HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: History of North America Re: REpublicanisn vs. Monarchists (Was Re: Beauregard vs. Yadallee)
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:02:20 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <12783@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
|In article <12779@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
|>However You began this thread by insisting that Canada was created to
|>further UK imperial interests in North America. I responded by showing
|>that Canadians had a sense of separate identity and distinctive
|>interests even from the earliest days. I showed that Canadians demonstrated
|>this by insisting on governing themselves in their own interests and
|>won this right in rejecting the Durham report (which you said was used
|>as a model).
|
|Give me a break! You must be kidding. You're saying that Canada was
|not created to further british Empire in North America. You can't be
|serious even if, as you always do, start the history of "the creation
|of Canada" in 1867. If Canadians (I'm excluding Quebecois now) had

No The sense of seperate identity was seen in the agitation for
responsible government as far back as the 1820's, the rebellions
for responsible government in 1837-38 and in the rejection of the
Durham report in the governments of the 1840's.

I know that representing Canada as some sort of artificial conglomeration
is important to British Imperialists and Quebec Nationalists but it just
does not have much support in history.

|such a "sense of separate identity and distinctive interests even from
|the earliest days" then:

|- Why did it take them so long to get their own flag, and why a few
|  provinces still have a british flag in the corner?

|- Why were you singing the "God Save the Queen (or King)" at school
|  when you were a kid?

I sang O Canada.

|- Why is the Queen of England still the head of State in Canada?
|- Why does the picture of her Majesty still on canadian money?
|- Why did Canada embark in the two World War so rappidly?
|- Why does our passport make reference to both the Queen of England
|  and the british embassy?

When Canada was created we inherited a monarchy. However the monarchy
was the soverign power over an independent country not a memeber of
any united imperiual federation.

|- Why was, until recently, our Constitution in London?

This had to to do with internal Canadian bickering over the amending
formula. The British did not wish to retain control over it.

|- Why was Canada a Loyalist hangout?

Why what?

|- etc.
|
 Ah a question without meaning - very Zen - Heavy!
-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Where to get the text of the agreement (was Re: The new 
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 15:54:06 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:

> From article <SBO.92Sep6204854@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>, by sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca 
> >>>>>> On 6 Sep 92 14:25:17 GMT, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) said:
> >   > X-Bytes: 845
> > 
> >  > From article <14861@mindlink.bc.ca>, by Walter_Gorlitz@mindlink.bc.ca
> >  >>I would like to read the entire text of the agreement before I vote on i
> >  >>--
> >  >>             Signature?  I'm a Mac user, why do I need a signature?
> >  >> wgorlitz@wiz.wimsey.bc.ca        walter gorlitz
> >                         ^^^^^
> >  > Page A6-A7 of saturday's Gazette.
> >                             ^^^^^^^
> > Je ne savais pas que The Gazette etait publie en
> > Brittish-Columbia! :-)
> 
> I thought about that as I pressed the last key to send the posting.
> 
> I thought that American, British and other national newspapers can
> be obtained in Montreal.
> 
> So, probably, it is not difficult to get various Canadian city
> newspapers in various "other" Canadian cities.
> 

Well, unless you live near a major airport, you cannot get eastern 
Canadian newspapers except for the Globe and Mail, a version of which is 
printed out here somewhere. It's easier to get a copy of the London 
Express than it is any New York or L.A. paper, although the Seattle Times 
is fairly generally available in Vancouver. I've never seen a Montreal, 
Ottawa, or Halifax paper for sale in B.C. I'm sure glad I've got 
shortwave and a satellite dish!


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

The way to get things out of a government is to back them to the wall, 
put your hands to their throats, and you will get all that they have. 
- Agnes McPhail
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: asymmetrical federalism
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:36:29 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Sep4.051612.25428@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>
>I have no idea. I think the provinces should agree on what a federal government
>should do (how about international relations, defence, interprovincial trade,
>standards on safety, measures etc). Then everything else should default to
>provincial control. We don't *need* federal and provincial forestry branches
>or tourism ministries. One level of government should step aside.
>
I think we can all agree that unnecessary duplication is bad.  But
how do we decide which level of government is going to step aside?
You propose international relations as a federal field.  But do you
think there is any chance at all that Quebec will agree to stop
going to francophone summits, close its quasi-embassies in foreign
capitals, and generally vacate this field?  I don't.

As long as we have free movement of people between provinces (certainly
a good thing, IMO), there has to be some federal control over
immigration.  Otherwise the province with the most open immigration
policy would be setting the standards for the whole country.  But
again, do you think there is any chance of Quebec vacating this field
and leaving it exclusively to Ottawa?  I don't.

We can and should work towards reducing unnecessary overlap of
federal and provincial jurisdictions.  But we'll never eliminate
it entirely, as long as we remain a federation.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:26:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.183650.28754@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>You assert the principles of rep-by-province and rep-by-pop, but ignore
>what is most important to nationalist Quebecers, rep-by-nation.  It is

Except Quebec is a province not a nation.  They are not the "French nation"
either - they are 1/6 anglophone, and there are many, many francophones
outside of Quebec.
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Constitution and Laws
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:36:16 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1612

From article <1992Sep8.142758.3362@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>, by mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie):
> 
> I have been hearing and reading a lot from people across Canada
> who oppose the new constitutional deal because it does not contain
> some rule, provision or whatever else they're after.  It seems to 
> me that many are confusing a constitution with law making.  A
> constitution is NOT the place to make laws - it is a basis upon
> which we decide HOW to make laws, and by WHOM.  There can still
> be good laws passed without their being expressly written into
> the constitution.
> 
> Paul

That may be desirable but it is not the reality in Canada.

Let me give you my favorite[?] example:-

Paragraph 59 of the Constitution Act of 1982 says:-

   "Paragraph 23(1)(a) shall come into force in restpect
    of Quebec on a day to be fixed ... authorized by the
    legislative assembly or government of Quebec."

Paragraph 23(1)(a), which is in the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms says:-

   "Citizens of Canada whose first language learned and
    understood is that of the English or French linguistic
    minority population of the province in which they
    reside ... have the right to have their children
    educated in that language."


Is that a law or a basis for a law?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:6804 soc.culture.canada:6577
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:16:19 GMT

CZ94 (CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA) wrote:
>
>I don't agree with most of the accusations of Quebec bashing that
>get posted here from time to time.  But I truly wonder why the
>many past and present deviations from rep by pop in favor of other
>provinces draw so little comment, while one (potentially) in favor
>of Quebec is seen as outrageous and unacceptable.

Possibly because none of the past deviations have the potential, in the
long run, to throw the Commons as out of whack wrt rep-by-pop as this
present proposal (I am assuming here that the 25% floor will *never* be
negotiated away - if anyone disagrees I would like to hear the argument).
However, perhaps I am missing something here; what are some of the larger
current deviations that exist? Do any compare to the pre-allocation of 25%
of the seats of the Commons? Or are they all as trivial as PEI's guarantee
of 4 seats?

As well, although it would be optimal to get rid of the current
deviations, it is probably not practical as they are now entrenched. It
is, however, practical to stop a proposal before it becomes law.

Finally, many people in the West saw these Constitutional negotiations as a
chance to wrench some power away from Central Canada. It is thus quite
surprising and disappointing to see that not only is the proposed Senate a
paper tiger, but also that the 25% floor all but guarantees that regardless
of what happens in the future it is assured that Central Canada will
continue to wield the power in this country. Liberal Senator Michael Kirby
said as much, wrt entrenching power, on CTV's Question Period last Sunday.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: The woman quota
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:23:28 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

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

In Saskatchewan and Ontario, it is proposed that three of six Senate
seats be reserved for women (and I presume the other three for men?)
What could these quotas mean?  Whose rights are being protected?

Do they protect the rights of voters?  No.  Women and men already have
equal voting rights.

Do they aim to protect a person's equal right to become a Senator? No.
First, there have been fewer female candidates than male candidates in
past elections, so the quotas would discriminate against male candidates.
Second, in a gender-balanced field, simple calculations show that if
there were no discrimination between candidates of on the basis of gender,
there would be a 3 male / 3 female distribution less than one third of
the time (20 permutations out of 64).  Yet, the proposed quotas would
impose this distribution 100% of the time.

So the quotas do not promote rights (except, perhaps, the rights of the
Wymmynkind entity) They are supposed to promote "equity."  How?

See the world divided radically into two genders which are so different
as to be practically distinct species.  Only a woman can represent a
woman.  Furthermore, women are victims of systematic oppression, so there
must be a woman-quota in the Senate to offset that.  Thus, women will be
represented equitably.  [Obviously, I don't agree with this line of
argument.]

Even this begs the question of why men would be allowed to vote
for the female candidates, and women vote for the male candidates.

I hope the quota idea is abandoned.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorry@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: Why I will vote NO on Oct. 26
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:59:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.132844.28402@bnr.ca>, dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
> 
> I will vote YES because I like the deal.  Do you want to know why?  Well I'll
> tell you anyway.  Because it does virtually nothing to change anyones life
> and settles an annoying problem.  These changes are minimal : 

That is precisely why I will be voting No on October 26. I believe 
that we in Newfoundland have been poorly served under the present 
setup, with 7 out of 262 HoC seats and 6 out of 110 Senate seats. 
Where we have allowed Ottawa to manage matters of vital concern to our 
province, such as fisheries, hydro rights, and petroleum rights, they
have failed us by ignoring our needs and concerns. We expect, and 
deserve better than this. Why vote 'Yes' to something that increases 
the power of Central Canada and dooms us to watch on the sidelines as 
matters deeply affecting our province are decided by the centralist 
block? Much as I detest this constitutional wrangling, I'll be damned 
if I'll vote for something just so that a bunch of politicians can save face.  

>    1. Before we had a useless appointed senate, now we have a useless elected
>       senate, 

Exactly. Why vote for something that is going to at least triple the 
present costs of governing the country, already the highest in the 
Western World? I don't think those present senators in political 
Valhalla will take too kindly to being laid off without the old 
"Golden Handshake".

>    2. Ontario and Quebec have always had all the political power in Canada, 
>       now they have a little bit more,

All the more reason to vote NO. It's time we had more of a say in 
matters concerning us. 

>    3. Almost no powers were exchanged that didn't already exist,
>    4. The Natives are actually getting something out of it, and since it
>       does not violate the charter it doesn't bug me.
> 
> 
> Don

Jamie
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:03:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.183646.4522@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>Am I imagining things, or are the people who are screaming about the
>sacred principle of rep by pop the same ones who want the EEE Senate,
>which would give PEI the same representation in the Senate as Ontario?
>I'm sure some of them are the same people!
>
>Weird.  :-)
>

(Note: I support a 5-region model for an equitable Senate.)

The purpose of a bicameral legislature is to provide every person
with a "meaningful vote"...representation by population in one chamber,
and country-dependent "ground rules" to effect "meaningfulness" for
every vote even from sparsely populated regions in the second chamber.
What exactly these "ground rules" are, whither equitableness or 
equality or whatever is open for debate...                

Gerald
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: BNA Act and bilingualism (was Re: Access to English ...)
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:46:12 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <12827@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article (Steve Potter) writes:
>
>>I don't recall mentioning 1867 provisions of any legislation from Ottawa,
>>did I?
>No, but this is when the trouble started (Constitution). Ottawa forced
>institutionalised bilinguism on Quebec, but not on the other
>provinces. It was (and still is) a very had to swallow injustice.
>
When Confederation was negotiated, there was no federal government
to force institutionalised bilingualism on Quebec.  The BNA Act
was created by negotiations between the three provinces of Canada
(now Ontario and Quebec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, with some
input from the British government.

The institutionalised bilingualism in Quebec required by the BNA
Act (section 133) was very limited, applying only to the legislature
and the courts.  Nothing was said about the language of other government
services, including schools.

With the wisdom of hindsight, I would agree completely with you that
it was a very unfortunate error not to guarantee minority language
rights in all the provinces.  This did lead to much injustice for
francophone minorities outside Quebec.

However, as far as I know, no one seems to have thought of this at
the time of Confederation.  I don't think section 133 was a
contentious issue at the Charlottetown and Quebec conferences of
1864, or the London conference of 1866.  I don't know of any
suggestions at that time that Quebec should be unilingual French,
or that the other provinces should be bilingual.  It seems to have
been generally accepted that the use of English would be guaranteed
in the Quebec legislature and courts, in exchange for which the use
of French would be guaranteed in the federal parliament and courts.

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
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "Individual"/"Collective"
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:27:49 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:

>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.  [...]
>But when we begin to identify other groups as entitled collectives, we ask for
>trouble. [...]
>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.

The article on the front page of the Globe and Mail, 14 September 1992, is
of interest in this regard (I quote some sentences from the article):

Scientists have invented something called a "cochlear implant"
which can restore partial hearing to the deaf.

But, some people oppose use of the device.  Gary Malkowski is Canada's first
deaf parliamentarian, elected to the Ontario legislature for the NDP.
"There is nothing wrong with being deaf," he says through an interpreter.
"Why bother fixing a deaf person -- especially a child?"  According
to Malkowski, the deaf have a unique and rich culture complete with
their own language, values, traditions, and ways of behaving.

Mr. Malkowski makes no secret of the fact that he opposes cochlear implants
partly because he fears the devices could threaten deaf culture.


--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Date: 5 Sep 92 18:58:37 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1694

From article <12791@grayt>, by grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray):
> In article <12789@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>>In article <12785@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>>>You seem to making some distinction here that prevents certain people
>>>from being true citizens of Quebec. Will you please give an explanation
>>>of why you are making this distinction, how you are applying it, and
>>>any rational explanation for what the distinction is.
>>
>>Read again what he said: "Trudeau is an anglophone" because his mother
>>was anglophone and it is therefore its "langue maternelle". He never
>>talked about a Quebec citizenship. Once again you are imagining
>>something.
> 
> The statement "Trudeau is an anglophone because ... " is simpleminded.
> However I believe that it is both simpleminded and something else.
> I am just trying to confirm this since it has some importance on the
> credibilty we should give to the originator.
> 

The statement "Trudeau is an anglophone because his mother was
anglophone" should be examined in the context of the discussion in
which it was made.

The subject in this thread is "Access to English schools".

My children have an anlophone mother - but they do not have access to
English schools.

Having an anglophone mother in Quebec does not qualify a person to be
an anglophone in this province! 

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| 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: 14 Sep 92 13:22:15 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (David Adrien Tanguay) writes:
>That's how YOU see it: us and them. (Don't take that as an insult. It's how
>most everybody sees the world, it's just a question of defining which us's
>we each belong to.) Alberta sees Central Canada, lumping Ontario and Quebec
>together. The natives see it as Europeans/Asians/Africans & the old nations.
>Quebec sees it as Quebec vs TROC, but much of the rest of the country sees
>Quebec as just another element of "them".

Look, instead of pure abstract rhetoric like this, consider the facts.
Canada originated in the forced merging of a FRENCH and an ENGLISH
colony. Period. TWO nations. This "union" didn't have anything to do
with the natives, they were not consulted (altough some may argue that
even the natives were involved in the french-english wars :-). The
immigrants who came here integrated (in a few generation) one or the
other of these "nations", including language and culture. Canada
expanded to other regions (new provinces) who all eventually became
anglophone, or where anglophone from the very begining.


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:54:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.130016.9311@csi.uottawa.ca> mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca (Marc Frappier) writes:
>
>How can I vote yes to this?  By "lassitude" only.

This seems to be about the only thing most people can agree with.  The
politicians have complicated the issues till we're not sure which way
is up, tired us out with their interminable deals and (closed-door)
negociations, with their threats and ultimata and breakthroughs.

Voting YES is a risk.  Voting NO is also a risk.  I'll probably risk
the YES - while there may be dire consequences, this is by no means
assured.  I *know* voting NO will have dire consequences.  The lesser
of two evils?  Heck, how often are we given any other type of choice?

If the deal is accepted, then I hope people will sit back and wait to
see how well it works, before screaming to change it again!  (Well,
I'll certainly understand if most of the leaders involved meet with
electoral defeat in the next couple of years...)

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