HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: The Constitution and Laws
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep10.085417.23984@spxtech.qc.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:30:12 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep10.085417.23984@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:

   From article <1992Sep9.163211.12124@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>, by mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie):
   > 
   > Steve Potter writes:
   > 
   > |> Paragraph 23(1)(a), which is in the Canadian Charter of
   > |> Rights and Freedoms says:-
   > |> 
   > |>    "Citizens of Canada whose first language learned and
   > |>     understood is that of the English or French linguistic
   > |>     minority population of the province in which they
   > |>     reside ... have the right to have their children
   > |>     educated in that language."
   > |> 
   > |> 
   > |> Is that a law or a basis for a law?
   > 
   > That's a basis for a law.  Any talk about 'rights' belongs in a
   > constitution to prevent laws from acting against these rights.
   > Of course, not every single detailed right can be put into a 
   > constitution, but that's what we have the courts for - to apply
   > the rights in the constitution to specific cases.
   > 

   It is a symbol of Canada's democratic ineptitude that some 'rights'
   are not applicable in certain parts of the country.

Note that the social charter provisions in Maastrict has a very
similar characteristic.  (Witness Ireland.)
--
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: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:51:57 GMT

In <1992Sep7.184956@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:

>Wake up folks and smell the pulp mill (it's the morning breeze from Crofton).
>We either take the deal, warts and all, and get on with our lives or we
>throw it out and step into the wonderful world of "interesting times".

My fear is that by accepting this deal "warts and all" we will still
not be allowed by Quebec separatists to get on with the rest of our
lives, the constitutional bickering will continue, and we'll be stuck
with the Amendments from Hell.

I think I'll take my chances with the "interesting times."

Michael
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:59:43 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Thomas Hood) writes:
>Am I right to assume that Legault represents a majority of P.Q. members?

I don't think so.
I didn't read the book, but from the [subjective] interpretation that
was given on the net, I would say that, even if her vision seems
somewhat of an exageration, there is some truth in it as well. Most
notably, the theory that the anglo-quebecois try to have their
collective rights as "individual rights".

What I don't agree with is the statements like "Equality is opression"
(or whatever it said).

PS: I'm not a member of any political party.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:41:11 GMT

In article <12824@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>I suspect the whole individual versus collective issue is mainly a
>>smoke screen, one of those tricks people seem to like to pull with
>>words and definitions to make their case look stronger.  If I'm wrong,
>>I'm sure people will tell me why.
>
>No, you are right: that's the whole point. The anglophones description
>of their rights as being "individual" (thus the nec-plus-ultra of
>rights) and the francophones as beign "collective" (thus oppressive)
>is just a way to legitimize their complaints. 

So the conflict is between francophone collective rights and anglophone
collective rights, with the francophone rights being judged more
significant because there are more francophones in Quebec?

Do you then believe that francophone collective rights in Ontario are
secondary to anglophone collective rights?  Or even worse, that
francophone collective rights in Canada (including Quebec) are
secondary to anglophone collective rights?

Be careful - this is a dangerous line of thought (and one which *is*
used by APEC types to discount Quebec's wish for special status).

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler )
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:59:13 GMT

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

>After years of dealing with Ottawa and the Provinces, it is very clear
>that as soon as Quebec share of the population becomes lower than 25%
>by only a few percent, there will be a major gang-up to change this.
>Remember the "Rep-by-Pop" movement when Upper-Canada's share of the
>population finally surpassed Lower-Canada's?

   Unfortunately, the Aug. 28 deal includes a change in the amending formula
requiring unanimity for all future changes to the Constitution.  This means
that it will be difficult at best to change Quebec's representation in
Parliament.  Unless there is some major concession that they want desperately
enough to give up seats in Parliament, it will be virtually impossible to get
them to agree to a reduction.
  
