HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: The Fraser Institute weighs in...
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 22:36:00 GMT

I post this more with regards to BC, or Western, or Cascadian
separation, and how because of growing economic self-confidence, 
the far West of Canada might respond when, instead of a future
populist leader crying "The West want IN"...the rallying cry
will be "The West wants OUT", in response to Western underrepresentation
and overtaxation, the net result of Charlottetown:

From the Globe and Mail, page A4, October 3:

from the article of bits and pits on referendum news "Yes side in a
Slide":

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Quebec is a fiscal drag on the nation and if it separated Canada would
be an even better investment, say economist Michael Walker of
Vancouver's Fraser Institute.  Mr. Fraser said Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney and Finance Minister Michael Wilson have been acting in 'a very
irresponsible, self-serving' way with their recent remarks abou the
economic consequences of separation.

Speaking to the Certified General Accountants  of Alberta earlier this
week, the head of the conservative think-tank said: 'It was an
incredible gesture, which I find hard to believe, seeing the Prime
Minster standing on the podium tearing up the Canadian Constitution, as
if a NO vote would do that, and telling people what a dramatic impact it
would have on our economy.'

Mr. Walker said the Prime Minister should be building confidence in
Canada among foreign investors and conveying a sense of optimism to
Canadians.

'What we're seeing instead is a very irresponsible self-serving
political demonstration by politicians and some of our business leaders,
which is not warranted by an examination of the facts.'

Mr. Walker said he is not advocating a national breakup, but he is
suggesting Canada would be a better investment after separation because
'Quebec is a fiscal drag.  Money flows out of other provinces into it'."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My own personal view is that the transient effects of what would
likely be an cool (not amicable nor venomous) separation would still
be rather tough...but the Charlottetown balkanization which leaves
the far West overtaxed and underrepresented, will fray the citizenship
ties that bind, and will ultimately stir sovereignist sentiments in
the far West.  Charlottetown will be seen the birthplace of the Cascadian
nationalist movement.  

The Royal Bank may want to declare an
economic holy war in the event of Quebec separation...the Fraser
Institute might just want to negotiate reasonable terms.     

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:24:04 GMT

In article <BvICIv.E05@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>Any majority of senators will be a majority of anglophone senators. Think
>about it for a bit.

Not necessarily at all.  Suppose that 6 of the senators are francophone,
and there are 62 in total.  The vote is 32 to 30, all six francophones are
in favor - subtract them and you get a vote of 26 to 30.  The result is
the opposite.  Think about it for a bit.
From: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Mike Thorpe)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: How and I'm Going to Vote, and Why.
Date: 26 Sep 92 14:00:11 GMT
Reply-To: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Mike Thorpe)
Organization: Michigan State University



|> Well, I've made up my mind on how I'm going to vote.
|> 
|> I'm going to have to vote 'no'.  I have a few reservations regarding this
|> accord, as I'm sure everybody does.  I could ignore these reservations and
|> support this accord if it wasn't for one thing. 

	Je suis parfaitement d'accord; moi aussi je vote non. D'apres ce que j'ai pu voir, le Quebec s'est encore fait rouler.  Les recommendations du rapport Allaire n'ont pas ete poussees par Bourassa.  Le present accord ne
pourra satisfaire personne au Canada pour les 25 prochaines annes; tout sera a recommencer dans quelque temps.  J'ai l'impression qu'aucun des premiers ministres n'est capable de voir plus loin que le bout de son nez (ce qui devrait pourtant conferer un avantage a Bourassa (-: ). 

|> As I see it, the guarantee to Quebec to always have at least 25 percent of the
|> House of Commons will eventually see the end of democracy in a Canada that
|> includes Quebec.  This is fine right now, but what happens when Quebec's
|> population falls below 25 percent?  Are we going to try to negotiate this
|> out of the constitution?  I can't see Quebec doing that.  What we may
|> eventually end up with, is a country controlled by a minority vote, rather
|> than the democratic majority vote.  Sure, people can say 'well, what about
|> PEI right now?'.  I don't see how, even with PEI's extra seats according to
|> relative rep. by pop. can affect the country in general.  But I can see how, 
|> in the future, that Quebec's extra seats according to relative rep. by pop.
|> can affect the country.

	Faudrait pas charrier !  Si mes calculs sont bons, la majorite commence a 50% (j'ai peut-etre fait une erreur; je me trompe toujours dans mes pitons de ma calculatrice) et 25% est en general plus petit que 50% (la encore, je ne garanti rien, je ne suis pas un expert statisticien).  Dans ce cas, qu'est-ce que cela signifie "a country controlled by a minority vote" ?  A moins d'un evenement majeur (immigration massive dans le reste du Canada ou interdiction de la pilule en Ontario), la population du Quebec 






NE pourrait PAS descendre en bas de 20% d'ici les 30 prochaines annees.  Comme l'accord devra etre renegocie bien avant ca, je ne pense pas que l'on doive s'en soucier.  De plus, si je comprends bien, le senat bel et bien controlle par la minorite de personnes vivant dans les provinces les moins peuplees!

|> 
|> P.S. in case anyone's interested, I'm in Manitoba
|> 


	Je crois que vous pouvez deja deviner d'ou je viens.


		Normand Mousseau

				"Qui d'entre nous est le monstre; moi qui donne 						l'ordre ou vous qui l'executez ? "
				(Tire du film  "Le jouet" avec Pierre Richard)
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6956 can.politics:7426 can.general:4636
From: don@dgbt.doc.ca (Donald McLachlan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:44:48 GMT
Organization: The Communications Research Centre

In article <VieRRB4w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>
>Let really protest this FARCE of a referendum.  Just simply abstain.
>
>This campaign has become dishonourable and dispicable (sp?)
>
>Table:   POsitive                          Negative
>
> Yes:  - the economy                      - mass negatived campaign
> Side  - collective rights                - abandonment of minority rights


ERROR, a minority is a collection of individuals. Therefore they are taken
care of by the accord. In my opinion this line should read ...

	- collective rights		   - abandonment of INDIVIDUAL rights
					     (any minority is a collection
					      of individuals, so they would
					      then be on the Positive side)
-- 
Donald McLachlan			e-mail	don@mars.dgrc.doc.ca
Communications Research Centre / DRL	office	613-998-2845
3701 Carling Ave.,			lab	613-998-2423
Ottawa, Ontario				fax	613-990-7987
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: On the Legal Text
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:46:31 GMT

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

[massive copies article deleted]

I don't think it's really acceptable to reprint an entire editorial from a
newspaper, especially if you are adding nothing to it. We are all aware of
the views of David Crane, were are all aware of the points he raises. By
simply copying this article into the net, you contribute nothing.

Post your own views, quoting to prove a point, or for contrast.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6938 can.politics:7393
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:30:12 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

>Some more polling (Leger & Leger survey, 22-24 SEPT)
>Survey out of Quebec, Journal de Montreal. 26 SEP 92 

>Place        YES   NO   Not decided
>Maritimes    47.1  20.1  32.9
>Quebec (1)   23    43    34       /this is from another survey, for comparison
>Ontario      40.5  29.8  28.6
>West         38.1  35.6  26.3
>BC           28.7  58.6  12.7

These results would be more helpful if they were broken up by province, 
not by region, since it ios a provincial yes/no that counts.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: RE: Why I like the Charlottetown Accord
Organization: McGill University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:11:37 GMT

In article <BvILsA.33s@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>Another important issue is the changing demographics of our society. Some
>provinces are growing quite quickly (BC), others are shrinking
>(Saskatchewan). The Charlottetown Accord provides a method for
>re-adjusting electoral boundaries. It also provides some guarantees so
>that no province or region will ever have less than 95% of the
>representation its population mandates.
>
The Accord says nothing about re-adjusting riding boundaries within
provinces.  It only deals with the problem of reallocating H of C
seats among the different provinces.  We've always had a mechanism
for doing so.  In 1867 it was a relatively straightforward, fair
system.  Over the years, many exceptions have been added to the
basic rep by pop principle, so there is now a large discrepancy
in the size of ridings in different provinces.

The Ch'town Accord gives out some new seats right away on an arbitrary
ad hoc basis.  It sets out rules for a special reallocation of seats
after the 1996 census, again with several exceptions to the basic
rule of rep by pop.  The 95 % guarantee is for this one time only.

The Accord says a permanent formula should be developed for realloca-
ting seats, but doesn't say what that formula will be.  The biggest
problem in developing a fair system is that a tradition has
developed that provinces may not lose seats.  The last time any
province lost seats was in the reallocation following the 1961
census (first used for the 1968 election), when NS, Que, and Man
each lost 1 seat, and Sask lost 4.  No provinces lost seats following
the 1971 and 1981 censuses, and none will lose any from the 1991 or
1996 censuses.  This is a totally unreasonable restriction, which
makes it virtually impossible to attain rep by pop.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6868 can.politics:7326
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 26 Sep 92 16:03:51 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

Chris Retterath writes:  "State centralized is a very good term for Ontario.
I'm not the only one who refers to it as our own `People's Republic'."  And
then goes on to list a whole range of "socialist" measures.

Chris, Darling--

My heart is set fluttering.  So many of my NDP friends whine incessantly that
the Rae government has done nothing.  And there you come to set us all right.
I trust all whining New Democrats will hang their heads in shame, when
confronted with your litany of factors showing a government with some at least
passing commitment to social justice, not merely to the greed of the wealthy.

Am I the only one who remembers that Ontario voted for a *change* from the
Liberals?  And be honest-- isn't it refreshing to have a government that
believes *something*?  At least sort of?

peter bartlett.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:13:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.112200.45639@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
>thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>>Certain Senators will be Senators because they are female.
>
>I am having trouble locating an affirmative action clause in the
>agreement.  Indeed, in provinces where senators will be directly 
>elected, I do not see how such a provision is possible.  Perhaps
>someone can explain to me where this idea is coming from?  (Remember,
>I'm in the UK and don't get much Canadian news).
>

The Senate in Charlottetown is not an elected Senate...it has only
replaced appointment by the Prime Minister with appointment by the
provincial legislatures (by any mechanism they see fit...elections
are allowed but not required, gender quotas are allowed but not
required...etc.)

>
>Which raises the spectre of ensuring representation for women.  Now I
>know it is highly trendy for boys to get up on their equal rights
>bandwagon and start saying people shouldn't get jobs because of their
>sex.  (It is interesting that this argument was much less frequent when 
>it was the boys that got jobs because of their sex...).  But I'm much
>more interested in how the system is actually working.
>

The Alberta people's conference on the Senate recommended an equitable
Senate elected in standalone elections using proportion representation
with a single transferable ballot that would require gender-balanced
party lists...the will of the people disappeared at Charlottetown.

This conference resulted in a Senate that probably would have passed
both the Reform Party test and the NAC test...for those people who
claim that Preston Manning and Judy Rebick would never be able to
agree on anything.  NAC only resorted to asking for quotas when
Charlottetown scrapped proportional representation in the Senate.

NAC actually had a reasonable Senate position until the First Ministers
backtracked on proportional representation.

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Subject: Re: destruction without construction
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
	<1992Sep25.123655.11531@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 17:37:22 GMT

>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 1992 12:36:55 GMT, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) said:

  > In article <Bv44yx.1Lr@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
  > >[Note: Although specifically about the Charlottetown Accord, the article
  > >deals with a philosophical concept which covers a much broader range]
  > >
  > >The "NO" campaign has a major advantage over the "YES" -- they don't have to
  > >be in favour of anything. Somebody can say "I think the deal is bad
  > >because..." and not have to say what they'd do instead. It is much easier to
  > >tear down than to build up.
  > >

  > The "NO" campaign is in favor of a Canada which was ranked as the best
  > place in the world to live by the UN in its latest survey...

Ah oui? Pourtant, les maudits separatistes sont dans le camp
du non! Ceux-ci, jusqu'a preuve du contraire, font partie de
la campagne du non, a moins que la campagne du NO soit
distincte de celle du NON. Si c'est le cas, Steve Potter va
avoir un choix de plus a faire: est-il pour le NO ou pour le
NON :-).


--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7002 can.general:4662
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.general
Subject: RE: Bank incompetence! (Was: Doesn't *everybody*?)
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:22:35 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Sep29.090236.16379@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>
>I have tried several banks in the 12 years I have been here. They are
>all guilty of hiring an alarming percentage of underqualified people and
>seem to have a hopelessly inadequate or non-existent training program.
>
>Some bank clerk or other screws up something on at least one of my bank
>accounts just about every month!
>
I have dealt with both chartered banks and trust companies, and I
have been *much* more satisfied with the service provided by the
trust companies.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7201 can.politics:8000
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:25:07 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1992Sep29.002207.12803@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.211112.16306@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>We are long past the old union war-stories of children exploited in coal
>>mines for 18 hours a day, and the goons beating anyone who spoke for worker's
>>rights.
>
>Didn't you watch/listen to Jesse Jackson's speech a few months back
>during the Democratic National Convention in New York City?
>
>It's still happening. Not to children, but to old, desperate women.

Well now isn't that interesting.  And I always thought Jesse Jackson
lived in the US, not Canada, and that in Canada we had a welfare
society.  Have we suddenly become the 51st state without knowing it,
and lost all our medicare, welfare, UI, etc.?
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7173 can.politics:7934
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: individual rights protect the environment!
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:03:20 GMT
Reply-To: warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
Followup-To: soc.culture.canada
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

In article <BvIAuC.IC@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca>, ward@sun15.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
|> One only
|> needs the individual right to life to protect the environment - someone
|> should not pollute because it infringes on someone else's right to life.

This will be a big help in stopping logging companies from clear cutting
BC's last old growth forests.  I doubt that you or any other individual
can prove that such logging infringes on your "right to life", whatever
you mean by that.

Your argument merely says that it is okay to do whatever environmental
damage one pleases as long as other people are not directly affected.

On the other hand, one can argue coherently that environmental damage
is against the long term interests of the (global) community.  A government
that legislates against pollution is acting on behalf of this
collectivity.  Most Canadians recognise that this is a legitimate role
of government.

|> In fact, it is the collective demands that led to pollution in the first
|> place.  In Britain in the 1800s when smokestacks were kicking out all kinds
|> of gunk, the courts/gov't declared that it was OK, because it produced
|> many goods/wealth.  Thus those people who owned property that was being 
|> polluted just had to put up with it.  That's collective rights in action!

Your argument is like saying that someone who commits murder is acting
in the belief that he is free to perform such an act and that this is
therefore an example of freedom in action.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Cross-Posting
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:18:28 GMT

Could I make a small request of some people:

Please stop cross-posting your articles to: Can.Politics, soc.culture.canada,
can.general.

The people who read all three groups don't need this. People who don't read
one or the other do so for a reason.

[I must admit I have been guilty of this, replying-to articles cross-posted
cross-posts my replies]

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: iaf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Innes Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Reply-To: iaf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Innes Ferguson)
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:13:11 GMT

myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:

>See Ed Finn's article "Time To Try The Third Way" on page B1 of
>the Ottawa Citizen, Sunday, September 27th, for a more eloquent
>and of course far more substantive presentation of my views above.

Gee, "the Ottawa Citizen" and "eloquent" in the same sentence!? There
must be a mistake here.

Innes
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: How and I'm Going to Vote, and Why.
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:12:47 GMT

stephen cooper 9209 U (scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca) wrote:
>In article <1992Sep23.143432.2343@brandonu.ca> brycerw@brandonu.ca writes:
>>Well, I've made up my mind on how I'm going to vote.
>>
>>I'm going to have to vote 'no'.  I have a few reservations regarding this
>>
> [some stuff deleted]
>
>>As I see it, the guarantee to Quebec to always have at least 25 percent of the
>>House of Commons will eventually see the end of democracy in a Canada that
>>includes Quebec.  This is fine right now, but what happens when Quebec's
>>population falls below 25 percent?  Are we going to try to negotiate this
>>out of the constitution?  I can't see Quebec doing that.  What we may
>>eventually end up with, is a country controlled by a minority vote, rather
>>than the democratic majority vote.  Sure, people can say 'well, what about
>>PEI right now?'.  I don't see how, even with PEI's extra seats according to
>>relative rep. by pop. can affect the country in general.  But I can see how, 
>>in the future, that Quebec's extra seats according to relative rep. by pop.
>>can affect the country.
>>
>>So, I have to vote 'no'.
>>
>Well, if you frame your vision of Canada as a partnership between English
>and French, 25% guaranteed rep does make sense.  Too bad there's no
>guaranteed rep for Aboriginal peoples.

On the other hand, if you frame your vision of Canada as a partnership
between 10 provinces which are all, for the most part, equal before the
Constitution, then the 25% floor is, at best, dubious. 
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6928 can.politics:7382 can.general:4624
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: How I'm Voting on Oct. 26
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:31:20 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>There is no "neither"...spoiling your ballot or abstaining is the
>moral equivalent of a yes vote.

Male bovine excreta! Not voting will (as always) be interpretted as
"I don't care". Spoiling your ballot will be interpretted as "I
care, but am unwilling to make a decision on this question." Now
the reason you are unwilling to decide will NOT be clear.

I hope everyone takes note that it isn't just the Yes side which is
using manipulative arguements in this debate. Here is an example of
a manipulative No arguement.


-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada