HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Criticizing "My Canada includes Quebec"
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:41:35 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

alan@dragon.acadiau.ca (Alan W. McKay) writes:

>The guy who came up with the slogan is a truck driver who has spent the
>last 2 years of *his own* time and *his own* money setting up
>billboards in English-speaking Canada with this slogan on it in English
>and in French, and then getting thousands of signatures on the
>billboard and lugging them to Quebec to set them up and show the people
>there that the English speakers really want Quebec to stay in the
>country.

>Shit all over it if you want.  I think the intent is plain and very,
>very clear, at least in the English translation (since I don't speak
>French).  I think it is perfect as is, and furthermore I think the guy
>should get a medal of some sort, because he is the type of person that
>this country needs more of, the type who is willing to give his own
>time and money to try to keep the country together, not the type who
>dig and poke at everything in order to find fault.  Do something for
>Canada, rather than complain about what someone else is doing wrong.
>At least he is doing *something*.

It is amazing how fast the focus switches from facts and arguments,
to the "types of people" making the arguments.  I did not question
the good intentions of the originator of the slogan -- I questioned
his choice of words.  "My Canada includes Quebec" can at best be
taken as a pentecostal proclamation of belief in the Canadian Unity,
at worst, a threat.

As for "doing something to save Canada," I am hereby announcing my
candidacy for the position of King of Canada.  On guard, Rheal and
Peter!

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mhsvieru@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: god save your queen
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:19:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug9.085048.7533@uunet.ca>, smd@uunet.ca (Sean Doran) writes:
> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
> 
> 
> 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
> 1900s, and the British government's interference in the advice of
> the P.M. of Canada to the Queen of Canada during the early 1980s
> Constitutional politics is quite well documented in Milne's _The
> Canadian Constitution_.
> 
> 
> 	Sean.

You've misrepresented the JCPC.

The JCPC (The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council) was essentially 
the highest court of appeal in Canadian law (the only court above the
the Supreme Court of Canada) until 1949.  The JCPC was thus required
to interpret the BNA Act to determine whether or not various provincial
and federal statutes were within their legitimate legislative powers.  

The decisions by the JCPC tended to favour a more decentralized
interpretation of the BNA Act than many felt was intended by the fathers
of Confederation.  In this way the JCPC did indeed "screw" the Canadian
government by ruling various federal laws ultra vires, but only in the
same way that the Supreme Court has been striking down legislation for
similar reasons over the past forty years.

Martin Vierula
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome": Update
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:59:06 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <Bt4uzH.6z1@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>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?
>>
Why bother with the multilingual "welcome"?  If your main intention
is to say "F*ck the language laws," then it's certainly legal to
do so, if it's in French only.  Adding "Bienvenue/welcome" won't
make it any more legal.

In fact, since the content of the message is political, rather than
commercial, it may be legal to use other languages on your sign.
I'm not sure of this, though.

>This would not be legal.  The small letters message shall be the same.
>Moreover, maybe there is something againt hate signs.
>
There is a federal law against inciting hatred of an identifiable
group of people (I don't know all the details).  However, we
should not confuse hating a law with hating people.  One can dislike
certain aspects of Bill 101 without hating the Quebecois people.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Xref: sparky can.politics:6130 soc.culture.canada:6003
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Absolute Madness... Naturally.
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:37:52 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2943

From article <BtC8JE.1vn@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):
> In article <jstewart.714332851@cunews> jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:
>>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?"
> 
> I think this is highly debatable.  
> 1- Actual content of what remains from Meech is still untold.
> 2- Changes in a 1992 point of view are tiny.  Who said if Quebec population
> will not increase in the future?  Today's trend is recent (about 20-30 years)
> and accompany a change in society (like emptied churches), but the trend
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                     like emptied English schools in Quebec!

> may change, in which case the 25% minimum will be irrelevant.
> 3- Do you know about the Canadian parliement working?  Do you ever heard
> about a party, about party's politics?  In that case, voice of Quebec is
> not that strong.  It is one on four, about the population today.
> Moreover, if Bloc Quebecois remains strong, part of Quebec in Majority
> will be small enough.  But, I recognize BQ could deal with the majority
> in a 5-party system.

  Does the English community in Quebec have any guarantee of representation
  in the Commons, the Senate, Supreme Court, Quebec Superior Court, Quebec
  National Assembly?

> 4- What happens if 6 provinces decide to nominate a francophone senator
> and to present a bill against having a unilingual status in a province?
> A cultural bill decided by a majority of francos (6 out of Quebec against
> 5 in Quebec) :-(  [I say 5 in Quebec since Quebec will propably have
> a anglo or allophone senator].
> 

  Another victory for bilingualism and for mutual respect and tolerance
  perhaps?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: charlesv@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Charles Van Duren)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Getty has made Central Canada stronger
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:38:13 GMT
Distribution: can

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>With this deal, Don Getty is agreeing for perpetuity that Alberta
>will have less than rep by pop in the House of Commons, in the
>Senate, and on the Supreme Court (and in fact the worst representation
>of any province on the Supreme Court).  BC and Alberta lose, lose,
>and lose in this deal...but at least BC has a SC justice.   

>It seems Alberta's worst enemy in this constitutional deal is
>Don Getty.

Don Getty is a big, dumb egomaniac. He's so tied up in the EEE campaign,
and fighting for his political life here, that he would jump at anything
no matter what it really is, or what the cost, that he can conceivably
sell as EEE. And he obviously believes the Alberta Report, which
celebrated "Getty's EEE Triumph" after the July accord.

Wasn't it Marjorie Nichols who once wrote that it was Bill VanderZalm's
job at premiers' conferences to explain the proceedings to Don Getty?
Where's the Zalm now that we really need him!

>Bourassa is a genius...I stand in awe!  

I agree. He got what he wanted by flattering Getty into thinking that
he (Getty) achieved a major political triumph by giving away the rep
by pop that we had.

And big, dumb Don thinks that Boo Boo is his friend. With friends like
that.........

CvD
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
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 21:56:58 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
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: c291042@cs.UAlberta.CA (David Yadallee)
Subject: Re: Republicanisn vs. Monarchists
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:05:40 GMT

mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:

  Thanks for the pertinent issues, mate. 

>Dave Shariff Yadallee wrote:

>|> 
>|> With that all being said, I will make my position clear:
>|> 
>|>   -Canada should retain the monarchy AND should elect the GG AND should give
>|>    the above some powers to say NO.  If the above were inacted, the GST debate
>|>    would have gone another way, IMHO.
>|> 
>|>   -The monarchy should pay taxes for all the extra money it earns.

>The thing about monarchies is that they are inherently undemocratic.  I just
>cannot accept ANYONE having such political power just because he or she 
>happened to be born to the right parents, no matter how good a person he/she
>may be.

 No really,  James II of  England was tossed out for being very undemocratic.
 Hence William III and Mary II accended to the throne.  In order to reign, you
 must have the support of the people, state-wise or government-wise.  Tories do you
 here that?

>|>   -  Republicanism would kill canada's National identity.
>|>      The day Canada becomes a Republic is the day Canada becomes the 51st
>|>      US state and the day I renounce my citizenship under such conditions.

>By republicanism do you mean 'no monarch' ?

>If so, do you really think that having no monarch will mean we are part of
>the US?  Hardly.

 On the contrary, the day Canada announces itself to become a REpublic, USInc will
 smile with glory, and do everything it can to annex Canada.  As someone said,  Let
 the Star-Spangled Banner fly as North as the North Pole.

>|> Have a nice day.  BTW, Republican (n): A citizen of Hell.

>Socialist (n): A citizen of Hell who wants everyone to join him, whether
>               they want to or not, for the 'common good'

 Not bad, methinks me sense a dictionary coming on. .

>Paul


>"He composed this concerto in four flats, because he had to move three times."
>							-- Victor Borge

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mhsvieru@cayley.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: Re: Charte des droits et libertes contradictoire?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:30:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug7.173125.21839@eci386.uucp>, rstory@eci386.uucp (Robert Story) writes:
> 
> Mind you I'm not a great fan of the Queen's ... for instance it's
> regretable that she chose to be the first British monarch to exempt
> herself from any income taxation.  But, of course, that doesn't
> affect us but only our British *cousins*.
> 
> 
> -Robert.
> -- 
>  _________________________________________________________________________
>  Robert.Story@Elegant.COM                      Elegant Communications Inc.
>  Tel: +1 416 595 5425                         481 University Av. Suite 602
>  Fax: +1 416 595 5439                     Toronto, Ontario; CANADA M5G 2E9

That's not correct.  The monarch's exemption from taxation was brought
about before H.M. was even born (although I can't remember for sure right
now whether it was Victoria or George V who brought it in the exemption).

Martin Vierula

Xref: sparky can.politics:6024 soc.culture.canada:5879
From: buchignani@hg.uleth.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: We are all foreigners, save the NATIVE Aboriginal Canadians!!
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:04:49 GMT
Reply-To: buchignani@hg.uleth.ca
Organization: University of Lethbridge

re: us all being foreigners

This is of course highly political language, often used to 
delegitimate the claims of certain long-resident NA groups and
peoples and advance those of interest groups speaking for
peoples arriving more recently. It also has the effect of
(especially in Canada) denying the 'majority' the same kind of
group cultural rights advocated for and by 'minorities.'
Xref: sparky can.politics:5861 soc.culture.canada:5654
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: History of North America  Re: REpublicanisn vs. Monarchists (Was
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:58:58 GMT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #1, Edmonton, AB, Canada

viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henrikson) writes:

>
> He says with a straight face when we are a country headed for separation over
> linguistic schism and investigations into police racism in Montreal and Toron
> Not, of course, to mention the Oka crisis.
>
>
> --
> 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)

I respond to this part.  For the most part, the Unilingualists, the BQ, the BQ,
the Reform Party and CoR, should held accountable for the above situation!

Dave Shariff Yadallee
yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All!
cowboy (n): A 20th Century extension of  the neanderthal caveman.
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin)
Subject: Re: ROC and the Catholic question
Organization: Carp Systems International, Kanata, ON
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:44:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.043008.2989@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>If you haven't been watching the "war" going on in the United Church,
>the largest Protestant organization in the country, I'll just fill you
>in.
>
>Things like the ordination of homosexuals has split the membership.
>Those at the upper echelons appear to be at the "liberal" (the
>antithesis of "fundamentalist") end of the spectrum, that propose said
>policy.  There are many at the "grass roots" that are strongly AGAINST
>the idea.

This statement strikes me as a bit strange, since (IMHO) the United Church
is one of the few national churches which is _run_ by the grass roots.
With all the conferences, presbyteries, and other meetings (where the lay
generally predominate), one of the greatest criticisms I have heard of
the United Church of Canada is that it is too quick to move with the 
whims of its members.  The internal (and now external) bickering over
such issues as the ordination of homosexuals is generally a result of
people not being able to accept that they are not in the majority.

The position taken by many on both sides, unfortunately, has been, "You
won't do what I want, so why should I even participate in the decision-
making process?"  Those who abstain can hardly criticize the result.
Richard.
-- 
Richard Martin               	richard@csi.on.ca
If I had anything witty to say, I wouldn't put it here.
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The tentative agreement of August 19th
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:59:58 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

Je ne comprend pas que l'on qualifie Bourassa de genie avec l'accord
propose le 19 aout.  Mes impressions :

Passer de 24.5 a 25% est un gain ridicule.  Meme avec une reduction
de la population du Quebec, le Quebec en soi n'aura pas plus de pouvoir.
Parce qu'il y a les regles de parti.

Passer de 25% a 8% du senat, si le senat devient effectivement
autre chose qu'une chambre de retraite's, c'est une perte.  Sinon,
comment croire que l'Alberta qui refuse systematiquement autre chose
qu'un Senat triple-E accepte comme compromis un Senat qui nous
est presente comme inefficace (puisqu'il n'aura pas le dernier mot).

Aucun droit de veto encore garanti, seulement des promesses a ce niveau.

C'est un marche de dupe.

Selon le dernier sondage : (je n'ai pas les chiffres exacts)
56% PQ, 34% liberaux (apres rpartition des 29% d'indecis).  
Ce n'est pas avec cet accord
que Boubou augmentera sa part du vote.  Heureusement.
Dans un entrevue a Radio-Canada hier, un prof d'Universite d'Ottawa
(un franco d'apres son accent) decrivait aussi cet accord comme pas
vraiment tres favorable au Quebec.

Je comprend donc difficilement les commentaires de Tom Hood en ce sens.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Richard Holden & turncoat politicians
Date: 14 Aug 92 11:05:50 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1243

From article <Bsw2tB.4t8@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 Denis Beauregard writes:-

> In article <1992Aug11.040302.22913@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter) writes:
>>
>>   Remember Richard Holden discussions?
>>   News conference today:-  He's joining the Parti-Quebecois.
>>
>>   Does he still claim to represent the constituents in his majority
>>   anglophone riding of Westmount?
>>
> 
> According to radio news, he says representing half of his electors.

  *****"he says"*****  : his electorate doesn't!!!!!!!!!!!
        ^^^^^^^
> 
> FOr me, it is a good news.  Independence of Quebec means, among other things,
> that foreign business will no more be done via Toronto, but from Montreal.

  Wishfull thinking.

> Also, it will mean a victory for nationalists.  ANd Quebecois are mercyfull.

  Richard Holden joining the PQ is a victory for nationalists? :-)

  I think you are welcome to him!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tuesday, 18 Aug 1992 16:41:01 EDT
From: Peter Gogolek <GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: god save your queen
Distribution: can
 <92226.185304GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <12608@grayt>

In reply to a question of mine:
In article <12608@grayt>, grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) says:
>
>In article <92226.185304GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA
>(Peter Gogolek) writes:
>>In article <12568@grayt>, grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) says:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Aug9.085048.7533@uunet.ca> smd@uunet.ca (Sean Doran) writes:
>>>:
>>>:  [all sorts of interesting precedents on the action or inaction
>>>:   of the British monarch in Canada deleted]
>>>
>>>The monarch is bound by the advice of her Canadian ministers who
>>>are responsible only to the Canadian electorate.
>>>
>>
>>Tom, do you envisage any active role for the monarch or is she
>>completely passive, a puppet of the Canadian government of the
>>day?
>
>The Queen as monarch is the embodiment of the sovereign power of the
>Canadian people. The power of the Canadian state is is vested in her
>and expresses through her actions. The selections of the policies for
>the expression of the Canadian will are made through Parliament and
>conveyed to the Queen by her ministers. She has the right to express
>these policies by the sovereign power of the Canadian people.
>
>Less poetically, this arrangement separates the sovereign power of
>Canada from the policies of the government of the day. The government
>only conveys the wishes of the Canadian people to the entity which
>will express this as their sovereign power.
>
>The Queen is not the puppet of the government of the day, she is the
>embodiment of the power of the Canadian people and her role represent
>the subservience of the government to the people.
>

I can't make my way through the subtle phrasing and argumentation
being put forward. I guess I have to ask a more concrete question:
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?  If not then the
monarch is a de facto puppet and superfluous.

Peter Gogolek
Kingston, Ontario, Canada
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steven C. Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Richard Holden & turncoat politicians
Date: 11 Aug 92 08:03:01 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 610


   Remember Richard Holden discussions?


   News conference today:-  He's joining the Parti-Quebecois.


   Does he still claim to represent the constituents in his majority
   anglophone riding of Westmount?


   I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that someone had thrown
   eggs at the poor fool.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics