HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: King Rhealist the First
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 21:19:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.711.8791@dosgate> "stephanie fysh" <stephanie.fysh@canrem.com> writes:
>Peter Deutsch writes:
>PD>Fortunately, I can help...
>
>PD>In the spirit of compromise and can-do spirit that has made Canada what it
>PD>is today, I willingly offer the services of my family as the new Canadian
>PD>Royal House. Our qualifications are impeccable, we are available to start
>PD>immediately, and we're reasonably priced. What more could you want?
>
>[all the rest deleted]
>
>OK, so we've got *two* candidates, now.  Care to outline *your* family's
>qualifications, Rheal?  :)

Certainly!  (And let me state that I, I mean We, are shocked at the
presumption of this Peter fellow!  Actually discussing money - what a
plebian!  Off with his head!)

For your information, I have the ideal family for a modern monarchy:
two daughters.  How much more politically correct can you get?  (By the
way, since I have only daughters, I propose that we now go to a
matriarchal naming system, so my daughters' children would inherit my
name, not that of those scumbags who take my little darlings away from
me!  Hmm, sorry, just practicing for when my daughters start dating.)

Let me point out, also, that I am in fact predestined for the role.
Yes, indeed, the name "Rhe'al" (and title, "Rhealist"), are a variant
of "Re'al", meaning "Royal".  (For example, Montre'al/Mont Royal.)

I think the choice is clear!

(However, I will concede that if I am to sign the laws of the land, I'd
better work on my handwriting - I don't think they'll accept
typewritten signatures!)

Rhealist the First - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca
Monarchs need no disclaimers!
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart)
Subject: Re: Income tax rate in Canada?
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:15:05 GMT

In <1992Aug13.074819.11448@sq.sq.com> dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman) writes:
>These figures don't include UIC premiums (which are, after all,
>insurance)

UIC was originally an insurance scheme for employees who unexpectedly found
themselves unemployed.  Nowadays it also 

   1) acts as a welfare system for people who are seasonally unemployed
      every year.
   2) provides maternity benefits.
   3) provides benefits to newly retired workers (this last benefit seems
      so bizarre I won't even attempt to figure it out).

Of course the major inconsistency in UIC's claim to be an insurance scheme
is that the amount you pay is in no way related to the probability that you
will ever have to make a benefit claim.

UIC isn't an insurance scheme, it's just another tax with a fancy name.
-- 
John Stewart -- Computing and Communications Services, Carleton University
Internet: jstewart@ccs.carleton.ca or Mr.Canoehead@algonquin.carleton.ca  
"Why can't we just forget about our constitutional problems and go canoeing?"
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin)
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Organization: Carp Systems International, Kanata, ON
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:01:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.221441.18894@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>[...] it does hurt people.  Maybe not physically, but I sure feel it
>>every time I look at a Canadian coin or bill of certain denominations,
>>and see this foreigner telling me to keep those apron strings tied.
I think that I would rather a symbolic apron string (the Queen) than
the very real and opressive apron strings of our neighbours to the
South.  For many years, Canadian policy was made in London.  Then, for
a while, it was made in Ottawa.  Now it is, for the most part, conceived
in Washington.  I say we need equal representation in the *U.S.* Senate
if we are going to so blindly follow the lead of the States.
Richard.
-- 
Richard Martin               	richard@csi.on.ca
Sorry, no NeXTmail. <sniff> :(
"Don't Panic Yet!  Things are about to get much worse!"
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: kenb@ee.ubc.ca (Ken Buckland)
Subject: The Hegemony Continues
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 06:51:22 GMT

While there has been considerable discussion in this newsgroup on how the
proposed constitutional plan has destroyed the concept of representation by
population in the House of Commons - certainly an enormous concern - I feel
that the death of the Triple-E Senate deserves some attention.  

