HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:30:56 GMT

rcano@bnr.ca writes:
>What APEC (and some others) forget, is that in a divorce between
>Canada and Quebec, Quebec with ~25% of the population of Canada
>would be entitled to 25% of the assets (including land) of Canada
>and 25% of the debt. 

25% of the federal lands, which, if that includes Rupert's land, and added
to the old Quebec, might be larger than the area currently being administered
by Quebec. Since some of the federal land in Ontario is francophone (I think
Hearst and Longlac are on Rupert's Land), it might be reasonable to include
some of it in the new Quebec.

>If a majority of quebecois wish to separate, it is in our and 
>their interest to negotiate an amicable settlement. 

Especially if Quebec gets 25% of the F-16s, with the servicing contract
in Quebec. :-)
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: beaucham@astro.phy.ulaval.ca (Dominique Beauchamp)
Subject: Re: Quebec
Organization: Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, Qc, Canada
Distribution: can.politics
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:21:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct30.002422.24227@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> pierre@chaos.phys.ualberta.ca (Pierre Rouleau) writes:
>In article <schuck.720377825@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca
>(Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>> warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>
>> >Canada est un pays bilingue
>> 
>> Tell that to the officially unilingual province of Quebec.
>
>
>VA CHIER CALICE !!!!!

Malgre le fait que le langage de Pierre soit un peu gras, je crois qu'il exprime tres bien le probleme que nous
vivons.  Nous, les Quebecois, nous nous votons des lois pour proteger notre culture (loi 101 par exemple) alors
que les anglos croient que nous faisons ca par racisme.  Il faut vraiment etre bas et inculte pour croire ca.
Je ne connais pas beaucoup d'anglophones qui ont eu de la difficulte a se faire "servir" en anglais au Quebec.

...

A moins que de vouloir proteger sa langue et sa culture soit raciste...  Pourrait-on m'eclairer la-dessus? s.v.p.

Dominique Beauchamp

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:28:59 GMT

marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:

>Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>There is *no* legal mechanism in the BNA Act or Constitution for
>>secession.
>>
>True, but irrelevent.

Extremely relevant. If there is no legal mechanism for secession,
then secession can be unilateral or negotiated.

If it is unilateral then all treaties and agreements that normally
exist between two countries must be negotiated from scratch. 

It would be completely unacceptable for MP's from a secessionist
province to still sit and get paid, and the same goes for Senators.
Deputy Ministers hold tremendous influence in the running of a
government, as do the top echelons of the civil service.
Canadians *now* distust their government. Can you imagine the distrust
if citizens of a secessionist province are allowed to hold their
positions of power and influence?

>In my opinion, the only reasonable thing for the federal government
>to do in the case of a unilateral declaration of independence by
>one of the provinces is to ask all federal office holders/employees
>to choose between the two countries -- and perhaps to require those
>choosing Canada to renew their oath of loyalty/office.  Only those
>choosing the new country would have to resign.  

Considering that half the civil service operates out of Hull that
would be impossible. It's laughable to think Canadians would be let
themselves be governed by foreign citizens from a foreign country.




-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 23:55:12 GMT

In article <schuck.721174910@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>>Obviously, ROC would have to elect leaders not associated with Quebec.
>>I do not agree that they should be ruthless.
>
>If we are not ruthless, Canada will not survive.

If "we" ARE ruthless, Canada would also not survive.

Parliament, which is the "we" that is the primary decision making body
of the government of Canada, doesn't have any way of becoming as
ruthless as you suggest, without it being effectively (or actually)
dissolved, which would mean that Canada would be GONE as we know it
now.

Any of the alternatives involve dictators, which certainly counts as
Canada not surviving, in my books.

This is the sort of thing that is happening RIGHT NOW in what used to
be Yugoslavia.  People are killing each other because of a "ruthless"
separation.  There are certainly differences in the situation - but
there are also similarities.

Canadians as a whole do NOT have that kind of hatred, and can't afford
that sort of ruthlessness, economically, militarily, socially, or
morally.

This ruthlessness would destroy whatever might have been left of
Canada.  My Canada doesn't condone ruthlessness against Quebec.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |===================================
University of Ottawa              |  The Personal Computer:  Colt 45
Master of System Science Program  |  of the Information Frontier
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 06:30:05 GMT

In article <schuck.721092172@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>Why give a *competitor* free access into our markets?
>
>What's in it for us? 

I suppose that free access into THEIR markets is something that you
wouldn't bother asking for?

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |===================================
University of Ottawa              |  The Personal Computer:  Colt 45
Master of System Science Program  |  of the Information Frontier
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Plan B
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:09:04 GMT


Patrick Hertel writes:

>As to the general tone of your postings..I haope not everyone in B.C. 
>is as much of a yahoo.

If by yahoo, you mean tired of special deals for Quebec, 
then I only represent 2/3 of the electorate.

-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:15:53 EDT
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Union Bashing (Was Re: Bill 40)
Distribution: can

On "creating" jobs: that expression tends to obscure a three way
process: of coordination (on the part of management), production
and/or performance (on the part of the employee), and demand (on
the part of the customer). If the customer does not want the
product, or if the employee does not do a good job, the management
can not "create" the job. And if the system assumes all the credit
for economic prosperity belongs to management, we get a situation
where employees have little incentive to work well (so quality goes
down), less ability to buy or save (so the company has more trouble
selling its products or attracting capital), and less incentive and
ability to upgrade their education (which means when the company
buys robots, fewer people can operate or maintain them).

Put simply, we can use our economic resources productively, or we
can squander them. And the more we concentrate our resources in a
few hands, the more risk we run of squandering them.

It follows that if you want to ensure prosperity, you must encourage
the dispersion of economic power to the greatest possible number of
people. This will very effectively enhance Ontario's productivity. The
NDP government has chosen to strengthen the unions for this purpose
because of their historic links with the unions, and also because the
alternatives, such as tax incentives or tribunals to equalise wages,
require the government to intervene directly in the economy.

Your culture will adapt to service ours - Columbus to Natives, 1492
Your culture will adapt to service ours - Borg to Captain Picard, 24th C.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Senate Interrogation
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:48:00 GMT

wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:

>In article <17215@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>>I've just heard an exchange on As It Happens between Brian McKenna, who
>>helped produce the docmentary The Valour and the Horror, and a member of the
>>Senate. The Senator's line of questioning was 100-proof McCarthyism of the
>>most shameful sort, and I am furious that I didn't catch the wretch's name.
>>
>>Can someone please advise me of the name of this tax-funded son of a bitch. I
>>have a bone to pick with him.

>Yes, I was that.  I didn't catch any names, but the CBC will give the whole
>circus more air time I'm sure.  He even asked Mckenna if he was anti-semetic?!

>I don't know what those old fart's problems are.  If I understood the series
>(V&H) correctly, it was a policy decision by the head Brit in bomber command
>that had Canadian airmen following those orders.  The series really shit upon
>that guy, not canadians.  Or did they?

The series implied bomber crews were no better than Nazi concentration
camp guards because they burned and killed civilians during their
raids over Germany. "Just following orders".

The series implied the raids were "just" terror raids with no military
value, which completely ignores the fact that these crews were going
after military targets with the greatest concentration of AA and night
fighters. If the intent of the raids was just to kill people and
terrorize germans, there were many other targets that would have been
easier to get to.

The V&H [at least the part on the bomber crews]
was left wing propaganda of the worst sort. Very typical of the NFB.

The Senators are still pissed off over the smear job done on Billy
Bishop and don't plan on letting the makers of the V&H get away with
another smear job.

It is my understanding that flying in bombers was extremely hazardous,
with 10% casualties not uncommon. That means 1000 planes with 10-12
men per plane going out and only 900 coming back with 1000 dead or
captured in one raid!

A lot of Canadians died in bombers, and the Senators do not like those
men and the survivors being compared to Concentration Camp guards.

I applaud the reason the Senators are going after the guy, and
completely understand their anger ,as much as anyone can who didn't
fight in WWII or have friends and relatives die.
[my uncles made it back]

Canadians were fighting the Nazis, they weren't Nazis.



-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: "david meadows" <david.meadows@canrem.com>
Subject: "canada is like a dull pa
Reply-To: "david meadows" <david.meadows@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: can
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:03:38 EST

Something that we, in Canada, and those who observe us from across the 
pond or across the 49th parallel, should realize is that the 
information the world gets about Canada is nowhere near what we might 
expect. Near as I can tell, world economists and investment `experts' 
only know about Canada what they happen to pick up off Reuters 
newswire, or perhaps off UPI. Out of necessity, they are only going to 
pick up the exciting bits, such as Quebec separation or a Blue Jays 
victory. What they won't pick up is the constant negotiation, the 
attitudes of the `man/woman on the street' towards keeping Canada 
together, even if it means rejecting an agreement which was flawed 
from the beginning.  The world simply doesn't care about what happens 
in Canada 99% of the time, and when they do decide to look in on us 
(which, by my reckoning, was when CNN announced the Charlottetown 
agreement) the process is too far gone for them to really have an 
informed opinion.
        Sadly, however, this same process goes across provincial lines 
as well and is only exacerbated by the media, who tend to concentrate 
on sensational incidents (e.g. flag stomping in Brockville), and the 
federal government, who is, in response, forced to reply with massive 
advertising campaigns telling us why we should be proud to be 
Canadian. Fortunately, however, the vast majority of Canadians are 
confident enough of the values inherent in their citizenship that they 
can rise above media and government inspired attempts to force views 
upon them. Unfortunately, the rest of the world just doesn't see that.

               David Meadows
---
  1st 1.00 #813  1st does more by 9:00am than other readers do all day
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "Canada is like a dull party"
Date: 10 Nov 92 10:51:32 GMT


I posted an extract of an article by "The Economist" (Oct.31) about
the Canadian referendum results and their possible consequences.
My original posting included no comments from myself.

Kevin F. Speichts then responded:
>This brings to mind the Kids In The Hall skit ...
>titled "I Hate the Swiss" :)   Did anyone else see this it was great.
>I'd tell this guy to go jump in an ocean .. but they don't have any. :)

This is the most well-reasoned and relevant response I've
ever seen on the Internet.
Person A, a Canadian, posts an extract of a British article about Canada;
Person B replies by making a vague negative comment about the Swiss
and a negative comment directed at Person A.
Bravo Kevin F. Speichts.

Marc Riese
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
Suisse
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Americans on English schools in Quebec (Was: Quebec)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:03:01 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1530

From article <1992Nov3.171922.25420@pandora.matrox.com>, by thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood):
> smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes:
> 
>>I think that I would never even contemplate living in Quebec, and
>>would think thrice about moving to Canada again.
>>Steven Smith
> 
> Insofar as this is the general view of anglophones outside Quebec,
> it is bad news for the anglophone community inside Quebec, since the
> latter relies upon immigration to replace heavy emigration.
> 
> Anglo leaders should not suggest that Quebec is (all in all) a bad
> place to live.

It does make their job all the more difficult when they must tell
prospective anglo immigrants to Quebec that their children will not
be allowed to go to English school.

Actually, on the surface, sending one's children to a French school is
not necessarily a bad thing.

It is the principle of being denied access to public services in one's
own linguistic community on the grounds of the country of one's origin;
the language in which one was, or one's parents were, educated; or the
date of arrival in a country; that is the problem.

It is particularly offensive when there are legislated attempts to
supress expression in one's language.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:47:49 GMT

Bruce Jonathan Schuck (schuck@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
>
>Since our biggest trading partner is the US, it would be insane to
>allow Quebec free access to our markets, thereby jeopardizing
>*Canadian* jobs. Why should Canadians buy Quebec products when
>buying Canadian products would produce new jobs in Canada.

