HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada Clause
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:57:13 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep24.025252.24191@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>The Canada Clause clearly gives precedence to collective and government
>rights over individual rights...what we won't find out until a Supreme
>Court (with 3 justices named by the Premier of Quebec and 3 justices
>named by the Premier of Ontario, neither of whom is responsible to
>the people of Canada) is how badly the Charter has been imperiled.
>

Having 3 Justices from Quebec is something quite acceptable because
Quebec has not the same law system that CHQ.
You need to have enough different opinions in any issue.

But, having 3 Justices from Ontario is bad.  Ontario has the same law
system as other provinces of CHQ.  So, 2 justices from Ontario (1/3 of CHQ
roughly) and 4 from different provinces should be the rule.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: piton_m@summer.chem.su.oz.au
Subject: Re: NHL news for Australia
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Sydney
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:44:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.030907.6542@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, yootenai@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Tim Millikan) writes:
> 
> -- 
> SSSSSSSSSS        AAAAA    TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT   AAAAA        NNNNNN      NNNN
> SSSSSSSSSS       AAAAAAA      TTTTTTTTTTTTT     AAAAAAA       NNNNNN      NNNN
> SSS             AAAA AAAA         TTTTT        AAAA AAAA      NNNNNN      NNNN
> SSS            AAAA   AAAA        TTTTT       AAAA   AAAA     NNNNNNN     NNNN


hhhhmmmmmmm.......  Let me guess.  Have the playoffs been running a little
late in Australia?  You seem a little upset.

Mark, a stable Canuck DownUnder.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Status Quo
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:54:21 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>... ordinary Canadians have to think about posterity.  The Royal Bank
>is one of the most continentalist Canadian institutions...it basically
>wouldn't give a damn whether the border existed or not.

Well, continentalist Canadian institutions like the Royal and Northern
Telecom are looking at posterity ... their ability to clobber all comers
from the North Pole down to the Rio Grande', and all points beyond and
across the water ... aren't those the kind of enterprises we need more
of up north?  Their failure would have more horrible consequences on our
country than yet-another-constitutional-squabble ... and if they don't
feel like they have sure-footing, you can bet they're not the only ones.

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!)
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6906 can.politics:7362
From: brea9430@mach1.wlu.ca (breadner kenneth cecil joseph u)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:50:45 GMT
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University

In article <1992Sep27.042735.6614@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.004936.16528@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>
>>It's not pro-union or anti-business or whatever. These are polarized
>>attitudes that are only applicable in a boxing ring, where the purpose
>>of the game is to have one side win. Here, the intent is to help both
>>sides get along better. When one side insists on "winning" at the expense
>>of the other side, the outcome will be less productivity than if both
>>sides cooperate towards the common good of the company.
>>
>
>When the Toronto Sun is the only newspaper left in town because the
>Star is destroyed because it can't hire replacement workers in a
>strike you might think differently.
>
Ah...by any chance, Gerald, is the Toronto Sun your paper of choice? I've
never seen such a rag in my life. In nearly every article, regardless of
subject, they will find a way to bash the NDP, the Tories, or the
Liberals--in short. any party who either does something or does nothing. All
this in a paper written at a Grade 3 level that incidentally consists of
around 75% advertising. 

I'm sick of hearing you all bash the NDP. Perhaps if you ran the country it
would be a perfect world. 

Remember that in a recession, any government has two options. Raise taxes
or cut spending. Neither of these is very popular, and people will bitch no
matter what anyone in power does. Wise up, people. The NDP has a reason for
accomplishing everything it has, just like every other party. And lo and
behold, some good things have come from the NDP's tenure. Good for me
anyway. And I am a student. 

As far as tuition goes, where do we get the money to cut it or eliminate it?
Good question I pose to the Net...


-- 
KEN BREADNER: student lunatic. Opinions expressed herein are mine, unless
they aren't, in which case, well, they aren't. Wilfrid Laurier University:
'abandon hope, all ye who enter here!' --Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 
"2+2=5, the future is behind us and the past is on its way. Please hold."
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7250 can.politics:8105
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:40:26 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman) writes [re women senators]:

>Actually, this is not in the Accord at all. This is a separate promise that
>Bob Rae has made to Ontario, and Mike Harcourt made to BC. It is actually not
>to do with Charlottetown, it arose during the negotiations.
>We don't know how this system will work. Nobody has come up with a reasonable
>way to achieve it. Some options are

>1) women elect women senators
>2) everyone votes twice, once for male, once for female
>3) equal women/men candidates, let public decide

>I am for 3)

Thanks; this is starting to make some sense.  But does it mean that the
method of appointment/election of senators is not going to be specifically
written into the constitution?  As a lawyer, that strikes me as a rather
bizarre outcome, and as someone trying to follow the politics, I find it
hard to believe that the west would go for "unwritten rules" as to the
appointment of senators (that's what we have now, after all!).

Or is it expected that a different system of election will be in effect
in each province?  Surely what in fact will happen is Ontario and BC will
use what in my Globe and Mail Draft is labelled section 7 paragraph 1, and
elect senators within the legislatures, using their majorities in their
assemblies to get the result they want?

peter.
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Are foreignborn kids of UK citizens british?
Date: 28 Sep 92 01:34:11 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel

segr@nessie.mcc.ac.uk (Simon Read) writes:
>anne@maxwell.concordia.ca (Anne Bennett) writes:
>
>>That is correct (unless, I suppose, the "other country" insists that you
>>somehow give up the UK citizenship -- I have heard that the US is funny
>>that way, and does not like dual citizenships, but this is hearsay only).
>
>Sorry to disappoint you but the US doesn't seem to have any
>qualms about dual US/UK citizenship and once you have proved 
>your right to UK citizenship the only way to lose it seems to be
>revoking it in front of the Consulate.
>
>Losing the US one seems to be much easier I will grant you that.
>They will revoke it if you simple take an oath of allegiance to
>another nation.

You can be a U.S. citizen and acquire other citizenships by ancestral
heritage (e.g., Ireland) or for local residency purposes (e.g., Canada
by marriage, etc.) without jeopardizing U.S. citizenship as long as NO
renunciation oath is required during the naturalization process.  The
Irish took out renunciation for those claiming citizenships by ancestry
so that Americans descended from Irish can take advantage of it.

U.S. naturalization has a renunciation oath so you can't go back to
whatever you had afterward; if you do and the Americans catch you,
there'll be hell to pay.  There are a few but strong reasons for
stripping one of U.S. citizenship, but they are much more serious than
draft-dodging (that includes renunciation or voluntarily serving in a
foreign military AT WAR with the United States ... Americans who serve
in the Israeli armed forces, and American RCAF/RAF volunteers in WW II
(ref. "Captains of the Clouds" w/James Cagney) are all right ...  a
Chicagoan who got drafted by Saddam while visiting his grandmama in
Baghdad was thus off the hook, but it did help his case that he talked
his unit into surrendering and afterward acted as a guide and an
interpreter for Allied forces; I believe that case is famous).

>I have been a dual US/UK national since birth, but until about 3
>years ago always travelled on a US passport.

When you get it by birth, you're entitled to both; naturalization is
another story.  Rich Wales of UCLA has posted latest FTP downloading
info about his FAQ file on U.S. citizenship in Soc.culture.canada ...
try to get ahold of it the next time he posts it.

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: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: garry@monarch.eng.ufl.edu (Garry Peterson)
Subject: Natives and the Constitution
Reply-To: garry@monarch.zoo.ufl.edu (Garry Peterson)
Organization: Cross scalar ecology lab  
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 20:51:27 GMT


I am investigating the changing relationship between the First Nations 
and the Canadian government.  I would like to learn more about these 
changes and would appreciate any help people could give me, by either 
answering my questions, or suggesting sources were I could search for answers.

Some of the questions I have about relations between the Federal government 
and native groups:

(1)  What do people think the proposed constitutional changes will actually
mean to native communities?

(2)  What is the range of opinions on the value of these changes within
the native community?

(3)  What aspects of the deal to people like/dislike?

(4)  Do people think native leaders did a good job negotiating the deal?  What 
about the exclusion of native women?

(5)  How do the constitutional changes impact land-use on reserves or land 
claimed by groups?  Is there going to be any kind of moratorium on development 
(logging, dams, etc.) until issues are resolved?

(6)  How does the new constitutional deal affect the balance of power between 
native governments and provincial/territorial governments?  Particularly, will 
this new aggreement result in changes in relations in Quebec?


I would especially appreciate it if people could put me in contact with people,
or groups who are involved with both sides of this changing relationship.

