HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zintel@mdd.comm.mot.com (Mike Zintel)
Subject: Re: Anyone want to buy a used country?
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:16:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.180951.21978@mks.com> chris@mks.com (Chris Retterath) writes:
> A country that, after a 30 year experiment with socialized medicine, with 
>the costs spiralling out of control, decides it should be part of the 
>constitution 'so noone will be able to take it away'. No wonder we're in 
>trouble.

Costs are spiraling out of control in the U.S. also.

-- 
---
Mike Zintel             zintel@mdd.comm.mot.com not zintel@mdi.com anymore
Motorola Mobile Data
Bothell, WA
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Thank You Mr. Clark was Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Date: 16 Nov 92 13:19:06 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Nov14.012007.9802@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>: 
>: The object of the Charlottetown Accord and the constitutional miasma that
>: led up to it was to recognize diversity by producing a 
>: "Community of Communities"
>: 
>: From the evidence of this thread (which is accurately summarized by
>: the quotation above), the process has worked. Canada is now a
>: "Community of Communities". Unfortunately there is nothing to hold
>: these communities together but the mutual ignorance and suspicion generated by
>: a process which pitted region against cultural group against national
>: vision.
>: 
>: Welcome to the new Canada. [...]
>: 
>: Thank you Mr. Clark
>
>Don't be ridiculous. The failed accord didn't create this bigotry. It

I'll be as ridiculous as I please.

>has been fermenting in Canada for eons. There has been anti-Quebec 
>sentiments in TROC for decades, the aboriginals have suffered for 
>generations, and Trudeau fuelled western alienation and didn't give 
>a damn whether Quebec endorsed his ego-motivated repatriation. 

Clark and Mulroney exploited the divisions in the country. Mulroney for
his ego and as for Clark, well he proved his competence in 1979
(counting over 100 is difficult isn't it). Now we see the result of their
efforts. Did Clark succeed in producing his beloved "Community of
Communities"? Yes he succeeded. We are now seeing the result.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: ANGLO WHINERS and so-called persecution
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:03:10 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1143

From article <BxxKFt.L16@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>,
by svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca
Stephen Van Egmond quoted somebody else:-

> Quote:
> "
>       In the 14 years from 1978, when the law took force, to 1991, the
> statistical review says that 388 cases ver went to court - and 123 language 
> offenders were conviced, an average of less than NINE A YEAR. That didn't
> make a headline either.
> "

In the 15 years from 1977 to 1991 statistics indicate that enrollment
in English schools in Quebec fell by 53.3 percent with a corresponding
loss of 31.6 percent of English schools.

Enrollment in French schools for the same period fell by 12.2 percent
with a corresponding loss of 1.7 percent of French schools.

About 10 percent of English school age children are denied access to
English schools in Quebec.

:-( :-( :-( :-( !!!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Reform Party
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 22:53:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.202155.25456@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca> tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis) writes:
>The Reform Party is a half-baked attempt to be a conservative party in
>the traditional sense of the word.  The closest thing we have to a
>"religious right" party.  Its ideology is much in tune with the
>theology of the Judeo-Christian deity that has been dominant in the
>West until fairly recently.

A party that's based on religious teachings is one that's doomed to
fail in North American society. For a recent example, look at how
repulsed Americans are at the latest incarnation of the Republican
party. For a well documented example in the past, watch Malcolm X, the
movie. If the PC ever got close to adopting the religious fervor
evident in the Reform party's rhetoric, they would lose the Quebec vote
completely, and that's no small potatoes.
-- 
Michael MY Hui  ~{~}  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: beaucham@astro.phy.ulaval.ca (Dominique Beauchamp)
Subject: Re: Quebec
Followup-To: beaucham@phy.ulaval.ca
Organization: Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, Qc, Canada
Distribution: can.politics
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:16:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.134214.14507@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>From article <1992Nov16.152240.5667@cerberus.ulaval.ca>, by beaucham@astro.phy.ulaval.ca (Dominique Beauchamp):
>> In article <1992Nov8.103905.6682@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>>From article <1992Nov5.132132.7992@cerberus.ulaval.ca>,
>>>by beaucham@astro.phy.ulaval.ca
>>>Dominique Beauchamp writes:-
>>>
>>>> Je ne connais pas beaucoup d'anglophones qui ont eu de la difficulte a se
>>>> faire "servir" en anglais au Quebec.
>>>
>>>Je connais "beaucoup d'anglophones qui ont eu de la difficulte" a faire
>>>eduquer leurs enfants dans les ecoles de leur propre langue au Quebec.
>>>
>> 
>> Nomme m'en un et je te croierai...
>> 
>
>Hello?
>
>There are at least 10,000 (perhaps as many as 13,000) english-speaking
>children, including mine, who have been declared "ineligible for
>instruction in English" in Quebec.
>
>I am collecting names.
>
>The names I have are confidential, but I might arrange for some of them
>to call you on the telephone.
>
>How many calls would you like?
>

Pourrais-tu me dire, si ca ne t'indispose pas, d'ou tu viens, ou te vis et depuis
combien de temps.  Je te donnerai des adresses.

