HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Why I will vote NO on Oct. 26
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:12:13 GMT

jmorry@kean.ucs.mun.ca wrote:
>In article <1992Sep15.132844.28402@bnr.ca>, dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>
>>    1. Before we had a useless appointed senate, now we have a useless elected
>>       senate, 
>
>Exactly. Why vote for something that is going to at least triple the 

>Jamie

What I find odd is that Clyde Wells accepted this 1.5E senate. (I can
understand Getty being taken for a ride.) Perhaps Jamie could enlighten us
on how that's going over in Newfoundland.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 18:28:27 GMT

In article <BuF7zA.B4K@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>If the No camp made clear the following, the agreement will not pass:
>1- The question is not Yes or No against Quebec secession (many will vote
>yes because they are confused at that point)

[ English reply below. ]

En theorie, oui.  Mais en realite, tu sais tres bien qu'un vote NON au
Quebec sera interprete pas les nationalistes (Parizeau en tete) comme
une victoire pour la separation.  A vote NON ailleurs au Canada sera
interprete comme un rejet du Quebec, quelles que soient les raisons
ayant pousse les gens a voter ainsi.  N'avons-nous pas entendu des
centaines de fois que le rejet the Meech etait purement et simplement
anti-Quebec).  (Il est vraiment que beaucoup des votes NON seront
anti-Quebec - il y aura toujours ceux qui rejettent ce qui est
different, ce qui ne se conforme pas a leur moule.  Ceci est tout aussi
vrai au Quebec, d'ailleurs.)

In theory, yes.  But in reality, you know very well that a NO vote in
Quebec will be interpreted by the nationalists (starting with Parizeau)
as a victory for separation.  A NO vote anywhere else in Canada will
be interpreted as a rejection of Quebec, whatever the hundreds of
reasons that people might have to vote NO.  Haven't we heard, over and
over again, that rejection of Meech was the same as rejection of
Quebec?  (This is not to say that many of the NO votes won't be
anti-Quebec - there will always be those who dislike what is different,
what doesn't fit into their mold.  This is true even in Quebec, of
course.)

Le Rhealiste - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Parlant pour moi-meme
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Which way to vote in Quebec
Date: 16 Sep 92 02:48:11 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep15.091045.7516@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>>Quoi doit-je faire? <:-}
>>>
>>>What must I do? <:-}
>> 
>Answer the question.
>
>
>      N     N       OOO       !!
>      NN    N      O   O      !!
>      N N   N     O     O     !!
>      N  N  N     O     O     !!
>      N   N N      O   O      
>      N    NN       OOO       !!
>
>  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||

Don't you find it strange that, while I am of opposite political opinion
I will vote NO too ?

They announced on radio and TV about a scoop from someone very high placed
in Quebec government (something like PM assistant or assistant-assistant).
Looks like a journalist catched something he was not supposed to (the
cellular syndrome?).  There is an injunction (sp?  injonction)/court 
temporary decision to force the media not to tell what happened
... for the good sake of negotiations ...  If there is a referendum 
how can negociations be in jeopardy ?

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Clyde Wells
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:41:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.231151.8873@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>What I find odd is that Clyde Wells accepted this 1.5E senate. (I can
>understand Getty being taken for a ride.) Perhaps Jamie could enlighten us
>on how that's going over in Newfoundland.
>-- 
Clyde Wells's main interest in a Senate was promoting the principle of
equality of provinces in one of the chambers of Parliament. This is
clearly present in the deal. I'm sure he's not pleased with the level of
effectiveness of the new senate, but he must have realized during
negotiations since Meech that a Senate with powers comparable to the U.S.
Senate would be impossible to achieve. As for elected, he probably thinks
"Well, I'll worry about making sure that Newfoundland senators are
elected, and let other provinces decide for themselves."

