HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Where to get the text of the agreement (was Re: The new 
    agreement)
Date: 7 Sep 92 13:40:08 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1333

From article <SBO.92Sep6204854@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>, by sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher):
>>>>>> 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 it.
>  >>--
>  >>             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.

Anyway, somebody posted an address and phone number as a source so
it's now academic.
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: thood@twitus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Challenge
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:13:27 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

thood@twitus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>I challenge you to state what in the deal you support that
>>cannot be achieved legislatively, or which is already
>>the norm or custom via tradition.
>
>0) The AEPESE Senate.  Almost equal (the territories are not
>[etc.]

I should have made it clear that I was listing all the items
in the agreement that I considered "new", with criticisms of
each one.  I did not mean to imply that I supported them all.
In fact, I oppose most of them.  If I ultimately vote "yes",
it will be because:

1) I do not think the damage done by the bad amendments is too great;
2) there are some good amendments;
3) I fear the consequences of a "no" vote.

I invite someone to convince me that we can reject this agreement
without making upheaval more probable.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Future "Projections"
Date: 5 Sep 92 05:48:02 GMT
Organization: Rhinoceros, chargez!


beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
> Quebec is not ruling.  If it were, Quebec would have changed the 

This feeling that Quebec, or to be more realist, Central Canada is
ruling, is unavoidable since Canada doesn't have a "proportional"
representation in the Commons. As for the fact that two Prime
Ministers originating from Quebec have been ruling for most
of the past 20 years or so, it indicates, maybe, that the rules
of who is to be head of a party, and therefore Prime Minister
were the party to be elected, need to be amended.

> Charter of Rights so that bills 101 and 178 would not be jeoparded.
							    ^^^^^^^^
							jeopardized
> Most of discussion arised not because of what these bills promoted,
> but because of the notwithstanding clause.

Non, non.  Arretons de nous leurrer.  
(No, no. Let's stop deceiving ourselves)

Although Bill 101 has its place, there is no excuse, no
justification for Bill 178.  It is humiliating for every
single citizen of the province of Quebec.  Although
it was triggered by the defeat of the Meech Lake Accord,
it's a piece of shit, a huge piece of shit.  I sometimes
wonder if Boubou did not take too many laxatives before
promulgating (?) this crap.

Before Bill 178, my Irish neighbour was very happy in Quebec.
Even Bill 101 was not causing him too much problems.  He sent
his last 2 children to "french immersion", was proud and
happy to speak to me in French although I could speak good
English with him.  Since this Bill 178, he hasn't stopped
complaining about Quebec, and will not talk to me in
French anymore.  It is very very sad, because he is
such a nice person.  But he has been hurt, deeply.
And so was I... par ricochet.



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

"Vous avez une araignee au plafond?"
- Non. Plutot une toile d'araignee entre les jambes.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Our brilliant leaders
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 16:18:45 GMT

From the front page of Saturday's Citizen, about the question for
the upcoming constitutional referendum:

   After conducting several polls, the federal government found
   that people preferred simplicity to long-windedness.

Oh boy.  No wonder we've grown so cynical about the abilities of
our leaders!  (What next?  They'll find out we prefer honesty to
cheating?  Competence to blundering?  Nah, can't expect TOO much!)

Heck, maybe I should submit the above quote to rec.humour.funny.

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
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: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:01:03 GMT

In article <uL6uqB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>
>Yes and no. Yes, they undoubtably manufactured it for their own ends, but 
>no, it can't just be un-manufactured. The constitutional problem has 
>given Quebec separation a lot of momentum, and it will take at least a 
>YES on this deal to slow down or reverse it.
>

The only way to settle the sovereignty issue is to have a clear vote
on the question of sovereignty unencumbered by an offer or deal from
the rest of Canada.

Instead of developing muddled-headed constitutional packages, the
federal government should pass a law which clearly outlines the
conditions of separation in terms of what the debt obligations
and citizenship status of the departing members would be.

The economic hardship which would result for both Canada and Quebec
because of separation would ultimately lead to an affirmative vote
from Quebecers to remain in Canada, even if they initially voted
yes for sovereignty.  Prosperity is the best guarentor of Quebecois
language and culture, and independence would jeopardize the standard
of living Quebecois have been accustomed to...being a small poor
country is not really much of an option to being the dominant region
in a mid-sized prosperous country.  The problem is that Quebec
federalists and politicians in the rest of Canada continually refuse 
to risk trusting the common sense of the average Quebecer.  The
way to defeat the elitist elements in Quebecois society who advocate
nationalism is not to compromise with them, but to challenge them
to battle for the hearts and minds of Quebecers.  The truth and the
facts are on our side...we should fight to win, and not just try not
to lose. 

The promises of Quebec nationalism are hollow, empty lies which would
spell doom for Quebecois society, and we should expose them as such.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Which way to vote in Quebec
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:10:45 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1785

From article <1992Sep14.203601.18994@csi.uottawa.ca>, by mfrappie@csi.uottawa.ca (Marc Frappier):
> In article <1992Sep10.084522.23728@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>C'est interessant.
>>
>>Isn't it interesting:
>>
>>Mulroney, et Bourassa, qui veulent que l'entente passe, menacent[?]
>>qu'une vote contre l'entente est une vote contre le Canada.
>>
>>Mulroney, and Bourassa, who want the agreement to pass, threaten us
>>that a vote against the agreement is a vote against Canada.
>>
>>Parizeau, qui veut que l'entente ne passe pas, assure qu'une vote
>>contre l'entente n'est pas une vote pour l'independence.
>>
>>Parizeau, who wants the agreement to be rejected, assures us that
>>a vote against the agreement is not a vote for independence.
>>
>>Quoi doit-je faire? <:-}
>>
>>What must I do? <:-}
> 
> Just read the question.  A no simply says you don't want to renew the
> constitution on the basis of this agreement.  That's it.  As a citizen
> of a country with three dominating cultures, just remember that you
> are doomed to negociate constitutional deals until the end of times.


You are quite right.

Forget the fear mongering and the rhetoric.

Answer the question.

Do I want to renew the constitution on the basis of this "agreement"?


      N     N       OOO       !!
      NN    N      O   O      !!
      N N   N     O     O     !!
      N  N  N     O     O     !!
      N   N N      O   O      
      N    NN       OOO       !!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 7 Sep 92 16:40:18 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Ken Mcvay mentions the "scrapping of rep by pop." A frequent argument I've
heard (even from my journalist colleagues) is that we never really had rep by
pop or places like PEI would have had much less representation etc.

This may well be true, but it doesn't justify formally abandoning even the
ideal of rep by pop. "We never had rep by pop" is in essence the fallacy of
common practice. One might as well argue that since women historically never
had the vote, they shouldn't have it now. (And what an uproar THAT would have
caused if it had appeared in the new deal!:))
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Which way to vote in Quebec
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:45:56 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep10.084522.23728@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>Quoi doit-je faire? <:-}
>

Voter au sujet de l'accord.  Point.

>  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||

-- 
  \_\    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: rep by pop
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:15:55 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article lamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>   They are not the "French nation" either - they are 1/6 anglophone,
>
>You are right.  Quebec includes anglophones, Inuit, Cree, Mohawks,
>italophones, hellonophones, Vietnamese, etc.

Quebec is still a francophone nation. The presence of 1/6 of
anglophones doesn't change a thing (especially since most of them
don't consider themselves as "quebecois").

Is France not the French Nation (and a francophone one) even if there
is 6% arabs (maybe more)?

Quebecois stopped calling themselves "Canadien" because the original
meaning of the name changed. Originally, "canadien" meant
french-canadian, and the english-canadians were simply the "englsih".

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:20:48 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

I don't agree:
In article <1992Sep8.195838.18202@bnr.ca> yali@bnrca (Yawar Ali) writes:
>My crystal ball shows the following:
>
>The new constitutional deal passes the referendum.
Won't pass.  At less 2 provinces will change there mind and a few
Quebec liberal will say there are against, enough so that majority
of Quebec, which is against today, will stay again.  And if it does not
pass in Quebec, it is useless to pass in Canada :-)

>Federal elections are held in Spring '93:
>BQ disintegrates; PCs sweep Quebec.
BQ survives and Quebec is split with BQ/Liberal/PC

>NDP shut out of Ontario; Liberals and PCs split Ont. seats.
>Liberals take most Atlantic Canada seats.
>Liberals and PCs split Manitoba and Saskatchewan seats.
>Reform and PCs fratricide in Alberta, resulting in a virtual NDP sweep.

Are RP and PC the same platform and strong in the same places?
If not, seats will split.

>Liberals and Reform split BC seats.
>
>Result: PC government returns with slim majority, its political base
>        now almost entirely restricted to Quebec and Ontario, 
>        Mulroney still PM.
PC forms a minority government, with help of BQ.  

>        Liberals form the opposition, with moderate support across Canada,
>        except Quebec and Alberta, with a new leader.
>        NDP reduced to an Alberta rump party, with a new leader.
>        Reform elects a few former Social Credit types from BC. 
>
>Bourassa re-elected as Quebec Premier soon afterwards.
PQ changes leader and is elected.  PQ begins negociation for a true
new deal : all power for Quebec and Quebec decides in her land.
Assimetrical federalism will be the debate (artificial renewal did
fail, don't you agree?).

>
>In 1995, Quebec renews demands for further transfer of powers and 
>items "missing" from the '92 constitutional deal,
>backed up by the threat of a referendum on sovereignty.
>The politicians spend the next 3 years negotiating the next constitutional
>deal... 
>  
>--- 
>Yawar Ali  				
>Bell-Northern Research				EMail: yali@bnr.ca
>Ottawa, Ontario, Canada	K1Y 4H7			(613-)763-7741
>--------Standard Disclaimer: BNR is not responsible for my opinions--------


-- 
  \_\    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 !
Xref: sparky can.politics:6796 soc.culture.canada:6571
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Why I will vote Yes on Oct.26 (DSY)
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:45:25 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <SBO.92Sep14130838@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>>>>>> On 14 Sep 92 12:50:28 GMT, pasward@maytag (Paul A.S. Ward) said:
>
>  > Which still has the not-withstanding clause (Why, why, why does Quebec
>  > want more power to promote the French culture, when the not-withstanding
>  > clause allows them (or any other province for that matter) to do whatever
>  > they please?)
>
>Oh! Mais vous ne mentionnez pas que des que la clause
>nonobstant est utilisee, une avalanche d'insulte se produit.

Sure, lots of people get mad (OUTSIDE of Quebec (assuming we are talking 
about Bill 178));  but then the Provincial Gov't doesn't represent people
outside Quebec, and they do not vote for the Quebec Gov't.  So who cares?
If a majority of the population IN QUEBEC want the clause used, then there
is going to be no real problem for the Gov't that uses it, is there?

As a side note; has any other province used the clause?  I have heard
that they have, and was wondering if anyone had details.
Xref: sparky can.politics:6460 soc.culture.canada:6306
From: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: election sun rising
Date: 6 Sep 92 09:36:45 EST
Reply-To: "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com>
Distribution: can
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

(most of Chris Retterath's post deleted):
CR>Did you forget how John Turner became Prime Minister?
CR>He sure wasn't elected! Same with Miller in Ontario, and that 'first woman'
CR>ier
CR>in British Columbia. None of them were elected. So much for our system
CR>protecting us from unelected shmucks..

Actually, they were elected just as much as Mulroney or Bourassa or
whoever else was elected.  We don't ever vote for a PM or Premier in our
parliamentary system.  We vote *only* for our own riding's MPs or MPPs
or MLAs.  Then, the Gov-Gen or Lt-Gov asks the clearly winning party to
form a government, and that government then chooses the Premier or PM.
Traditionally, this person is the party leader.  However, a party leader
who did not win his or her own seat could not become PM or Premier, even
if 40 or 50% of the province's voters *thought* that's who they were
voting for.

- Stephanie.
---
  SLMR 2.1a  Eroticize Intelligence
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill)
Subject: Re: The 1-800 number to order a copy of the "agreement"
Keywords: Constitutional Amendments
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:24:34 GMT

donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:

>As heard this morning on CBC Radio, the number to call for a copy
>of the text of the agreement for constitutional amendments,
>which we are being asked to vote for or against in October,
>can be obtained by phoning 1-800-561-1188 .

>This works in Ontario, at least. 

     It also works in BC, so it should be Canada-wide.  I just ordered my copy.

--
Arnold Gill --- astrophysician trainee in exile             gill@physics.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: rep by pop
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 20:52:03 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

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

> The 25% HOC floor is nothing but a concession made in hard bargaining in
> return for acceptance of an EEE/province Senate.  Had Getty et al. accepted a
> EEE/region Senate (with Quebec getting 25% of seats), Bourassa would not
> have demanded the 25% HOC floor.
> 

 
What EEE Senate? It's only 1 1/2 E's at best. Equal, Somewhat Elected and 
InEffective.


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
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Adding insult to injury?
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:03:04 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2641

I post this as an illustration of the sort of crap I have to put
up with, living in Quebec.

There are rumours that there is a movement at my son's (French) school
to change the school's name.

The building is located in a community known as "Crawford Park".

It was established as an English Elementary School and was called,
naturally, "Crawford Park School".

One of more than a third of the English schools closed (primarily
due to Bill 101) since 1977, the P.S.B.G.M. leased the property
to a private French school for a few years.

A nearby French elementary school was bursting at the seams.

The P.S.B.G.M. terminated the private lease and reopened the school
last year as a French elementary school. (A very good one, I hasten
to add!). It is now called,naturally, "Ecole Crawford Park".

It still stands in the center of the the Crawford Park community and
many of the English families in the school's neighbourhood send their
children there to learn French (some have no choice :-) ).

It stands on the corner of the intersection of "Churchill Street" and
"Lloyd George Avenue".

Why change it? - "the name is too English" apparently.

The community lost its English school - that was the injury.
To have the community's name erased - that would be an insult.

How do you explain to an English child attending the school that the
school's name had to be changed because some people thought that it
was too English?

"Why don't they change the name of the place where I live too then?",
the child might respond. "What's wrong with English?" he/she might
ask.

Would I tell him that some people would like to change the name of
the community too? Would I tell him that the Quebec government pays
people to find ways to change English place and street names to
French ones?

(He already asked me why he couldn't go to an English school. I lied
and told him that we wanted him to go to a French school because we
thought that was the best way to learn French.)


I don't intend to chase this one (If I tried to fight every such
attempt to bury my language here it would be a full time job and it is
doubtful that I would retain what is left of my sanity :-) ) - but it
appears to have prompted my wife and some of the other English parents
to join the parents' committee.

This will give her a chance to improve her French :-)



-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Saturday, 5 Sep 1992 09:24:50 EDT
From: Bob Burge <BURGER@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: How did you interpret the 1980 Referendum?
Distribution: can

In article <1992Sep4.091730.3981@spxtech.qc.ca>, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve
Potter) says:
>
>  The 1980 Referendum in Quebec.
>
>  What was your understanding of the result?
>
>  Let's see how many different interpretations are out there
>  on this one.

What I think I am going to do is to charge up my mainframe bill by going back
to look at the Quebec Referendum study conducted as part of the 1974-79-80
Canadian national election studies.  If I recall correctly, there was a panel
component to all four parts.  I think, also, that the referendum part asked
plenty of other questions -- probably good for cohort analysis purposes.

Btw, I was working at the CBC plant in Edmonton on the night of the 1980
referendum.  I remember it well.  Wonder where I will be during this one?

Bob Burge                                  Internet: burger@qucdn.queensu.ca
Opinion Research Unit - Queen's University - Kingston - ON - Canada - K7L3N6