HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Will Mulroney resign?
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:03:11 GMT

In <1bl4ojINNevq@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:

>I am all-but-certain that if there is a Yes vote in every province,
>Mulroney will resign. If there is a No vote in one or more provinces
>he is more likely to hang on as Progressive Conservative leader.

I'll give you two good reasons....

1) It has been reported that the Ottawa Civic Centre is booked for a
February leadership convention for the PCs.

Hmm...why would they need a leadership convention, they HAVE a leader...

2) Word from anyone who works inside the government is that its an
open secret Mulroney will resign after the referendum, its just a
matter of the spin that will be put on the resignation.

Michael
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:57:32 EDT
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: TV ads for the referendum

In article <Bvz84M.7H0@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis
Beauregard) says:

>use exactly the same pictures.  The bullshiting is that the accord is
>presented as something giving a lot of powers (Boubou continuously talks
>about the gain of 31 veto rights) to Quebec, while outside of Quebec
>Mulroney says that Quebec gets nothing more (can someone from CHQ confirms?).

If they're trying to sell the idea Quebec got no new powers, then
they've overestimated the number of people who pay NO attention to
the debate. Here in Kingston, the lines are drawn roughly like
this: we all know Quebec got more powers; the question is
whether (a) that's going to fatally weaken Ottawa, (b) whether
enough rights were ceded to Quebec, and (c) whether the 25% floor
on Quebec MPs makes sense.

Your culture will adapt to service ours - Columbus to Natives, 1492
Your culture will adapt to service ours - Borg to Captain Picard, 24th C.

standard disclaimers apply ----------------------- John G. Spragge
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Date: 10 Oct 92 04:27:52 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Jamie Andrews has a good time misunderstanding my earlier posting about the
problem of aboriginal self-government. I am not interested in the white man's
burden or the sad history of European domination of the Americas. I am
interested in going on from here in a way that enables everyone to live a
reasonably decent life in a democratic society.

Jamie suggests that the Indians don't want to assimilate. What would he say
about a culture of white Mississipians who "didn't want to assimilate" with
their black neighbors?

The question is not assimilation into a trivial culture of strip malls and
Schwarzenegger movies. The question is how we all get beyond this dismal
excuse for a civilization into something with a chance of sustainability.
Aboriginal self-government turns natives into residents of a theme park, and
to the extent that they continue to rely on the largesse (guilty or
otherwise) of the society around them, they will never escape political and
psychological inferiority; they will continue to exist at the pleasure of the
rest of us. Much of native culture not only deserves to survive, it deserves
to prevail and to replace some of our own cultural elements. Much of European
culture deserves to prevail over some aspects of native culture. The
criterion is whether the cultural element enhances a steady-state,
non-exploitive society that doesn't consume its resources faster than it can
replace them.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:26:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.150849.28353@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>
>  Certainly too divisive campaigns of the "NO" camps are designed to focus
>on all the negatives they can muster, but whether Canadians are really so
>self-centered and immature as to buy this in the crunch remains to be seen.
>If they are then we have taken a big step towards the Yugoslav mentality
>where our own concerns far outway any others, even those we would consider
>fellow countrymen.
>

Charlottetown adopts the tribal mentality which underlies the current
problems in Yugoslavia.  Charlottetown will BALKANIZE Canada, and
diminish our common citizenship.

>
>>Which is why we need an elected constiuent assembly or constitutional
>>convention so we can elect people we trust specifically on
>>constitutional issues to prepare a series of options and amendments.
>>Gerald
>
>  Like the Spicer Commission, Beaudoin-Dobbie and every other townhall
>group in the last 2 years, right?  I noticed how well they all came to
>firm definite concensus on all the key issues :-).
>

Charlottetown would have been a more tolerable agreement if they would
have accepted a few of the recommendations of all those committees and
people's conferences...instead the first ministers treated them as a
show and then neglected most everything they said.

>  And if we elected them they would just be more politicians, no? Who
>except the politician and political special interest groups would want
>to spend the next 10 years of their life arguing politics.
>
>  If the current system doesn't work and can't handle the problem, then
>superficial changes to the makeup of the participants will not change it.
>What is needed is a bit more grassroots tolerance and less of the desire
>to impose one's own views and desires on others, and of course fewer
>spokespersons who exploit the opposite for their own personal advantage.

The people who are imposing their views are the first ministers, who
demonstrated their inability to listen to any of the commissions they
set up.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: davem@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave McCrady)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: The accord - legal text
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 11:41:00 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #7, Edmonton, AB, Canada

  I've come by a machine-readable copy of the legal text of the
Charlottowne agreement.  Anybody wanting it please email.

  If I get enough requests I'll just post it here ... but don't 
want to use the bandwidth unless the interest is there.

  It comes in four chunks .. about 75k total.

Dave McCrady              davem@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca 
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: Reasons to STAY AWAY from the NO side
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:00:03 GMT

In article <TT86RB2w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>1. Preston Manning, Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard.

So, this is why NO is leading in Quebec and West?

>
>2. INterests WOULD sore on 27. OCT and the exchange value of the Candaian
>dollar WOULD plummet.

No, not if the situation is presented as what it is : a negociation
situation and not a crisis.  If it is a crisis, please prove it.

>
>Mind you though, if this referendum was more sensible, I would do the
>following:
>
>1) Do you wnat QC a part of Canada?  Yes
>
This is of no relevance in the referendum.  Moreover, some analysts believe
QC will more likely leave Canada if the YES make it.

>2) DO you think QC should be a Dicstinct Society? No
>
Think it or not, it is.

>3) Do you support the concept of Economic Union?  Yes
>
Another not relevant part of the question.  If Accord passes, there will be
no effect at all on interprovincial trade.  Thus, it is not relevant.

>4) Do you believe in Aboriginal Rights?  Yes
>
But, are you sure there will be actual rights and not just some make-up?

>5) DO you believe in the division of powers?  No
>
Do you believe in duplication of powers?  

>6) Do you which to have Capital Punishment reinstated for Separatists?  Yes
>
Oh, this one is a joke :-).  But, aren't the other jokes too?

-- 
  \_\    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 indetermine'   Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:37:16 GMT

Denis Beauregard (beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca) wrote:
: 
: But selling the YES by saying Quebec gets no new power and selling the OUI
: by saying Quebec gets 31 new vetos is a bit a contradiction, no?

They are (here) selling YES without mentioning Quebec. Pumping up the hype
over the contents, how good the senate is, etc. The official campaign seems
to go this way, I don't know about some of the more fragmentary support
groups. (There are many groups on both sides with ridiculous arguments -- the
NO side saying things about apocalyptic doom, the YES side pitching complete
economic prosperity. We all know both are wrong.)

Personally, (and I counsel the same for everyone) I ignore all the groups
with completely stupid arguments, ones with solely emotional arguments, and
those arguments based on hate. I think it is unfair, for instance, for Judy
Rebick to go on and on about what an intolerant bigot John Crosbie is. He has
little credibility with most of us, and she should have ignored his comments
for the tripe they were instead of making an issue of it. Sheila Copps
(John's biggest booster :) ) was able to.


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Subject: Re: English Quebec politics
Organization: Matrox Ltd.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 18:43:45 GMT

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>Some time ago, I tried to start a discussion of English Quebec
>politics and politicians, not got no response.
                           ^^^
                           but :-)
--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:18:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.150213.14992@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>
>Aboriginal self government, as so eloquently stated and explained by
>Mary Ellen Turpel on The Journal a few nights ago (I have the whole
>thing on video tape), is one action plan that will definitely improve
>the Indian's current plight among certain segments of their
>population.
>

But the slowest way to get aboriginal self-government is to
constitutionalize the principle and then have to fight for decades 
in the courts.  If you have a problem, the way to not solve it
quickly is to constitutionalize it...the premiers will fight 
aboriginal self-government for every inch of turf and every power
in the courts if you entrench before you negotiate.  Aboriginals will
have surrendered their sovereignty to nine persons appointed by the
same people with whom they are going to be negotiating.  It would be much
better to negotiate self-government agreements first, while the
political pressure from the general population on their governments,
and entrench the agreements subsequently.  The aboriginals are being
sold down the river by Mercredi.

The Charlottetown Accord will give the premiers an excuse for inaction,
rather than action.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: Quebec's percentage of the population
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:57:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.203254.18589@unixg.ubc.ca> frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank) writes:
>>On the other you do not feel obliged to address the fears
>>of French Quebeckers that history might repeat itself.
>
>I have great difficulty with the suggestion that I am supposed to
>accept second class citizenship.

     Herein lies the basic problem.  French Canadians in the
current Canada have _de facto_ second class citizenship; this is
because they are effectively denied their traditional right to
live within a living, continuing French-speaking society, a
right which they have never chosen to give up.  This in turn is
because the default trend is toward less French and more English.

     The only way to ensure that that right is defended is to
give French Canadians more _de jure_ power, either directly or
via the elected representatives of some body which represents a
large majority of them (e.g. the Francophone senators or the
Quebec government).  This looks like an imbalance of rights only
if you refuse to recognize the _de facto_ imbalance of rights
which it is correcting.

     If you don't want to guard French culture in this way,
fine, but those French Canadians who do will want to move toward
a separate Francophone state -- probably via Quebec separation
and the effective "linguistic cleansing" of the two resulting
countries.  Is that really the best solution?  Because it seems
to be the only one if you don't want to equalize the *effective*
rights of the two founding cultures.

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Standard brain-toy bullet list for any GnuAge grokabilly shopping trip"
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:40:33 GMT

>The deal is not being sold in different ways -- the ways that best deal with
>the views of each region are being stressed, true, but the deal is being sold
>on its merits. The NO side is the one fighting on different ground in
>different places -- anti-Quebec sentiment in the West, anti-English sentiment
>in Quebec, economics in Ontario, etc. The YES side is firmly on side with one
>another. The NO side is fragmented, and cannot possibly  agree on anything,
>so why should we believe them?

There is something I don't catch here.  
I understand that it is (somewhat) acceptable to say that YES sold as
saving Canada and OUI sold without a word about Canada is not a contradiction.
(actually, tonite, they sold the NON as saving Canada).  

But selling the YES by saying Quebec gets no new power and selling the OUI
by saying Quebec gets 31 new vetos is a bit a contradiction, no?
Or does "The YES side is firmly on side with one another" mean something
else I don't catch?

Hint : forget for a minute the YES is promoted by the governments and
accept the weaknesses of its position.  Forget for 2 weeks you promoted yes
and weight the pro and contra.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Ge'ne'alogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Que'bec renouvele' dans une Ame'rique renove'e
\_.-===  Une entente au contenu insatisfaisant!     Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: Matrox Ltd.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 15:38:55 GMT

warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:

>Stephen Potter insists that the charter commits Canadians, but not Canadian
>governments, "to a respect for individual and collective human rights and
>freedoms of all people".
>
>Canadian governments represent Canadians.  If Canadians are committed
>to respect for individual rights, then their governments, by definition,
>are so committed as well.

Clyde Wells has explained why not all paragraphs in the Canada clause
include "... and their governments ...".

"and their governments" was added to the sentence guaranteeing the rights
of official-language minorities because, in this instance, governments have
specific obligations (e.g. to provide minority-language schools).  In the
other cases, governments have no specific obligations (e.g. they are not
*required* to set up affirmative action programs).

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: TV ads for the referendum
Date: 16 Oct 1992 18:15:14 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

I saw a strange TV ad yesterday. It was not clear whether it was
an ad for the referendum, but the connection seems obvious.

The ad was from the federal government. 
The question was posed "Can Canada compete?".
The there was a scene with an airplane manufacturing company, and the
response. YES. Canada can compete. 
Similarly with a bicycle manfufacturing company and something else. 
At the end, a final YES. Canada CAN compete. 

No mention of the referendum or anything else. 

Is this a way to advertise for the YES side in the referendum and
not have the money spent count as campaigning? Is the idea to get
Canadians to say YES, we can compete, and then blindly go to the
referendum and repeat YES? 

That's what it looks like to me.
I can't think of any other reason for the ad. 

                                     Myron Hlynka



Xref: sparky can.politics:8325 soc.culture.canada:7402
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Referendum Results Newsgroup
Date: 16 Oct 92 06:18:45 GMT
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto

In article <BvzG72.8M9@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>
	beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

>>Has anybody looked into setting up a newsgroup like in the States to
>>report on referendum results on Oct 26?

>a can.politics.referendum can't be voted
>and setup before the referendum;

Not true.

The can.* groups are not "mainstream" Usenet, we can add or delete
groups in whatever way we wish. If there is interest, and there are
no objections,  we could "newgroup" it immediately, without requiring
the same kind of voting procedures as the comp. or rec. groups...

When I set out to create can.newprod, I just posted a message asking if
there was any objection. There was not, so it was created...

Still interested in can.politics.referendum? Anyone opposed to the idea?

Perhaps some temporary NNTP links across the country can be set up to
keep the flow of these stories as quick as possible...
-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:15:57 GMT

In article <13163@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>The only part of the Charter that actually meant something in real
>life was the anti Bill 101 part. The intent was to force Quebec to
>open its EXISTING widespread english schooling system to all
>immigrants in Quebec. In TROC, as I said quite a few times, this does

How can section 23 of the Charter do this if it only applies to
Canadian citizens who have been educated in Canada, and not to immigrants?

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Boubou's constitutional experts advice
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:14:15 GMT

Heard on radio news today: the experts in Constitution hired by
Bourassa declared that the Agreement was far from the best in
favor of Quebec.  A key issue like the distinct society is meaningless.

An opinion heard today from a nationalist colleague (a pro-sovereignty
and pragmatic person) : the actual problem is not related to 
constitution, it is related to the image projected by the newspaper
about each other : showing Ontarian dancing on Quebec flag,
the Lindros case, etc. are all facts that were shown by media as
a normal situation (i.e. what people remember is the shocking fact,
not the mean).  Thus, since this kind of process is running since
25 years, it would take more 25 years to cancel its effect.
Well, I presume Quebec will be at least autonomous when this will
occur.

I won't be there for the week-end party (the number of postings is
the same during week days and week-end days) because of power shut down here,
but I will be settling my BBS on.  Is there any can.politics over FidoNet?

Happy week-end every buddies.  And be negative, this time it is more positive!

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Ge'ne'alogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Que'bec renouvele' dans une Ame'rique renove'e
\_.-===  Une entente au contenu insatisfaisant!     Mon opinion ? Non !
Xref: sparky can.politics:8347 soc.culture.canada:7437
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: What if it's No-No?
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:06:57 GMT

Don A. Bowman (dbowman@shade) wrote:
>Stewart Clamen (clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU) wrote:
>: 
>: CSQ  NO - Quebec NO: People will put the constitution on the back
>: 		     burner for a while, but the next round would
>: 		     see Quebec demanding status as an autonomous
>: 		     region, or as an independent country.
>: 
>
>If there is a NO vote, the constitution will NOT be on the back burner. We
>will be scrambling to come up with a new deal. However, the people with a
>political mandate will be
>
>1) Jacques Parizeau
>2) Preston Manning
>3) Sharon Carstairs
>4) Trudeau
>5) COR
>6) Judy Rebick
>
>When they reach agreement, and my grandchildren see it, it may be good. Who
>knows?

Probably, the politicians will all throw up their hands and, not wanting
to be burned again, will order a constituent assembly. 
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Xref: sparky can.politics:8321 soc.culture.canada:7375