HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "Individual"/"Collective"
Date: 26 Sep 92 03:36:59 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1406

From article <12964@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):
> In article <1992Sep22.091115.11234@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>The percentage of English mother tongue Quebecers who were bilingual
>>increased from 37 percent in 1971 to 53 percent by 1981.
> 
> And it took severe laws to make them decide to learn the language of
> the society they live in.
> 

No it didn't.

The society they live in includes an English community!

They learn French because French is the main language in Quebec and any
one who lives in Quebec ought to learn it. (Didn't Parizeau say something
like that? :-)

(The percentage of British origin Quebecers who were bilingual increased
from 29 percent in 1951 to 47 percent in 1981.)

> I suspect that the % of francophones hoirs-quebec who are bilingual is
> very close to 100%.
> 

I posted some figures recently, the figure for French mother tongue
Canadians who also spoke English was about 36.6 percent _for the
country as a whole_.

I can't find the figures for hors-Quebec off-hand but if I find 'em
I'll post 'em.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:33:44 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>Just because someone can't speak French doesn't mean the person is
>intolerant of francophones. You're right that most Vancouver
>restaurants couldn't take your order in French, but it's because
>they don't get enough francophone customers to justify making French
>a condition of employment.

Of course not.

However, the fact that a huge proportion of francophones in Quebec
also speak english AND will use it when talking to anglophones even
within Quebec definitively shows TOLERANCE.

However, being answered "Speak English, this is Canada!" when
Canada-Direct (a suppositively bilingual service that allows you to
get a "friendly canadian operator" anywhere in the world and "avoid
foreign language operators") from Japan (thus a BC operator) is
profoundly intolerant and unacceptable.

I understand that most people in BC don't speak french and have no
desire to do so. What I don't understand is their concern about
english in Quebec.

Even in the Ottawa region (25%-30% francophone), most anglophones
don't speak french. The francophones however speak english. And guess
who's preaching tolerance?

This is a falsified debate.

>I doubt you speak Swedish, Francois, but are you intolerant of Swedes?

But I wouldn't say the sewidish are intolerant if they expect people
to speak sweedish in Sweede.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 1 Oct 92 06:13:05 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:

> If we support the idea of Family allowance, then it hardly makes sense to
> give family allowance to everyone. The Torie's are removing Family
> Allowance for middle income and the rich. Big deal: it'll leave more for
> people who need it, and cut the amount of civil servants needed to process
> so many cheques.

Wishful thinking.  The civil service will claim that treating Canadian
families differently according to income level will be more complicated than
sending checks to everyone with children.  Watch the number of civil servants
in that department double.  :(

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: 95 % rep by pop (was Re: Joe Clark's Session ...)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:15:32 GMT

In article <BvG7Ix.MHn@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>How can you predict the future in this way? Much of the growth industries are
>located in Quebec. High-tech companies such as NT, BNR, NRC. The Canadian
>Space Agency. This is were the future lies.

Fine.  Then get rid of that 25% minimum, since you won't need it.

(I'm hearing two arguments that say 25% minimum is OK.  The first is, 
Quebec's population will always be 25% or more, so it doesn't matter; and
the second is that we will renegotiate if it drops below 25%.  Now if this
is true, then WHY WHY WHY does this 25% get enshrined in the first place?)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:46:36 GMT

pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:

>thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes: 

>>What should happen after the accord is rejected?
>
>Nothing on the constitution, hopefully.  And maybe the gov't can get on
>with the day-to-day running of the country instead.

In other words, ignore the concerns of 
	-francophone Quebeckers who feel cheated after 1980-82, 
	-residents of western, atlantic, and northern Canada who
	 feel they don't have adequate representation in the
	 country's central institutions, and
	-aboriginal Canadians, who have been trampled on for 350
	 years and want the guarantee of being able to govern
	 themselves with Canada.

These are problems that will not go away. If the government just
ignores the constitution question after a No result, national
discontent will fester, and everyone, except some Ontarians, will
be unhappy with Canada.

