HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:47:49 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <13029@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>Encore des idioties. Essaie de te faire servir au Restaurant en
>francais a l'exterieur du Quebec et tu passeras pour un martien. Meme
>a Ottawa, cas ne marche que tres irregulierement. Fait le contraire au
>Quebec, et ca marche a peu pres n'importe ou.
>

C'est quoi ca?  Il y a des endroits au centre-ville de Montreal ou il
est impossible d'avoir une reponse en francais.  Pas necessairement
des restaurants.  Je connais un certain stationnement ou l'employe
refuse systematiquement de repondre en francais.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===  Non a une entente au contenu secret      Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 03:40:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.153622.10060@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.192632.17090@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>>  I firmly believe differently ...
>>
>>  The Quebec issues bring Quebec back into the Constitutional family.
>
>But it doesn't solve the "problem" of Quebec nationalism...the PQ could
>easily be the government in two years, and we will be right back where
>we started, 

  No we won't be right back where we started. Quebec will be a valid 
partner in the Canadian federation, and the loose ends that were left in
1981-2 will have been tied off. 

  You don't understand compromise or alternative views (which is one of 
the reasons I try not to respond more than once to your repetitive postings)
and have a very logical but absolutist outlook. Most Canadians are not (or
at least were not ten years ago) quite so 'my way or no way' in their 
interactions.

  But there are ways to sap the energy of Quebec nationalism and bring
them into harmony with the rest of the country. Bashing them over the
head all the time is not the most effective of these, even if it renders
the victim temporarily unconscious.

>I think the grievances of all three groups, Quebec, aboriginals, and
>the West will be worse after Charlottetown than before.

  For some this will be the case, but for many, enough will have been
achieved that, in the absence of a major incident or provocation, back
burner contests within the resulting framework will be the only real
way to pursue their objectives. It is very difficult to motivate people
to actually do things ... separating included. And this accord will
remove much of the current motivation rather than increasing it as
happened after Meech. 

>I urge the undecided to read, think, and try understanding what they
>are really doing to this country with Charlottetown.

  Agreed ... everyone should cross check all sources of information and
make a personal comittment to a responsible choice.

>Charlottetown is a deconfederation agreement.

  No, Charlottetown is an agreement to restore balance to the federation.
If there is only one government in Ottawa that counts, then it is not a
federation.

---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney)
Subject: Re: Challenge
Organization: Bell Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:46:42 GMT

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

: The Charter still applies, but is much weakened...
 
How could it be any weaker? There was always the 'not withstanding' clause ...

--
Opinions expressed are my own, and are not necessarily those of Bell,BCE,etc.,
or any corporation, agency or association I may be affiliated with.
  Alex Laney, Independent User Interface Guru, IWS/TRACS Project.
  Addr: animal!bnkc08!alex  (or maybe alex@bnkc08.Bell.Ca)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:03:49 GMT

In article <BvGA9E.39I@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>Why is it better to just "do" something than to put it in the constitution?

Because if the something is wrong, and can be seen to be wrong, it is much
easier to undo if it is NOT in the constitution.

Do you think the driving code should be in the constitution?  the criminal
code?  Many things are desirable, but should not be in the constitution.
Xref: sparky can.politics:7660 soc.culture.canada:7071
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:49:43 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>Gary, when you read the Accord, tell me if you honestly believe that
>it does not set Canada back in meeting the economic challenges of 
>the future...especially read the provisions with regard to training
>(in the face of continued provincial opposition to an economic union
>and common market which includes the free movement of people), and
>in relations to the marketing off of telecommunications.


My own suspicions are that the Feds were willing to unload these on
the provinces because global forces are moving towards deregulation
anyways.  The more that I think of this, the more I chuckle because
it's like those Roadrunner cartoons where the bird opens a door for
the Coyote' to run through and then ... over the edge of a cliff.  The
next GATT could easily wipe that out, or rather force surrender by the
provincial kingpins.  The provincial opposition to an economic union
will also get swamped by global free trading forces.  Personally, I'd
not think Mulroney to be so brilliant but he might have learned a few
tricks from Pocklington on making your opponent blink from greed.

When I think of our official broadcasting barriers, I think of how in
Winnipeg, every third page in the Free Press seems to advertise one
kind of sat-tv package or another.  It'd better for our own Canadian
industries to go with the flow; rather than block HBO, force it into
a pay cable tier that includes First Choice and Premier Choix, etc.
We'll still get our "Jesus de Montreal" and "Going Down The Road" ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 20:02:51 GMT

In article <BvGBE2.4LI@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>You're not committed to collective rights at all? You don't think that we
>should do something to equalise rights of, say, children? women? natives?
>disabled people? Why not? Yes I understand that they are all still Canadian,
>and protected under the Charter. I believe that we also need to do more for
>some of these groups to make their rights equal to ours. Its fine to say we
>have gender equality, but as long as women only earn 70% of men for the same
>jobs, they need something more.

What are you saying here? What have "collective rights" got to do with
equalized rights? Equal rights for all ARE individual rights, not "collective
rights". Collective rights are where individual rights do not apply.
I don't know where individual rights should not apply, do you?

I support equal rights for all women, children, natives, etc etc.
Gender equality is not about equal rights, it is about denigrating
equal rights. It says that SOMEONE will decide for all women (etc etc)
how they should vote, or be represented (ie by gender, etc.)

How about letting women (etc etc) decide individually for themselves
how they want to vote. If women want to vote for men, it is surely
their individual right to do so. If not, so be it.

I oppose unfair payment to women for equal work (and I hope you extend your
argument to Mexicans too...) We should have laws against discrimination.
(The percentage is closer to 60% than 70% by the way.) If certain jobs are 
undervalued  and are paid lower wages than others, 
I suggest that the employees organize themselves and fight 
for higher wages. That's how it's been done in the past.  

But how would you force employers to pay Mexican labourers the same as
Canadian labourers (and I think they should.)

Don't confuse gender equality with wage parity, though. They are two 
different things. You might have equal #s men and women working in a profession
but the wages might still be different. On the other hand women may not
want to work in the same areas as men, but those that do should be paid the
same.

Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 20:41:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.002814.27914@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>svanegmo@zeno01.math.UWaterloo.ca (Stephen Van Egmond) writes:
>>To take an example from American history, consider the time when blacks were
>>slaves, and were treated as non-people.  The objective of accepting them fully
>>into American society was acoomplished, not by inserting a clause into their
>>constitution specifically granting blacks 'collective' rights of some sort.
>>It was accomplished by actually following what their constitution already said
>>(or even, implied).
>
>You've got it exactly backwards. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments
>to the U.S. Constitution specifically entrench the rights of blacks.
>Even with these amendments, blacks are far from "equal"; it's scary
>to think what the U.S. would be like without the amendments.


Please write out these amendments.
My first thought is that if "blacks" are specified to have equal rights
in these amendments, then they are obviously redundant amendments.
Other clauses state that all people have equal rights.

In what sense do "blacks" not have equal rights in the Constitution?
In what sense are the amendments required to ensure equal rights for 
different "races"?

Frank.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:30:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.214510.21071@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>What should happen after the accord is rejected?

Nothing on the constitution, hopefully.  And maybe the gov't can get on
with the day-to-day running of the country instead.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Reply-To: marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 14:50:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep21.170622.8958@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>
>I've yet to read Trudeau's article in Macleans. But from the snippets
>I've heard on the news, it sounds like Trudeau has plagiarised 
>Preston Manning's anti-constitution arguments. 

I doubt that Trudeau plagiarised anyone.  While his ideas may be a little
dated (according to some), he has, in fact, basically been saying the same
thing for decades about Quebec nationalism.  One of Trudeau's main points in
the article amounts to "plus ca change, c'est plus la meme chose" -- that
Quebec nationalism has been characterized for decades by a shifting target.
The demands of nationalists are constantly changing.  And that no matter what
"English" Canada does to meet their demands, the nationalists will always
change their demands so that can never be met.

Trudeau has been saying this for years.  If anyone plagiarised anyone, it was
Manning plagiarising Trudeau.

Or, of course, they could have both reached the same conclusion independently.

And, of course, they could both be right...

-- 
Marc Riehm      Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
marc@meadow.UUCP
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 25 Sep 92 14:30:00 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Sep21.170623.25939@ee.ubc.ca> kenb@ee.ubc.ca (Ken Buckland) writes:
>
>     [posted on behalf of Norbert Schlenker (nfs@cs.princeton.edu)]
>
>In <1992Sep14.161441.16149@pandora.matrox.com>, thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>
>>Representation: in a pessimistic scenario, House of Commons ridings in
>>Quebec will be, on average, 2/3 the size of ridings outside Quebec by the
>>year 2020. This imbalance is much less than the current imbalance
>>favouring rural ridings, the smallest of which are less than 1/5 the size
>>of the largest.
>
>This discrepancy is an artifact of PEI's representation guarantee.  If you
>ignore that one province (and the territories), I'd be surprised if the
>spread between largest and smallest is more than 10%.
>
>Norbert

Okay, let's leave PEI out of the argument.

If the Charlottetown Accord is passed, the best-off province, in terms
of House of Commons representation, will be Saskatchewan, with an
average riding population of 70638.  The worst-off province will
be BC, with an average riding population of 91168.  The nation-wide
average will be 80100.

If the deal is not passed, Saskatchewan will still be the best off,
with the same average riding population.  The worst off will be
Ontario, with an average riding of 97912 (the figures for BC and
Alberta are similar: 96531 and 97906, respectively).  The national
average riding population will be 90687.

I believe the riding populations within a province can vary
from the provincial average by up to 25 %.

The big winner from the Charlottetown Accord, in terms of H of C
representation, is Quebec, not because of the 25 % rule, which does
not come into play, but because it gets 18 new MPs to make up for
the loss of senators.  Ontario benefits in the same way, but
is still worse off than the national average.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
>nfs@cs.princeton.edu
>.
>.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: NHI ( was: Canada Clause)
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:08:26 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: National shared-cost social programs are a thing of the past...
: with Charlottetown.  It is misleading to suggest otherwise.
: 

It is misleading to represent your opinions as fact. Since the Accord does
not say, "no more shared-cost programs" I don't think you can argue this. In
fact, the Accord specifically entrenches national shared-cost programs.
Social or otherwise. 

   III.25
           A provision should be added to the Constitution stipulating that
   the Government of Canada must provide reasonable compensation to the
   government of a province that chooses not to participatew in a new
   Canada-wide shared-cost program that is established by the federal
   government in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if that
   province carries on a program or inititiative that is compatible with
   the national objectives.

This ensures that Canada-wide shared-cost programs will continue. Provinces
that opt out MUST implement their own program, and the federal government
will compensate them.

Simply saying that you think they will go away is not an argument.



--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Quebec's percentage of the population
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Followup-To: can.politics
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 05:22:05 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct01.133814.26392@mongrel.UUCP> amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn) writes:

   In article <hq1-h2#@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
   >In any case, the 25% guarantee will become more and more important as
   >the next century progresses.  By 2041 Quebec will have dropped to about
   >20% of Canada's population.  By that time the House may have swelled to
   >more than 400 members.  Quebec's 25% guarantee would then be getting it
   >at least 20 extra seats in the HoC.  
   >
   >As Canada continues to grow and Quebec to shrink as a proportion of the
   >total, this disparity will only get worse.

   Here's a new thought (and boy, do we need some in this constitutional
   muddle):

      If the referendum/plebiscite passes, and everything gets sorted
      out, perhaps the increased stability will halt the decline in
      Quebec's population.  Perhaps more people, businesses etc. will
      consider locating in Quebec.  Perhaps people might move there
      from other provinces.  Perhaps more people will immigrate.

      Then the 25% guarantee may not come into play at all, because
      Quebec may not drop below 25% of the population.

      Something to chew on...

Quebec's population has not been declining; it has just not been
growing as fast as that of B.C. or Ontario.  The three provinces are
the major entry points for immigrants, but Quebec has had a harder
time attracting/keeping them.  Other factors include a low birth-rate,
and some migration out of the province by native-born Canadians (due
partly to the political situation, but also because of the economy).




--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:25:17 GMT


A Lesson in Watching People Put their Feet in their Mouth...

ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
: 
: [...] You confuse political disagreement, and disagreement
: over economic strategy with stupidity.  Just because you happen to disagree
: with someone over how something should be done, does not make that person
: an idiot.  

But meanwhile...

ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
:
: No.  99% of YOUR postings are and always have been biased emotional rantings.
: 
: I have heard many intelligent things from both sides of the debate.  I
: have heard nothing intelligent from you.

:-)


-- 
Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists 
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens and
                                    confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: NHI ( was: Canada Clause)
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:58:10 GMT

Paul A.S. Ward (pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
[deleted]
: 
: Except for one minor point.  The whole SEU section is not justisable!
: (Which of course begs the obvious question, why is it in there?  I mean,
: why not put other things in there too, sinces its not justicable - eg,
: it would be real nice if everyone had a great income, and anyone could
: go to university for free, and we only had to work for a few hours each
: week ....)

The Social and Economic Union section commits governments to certain basic
ACHIEVABLE social goals. Health care is one, housing, food, etc are others.
Sure it would be nice if everyone made $1 000 000, and only worked 2 hours a
week. What does this have to do with reality? The reality is we should commit
our governments to solving _real_ problems, not things that are very low on
our wish lists.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Challenge
Date: 23 Sep 92 13:18:18 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2064

From article <1992Sep19.133720.10533@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, by myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui):
> In article <1992Sep18.170526.24254@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>It could have said :
>>   Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society,
>>   which includes a French-speaking majority, an English-
>>   speaking minority, a unique culture and a civil law tradition;
>>But it didn't, did it!?
> 
> I am astounded.
> 
> What if twenty years from now the second most popular language
> spoken or written there is Chinese? 

Quite.

> If the constitution was
> worded according to your text above, what would happen then,
> even though far fewer English speakers than Chinese speakers
> by then would reside in Quebec?

Well I suppose, if the leaders in the Chinese community were able
to organise themselves and demonstrate some political courage they
might campaign to have it revised again.

Why not put in the Algonquit, Mohawk, Huron, Ukaranian, Hebrew,
Italian minorites too?

Why identify a French-speaking majority in the interpretive preamble
at all?

Does it give the Quebec Government the power to take legal measures
("deportation", forced removal to other provinces, etc.) to ensure
that the "French-speaking majority" is maintained?

> You still want the constitutional
> clause to reflect the fact that English-speaking Canadians were
> there at one time?

They still are there - but under this deal it is up for debate as to
whether they can stop laws like bill 101 and bill 178 from trying to
hide them or bury their language in Quebec.

> The suggested wording for this clause by the
> federal government is just fine.
> 

The suggested wording for this clause by the federal government is not
acceptable, as it stands.


-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:47:55 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 737

From article <CLAMEN.92Oct1181634@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>, by clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen):
> 
> By calling yourself a Canadian, you are claiming certain rights not
> given to those human beings that are not Canadian.
> 

What is a Canadian?

What rights one has, living in Canada, depends on where one lives, when one
came here, and/or when one's parents or ancestors came here, and whether
one has obtained one's citizenship.

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