				 Steven Leffler
				 leffler@physics.ubc.ca
From: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: gender reserved seats
Date: 6 Sep 92 09:36:46 EST
Reply-To: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Distribution: can
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Shawn Kenny writes:
SK>robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

SK>>Mike Harcourt is now strongly considering gender allocated seats in the
SK>>proposed revamped senate. Nova Scotia and Ontario have already committed to
SK>>this. Does anyone know if any other industrialized country does something
SK>>similar with any of its democratically elected institutions?

SK>I dunno. However, I think it is absolute CRAP! (s'pose I put on my flamesuit
SK>for all those politically correct types). Although underepresentation
SK>may be a problem - this depends on whether or not the concerns of a
SK>particular group are being heard and acted upon - I don't think that this
SK>is the best solution. For sake of argument, then instead of having "x"
SK>number of seats alloted to women/minorities have "x" number of
SK>candidates up for election alloted to women/minorities. So if there are
SK>8 senators to be elected then throw out a field of 8 men and 8 women.
SK>Let the voters decide which person they want in "office". Although this
SK>is still based on quotas (of which I disagree).

(rest deleted)

Women are not a minority in Canada.  They are 52% of the population.
They make of 52% of visible minorities and the disabled as well.

- Stephanie.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Continued on next tagline...
--
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
Subject: Which way to vote in Quebec
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:45:22 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 909

C'est interessant.

Isn't it interesting:

Mulroney, et Bourassa, qui veulent que l'entente passe, menacent[?]
qu'une vote contre l'entente est une vote contre le Canada.

Mulroney, and Bourassa, who want the agreement to pass, threaten us
that a vote against the agreement is a vote against Canada.

Parizeau, qui veut que l'entente ne passe pas, assure qu'une vote
contre l'entente n'est pas une vote pour l'independence.

Parizeau, who wants the agreement to be rejected, assures us that
a vote against the agreement is not a vote for independence.

Quoi doit-je faire? <:-}

What must I do? <:-}





-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: coghlan@bnr.ca (Patrick Coghlan)
Subject: Re: Why I will vote NO on Oct. 26
Reply-To: coghlan@bnr.ca (Patrick Coghlan)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 16:47:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.132844.28402@bnr.ca>, dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
|> I will vote YES because I like the deal.  Do you want to know why?  Well I'll
|> tell you anyway.  Because it does virtually nothing to change anyones life
|> and settles an annoying problem.  These changes are minimal : 
|> 
|>    1. Before we had a useless appointed senate, now we have a useless elected
|>       senate, 
|>    2. Ontario and Quebec have always had all the political power in Canada, 
|>       now they have a little bit more,
|>    3. Almost no powers were exchanged that didn't already exist,
|>    4. The Natives are actually getting something out of it, and since it
|>       does not violate the charter it doesn't bug me.
|> 
|> Yes, the 25% HoC guarranty in seats for Quebec bugs me, but if they ever fall
|> too far below that we'll just renegotiate anyway (can you see the RoC threatening
|> to hold a vote on kicking Quebec out?).
|> 

In essence, you are saying you will vote for the deal because it does
little more than give Ontario and Quebec a little more power and makes
the natives happy.

If it does so little, why vote for it?  Have a look at the editorial
from J. Austin in today's Ottawa Sun.  He makes some very interesting
points re: what could happen to the west by continuing to concentrate
power in Ontario and Quebec. 

In the Sun, they also published results of a reader poll taken yesterday
by the Ottawa and Toronto Sun papers that shows readers voting NO by a
margin of 4:1.
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:26:58 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <12785@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>You seem to making some distinction here that prevents certain people
>from being true citizens of Quebec. Will you please give an explanation
>of why you are making this distinction, how you are applying it, and
>any rational explanation for what the distinction is.

Read again what he said: "Trudeau is an anglophone" because his mother
was anglophone and it is therefore its "langue maternelle". He never
talked about a Quebec citizenship. Once again you are imagining
something.


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Clyde Wells
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:26:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep16.014141.24800@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.231151.8873@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>
>>What I find odd is that Clyde Wells accepted this 1.5E senate. (I can
>>understand Getty being taken for a ride.) Perhaps Jamie could enlighten us
>>on how that's going over in Newfoundland.
>>-- 
>Clyde Wells's main interest in a Senate was promoting the principle of
>equality of provinces in one of the chambers of Parliament. This is
>clearly present in the deal. I'm sure he's not pleased with the level of
>effectiveness of the new senate, but he must have realized during
>negotiations since Meech that a Senate with powers comparable to the U.S.
>Senate would be impossible to achieve. As for elected, he probably thinks
>"Well, I'll worry about making sure that Newfoundland senators are
>elected, and let other provinces decide for themselves."
>

In terms of representation for Newfoundland in the Commons and the
Senate, Clyde Wells did rather well...is he supposed to worry about
BC and Alberta citizens, whose premiers can't add or count.

With the state of Newfoundland's economy, Clyde Wells protected
Nfld's interests as well as possible...remember, he could block
the original Meech because of the unanimnity requirement when
it became a seamless web, but
he couldn't block 7/50 agreements, and much of Meech and this
agreement require only 7/50 agreement.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: yali@bnrca (Yawar Ali)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 19:58:38 GMT

My crystal ball shows the following:

The new constitutional deal passes the referendum.
Federal elections are held in Spring '93:
BQ disintegrates; PCs sweep Quebec.
NDP shut out of Ontario; Liberals and PCs split Ont. seats.
Liberals take most Atlantic Canada seats.
Liberals and PCs split Manitoba and Saskatchewan seats.
Reform and PCs fratricide in Alberta, resulting in a virtual NDP sweep.
Liberals and Reform split BC seats.

Result: PC government returns with slim majority, its political base
        now almost entirely restricted to Quebec and Ontario, 
        Mulroney still PM.
        Liberals form the opposition, with moderate support across Canada,
        except Quebec and Alberta, with a new leader.
        NDP reduced to an Alberta rump party, with a new leader.
        Reform elects a few former Social Credit types from BC. 

Bourassa re-elected as Quebec Premier soon afterwards.

In 1995, Quebec renews demands for further transfer of powers and 
items "missing" from the '92 constitutional deal,
backed up by the threat of a referendum on sovereignty.
The politicians spend the next 3 years negotiating the next constitutional
deal... 
  
--- 
Yawar Ali  				
Bell-Northern Research				EMail: yali@bnr.ca
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada	K1Y 4H7			(613-)763-7741
--------Standard Disclaimer: BNR is not responsible for my opinions--------
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Which way to vote in this damn Quebec?/Quoi voter dans se beau Quebec?
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:06:40 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

>>>>> On 10 Sep 92 12:45:22 GMT, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) said:
  > X-Bytes: 909

  > C'est interessant.

  > Isn't it interesting:

  > Mulroney, et Bourassa, qui veulent que l'entente passe, menacent[?]
  > qu'une vote contre l'entente est une vote contre le Canada.

  > Mulroney, and Bourassa, who want the agreement to pass, threaten us
  > that a vote against the agreement is a vote against Canada.

  > Parizeau, qui veut que l'entente ne passe pas, assure qu'une vote
  > contre l'entente n'est pas une vote pour l'independence.

  > Parizeau, who wants the agreement to be rejected, assures us that
  > a vote against the agreement is not a vote for independence.

Tu aurais pu ajouter qu'il semble qu'un non du CSQ veut
simplement dire un non a l'entente. (pourtant le Quebec
n'est pas une societe distinct tant que l'entente n'est pas
ratifie :-))

You could have added that it seems the a no is CSQ simply
means a no to the agreement. (But Quebec is not a distinct
society until the agreement is signed :-))

  > Quoi doit-je faire? <:-}

  > What must I do? <:-}

Vote PEUT-ETRE, ou ne vote pas :-)

Vote MAYBE or do not vote :-)
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Collective rights in the new constitution
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:43:18 GMT

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>Only Quebec judges will be eligible for three Supreme Court positions.
>Only non-Quebec judges will be eligible for the other six positions.

Is this the case? I thought it was only that there must be 3 judges on the
supreme court who had been admitted to the bar in Quebec. This would mean
that they could be currently practising in another province. The criteria
is expertise with the civil law, and not place of origin. Maybe I'm thinking
of the July agreement...
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:54:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.025744.8515@thinkage.on.ca> dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:
>
>Just for the record, I would rather have the Senate abolished. Give the
>provinces more (and better defined) autonomy, and maybe a Charter of
>Provincial Rights.

I agree with more autonomy, and perhaps a charter of Provincial Rights
(I'm assuming you mean what I think you do, perhaps you can elaborate).

With this kind of autonomy, the Parlaiment would become even more useless,
and could safely be eliminated. Or perhaps redefined along purely national
goals.

But what will represent provincial interests? An equal Senate would represent
Quebec's provincial interests when national issues are concerned.

If provinces had greatly expanded autonomy, the only issues left for
a national government are common national issues (defense, international
treaties, agreements, etc). Surely Quebec would want more than just a bunch
of MPs mixed in with the rest? I think each province would have too much
to lose. In a national government, I am thinking province-to-province
discussion == nation-to-nation (essentially)

In my own reply to Hood, I explain more about what I mean.
>
>-- 
>David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
>Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegomony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 05:32:50 GMT

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>Fundamentally, Canada has two Nations: English Canada & Quebec (french
>Canada).

That's how YOU see it: us and them. (Don't take that as an insult. It's how
most everybody sees the world, it's just a question of defining which us's
we each belong to.) Alberta sees Central Canada, lumping Ontario and Quebec
together. The natives see it as Europeans/Asians/Africans & the old nations.
Quebec sees it as Quebec vs TROC, but much of the rest of the country sees
Quebec as just another element of "them".
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: What is the best situation for Quebec?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 11:52:27 GMT

tdwebste@stylus.uwaterloo.ca (Timothy D. Webster) writes:
: 
: I think Canadians are losing interest in their own country and are now
: considering themselves citizens of the world, where ones country of
: origin is secondary. 

It's not good to lose interest in one's own country.  But I think it's
great if one considers onesself a citizen of the world first, especially
at the expense of nationalism.

: Canadians are Lions governed by Donkeys. 
                                  ^^^^^^^
You mean "asses".  :-)

-- 
Brian Ross                         "At the end of the day, all money gets you
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     is a better place to watch television."
                                    -- Dana Carvey
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:09:31 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Sep4.080518.2508@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>> Quebec official language is French.  period. 
>Quebec may declare its official language to be swahili.
>Quebec is still a province in Canada.
>Quebec is de facto bilingual (at least).

Ce qu'il ne faut pas entendre...

Get this:
	Belgium is bilingual - Flandres is unilingual and Wallonie is
	unilingual
	Switzerland is quatrilingual - the individual townships are
	not
	Canada is bilingual - All provinces but New-Brunswick are
	unilingual

BILINGUAL (for a country) means that different regions (in Canada
these regions are called Provinces and are a political entity) have
different languages.

If you want to emmigrate to an ANGLOPHONE province, don't choose
Quebec. Or maybee you wouldn't be happy without anything to complain
about :-)

>English public schools are provided here that should be available to 
>anyone that wants them.

Pourquoi?

>The 1980 referendum did not indicate that the people of Quebec had
>chosen to remain a part of Canada?

It was on a promise of a "New Federalism" by the beloved Trudeau. Boy,
we were really fooled...

>Because I am not accepted as a fully legitimate member of my own
>linguistic community; I do not have access to public services that
>are available to other people; .......

Because you emmigrated to a FRANCOPHONE province. The anglo-quebecois
minority has its privileges (or rights as you like to say). It doesn't
mean that all british immigrants are entitled to it.

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