Thanks,

Garry Peterson
Arthur Marshall Lab, University of Florida

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: Appointments to the Supreme Court
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:42:35 GMT

 golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>I maintain this will politicize the Court unnecessarily and undermine
>the confidence in the impartiality of the Court and the rule of law.
>

Americans idolize their Supreme Court, and even those who disagree
with some of its judgements respect and have confidence in its 
partiality and the rule of law. Yet the U.S. appointment process is
much more politicized than a post-Charlottetown Canada's will ever be.

Given that the Court makes so many decisions affecting the power
of the provinces, it is inappropriate that justices are appointed
by the PM alone.

Mathew Englander.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: baljeual@uther.calvin.edu (Alan Baljeu)
Subject: What happens on October 26?
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:25:34 GMT

I'm sorry for being so ignorant of my own country's politics.  I haven't 
been around much since December 91.
Anyway, I got the opportunity to watch Sunday report on CBC yesterday
(thanks to SCOLA's broadcast) and I saw the news.

I saw all kinds of talk about what people on the street thought, what 
politicians thought, and what experts in various fields thought.

Apparently some people are planning to vote yes, especially in Quebec, and
others are planning to vote no.  Many are undecided.

NOBODY even bothered to mention what the issue was.  So I'm turning to the net.
What is the October 26 referendum about?  What's it say?  What happens if it
passes?  Fails?  How is this connected to the Quebec referrendum on seccession?

Merci.

	Alan Baljeu



Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6878 can.politics:7335
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Appointments to the Supreme Court
Date: 26 Sep 92 23:42:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: alchemy.1992Sep26.234259.947
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department

In article <Bv7B76.50A@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>: 
>: No...I would prefer the person nominating the Justices was responsible to
>: all the people in Canada...Bob Rae and Jacques Parizeau can name whoever
>: they want to the court when they become PM, and thus have political
>: support from across the country.  (Again, I am fully in favor of 3
>: justices being from Quebec...and only am opposed to the appointment
>: procedure).
>: 
>: Not all women are Catherine MacKinnon clones...Justice (I'm not certain
>: of her name...I think it is) Beverly McLaughlin from BC on the current
>: court is my favorite justice.   
>
>I'm glad to here that your favourite justice is ok, and the rest are not. I'm
>certain that if all the justices were appointed by you, then you would
>approve of the supreme court. The fact remains that the majority of Canadians

My argument is not that I approve of the nominations, and I didn't say
any of the current justices on the Supreme Court weren't okay, but that since
the Supreme Court is such an important institutions, and is a national
institution, the person making the appointments should be responsible
to the people across Canada.

>hold differing views. Allowing the premiers to present names allows the
>people to (through their premier) show their preference. If the people of
>Ontario feel that there are not enough women on the bench, then Bob Rae will
>submit women's names. If they feel there are not enough visible minorities,
>or left-handed people, or whatever, the premier will submit these names.
>
>How does it matter if the names are submitted by the premier, or by cabinet?
>Presumably if cabinet disapproves, none of the names can be selected. If the
>PM feels that no justice on a list is suitable, I'm sure the PM will not
>select one.
>

And then you get mired in a constitutional crisis which will politicize
and delegitimize the court.

The appointment process to the Supreme Court is one of the most serious
flaws in Meech and Charlottetown...what happens when the first serious
court case say is settled in favor of central Canada at the expense of
Alberta or BC, and Westerners see 6 patronage appointments of 2
Central Canadian premiers.  Westerners help elect the Prime Minister.
They don't elect the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec.

The Charlottetown Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of Ontario and
Quebec and not the Supreme Court of Canada.

Gerald
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Yes = ? No = ?
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:24:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvnsD0.B90.1
	<1992Oct1.164730.7076@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
	<BvnGnE.ICp@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: clamen@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <BvnGnE.ICp@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

   In article <1992Oct1.164730.7076@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
   >
   >Other than the Trudeau-Manning partnership, most of the NO side 
   >would never be able to agree on ANY sort of solution to the 
   >constitutional problem.  The NO camp is a pot pouri of antagonistic
   >viewpoints.  Whether the whole NO camp is secessionist or not
   >is irrelevant to the outcome of the referendum as far as the secessionist
   >cause is concerned.

   You're kidding (where are the smileys?).  Asymmetrical federalism is some
   kind of federalism.  A-F was proposed by PQ for years.  A-F is a suitable
   and more relevant renewing of the constitution than the make-up operation
   of Charlottetown.  In 1980, the subject of referendum was A-F.

Je ne suis pas d'accord.  La "sovereignte'-assocation" de Levesque
resemblait plus "l'etat associe'" de Bourassa que la federalisme
assymetrique (?).  La derniere n'inclus pas une declaration de la
sovereignte', par instance.

I don't believe so.  Sovereignty-Association is more like Bourassa's
"Associated State status", than asymmetrical federalism.  The latter
would not include a declaration of Quebec as sovereign, for instance.

--
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
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: The Accord and BC
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:25:07 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: The United States will have some form of universal care by the turn of
: the century...they can't afford not too...it may not be as good as
: our system, but some form of system will be in place.  If Clinton
: gets elected, there is a good chance it will begin to come to pass
: sooner than later...and I think California has a health care initiative
: on the ballot for a pay-or-play type scenario.

Most americans don't want health care. They believe it is socialist, and
desipise/hate/fear socialism (McCarthy is stil a force). Additionally, The
disparity between rich and poor in the US is growing at a phenomenal rate.
17% of Americans live below the poverty line, and the poverty line is $5000
a year for a family of two, rising to $17000 for a family of 6. [From G+M,
three weeks ago]. Since it is the rich that will end up paying for medicare,
it won't be long before someone says, "Hey, let these deadbeats look after
themselves. I've got Blue Cross". or something to that effect.

: Canada is the more attractive scenario, but Charlottetown is a
: deconfederation agreement...Canada will slowly cease to exist.
: Charlottetown will have ushered in the birth and death of Canada.
: 

That is only your opinion. Canada as it was in 1981 has ceased to exist now.
Canada as it exists today will not exist after the referendum. There is no
going back. I agree that Canada is the more attractive scenario. I happen to
really like it the way it is now (bickering and all). I am just afraid that,
if Charlottetown fails, there will be no new agreement on a Canadian union,
there will only be an agreement on division of the spoils. 

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henrikson)
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 13:09:10 GMT

In article <BvCF8D.nB@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>, pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep29.011430.1586@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
|> >In article <Bv9M75.K4v@news.cso.uiuc.edu> epritcha@s.psych.uiuc.edu (EVAN pritchard) writes:
|> >>From the looks of this, BC people are really against this the
|> >>referendum.  Moreover, more of them have made up their minds about it.
|> >>Why is this?  
|> >
|> >     Because the electorate in BC is BRAINLESS.
         ------------------------------------------ 
|> 
|> Well that's certainly a well-founded argument, isn't it.  Tell me, does
|> this work for all arguments you get into; anyone who disagrees with you
|> is brainless?

Considering the 2nd highest opposition to the accord is in Quebec, the originator of
this gem of logic must also endorse the position that Quebec is pretty brain-dead too.
In any event, the BC people live in the country's fastest-growing economic region and
had the warmest, sunniest summer in the country this year - makes you wonder if the
the brain-dead all live east of the rockies (those that live here by choice as opposed
to neccessity). 
--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The Accord and BC
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:40:37 GMT

In article <BvCsEq.5rt@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>[Large plagiarised article deleted]
>
>: Comments and notes:
>: 
>: The concern BC will drift into a closer relationship with the US
>: (a Cascadian scenario) should the Charlottetown Accord
>: be approved should not be dismissed lightly...the Accord may not 
>: "save" Quebec and we may "lose" BC because of it.
>: 
>
>BC is very unlikely to join the US. Like all Canadians, the people of British
>Columbia are very attached to Health Care. Under US rule, they would be
>unable to have this.
>

The United States will have some form of universal care by the turn of
the century...they can't afford not too...it may not be as good as
our system, but some form of system will be in place.  If Clinton
gets elected, there is a good chance it will begin to come to pass
sooner than later...and I think California has a health care initiative
on the ballot for a pay-or-play type scenario.

Cascadia is not necessarily a let's join the US scenario anyway...
it's a lets get the Pacific Northwest together to become the hub
of the Asia-North America axis scenario...and let's get out from
under the thumb of DC, Ottawa, and California.

Canada is the more attractive scenario, but Charlottetown is a
deconfederation agreement...Canada will slowly cease to exist.
Charlottetown will have ushered in the birth and death of Canada.

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada