HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca (stephen cooper 9209 U)
Subject: Re: Tolerance in Quebec (was Re: Political system 'axes')
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:01:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.114934.13724@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.193947.28704@bnrmtl.bnr.ca> phallard@bmtlh209.BNR.CA (Philippe Allard) writes:
>
>>I am quite surprised to read that you know of many anglophone families
>>whose children were forced to go to french school. In fact, you should know
>>that, even if bill 101 forces most immigrants to go to french school,
>>anybody whose parents (one or both) went to english school has himself the
>>right to go to english school. In other words, under the current law, no
>>anglophone is forced to go to french school.
>>
>
>WRONG!
>
>Somewhere between 10,000 and 13,000 English mother tongue children are
>currently denied access to English schooling in Quebec - because of
>certain unnessecarily restrictive provisions of Bill 101.
>
>A large part of my battle is overcoming ignorance on the subject. This
>ignorance is not restricted to the general public. There are a number of
>high ranking politicians and civil servants who are terribly misinformed.

You must be an immigrant then.  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states
that parents who were educated in English in Canada have the right to send
their children to English school.  However, Americans and British immigrants
moving to Quebec have to send their kids to school in French.

One thing I want to know is, why did you move to Quebec?  Was it for a job?
-- 
Steve Cooper      |  Internet:  scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca
Waterloo, Ontario |  If you actually think I speak for Wilfrid Laurier
Canada!!          |  University, well... I don't even want to think about it.
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: kenm@maccs.mcmaster.ca (...Jose)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, McMaster University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:08:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.014114.1347@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>Democracy is never a waste of money...and a secret ballot is essential
>to protect the rights of the individual.  But then the labour movement
>has never been interested in democracy!

	Roughly quoting Oscar Wilde:

	There are three kinds of tyrants: the tyrant of the body, the tyrant
of the soul and the tyrant of the body, mind and soul.  The first is called
'Prince', the second 'Pope', and the third 'the People.'

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
".sig quotes are silly"|Kenneth C. Moyle          kenm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca 
 - Kenneth C. Moyle    |Department of Biochemistry     MOYLEK@MCMASTER.BITNET 
                       |McMaster University       ...!uunet!mnetor!maccs!kenm 
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 00:48:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.194008.4998@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>Sovereign states force individuals to be represented by their
>officials, like it or not.  Are you implying that unions ought to be
>dealt with as sovereign states?

Management teams in private firms speak with a unified voice.  A
decision may have been reached by compromise, but often it isn't, and
the dissenting managers are given very few choices:

                it's the CEO's way or the highway.

Therefore, it's an organization you're forced to join.  You toe the
company line, or you stop working there.

Unions are but the employees' version of a similar thing, except often
times the decisions are reached more democratically than in the
management organizations.
-- 
    Michael MY Hui    Ottawa Ontario Canada    ~{~}
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Tolerance in Quebec (or the lack of it!)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:40:17 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1442

From article <1993Jan21.135834.10029@cerberus.ulaval.ca>, by beaucham@astro.phy.ulaval.ca Dominique Beauchamp claims:-

> In fact, Steve, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, is going to give a
> completely false image of Quebec to the rest of the World...

There is nothing false in the fact that current legislation in Quebec
forces children of ALL families who landed here since 26th August, 1977
(whether they be anglophone or not; whether they be Canadian citizens or
not) to attend French schools in this province - whether the parents
want the children to go to French schools or not!

There is nothing false in the fact that current legislation in Quebec
bans the use of English in commercial signs on stores and busineses.

Indicating ways in which Quebec demonstrates a lack of tolerance is
NOT giving a false image of Quebec to the rest of the World!

Of course life for an anglophone in Quebec today is not as bad as it
is for a black or coloured person in South Africa or as bad as it was
for Jews under Nazi Germany. There is however, legislated denial of
fundamental human rights and freedoms in Quebec. This is unacceptable!