Mathew Englander.
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henriksen)
Subject: Re: What is the best situation for Quebec?
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 12:10:15 GMT

In article <BuCHK9.I36@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> you write:

(deleted)
|> 
|> I will probably vote yes, because I am so DAM tired of this constitutional
|> bickering. I don't think I am alone with these feelings. No, the deal
|> is not perfect. I once had strong interest in this country (Canada).
|> I think Canadians are losing interest in their own country and are now
|> considering themselves citizens of the world, where ones country of
|> origin is secondary. Canadians are Lions governed by Donkeys. Over 
|> 
(deleted)

If that's your reason for voting yes, you might want to reconsider since
Bourassa has already promised more negotiations once the yes vote wins.

|> 
|> I would like to find out from a Quebec Nationalist just how bad you
|> consider this deal and WHY. Secondly just how is a separate Quebec
|> going to work? Will groups who don't want to be part of this new
|> Quebec be allowed to go it alone? It seems fair to me. Obviously new
|> international deals will have to be negotiated?	What happens to the
|> St. Lawrence? Will it become internation waters?
|> 
|> -Tim.

Interesting questions but, with respect to how Quebec will make out after
independence, of limited interest to Canadians if any at all.  As far as
the St. Lawrence goes, can you imagine Quebec telling the US "Its all ours."?t
--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)

--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:57:36 GMT

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

Or increase it, once they see that blackmail works (i.e., TROC votes YES
out of fear -- "hold your nose"). I guess we'll just have to disagree on the
un-manufacturing part.

>Yes, we may. And I agree that the accord makes it MUCH more difficult to 
>make future changes.

I could hold my nose, like you, if the 25% was subject to 7/50, rather
than unanimity. There's nothing in the deal I can say I like, lots I
dislike, but the irrevocability of this is not compromise, it's caving in.

>I'm not, however, willing to bet that 
>Canada will stay together if TROC votes no.

If the agreement passes, I would prefer that Canada does break up.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Senate/House of common
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:11:42 GMT
	<1992Sep10.092036.24131@spxtech.qc.ca>
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

>>>>> On 10 Sep 92 13:20:36 GMT, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) said:
  > X-Bytes: 1960

  > > In article <SBO.92Sep8085100@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
  > >>
  > >>Here's a little question:
  > >>
  > >>In this country, in order to pass a law we have the
  > >>following (roughly):
  > >>        
  > >>        1. Someone get's a brilliant idea !
  > >>        2. It is proposed and debated in the house of common
  > >>        3. It is voted on by the house of common
  > >>        4. If it passes in the house of common it now
  > >>           has to be approved by the senate

  >          5. After it becomes law, someone in Quebec complains
  >             that the Quebec Government is not respecting the law
  >             and goes to court.
  >          6. Win or lose it is appealed to the Quebec court of appeal.
  >          7. Win or lose it is appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
  >          8. The Supreme Court of Canada rules that the Quebec law
  >             contravenes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  >          9. Quebec nationalists take to the streets.
  >         10. Quebec government invokes the notwithstanding clause.
  >         11. Anglophones in Quebec cry "FOUL!".

...And keep poluting can.politics :-)

...Et continuent de poluer can.politics :-)

  >         12. Who cares?

Steve Potter :-)

:-)
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Which way to vote in this damn Quebec?/Quoi voter dans se beau 
    Quebec?
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:59:46 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2251

From article <SBO.92Sep10120640@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>, by sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher):
>>>>>> On 10 Sep 92 12:45:22 GMT, steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) said:
>   > X-Bytes: 909
> 
>   > C'est interessant.
> 
>   > Isn't it interesting:
> 
>   > Mulroney, et Bourassa, qui veulent que l'entente passe, menacent[?]
>   > qu'une vote contre l'entente est une vote contre le Canada.
> 
>   > Mulroney, and Bourassa, who want the agreement to pass, threaten us
>   > that a vote against the agreement is a vote against Canada.
> 
>   > Parizeau, qui veut que l'entente ne passe pas, assure qu'une vote
>   > contre l'entente n'est pas une vote pour l'independence.
> 
>   > Parizeau, who wants the agreement to be rejected, assures us that
>   > a vote against the agreement is not a vote for independence.
> 
> Tu aurais pu ajouter qu'il semble qu'un non du CSQ veut
> simplement dire un non a l'entente. (pourtant le Quebec
> n'est pas une societe distinct tant que l'entente n'est pas
> ratifie :-))
> 
> You could have added that it seems the a no is CSQ simply
> means a no to the agreement. (But Quebec is not a distinct
> society until the agreement is signed :-))
> 
>   > Quoi doit-je faire? <:-}
> 
>   > What must I do? <:-}
> 
> Vote PEUT-ETRE, ou ne vote pas :-)
> 
> Vote MAYBE or do not vote :-)

I think an explanation might be that politicians like to be sure of
leaving themselves room to claim a victory - even when they lose.

