HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca (stephen cooper 9209 U)
Subject: Re: Definition of/d'un "Quebecois"
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:27:58 GMT

In article <13519@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>>What is the definition of a "Quebecois"?  I'm especially interested in what
>>Quebec nationalists have to say.  Is a Quebecois someone who lives in
>>Quebec, or is it much narrower, i.e. someone who can trace their family in
>>Quebec back to the 1600's?
>
>A "quebecois" is simply a Quebec citizen. Anyone legally a Quebec
>citizen.
>
>PS: It helps if that person thinks of hiself/herself as being a
>quebecois.
>

Oui, mais je vois parfois des manifestations des nationalistes qui crient
"Le Quebec aux Quebecois", c'est-a-dire que le Quebec doit etre consacre
seulement aux Quebecois "pure laine".  Tous les anglophones ne doivent pas
avoir du pouvoir au Quebec.

C'est quoi un citoyen quebecois?  Il y a des citoyens canadiens, et des
residents quebecois, mais pas des citoyens quebecois!

-- 
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: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Reform Party vs Quebec (was Reform Party)
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:07:43 GMT

John LaRocque (4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca) wrote:
>Deep down they [the RP] want
>what the other parties want but have failed to achieve with bilingualism...
>the restoration of the English language as the domininant economic and cultural
>language of Quebec and the dominance of the Quebec anglophone community.

Can you substantiate this charge? Can you quote Manning or senior RP
officials saying something along these lines. Or, can you point to RP
policy as explained in their policy book to support this contention. If
not, it seems to me that we are left with an *opinion* that is based on
nothing more than gut feeling.

>When Preston denounces so-called two-founding nation policies, what he is 
>really saying is that the French language means nothing, either in Ottawa,
>or Quebec or the rest of Caada. That ultimately he wants what the PC party used
>to want: a "bilingual" English-dominated Quebec in an official English only
>Canada. French commmunities outside Quebec are already doomed to extinction.
>When Preston goes to work... watch as Preston and the Reform party try to do
>the same thing to Quebecers. 30 years of reform in Quebec flushed down the
>toilet by the racist Reform party.

As I understand it, Manning would implement a Swiss style language policy;
i.e., each province, *including Quebec*, would be free to deal with
language as it saw fit. This would not result in an English dominated
Quebec by any stretch of the imagination. 
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Reform Party 
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:59:13 GMT

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



>The Reform Party, in seeking ways of "balancing" the Central Canada
>majority, is trying to sell reforms which are NOT democratic when
>considered at the Federal level, but which seem "pretty good" in that
>they would (at least in theory) give power to people that have been
>traditionally under-represented.

>Unfortunately, the proposals are neither democratic nor "federal," EEE
>being a good case in point.

A Triple E Senate is the very *essence* of federal democracy.

In the US the Senate is equal [ actually more equal in some instances]
with the House of Representatives.

In Australia, the Senate is equal with the House of Commons.

In a *federal* democracy, their are two *equal* houses, one based on
equality of the people, and one based on equality of the
Provinces/States.


When Central Canadians say the Triple E Senate is *not* democratic and
*not* federal, what they really mean is they are greedy assholes who
have no intention of ever giving any real power to the other provinces.

That comes as no surprise to us in the West.


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: tcifelli@bmerh717.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli)
Subject: Re: Anyone want to buy a used country?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 16:44:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.132220.21720@bmerh85.bnr.ca> viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca writes:
>What's the solution?  The bottom line seems to be that this country is living 
>beyond its means.  To be blunt, we frankly cannot afford to be a country.  The
>only solution seems to be to sell off our assets so - anyone want to buy a slightly
>used country?
I think we have passed the point of no return.  There is no way for the 
government to pay back the enormous debt.  The tax base just isn't big
enough.  Cutting back a billion here or there is just a drop in the bucket.
I think the only answer is to continue to run the debt through the roof
and simply screw our debtors some day when they come to collect.  
Its not as preposterous as you may think.  

Lots of countries have done this to other countries with no repercussions.
Most recently Canadian banks have written off loans to various Latin
American countries - like as if they could pay it back anyway. We didn't
exactly declare war on Brazil because of this.  We still probably lend
them money.  If we don't others will.  Lending money is risky to begin with
and defaults are part of the cost of doing business.

Tony.
--
[Tony Cifelli              ][Phone:    613-765-2798   ][BNR is not accountable]
[Bell-Northern Research    ][FAX:      613-763-2714   ][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,soc.culture.canada
From: dfrankel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Danny Frankel)
Subject: Quebec Legislature
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:25:05 GMT


I'm looking for indexes of the quebec provincial parliamentary
debates, they seem to be only available up to 1988, does 
anybody know where I can find them? It would be really great
if they were on-line somewhere.  The archives in Quebec city
claim they have been published but the university libraries
around the T.O area all don't have them...

Any help would be appreciated.
Reply to dfrankel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca

Thanks alot
Dan



Newsgroups: can.politics
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:39:06 GMT

In article <BxtCu9.E88@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>
	beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

>Felix Leclerc wrote something like that:
>The day Quebec will go on her own, the first one that will come to
>felicitate and begin negotiations for trade exchange will be our
>Canadian (future) neighbors.

Is that because CSQ will be a friendly neighbour, or because no
other country will want to do this? ;-)

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Council of Canadians
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 14:42:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.193801.1257@galaxy.gov.bc.ca> ddjohnson@galaxy.gov.bc.ca writes:
>In 1985 that old Tory war horse Dalton Camp bet Mel Hurtig a bottle
>of Scotch that Mel's recently launched group, the Council of Canadians,
>wouldn't last ten weeks. Seven years later, Mel is still waiting for Camp to 
>pay up!
>
>The Council of Canadians has been fighting to preserve Canadian sovereignty
>ever since. In general terms, this can be conceptualised as a fight against 
>the BFTA and, currently, NAFTA. It was the (then) proposed BFTA that 
>Hurtig organised against. Mel is currently the honourary Chairperson; 
>Maude Barlow is the Chair.
>

Where were the Council of Canadians when Canada was really threatened by
the Charlottetown Accord?  Maude Barlow was nowhere to be seen.
International trade rules cannot affect national social programs, but
the Charlottetown accord certainly could have...and the COC was mute
on that issue, when the fabric of Canada was truly in peril.

Canadian sovereignty is currently the most threatened by our foreign
debt, and not by trade rules devised by the Americans, Japanese, and
Germans.       

What the COC fails to realize is that we have limited influence over
the nature of the international playing field in which we must
compete...and that it is impossible to protect ourselves from 
global competition, since of all the G7 countries, Canada is the
country most dependent on international trade for its prosperity.

Gerald 
Xref: sparky can.politics:9829 soc.culture.canada:8649
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Americans on English schools in Quebec (Was: Quebec)
Followup-To: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,can.followup
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:59:19 GMT

Steve Potter (steven@spxtech.qc.ca) wrote:
>From article <1992Nov17.221549.15120@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, by mousseau@paun02.NOHOST.NODOMAIN (Normand Mousseau):
>> 
>> In article <1992Nov16.101432.5291@spxtech.qc.ca>, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>> 
>> |> It is believed to be politically beneficial for a prospective election
>> |> candidate in Quebec to be seen to be anglo-bashing or exacting revenge
>> |> on the English of today for the "sins" of the English of the past.
>> |> 
>>       L'oppose est vrai en Colombie Britannique, non?  Je crois qu'aujourd'hui, c'est beaucoup moins vrai qu'il y a dix ou quinze ans.
>
>Anyone from B.C. care to take that one up?

IMHO, the election time bashing that goes on in BC is Central Canada &
Ottawa bashing, not Quebec or francophone bashing. 
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:38:34 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Distribution: can

In article <17510@mindlink.bc.ca>, Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford
Kilian) says:
>
>We'll probably never know (even if we were there) what really happened in the
>skies of Germany 50 years ago, and whether it meant a damn thing. But we
>ought to know that freedom of expression is under immediate threat from
>tax-paid Senators like Sylvain. And we ought to be yelling our heads off
>about that, not about Gwynne bloody Dwyer's credibility.

As the person who brought Gwynne Dyer into this, let me defend his
introduction. I wanted to make the point that we can debate this
issue on the basis of what we know about the air war over Germany.
We may never know the entire meaning of the battle, but we can
discuss the issues on the merits. I believe the CBC ombudsman tried
to do this. The senators, on the other hand, seem not to have done
so: they have power, they don't like what they hear, and if they
don't like the truth, they'll pitch it and get someone to invent a
"truth" they do like.

It alarms me that they evidently have a convert on this net, who
doesn't seem to have any interest in what facts we do know about the
air war over Germany. He will quote no references; when I point out
his mistakes on some key issues and his complete ignorance of others,
he takes refuge in the assertion that "hindsight is 20/20" and "it's
all guesswork".

I find this sort of thing relevant, because if people really believe
(even on an academic network) that we really can't expect to find
out what really happened in history, and we should feel free to
invent the facts to suit ourselves, then such people as our senator
will feel free to bring the power of government to bear on forcing
people to accept the "truth" they have invented. What you call
"McCarthyism" represents one example of a larger disease: the belief
that we can determine the "truth" by sheer force of will. That disease
seems widespread, and I have no suggestion for a cure. Indeed, I will
admit to having been touched by it: other people on this net will
tell you that I myself often make sloppy errors with the facts. But
I do recognise the disease, where the senators and at least one other
person on the net appear to have succumbed to it completely.

And for that reason, if no other, Gwynne Dyer's credibility, and
the question of what did happen in the skies fifty years ago, does
matter.

Your culture will adapt to service ours - Columbus to Natives, 1492
Your culture will adapt to service ours - Borg to Captain Picard, 24th C.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: can.politics
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Reform Party
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: 23 Nov 92 05:06:47 GMT

Michael Hui (myhui@bnr.ca) wrote:
>
>A party that's based on religious teachings is one that's doomed to
>fail in North American society. For a recent example, look at how
>repulsed Americans are at the latest incarnation of the Republican
>party. For a well documented example in the past, watch Malcolm X, the
>movie. If the PC ever got close to adopting the religious fervor
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>evident in the Reform party's rhetoric, they would lose the Quebec vote
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>completely, and that's no small potatoes.

Please elaborate on RP rhetoric that contains religious fervor. As a good
agnostic I try to keep my eyes and ears open for this type of thing, and I
can't really recall hearing the RP be any worse than any other party when
it comes to this. The RP claims to want to put more power into the hands of
the "common person". If anything, such a desire is at direct odds with
mainstream Christian religions which have a definite top-down slant to
them.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:38:49 GMT

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

>In article <schuck.721855327@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:

>>Tragic blunder? The allies had to fight back somehow. Bombing was one
>>of the few ways open to them.

>It looks like the bombing in question didn't have an enormous amount
>of effect on German production.  

I disagree. 

The bombing destroyed and harassed production facilities.
The bombing diverted resources from offensive armaments to defensive weapons.
The bombing disrupted transportation within cities.

All of the above have to be added in and compared to what production
*would* have been without the bombing campaign.

Xref: sparky can.politics:9824 soc.culture.canada:8643
From: mousseau@paun02.pa.msu.edu (Normand Mousseau)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Politique linguistique du Quebec ( was Re: Americans on ...)
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:41:50 GMT
Reply-To: mousseau@paun02.pa.msu.edu (Normand Mousseau)
Organization: Michigan State University


In article <17NOV92.11954042.0097@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:

|> A propos de ce sujet, j'aimerais vous citer un editorial par Agnes
|> Gruda, paru dans La Presse du 16 novembre:
|> 
|> A competences academiques et linguistiques egales, les anglophones,
|> qui se sont pourtant "bilinguise's" ces dernieres annees a un rythme
|> neuf fois superieur a celui des francophones, se retrouvent Gros-Jean
|> comme devant, avec des revenus inferieurs du simple fait de leurs
|> origines ethniques.
|> 
|> Ce phenomene deborde du terrain de la statistique parce que le
|> Ppresident du Conseil de la langue francaise, M. Pierre-Etienne
|> Laporte, non seulement ne s'inquiete pas de ce glissement, mais qu'au
|> contraire, il y applaudit.
|> 
|> Car on pourrait toujours se dire que les francophones partaient de
|> loin, que dans leur effort de retablir l'equilibre dans une societe
|> ou, il y a a peine 30 ans, ils partaient perdants, ils ont commis un
|> "depassement" involontaire.
|> 
|> Ce n'est pas du tout ce que dit M. Laporte.  Selon lui, ce depassement
|> n'est pas involontaire.  Au contraire, dit-il, tel est precisement le
|> but vise' par les lois linguistiques du Quebec.

   (une partie de l'article est efffacee)
 
|> Ce discours appelle une reaction de la part des politiciens qui ont
|> confie' a M. Laporte un dossier aussi delicat que celui de la langue.
|> Partagent-ils sa perception des lois linguistiques?  Croient-ils eux
|> aussi qu'en bout de ligne, le but recherche' est de refouler les
|> "Anglos" dans une categorie de citoyens de seconde zone?  Si oui,
|> il faudrait que cela se sache.  Sinon, qu'ils le fassent savoir a
|> M. Laporte avant qu'il ne fasse trop de degats...
|> 
|> fin de la citation
|> 
|> Tom Box
|> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
|> 

	Je ne peux qu'appuyer l'editorial.  Le commentaire de M. Laporte est
simplement inacceptable.  Le Quebec ne peut pas se replier ainsi et 
renfermer dans une seconde categorie tous ceux qui ne parle pas francais
comme langue maternelle.  Une telle reaction me choque vivement, m'enrage
meme.  Je ne crois pas que les lois linguistiques du Quebec aient pour but
de refouler les anglophones dans des postes mineures et sous-payes et
je supporte en grande partie ces lois.  Toutefois, une telle reaction
de la part d'un fonctionnaire me laisse un gout amer dans la bouche...

	Normand
From: dale@dale.CAM.ORG (Dale Wharton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Nationalist authors meet public 20 November
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:54:10 GMT
Organization: private


                            Annual meeting of the Council of Canadians
                     20-22 November 1992, National Arts Centre, Ottawa
.
    YOU ARE INVITED to a book-signing event!  Meet the authors Friday,
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                 November 20 from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m.
.
 Maude Barlow & Bruce Campbell....  TAKE BACK THE NATION
 Duncan Cameron (ed.).............  THE CANADIAN FORUM
 David Crane......................  THE NEXT CANADIAN CENTURY
 Murray Dobbin....................  PRESTON MANNING & THE REFORM PARTY
 Mel Hurtig.......................  THE BETRAYAL OF CANADA
 Linda McQuaig....................  THE QUICK AND THE DEAD
 Rose Potvin (ed.)................  PASSION & CONVICTION...GRAHAM SPRY
 George Radwanski & Julia Luttrell  THE WILL OF A NATION
 Jim Sinclair.....................  CROSSING THE LINE
.
 The Council of Canadians (Join, eh?)  *  (613) 233-2773, fax 233-6776
                   1006-251 Laurier Avenue West  *  Ottawa ON  K1P 5J6
Newsgroups: can.politics
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:21:12 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: George's Bank dispute

In article <1992Nov17.210425.8954@ac.dal.ca>, whare@ac.dal.ca says:
>
>        O.K. This is VERY URGENT! I am doing a mock debate of the
>International Court of Justice hearing of George's Banks. This took
>place in the early '80s. Any information on points of either side
>would be GREATLY appreciated. Thank you in advance.
>
>        Stephen, my mark depends on this,Hare.
>
>        P.S. This hearing was about who owned what ocean waters.
>Canada and the U.S.A.disagreed on who owned George's Banks.
>
>        Once again, thankyou to any replies.
Actually, it was the late 80s
summary of arguments:

Canada: It's ours.
U.S.A.: No, it's ours.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Almost seperation ...
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:20:59 GMT


I think Canada should almost seperate. It would be better for the
different provinces, and eliminate so much of this bitching about
who's getting what privilege.

If Canada is a married family, then the world we are living in
still has 1940's attitudes towards divorce. So Canada should stay
married, so to speak, just so the neighbors won't gossip about
us; and so we can give "the children" the appearances of a stable
happy family; even though it isn't.

Let's just keep smiling, for appearances sake, and meanwhile
Quebec and English Canada can start sleeping in seperate beds,
and maybe even start having affairs on the side. This arrangement
is better than a drawn out divorce, and who knows, maybe with a little
time to ourselves, we might find that this is just a "phase".

Meanwhile, we'll both pay down the mortgage, be polite to each other,
and be seen together holding hands at all the big social functions.


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,can.followup
From: 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque)
Subject: Re: Virginie's TV violence petition
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:27:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.110332.4393@spxtech.qc.ca>, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:

(I quote myself)
>>      Have any of you guys seen the petition from a little girl named
>> Virginie[?]

(Steve "English education" Potter)
 
> Yes, I signed it.
> 
> Does anybody want the text posted?
> 

Sure, Steve.


> Am I a moron because I believe there is too much gratuitous violence
> on TV - and I believe studies that have linked it to violence in
> society to one degree or another?

Yeah, and they used to say that Jazz and Rock and Roll made black men want
to rape white women! And that Hallowe'en is Satanic too. BTW you are a moron!

> I'd like to see less stylised violence and commercialism in kid's
> cartoons too.

I'd like to shoot Strawberry Short cake and My Little Pony... Wile E kicks
their day anyday. 

> I'd also like to see permanent world peace.
> Am I dreaming? :-)

Yeah, very much. BTW banning things is the ULTIMATE form of violence, taking
away consent from people and interfering in their lives. THAT is why we will
never have World Peace... blah blah blah

By the way, give me Liberty or give me death (and kill Brian Mulroney and 
Bou-bou)

> -- 
>   ///==================================================================\\\
>   ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
>   ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
>   |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
-- 

John P. LaRocque
vader@uwo.ca
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario


"Urk..urk..."
"Apologies accepted, Captian Nida", Darth Vader
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada