T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
612.1 | What goes around comes around; only taxed more | TROOA::BROOKS | | Wed Sep 30 1992 16:33 | 4 |
| An example of history repeating itself?
Doug
|
612.2 | Sounds like a Quebec problems to me... | KAOFS::LOCKYER | | Wed Sep 30 1992 18:46 | 17 |
| I don't understand why you are complaining about Canada! The artical
was allowed in most of Canada, but not in Quebec! It was a court in
Quebec that granted the injunction, not one outside of Quebec. You
also say it was the press that keelhauled the previous fellow - isn't
it the press that's upset now?
I think you should be applauding the liberal, democratic "Rest Of Canada"
and damning the unliberal, undemocratic political and judicial system
in Quebec...
But then it is legal to practice language descrimination in Quebec,
thanks to the Canadian constitution...
Regards,
Garry
|
612.3 | History repeated ? Or just a good idea ? | MAJORS::ROWELL | You smooth talking Bar Steward ! | Thu Oct 01 1992 09:58 | 22 |
612.4 | WARNING: Caustic material! | KAOOA::HASIBEDER | Trekkie DECie | Thu Oct 01 1992 11:57 | 16 |
| RE .2
Well put Garry!!! Just another fine example of Jean's typical (in my
eyes) paranoia to blame Canada for Quebec's problems. I'm so sick and
tired of all this constitutional wrangling. I was born and raised in
Montreal, and I still believe Trudeau was right: the only strong Canada
is one with a strong Federal government. The Charlottetown Accord is
even worse than Meech in that it gives way too much to a province
(Quebec) that really only deserves a good kick in the pants to stop
their whining and act like part of the country they are!
Whew, glad I got that off my chest! I'll probably still vote "YES" to
preserve the country and my real estate investment! :-)
Otto.
|
612.5 | YES/NO OUI/NON??? | OTOU01::BUCKLAND | Looks dangerous. You go first. | Thu Oct 01 1992 16:04 | 5 |
612.6 | Vote on your concept of Canada | VAOU09::BOTMAN | pieter | Thu Oct 01 1992 16:10 | 5 |
| I agree with .5 - ideally one should vote on the basis of what Canada
should be, not on the basis of what someone else's perceptions or
reactions will be (be it Quebec independentistes or New York bankers).
Pieter
|
612.7 | | KAOFS::S_BROOK | | Thu Oct 01 1992 16:33 | 14 |
| If one was to vote on how one thinks the country should be, then
I think that most people would have to vote no. On the other hand,
if one considers this a stepping stone to work towards even a CHANCE
of achieving a vision of a united Canada, then probably one should accept
this agreement with all its flaws and vote yes.
It would be very remarkable for a country to build a constitution in a
single step that is acceptable to the majortiy of its citizens. As
a country we are still in puberty so to expect a perfect result
is ridiculous.
Stuart
|
612.8 | How do we win? | KAOOA::HASIBEDER | Trekkie DECie | Thu Oct 01 1992 16:38 | 10 |
| RE: .5 and .6
Exactly! A vote on this package is rather meaningless. If any one
province fails to achieve 50% +1 vote, the referendum fails. That
means if Quebec rejects it, it fails. It also means if any other
province rejects it, it will have the same effect as Meech; namely,
Quebec seperatists will use it to say Canada has once again rejected
them! It's a no-win scenario!
Otto.
|
612.9 | | KAOFS::J_DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Thu Oct 01 1992 16:42 | 37 |
612.10 | We agree to disagree! | KAOOA::HASIBEDER | Trekkie DECie | Thu Oct 01 1992 17:55 | 28 |
| RE: .9
Well Jean, that's what makes Canada a great place to live: freedom of
speech, yours and mine! I don't understand:
> french as an official language is not one of their preocupations
French IS an official language of Canada. Is English an official
language of Quebec? Obviously not on a sign of my place of business!
Yet I can open a bookstore in any other province and call it "La
Librairie" if I wish. Now where's my freedom?
And by the way, the nation's chartered banks have released a report
that if Quebec seperates, Quebec's standard of living will drop, and
the rest of Canada's will go up, since Quebec has a higher portion of
the national debt per population. This probably comes from all the
handouts by the Feds over the past 50 years.
I agree with you on politicians though; they are mostly dishonest and
selfish. We elect them, but then they can do almost anything they
please for 4-5 years.
Je suis Canadien! I don't call myself Quebecois only because I live in
the province, nor would I call myself Albertan when I lived in Calgary.
To me the term Quebecois has always meant seperatist. But that's only
my opinion, eh Jean?! :-)
Otto.
|
612.11 | | KAOFS::J_DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Thu Oct 01 1992 19:07 | 23 |
612.12 | | KAOFS::S_BROOK | | Thu Oct 01 1992 19:15 | 11 |
| TO go around a well worn path here ...
You cannot legislate protection of your language and culture.
The USA has already said that if Quebec separates, they should not
expect to automatically continue with free trade.
Quebec has a far higher risk of losing its culture to the Anglophones
south of the border than they do to English speaking Canadians.
Stuart
|
612.13 | Can't spell Language - ooops! | KAOOA::HASIBEDER | Trekkie DECie | Thu Oct 01 1992 19:18 | 8 |
| Well, Jean, it may be "chic", but most people wouldn't know what it
meant unless they looked in the window! But you missed my point. I
should be able to use that name, OR use "The Bookstore" in Quebec! But
due to the languale law, it's illegal, and I can be charged! Sounds
like living in a communist coutry to me. But then maybe that's what
Quebec will become when it seperates! :-) :-) :-)
Otto.
|
612.14 | They all have a complaint | KAOFS::D_STREET | | Thu Oct 01 1992 19:49 | 21 |
| back to the original point, (I think).
I would be surprised to find that there was a single region of the
country that does not feel like it got less than it wanted out of the
current deal. In fact, I bet there were many exasperated phone calls
from negotiators that felt the leader had SOLD OUT their cause. The
facts are that this is the deal, quite possibly the only deal we will
ever have (due to the intense caving in on all sides to reach a
comprimise). I myself will not lose any sleep over the number of judges
on the supreme court that are garenteed to come from Quebec. And to all
the people OUTSIDE Quebec, the language law does not in any way effect
you unless YOU decide to go there (if you don't like it STAY AWAY). The
only people who have anything to say about it are those who live there.
I feel the main problem is that people are making sacred cows of issues
that will not effect them.
It is time to decide, but do not underestimate the anger Quebec will
incur if it forces the destruction of Canada.
Derek Street
|
612.15 | Just another jaded opinion | KUTIPS::LACAILLE | Half-filled bottles of inspiration | Thu Oct 01 1992 21:54 | 38 |
| > It is time to decide, but do not underestimate the anger Quebec will
> incur if it forces the destruction of Canada.
You are listening too closely to Brian the mulrooney.
"Yes" or "No" the debates will continue, the anger will continue
and the Quebec politicians will continue to bask in the glory
of it.
This is all a big charade. Brian probably doesn't like this deal
any more than those screaming for a 'No' vote, but if the "Yes"
vote goes through, he looks good and will be voted out of
office next election a successful man. [he did something Trudeau
could not (I don't believe that but he seems to)]
"Yes" or "No", IMO, I think he loses either way or at least Canada
does. I do not begin to guess what is in the agreement, but it seems
to me that the whole process was all too rushed to have any proper
solutions to Canada's problems.
The destruction of Canada will not happen because of a "No" vote,
the conservatives will simply go out without a bang because in
this game, two strikes and you're out!
Charlie
ps As for legislating culture into Quebec, (I shouldn't even stick my
nose into this one again but...), it's a bunch of political horse
you_know_what. Quebec's culture did just fine, growing and asserting
itself as a distinct world culture for three hundred and some
odd years. It took no legislation then, and needs no special
legislation now. The Quebec culture is thriving just fine and anyone
who thinks that legislation had anything to do with it should give
their head a shake.
Any legislation that was passed to preserve Quebec culture performed
one act only, and that was to glorify some politico's career.
|
612.16 | Really the SUPREME Court? | KAOFS::LOCKYER | | Fri Oct 02 1992 12:28 | 17 |
| Back to the real original point - the injunction about releasing the
contents of the taped converstion:
Jean, are you sure it was a FEDERAL court that granted the injunction
and that it was the CANADIAN Supreme Court that lifted it? I'm pretty
certain, but must admit that I have no proof at hand, that it was a
QUEBEC court than granted the injunction and a Quebec SUPERIOR court
that lifted it. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think a federal court
would get involved initially in a civil matter, and if it did, it's
ruling would probably be applicable Canada-wide. I have a real hard
time believing this case got before the Canadian Supreme Court in less
than 10 days...
Regards,
Garry
|
612.17 | | KAOFS::J_DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Fri Oct 02 1992 13:10 | 12 |
612.18 | And you wonder why we are $30 billion in the hole | KAOFS::J_DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Mon Oct 05 1992 14:51 | 17 |
612.19 | $$ talks | KAOFS::M_MORIN | Le diable est aux vaches! | Mon Oct 05 1992 18:10 | 7 |
|
Apparently, the feds decided to abide by Quebec rules on spending this time,
unlike 1980.
We'll find out sooner or later whether they do or not.
/Mario
|
612.20 | | KAOFS::J_DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Tue Oct 06 1992 14:20 | 13 |
| There is a difference in spending directly on either side and running
ad after ad in all medias praising Canada. These ads are not saying
vote "oui", but the mere fact that they are being run biases some
people's minds into choosing the federal governement's side.
Ad campaings are designed to get you to choose a product over the
competition's, even if you dislike the ad, you may still buy the
product because of the imprint it left in your mind.
From the looks of things so far, they are not following the rules.
Jean
|
612.21 | | KAOFS::M_MORIN | Le diable est aux vaches! | Tue Oct 06 1992 14:49 | 11 |
|
The way it *looks* and the way it *is* are two different things.
I'm smart enough not to let myself be drawn into voting yes just
because the ads make Canada look good. Unfortunately, I realize that
not everyone is as open-minded as they should be when they vote. I'll
vote on the package for what it is and I'll decide whether or not I think
it's good for both Quebec and Canada as a whole (including all other
provinces).
/Mario
|
612.22 | what a bizarre country | TROOA::MSCHNEIDER | What is the strategy today? | Tue Oct 06 1992 15:08 | 13 |
| Well I may not like the way our federal government is spending my
money, but golly gee whiz since when is it not fair that a federal
government of **CANADA** spend money promoting Canadian nationalism.
Should they be expected to promote Quebec nationalism out of some
warped concept of fair play? This is a bizarre line of thinking.
The federal government's job is to promote Canadian unity. There is no
concept of fairness in this matter. I must laugh at a number of
groups in Quebec who receive federal funding and then promote Quebec
separation from Canada and then complain when funding was apparently
delayed. Could you imagine the furor that would arise in the US if it
was found that US federal dollars were being used by a group to promote
the secession of a state?!?!
|
612.23 | | KAOT01::D_PAWSEY | | Wed Oct 07 1992 16:52 | 9 |
| There you go! Now if Lucien B. had stayed in the federal government he could
have easily directed bags of money to all of his separatist counterparts. But
he probably pockets more money with the federal money that he received by
creating his own treacherous federalist party. Le Bloc Quebecois! It really,
really upsets me that my tax dollars are funding a pack of "traitors". Well,
perhaps not a pack, but at least a handfull of these slicksters.
Don
|
612.24 | More for PQ, less from BQ | VAOU09::BOTMAN | pieter | Wed Oct 07 1992 20:49 | 10 |
| Isn't it ironic that while Quebec's "quota" of 25% of the seats in the
commons is being "won", Quebecers in practise lose some voices due to
fragmentation of their vote by the B.Q.?
You have to admire the power of the Quebec caucuses in both the PC and
Liberal parties. One wonders whether Quebecers really know or care
about their squandered votes in the BQ.
Pieter
|
612.25 | | KAOFS::J_DESROSIERS | Lets procrastinate....tomorrow | Thu Oct 08 1992 20:01 | 7 |
| Il'l have you know that FEDERAL money is also MY money. I pay taxes to
the FEDS and the money comes back, you or I may not like "how" it is
spent, but only for different reasons. Just see if you can control
federal spending in your province!
Jean
|
612.26 | | SUBURB::THOMASH | The Devon Dumpling | Fri Oct 09 1992 11:39 | 22 |
|
> I think it is "chic" to name your bookstore "La Librarie" in english
> provinces but not quite as much to name your pharmarcy "Le Drugstore"
> (like they used to do in Paris) here.
"Drugstore" has nothing to do with English, it is American.
The equivilent in English is "Chemist"
I wonder if we'll ever get to vote on;
Maastricht
A single currency
A single foreign policy
Real free trade
A single investment policy
...................etc........
What's De-ja-vue in reverse called?
Heather
|