If they confuse the issue they can interpret the results to suit their
own objectives.

If "NO" loses; Parizeau will no doubt claim that it was not a rejection
of independence.

If "YES" loses I expect Mulroney will rotate 180 degrees and say that
there were a lot of legitimate concerns about the package and that
people did not reject Canada. Parizeau will probably rotate 180 degrees
and claim a mandate for independence. Bourassa will take time to study
the post mortem analyses. :-)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Xref: sparky can.politics:6461 soc.culture.canada:6307
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: History of North America Re: REpublicanisn vs. Monarchists (Was Re: Beauregard vs. Yadallee)
Date: 4 Sep 92 15:28:52 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <12779@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>However You began this thread by insisting that Canada was created to
>further UK imperial interests in North America. I responded by showing
>that Canadians had a sense of separate identity and distinctive
>interests even from the earliest days. I showed that Canadians demonstrated
>this by insisting on governing themselves in their own interests and
>won this right in rejecting the Durham report (which you said was used
>as a model).

Give me a break! You must be kidding. You're saying that Canada was
not created to further british Empire in North America. You can't be
serious even if, as you always do, start the history of "the creation
of Canada" in 1867. If Canadians (I'm excluding Quebecois now) had
such a "sense of separate identity and distinctive interests even from
the earliest days" then:
- Why did it take them so long to get their own flag, and why a few
  provinces still have a british flag in the corner?
- Why were you singing the "God Save the Queen (or King)" at school
  when you were a kid?
- Why is the Queen of England still the head of State in Canada?
- Why does the picture of her Majesty still on canadian money?
- Why did Canada embark in the two World War so rappidly?
- Why does our passport make reference to both the Queen of England
  and the british embassy?
- Why was, until recently, our Constitution in London?
- Why was Canada a Loyalist hangout?
- etc.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: Walter_Gorlitz@mindlink.bc.ca (Walter Gorlitz)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The new agreement
Date: 5 Sep 92 18:34:53 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Sorry, my other mail address changed.  Please E-Mail the agreement to the first
addess below.
--
             Signature?  I'm a Mac user, why do I need a signature?
  wgorlitz@outb.wimsey.bc.ca        walter gorlitz        a416@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:19:22 GMT

CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>I don't agree that what we have now is a good approximation of rep by
>pop.  I posted extensively on this subject a week or two ago and got
>very little response.  At the time, I figured it was because my
>presentation was so clear and irrefutable that there was nothing to
>add.  Now I suspect that what I posted was so boring that nobody read
>it.

Yes, we don't have rep-by-pop now. We never have had it. We *should* be
fixing it. We're not. You're article (if it's the one I'm thinking about)
was essentially a simple statement of fact. (And thank you for it!)

>But I truly wonder why the
>many past and present deviations from rep by pop in favor of other
>provinces draw so little comment, while one (potentially) in favor
>of Quebec is seen as outrageous and unacceptable.

They are past. The current proposal is what's before us now, so that's what
we talk about. Has anybody argued that we should be keeping the current
non-rep-by-pop rules? I always took the abolishment of these old rules as
an obvious, implicit basis in all these discussions of rep-by-pop...
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:49:33 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:

>It's absolutely laughable. In fact, from the text I read in the Globe&Mail,
>it'll make things WORSE!!! It will entrench everything that is wrong with
>Canada in the constitution. It has some weak statements about provincial
>barriers, then goes on to say EXCEPT for regional developement, job creation
>supply "management", etc. Basically all the crap that should be axed 
>immediately gets to stay in! Newfoundland has been "regionally developed"
>for 43 years and where is it? 20% unemploymentand rising! Job creation
>programs just keep people going between UIC. Marketing boards are an 
>inefficient monopoly that bilks consumers. The list goes on. The Globe
>&Mail estimates 5-6 billion is wasted because of inter-provincial trade 
>barriers (that's basically 1% of GDP). Add all the waste and you could
>probably get 2-3% of GDP.
>If this "constitution" passes, it'll become impossible to get rid of
>the subsidies, barriers, waste and other baggage that passes for management
>of the country.

Not true.  The agreement adds a clause on the "economic union" that was not
in the constitution of 1982, and _permits_ certain exceptions.  Eliminating
the barriers that are thus _permitted_ will be no more or less difficult
than before.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Constitution and Laws
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:54:17 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1520

From article <1992Sep9.163211.12124@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>, by mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie):
> 
> Steve Potter writes:
> 
> |> Paragraph 23(1)(a), which is in the Canadian Charter of
> |> Rights and Freedoms says:-
> |> 
> |>    "Citizens of Canada whose first language learned and
> |>     understood is that of the English or French linguistic
> |>     minority population of the province in which they
> |>     reside ... have the right to have their children
> |>     educated in that language."
> |> 
> |> 
> |> Is that a law or a basis for a law?
> 
> That's a basis for a law.  Any talk about 'rights' belongs in a
> constitution to prevent laws from acting against these rights.
> Of course, not every single detailed right can be put into a 
> constitution, but that's what we have the courts for - to apply
> the rights in the constitution to specific cases.
> 

It is a symbol of Canada's democratic ineptitude that some 'rights'
are not applicable in certain parts of the country.

In this case, the question of access to English schools in Quebec for
certain English speaking families, those rights are frequently referred
to as 'privileges'.

It is about time Canada grew up! >:-(


-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: thood@twitus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Which way to vote in this damn Quebec?
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:20:59 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> original text              [translator's comments...       Vive le Net libre!]
= unauthorized translation   [~] [?] [??] approximate, uncertain, uncomprehended
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

Avant de s'occuper d'une minorite parmi une minorite, il faudrait peut-etre
s'occuper de la majorite et lui donner plus de droits qu'aux minorites.
Sinon, c'est la dictature de la minorite.
=
= Before we concern ourselves with a minority within a minority, we should perhaps
= concern ourselves with the majority and give it more rights than to minorities.
= Otherwise, it's the tyranny of the minority.

Par exemple, les5 droits de veto que Bourassa pretend avoir recu.
Par exemple, les soi-disant pouvoirs que Bourassa pretend avoir rapatrie,
des pouvoirs qui etaient initialement reserves aux provinces, alors que
le rapatriement en question est simplement la possibilite pour le Quebec
de faire son propre programme apres qu'Ottawa aura decide quoi faire avec
cet argent.  Aucun controle de cet argent, simplement avoir la permission
de copier ce que fait le federal.  Meme en matiere de langue, le Quebec
risque de perdre le droit de promouvoir la langue de la majorite!
=
= For example, the5 right of veto that Bourassa claims to have received.
= For example, the so-called powers that Bourassa claims to have repatriated,
powers that were initially reserved for provinces, when the repatriation in
question is simply the possibility for Quebec to set up its own program
after Ottawa has decided what to do with its money.  No control over this
money, just permission to copy what the federal government did.  Even in
matters of language, Quebec risks losing the right to promote the language
of the majority!


--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Future "Projections"
Date: 7 Sep 92 04:31:25 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond) writes:

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

I cannot speak for your neighbour, but I think it is a mistake
to assume that because anglophones had given up complaining about
Bill 101, they had become reconciled to it.  They had simply tired
of the matter.

Had the Charter of Rights never existed, the issue would have remained
on "simmer" indefinitely as an historical grievance.

But, certain individuals challenged the sign provisions of the
Charter of the French Language by appealing to the Charter of Rights,
and they won.  The opportunity was at hand to restore what the English
regarded as "fundamental" rights, which had been taken away from
individuals and from the English community in a fit (they imagined)
of passion or Camillian excess.  Instead, Bourassa resurrected the
law, and made it in some ways still stronger.  "Hey anglos: not only
do we hate you, but we can't resist banning you from sight -- it makes
us feel better!"

Boubou would have done better to restore the original law, because at
least he would have satisfied francophones.  To the English it was
six of one, half a dozen of the other.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal