Conference kaosws::canada

    An example of history repeating itself?
    
    Doug
    

    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
  

    
>                                      this was not wire tapped, but
>    caught off the air waves with a scanner because they were using
>    cellular telephones.
    
    I find this a little conveniant, don't you think ? A few weeks after
    a controversy in another country about a telephone conversation, 
    recorded in the same fashion, you now have one there.
    
    I am not saying it is NOT genuine, but how do you know it is ? I have
    no idea what was said, and which 'side' it puts in a bad light, but
    any dummy can fix something like this to their sides advantage.
    
    If Qu�bec is taking this into consideration before allowing it to be
    printed, the I for one, applaud them. If this *is* a fabrication, how
    much harm will have been done to one side or the other ? Doesn't the
    public have the right to know the truth, and not what someone else
    claims to be the truth ? If this was a criminal investigation, do you
    think that this recording would be accepted as evidence ?
    
    Regards,
    Wayne

    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.
    

    Ah, but will a YES vote unite the country or just delay the inevitable. 
    I don't see the separatists stopping their campaign for a sovereign
    Qu�bec just because of a referendum.
    
    Don't Know in Nepean.

    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

    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
    
    

    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.

    Due to the contents of the conversation, the central governement
    approved of the injunction....which was overturned last night by the
    supreme court.
    
    I guess you could say I am paranoid, I just don't trust anything coming
    from a coalition of the other provinces.  They have so far proved that
    french as an official language is not one of their preocupations and to
    me the only reason they have to keep the (whining) Qu�becois in the
    confederation is to keep up the standard of living they now have, since
    all predictions of separation are linked to a downfall of both Qu�bec
    AND the rest of the country.
    
    I (and I would bet ALL of you) don't even know what you are voting on,
    yet you beleive Canada is doomed if you vote no, this is pure horse
    manure, life will go on as it has for the last 125 years of
    confederation (Conf�d�ration: Union de plusieurs �tats qui s'associent
    tout en conservant leur souverainet�).  Canada is NOT the US!  it is
    not based on the same political system, it is only natural for each
    province to try and pull the cover to it's side, it doesn't work when
    it is always the same who gets it all.  In your perspective, it may be
    Qu�bec who is getting more than the others, in ours, it is Ontario.
    
    I also don't trust ANY of our politicians, especially the ones in
    Ottawa, we seem to be run by judges and lawers more than by our elected
    representatives.  We are supposed to be under the same laws (charter of
    rights) yet injunctions are only valid here, does that make sense?
    
    I guess what I was incensed about was this disparity on the application
    of laws depending on where you live.
    
    And yes I will continue to "whine" wheather it pleases you or not. 
    Mortecai Ritchler (<-sp?) said that if it were not for Qu�bec, Canada
    would be a dreary (dull) place to live, which is probably the only
    "compliment" he ever gave to Qu�bec and it's inhabitants.
    
    Jean the cronic complainer
    

    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.

    The reports I read in my newspapers are that both Qu�bec and Canada
    will suffer a separation but Qu�bec will recover faster.
    
    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.  
    
    There used to be a chain of work wear (Mark's work whearehouse) called
    "La Ouerasse" which incensed the purists, now the same chain is called
    "L'�quipeur" which to me sounds much better and is more descriptive to
    boot.
    
    I have traveled all across Canada (except the territories) and the only
    province which is in fact bi-lingual is Qu�bec, you may find pockets of
    francophones in other provinces but Canada is an english country
    (except here).  To me this needs to be preserved and I will do my
    utmost to protect it.  If other Canadians also felt the same way, there
    would not be a problem, but the feeling I get is; be a Canadian!  If I
    speak french and try to promote my culture, language and heritage, then
    I am not acting for the good of the country.
    
    Jean
    

    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

    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.

    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
                             

 >  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.
 

    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
    

    You are right on both counts and the only reason the ban was lifted was
    that modern communications (fax, networks...) were taking over where
    the newspapers and radio/tv left off.
    
    It was just very funny to see Brian and his gang approving the ban due
    to the fact that it was putting the "accord" in a bad light for Qu�bec
    residents.  
    
    I will start another topic for the referendum.
    
    Jean
    

    Another legal point.
    
    In Qu�bec, referendums are under strict legal control, each camp must
    be registered and choose one of the TWO sides.  Each side must not
    spend more than the other and the amount to be spent is fixed in
    advance.
    
    EXCEPT the federal governement, they do not follow the rules and spend
    whatever they want.  In the 1980 referendum, they spent $12 million
    more than the Parti Qu�becois.  This time they are it again, running ad
    after ad on TV, radio, newspapers and billboards.  
    
    If only they would adhere to our laws and refrain from spending OUR
    money.
    
    Jean
    

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

    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
    

    
    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

    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?!?!

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

    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
    

    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
    

    
>    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