Others have already replied to Bruce's post, but I cannot resist
reiterating one basic tenet: free trade benefits *both* trading partners;
it keeps producers on their toes wrt efficiency (and thus price) &
innovation, and it benefits consumers by providing more choice. Indeed, in
a free trade arrangement between CSQ and Quebec I suspect that CSQ, at
least initially, would benefit more due to the transient instability that
Quebec would experience due to separation.

>Why give a *competitor* free access into our markets?

For the exact same reasons that Canada gave the US free access to Canadian
markets.

>What's in it for us? 

The same advantages that were accrued by signing the FTA.

If you, like the NDP, do not believe in free trade, then no amount of
arguing will make a difference. But, if you think that the FTA is good (as
I do), then how can you argue against extending it to a sovereign Quebec?
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Xref: sparky can.politics:9568 soc.culture.canada:8451
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: ab.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: ATTENTION!! Conventioning New Democrats. We want information!!
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 05:45:13 MST
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #1, Edmonton, AB, Canada

farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:

- yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
-
- >American (n) - A person resident or born on the Continient of America
-
- Quick question, though. Would you rather call us
- United Statesians?

  Try this one!! "With Statian president Bush out and Clinton in, I wonder
what this new era has to offer.

  Hence:

   Statian: (n)  A person from or resident of the US.`

-
- I'm sure the media outlets would hate it! :)

  OH ??!!

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Bri Farenell (an American)                |  GO CLARKSON HOCKEY!
- Clarkson '95                              |  GO ARIZONA FOOTBALL!
- farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu            |  GO ARIZONA BASKETBALL!
- AHL and ECAC contact for rec.sport.hockey   |  GO USA HOCKEY!
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- CONGRATULATIONS TO THE 1992 CALDER CUP CHAMPION ADIRONDACK RED WINGS!
-            Calder Cup Champs: 1981 1986 1989 1992
-

    BTW, All conventioning NDPers from this weekend in Canada was AIMED at you.

Dave Shariff Yadallee (B. Sc. (Econ/Math) (U of Alberta 1990) )
 (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
American (n) - A person resident or born on the Continient of America
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:19:40 GMT

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

>In article <schuck.721472936@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>[ About Quebec getting 10% of the land and 50% of the debt after an
>  eventual secession ]
>>Radical? I think 50% is a realistic position because I genuinely thin
>>half the debt was caused by Quebec's blackmail and consititutional
>>wrangling.

>Boy, you really live in a hate-filled artificially created little
>world of your own! Who will you hate after Quebec seccedes? Yourself?

I don't hate Quebecers. 

I hate blackmailers. 

If Newfoundland was blackmailing Canada for more money and power I'd 
hate the blackmailers in Newfoundland.

The proper way to change a constitution is not to set artificial
deadlines with the 'gun' of secession held to english speaking Canada's
head if we don't give Quebec what it wants.

"Change the constitution of we'll hold a vote on secession." Thats
what the bill said. Thats blackmail. I hate blackmailers.


Also, I'm not the one who calls people cretin everytime they disagree with me.


-- 
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin                  schuck@sfu.ca
============================================================================
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Subject: Sylvain's McCarthyism
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:15:03 GMT

If anyone heard As It Happens last week, you may have caught the excerpt
about the exchange between Senator John Sylvain (PC-Que) and Brian McKenna,
producer of The Valour and the Horror. Whatever your views on McKenna's work,
Sylvain's questioning was perhaps the single most disgusting performance by a
Canadian politician in the last 10 years. He blatantly distorted the obvious
meaning of an editorial McKenna wrote as a student in the 1960s, asked
whether McKenna believed the Holocaust actually happened, and in general gave
us yet another reason for the abolition of the Senate.

Forty years after Joe McCarthy, his spirit is alive and well in the Canadian
government.

--
Crawford Kilian   Communications Department   Capilano College
North Vancouver BC Canada V7J 3H5
Usenet: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca
Internet: ckilian@first.etc.bc.ca

Newsgroups: can.politics