Cesse de te plaindre, mes enfants, si j'en avais, ne pourraient pas aller a l'ecole
francaise dans une autre province.  Tu le sais aussi bien que moi.

>> Cher Steve, supposons que tu aies des enfants et que tu demenage en Chine.
>> Vas-tu les envoyer a l'ecole anglaise?  Lorsque je connaitrai ta reponse,
>> je serai en mesure de t'apporter quelques faits...
>> 
>
>Est-ce qu'il y a des ecoles anglaises publique disponibles en Chine?
>Je ne le savais pas. (I didn't know that!) :-)
>

Ce que je veux dire c'est qu'il faut etre chinois avec les Chinois et quebecois
avec les Quebecois.  Quand je vais en Ontario, je parle anglais et j'enverrais mes
flos a l'ecole anglaise.  Mais au Quebec, la culture est francaise (majorite=$)
donc les ecoles se doivent d'etre francaises.  Si le gouvernement de l'Ontario (
ou de quelconque autres provinces) veux subventionner des ecoles ici, ben qu'ils
y allent fort...

[... a propos de racisme ...]

>Va consulter votre dictionnaire (peut-etre un dictionnaire francaise
>quebecoise est different que le Websters ninth new collegiate des Etats-
>Unis? :-)  )
>

Ben voyons!

>
>C'est bien connu que votre gouvernement du Quebec FRANCOPHONE (?) as fait
>des etapes pour nier la droit d'avoir et controller leurs propres ecoles
>francophones en Alberta! :-(
>

Je ne vois pas trop ce que le gvmt du Quebec a a voir avec l'Alberta.  
Je ne te contredirai donc pas sur ce point quoi que j'aimerais etre plus 
eclaire la-dessus.

Le principe, comme tu le dis si bien, c'est qu'on paie pour notre culture, pas
pour celle des autres.

Bonne journee.

Dominique Beauchamp



Newsgroups: can.politics
From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Anyone want to buy a used country?
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 05:53:33 GMT

tcifelli@bmerh717.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli) writes:

>I think we have passed the point of no return.  There is no way for the 
>government to pay back the enormous debt.  The tax base just isn't big
>enough.  Cutting back a billion here or there is just a drop in the bucket.

I think that is sad but very true.

>I think the only answer is to continue to run the debt through the roof
>and simply screw our debtors some day when they come to collect.  
>Its not as preposterous as you may think.  

>Lots of countries have done this to other countries with no repercussions.

It seems to me the many countries that do do this usually end up with two
classes, the rich who can protect their assets and the poor who have
none to protect. It usually means the death of the middle class, some
of whom become rich, and most of whom become poor.

Thats whats going on in the country right now.

-- 
......

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
Subject: Re: Reform Party
Organization: York University
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 20:21:55 GMT

Daniel A. Murphy in the US wonders:
> Can someone give me a good idea what the Reform Party stands for and how
> it differs from the Conservatives?

Simple.
The Reform Party is a half-baked attempt to be a conservative party in
the traditional sense of the word.  The closest thing we have to a
"religious right" party.  Its ideology is much in tune with the
theology of the Judeo-Christian deity that has been dominant in the
West until fairly recently.  (Which is the real reason it is hated in
certain quarters.) 
The "Conservative" (full name "Progressive Conservative" - whatever
that means) party, and the other two mainline parties, named the
"Liberals" and the "New Social Democratic Activist Party" (NSDAP),
or something, all believe in taxes, appeasement of special interest
groups, and offering taxpayers' money as propitiation to angry modern
secular gods.

* Names of currently fashionable Canadian secular deities :
  Anti-Racism, Pay-Equity, Affirmative-Action, etc.
  (You know, the same pantheon you have in the States.)

--
tony@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada

Xref: sparky can.politics:9934 soc.culture.canada:8783
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Reform Party
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: 23 Nov 92 05:01:06 GMT

Anthony Wallis (tony@nexus.yorku.ca) wrote:
>Daniel A. Murphy in the US wonders:
>> Can someone give me a good idea what the Reform Party stands for and how
>> it differs from the Conservatives?
>
>Simple.
>The Reform Party is a half-baked attempt to be a conservative party in
>the traditional sense of the word.  The closest thing we have to a
>"religious right" party.  Its ideology is much in tune with the
>theology of the Judeo-Christian deity that has been dominant in the
>West until fairly recently.  (Which is the real reason it is hated in
>certain quarters.) 

The RP is most definitely right leaning, but I am not aware of any policies
or pronouncements by Manning that would cause one to label it a party of
the "religious right". Indeed, it is merely necessary to contrast the RP's
policy on abortion (explained in an earlier article by another poster) with
that of the US religious right to find a potentially important issue where
the two differ significantly.

Please elaborate on why you believe the above, Tony.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: The partition of Quebec (from an APEC pamphlet)
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:58:19 GMT

Christopher Browne (cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca) wrote:
>
>If you want to reduce the influence Ontario and Quebec have over the
>aggregate, Canada, what is simpler:
>
>1) Redesign the federal government so that Ontario and Quebec are
>weaker?
>
>This isn't terribly practical, seeing as how Canada IS a federal
>democracy that elects representatives based on representation by
>population.
>
>The citizens of Ontario and Quebec won't agree to this option, because
>it is clearly not in their interests.
>
>2) Reduce the influence of the Federal government, devolving
>responsibilities to the provincial governments?
>
>This would give Ontario and Quebec some additional powers that they
>didn't have before, but removes the VALUE of the influence that they
>have on the federal government.  The net effect is that Ontario &
>Quebec would have slightly less power.
>
>On the other hand, the other provinces would gain a great deal of
>influence relating to the things that affect them.
>
>You CAN'T do 1).  If you think there was disagreement over
>Charlottetown, you ain't seen nothing yet!  Ontario wouldn't be split
>49.5/50.5 - it would be 5% for, and 95% against.  (There's enough
>idiots in any population to give an untenable position a 5% "For"
>vote.)
>
>2) offers a sort of continuum that might be able to do some of what
>you want.

I tend to agree with Christopher on this. Recent past history has shown
that the likelihood of both Ontario and Quebec agreeing to 1) is about nil
(the supposed EEE senate of the CA is a case in point). As well, an
argument can be made that a EEE senate is undemocratic.

However, there exists a problem with 2). The main problem is that Ontario
has in the past believed in a strong central government. Thus, any
devolution of powers to the provinces would probably meet with a great deal
of resistance by Canada's largest province, not to mention NACSW, the CAW,
NAPO, and many other groups that see a strong central government as being
positive for the country (of course, it's not because it's easier to lobby
one government rather than 11 :-). Also, the smaller "have-not" provinces
would most likely also be opposed due to the fear of being left with all
the responsibilities of these powers, but without the money to administer
them. 

Having said all that I still wouldn't be surprised to see Quebec, Alberta,
and BC joining forces at some time in the future (e.g., the next round of
constitutional wrangling) to push for this devolution. 
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: news@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca
Subject: Quebecker (was Re: Definition of/d'un "Quebecois")
Organization: McGill University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:50:09 GMT

In article <13542@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>PS: I never liked the sound of "quebecker", not because it is english,
>but because the terminaison seems rather strange. Furthermore, most of
>the times I've heard it was by people bitching abaout quebec. I can't
>think of any other cases of terminating a nationality with "er". Much
>like saying "canadeux" or "ontareux".

Icelander, Newfoundlander, Londoner, New Yorker, Berliner...  We
could probably come up with hundreds of examples.  Most are not
exactly nationalities, but you get the idea.

Ne trouves-tu pas que c'est un peu presomptueux de critiquer un
aspect d'une langue qui n'est meme pas la tienne, et que tu
maitrises moins que parfaitement?  C'est un peu
comme si je disais que je n'aimais pas l'emploi de la cedille dans
la langue francaise (et dans Francois  :-)  :-) ).

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Defending Jean Chretien
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:26:36 GMT

yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
: Givien the leadership we have, I PERSONALLY would LOVE to see Jean Chretien
: become PM..  Jean, during the Referendum, has proven himself to be his own man
: and wants to here everyone opinions.
: 
: From personal experience, I believe that he is the more approachable of all 
: the Canadian leader we have today.

He's a weak spineless Politician who never commits to any opinion
if it might hurt his public image.  Except, of course, stating that
he'd send troops into Quebec to squash any secession. 
He also talks like Popeye.

This is not to imply that the other party leaders are more desireable.

-- 
Brian Ross                         "How do we arrange lures in our tackle box?
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     From left to right, according to size and 
                                    frequency of use." -- Anal-Retentive Chef.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Tories blame Liberals for economy
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:55:10 GMT

In article <5183@disuns2.epfl.ch> riese@litsun.epfl.ch (Marc Riese) writes:
>
>Radio Canada showed a clip of a Tory money raising dinner held in
>Toronto Thursday (or Wednesday). While addressing the audience,
>Mulroney made some claim to the effect that the majority of the blame
>for Canada's current economic mess should go to the Liberal party.
>
>In the very same edition, the CBC showed that the Tories have yet
>again managed to have a budget deficit above $30 billion, and that
>this year it is more than $3 billion worse than planned.
>What irks me is that despite the record of the Progressive Conservative
>party, some people still believe that they are particularly good at managing
>the economy. One begins to think that a ten year-old could do better.
>
>Who will pay for this irresponsability?
>Voter should not accept this.
>

The depressing thing is that as mediocre as the Tories have been, the
Liberals and the NDP would be worse...

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Reform Party
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 13:25:24 PST
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis) writes:

> The "Conservative" (full name "Progressive Conservative" - whatever
> that means) party, and the other two mainline parties, named the


It was named Progressive Conservative as aresult of amalagamating the 
Progressive Party and the Conservative Party. Yes, it is an oxy-moron, 
like "military-intelligence" in terms of today's politics, but it was 
fashioned long ago.


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: murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy)
Subject: Reform Party
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:36:26 GMT


I've been hearing a lot in the US press about the Reform Party and its
impact on the next election, especially in the Western provinces.

Can someone give me a good idea what the Reform Party stands for and how
it differs from the Conservatives?
-- 
-------------------
Daniel A. Murphy        Net:         murphy@well.sf.ca.us
San Francisco, CA       GEnie:       D.MURPHY11
U.S.A.                  MCI Mail:    377-7947
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: svanegmo@cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond)
Subject: Council of Canadians?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:20:12 GMT

Who funds it?  What are its political objectives?  What are its social objectives?  What are its views on the current government, and which type of government should be installed in its place, if any?

Questions I think should be asked (and answered).

Steve
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Defending Jean Chretien
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:09:45 GMT

In article <TLRHuB5w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>Givien the leadership we have, I PERSONALLY would LOVE to see Jean Chretien
>become PM..  Jean, during the Referendum, has proven himself to be his own man
>and wants to here everyone opinions.
>
>From personal experience, I believe that he is the more approachable of all the
>Canadian leader we have today.
>

Jean Chretien has demonstrated to the country that he hasn't learned the
lesson of the referendum...by imposing candidates on ridings without a
democratic nomination process...and then quenching dissent through
intimidation...

...is this the same Liberal Party that was complaining about Tory
backbenchers who meekly follow Mulroney.

When is Jean going to show his face on the streets of York Centre?

Gerald
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: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:58:58 GMT

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

>It might even be that the Senate had a point, but when I heard John Sylvain
>(PC-Quebec, appointed 1990, thank you very much Brian) distort Brian
>McKenna's college-paper editorials from the 1960s, I knew we were dealing
>with good old-fashioned repression like Joe McCarthy used to make.

You mean that distortion by politicians is evidence of McCarthyite
repression? Thats a gross exageration isn't it? 
What about distortion by documentry film-makers. Whats that evidence of?
 
>We'll probably never know (even if we were there) what really happened in the
>skies of Germany 50 years ago, and whether it meant a damn thing. But we
>ought to know that freedom of expression is under immediate threat from
>tax-paid Senators like Sylvain. And we ought to be yelling our heads off
>about that, not about Gwynne bloody Dwyer's credibility.

I think the lack of rebuttal time by the CBC is a more important issue.
It's much easier to distort history 50 years later and get away with
it. Memories are dim, many of the participants are dead and can't
defend themselves. As a government agency, the CBC *should* have been
prepared to give time to veterans groups to counter McKennas new
version of history. Hell, they didn't even have to give them any
money. All they had to do was give them 15-30 minutes after each show
to debate the issues with McKenna or someone who agrees with him. IS
that too much to ask?

The term freedom of expression gets thrown around a lot, but freedom
of expression isn't being challenged here. It`s freedom of government
subsidized expression thats being challenged. Nobody is trying to take
away the McKennas right to rewrite history in their revisionist image.
The Senators [maybe] are threatening the McKennas government funding for
revisionism.

Such state subsidized revisionism is not guaranteed in the Charter of
Rights. Nobody is guaranteed a million dollar budget and three hours
of prime time to rewrite history.

I know the Senators are still pissed off over the shabby treatment of
Billy Bishop in the 1980 documentry that used Eric Pederson portraying
a British mechanic and claimed Bishop had lied about attacking a
German aerodrome. There was no evidence presented in that "documentry"
that substantiated such revisionism. It was just another
unsubtantiated attack on a true Canadian war hero. The NFB likes to do
that kind of stuff, and the V & H was just a continuation of that
attitude of tearing down people who aren't around to defend
themselves.

-- 
......

Xref: sparky can.politics:9857 soc.culture.canada:8700