HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aidler@sanjuan.UVic.CA (E Alan Idler)
Subject: Re: Reform Party vs Quebec (was Reform Party)
Organization: University of Victoria
Date: 24 Nov 92 05:21:59 GMT

>The Reform policy of leaving support for the french language up to the
>provinces means that support for the french language in schools and the
>public service will simply stop in all provinces except Quebec and
>Ontario, and maybe in a small pocket in New Brunswick. Why? Because
>support for the french language in the public sector and in education
>is largely brought about by the large Quebec vote at the federal
>level.  Not a majority, of course, but enough pull to make the feds
>realize that the francophone Canadians are Real People too, and _all_
>francophone Canadians, no matter what province they are in, are also
>Real People, and should be entitled to services and education in the
>french language where numbers warrent. Leaving this public policy
>decision to the provincial level means that in most cases the
>francophones will be so outnumbered in most votes (far far less than
>24%) that their voices will be forever drowned out. RP talkes about
>central Canadian domination, yet they advocate language majority
>domination to the _exclusion_ of the minority language speakers. The
>tactic is an old one: divide and conquer. Even Hill & Knowlton doesn't
>charge its customers anything to give out that piece of advice.

Why should a language majority in one province be able
to dictate the education policy in another?
Canadians should be able to receive services and education
in either French or English *where numbers warrant*.

I would rather see the marketplace decide (through vouchers
or enrollment minimums) whether numbers for a given education 
system are significant enough to support a school.

A IDLER
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,can.general
Subject: Gay rights and the Charter
Date: 22 Nov 92 04:21:09 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>The Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not presently explicitly protect
>against discriminatory treatment on the basis of sexual orientation.
>However, a court (I believe it was an Ontario court) recently made a ruling
>along the lines that such discrimination violated Charter equality rights.
>And, I believe, the federal government has said that it will accept this
>ruling and apply it nationally. [I am a bit fuzzy on the ruling so if
>anyone has better info, please jump in]
>
It's very complicated, but I'll try to summarize the facts, as well
as my opinions, in a subsequent post. The reason it's complicated
is that the case, Haig v. Canada, involved both the Charter and the
Canadian Human Rights Act, which are often confused by laypersons.

>Personally, I very much believe that sexual orientation *should* be
>explicitly Charter protected.  However, I get concerned when the courts
>seek to extend rights that were not obviously intended. In my view, the
>role of the courts should be to interpret the law (and the constitution),
>not write it.

I agree with you here. However, a close reading of section 15(1) of
the Charter (which I'll post) suggests that gay equality rights *were*
obviously intended to be protected by the Charter, even though not
explicitly mentioned. Section 15(1), in brief, says that every indi-
vidual is equal in the eyes of the law, and then goes on to give 
*examples* of groups that governments may not discriminate against.

> Just because I agree with the result of this particular piece
>of apparent judicial activism does not mean that I will agree with the
>next; and short of resorting to the infamous notwithstanding clause, there
>is nothing a government can do about a ruling that seems to exceed the
>Charter's mandate.

Yes, I wish everybody thought like you. Unfortunately, when it comes
to the Supreme Court of Canada interpreting the Charter, or the U.S.
Supreme Court interpreting the Bill of Rights, many people seem to take
the approach that the means is justified by the end.

>I am not a lawyer (although we all were in October :-), and it is very
>possible that my interpretation of these events is not correct, so if
>anyone wishes to correct the above, feel free.

I'm not a lawyer either; just a law student. My understanding of the
situation is pretty good, though. In the posting that will appear
soon after this one, I'll set out the relevant legislative sections,
and summaries of the Ontario court decision.

Mathew Englander.


































(Sorry; I had to put in those extra blank lines to get my news program to
post this.)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:35:51 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Jean Chretien
 <BxuKu3.FMn@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca> <92323.2019182893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <Bxywru.3AM@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca>

In article <Bxywru.3AM@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca>, tdwebste@sparta.uwaterloo.ca
(Timothy D. Webster) says:
>
>In article <92323.2019182893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy
><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>In article <BxuKu3.FMn@watserv2.uwaterloo.ca>, tdwebste@sparta.uwaterloo.ca
>>(Timothy D. Webster) says:
>>>
>>>
>>>So what magget, I meen muppet do you suggest? I am not going to vote
>>>communist (NDP). We have seen what the Tories can do. Should I vote for
>>
>>If you can call the NDP communist, can I call the Reform Party, Nazis, it's
>>the same sort of feeble-minded comment. You forgot the crypto part though:)
>>
>>>the Reform Party? I don't think so! The Bloc de Quebecios? My neighbours
>>>would kill me if they found out. That is if I didn't kill myself first.
>>>
>>>If Chretien has any good qualities, it is that you can't accuss him of
>>>talking out of both sides of his mouth at once. :-)
>>>
>>>-Tim.
>
>
>Have you never seen a smilly before? I tried to use lots for humur
>impared people like you.

Fine, but your smiley follows your comments on Chretien, not your feebleminded
comment about the NDP being communist.
You are applying it retroactively to your NDP comment instead of explaining or
retracting that comment.

>
>The NDP are a good example of we don't need now. Just look at Ontario.
>Excessively minimum wages prevent many job entry possitions.
                                                  positions
>Bill 40 will cause a migration of industry from Ontario. This is
>particularly the case with just in time manufacturing. If a parts
>supplier can not meet its contracted requirements an alternative more
>relable source will be found. Bill 40 indorses Unions traditional
reliable                               endorses
>adversarial bargaining technics.
 adverserial            techniques
>
>Tell me some good "uniquely" NDP polices. Not many eh?

Well, few "uniquely" NDP as other parties have stolen them.
I do believe the NDP at least promotes good spelling:)
I like the labour law, I think the law allowing wages of ex-spouses behind on
alimony to be garnished is good, pay equity, health care was pioneered by the
NDP.
>
>-Tim.
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Anyone want to buy a used country?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:02:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.164443.26841@bmerh85.bnr.ca> 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 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.  
>

The trouble is that they will come to collect...with the IMF and even
harsher austerity than the Tories have given us (the IMF will make the
Tories look like the most altruistic of governments), and if we refuse
to take the medicine of the IMF, Japan, Germany, and the US will come
with their tanks.

>Lots of countries have done this to other countries with no repercussions.
>Most recently Canadian banks have written off loans to various Latin
>American countries - like as if they could pay it back anyway. We didn't
>exactly declare war on Brazil because of this.  We still probably lend
>them money.  If we don't others will.  Lending money is risky to begin with
>and defaults are part of the cost of doing business.
>

No repercussions...there is incredible poverty in Brazil because of
the IMF and World Bank sponsored "medicines"...and foreign-imposed
austerity is part of the reason why the rainforest has been razed
by desparate people.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Anyone want to buy a used country?
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 21:20:06 GMT

In article <schuck.722411613@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>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.  

"debtors" don't come to collect - it's creditors.  Our "debtors" are
the ones that CANADA would go after...

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

On the other hand, lots of countries have *NOT* done this to
themselves.  There is a fairly significant "foreign" portion to the
holdings of the national debt - but most of the money owed, and most
of the creditors, are in fact Canadians.

The creditors include:
- Banks (evil ogres, every one of them :-))
- Pension funds
- Canadians of all stripes.  Those that have SOME capability to save
wind up buying CSBs.  And those that get "smart" and put the money
into GICs give the bank some money, that it either lends out, or
perhaps lends to the government by buying T-Bills.

If Mexico reneges on its debt, the citizenry isn't particularly hurt.
If Canada reneges?  Woe betide he who decides to destroy the savings
of four million Canadians...

-- 
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
Xref: sparky can.politics:9866 soc.culture.canada:8719
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Anyone want to buy a used country?
Followup-To: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: can
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:55:22 GMT

Tony Cifelli (tcifelli@bmerh717.bnr.ca) wrote:
>In article <1992Nov20.132220.21720@bmerh85.bnr.ca> viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca writes:
>>What's the solution?  The bottom line seems to be that this country is living 
>>beyond its means.  To be blunt, we frankly cannot afford to be a country.  The
>>only solution seems to be to sell off our assets so - anyone want to buy a slightly
>>used country?
>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 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.
>Most recently Canadian banks have written off loans to various Latin
>American countries - like as if they could pay it back anyway. We didn't
>exactly declare war on Brazil because of this.  We still probably lend
>them money.  If we don't others will.  Lending money is risky to begin with
>and defaults are part of the cost of doing business.

It's only not preposterous if you want Canada to act like and, more
importantly, be considered a bankrupt 3rd world country. *I* would move my
meager savings into US dollars if I thought the government was going to
try this trick; I am sure that I wouldn't be alone.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
From: marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Definition of/d'un "Quebecois"
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 22:09:07 EST
Reply-To: marc@tanda.isis.org
Distribution: can
Organization: Thibault & Friends


        Reminds me of my growing up just outside of Montreal. The town
        was more or less evenly split between French and English.
        Among the kids, relations were, shall we say, strained?

        My personal nemesis was Johnny Ford. The irony, if there be
        any, was that Johnny Ford was the "French Frog" and I, Marc
        Thibault, was the "Maudit Anglais".

        Cheers

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Americans on English schools in Quebec (Was: Quebec)
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:19:53 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 630

From article <By0qso.D5K@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Denis Beauregard used the term:-

>......  But, like Ponce Pilate in the story of Jesus, .....
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^

I never heard that when I was at Sunday School!! :-))))))

(No offense intended/Pas d'offense intentionel [trad. ?], Denis)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
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: 17 Nov 92 12:57:43 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Nov16.164440.10613@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>
>Nah, they just took the reigns from Pierre, the real culprit.
>Giving Mulroney and Clark credit for the current situation is
>revisionist fantasy.
>

I agree with you. Clark was irresponsible in his actions which worsened the
divisions in this country.









-- 
i.sinature
From: dale@dale.CAM.ORG (Dale Wharton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: FTA:  Abrogate?  Public debate 21 November
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:43:01 GMT
Organization: private


                            Annual meeting of the Council of Canadians
                     20-22 November 1992, National Arts Centre, Ottawa
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
.
       HEATED DEBATE open to public--Saturday, November 21, 11:30-1:00
.
                    The Free Trade Agreement--abrogate or renegotiate?
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Invited debaters:
.
   DAVE BARRETT     New Democratic Party trade critic (accepted)
.
   ROY McLAREN      Liberal Party trade critic (tentative/substitute?)
.
   MICHAEL WILSON   International Trade Minister (needs encouragement)
.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 The Council of Canadians (Join, eh?)  *  (613) 233-2773, fax 233-6776
                   1006-251 Laurier Avenue West  *  Ottawa ON  K1P 5J6
From: dale@dale.CAM.ORG (Dale Wharton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Alternatives to FTA/NAFTA?  Panel 21 November
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:58:25 GMT
Organization: private


                            Annual meeting of the Council of Canadians
                     20-22 November 1992, National Arts Centre, Ottawa
.
     P A N E L   Open to the public--Saturday, November 21, 9:05-11:15
                            ------------------------------------------
                             Yes!  Alternatives to the FTA and NAFTA!
                            ------------------------------------------
                 Panelists  BILL LOEWEN           Industrial policy
                            WAYNE EASTER          Agriculture
                            LINDA McQUAIG         Corporate agenda
                            MICHELLE SWENARCHUK   Environmental law
                            R H THOMPSON          Culture and the arts
                            JUDY D'ARCY           Labour
.
 The Council of Canadians (Join, eh?)  *  (613) 233-2773, fax 233-6776
                   1006-251 Laurier Avenue West  *  Ottawa ON  K1P 5J6
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: tdwebste@sparta.uwaterloo.ca (Timothy D. Webster)
Subject: Re: Almost seperation ...
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:20:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.222059.11692@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>
>I think Canada should almost seperate. It would be better for the
>different provinces, and eliminate so much of this bitching about
>who's getting what privilege.
>
>If Canada is a married family, then the world we are living in
>still has 1940's attitudes towards divorce. So Canada should stay
>married, so to speak, just so the neighbors won't gossip about
>us; and so we can give "the children" the appearances of a stable
>happy family; even though it isn't.
>
>Let's just keep smiling, for appearances sake, and meanwhile
>Quebec and English Canada can start sleeping in seperate beds,
>and maybe even start having affairs on the side. This arrangement
>is better than a drawn out divorce, and who knows, maybe with a little
>time to ourselves, we might find that this is just a "phase".
>
>Meanwhile, we'll both pay down the mortgage, be polite to each other,
>and be seen together holding hands at all the big social functions.

*****Flame ON.*******

I don't remember where in the Constitution it said English and French
people had to sleep together. And it would be an affair if they slept
with the odd Chinese, American, Japeness, Austrialian, German, etc.

What you have said does nothing address the issues. 

*****Flame OFF.******

My impression of the problem is, people want to move freely from
province to province with minimum restrictions. As a result there is
some desire for national uniformity. At the same time there is an
legitimate desire of cultural communities, (particularly francophones
within Quebec) to maintain a distintive quality. Hmm seems like a tough
one to solve. Well I'm not sure it is impossible, but it will require some
flexibility both ways. I think the national should set standards to be
ment throughtout the land. Each region would then be obligated to except
people and products from other regions with meet the standard without
restriction. How each region implements the standard is open to some
flexibility purhaps, onless they all decide to agree. Of course care
must be taken not to over regulate. At the same time groups wishing to
maintain a distintive quality should not pursure a different course in
every instance just to be distint. 

I will get off my chair so that the rest of you can discuss or Flame me.

-Tim.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque)
Subject: <None>
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:53:56 GMT

In article <13615@grayt>, grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:

> }>>I don't hate Quebecers. 
> }>>I hate blackmailers. 

Ever since Trudeau's racist attack on Quebecers and an entire generation of
Quebec politicians in Macleans and Actualite, it has been fashionable to quote
the old man in all too many attacks on the evils of decentralization and
Quebec sovereignty.

more ultra federalist blah-blah....
> Since this fact was recognized and provided for in the BNA act, I do not
> see how Clark's proposals are any revelation. However Clark tipped the
> balance. The effect of his ideas is to promote regionalism and isolation.
> Regionalism and isolation breed the comments and attitudes seen above.
> 
> The message that Clark was trying to send was common place knowledge.
> Clark's solution instead of alleviating the problem, aggravated it.

Joe Clark's problem is that he is just giving Canadians the status quo,
dressed up as the new regionalist Canada. Look at how little was offered
in the area of powers in both Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accord.
If anything, Joe Clark failed the communities that you despise.

> }  But perhaps just as Meech seemed like not so bad a deal when Allaire came
> }out, some of the suggestions that have been but which Ottawa illegally
spends in right now.
> }years will be reinvented and refined, and will yet provide a flexible
> The pan-Canadian myth now seems to be that your region, group whatever
> is exploited by its neighbours. Such a myth can only bring hardship.
> Now the political entity of Canada is not important. If Canada can provide
> a way for people to live in peace it should continue. However if Canada becomes
> a way of objectifying your neighbour, it should not and will not survive.
> The tragedy will be that the hatreds produced will live on long after
> the demise of Canada.


The pan-Canadian myth died many years ago but lives in the hearts of all too
many Canadians. They had their chance to define that beautiful bilingual 
Canada when French minorites really needed it. It is far too late today.
And French Quebecers are not just another ethnic group. Quebec has a history
a culture and is a nation in every classic sense of the word. It's time the
resto of the country woke up on this. The idea that all provinces are the same 
or that Ottawa is the caretaker of Canada must be killed before we can't pay
for this country anymore.

> i.sinature
-- 

John P. LaRocque
vader@uwo.ca
University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario


"Urk..urk..."
"Apologies accepted, Captian Nida", Darth Vader
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Au revoir
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:47:36 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: thood@corvus.matrox.com's message of 16 Nov 92 21:00:25 GMT

Adieu Tom, a la prochaine.  Moi aussi, je me casse.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
Newsgroups: can.politics