Mathew Englander.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: A few of Trudeau's points
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:41:07 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: All you need is one person to dissent from the collective, and
: collective rights will infringe the rights of the individual.

I think this is untrue. Anyone may give up rights they don't want (don't like
your freedom of movement? Lock yourself in the clost). If you take a
collective group as an example, say by gender. It there is to be extra rights
to promote equality of men+women, and this takes the form of affirmative
action, I'm sure any woman can refuse to take a job because of it. She has
retained her individual rights and dissented from the collective.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Xref: sparky can.politics:8085 soc.culture.canada:7239
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Reasons to STAY AWAY from the NO side
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:41:53 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>I personally think more decentralization is possible, but it has
>to be carefully done, and Charlottetown doesn't do this the right
>way...it balkanizes the country completely...and essentially insures
>its slow disintegration into chaos and eternal bickering. Any further
>decentralization also has to come with an economic union and a 
>common market insuring the free movement of good, services, capital,
>and people.
>
>I don't particularly think that asymmetrical federalism is workable,
>but I would not be opposed to a constituent assembly developing a model
>of asymmetrical federalism, because I think it would be summarily
>rejected by both Quebeckers and Canadians when they saw the details.

Why do you believe this, Gerald?
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:07:47 GMT

In article <W01-my_@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:

>>The prime minister, subject to a few requirements, can appoint anyone
>>to the Senate, he could easily appoint people nominated by the provinces
>>or elected by the provinces.  It doesn't require a constitutional
>>change...after all Stan Waters ended up in the Senate...and he was
>>elected.
>>
>>Gerald
>
>What you are describing is a political accord, by which the Prime Minister
>agrees to appoint people proposed by the Premier, and the Premier agrees to
>propose people selected by plebescite.  This is technically feasible, but it
>has no force of law anywhere in the country---which means that it could be
>abrogated by any First Minister at any time.
>

But all it takes is one Prime Minister to say that he will appoint
people to the Senate who are elected in provinces, and it would be
extremely difficult for any subsequent PM, not to continue.

>And while it is _technically_ feasible, it is not _politically_ feasible.
>Quebec wouldn't even agree to an elected Senate that was eviscerated by the
>Charlottown Accord.  When Alberta tried to force the issue with Waters'
>election, Mulrooney only agreed to appoint him after Alberta agreed not to
>do it again.  Clearly _someone_ was upset that the current Senate might
>get to be largely elected---someone with some pull.  If Cha'town goes down,
>that someone will be in the same position they were in before, and so no
>more likely to support (even partial) election than before.
>

It would make a good campaign position for the Reform Party, and if
the Reform Party adopted the position that the Prime Minister would
only appoint elected Senators, other parties would come under extreme
pressure to adopt the same position.  Democracy has a momemtum of its
own.

>It is misleading to say that the Feds could "easily" make the Senate an
>elected body.
>

I disagree...it takes one prime minister.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:05:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.001537.3578@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.035356.7255@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>I find it hard to imagine a deal worse than Charlottetown.
>
>     Your imagination must be a little weak today, Gerald.
>Just say "MEECH".  (or "1981")

Actually (although I'm not Gerald) I personally much preferred Meech to
this deal.  The problems I have with the deal have little to do with 
what Meech offered.  It was a nice small deal that dealt with the specific
issue of Quebec.  It didn't entrench collective anything, with the exception
of a distinct society in Quebec - and I could easily live with that as
I don't intend to live there again.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 14:10:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.213832.4125@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>Politicians of the left and right can both believe in individual
>rights and liberty...which is the case with both Manning and Trudeau.
>(Enterprenuerial capitalism and social democracy).
>
>Politicians of the left and right and both believe in collective
>rights and apartheid...which is the case of Rae and Mulroney.  
>(Communism and fascism).
>
>Consider economics and liberty is a 2-dimensional grid...and each of the
>above four can probably be pidgeon-holed in a different quadrant...
>although Manning is the weakest example since he is a populist, and
>thus is extremely close to the origin of the grid.


Gerald is exactly right (except for the political names he attaches
to the various politicians, of course.)

And this is a good reason for us to discuss the substance of the
Constitutional proposal, rather than who is on which "side" and try to
show that because "X" is voting "yes", then
"therefore anyone voting the same way must agree with everything X says",
which is a rather mindless way at looking at things.

Surely those that say Trudeau is tainted because Manning says "no" as well,
have not considered that to the Reformers, Manning is equally "tainted" 
because  Trudeau (their nemesis, surely) is voting the same way. 

I attended a lecture by Mordecai Richler in Ottawa some months ago, about his
book. He was accused of being disreputable by some oaf because the Reform
Party was recommending his book. Richler responded: "Right, and Richard Nixon
was also an anti-communist. What can I do?" This was met with much
laughter, except from the accuser, who didn't seem to know what was up.....

It is just as absurd to suggest that those that argue for socialist 
economics must necessarily be advocates of totatitarianism and
the suspension of individual liberties; or that capitalists are
all against freedom of speech, etc.

Frank.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Trudeau - Dark Lord of Hypocrisy, Anti-christ, Non-eater of Vege
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:32:01 GMT

yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
: 
: -[Mr Ross Anti Trudeau rhetoric deleted]
: - --
: - Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists
: - bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens an
: -                                     confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
: 
:   brian, FTR, Mr Mulroney is more respnible for creating a yet bigger mess when
: he CLAIMED that Quebec was alienated.
: 
:   Furthur: Mr. Levesque, then Quebec premier in 1982, would NEVER want equal
: rights on an equal playing, i.e. the term Quebec's distinct Society.
: 
: PLEASE, get the facts straight!!

Mulroney was stating a fact -- Quebec was alienated by Trudeau's 
half-ass repatriation.  You give Mulroney more credit than he deserves
if you think he can sway Quebec public opinion to the degree that you claim.

Yadallee -- Yet Another truDeau ApoLogist Lying on Every Event   :-)

-- 
Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists 
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens and
                                    confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: What does Quebec take with them when they go, and who decides?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:29:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.144641.27218@julian.uwo.ca> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
>A while ago I got a pamphlet from APEC (alliance for the preservation of
>english in Canada).  It made 3 points concerning different land masses
>within Q-bek.  I can dig the pamphlet up, but they gave somewhat
>believable arguments about each point.
>
>The point is, what are the rules that the fed gov't would operate under
>with regards to Q-bek separation in terms of what territory they get?
>
>Can we trust the current or future crop of fed politicos to negociate
>the "correct" deal, as far as logic and past historical contracts go?
>

This is NOT a referendum on Quebec sovereignty...let us not confuse
the issue at hand, which is the Charlottetown Accord.  What we
should be considering at the moment is the content of this agreement.

The current crop of politicians want to use the bait-and-switch on
this deal...they want to con us into speculating on sovereignty,
instead of examining the deal actually before us.  Don't let them
succeed.

There will be a federal election next year, and
an Alberta election, and very likely a Quebec election. 
The politicians can be dealt with then.

Gerald
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:41:39 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <BvEIuC.AKC@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>think that environmental damage would be confined to Quebec either -- we
>breathe the same air, and drink the same water.

Dominant winds (i.e. dominant in the sense of mean or usual winds) are
eastward and water on St.Lawrence go East, no West.

Air and water pollution is for geographical reason of higher impact from
Ontario to Quebec.


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===  Non a une entente au contenu secret      Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 06:56:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.134222.6483@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>From article <1992Sep23.031639.7022@bcrka451.bnr.ca>, by nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau):
>>>>>"Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall
>>>>> be given to their children."
>>>> 
>>>> Hmm, what does "kind" mean?  Does it mean, in the language of one's
>>>> choice?  Does it mean, through public funding?
>>>
>>>At the very least it means the right to choose from publicly funded
>>>schools that are available!
>> 
>> Steve, I don't think you really answered my question.

Geez, why don't you two cut the crap! This education thread is out of hand,
especially since there is an obvious solution:

Every child should receive a voucher for education, payable to an educational
institution. The parents can take this voucher to any school, and use
it towards the cost of the school. The voucher value will be equal for
all children.

IF this is used as a basis, then parents can take their kids
to the school they think is better. That may be a New Age, learn by guessing
kind of school, or a strict, beat-em-till-they-know-it school. Or it may
be French, or English, or even Swahili. This takes the power away
from vested teacher's union interests, and the "social engineering" type
policies of government; and gives the power back to the parents.

I'd hope this would satisfy English parents. I think the French might 
resent parents making the choice, and not the state's plans. But French
is already the dominant language, so there will be no threat to French
Schools. As for immigrants: If you are a full citizen, you should not
be treated any differently. I would admit that if you are NOT a full citizen
yet, Quebec should be able to make non-citizens go to French schools,
as a condition of the substantial privielege of being allowed to come to
Canada.

A voucher system would bypass this rights bickering, I think. It would 
take some of the politics out of things, and return the issue to quality
of education.

<issue closed> ;-)
-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegemony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:34:49 GMT

Paul Ward (ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: In article <1992Oct1.015139.25793@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
: >		[...]
: >	    (f) Canadians are commited to a respect for individ-
: >	    ual and collective human rights and freedoms of all
: >	    people;
: >		[...]
: 
: I'm Canadian.  I'm not committed to collective rights.  In fact, I strongly
: oppose them.  Therefore that statement is false.  At least one Canadian (me)
: is not committed to collective rights.

You're not committed to collective rights at all? You don't think that we
should do something to equalise rights of, say, children? women? natives?
disabled people? Why not? Yes I understand that they are all still Canadian,
and protected under the Charter. I believe that we also need to do more for
some of these groups to make their rights equal to ours. Its fine to say we
have gender equality, but as long as women only earn 70% of men for the same
jobs, they need something more.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: magore@icr2.uwaterloo.ca (Mike Gore)
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:23:48 GMT

In article <BvCuCC.9BM@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> 
	dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
...
>How do you figure individual democracy is gone? You still can vote. You are
>represented by the person you vote for. This is a democracy. 

[ Minor nit ]

	Idealy one needs good choices first. Considering the margins that
one often sees in a election - having bad choices can result in even worse 
representation - in any event it is only representation - I don't
think may societies have TRUE democracy ...

# Mike Gore, Technical Support, Institute for Computer Research
# Internet: magore@icr2.uwaterloo.ca
# UUCP:     uunet!math!icr2!magore
# These ideas/concepts do *not* imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Native Self-Government
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:33:37 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

The affirmation of "inherent right to self-government" in the constitutional
deal is awfully vague. I don't think it's supposed to be some kind of
semi-secession of Native groups, nor is it just a racially based form of
municipal government. But no one seems to articulate what it might actually be.

Do we have any Native Indians on the net who might contribute their opinions on
this particular issue? Or anyone with more experience in Native issues than
recent viewing of Dances With Wolves?
From: michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Date: 4 Oct 92 03:14:13 GMT
Organization: Rhinoceros, chargez!


alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon) writes :

>	[...]
>	That's the way it seems to be shaping out.  My feeling is
>	that in the end it doesn't matter.  Whichever way the vote
>	goes, this referendum has helped the population at large
>	realize that the problem is not the Constitution, but that
>	it is the politicians.

Don't you think you are quite optimistic!  But I do hope you
are right. Anyways...

>	[...]
>	But whichever way the vote goes, we are in for a lot more
>	negociations.

Yup! And not only because of the referendum.  But mainly, because
we'll still be stucked with almost the same gang, or clones of the
same type (if not worse), after next year's elections.
	


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

La Liberte n'est pas une marque de yogourt.