HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: BNA Act and bilingualism
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:12:46 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <11SEP92.10551890.0069@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000) writes:
>
>Does anyone have a breakdown of the population of each province by
>language at or near the time of Confederation?  Such data might
>help put this question in a clearer context.
>
>Tom Box
>CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

What I found:
                                              QC ethnical origin 
      Canada     Quebec      French canadian  Fr.   Brit.  Other
1871  3869257 1191516 32,3%  1082940  31,1%   78,0% 20,4%  1,6% 
1901  5371315 1648898 30,7%  1649371  30,7%   80,2% 17,6%  2,2% 
1931 10376786 2874662 27,7%  2927990  28,2%   79,0% 15,0%  6,0% 

Interesting : British origin dropped of 25% between 1871 and 1931,
more than fifty years before law 101  :^) 

extracted from: Histoire du Quebec contemporain 1867-1929 Boreal, 1989
Rien pour les "provinces" (l'index ne montre pas : province, Nouveau-Brunswick
ou Nouvelle-Ecosse).

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:55:28 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Steve Potter) writes:
>Is Francois trying to suggest that "individual" rights are not
>legitimate?

I'm saying that the anglo-quebecois are trying to make their
collective rights pass as individual rights to justify them. If only
they were honest enough to acknowledge that they are "only" collective
rights, I would be more sympathetic to their claims.

Education in a minority language is NOT an individual "right"
anywhere.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: "Individual"/"Collective"
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:07:44 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Steve Potter asks, "Why should the term 'individual' or 'collective' attach any
significance to a set of right?"

I commend to him and others interested in the question an article in the July
Harper's by Shelby Steele, "The New Sovereignty," which sets out the
distinction and its consequences very clearly. Steele's views imply that
collective rights may apply to all citizens of a nation (for example, the right
to vote or be spared arbitrary seach and seizure). We might also argue that
children form a collective who are all entitled to an education and protection
from exploitation.

But when we begin to identify other groups as entitled collectives, we ask for
trouble. The present constitutional deal appears to entrench such collectives
through measures like the 25% guarantee and the inherent right to native
self-government. Some provinces are aggravating the problem of collectivism by
calling for "gender equity" in senatorial elections.

Steele argues that collectivism leads inevitably to separatism, because every
collective becomes an enterprise that promotes itself by finding ever more
grievances; eventually it has no recourse but splitting off from the larger
society. That seems to summarize the political evolution of Quebec, but of
course even an independent Quebec would face the problem of internal
collectives (Indians, anglos, Haitians, fundamentalist Christians, whoever)
that would in turn seek to split themselves away from the larger society.
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:28:20 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1967

From article <1992Sep9.185157.24804@bcrka451.bnr.ca>, by nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau):
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
> Frankly, all this talk about "individual rights" and "collective
> rights" is confusing me.  (And if you don't believe I'm confused, read
> my version of history that substituted Napoleon for Louis XV.  Oh boy!
> :-) )
> 
> Now, what is the difference between individual and collective rights?
> I've seen this used in discussing the sign law - but if someone puts up
> a sign saying "McKenna's Flowers", is he exercising his individual
> right as a businessman, or is he an agent-provocateur for the
> anglophone oppressors?
> 
> This dichotomy keeps coming up in discussing Steve's complaints about
> his kids going to French school.  Is Steve claiming individual rights,
> or rights as a member of a collectivity?  And when Denis opposes Steve,
> is he defending HIS individual rights, or the collective rights of
> French Canadians?  (In Steve's case, it sounds at first like individual
> rights, till we realize that this applies only to anglophones in Quebec
> because they form a sizable minority and have their own school system.
> So, collective rights there, and collective rights for Denis as well,
> since HIS individual rights aren't affected by which school someone
> else's kids goes to.)  Obviously, some people are making distinctions
> here that escape me.
> 
> 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.
> 

It is a smoke screen!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: rep by pop
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 17:17:25 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

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

>In article <1992Sep07.143530.17819@oneb.almanac.bc.ca>, kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay) writes:

>|> Ditto here - a resounding NO on acceptance. The rest of the package seems
>|> immaterial in light of scrapping rep by pop.

>Those who fanatically defend rep by pop might take into consideration
>the fact that Canada does not truly have it.  Does every riding have
>the same population?  No, far from it and Ken McVay should know it well
>since he lives in British Columbia, a province where for years the region
>of Greater Vancouver was seriously under-represented in the legislature.

The reality (of less than ideal rep by pop at this time) does not change my
feeling that the agreement creates the potential (certainty?) that the
situation will worsen during the next fifty years or so. 

>The impression I receive from this discussion is that the real problem for
>the self proclaimed defenders of "the ideals of liberal democracy" is
>that they feel that, once again, Quebec is getting "special" treatment.

I am opposed to giving any province locked-in representation, beyond that
minimum which would assure _some_ representation, regardless of how low the
pop may fall. I do not consider 25% a reasonable minimum, and it would not
matter which province received it - this is not an instance of "Quebec
bashing" under any circumstances.

