quebec, and like the idea of hurting its people.
>That's hatred in my books.  Not a good way or reason to start a new
>country.

It's not me or BC threatening to tear this country apart every time BC
doesn't get its way. It's Quebec.

They are the blackmailers.

A ruthless response to blackmailers is the only response.

BC voted 2-1 [3-1 in some areas] against a special deal for Quebec.

Just watch what happens if a "special deal" is tried if Quebec is
stupid enough to actually separate.

-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:09:18 GMT

In article <CLAMEN.92Nov9215946@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>
>   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.
>
>Why not?  Cretien's riding is in Nouveau Brunswick, and his official
>residence is Ottawa. 
>
>Cretien is not a Quebec MP.  He is a NB MP.

Do you think that fact makes any difference?  He took the first safe riding
he could get, and didn't want to risk a defeat by running in Quebec.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:23:53 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
 <1992Nov13.161720.22362@cerberus.ulaval.ca>

APEC has no idea about Canada. One of their leading lights in
our community is an English emigrant who thinks of the Quebecois
as "foreigners" who should learn to speak English in and English
country. I think those psychologists who study intelligence should
shift to stupidity and ignorance; it's a much richer field of
study! I'd laugh a lot harder at this kind of idiocy, if it didn't
threaten to break up the country.

For the Quebecois on the net: I agree that Canada has no claim on
a centimetre of Quebec's territory (the Cree, however, do have
undeniable rights over Northern Quebec). And I hope that future
negotiations (whether over sovereignty or federalism) happen in
a spirit of principled and productive negotiation, rather than
hardball bargaining in order to exact vengeance.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: Matrox Ltd.
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 16:19:13 GMT

It is useful to debate these questions now because Canada could be in
this situation in one or two years.

schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>The only way to treat a seceding Province is to cut off all funds
>flowing from Ottawa and the Provinces immediately.
>
>At no time must Ottawa or any other province subsidize a secessionist
>Province. Once a vote on Secession is announced or a secessionist
>Party is elected with a mandate to secede, all monies flowing into the
>secessionist province must be cut off until the secessionist province
>votes not to secede, or votes out of Power the secessionist government.

That would be illegal and/or unfair.  Quebec remains an equal province
until the day the separation agreement comes into force.  An aggressive
move against a secessionist provincial government would be a
declaration of war that could not possibly produce a good result.


>All trade with a secessionist Province must also be cut off [...]
>All MP's from a secessionist province must be removed from office [...]
>All Supreme Court Judges from a secessionist province must be removed [...]
>All Senators from a secessionist Province must be removed from office.
>All citizens of a secessionist Province must be removed from [posts...]

All these measures would be illegal.  Quebecers have a right to elect
any government they want, even a government seeking independence.
However, any government would be bound by the Constitution until it
could agree with the federal and other governments on the terms of
secession.

The existing constitutional order favours Canada because it does not
provide a mechanism for secession -- a province seeking to secede must
ask, and Canada can set conditions.  So, it is in Canada's interest to
sustain that order.

If Canada were to violate the Constitution as you suggest, Quebec would
be freed of all obligations and would declare independence unilaterally
on its own terms.  These terms would be bad for Canada because Canada
needs to unload a quarter of its national debt on the new state, and it
has property in the province that it would want to keep.

>Finally, the terms of secession must be negotiated by a staff of
>professional negotiators with no record of working or living in the
>secessionist province, and their mandate must be ruthlessness.

Obviously, ROC would have to elect leaders not associated with Quebec.
I do not agree that they should be ruthless.

--
Thomas Hood                                                     thood@matrox.com
From: dale@dale.CAM.ORG (Dale Wharton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: The Council of Canadians: 20-22 Nov, Ottawa
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:01:39 GMT
Organization: private


                                         ./\.     Annual meeting
                                      _|\|  |/|_  Council of Canadians
  A G E N D A   F O R   C H A N G E   \        /  20-22 November 1992
                                       >______<   National Arts Centre
                                           \      Ottawa
.
  YOU ARE INVITED to four public sessions this year.  One will take
  place after work Friday, November 20, two on Saturday morning, and
  one on Saturday night.  Look for details of these events--to come.
.
  The Council of Canadians is a national, nonpartisan, public interest
  organization of 22,000 members.  It is devoted to the enhancement
  and preservation of Canadian sovereignty and political independence.
  The COC monitors Canada's domestic and foreign policies, lobbies
  decisionmakers to protect Canadian interests, promotes alternatives
  for an independent Canada in a world community of nations.
.
  The Council of Canadians (Join, eh?) * (613) 233-2773, fax 233-6776
  1006-251 Laurier Avenue West  *  Ottawa ON  K1P 5J6
Newsgroups: can.politics