HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: duquet@astro.phy.ulaval.ca (Jean-Remi Duquet)
Subject: Re: Tolerance in Quebec 
Organization: Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, Qc, Canada
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:06:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.114146.13713@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>From article <1993Jan22.204153.1780@cerberus.ulaval.ca>, by duquet@astro.phy.ulaval.ca (Jean-Remi Duquet):
>> In article <1993Jan21.095755.18407@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>> [.....]
>>>I am in contact with a number of anglophone families whose children have
>>>had, and are having, severe problems as a result of being forced to
>>>attend french schools in Quebec. That is NOT to say that there is anything
>>>wrong with french schools. I mean that these children have problems as a
>>>result of being placed in an environment that is totally foreign to them.
>> 
>> Hmmm. I don't want to start this all over again, but how can a french
>> environment be "totally foreign" to quebecers[?]
>
>An English speaking child coming from an English speaking country
>who has already completed a number of years of schooling in English;
>with English freinds and family find themselves suddenly placed in
>a totaly French classroom with French clssmates (mostly). Some of
>these children adapt after the initial trauma has been overcome -
>some do not!
>

Dear Steeve, not only are you redundant (as we all know) but you are
blatantly dishonest. Stick to the rules of the game, please.
The correct quotation should have been:
" [...] how can a french environment be "totally foreign" to quebecers,
  UNLESS OF COURSE THEY'RE JUST ARRIVED FROM SOME OTHER PLACE ?".
Don't be so narcissic, I'm not always talking about your personal case.

Blast me, flame me if you like, but do it for what I say. You don't
need to create false controversies. BTW, this sentence was meant to 
prevent Steeve Potter from hysteria. It missed its goal...

>
>"Foreign" doesn't translate very well to French "etranger" does it?
>

Yes, for all I know. They both can mean "from an other country" or
"not natural to someone". I guess you meant the latter... 
Anyway I noticed with some satisfaction that you didn't use "alien",
so there may be some hope of convergence. :)


Jean-Remi Duquet
Universite Laval
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: Tolerance in Quebec (was Re: Political system 'axes')
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 18:06:39 GMT

In article <20JAN93.10484054.0076@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.152828.15193@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>
>>Is there a third axis -   {Tolerant} <=> {Racist}   ?
>>
>>e.g.:-             Tolerant |
>>                            |
>>                            | Netherlands
>>                            |
>>                            :
>>                            | Denmark
>>                            :
>>                            | U.S.A.
>>                            :
>>                            :
>>                            :
>>                            | Quebec
>>                            | South Africa
>>                    Racist  | Nazi Germany
>>
>I must disagree with you (almost) completely, Steve.  I've
>never lived in any of the other societies you mention, but
>my general impression of Quebec is that it is a *very* tolerant
>and open society.  Quite remarkably so, when one considers the
>closed, monolithic, Catholic society that existed here just a
>generation ago.  (Caveat - I didn't experience the pre-Quiet
>Revolution society first hand.)

I get the impression from following the issue for the last fifteen years
that it is largely political bullshit, that while the average Quebecer is
rightly concerned about the integrity of his/her culture, most of them
agree that the sign law is silly, and that many of the restrictions are
ridiculous (just like us Ontarians:  how many of _you_ feel the actions of
our provincial gov't represent majority opinion?).  All of my experience
with the _people_ in Quebec has been positive, even when I had to get a
non-Anglais mechanic to write me a faux receipt (skiing in Mt. Ste. Anne.
took an extra day, and my boss would've fired me, so we pantomimed greatly:
he wrote me a receipt and I gave him ten bucks.  We laughed like lunatics
when it was done, and never understood a single word the other said).

Unfortunately, the media only reports interesting and striking events and
issues, so the impression of someone outside the province is that 'those
French people want everything, and they won't let anyone speak English.'
which is also b.s.  Not the media's fault, really, but the disinformation
needs to be dealt with.

-chris blask
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart)
Subject: Re: Deficit, Deficit, who's got the Deficit? was: NDP "communism?"
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:35:46 GMT

In <1993Jan25.201121.16901@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>Housing supply caught up with housing demand...the speculative and
>inflationary real estate boom was not healthy for our economy and 
>it is one of the reasons why the recession was so painful and the
>recovery is so slow.  Bubble economies aren't sustainable...they
>eventually come to a deflationary crash.

Quite true, the real estate boom had to end at some point.  One problem
with real estate booms is that almost everyone knows they have to end but
very few people accurately predict when that will actually happen.

>Stable real estate prices, and stable prices in general are good
>for economic growth...wealth then is mostly earned, and shelter
>is plentiful and affordable.

I don't think we have a stable real estate market yet.  Lower interest
rates have increased sales of starter homes but the market for more
expensive houses is still pretty soft.  If interest rates increase (a
definite possibility) it could trigger further declines in the value of
real estate.
-- 
John Stewart -- Computing and Communications Services, Carleton University
Internet: jstewart@ccs.carleton.ca or Mr.Canoehead@algonquin.carleton.ca  
"The average middle income family with two parents and children pays $2,945
more in Federal taxes than they would have under the tax policies in place
before the Tories first came to power in 1984."
Xref: sparky can.politics:11749 soc.culture.canada:10486
From: SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (John G. Spragge)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:33:21 GMT
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston

In article <4087@isgtec.isgtec.com>, robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) says:

>John G. Spragge (SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA) wrote:
>
>: I ask again, who's "business"? The most controversial feature of this
>: law involved the prohibition on using scab labour for strike-breaking.
>
>No,  it's the prohibition of using ANY labour, whether management,  workers
>from other plants or divisions,  for 'strike-breaking'.  I notice
>you use the loaded word 'strike-breaking' when in fact this law
>also prohibits keep-alive actions by management (eg. customer support,
>shipments for contractual obligations,  shipping for trade shows,
>keeping machines with LONG startup times running, etc).

That would cause controversy. Alas for the critics of the NDP, it
doesn't appear in bill 40. You can use management personnel to
keep the plant going. You can also shift production to other (non-
striking) plants. You just can't bring other workers in. In other
words, only management people can cross the picket line.

>The case where this won't lead to problems is where a healthy
>relationship already exists between management and labour,
>and any such law is unnecessary.

Well, such a law will certainly encourage management to build a
healthy relationship with labour.

>If an adversarial relationship exists, this law gives labour an
>unjustified upper hand;  the pendulum swings the other way.

Please define "unjustified".

>It gives labour power without the benefits that such enpowerment
>usually gains for management:  good will and increased responsibility
>from labour.

Define "increased responsibility". Explain to me why, in the aftermath
of the past decade, where "managers" squandered trillions of dollars
in an egotistical feeding frenzy while the actual wages paid to workers
fell, the workers should have to establish their responsibility.

>: And that, (as we see in the Japanese example) will likely
>: result in a more productive enterprise.
>
>'Likely' is a good word to use here.

You got that right.

>The Japanese have had a feudal civilization until recently.  This means
>that there is a strong cultural bias in favour of the tradeoff between
>loyalty from the workers and fair treatment from the company, or at
>least for the ideal represented by this.  North American culture
>worships individualism,  our popular icons are rebels and loners.

Your point, please? That we should treat senior commercial bureaucrats,
who got their positions by exact attention to, and conformity with,
the "corporate culture" as "rebels and loners"? As a rebel and a loner,
I can tell you this law doesn't bother me at all.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Xref: sparky can.politics:11624 soc.culture.canada:10273 soc.culture.usa:10028 talk.politics.misc:69450
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clintonmania vs. Trudeaumania (was MTV BALL 10,000 Maniacs)
Summary: Flower Power II?
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:20:56 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Deep Space Nine (DS9)

In alt.music.alternative, 
dmcohen@oberon.umd.edu (Dan Cohen) writes:
>sweide@uceng.uc.edu (Steven Weide) writes re: 10,000 Maniacs --
>>
>>This was one of their best live performances I've ever seen, but does 
>>anyone know what the first song they did with Michael Stipe was?
>
>I believe this song is called "To Sir With Love" made for the movie by
>the same name.

As best as I tried to avoid the Clinton/Gore Inaugaral celebrations
this week, it was well nigh impossible due to the wave of youthful
enthousiasm that was gushing forth.  As a Canadian, this all reminds
me a little of Trudeaumania that swept Canada in the late 60's with
the Liberal Party's "francization" under Pierre.  Anyone else with
long memories care to add/counter these impressions? (-;

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.EDU 		Carnaval de Quebec (City)
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			February 4 - 14
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
From: cbergren@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (Craig Bergren)
Subject: Re: Clintonmania vs. Trudeaumania (was MTV BALL 10,000 Maniacs)
Organization: Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:25:08 GMT
Followup-To: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Gary L Dare (gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
> As best as I tried to avoid the Clinton/Gore Inaugaral celebrations
> this week, it was well nigh impossible due to the wave of youthful
> enthousiasm that was gushing forth.  As a Canadian, this all reminds
> me a little of Trudeaumania that swept Canada in the late 60's with
> the Liberal Party's "francization" under Pierre.  Anyone else with
> long memories care to add/counter these impressions? (-;

Was this any different from Reaganmania in 1981 & 85?
Xref: sparky can.politics:11651 soc.culture.canada:10313
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:09:54 EST
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
 <93020.174629SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <1993Jan22.014114.1347@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
 <1993Jan23.020040.6051@athena.mit.edu>

In article <1993Jan23.020040.6051@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M
Kozierok) says:

>and didn't Comrade Rae just author legislation which would allow
>for certification with only *40%* support? how is that justified
>(assuming it is true, not 100% sure)?

The 40% relates to people who have actually signed a union card.
The legislation assumes that if 40% of the workers have actually
joined the union, the rest will accept representation from it.

You can argue that represents a naive view of group dynamics, but I
don't consider it "vicious" in any sense of the word.

>i forget all the other details of the NDP's vicious anti-business
>labor laws. maybe it is the result of subconscious repression; they made
>me almost literally ill when i first read about them. and then he wonders
>why businesses are leaving the country. the man is the biggest
>ass ever to hold office.

I ask again, who's "business"? The most controversial feature of this
law involved the prohibition on using scab labour for strike-breaking.
That may cause a problem for senior commercial bureaucrats, but it
won't lead to much trouble for the owners (mostly workers themselves),
the line workers (who actually make the products), entrepreneurs, or
customers.

As its principal effect, this legislation should increase productivity
by forcing the distribution of the power (and salary) in most enterprises
down the "pyramid", away from the bureaucrats at the top, and towards
the workers. And that, (as we see in the Japanese example) will likely
result in a more productive enterprise.


standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: phallard@bmtlh209.BNR.CA (Philippe Allard)
Subject: INTolerance in Quebec
Reply-To: phallard@bmtlh209.BNR.CA (Philippe Allard)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 20:19:01 GMT

Please, consider the following points when you write again about intolerance
in Quebec ...

Since 1763, french Quebecois have had to fight to maintain their culture
and language alive. Bill 101 is just another chapter of that fight.
People have to realize that the french speaking Quebecois are only a
tiny minority in the mostly english speaking North America, and that if
they don't fight, nobody will fight for them, and french in Quebec will 
slowly die. 

It is understandable that immigrants coming to Quebec would want to learn
english before french. After all, in a North American context, it is hard
to find a good job without knowing english (one can do without french but
not without english). Before bill 101, most immigrants coming to Quebec
would indeed concentrate on learning english, not french.

It is also understandable that a Montreal store owner would  want to
post his sign in english. After all, in a North American context,
everybody should be able to read english. This is indeed what we used to
see before 1977 in downtown Montreal where the commercial signs were
prominently english.

I surely think that there could be some modifications to bill 101 (and 178).
My opinion is that a second language (like english) should be allowed on all
commercial sign, providing that the french portion be given at least
equal importance. However, bill 101 is very important to me and to many
Quebeckers. Of course, such a law violates the individual rights of
citizens (this applies to all Quebeckers if you consider that french parents
cannot send their children to english school). However, it should be seen as
the price to pay to keep the french language and culture alive in Quebec,
and particularly in Montreal.

Philippe G. Allard

I have given here my personal opinion, which should not be confused
with that of my employer.
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Deficit, Deficit, who's got the Deficit? was: NDP "communism?"
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:07:32 GMT

In article <jstewart.727892428@cunews> jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:
>
>No one seems to have brought up the point that a special cap on transfer
>payments to the richer provinces (BC, Alberta, Ontario) was put in place
>several years ago.  While all provinces have been affected by the reduction
>in Federal transfer payments, Ontario has been especially hard hit.  The
>recession has been very severe in Ontario and were it not for the special
>cap, Ontario would be receiving billions of dollars in extra payments
>from the Federal government.  In general, the Federal government appears
>to be totally indifferent to the permanent loss of hundreds of thousands
>of jobs in Ontario's manufacturing sector.
>
>I agree that the Federal government had to cut back on transfer payments to
>the provinces, however the distribution of whatever money is available
>should be based on current realities and not on an outdated concept of
>which provinces are rich and which provinces are poor.
>
>I don't particularily like Bob Rae and his policies, but this is one 
>case where his comments are right on target.
>

Ontario is still a have-province compared to anyone else but Alberta
and BC.  From the onset of the Peterson-Rae coalition in the
mid-eighties, spending in Ontario has been increasing at 10-15% per
year, and really has not slowed...all the fat added in the good times
just needs to be cut...Ontario is to blame for its own problem because
it didn't restrain spending and taxation in the good times (the other
half of the Keynesian cycle), so there was room for deficit spending
and stimulus during the bad times.

While Ontario was increasing spending during the late eighties at 10-15%
a year...the federal Tories were becoming unpopular holding their
program spending increases to the lowest of the 11 governments in the
country...allowing federal transfers larger than their own program
spending increases, and raising taxes to pay for the social programs
the Trudeau government put in place on credit.

Gerald            
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca (stephen cooper 9209 U)
Subject: Re: Tolerance in Quebec (was Re: Political system 'axes')
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:05:16 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.185422.1043@seachg.uucp> chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.193947.28704@bnrmtl.bnr.ca> phallard@bmtlh209.BNR.CA (Philippe Allard) writes:
>>                                   
>>I am quite surprised to read that you know of many anglophone families
>>whose children were forced to go to french school. In fact, you should know
>>that, even if bill 101 forces most immigrants to go to french school,
>>anybody whose parents (one or both) went to english school has himself the
>>right to go to english school. In other words, under the current law, no
>>anglophone is forced to go to french school.
>>
>>Philippe G. Allard
>
>??
>
>I'm sorry, I seem to misunderstand.  "even if Bill 101 forces most
>immigrants to go to french school, anybody whose parents..."  Does this
>mean if your parents attended an english school *Anywhere*?  in Canada?  
>Quebec?   In North America?   ????
>
>It seems fairly obvious that either there *are* some restrictions, or the
>poster previous to Phillippe is lying.  Given that, (in non-legaleez) what
>are the restrictions?  It would be even more enlightening to see these
>compared with similar restrictions in the other provinces; ie - if my
>family speaks french and I live in Ontario/Alberta/etc..., how is it
>decided, who decides, etc... whether my kids get to take all of their
>classes in french?

According to the constitution, any citizen whose mother tongue is English
and was educated in English when they were a child *in Canada*, they have 
the right to
send their children to school in their official language mother tongue.
Example.  I was educated in English in Ontario.  If I had kids and I moved
to Quebec, my children would have access to English school in Quebec.  This
is where numbers warrant.  In Montreal for example, there are enough
anglophones to warrant having schools.  If I were in Chicoutimi, I doubt
that numbers would warrant.  Another example would be if Jacques was a
francophone and was educated in French anywhere in Canada, and he had kids
and moved to Alberta let's say, constitutionally he has a right to send his
kids to school in French.  The problem is demographics though.  There's
probably not enough francophones in a certain region in Alberta to warrant
building a French language school in Alberta.  However, I wonder if the
courts could force it....

>These answers should be very simple for those who are familiar with the
>system.  I would guess that most of us have never seen the regulations, nor
>any worthwhile comparison.
>
>-chris blask


-- 
Steve Cooper      |  Internet:  scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca
Waterloo, Ontario |  If you actually think I speak for Wilfrid Laurier
Canada!!          |  University, well... I don't even want to think about it.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: greg@organia.sce.carleton.ca (Greg Franks)
Subject: Re: The Liberal Puppet Can Read!
Organization: Systems and Computer Engineering, Carleton University.
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:28:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.180717.22115@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
   Well Jean Chretien read a carefully prepared statement by his
   handlers yesterday mostly plagiarized from the Clinton campaign
   of last fall promising billions more in spending, and deficit
   reduction, and no GST, and no replacement for the GST.

   A Mr. Subliminal version of the speech revealed continuous
   repetition of "Hope", and "Trust us" like mantras.

   Unfortunately, we know longer know if Chretien is capable of
   thinking at all since he was not allowed to take questions
   from the audience...the puppet was dangled out on stage, and
   then quickly dangled off.

   An army of spin doctors awaited outside to handle questions
   from the media.

   Excuse me, but I'm about to be sick...#%$#&%$^$&!

   Gerald

Why -- he has learned well from Lyin' Brian after all.  (Brian only
gets amusing when he gets away from his handler's leash -- Poor Hugh
then has a coronary.)

Are you really surprised given the low esteem the people of Canada
have for our so-called Political Leaders?

I'm not (then again, I live in Ottawa).

*sigh*
--
Greg Franks, (613) 788-5726               | "The reason that God was able to
Systems Engineering, Carleton University, | create the world in seven days is
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada  K1S 5B6.         | that he didn't have to worry about 
greg@sce.carleton.ca  ...!cunews!sce!greg | the installed base" -- Enzo Torresi
Xref: sparky can.politics:11631 soc.culture.canada:10287