>The message that comes through is not one of the man of principle defending
>his ideals but one of folks giving vent to the same old tired carping.
>Can.politics seems full of it these days.

See above. If folks in Quebec wish to interpret my vote that way, then so be
it - it is not the case.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep9.194222.1260@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> <12828@audetf>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:21:35 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <12828@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

   In article (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
   >The governing council of the EC which wields the power has 1 vote
   >per country regardless of size.  The European Parliament is 
   >an essential powerless body.

   I'll have to verify that vote thing. In some cases, it doesn't work
   that way.

   The European Parliament's powers will increase with time, Maastrich
   being a first step.

   >We have one of the most decentralized federations in the world.

   And yet we are supposed to be a Confederation. We also have the
   2nd largest country in the world, and we have 2 Nations. Federations
   only work properly when the country has a unique nation.

Federations were "designed" for exactly the situation when the variety
of the population necessitates a devolution of powers from the center.
--
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
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Collective rights in the new constitution
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:05:35 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1425

From article <1992Sep14.192602.4308@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, by golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy):
> In article <1992Sep14.173509.16638@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>
>>I must concur with Don McPherson, who has come closest in his column in the
>>Gazette to capturing the phenomenal absurdity of these negotiations:
>>"Somebody please stop them!"
>>
> 
> The way to stop them is to vote NO!
> 
> Nothing bad will happen...because there is no time for anything bad
> to happen before the elections which will be imminent in both Quebec
> and Canada.
> 
> The worst thing that can happen is that in two years, after the
> next Quebec election, there will be a referendum on sovereignty.
> 
> The rest of Canada is stupid for not trusting the common sense
> of the average Quebecers in such a referendum.
> 
> What we need is a moratorium...the way to get it is to vote NO!
> 
> With the constitution then safe again from politicians, they will
> have to turn their focus again to the economy and getting re-elected.
> 
> 
> Gerald


It's worth a shot! 

I vote NO!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can,world,on
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:15:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.190325.19068@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com 
(Thomas Hood) writes:
>The B.N.A. Act was a perfectly good constitution and should not have been
>repatriated.  Instead of creating the Charter, Trudeau could have strengthened
>the Bill of Rights.  The amending formula has proven to be unusable, as
>expected.

It was a major embarrassment for Canada to have to approach another
country's parliament to make internal legislative chaanges. Trudeau's
achievement of patriation was a major step forward for Canada.
The "Bill of Rights" was simply a federal act that could be changed by
Parliament at any time. It did not bind provincial governments at all.
The amending formula has not proven to be unusable; in fact, it has been
used several times since 1982.

Mathew Englander.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:34:02 GMT

In article <12839@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>Fundamentally, Canada has two Nations: English Canada & Quebec (french
>Canada).
>

A lot of us decendents of ethnic immigrants don't think of ourselves
as English...this Upper Canada/Lower Canada duality doesn't quite
work for third generation ethnic Canadians in Western Canada.

>You may want to add the so-called First Nations if you want, but
>that's just rethorics. I can hardly see Canada as a 3-Nation state
>when one of these Nations consist of 2% of the canadian population and
>has a set of values which are not the same at all as the other 2
>Nations, are are not at all cared off in the Canadian system. (I'm not
>saying that it's alright).
>

Gerald
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:21:08 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

"Everyone's going around holding their noses.  They're so busy breathing 
through their mouths, they can't say anything."

Who said this?  Sharon Carstairs!  :-)

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: Walter_Gorlitz@mindlink.bc.ca (Walter Gorlitz)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: The new agreement
Date: 5 Sep 92 18:03:11 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

I would like to read the entire text of the agreement before I vote on it.
Does anyone have a copy of it?  I would like a copy of it E-Mailed to me (at
the first address below).  If it's not too long or too inappropriate perhaps
posting it here as well.
--
             Signature?  I'm a Mac user, why do I need a signature?
  wgorlitz@wiz.wimsey.bc.ca        walter gorlitz        a416@mindlink.bc.ca
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:52:05 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <12784@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article <12781@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>>Quebec was created at the time of Confederation as a political entity
>>that could protect the French Canadian culture. There has been agreement`
>>from the beginning that French has a special place in Quebec.
>
>You are doing it again. QUEBEC WAS NOT CREATED AT THE TIME OF THE
>CONFEDERATION. It existed long before that for a while officialy under
>the name "Nouvelle-France", then "Canada", then "Bas-Canada" and then
>"Province de Quebec". Howere the name "Quebec" to designate it was
>used long before the Confederation. Canadian history did not start in
>1867.

The Province of Quebec was created at the time of Confederation
as the poloitical entity which could protect the French culture within
Canada.

I know that this is just a restatement of what I said but your
comments were so off the point that I couldn't determine their meaning.
There was a pre-existing French culture in Canada East at the time
of Confederation. The province of Quebec was created to preserve the
insititutions of this culture. 

Do you disagree with this? If so why was Quebec created?

>
>>Provincial governments were created in Canada to allow local control
>>of culture. 
>
>Provincial governments were created because there would have been a
>Revolution if the French and the English at the time were under the
>same unitary totalitarian government. The politicians couldn`t care
>less about culture at the time.

The politicians at that time cared very deeply for their culture.
Cartier from Canada East insisted on and won the rights of the
French culture in Quebec. The representatives from the Maitimes with
their distinct cultures gained local autonomy with their provincial
governments.

Now you claim that there would have been a revolution if this had not
taken place. However the politicians of the time did recognize the
importance of culture and did move to accommodate it within the
constitution.

Now you cannot have it both ways. If Quebec and the other provinces were
created to preserve local cultures then their must have been cooperation
between cultural groups.

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


-- 
i.sinature
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:03:25 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

The B.N.A. Act was a perfectly good constitution and should not have been
repatriated.  Instead of creating the Charter, Trudeau could have strengthened
the Bill of Rights.  The amending formula has proven to be unusable, as
expected.  The hard copy was best left in Great Britain(*).

The best thing about the Charlottetown Agreement is that it is almost
equally insignificant.

Representation will stay about the same.  The Senate continues to have only
symbolic power.  The division of powers remains unchanged (with one
tiny exception).  Aboriginals get nothing new.  The Supreme Court changes 
insignificantly.  The Social Charter has no teeth.  The monarchy remains.

All they've done is jazz it up with pretty words and Trudeau-proof it
with fine print.

Hooray!

--------------

(*) There are now two ruined official copies of the Constitution Act (1982):
one that was rained-on at the signing ceremony, another that was vandalized.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Les interets collectifs
Date: 7 Sep 92 02:53:53 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

plante@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Frederic Plante) writes:

>Un petit conseil, si je puis me permettre.  N'ayez pas peur du 
>Parti Quebecois (je ne parle pas pour eux; je suis tres peu militant).
>Si jamais la loi 101 est amendee dans le sens du rapport Chambers,
>c'est le Parti Quebecois que le fera (c'est le seul qui aurait la
>credibilite; on ne pourra jamais accuser le Parti Quebecois d'etre
>pro-anglais, tandis que le parti Liberal...).

... which means that there is no chance at all.

>Je sais que ca va vous paraitre bizarre, mais ce n'est pas si con que
>ca ce qu'a fait Richard Holden (meme si a vos yeux il n'a plus de
>credibilite).  Les anglophones doivent discuter et s'entendre avec
>les nationalistes.  C'est inevitable, sinon nous n'aurons jamais
>la paix sociale.

There is something to what you say.

>Mais je tiens a vous prevenir que nous ne reviendrons jamais au
>bon vieux temps du libre-choix de la langue d'enseignement.  C'est
>irrealiste de demander cela aux quebecois.

I have no illusions about that.

>Frederic Plante

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: momtahan@bnrca (Parham Momtahan)
Subject: Re: What is the best situation for Quebec?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 16:04:03 GMT

In article <BuCHK9.I36@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, tdwebste@stylus.uwaterloo.ca (Timothy D. Webster) writes:
|> I once had strong interest in this country (Canada).
|> 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. 

Please don't assume you are speaking for all Canadians. I chose Canada
as my country, and having lived in a few other countries, I know how
privileged I am to be a citizen of this country. 
 
So, when are you off to the 'world' to take responsibility for its
problems? Various regions (Ex USSR, Africa, South America, or perhaps
even USA) could do with the kind of lionesque wisdom and leadership you
think you can offer.

|> Canadians are Lions governed by Donkeys.
  
I can only conclude that any such Lions whine rather than roar.

Parham Momtahan.  
________________________________________________________________________
Bell-Northern Research Ltd,           |     
Ottawa, Canada                        |   email: momtahan@bnr.ca 
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
X.DISCLAIMER: Contents (if found) may not represent my employer's views.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: sex and the senate
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:49:20 GMT

In article <gill.716249219@physics.ubc.ca> gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill) writes:
>
>             Or the more likely situation, that only 3 women decide to run 
>and enter the Senate by acclamation.

Hmm, this brings up an interesting thought.  Wouldn't such a scenario
encourage MORE women to run?

In an ideal world, all people would have an equal chance at any
opportunity, with ability the only factor.  Unfortunately, in the
modern world, too many people (women, minorities, even some of us white
males) believe they DON'T have an equal shot at it (whatever "it" may
be).  So they don't try - why court failure?  So women avoid "male"
professions (from engineering to politics), members of various
minorities let their ambitions die.  And of course, this only
perpetuates the stereotypes.

At the extreme, this leads to a victim mentality - blaming the world
for all one's failings.  Oddly enough, the clearest example of such a
mentality is among some white men - the Zundels and others such racist
losers who need a "them" to blame for their unsatisfying little lives.

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself