[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference kaosws::canada

Title:True North Strong & Free
Notice:Introduction in Note 535, For Sale/Wanted in 524
Moderator:POLAR::RICHARDSON
Created:Fri Jun 19 1987
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1040
Total number of notes:13668

297.0. "Meech Lake Accord" by TRCA03::OBRIEN (Glenn O'Brien @TRO 2/9) Thu May 10 1990 21:23

T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
297.1June 23 fast approaches, but...TRCA03::OBRIENGlenn O'Brien @TRO 2/9Thu May 10 1990 21:4436
    This week, the four western premiers met to discuss Meech Lake, and
    appeared to find a comprimise on the issue of Senate reform. Under the
    Meech Lake Accord, all ten provinces must approve any amendments
    changing the Senate.  The western premiers agreed on a 'sunset' clause,
    that would remove the unanimity requirement if an agreement was not
    reached within three years of the adoption of the Meech Lake Accord.
    Ontario liked the idea, Newfoundland gave one thumb up, and New
    Brunswick restated its support for such a clause.  Quebec, however,
    stated that the Meech Lake Accord gives it a veto over Senate reform,
    and that it would not agree to anything that removed that veto. Under
    the present Constitution, Quebec does not have a veto over such
    matters. 

    Does anyone else get the impression that Quebec is TRYING to torpedo
    the Accord deliberately?  
    
    Before Meech Lake, Quebec stated that five principles must be met
    before it signed the Constitution.  Although many of the proposals
    that have emerged recently do not touch the substance (though perhaps,
    the implementation) of these principles, Quebec is refusing to discuss
    any comprimises that could break the deadlock.  Why?  I believe
    that all dissenting parties want Quebec's five principles enshrined
    in the Constitution, but disagree over HOW they were enshrined.
    
    Some of the concerns of opponents to Meech Lake are not central
    to this discussion.  Other issues, such as women's rights, aboriginal
    rights, etc., were not included in the original constitution.  However,
    the Meech Lake Accord was designed to handle one specific issue,
    the absense of the second biggest province from the Constitution,
    and including other issues now makes no sense.  The premiers must
    focus on whether Meech Lake enshrined Quebec's principles, without
    having unwanted consequences for the country as a whole.  If they
    have, then the Accord should pass.  If they have not, then the Accord
    must be reopened, or appended, before it is passed.
    
    Glenn
297.2The Western viewCGOFS::R_RYANI used to be a coyote but Im ok nowoooWed May 30 1990 16:3644
    
    
    The Meech Lake accord should ( I think ) be scrapped. The problems that
    I see with it are:
    
    1) It does not deal with native and womens rights.
    2) It does not include senate reform. Ie: an elected senate.
    
    I feel that the Quebecois are torpedoing Meech lake for several
    reasons. AND these reasons have more to do with political power games
    than the issue of language equality and a distinct society.
    
    The Quebec government does not want an elected senate! At most Quebec
    will agree to modest reforms. An elected senate means that the four
    western provinces and the eastern provinces will have a greater say as
    to what happens within government. Most western Canadians believe that
    the only way to ensure that our region has a more meaningful voice in
    the governments decision making process is through senate reform. Equal
    representation is not what Quebec wants. They want increased political
    power over and above the rest of Canada. This is something more than
    just protection of their culture.
    
    The four western provinces comprise 30% of the population of Canada,
    yet monies spent on goods and services by the government in the western
    provinces amount to about 11% of the total alotted. The Atlantic provinces
    comprise 10% of the population of Canada yet they receive only about 7% 
    of the dollars spent by the federal government. Fully 76 % of the dollar
    totals are spent within Ontario and Quebec. This regional inequality is 
    viewed as favoritism on the part of the federal government and an elected 
    senate would go along way to aleviate this.
    
    An elected senate would mean an end to these inequalities and an end to
    Quebecs preferred status by the government of Canada. The award of the
    CF-18 contract to Canadair of Montreal is a prime example of the
    A** kissing done by the Mulroney government.
    
    I believe that Quebec has a right to their own culture and language but
    not at the expence of the individuals rights. I also believe that this
    is not the main issue with the Quebec government. It is a popular
    rallying point, and is used as such. Power is the main issue. Allways.
    
    Eagerly awaiting a response,
    
    Ron
297.3Lets focus on the prmary intention of MeechKAOFS::S_BROOKHere today and here again tomorrowWed May 30 1990 16:5738
    I'd say that there is some validity in some of what you say ...
    but some again is emotionally driven ...
    
    I most certainly agree that there are a lot of political power games
    being played here, using the emotive issues such as distinct society
    and so on as tools to an end.  I think every first minister is out
    for getting power either for the provinces, or glory for themselves.
    None of them really seem to be in this tussle for building a stronger
    and more united Canada.
    
    There is not a lot wrong with the Meech Lake Accord of itself, apart
    from its vagueries and omissions.  I think what everybody forgets about
    the accord is that it is not meant as a document to complete the Canadian 
    Constitution, but rather a proposed agreement on a number of issues
    that were forseen as a Minimum to bring the province of Quebec into
    Canada under the Canadian Constitution rather than under the British
    North America Act as things stand now.  Everyone seems to think that
    the accord should do more than that, including a host of premiers.
    
    So, all the premiers who want the accord to do more than it does are
    really just power mongering.
    
    I wish all these people would just deal with the one issue, rather than
    cloud it with all the others.  Don't get me wrong, I do believe that
    there are all kinds of groups whose rights need to be addressed, but
    they do not have to be done in this accord.  I cannot understand what
    including native rights in Meech Lake has to do with the inclusion of
    Quebec in the Constitution, apart from people using it as another
    power lever, and the same with the elected seante.
    
    These are things that can be dealt with after we have a complete
    country all working at the same negotiation table.  After all, we
    cannot have debates over senate reform unless the whole country is
    using the same set of constitutional rules at the same table.
    
    Stuart
    
    
297.4MQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowWed May 30 1990 18:408
297.5If Meech prevents progress, then you have to prevent Meech.KAOFS::LOCKYERGarryWed May 30 1990 19:0138
297.6Look to the longer term ....KAOFS::S_BROOKHere today and here again tomorrowWed May 30 1990 19:2028
    As I've indicated elsewhere, this was a bad deal signed under bizarre
    circumstances.  I liken it to a some car or door to door sales events.
    
    Jean, while the premiers did sign the accord, it was necessary that
    the accord be ratified by 11 legislatures, so even if a premier
    didn't torpedo it, a legislature could ... basically, it wasn't
    an accord until it had complete ratification.  I suspect that some
    of the premiers only agreed to sign as a way of saying .. OK, I may
    not agree to the accord as written, but I will agree to take it back
    to my legislature, especially considering the crazy circumstances that
    lead to Mulroney trying to get this accord.
    
    So, I think it is not altogether fair to say these hold-out premiers
    are renegging on their signature.  It would be like you agreeing to
    buy a car, with the condition that you get your wife's approval, then
    you find you cannot get that approval.  Is someone really at fault here
    considering that it was signed with that condition in place ?
    
    The relevence of these add on issues was only because of the greedy
    horse-trading that went on, putting more and more on the auction block.
    
    I hate to say this, because I do believe that Meech as written is
    badly flawed, but I think that if our provinces really do want
    national unity, then they are going to have to ratify Meech pretty
    much as it is written, and then work out the problems afterwards,
    when cooler heads and less beligerance prevails.
    
    Stuart
297.7There is no agreement!KAOFS::LOCKYERGarryWed May 30 1990 19:2334
	.5 was meant as a reply to .4 by Jean snuck one in so now 
	I have to reply.  And I told myself I wouldn't discuss this 
	subject in NOTES!

	About everyone agreeing to something 3 years ago:  The reality
	is that 11 INDIVIDUALS agreed to the proposed Meech Lake Accord. 
	While I am not even close to being a constitutional expert, I don't 
	believe the 11 first ministers, as a collective body, have a 
	constitutional role in the governing body.  The constitution can 
	not be changed without following the ammendment process defined 
	in the constitution.  In the case of Manitoba, its constitution 
	requires public hearings to be held.  It is reasonable to expect 
	changes will be proposed as a result of public hearings.

	My point is that all of the above (assumming it is accurate) was 
	known at the time Meech Lake was written.  Politicians are 
	ignoring reality when they talk about having an agreement, when in 
	fact all there was an agreement among 11 individuals, each of whom 
	was agreeing to things for their own reasons, without knowing for 
	certain that the accord would be passed by the legislatures they 
	represent.  I would grant that Newfoundland was not "playing fair" 
	when they withdrew their support, but this just proves the point 
	that an agreement among the premiers is not an agreement at all.
	As soon as the government changed, the support for Meech Lake 
	dissappeared and it looks like the population of Newfoundland is 
	backing Wells.  This suggests that his predeccesor (sp?) was 
	out of step with the masses on the Meech Lake issue.

	Just another example of a crisis created and mis-managed by 
	politicians!

	Regards,

	Garry
297.8Yes but!CGOFS::R_RYANI used to be a coyote but Im ok nowoooWed May 30 1990 19:3517
    Jean,
    You are right Getty is for Meech lake. But, Getty is an idiot, and was
    voted out of his riding by myself and other concerned voters in
    Whitemud. He is stampeding for senate reform but ignores the dangers of
    Quebec having veto powers over this issue.
    The people of western Canada will be some PO'd if an elected senate
    does not become a reality. The hell with the rest of it. You guys can
    have everything you want but we want equal representation.
    The western provinces and the territories are tired of being treated as
    a 'resource producing hinterland'. A Yukon politician described it
    aptly using a mining project example;' The ore goes to Tokyo, the
    profits to Toronto, the taxes to Ottawa, the jobs to Vancouver and we're
    left with a hole in the ground which, if the federal government gave
    permission, we could use as a garbage dump.'
    
    Regards,
    Ron 
297.9KAOFS::S_BROOKHere today and here again tomorrowWed May 30 1990 20:0417
    Let's face it, in all but the Toronto area, we Ontarians are fed to the
    teeth with governments both Federal and Provincial who look at Ontario
    as a geographic area extending ito a radius of about 20 miles from the
    CN Tower!  "The Ontario Economy is booming" means the Toronto economy
    is booming.
    
    We ALL have gripes about equal representation.  More important than
    equal representation is that we get representation at all.  A given
    constituency elects an MP to represent them, but because of the strong
    party ties, s/he doesn't represent the people in his party or
    parliament.  S/he represents the party to his/her constituency and in
    parliament.
    
    I don't care so much about the senate ... but more about representation
    full stop!
    
    Stuart
297.10read 1000, answer 1KAOFS::N_BAXTERwe'll see who rusts first...Thu May 31 1990 12:571
    Alright...Lockyer's in.....
297.11SRFSUP::MCCARTHYValue indifferences?Thu May 31 1990 14:259
297.12MQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowTue Jun 05 1990 16:504
    Well as of last night, it's one down, two to go.
    
    Jean
     
297.13Its not over yet.CGOFS::R_RYANI used to be a coyote but Im ok nowoooTue Jun 05 1990 16:531
    I doubt Manitoba or New Foundland will back down.
297.14Meech Lake Accord Deadline = June 23rd ???GVA01::ATKINSONJust the facts kidWed Jun 06 1990 07:292
    Do all of the provinces have to agree by June 23rd? If they don't
    what happens then?
297.15KAOO01::BORDAOn the Horns of an EnemaWed Jun 06 1990 12:453
    
    The world comes to an end as we know it!!!!
    
297.16KAOFS::S_BROOKHere today and here again tomorrowWed Jun 06 1990 16:0729
    Well, in theory, nothing, in as much as the whole thing would have
    to be re-negotiated, like the time limit expiring on a purchase offer
    on a house.
    
    In practice, it will probably mean that an awful lot of people will
    have their backs up in both English and French Canada, with a lot of
    separatist leaning Quebeckers pushing harder for independence.  It's
    all a matter of perception.  Quebeckers will be feeling that the
    rest of Canada has rejected them.  In fact, a few politicians have
    rejected them ... not all of English Canada.
    
    Constitutionally, things will remain unchanged ... in that Quebec will
    remain part of Canada under the BNA Act rather than the Canadian
    Constitution ... although that is subject to interpretation.
    
    .15's idea that the world as we know it comes to an end is something
    of an exaggeration I think ... Whatever comes of Meech Lake, I think
    that we will see a long period of change in Canada, and that the
    failure of Meech will force changes on the country much more quickly.
    
    If we are smart, we will see the things that have been so divisive,
    and it's not just language and culture, and work positively as
    Canadians, to find acceptable ways of dealing with these problems.
    We have spent an awful lot of time and money promoting the multi-
    cultural nature of Canada when it comes to new Canadians, but somewhere
    along the way, it seems we forgot to promote our innate multi-cultural
    heritage.  Note that I said PROMOTE ... not legislate!
    
    Stuart
297.17MQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowThu Jun 07 1990 13:3018
297.18KAOFS::S_BROOKHere today and here again tomorrowThu Jun 07 1990 14:1149
    You exaggerate Jean ....  mind you it's hard not to under the
    circumstances ....
    
    If your partner came home one day and said to you, I want to go
    my own way but still want to share your earnings (which is what
    sovereignty association looks like) your reaction, in anger, would
    likely be .... OUT all the way!
    
    I think that what you are seeing is reaction without in depth thought.
    Knee reflex reactions.  The trouble is reflex reactions hurt, they 
    don't solve problems.  Remember that CBC Journal program ... the guy
    from Oshawa is typical of these people whose knee jerk reactions
    say things like 'kick em out' ... his tune was certainly more
    conciliatory by the end of his weekend.
    
    Sure, we all think that 'x' has had more than his fair share at some
    time or another ... ask most people what they think of Ontario and
    they'll complain that they get too much of this or that.  At one
    time the prairies took the complaints re government handouts ...
    (remember Lloyd Axworthy ?) at other times the maritimes took em.
    At the moment we have a prime monster who comes from Quebec, and
    that taints the picture.
    
    Maybe the KKK did reflect the thoughts of a lot of people, but very
    few actually thought anything like as strongly or violently as they
    did.
    
    You say that French and English Canada must have an EQUAL say.  Think
    about that a minute ... I think you have put your finger on the big
    and raw nerve right there ... one that is causing the country a lot of
    grief.  How much of Canada does Quebec represent ?  I don't know
    population figures or area figures off hand, but for the sake of
    argument, lets say 30% for both.  English Canada says that Quebec
    should have at best population proportional say, and at worst as you
    have indicated province proportional say, where Quebec, through its
    Meech Lake demands is requesting what is perceived as equal say,
    through the Senate reform Veto and through the distinct society clause
    (although to be honest nobody knows how to take that ... if it is
    such a meaningless clause as Bourassa and Mulroney say it is, then
    why are they both hanging so tough on changes that would clarify
    its legal meaninglessness(!))
    
    Would you consider it fair in say a meeting of 3 peers if you were
    told that one of you had 50% say in the result, and the other two
    only 25% ?  That appears to be what Quebec is asking.  Note that I
    said APPEARS.  Remember in all this storming around that appearances
    speak far louder than the actual words.
    
    Stuart
297.19MQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowThu Jun 07 1990 16:4312
    Someone once said "each one of us has toughts that would shame hell"  
    I guess the KKK was just "voicing" some of those toughts and I guess
    that the people who want to kick the frogs out are acting the same way.
    
    The equal say and veto (both related) are to make sure we don't get
    stomped on like the supreme court did when they "invalidated" bill 101,
    it would not be (IMHO) to "control" the other provinces, but to make
    sure they don't in areas that are of no consequences to them like
    language laws, schooling, immigration...
    
    Jean
    
297.20MQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowThu Jun 07 1990 16:508
297.21KAOFS::S_BROOKHere today and here again tomorrowThu Jun 07 1990 17:0232
    KKK did more than voice the thoughts, which was the real problem!
    
    Well, as to equal say and veto and so on ... You say it is to stop
    other provinces stomping on Quebec as per bill 101 ... Well, and I
    don't really want to drag through the language quagmire again here,
    but the idea here is to protect ALL Canadians equally wherever they
    live, be it Quebec, Ontario, Vancouver or Toronto's ChinaTowns, Little
    Italy in Toronto or Ottawa, Innuvik, or point Peelee, no matter what
    language they speak, no matter what their culture or race.
    
    Giving such protection has risks ... parts of Toronto look like
    another country ... parts of Vancouver sound like another country
    ... parts of Montreal look and sound English ...   I know it is a
    risk that Francophones don't want to take for fear of their culture
    and we've been through that already ...  I put to you that active
    promotion of your culture is far more likely to make it survive
    than legislating its survival.
    
    I think that Canada, let alone Quebec, has tried to legislate its
    way to find a culture that is unique and distinct and we are all
    paying a price for that ... and regretably inflicting that price on
    others.  Look at schools ... due to the influx of immigrants, schools
    no longer openly use the Lord's Prayer due to legislation ... and as
    a result there is a backlash against some of the religious groups
    who objected to the Lord's Prayer.
    
    It's time to stop legislating, and start promoting and enjoying our
    culture.  I am proud when I hear that a French Canadian has made a
    name for him/herself in the world.  Let's all show that pride for
    all Canadians, be they French, English or native Indian ...
    
    Stuart
297.22KAOFS::S_BROOKHere today and here again tomorrowThu Jun 07 1990 17:1112
    You say you are going to escape the Federal deficit ... believe me,
    a part of any such deal would undoubtedly have the rest of the country
    clamouring for Quebec to assume its share .... goodness knows what that
    would be or how to calculate it ... my guess would be on a per-capita
    basis.
    
    Then, since most industrialised countries of the world are running
    defict economies, do you think Quebec could do any better on its own ?
    I shudder to think how high taxes could potentially go, and goodness
    knows you are incredibly heavily taxed already!
    
    Stuart
297.23Let's separate Toronto FROM CanadaMQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowFri Jun 08 1990 13:3223
297.24Am I Indistinct?OTOU01::BUCKLANDand things were going so well...Fri Jun 08 1990 13:4128
297.25Where are your Greenbacks!OTOU01::GANNONCompetition's fun - when you winFri Jun 08 1990 14:4021
Re: Note 297.23  MQOFS::DESROSIERS 

    Jean,

    Trade is a two way street.  Do you imagine that Ontario doesn't buy 
    goods and services from Quebec that could not be obtained at a lower 
    cost from elsewhere?

    Remember also that the Federal Govenment spends a great deal of our 
    (income tax) money within Canada.  Many Canadians feel that Quebec has 
    been receiving more than its fair share of this support.  Presumably if 
    Quebec were to separate from Canada this money would no longer be 
    pumped into the Quebec economy.  

    Remember that although toasters are cheaper in the USA you have to buy
    them with US Dollars.  How would Quebec get US $'s -- by selling things 
    to them -- BUT THE USA WON'T BE PREPARED TO BUY EXPENSIVE GOODS FROM 
    QUEBEC IF THEY CAN GET THEM ELSEWHERE FOR LESS.  It's a vicious circle.

    Gerry

297.26KAOFS::S_BROOKHere today and here again tomorrowMon Jun 11 1990 13:4115
    Well, a deal, of sorts has been cooked ... and Clyde Wells has done
    what he said he would do, if it ever became a 9-1 thing ... that he
    would take it to the people of Newfoundland.
    
    Now, how will Quebeckers view this if Newfoundland rejects the accord ?
    Will they say Canada has rejected Quebec ?  It seems to me that the
    rest of Canada has done a lot of bending to accept Meech, and I hope
    that is recognized, and that it is Newfoundland who has done the
    rejecting ... 
    
    To the people of Newfoundland and Labrador I suggest that they accept
    Meech, for all its flaws ...  Look to the longer term.  A constitution
    can later be mended ... a collapsed country cannot.  The risks of
    rejecting Meech are now too great because of the emotion behind it.
    
297.27All's Wells that ends WellsPOLAR::RICHARDSONHe who laughs bestMon Jun 11 1990 13:526
    	I agree.

    	I still think Clyde is an opportunist though.


    Glenn
297.28KAOFS::S_BROOKHere today and here again tomorrowMon Jun 11 1990 13:586
>    	I still think Clyde is an opportunist though.
    
    Let's face it, they are ALL opportunists ... do you think Peterson
    gave up potential Senate seats just out of the goodness of Ontario's
    heart ?  Meet a future Federal Liberal leader.
    
297.29Just striiring more poo pooMQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowMon Jun 11 1990 14:1919
297.30 It's a choice .BTOVT::BOATENG_KAhem! Gabh mo leithsceal muinteoirWed Jun 13 1990 03:509
    Re.29
    
    >>..stay in Canada in blissful english or come to Quebec and enjoy the
    >> difference..
    
    
    Precisely !   It's Freedom of Choice.
    
    
297.31Free, ha!MQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowThu Jun 14 1990 17:0345
297.32Notre Dame de GracePOLAR::RICHARDSONHe who laughs bestThu Jun 14 1990 17:316
    Jean,

    	Is it true that whirly-twirlies have been banned in NDG or is this
    just a vicious rumour?

    Glenn
297.33KAOFS::S_BROOKHere today and here again tomorrowThu Jun 14 1990 18:2427
    Jean,
    
    In which case, I guess we'll have to set up independent fifedoms all
    over the country ... Our community, part of the city of Kanata,
    disagree with the way our mayor is selling out the city to the cheapest
    bidder, but does that mean we can form our own city ?
    
    We don't like the way our province doles out the riches to Toronto
    either ... Does that mean we can form an independent province ?
    
    We don't like the way the feds treat us either ... Does that mean
    we can form an independent country ?
    
    I disagree with some of my neighbours in my community too ... maybe I
    should declare myself independent.  No more taxes ... HOORAY!
    
    Sure I am exagerating ... or am I ? 
    
    To be honest, I don't think that Quebec's independence will actually
    give them what they really want ... Come to that, I've listened to
    various separatists, and they all want separation for various reasons.
    At the moment they have a common adversary ... the rest of Canada ...
    but what happens if they do have their wish of independence ... the
    antagonism may turn one against the other in trying to get what each
    currently wants from Canada.
    
    Stuart
297.34From the kingdom of JEANMQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowThu Jun 14 1990 20:1817
297.35OTOU01::BUCKLANDand things were going so well...Thu Jun 14 1990 20:2112
297.36OTOU01::BUCKLANDand things were going so well...Thu Jun 14 1990 20:3011
    re: .34 by Jean
    
    The problem is that the politicians are not so much interested in 
    either the french language or culture.  Their prime interest is power.  
    
    As an aside, the Amish is the States have their own language and culture.  
    These are cultivated within their community, and I don't believe that 
    they need laws to protect them.  Carrot rather than stick?
    
    Cheers,
    	Bob
297.37KAOFS::S_BROOKHere today and here again tomorrowThu Jun 14 1990 21:3212
    Mind you Bob, the Amish culture is a very strong religion based
    culture, which is a little different from the French culture, but
    yes, this is what I have been striving to get across ... you cannot
    legislate culture ... the French in France seem to be understanding
    that a little now, since the Academie Francais now recognises some
    Franglaisisms.
    
    And, indeed, if it wasn't for power, the constitution would have been
    sorted out in 1981, or 1867 even!  Every politician wants either
    glory or power, and we get the stick.
    
    Stuart
297.38Incendiary freedomRTL::HINXMANA whelk's chance in a supernovaThu Jun 14 1990 21:377
    re .31
    
> Can you burn anything you like in your yard?
    
  What position does your community take on U.S. flags? :-)
    
    Tony
297.39KAOFS::S_BROOKHere today and here again tomorrowThu Jun 14 1990 22:173
    I don't believe there's a law forbidding us to burn US flags ...
    althouugh it might create an international incident!
    
297.40Go Elijah Go!OTOU01::BUCKLANDand things were going so well...Fri Jun 15 1990 12:372
    If any one deserves to be recognised in Canada as a distinct society 
    it's got to be the First Nations.
297.41NB ratifiesCOVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertFri Jun 15 1990 19:1913
(Marshall/Standard Broadcast News)
Meech-NB: (FREDRICTON, New Brunswick) New Brunswick Premier Frank
Date: 15 Jun 90 13:26:10 GMT

        (FREDRICTON, New Brunswick) New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna
promised to quickly pass the Meech Lake Accord... and has lived up to
his word.
        The Fredricton legislature has ratified the accord (10:10 am local
time) by a unanimous vote. The vote came after about one-and-a-half
hours of debate.
        McKenna's Liberals hold all 58 seats in the legislature... so he
was NOT expected to difficulty getting the deal ratified today.
        Following the vote, the legislature stood to sing ``O Canada''.
297.42What about Clyde & Co ?BTOVT::BOATENG_KAhem!Gabh mo Leithsceal,Muinteoir!Fri Jun 15 1990 19:532
    
    Is Clyde Wells still sitting on a fence with whatchamall'em ?  
297.43New Movie out for this summer!POLAR::RICHARDSONHe who laughs bestMon Jun 18 1990 14:398
    	Chief Joe Don Baker 
    		  Starring in:
    
    	Walking Tall In The Manitoba Legislature


    	This summer's filibuster movie!		Rated: ZZZ
297.44MQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowMon Jun 18 1990 14:4234
297.45POLAR::RICHARDSONHe who laughs bestMon Jun 18 1990 14:476
    	I hear they want to declare 'Yogurt' a distinct society in order to
    preserve its culture.
    
    	Seems silly to me.
    
    ;-)
297.46Keep smiling and being (silly) yourselfMQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowMon Jun 18 1990 14:516
    Re -.1
    
    ANYTHING semms silly to you, and coming FROM you too.
    
    Jean
    
297.47I willPOLAR::RICHARDSONHe who laughs bestMon Jun 18 1990 15:297
297.48KAOFS::S_BROOKHere today and here again tomorrowMon Jun 18 1990 16:4531
    That digression into nonsense aside, you're right Jean, that distinct
    society clause bothers a lot of people ... not so much for what it
    actually says ... after all, who can claim that Quebec is not
    distinctive in its culture, language and so on ... but rather for
    what it could be interpreted as meaning by power hungry politicians.
    
    That is why, if the clause was in the constitution's preamble, along
    with recognition for all Canadians, and such groups as natives,
    women and so on, then the clause would not look like a potential
    threat down the road to the fabric of the country.
    
    In many ways, it is like the not-withstanding clause ... a threat to
    people's rights when used by power hungry politicians.  Combine the
    effects of not-withstanding with the distinct society clause and
    you almost have sovereignty association already, if used that way.
    I'm sure it's not meant that way by Bourassa ... pick another leader
    a few years down the road and anything is possible.
    
    Many things in a constitution should actually serve to protect us from
    our rulers and regretably, we don't really have enough protection now,
    with an appointed federal upper chamber and no upper chambers in the
    provinces.  We rely on the courts to strike down the laws that are
    unconstitutional, but we have little or no way of protecting ourselves
    from bad laws.
    
    Just as Quebeckers say "you just don't understand", we too could say
    that Quebeckers just don't understand our concerns ... and politicians
    don't want to understand our concerns.  Why ?  Do they have some secret
    agendae up their sleeves ?
    
    Stuart
297.49Grumble!VAOU02::HALLIDAYShe could promise the moon...Mon Jun 18 1990 20:4210
    I too have wondered for some time what the Feds are busy doing behind
    the Meech Lake/GST smokescreen.
    
    Fankly, I'm getting tired of this. Quebec can be as distinct as it
    wants, provided (a) distinctiveness doesn't impinge on Federal
    government things, and (b) I don't have to pay for it.
    
    Grumble.
    
    ...laura
297.50KAOFS::S_BROOKHere today and here again tomorrowMon Jun 18 1990 21:0811
    Laura,
    
    Don't grumble too loudly, or somebody here will grumble back about
    supporting the fisheries ...  The point I'm trying to make is that
    we all end up paying for everything and I'll even stand up for the
    Quebeckers and say that they do a pretty good job of paying for it
    themselves ... I would not want to live there and have to pay taxes
    there ... I'd be broke.  It's bad enough in Taxtario whose taxation
    seems to related to incomes in Toronto ... nowhere else.
    
    Stuart
297.51MQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowThu Jun 21 1990 15:3522
    This morning on radio, I heard Newfoundland's minister of energy say
    tearfully that he could not vote FOR the accord in their legislature. 
    I guess this must be related to the dispute we have with them over the
    Churchill hydro power plant.  Mind you WE built the power plant and
    before we did that there was nothing there, and another sore point is
    the fact that the whole Labrador territory was given to Newfoundland by
    Britain before they were even a part of Canada.  How many other
    provinces had this done to them?
    
    On Le Point (the equivalent of The Journal) they followed a couple of
    MNAs from Newfoundland while they were polling their constituents, they
    went trough a small town that used to be french and is now TOTALLY
    english, the most common name is White, and that used to be Leblanc! 
    The MNA said that the french speaking people were punished when they
    spoke french in school, this actually HAPPENED, so it is no news to
    anyone that the french population in Newfoundland is now almost nil
    (1500 people).
    
    I'm sure similar occurances could be unearthed in other provinces too.
    
    Jean
    
297.52Good or Bad?OTOU01::BUCKLANDand things were going so well...Thu Jun 21 1990 16:4922
297.53from yesterday's Globe and MailKAOFS::S_BURRIDGEThu Jun 21 1990 17:0763
297.54KAOFS::S_BROOKIt's time for a summertime dreamThu Jun 21 1990 17:2257
    There are a lot of reasons people dislike the accord, and not all of
    them have an historical basis.  Sure, if we go back through history,
    we all have axes to grind, and the clan wars would still be active.
    
    I know that there have been a lot of injustices done in the world,
    many here in Canada, but it is hard to fix these old injustices ...
    it is better to fix todays living injustices, like the treatment
    of native peoples.  Sure Labrador was a part of the British Crown
    Colony of Newfoundland ... but how often have you heard Labrador
    described as the land God forgot.  It's only after it is seen to
    have a real value that people look back and say we shouldn't have
    given it up.  Imagine those Indians who sold Manhatten for trinkets
    ....
    
    Yes the supression of French happened also in Manitoba, but that kind
    of supression does not often happen today, although there was a French
    language school board in Eastern Ontario that decided the children
    were not allowed to speak English in school or at any school related
    activity ... and this was recently.
    
    Remember, two wrongs don't make a right ... they just make two wrongs.
    
    I have swung back and forth on the accord myself.  At the moment, I
    really do not feel that it should be passed ... and it has nothing
    to do with wanting to reject Quebec ... but it has everything to do
    with wanting to build a better Canada.  To be honest, I wouldn't be
    upset if we scrapped the current constitution and went back to the BNA
    Act until such time as a fully negotiated constitution, allowing public
    input, built for the betterment of Canada and not the glory of a few
    politicians, could be designed which was acceptable to all.
    
    It might take 3 years, or 5 years or 10 years ... I don't care really.
    It should be acceptable to the people of Canada and proclaimed by
    referendums, not politicians who sign a deal and use party politics to
    pass it in their respective legislatures.  If not by referendums, then
    at least by free vote.
    
    Because of the flaws in the processes, and the glory hunger of the
    politicians, we have a flawed constitution that one province rejected.
    Because of the flawed constitution, resulting in flawed processes and
    more glory hungry politicians, we have some constitutional amendments 
    that the majority of politicians accept but the apparent minority of 
    the population reject.  And finally, we have some horse trades for later
    constitutional talks to bribe the acceptance of these amendments.
    
    Is that any way to build a country ?
    
    I sincerely believe that most Canadians who are rejecting Meech are not
    rejecting Quebec, but rejecting a political circus that has lead us
    to this ridiculous situation.
    
    Where to now ?  Is it right to cobble this together  in the way we are
    doing ?  Sometimes you reach a point where a re-design has got to be
    the way to go, just as in software, and I think our constiitutional
    mess is there now.
    
    Stuart
297.55Last minute news!KAOFS::M_RENAUDCanadian Remote Support GroupThu Jun 21 1990 21:2612
    Well, the news just broke in: Newfoundland had a secret referendum
    last night and the outcome is just unbelievable:
    
    50 % of the "Newfies" voted for the ACCORD
    And the other 50% voted for...
    
    			     ...the PRELUDE!
    
    Michel 8-) (Honda l'affaire!)
    
    
    P.S. Does that qualify for Twirly Whirly or wathever?
297.56It's nearly over!POLAR::RICHARDSONHe who laughs bestFri Jun 22 1990 14:266
    	That's whirly-twirly and YES it qualifies! I hesitated in entering
    something silly here because the tone was so serious, but, this Meech
    Lake Accord is making me do whirly-twirlies every time I turn on my
    T.V.!

    Mr. Yogurt
297.57Silliness personifiedKAOM25::RUSHTONUnscathed by inspired lunacyFri Jun 22 1990 16:016
<<That's whirly-twirly and YES it qualifies! I hesitated in entering
<<something silly here because the tone was so serious, but, this Meech

No, no.  It's twirly-whirly and you certainly never hesitate when it's silly.

And now...back to Meech...
297.58Those poor NewfsKAOA12::SMELLIEFri Jun 22 1990 17:1710
re Note 297.51                 
>    Mind you WE built the power plant and
>    before we did that there was nothing there, and another sore point is
>    the fact that the whole Labrador territory was given to Newfoundland by
>    Britain before they were even a part of Canada.  How many other
>    provinces had this done to them?

Yes, thank God the British didn't force Labrador upon any other provinces!

Tom
297.59Meech - The American Point of ViewOTOU01::GANNONMind that bus! What bus? SPLAT!Fri Jun 22 1990 18:55145
A bit long, but funny article.  Reproduced without permission.
    
Shopping List:  What Americans covet if Canada falls apart.

By Joel Garreau  The Washington Post.

  Remember the slogan "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight?"  Do you know where 
54 degrees, 40 minutes is?  It's the southern tip of Alaska.  It's the 
precise point on the Pacific Coast where a Foreign Power has for more 
than a century blatantly interposed itself between the home of 
America's great Arctic North, and the state named after our very 
Founding Father himself, Washington.
  But it looks like we're about to get a chance to fix that problem.  
We may soon get a shot at being not just the Contiguous 48.  But the 
Contiguous... well, the possibilities can go as high as 60 or more, 
depending on which Canadian provinces and territories we allow to join 
us.  Canada has a self-imposed deadline of Saturday to 
ratify the Meech Lake Accord.  Otherwise, it may be curtains for 
Confederation.
  I am still firmly of the belief that Canadians are Canadians, and 
thus, some kind of compromise will doubtless be wimped out.  But in 
the unlikely event that our brethren to the north wind up standing on 
principle, there is not a moment to lose.  Already, Nova Scotia's 
premier has said that his province's best hope may lie in joining the 
United States.  Clearly we must figure out which pieces we want, so we 
can put in our dibs.  And which ones we don't.
  Where we start is easy.  We want the baseball teams.  (As 
consolation, our neighbors to the north could get every U.S. hockey 
team.
  Then there's Niagara Falls.  The Canadian side has always been the 
best part, esthetically.  We want the whole thing.
  We sure don't want Newfoundland.  These are the people who are 
saying, What the hell, eh?  So we have a Canada sans Quebec, eh?  So 
what if that leaves the eastern end of Canada in the same position as 
the eastern end of Pakistan when it was interrupted by India, eh?  Who 
cares if that makes Newfoundland into a hyperborean Bangladesh?
  Newfoundland is Appalachia without the cultural amenities.  Or the 
good-looking women.  Forty-eight per cent of the provincial budget is 
transfer payments from the federal government.  Forget it.  No way.  
If somebody's got to take it, how about Ireland?  That's another place 
full of charming people who can't make a decent living until they 
leave their native land.  Ireland is also closer to Newfoundland than 
most of America.
  Same goes for New Brunswick.  Give it all to Ireland!
  Actually, not all of the Maritime Provinces are worthless.  You do 
want some of Nova Scotia -- the part near the beach.  The interior, 
which in winter resembles New Brunswick, you give to Ireland.
  Nova Scotia within a mile of the beach is heaven.  It's Maine only 
better.  About eight weeks out of the year.  After a while you round a 
point and it's oh, yawn, another drop-dead world-class post-card-
quality scenic vista.  We will definitely take that.  We have to.  
Cape Cod is full.
  Prince Edward Island, on the other hand, we'll take the whole thing.  
What the hell.  It's small.  It has drop-dead pink-sand beaches and 
incredibly cheap lobsters.  It also has Anne of Green Gables.  Fine.  
We'll take Anne, too.
  After all, she won't have Canada.
  No way we're taking Quebec.  She wants to be in our free-trade 
alliance?  Fine.  We'll buy all the hydroelectric power she wants to 
sell.  In fact, we already do.  That's what's keeping New England and 
New York State lit.  A state of the Union?  Forget it.  I mean, would 
you give statehood to France?  Get a life.  America would end up with 
legally mandated tri-lingual cereal boxes.  Have you any idea how big 
those suckers would have to be?
  We will unreservedly, unhesitatingly and enthusiastically take 
everything north and west of Winnipeg.  No questions asked.  Welcome 
to the club.
  Sure, we'll take the Canadian Arctic.  As if we haven't already.  
Even now the water under the icepack is full of U.S. submarines.  
Maybe we could sublease a little of it to Exxon.  Why should Valdez 
have all the dead seals?
  Think of the possibilities for toxic-waste dumps in the Canadian 
Arctic.  Uranium tailings?  Asbestos?  New Jersey medical wastes?  No 
problem.  There has got to be more Canadian Arctic that there are 
environmentalists to protect it.
  The Canadian prairie provinces?  Sure.  We're going to need a new 
breadbasket.  We've screwed up the one we've got seriously enough.  
Not only are we pumping all the water out of the Ogallala Aquifer that 
underpins much of our Plains agriculture, but if global warming is 
real, and Kansas is headed desertward, we're going to need a new one.  
That would be Saskatchewan.  Our new Banana Belt.
  Speaking of water, it may all be frozen up there, but we'll suck 
every last drop.  Stand by, Los Angeles, Phoenix.  Help is on the way.  
For decades, there have been large gray men in large gray suits 
walking around California with rolled up blue-print maps calculating 
how you would get Canadian water to the thirsty metropoli along the 
Mexican border.  Be patient, guys.  Just a few more days.
  Alberta?  Absolutely, we'll take Alberta.  Alberta's one of the 
greatest places on the planet.  Air you can see through for a million 
miles?  That's Alberta air.  Alberta is also more American than most 
of America is.
  The Calgary Stampede is the greatest rodeo in the world.  Alberta is 
Texas with snow-capped mountains and nice summers.  It has energy 
reserves at Middle East levels -- oil, gas, coal, oil shale, tar 
sands, uranium, all there for the taking -- at, ahem, world prices.  
The West Edmonton Mall is the world's largest.  It includes an indoor 
wave-making swimming pool so large it offers surfing lessons.  Don't 
you love these people already?  Great Americans.
  Of course, they're going to need a few guns.  For some reason, the 
Canadian government has always opposed universally arming its society 
with concrete-block-breaking assault weapons.  But the National Rifle 
Association will be only too happy to help fix that.
  Oh, by the way.  There's one thing we should explain, guys.  It's 
about secession.  We have a thing about that in the United States.  If 
you want in, remember:  You ever decide to change your mind, we don't 
do Meech Lake.  We do Antietam.
  British Columbia?  Sure.  No such thing as too much Pacific 
coastline.  Nothing wrong with the Queen Charlotte Islands that some 
asphalt, McDonald's stands and people in polyester aloha shirts can't 
cure.  Okay, what does that leave?  Ontario.
  Ontario is like a Maryland crab dinner.  Lot of good stuff in there, 
but most of it you want to throw away.
  First of all, in Ontario we want everybody who does not speak 
English.  The only reason Toronto is no longer the dullest city on 
earth is that it is no longer full of Anglo Canadians.  it is full of 
Hong Kong Chinese.  And not a few Italians.  All those guys get to 
stay.  As soon as they memorize the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Some other things are more complicated.  Do we want the Mounties?  
They've got a worse civil-liberties record than the FBI, no small 
accomplishment.  But they do look magnificent at supermarket openings.
  What about CBC radio and TV?  Full of America-bashers who want their 
jobs protected. Nice nature specials, but isn't that what the National 
Geographic is for?
  The state-supported short-story writers are history -- all those 
people whose last line is "He cast aside his cigarette, into the 
snow."
  What about the Canadian money?  The paper stuff is really cute, with 
all those colors.  But on the other hand, we could save a bundle if we 
no longer had to build vending machines that reject Canadian quarters.
  Kiss Ottawa goodbye.  We've already got Albany.
  The thing you have to understand about Ontario, is that it is full 
of Canadians who are not only Anglos but Easterners.  Anybody who says 
"ooout and abooout" is automatically suspect.  These are the people 
who came up with the unlikely idea of Canada in the first place.  They 
had to.  They were on the losing side in the American Revolution.  
They could have created a nation with the industry of America, the 
government of England and the culture of France, and instead produced 
a place with the industry of England the government of France and the 
culture of America.
  Our founding document wishes for "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of 
Happiness."  Theirs calls for "Peace, Order and Good Government."  We 
don't have a lot of that in America.  They might not like it here.
  By the way, where is Meech Lake?  Do we want it?


297.60MQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowFri Jun 22 1990 21:0216
297.61The sun still came up this morningOTOU01::BUCKLANDand things were going so well...Mon Jun 25 1990 12:4518
297.62OTOU01::GANNONMind that bus! What bus? SPLAT!Mon Jun 25 1990 13:1016
    RE: 297.60  MQOFS::DESROSIERS 

    >          We won't, after all if that does happen, we will only be too
    >  happy to get away from english dominated governement, so we won't jump
    >  from the frying pan into the fire.
    
    Jean,  Since when has the Quebec government been dominated by English? 
    If you are referring to the Federal Government then all I can say is
    that you must be joking!  The PM and majority of senior Cabinet members
    as well as the most senior of the Civil Servants are from the province
    of Quebec.  If Quebec were to separate from the rest of Canada, then
    many people in English speaking Canada would be pleased to have a
    government that was not dominated by French Canadians!

    - Gerry
          
297.63after 6/23 -- What now?BUFFER::SOWENmajor dried toads (todo sera mejor)Mon Jun 25 1990 13:217
	Well, June 23 has come and gone.  Here in Massachusetts, Meech
Lake has been getting minimal coverage, but *I* want to know what's
going on.  Any word on whether Quebec will have a referendum soon?
Since Bourassa (sp) has said he will no longer deal with the other
provinces, is separation the only thing left? 

	Sandy (Canadian -- US -- Quebec? citizen)
297.64COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertMon Jun 25 1990 13:3611
297.65KAOFS::S_BROOKIt's time for a summertime dreamMon Jun 25 1990 14:0151
297.66POLAR::RICHARDSONHe who laughs bestMon Jun 25 1990 14:129
    	Clyde Wells makes me want to do whirly-twirlies and so does Chief
    Joe Don Baker.

    	This country is finished.

    	I don't care what happens now.


    Glenn
297.67KAOFS::S_BROOKIt's time for a summertime dreamMon Jun 25 1990 14:2120
297.68OTOU01::BUCKLANDand things were going so well...Mon Jun 25 1990 14:429
297.69OTOU01::BUCKLANDand things were going so well...Mon Jun 25 1990 14:5010
297.70I think I have a good reasonPOLAR::RICHARDSONHe who laughs bestMon Jun 25 1990 15:1731
297.71The Dream Isn't ImpossibleKAOFS::S_BROOKIt's time for a summertime dreamMon Jun 25 1990 15:3620
297.728713::HOESammy, why are you so quiet?Mon Jun 25 1990 17:2537
297.73COVERT::COVERTJohn R. CovertMon Jun 25 1990 17:3415
297.74I doubt it ... for what the commonwealth is wortha anywayKAOFS::S_BROOKIt's time for a summertime dreamMon Jun 25 1990 17:4619
297.75But Canadians don't understand each other...POLAR::RICHARDSONHe who laughs bestMon Jun 25 1990 17:5210
297.76KAOFS::S_BROOKIt's time for a summertime dreamMon Jun 25 1990 18:5130
    Canadians don't understand each other because people dismiss each
    other saying ... "you won't understand" ...
    
    I remember the first time, as a child in Ottawa, I met a French lad who
    knew no English.  I didn't understand.  I'd never been exposed to this
    idea that someone else might not know English.  It was strange.  The
    encounter was too short to understand, but we played together after a
    fashion and the language barrier wasn't too important.
    
    There are probably many Canadians who have never experienced the idea
    that there are people who don't know English and so just don't
    comprehend that idea.  So, to them, providing bilingual services and
    so on would seem like a waste.  We are teaching people to understand
    and help people from outside Canada when they come here, but we aren't
    teaching them the realities of our own land.
    
    I don't think it's too late ... but it is going to take some real
    effort and leadership.
    
    As I've said before, I do not believe that legislation to protect
    language and culture is right ... it only creates other problems later.
    It requires promotion, not protection.
    
    Take a positive attitude .... you say Canadians don't understand
    each other ... have you gone out and shown others how they can take
    those steps towards understanding ... or are you just going to lament
    the fact ?
    
    Stuart
    
297.77Try convincing an anglophone and you'll understandPOLAR::RICHARDSONHe who laughs bestMon Jun 25 1990 19:2619
297.78Economic power for Quebec8713::HOESammy, why are you so quiet?Mon Jun 25 1990 19:3917
Glenn,

I tried to say that the back of the issue is an economic one, the
failure of the francophones to have any visible money power, much
like the experience of the american blacks or women in the equal
rights movement. I do not condone the tromping of anyone's native
language; that is why I believe the franco-phone might draw up an
alliance with native-Canadians to work the issues. Unfortunate,
there's been too many statements made about the native-Canadians
to realize how they can work together to elevate the ECONOMIC
situation instead of the fog of language barriers.

Wasn't there a Matis supression in the prarie provinces that
french speaking were supressed? (My high-school Canadian history
is over 25 years old.)

cal
297.79OTOU01::BUCKLANDand things were going so well...Mon Jun 25 1990 20:1647
297.80KAOFS::S_BROOKIt's time for a summertime dreamMon Jun 25 1990 20:1849
297.81Just filling the gaps...KAOFS::M_RENAUDCanadian Remote Support GroupMon Jun 25 1990 21:0548
297.82KAOFS::S_BROOKIt's time for a summertime dreamMon Jun 25 1990 22:0636
297.83Choices and RightsOTOU01::BUCKLANDand things were going so well...Tue Jun 26 1990 13:0235
297.84CANADA Flag HumiliatedPOLAR::HOTue Jun 26 1990 13:148
    Did you see yesterday on the news that during the parade several I assume
    Quebecers were wiping their feet on a CANADA flag. I don't know what kind
    of perception the rest of Canada would have towards this gesture. Since
    a group of people in an Ontario town went to Montreal to apologize for
    stepping on Quebec's flag, do you see it is necessary for Montrealers
    to apologize to the rest of the country. CANADA flag is not only the
    flag of English Canada, it is also the flag of Quebec unless she is not
    part of it. 
297.85Better walk on a flag than react with violenceKAOFS::S_BROOKIt's time for a summertime dreamTue Jun 26 1990 14:166
    Personally, I see that as the reaction of a few people.  So they want
    to express their displeasure with Canada ... well, that's their
    perogative.  I'm not going to go beyond saying it was sad.  It's
    not humiliating though ... I have a pride in being a Canadian, and
    if these people don't feel that, then it is their loss, not ours.
    
297.86Double StandardsPOLAR::HOTue Jun 26 1990 15:037
    As an immigrant to this country for more than 15 years, I see double
    standards. The same thing happened in Brockville stirred up strong bad
    feelings in Quebec, an apology seemed not good enough to calm the 
    enmity. However, it is perfectly OK for Quebec to do the same thing
    just to express their displeasure. I have a problem to swallow this
    logic. It is not theirs or ours, we all belong to the same family, we
    all share gains and losses.
297.87KAOFS::S_BROOKIt's time for a summertime dreamTue Jun 26 1990 16:4420
297.88If someone is looking for extreme comparisonsBTOVT::BOATENG_KAhem!Gabh mo Leithsceal,Muinteoir!Wed Jun 27 1990 21:2921
       Re.84 & 86 by POLAR::
    
    Are you aware of the fact that sports fans in Toronto have a 
    habit of booing when "Oh Canada" is being sung? 
    
    The booing usually gets louder when the parts of "Oh Canada" which is
    in French is being sung.
    
    All of us will agree that *some Toronto sports fans doing that does
    not mean that all the residents of Ontario are non-patriotic
    anti-Canada bunch. 
    
    BTW: It strikes me as weird that some Canadian citizens will boo
    when their nations anthem is being sung.  
    I can't imagine that sort of booing happening in an Alabama sports
    staduim.  (If POLAR:: is looking for extreme examples/comparisons). 
    
    Maybe Clyde Wells and Elijah Harper can explain this phenomenon of
    booing when "Oh Canada" is being sung ?
    
               
297.89..and what does Clyde want ?BTOVT::BOATENG_KAhem!Gabh mo Leithsceal,Muinteoir!Wed Jun 27 1990 21:4414
      Re. 59
    
    >> Newfoundland is Appalachia without the cultural amenities
    >> Or the good-looking women..
    
    
    Clyde Wells would get mad, if he was to read/hear this.
    
    BTW: A few weeks ago a Montreal Gazette article mentioned that
    the "hidden agenda" of Clyde Wells NewFd is that if Meech Lake dies
    N/F would have a "perfect" excuse for joining the US, hoping
    that they will get fatter/higher/better welfare payments from Uncle Sam. 
    
                 Is that the reason why Clyde held back...? 
297.90TOPDOC::AHERNDennis the MenaceThu Jun 28 1990 13:358
297.91I'm baaaack MQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowThu Jun 28 1990 16:5828
297.92POLAR::RICHARDSONHe who laughs bestThu Jun 28 1990 17:2314
>    Excume me for not replying before, but I HAD to work.  Hey we even got
>    Glen grand canal wirly twirly Richardson talking seriously, this has to
>    be THE topic in this note file.
 
    	Jean,

    		Your are excumed. 
    		
    		I'm OK now, call it temporary sanity.

    		You'll have to excume me now, I think my washing machine is
    	in the spin cycle!

    Glenn
297.93DemonstrationOTOU01::BUCKLANDand things were going so well...Thu Jun 28 1990 18:2631
    Spin cycle, eh!
    
    If you want to spin (or whirley-twirley to use the correct term) then
    
    			Press next-screen key now!
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    			Press previous-screen key now!
    
297.948713::HOESammy, why are you so quiet?Thu Jun 28 1990 19:535
Re .91

Great answer.

cal
297.95KAOFS::S_BROOKIt's time for a summertime dreamThu Jun 28 1990 21:4023
297.96TRCO01::FINNEYKeep cool, but do not freezeThu Jun 28 1990 21:4114
    >>>    As for the accusations to the effect that WE were trying
    to do the same
        things in schools (regulate the use of french in schoolyards),
    this was
        a proposition from a zealot, it was NEVER done.
    <<<
    
    As of yesterday was it never done. But up until yesterday, it was
    being contemplated.
    
    The ruling was toned down to legislate French only in Montreal schools
    when in a curriculum environment ( classes, seminars, etc ).
    
    Scooter
297.97utopiaMQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowFri Jun 29 1990 14:5215
297.98KAOFS::S_BROOKIt's time for a summertime dreamFri Jun 29 1990 15:5225
    re .97
    
    You know, I think there is probably an awful lot more to your first
    statement than meets the eye.  I would suspect that plays as major
    a role as the language issues.  Don't you just get tired of the
    "he gets more than me" talk ?  I don't accept it from my kids and
    we are supposed to be adults here.
    
    As to learning the other language, I think more important is to
    recognise that other people do speak other languages and respect
    that fact, and don't necessarily expect everyone to speak your
    language.  I don't expect a Francophone to speak English ... if he
    does, then it makes my life easier, but if he cannot, then I find
    a bilingual to help me ... I don't write the individual off.  After
    all the traveller in Europe doesn't expect everyone to speak English,
    so why should he expect that in Quebec ?
    
    Obviously as much bilingualism as possible is a helpful thing, but
    near total bilingualism is impossible and probably unnecessary. If,
    on the other hand, you are likely to have to deal with Francophones
    in your day to day life, then it really should be your duty to either
    learn French, or at least have someone available to assist you, and
    you should not do this grudgingly.
    
    Stuart
297.99POLAR::RICHARDSONHe who laughs bestFri Jun 29 1990 16:0711
297.100OTOU01::BUCKLANDand things were going so well...Fri Jun 29 1990 17:2218
297.101KAOFS::S_BROOKIt's time for a summertime dreamFri Jun 29 1990 17:4216
    Re .99
    
    You took my words and twisted their meaning to fit distinct society.
    
    We are a land of many distict societities ... every racial group ...
    every language group ... every ethnic group ... every city ...
    every town ... every village have cultures which make themselves
    distinct from one another.  Come to that I am different from you
    am I a distinct society ?  At what level do you decide that this
    distinctness deserves a totally separate state ?  Does this kind
    of distinctness deserve a separate state ?
    
    Distinct societies are social realities, but are they and should
    they be political realities ?
    
    Stuart
297.102Twist thisPOLAR::RICHARDSONHe who laughs bestFri Jun 29 1990 19:285
297.103KAOFS::S_BROOKIt's time for a summertime dreamFri Jun 29 1990 20:3520
    You know, I get very tired of discussions that end this way ...
    
    You reach some questions that are critical to the way you think the
    way you do, and the other party says "You just don't understand and
    you never will" and takes the bat home leaving the critical questions
    unanswered.
    
    For starters, I'm not a Canadian Anglophone ... What I am doesn't
    really matter, although I am an anglophone, and I chose Canada of
    free will, for hanging labels on people only serves to divide rather 
    than unite.
    
    You'll never get anyone to understand as long as you react in that
    antagonistic way.  And isn't this really what it's all about people
    who stopped listening.
    
    I'm listening ... I'm trying to understand ... you don't give me much
    chance though.
    
    
297.104"Number please..."TOPDOC::AHERNDennis the MenaceTue Jul 10 1990 14:073
    I don't understand the difference between the anglophones and the
    francophones.  Don't they all take the same dime?
    
297.105KAOM25::RUSHTONUnscathed by inspired lunacyTue Jul 10 1990 14:133
*phones play r-accords, unlike grammaphones which play grandmother clauses.
And of course you need a pornaphone to play porngraphs.    

297.106GYPSC::FORSTRainer Forst @UFC DTN 773-3222Thu Aug 02 1990 10:3310
    ".. take the same dime". 
    
    I have the (world wide) impression the anglos come down to the 'dime'
    much earlier than others - distinct
    
    When I enter Quebec from the US or anglo-Canada I have a very nice
    DISTINCT feeling, getting away from the un(i)-cultural porridge,
    aka 'melting-pot'.
    
    R.
297.107Divorce is good for unhappy marriage!DUGGAN::RUFri Sep 21 1990 14:2512
    
    When I visited Ottawa via Quebec from US in august, I have a
    feeling that Quebec is a very different country.  Everything is
    in French,  no English sign, and people are relunctant to speak
    English.
    
    As the note .106 said, Quebec don't want to be a melting pot.
    All they want is a distinct society, and ultimately what they want
    is a separate country.
    
    I say just let them separate from Canada.  What is the big deal about
    this?
297.108Just curiousMQOFS::DESROSIERSLets procrastinate....tomorrowFri Sep 21 1990 21:577
    Re -.1,
    
    Did you feel rejected because of the unilingualism or did you enjoy the
    "difference"?
    
    Jean
    
297.109C'est ca!GYPSC::FORSTRainer Forst @UFC DTN 773-3222Wed Sep 26 1990 15:115
    Jean,
    
    that is the point.
    
    Rainer_who_enjoys_cultural_differences