There is no longer a Senate at all.  What remains could be called the
Sporadically Employed House of Commons Appendage, but it is nothing more.  
As the Senate has disappeared, clearly anything like a Triple-E Senate is 
now impossible.  So the Central Canadian hegemony continues.  Here are the
numbers:
                                                    ONT      QUE   ONT + QUE
                                                   -----    -----  ---------
Current House of Commons:                          33.6%    25.4%    59.0%
Proposed Joint Sessions of Commons and "Senate":   30.8%    24.8%    55.6%

Regardless of how accurately these numbers reflect population, the fact is
that Ontario and Quebec will exert 55% of the political clout, and there 
will be no counteracting form of regional representation.  Supporters of the
Triple-E Senate, and everyone who does not live in Central Canada, have been
slapped in the face.  The hegemony continues unabashed.

heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath) writes:
> I personally think if you back up a few steps and look at the proposals,
> that they represent a centre road through the many conflicting views
> held by Canadians. I think it is a fair and broad accomodation of these
> world views. There are many who will be unhappy, but I don't think
> that many have any reason to say "They got what they wanted, and we were
> ignored".

I'm sorry, but these comments can only be described as idiotic.  
We *were* completely ignored.

Ken Buckland 
kenb@ee.ubc.ca
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Official languages (was Re: Radio stations...)
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:51:29 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1371@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka) writes:
>
>When my forefathers came to Canada, it was not officially bilingual.
>In fact, I must have missed the referendum that made Canada bilingual,
>with French and English as first class and everyone else as
>second class. What year was that referendum again??
>
When your forefathers came to Canada, there may have been no
Official Languages Act, but English and French already enjoyed
a status different from other languages.  See, for example,
Article 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Surely it hasn't escaped your attention that Canada is not governed
by referendum.  The Liberal government won a majority in the 1968
election.  Its position on language rights was well known.  Why
would this not give them a mandate to legislate on language
as on other matters?

You're mixing apples and oranges when you write "French and English
as first class and everyone else as second class."  The first half
of your phrase refers to languages and the second half to people.
The Official Languages Act does establish different categories of
languages, but not different categories of people.

What solution are you proposing?  That there should be one official
language?  Why would this be any less "discriminatory" against
all the non-official languages?  Or do you want the federal
government to use every language spoken in Canada?  That'd be
less discriminatory, but hardly practical.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wednesday, 12 Aug 1992 22:49:55 EDT
From: Bob Burge <BURGER@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: NAFTA
Distribution: can

Does this mean Corona will be cheaper?
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart)
Subject: Re: Absolute Madness... Naturally.
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:47:31 GMT

In <BtAM0G.H6F@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>Good!  With the stupid agreement they announced yesterday (the only
>use of a minimum 25% of seats for Quebec corresponds to a racist
>behaviour of stopping almost completely immigration), Bourassa will
>loose the elections.  I can't see any advantage of only 8% of senate
>seats excahged again some .5% more seats at common.  And if the EEE senate
>is actually operative, French speaking are loosing power.

It's a good deal for Quebec because they would be guaranteed of retaining
25% of the seats in the House of Commons even though Quebec's share of 
Canada's population will most likely continue to decline in the future.

Under the new rules for the senate, the loss of senate seats is almost
irrelevant because the only power the senate would have to overturn 
legislation is to force a joint session of the Senate and Commons.  In a
joint session, Quebec's 25% share of the House of Commons would ensure a
strong voice for Quebec.

To say that the proposed senate is EEE is stretching the truth.  EEE 
supporters have made a major concession in supporting the new proposals.
-- 
John Stewart -- Computing and Communications Services, Carleton University
Internet: jstewart@ccs.carleton.ca or Mr.Canoehead@algonquin.carleton.ca  
"Why can't we just forget about our constitutional problems and go canoeing?"
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: god save your queen
Date: 11 Aug 92 11:42:11 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Aug9.085048.7533@uunet.ca> smd@uunet.ca (Sean Doran) writes:
>grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>
>>In both cases these actions were rejected by the
>>Canadian populace. The monarch is bound by the
>
>There have been a sizeable number of occasions where the will of the
>Canadian P.M. was ignored by the monarch on the advice of his or her
>British ministry.
>
-----
>
>Forsey and David Milne have a couple of papers which go into the way
>the JCPC (a committee of the British equivalent of our cabinet)
>screwed over the Canadian P.M. on a number of occasions since the

It should be noted that the JCPC is the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

It is the supreme court of the United Kingdom and was the
final court of appeal for Canada until 1949. The screwing over 
that the JCPC gave the Canadian PM was to side with the
provinces on many constitutional cases.

These actions in no way reflect any interference in the
affairs of the Canadian government by the UK government
or Queen.


-- 
i.sinature
From: ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash)
Subject: Re: Income tax rate in Canada? 
Originator: dash@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:45:38 GMT

In article <92Aug11.153910.12876@acs.ucalgary.ca> bauwens@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens) writes:

>Did you ever had any contact with any branch of the US government?
>"Welcome to a third world country" is how it feels.

I disagree.  I have found that in areas where I can compare (the FAA
(pilot's licence), the IRS, and the Postal Service vs. their Canadian
counterparts), the U.S. agency is always more efficient.  I've also
found the California DMV much more efficient than their counterpart in
Ontario.
-- 
David W. Ash               | "What profits a man if he keeps his eternal soul
ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu |  when he could have lived life to the full and
HOME: (415) 497-1629       |  been forgiven at the end of it all anyway?"
WORK: (415) 725-3859       |         --David Merritt, a.k.a. THE RED SHARK
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Rep by Pop
Date: 21 Aug 92 05:42:31 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Gerald Olchowy is right...by abandoning representation by population, we have
tried to buy some short-term peace at the price of long-term injustice. This
deal does not deserve to live.
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: god save your queen
Date: 11 Aug 92 11:57:49 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <1992Aug9.085048.7533@uunet.ca> smd@uunet.ca (Sean Doran) writes:
:grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
:
:>In both cases these actions were rejected by the
:>Canadian populace. The monarch is bound by the
:>advice of the ministers who are in turn responsible
:>to their Canadian electors. This is a part of
:>Canadian constitutional law and has been so
:>since the governments of the 1840's.
:
:Actually, it is not quite so simple.  
:
:There have been a sizeable number of occasions where the will of the
:Canadian P.M. was ignored by the monarch on the advice of his or her
:British ministry.
:
:
:	[...] a bill to provide for the Esquimault and Nanaimo Railway
:	in compensation had been defeated in the Senate [by five
:	votes].  In an attempt to assure British Columbians that the
:	government had made every effort ot have the Esquimault and
:	Nanaimo bill passed, Lord Dufferin made the following
:	statement which was widely reported in the press:
:
:		"I saw Mr. Mackenzie the next day [after the defeat
:		of the bill[, and I have seldom seen a man more
:		annoyed or disconcerted than he was.  Indeed he was
:		driven in that interview to protest with more warmth
:		than he has ever used against the decision of the
:		English government which had refused, on the opinion
:		of the law officers of the Crown, to allow him to add
:		to the numbers of the Senate". (House of Commons,
:					Debates, 1 March 1877, p. 371)
:
:

This railway was the subject of much controversy on the construction of this
railway. The government of British Columbia appealed to the Queen for
assitannce and threatened secession from Confederation in order to
pressure the federal government into building the railway.

Lord Dufferin attempted to intervene in the dispute. He visited BC
and attempted to soothe the controversy. He then attempted to
persuade P.M. Mackenzie to hold a conference with the
BC government to negotiate terms more favourable to BC.
This interference in the affairs of the government by the
Governor General was rejected amidst a great controversy.

Far from being an example of the independent power of the monarchy,
this case was a mile stone in the achievement of Canadian
independence from the UK government.
 
-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Provincial Official Languages
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 11:20:52 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


Mr. Mylnka has recently appeared, basically upset that Manitoba is
obliged to treat its francophone minority specially, when it is does
not do so for its larger Ukranian-speaking and German-speaking
communities.

I would like to mention that the Northwest Territories, a polity with
1/19th the population of Manitoba, has FOUR official languages
(English, French, Dene, and Inuktituk).

There is obviously nothing unconstitutional with a province declaring
official languages other than the federal two.  If he is really so
inclined, I encourage Mr. Mylnka to begin a campaign to grant Ukranian
and/or German official status in Manitoba.

--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Subject: ROC and the Catholic question
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:45:02 GMT

According to the latest census data I've been able to achieve, Canada
is just short of 50% (nominally) Catholic.

This fact is significant federally in several ways, not least when it
comes to appointments to , and the actions of, the Supreme Court.

A Canada without Quebec would be much less Catholic, and much more
heavily (in proportion) fundamentalist Protestant.

Speculate: what would befall us as a result of this demographic
change?
-- 
Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Minority education rights (was: Radio stations in Quebec,...)
Date: 17 Aug 92 12:49:46 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2346

From article <1393@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, by hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka):
> In article <1992Aug14.145706.29979@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
> 
>>  Rene Levesque signed with other first ministers an agreement that
>>  included allowing minority language schooling for ALL minority
>>  language children;
> 
> 
> Do you really mean ALL MINORITY LANGUAGES, or just the "OFFICIAL"
> Minority Languages? 


    I was referring to a communique signed by Rene Levesque and the other
    premiers at a first ministers' conference. The communique is dated
    23rd February, 1978 and reads, in part:-

     "Les premiers ministre reaffirment leur intention de s'efforcer
      pleinement d'offrir l'enseignement a leurs minorites anglophones
      ou francophones, et afin d'assurer une prestation adeque des
      services, ils conviennent egalement des principes suivants
      relativement a la disponibilite de meme qu'a l'accessibilite
      de ces services:

      (i)  Chaque enfant de la minorite francophone ou
           anglophone dans chaque des provinces a le droit
           de recevoir l'enseignement dans sa langue
           dans les ecoles primaires ou secondaires, partout
           ou le nombre d'eleves le justifie.

      (ii) ... "

   Both the Federal and Provincial governments have made promises and
   commitments to this effect.

   Rene Levesque agreed to it.

   The Quebec Liberals committed themselves to it.

   An Ottawa-Quebec education agreement comits Quebec to it.

   An Ottawa-Quebec immigration agreement addresses Quebec's immigration
   concerns indicated by the Supreme Court of Canada as the reason for
   the restriction.

   Alliance Quebec is demanding it.

   The Quebec Gov.'s own Task Force on English education demands it.

   English children in Quebec are still denied access to English school
   in this province!



   To answer your question, however, I must concede that I was speaking
   of "official" minority languages, unfortunately.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: god save your queen
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:07:13 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

Peter Gogolek <GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>Can you imagine a case where the Canadian monarch acts contrary to
>the wishes of the government of the day or equivalently refuses to
>carry out the wishes of the government of the day?

Yes.

>If not then the monarch is a de facto puppet and superfluous.
>Peter Gogolek

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Subject: Census results available?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:55:02 GMT

Are the results of the most recent Canada-wide census publicly
available?  I'm especially interested in seeing a break-down,
nationally and by province, of religious affiliation.
-- 
Michael Feld                         | E-mail:  <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy                  | FAX:     (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba               | Voice:   (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome": Update
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:26:38 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1572

From article <Bt4uzH.6z1@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
> In article <1992Aug16.124308.7895@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> ematias@dgp.toronto.edu (Edgar Matias) writes:
>>
>>This is *very* interesting.  So, if I understand correctly, it would be
>>*legal* to have a sign that said (in French) in BIG letters "F*CK THE 
>>LANGUAGE LAWS" with the word "welcome" (in many languages) written in _small_
>>letters underneath?
>>
>>Hm...  Maybe it's a good thing I don't live in Quebec...  ;-)
> Reciprocally...
>>
>>Edgar
> 
> This would not be legal.  The small letters message shall be the same.
> Moreover, maybe there is something againt hate signs.
> 

   Hatred for what? the "language laws"?

   I don't think it is illegal to express hatred for a piece of
   legislation.

   What kind of democracy would that be?

   Is it illegal to express hatred for (anti-)abortion legislation?

   Is it illegal to express hatred for legislation requiring
   that people who oppose a government initiative to join
   forces with parties of different ideological positions?
   (For example: joining the PQ group to oppose acceptance of
   a possibly bad constitutional deal in a Quebec referendum)

   Ah but is this a democracy - this Quebec?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Robert Meunier)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: We are all foreigners, save the NATIVE Aboriginal Canadians!!
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:44:10 GMT
Reply-To: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Organization: Hydro-Quebec (IREQ)

In article wL7qPB2w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>Peter Gogolek refers to the head of state of this country as "foreign".
>
>I would likle to ask and for net Canadians to consider the following:
>
>  Aren't you from a foreign ancestory?
>
>This is something the USers fail to see.  North America was inhabited by
>Aboriginals before the arrival of the Europeans!!
>
>Let's admit it,  we are ALL foreigners here, except the Aboriginals.

Correction. Whe are all foreigner including Aboriginal which came from
Asia. Only time separate us.

Le gouvernement du Quebec, pour mieux identifier les deux groupes a nommer
les Aborigenes "Autochtones" et les autres "Allochtones" dont la seule
difference et le temps depuis l'immigration.