-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven@spxtech.qc.ca                       |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Deficit, Deficit, who's got the Deficit? was: NDP "communism?"
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:28:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.182008.11320@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
>As Doug already mentioned, equalization payments amount to
>approximately one third of the Federal budget.  Those payments have
>been increasing by between 10% and 15% per year, for quite a while
>now.  In order for the Feds to be able to continue this increase, YOUR
>TAXES have to rise by between 3% and 5% every year, just to cover
>transfer payments.  That ignores any growth in costs at the Federal
>level.
>

Technically federal to province transfers comprise about a third
of the federal budget...equalization payments represent only
about only a portion of federal transfers to provinces...about
20% +/- 10% of total federal transfers to provinces.

Equalization payments are only a part of federal transfers
to provinces.
    
Gerald

Xref: sparky can.politics:11731 soc.culture.canada:10448 soc.culture.usa:10168 talk.politics.misc:70076
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Clintonmania vs. Trudeaumania (was MTV BALL 10,000 Maniacs)
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:31:44 GMT
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA

In article <paulf.728073802@abercrombie.Stanford.EDU> paulf@abercrombie.Stanford.EDU (Paul Flaherty) writes:
}murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy) writes:
}>> $23 million inauguration
}>None of which is public money, it should be pointed out, so it says
}>nothing about Clinton's attitude about *government* spending.
}
}...almost all of which was PAC money, it should be pointed out, so it says
}something about Clinton's attitude about *conflicts of interest*...


On the other hand, his trip into town (not directly paid for by public funds)
DID deprive us citizens of the use of public resources (closed off 14th street
bridge) and used public monuments and property and then sold the rights to
private business.

So does that say something about his concern for public resources?

BTW:  The security and clean-up WAS paid for by government spending -
the DC local government.
Xref: sparky can.politics:11581 soc.culture.canada:10207
From: larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE)
Subject: Re: Labrador boundary (was Re: S.N.A.G.G.)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:32:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.134118.24647@bmerh85.bnr.ca> viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca writes

>I guess you must have been wasted.  You didn't just get the date wrong,
>you got just about every historical aspect wrong.  By the way, as I said
>in my original response, it was NOT a Yugoslavian politician that was
>assassinated - it was Archduke Ferdinand of the Austro-hungarian Empire!

My horrible mistake. Well at least I can take comfort that a Yugo (ok,
a Serb.. no flames) pulled the trigger. What a stupid insane war anyways.

>God, do you people even know how to spell history?

"You people" - what does that mean? Oh... H-I-S-T-O-R-Y

>Given the evidence of your historical knowledge

Get a life. What's the hostility here?

>, do you even know WHERE
>Newfoundland was 50 years ago

Newfoundland is that lonely desolate rock in the middle of the Atlantic
Ocean. 

>Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
>email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Have a nice day.

-- 
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
**  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be  **
**  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW  **
***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Re: Beluga Funnies in Manitoba (was something else)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:57:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.044959.23730@julian.uwo.ca> larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
>In article <jester-200193112720@cc-k-box3.cc.umanitoba.ca> jester@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Jonathan Esterhazy) writes:
>>The Canadian government (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) announced at
>>the
>>end of December that it would no longer permit the live capture of beluga
>>whales for export. This is an important step forward for the anti-captivity
>>and conservation movements in Canada (and internationally, as Canada is a 
>>chief supplier of beluga whales for aquariums around the world).
>
>Like all of those evil animal rights people who let monkeys
>free in the fields of Alberta. Real smart guys.

Could you give a reference for your claim that monkeys were let free in
the fields of Alberta?
>
>>2. The transfer of jurisdiction over this population to a Natural Resources
>>portfolio.
> 
>How about ministry of animal rights....
>
That would be more appropriate but right now there isn't such a ministry.

>>Canadian aquariums be used as short term rehabilitation units for ailing 
>>Beluga populations, such as those in the St. Lawrence River, and that the
>
>Maybe THIS is why we are running out of Health Care money for humans. Oh.
>I forgot - humans = animals.
>
Where did all this humans = animals stuff come from?  The proposal is to
use *existing* facilities, not to spend a lot of money building new ones.

(Interested parties should note that followups are directed to talk.politics.
animals).
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
 "You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is
  concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity." - Emerson
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorry@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: Labrador boundary (was Re: S.N.A.G.G.)
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:05:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.163241.21913@julian.uwo.ca>, larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
> In article <1993Jan22.134118.24647@bmerh85.bnr.ca> viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca writes
> 
> 
>>, do you even know WHERE
>>Newfoundland was 50 years ago
> 
> Newfoundland is that lonely desolate rock in the middle of the Atlantic
> Ocean. 

Wish we were in the middle of the Atlantic. Then we'd be about 1500 
miles further away from the likes of you, plus we'd be right in the 
path of the Gulf Stream - we'd be a tropical paradise!

Jamie

> 
>>Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
>>email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> -- 
> ***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
> **  John LaRocque         **   "If you're the new messiah.. I'm going to be  **
> **  marshall.law@uwo.ca   **   the one to drive in the nails"  MARSHALL LAW  **
> ***FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**FEAR*AND*LOATHING**
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: Clintonmania vs. Trudeaumania (was MTV BALL 10,000 Maniacs)
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:03:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.155025.15922@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian Ross) writes:
>: enthousiasm that was gushing forth.  As a Canadian, this all reminds
>: me a little of Trudeaumania that swept Canada in the late 60's with
>: the Liberal Party's "francization" under Pierre.  Anyone else with
>: long memories care to add/counter these impressions? (-;
>
>The main difference I see is one between the personalities of
>Clinton and Trudeau. Clinton seems likable and genuine, while
>Trudeau was a bombastic egomaniac. 
>
Yes, Trudeau I think had alot more worshippers in 1968 - I agree with
Brian's assessment of him being a bombastic egomaniac. Clinton is a big
spender (note his $23 million on the inaugeration as compared to Jimmy
Carter's peoples inaugeration which cost only $700,000 - even the rate of
inflation won't explain that one) like Trudeau. The real problem is that
when one gets hope and support going, that person becomes more like a
dictator. After all Hitler was elected as a saviour for the German Mark
which was experiencing hyper-inflation and he corrected that problem but
became a dictator in other areas which the voters did not vote on.


Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: NDP communism (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 07:50:02 GMT

In article <C1B1HF.6wq@mach1.wlu.ca> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>>
>I am part of a Union which was certified three years ago in Ontario. It was
>interesting because our University has four faculties and while one faculty
>voted 100% in favour, another voted only 10% in favour. Is it fair that the
>one faculty which had 100% in favour should dominate the one which only had
>10% in favour? 

no of course not. A union is not a government, therefore a union has no
claim to represent people based on a plurality. If you want to join the
union, fine, it is not within my rights to stop you, and neither is
it within your rights to force me to join a union.

>At the time Ontario needed more than 50% support and the line
>was very close to the actual vote and thus secret ballot I think was
>important. I suspect from events since that there is a small group of Union
>members who perceive that they speak for the faculty when in fact they are
>not at all representative of the overall faculty. I also suspect this is
>true of Chamber of Commerce executives.

> However, I worry more about the
>Chambers of Commerce because they provide the capital to provide the jobs
>and they can move that capital between jurisdcitions very very quickly
>leaving the rest of the people without jobs and without any chance of moving
>quickly. Capital can move with a flick of a computer switch - people cannot.
>
For one thing, the Chamber of Commerce is an organization, not a bank.
The chamber of commerce does not provide capital. 

Second, you have no bloody right to worry about the Chamber of Commerce
moving capital around, if it did that, (let's assume bank, private owner
whatever, whoever has the capital to begin with). It isn't your money.
The Bank doesn't owe you or the community a living. people are not in
business to create jobs. Jobs are a by-product of investment process.
If the local government acts in a way detrimental to me or my capital,
I'll move it away. We should be thankful that money can move at the
flick of a switch, because it means that money can be removed from 
risky areas, and diverted to useful, profitable concerns instead.
Why delay the movement of capital? Snooze, you lose. Delaying the
capital flow would just subject it to bad, unprofitable risks for
a longer period, and delay financing of worthy projects.

It's too bad that governments act to restrict people's movements, as
people would move away quicker from bad governments, if they could.
But the government traps people, or delays their movement, (even in
Canada).

>


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: duquet@astro.phy.ulaval.ca (Jean-Remi Duquet)
Subject: Re: Tolerance in Quebec (was Re: Political system 'axes')
Organization: Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, Qc, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:41:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.095755.18407@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>From article <20JAN93.10484054.0076@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, by CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> Tom writes:-
>
>> Even concerning language, most
>> Quebecers, both anglo and franco (and allo), are quite tolerant in
>> everyday life.  In one-on-one conversations, most of us do our
>> best to communicate in whatever language is mutually convenient.
>
>Agreed. (Pretty much).

In fact it's a famous social trend in Quebec; francos have a strange
tendency to switch all conversations to english when a single anglo
enters a group. This syndrome is even funnier when the anglo speaks a
little french (but won't use it because he don't like to feel like a
twit who can't speak correctly) and some francos speak a less than fluent
english.

The other side of it is that many anglos (Canadians or Staters ((was there
an agreement on this name???)) ) who come here don't feel like going through
the trouble of learning french. :(

>I am in contact with a number of anglophone families whose children have
>had, and are having, severe problems as a result of being forced to
>attend french schools in Quebec. That is NOT to say that there is anything
>wrong with french schools. I mean that these children have problems as a
>result of being placed in an environment that is totally foreign to them.
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmmm. I don't want to start this all over again, but how can a french
environment be "totally foreign" to quebecers, unless of course they're
just arrived from some other place ? That's (sort of) exactly the 
traditional complaint against anglo-quebecers: a lot of them USED
to live here as if there was an aquarium wall between them and francos.
(try to see how weird it would be for (say) a franco manitoban to call
english schools a totally foreign environment...)

Jean-Remi Duquet

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Tolerance in Quebec (was Re: Political system 'axes')
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:49:34 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1250

In article <1993Jan22.193947.28704@bnrmtl.bnr.ca> phallard@bmtlh209.BNR.CA (Philippe Allard) writes:

>I am quite surprised to read that you know of many anglophone families
>whose children were forced to go to french school. In fact, you should know
>that, even if bill 101 forces most immigrants to go to french school,
>anybody whose parents (one or both) went to english school has himself the
>right to go to english school. In other words, under the current law, no
>anglophone is forced to go to french school.
>

WRONG!

Somewhere between 10,000 and 13,000 English mother tongue children are
currently denied access to English schooling in Quebec - because of
certain unnessecarily restrictive provisions of Bill 101.

A large part of my battle is overcoming ignorance on the subject. This
ignorance is not restricted to the general public. There are a number of
high ranking politicians and civil servants who are terribly misinformed.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven@spxtech.qc.ca                       |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca (Kevin Kelly)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: Ryerson
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:11:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.171516.28146@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
>Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
>Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:15:16 GMT
>In article <kkelly.8.0@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca> kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca (Kevin Kelly) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan22.014114.1347@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Automatic certification exists in Ontario. It seems to me a waste
>>>>of money to run a vote when almost 50% of the possible voters have
>>>>already committed themselves to vote for one side.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Democracy is never a waste of money...and a secret ballot is essential
>>>to protect the rights of the individual.  But then the labour movement
>>>has never been interested in democracy!
>>
>>On what do you base this pearl of wisdom. What is your experience of 
>>Unions? Have you ever belonged to one? Or are you one of these "I know 
>>people in Unions and...". Or do you base this statement on what you read in 
>>the press?
>>
>
>A secret ballot is essential to any democratic process...since labour
>does not support a secret ballot for something as important as union
>certification, labour can hardly be called democratic.

Since you didn't answer my question I will rephrase it. Do you belong to a 
union and been involved in a ratification process? 

DO you know how unions operate. Many Unions in their own 
constitution call for a secret ballot on elections and other votes. In fact 
there is more democracy in a union than in most organizations I know. 

The secret ballot on certification is a bit of red herring. If an individual 
does not wish to join a union or have one in the workplace they do not have 
to sign a card. Its as simple as that. 

And dont bother with responding with the "union intimidation" defense used 
by opponents of unions. Usually the intimidation comes from the company not 
the unions. I know I was there. 


>>Gerald
>
Kevin
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada