HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:27:47 GMT

Denis Beauregard (beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca) wrote:
>In article <1992Sep29.174248.8515@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>
>>>     I bet these are the same people who are going to call
>>>Presto Manning's 1-800 number to say "I voted No in the
>>>Referendum but I still want to vote Yes to Quebec."
>>
>>It is not reasonable to expect people to "hold their noses and vote yes" to
>>a deal in which they do not believe because Quebec wants said deal. (I know
>>Dave Barret will disagree) Give the BC electorate a deal that they can feel
>>good about, a deal that seems fair and just, and they will vote yes.  Give
>>them a piece of crap and they will vote no.
>
>I don't understand the association of voting YES and voting because Quebec
>agree.  Pollings show regularly that Quebec will probably vote NO.
>Civil servants close of Bourassa said in a free-running conversion that
>Boubou made losts and was like having 16 ennemies in the negociation table
>(the content of the phone call in the Wilhelmy case is now available).
>I think voting NO to such an agreement when Quebec pollings indicate a NO
>is of more friendship.  

I don't know how the deal is being sold in Quebec, Denis, but here we are
being told that a yes vote will keep Quebec in Canada, and a no vote will
result in Quebec leaving. How is the deal being presented in Quebec?
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Where's the $ (?!)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:28:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.142515.24714@julian.uwo.ca> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
>Get out the plunger!  The dollar's in the toilet! (79.5)
>They'd better bring back Leonard Nimoy for an episode of
>In Search of: The Canadian Dollar...
>

Well Audrey McLaughlin, Jean Chretien, and Bob White finally got
the dollar they wanted...

...just goes to show what a little irrational fear-mongering by
political leaders can do.

The country did not fall apart after Meech, it will certainly not
fall apart immediately after the collapse of Charlottetown.

How good can an Accord be when the only way to sell it is
through terror?

It is going to be a one hell of an October...

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:38:59 GMT

In article <13030@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article <13024@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>>An examination of the consensus agreement on the constitution has
>>revealed to me that there is nothing of Canada in it. There is a great
>>deal of accommodation of the interests of various interest groups
>>but there is nothing which unites these groups into a common
>>nationality.
>
>Mainly because such a "common nationality" never existed in the first
>place: it was all an artificial trudeauesque dream. Instead of wasting
>time (and patience) trying to create a fake Canadian unity, a fake
>Canadian culture and a fake Canadian "spirit", the governments should
>have seen their role as a mediator, especially in the economic/trade
>field.

This is why renewed federalism will just tighten the screws a little more.
Something will snap eventually. Loosen the tension now, and Canadians
can put aside the animosity stirred up by their governments.

Quebec demands distinct society to protect itself from perceived threats,
and as a result, parts of English Canada cry "special privilege". This
is a vicious circle! This is wrong, on both sides. 

>
>
>-- 
>                                                       Francois Audet
>                                                           '
>        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
>                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegemony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 18:45:46 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: can

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young):
>> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>>
>>>Quebec doesn't have a right to declare independence!
>>>
>> Perhaps not, but it does have the power.
>
>Over some dead bodies! :-(
>
There'll only be dead bodies if there's fighting.

There'll only be fighting if people refuse to accept Quebec's
decision to declare independence. ***

Saying "Quebec doesn't have a right to declare independence"
only encourages people not to accept Quebec's decision to
leave.

Contribute to peace.  Recognize Quebec's rights to "auto-
determination".

...mark young

*** Or if they make stupid demands for territory, which are
    frowned upon by today's world community.
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The "No" Camp
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:17:21 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Don Bowman misses my point about further slogging after a No vote. People may
foolishly vote No in hopes that Quebec will indeed leave and go broke. I was
suggesting that Quebecers (having been smart enough to play Ottawa like a trout
on a hook for all these years) are smart enough not to leave. Everyone would no
doubt growl and make faces for a while, but then we'd have to get down to
deciding who does the goddam dishes and who mops the floor and how late the
kids can stay out on weekends.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: A thought for the Trudon'ts
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 18:53:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.152703.22953@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>The concept of individual rights, of tolerance, and of democracy
>embraces diversity...it is tribal philosophies that don't.
>
>The Accord does not recognize diversity, but the need for apartheid-like
>structures and ideas.


Gerald is right on these points. 

The irony is pretty thick in that the advocates of this proposal (and
elsewhere) claim to defend diversity by legalizing separatism (apartheid)
while the advocates of inclusion (all people with equal rights) are
being accused of opposing diversity and thus of being "racists" and "bigots". 
This is what happened to June Callwood when she was accused of racism.
(Don't confuse the right to secession from the advocacy of separatism within
a common constitution.)

This is what I mean when I have said that the left and right have
changed places. 

Does anyone know the origins of the term "collective rights"? 
1960s pseudo-left, it seems to me...and these creatures have obviously worked
their way through the system and into the legal establishment.
(The emphasis is on "pseudo" and not "left", by the way.)


Frank.

Xref: sparky can.politics:7576 soc.culture.canada:7040
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: The economic effects of the "referendum"
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:15:03 GMT
Reply-To: warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
Followup-To: can.politics
Distribution: can
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

In article <Bv774s.En5@mach1.wlu.ca>, brea9430@mach1.wlu.ca (breadner kenneth cecil joseph u) writes:
|> A low dollar is a good dollar for exporting. It's an economic fact.

If the dollar is driven down, it will be because our economy is on the
rocks.  Our economy is already in trouble and separation will undoubtedly
make things worse.  Therefore, to claim that a low dollar is a positive
outcome of separation strikes me as quite perverse.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Keywords: referendum alternative proposal
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:39:30 GMT

In article <Bv776q.KMH@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> wetmore@theochem.uwaterloo.ca (Ross W. Wetmore) writes:
>>Canada would last about 15 minutes under this proposal...for
>>one...BC and Alberta would opt out of everything and keep their
>>tax dollars at home and form their own country.   
>
>  Have BC and Alberta set up their own police force like Ontario and
>Quebec? Or are they still going with the national police force (RCMP).
>

Perhaps you might take a little Canadian history into account...the RCMP 
began as a Western police force which expanded into a national one...recently 
the federal government has been making the RCMP at lot more expensive
for local communities out west and their local policing needs...
the Western provinces may soon have no choice but to set up
their own provincial police forces as a result...and this will be
a most difficult decision since the history of the RCMP and the
West are inextricably linked.

>>The rest of the country is not going to financially support
>>what amounts to an independent Quebec, so when you propose
>>an extreme asymmetrical model of federation or sovereignty,
>>don't build in transfers from the "have" provinces...
>>
>>Equalization is dead with significant asymmetry or independence.
>
>  To broad a generalization, with supporting facts tending to fall the
>other way ... why are you so afraid of letting provinces and other
>communities think for themselves, or not HAVE to march in lock step
>with the federal bureaucracy?
>

I am not afraid of letting provinces and other communities think
for themselves...but we should not be putting locks on the doors
of all the rooms in the big house and restrict the key distribution
to the premiers...which is what Charlottetown is about...an
entrenched domineering provincialism at the expense of individual
liberty and democracy.              

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:32:00 GMT

In article <BvM95w.4yy@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Tom Gray (grayt@Software.Mitel.COM) wrote:
>
>: 
>: Well for one - mobility rights. Tradespeople resident in Ontario (or anywhere
>: except Quebec) are prhibited from paracticing their craft in Quebec.
>: The Economic "Union" clause which entrenches the right of provinces to make
>: such regulations will constitutionally protect such injustices.
>: 
>
>It is not the constitution that prevents people from working there -- it is
>provincial laws. The SEU isn't going to alter this positively or
>negatively.
>

We need an expanded 121 to a full free market clause....

governments cannot restrict the free movement of goods, services,
capital, and PEOPLE within Canada.

The premiers absolutely refuse to do this, even with a Social Charter
and equalization...

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep23.142903.15342@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
	<1992Sep26.001925.11143@pandora.matrox.com>
	<1992Sep26.023925.10352@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:45:58 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep26.023925.10352@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

   In article <1992Sep26.001925.11143@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
   >
   >On top of this, in a separate Quebec:
   >- Protestant school boards eliminated;
   >- English CBC television and radio networks disappear;

   Does the province of Quebec intend to shoot down TV satellites?

The same way Canada restricts how many hours of non-Canadian-produced
television can be broadcast, Quebec could restrict the hours of
non-Quebec-produced television could be broadcast.  

With control over telecommunications, it could limit the number of
non-Quebec stations cable outlets could distribute.

I should add that I do not believe the latter restriction would be
applied.

--
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: don@dgbt.doc.ca (Donald McLachlan)
Subject: Re: Election sun rising
Organization: The Communications Research Centre
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 20:11:56 GMT

In article <CLAMEN.92Sep22194810@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>In article <SBO.92Sep18145354@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>
>   >>>>> On 15 Sep 92 22:13:01 GMT, clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) said:
>
>     > >  3- Even with 50%, majority of Quebec francophones are against.  
>
>     > Tough shit.
>
>   Voyons voyons Stewart. Surveille ton langage. On ne t'a pas
>   appris les bonnes manieres :-)
>
>Je m'excuse.
>
>     > A country must respect its minorities. Quebec cannot be
>     > "distinct" on this point.
>
>   Ce que tu dis n'est pas tres clair. Est-ce que ca veut dire
>   qu'on doit respecter les neo-nazi vivant au Canada? Si c'est
>   le cas, alors j'espere que le Quebec sera distinct sur ce
>   point.

I don't agree with their views, but I will defend their right their beliefs.
I will OPPOSE any actions they take based on those beliefs that do
not respect the rights of other individuals in Canada.
-- 
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: can.politics
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 06:13:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.204619.22393@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>As the title says, why vote NO?  Does this agreement make our lives better
>or worse?  I can understand the people complaining because there is no legal
>text, though I read a copy of the Charter of Rights last night and quite 
>frankly without legal training most of it sounded just as vague as the accord
>does, but I cannot understand why the accord is bad.  

I live in BC. As far as I can see this document proposes to make my
province permanently under-represented in the House of Commons and in
the Supreme Court. Being a second class citizen is not the worst thing
imaginable, but it is distasteful. If I can avoid it, I would prefer
to do so. The entrenchment of certain special interests that happened
to be in the right place at the right time is also distressing.

>How does it make our
>lives worse?  As I see it :
>  3. Who can say that native self government is bad, especially when it is
>     limited by the Charter and a "no new land claim" promise.

The sections pertaining to aboriginal rights are heavily covered with
"*", the short hand used for "will be decided through future political
negotiations. In other words it is essentially undefined at the
moment. The extent to which it will be subject to the Charter is
currently ambiguous. Until the legal text is out, and reviewed by
legal experts, I am unable to figure out whether it is limited by the
Charter in fact. I did not see a no new land claim promise in the
Accord. What I saw was a statement that any such rights were neither
being abrogated not derogated by the accord. 

>
>  1. Will Ontario and Quebec ever accept a pure EEE senate?  NOT!
>  2. Will Quebec ever accept an accord without 'Distinct Society'?  NOT!
>  3. Will the west ever get a better opportunity to guard it's natural 
>     resources?  Probably NOT - unless they are their own country!

As I read the agreement there is essentially nothing present in the
accord that would have prevented the National Energy Policy from
having been implimented. The six senators from Alberta would not be
enough. The question would be how much support do they get? 

>  4. Will the Federal Government, 10 Premiers, 2 Territorial Leaders, and the
>     Natives ever reach a better deal?  NOT! NOT! NOT!

Why are you so sure about this? I am far from clear that the Accord is
even as good as trying to bumbble along with the current Constitution.

>  5. Isn't this accord a reflection of our thoughts - EEE Senate, Distinct
>     Society and Native Self Government seem to be the theme of all those 
>     meetings.

It clearly reflects the thoughts of some elements of Canadian society.
However, the ability of several special interests to have their special
pleadings entrenched permanently in the Constitution may not be a
reflection of the most noble elements of modern Canadian thinking.

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 15:01:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep22.150229.1534@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>
>  Separatism was essentially dead until Trudeau and Chretian played out
>the night of the long-knives.
> [...]
>  Meech was essentially signed sealed and delivered with a phenomenal
>level of popular support until M. Trudeau launched his previous assault
>against the 'Distinct Society'.
> [...]
>  The only common finger stirring up the ongoing constitutional crises
>is that of M. Trudeau, and the only common flash point is his feud with
>the separatist elements. He exploits this flash point brilliantly each
>time however.

Yes, your logic is inescapable.  It is Pierre Trudeau who is responsible for
the current constitutional crisis, and not the separatists who seek to
fracture this country.

You give support to Trudeau's argument that there are too many English
Canadians who are willing to roll over and play dead every time the
Quebec nationalists make new demands.
-- 
Marc Riehm      Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
marc@meadow.UUCP
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:08:29 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <433@catnix.UUCP> michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond) writes:
>thood@hilda.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes :
>>I agree with this history, but it does not change the facts: a "no" puts
>>Quebec separatists in a strong position.
>
>If you truly believe what you say, then I suggest you read the
>article written by (or about) Deborah Coyne in today's
>Financial Post.  This lady says the exact contrary, i.e.  a YES
>vote is definitely in favor of the PQ.

 Isn't Ms Coyne the Nfld aide to Clyde Wells that had Trudeau's baby?

 Somehow I don't think her views on Quebec aren't a little biased :-)
---- 
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>
----
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: There & back again? (Was: Beyond the referendum) :-)
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:59:56 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 356

Just borrowing from one of my favorite authors. :-)
-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
From: douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong)
Subject: Re: 95 % rep by pop (was Re: Joe Clark's Session ...)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:31:47 GMT

scheng@bcarh886.bnr.ca (Spencer Cheng) writes:

>In article <BvG7Ix.MHn@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:

>   How can you predict the future in this way? Much of the growth industries are
>   located in Quebec. High-tech companies such as NT, BNR, NRC. The Canadian
>   Space Agency. This is were the future lies.

>I hate to tell you this but BNR/NT is not "located" in Quebec. BNR is
>headquartered in Ottawa with labs all over the world. BNR-Montreal is
>just one of the labs. The largest lab is in Ottawa.

>NT again has plants all over the globe. Montreal is just one of them.

>The Canadian Space Agency is funded by the goverment (mostly federal I
>believe) and will flourish only as long as the NASA Space Station
>project has political and economic support in the USA.

>NRC (National Research Council) is a federally funded agency and has
>suffered in recent years from funding cutbacks. I would not classify
>NRC as a growth origanization much less a high tech company.
>--

I agree.  It must be noted that however that the parent company of
BNR and NT is BCE which is headquartered in Montreal.  Don't forget
that Supply and Services is in Hull and that essentially the 
Dept. of National Defence has moved to Montreal.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: rodney@sq.sq.com (Rodney Boyd)
Subject: Article by Deborah Coyne?
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 15:34:46 GMT

I was told that an article by Deborah Coyne (former advisor
to Clyde Wells, leader of a "NO" lobby group) appeared in
the Ottawa Citizen a couple of weeks ago with a title/theme
of something like "12 arguments against the consitutional
proposals". Does anyone have this article on-line? If so,
could you post/email it? Failing this, does anyone know
which edition of the Citizen it appeared in?

Thanks. (Sorry of this has already appeared in can.politics!)

--Rodney Boyd
(rodney@sq.com)


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Article by Deborah Coyne?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 14:08:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.153446.23952@sq.sq.com> rodney@sq.sq.com (Rodney Boyd) writes:
>I was told that an article by Deborah Coyne (former advisor
>to Clyde Wells, leader of a "NO" lobby group) appeared in
>the Ottawa Citizen a couple of weeks ago with a title/theme
>of something like "12 arguments against the consitutional
>proposals". Does anyone have this article on-line? If so,
>could you post/email it? Failing this, does anyone know
>which edition of the Citizen it appeared in?
>
>Thanks. (Sorry of this has already appeared in can.politics!)


Sorry, I don't have the date here.
It was about a week ago. The op-ed page. 
"A dozen reasons to say NO".


Frank.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:30:21 GMT

In article <BvID8w.F1E@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>Constitutions can be ammended.

They are very difficult to ammend.  And if you don't believe that, you're
ignoring the last 5 years of Canadian history.
Newsgroups: can.politics