HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:04:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.182608.11143@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>>
>>If you're worried about the economy, then why vote yes/oui?  No is
>>good for the economy, yes is bad for it.
>>
>>See, I can scare people too!
>
>Being outside the country, I can tell that the markets are keeping an
>eye on what is happening up north and if they weren't, our dollar
>wouldn't be sitting at US$79.71 this morning (80.10 as of 12:30 EDT).

No.  The reason the dollar is at $0.80 US is because the prime minister
SAYS a no vote is the end of Canada.  Foreign investors listen to such
comments and get nervous.  If the PM said something like "It will not
have any long term effect on the economy" then foreign investors would
not be nervous.
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: What "Manning-Trudeau" manifesto?
Date: 27 Sep 92 00:11:18 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <Gjy-CLA@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>If the growth patterns of the last forty years are any indication, BC will
>pass Quebec some time between 2041 and 2051.  This still works if we take
>the last thirty or even twenty years as the comparison---I haven't tried
>any other numbers, but I expect any shorter is too little data and any
>further gets us back to pre-QR Quebec.  Quebec will have 25% of House seats
>while BC will have less than 19%.  The House will have been growing all the
>while (to allow for the "fixed floors" of relatively shrinking provinces),
>so Quebec's over-representation is going to be more than the 18 seats it
>gave up in the Senate.  
>
>...mark young

Those any one has a breakup of how BC and Quebec had increased since say
30 or 40 years?  If BC get a lot of immigrants from Asia because of
Viet-Nam war, Hong-Kong end of rental and reasons like that, then growing
will slow down.  But, if BC get a lot of immigrants from other provinces
because of better opportunity, then growing can be expected to remain.
Knowing the reason for different growing rate would help to evaluate
when the population of BC will really be the same, if ever, as Quebec.

-- 
  \_\    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: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: A few of Trudeau's points
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:44:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.204122.19088@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>
>But characteristic 1, that "Canada is a democracy committed [...] to the
>rule of law". Aboriginal peoples are Canadians. Their right to self-government
>is to be interpreted with Canada's democratic principles in consideration.
>The Canada Clause characteristics hold for the interpretation of the entire
>document.
>

Aboriginal governments are not going to be required to be democratic.
Section 1 about the proposed (2.3).

>
>: The Canada Clause is already the legal text already...the fact that
>: it is confused and self-contradictory (and morally and philosophically
>: repugant to me)...makes one wonders about how the similarly confused
>: and muddled non-legal draft will emerge as legal text...
>
>
>As far as moral and philosophical repugnance goes, well, I disagree. 
>Granting aboriginal self-determination is one of Canada's proudest
>moral victories. (Although I'm sure many a Euro-Canadian cringes at
>the thought of those savages trying to rule themselves.)  Trudeau's
>indifference whether Quebec accepts the constitution is my definition
>of moral repugnance.
>

A great many aboriginals feel Mercredi has negotiated AWAY their
inherent rights...

...if aboriginals really believe that they have an inherent right,
than Mercredi HAS diminished their rights, since he should have
gone for a simple non-derogation clause...that Charlottetown would
not derogate from any rights or Treaty Rights aboriginal Canadians
may have.

By enshrining the inherent right, Mercredi has automatically limited
it...and this is why aboriginal problems are going to be worse rather
than better after Charlottetown.

>: 
>: The philosophical intent of the Accord is chaotic....the can with a 
>: straight face use the phrase "individual and collective rights" when
>: philosophically that is an either/or propostion.  
>
>Please explain why you believe this is the case.
>

It is like saying, "A and not A are fundamental charisteristics of
Canada"...              

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Quebec's percentage of the population
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:04:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct01.133814.26392@mongrel.UUCP> amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn) writes:
>
>   If the referendum/plebiscite passes, and everything gets sorted
>   out, perhaps the increased stability will halt the decline in
>   Quebec's population.  Perhaps more people, businesses etc. will
>   consider locating in Quebec.  Perhaps people might move there
>   from other provinces.  Perhaps more people will immigrate.
>
>   Then the 25% guarantee may not come into play at all, because
>   Quebec may not drop below 25% of the population.
>
>   Something to chew on...

This argument has been stated countless times.  The response is and
always will be, if the population of Quebec is going to stay at 25%
then they don't need the guarantee, so it should not be there.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 20:35:51 GMT

In article <BvMAy4.6G2@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>: 
>
>I agree with you here. The part I disagree with is your assumption
>that giving Quebecers as a group the right to protect their culture
>detracts from your rights as an individual.

This is a key point. If all people in Canada have _equal rights_
(and all people in Quebec are included obviously), what does "giving" Quebecers
rights to protect "their" culture mean? If all Canadians have the right
to protect "their" cultures, why specify that Quebecers alone have this right.
It is obviously redundant if we all have those same rights. What is that
single culture Quebecers supposedly have? The french language? What about
the other distinct cultures in Quebec? What about the french language outside
of Quebec?

The reason the concept of "distinct" is inserted is because IT DOES NOT
mean we will all have equal rights to protect our cultures, including the people
of Quebec. Distinct means that Quebec has a particular right (ie its
francophone majority) to remove the rights of its minorities.
For otherwise the minorities would have the same rights as the majorities
within Quebec as would the francophone/etc  minority within Canada.   Similarly
the concept of hereditary rights to self government ONLY for aboriginals.
If it does not mean SPECIAL rights, then it is redundant; if it does mean
special rights, then it is undemocratic, and possibly racist (depending
on whether "aboriginal" is defined by territory or "race".)

If you do not believe this, then give an example where the rights of
individuals within Quebec require "distinct" clauses even when
a constitution exists where ALL people have the same rights.

I assume here that we do not have the distasteful "notwithstanding clause",
something that needs to eventually be removed to ensure that the equal
rights we all claim can not be denied by provincial or federal jurisdictions.

Frank
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: magore@icr2.uwaterloo.ca (Mike Gore)
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:03:41 GMT

In article <BvEEoq.3yL@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> 
	dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
[ re: my point that one has even have choices before one can 
	be represented, etc] 

>If you don't like the choices, put your own forward. You can run as an
>independent. Vote for yourself. 

	Reconsider my original "nit". My concern was that your remark - that
one can simply vote REQUIRES for YOU to assume, at the very least least, good 
representation exists AND that what we have is about as good as one can 
reasonably expect for a democracy [ for your label to apply reasonably]. 
If either assumptions fall short your original remark becomes questionable 
as an  _answer_.  [ re: vote ... democracy ]. - Such an answer was the
object of my nit pick.

>		I agree with you about the TRUE democracy
>thing -- who wants it? In order to have a true democracy, everybody would
>have to represent themselves, and there would be an incoherent mess.

	Yet any answer to this question does not address any possible problems 
in your original remark- ex: you implied having people merely called 
representatives in some way DEFINES democracy.  I thought that questionable.

# Mike Gore, Technical Support, Institute for Computer Research
# Internet: magore@icr2.uwaterloo.ca
# UUCP:     uunet!math!icr2!magore
# These ideas/concepts do *not* imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: What "Manning-Trudeau" manifesto?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 02:19:37 GMT

evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
: In article <1992Sep22.195432.12545@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
: 	bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
: 
: >nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
: >: This is your idea of discussing content, Brian?  "Trudeau-phrenic",
: >: "Trudeau-zoid", "crapping on", "bitter has-been", "massive head
: >: injury"?  Hey, with such strong arguments on your side, how could
: >: anyone disagree with you?
: >
: >Hey, unless this newsgroup and the rest of the usenet has suddenly
: >changed, my colourful metaphors you list are quite appropriate
: >(and are actually pretty good)..
: 
: Ah, yet another poster who participates on Usenet in order to look at
: his posts as they spread across the country, and revel in how clever he is.
: Welcome to the application of Usenet as "the poor man's vanity press"...

You take yourself far too seriously, son.

: Rabid Trudeau-hatred is no more useful in this discussion than rabid
: Trudeau-worship.
: 
: I don't care if Pierre's views on this issue are shared by Preston Manning,
: Clyde Wells, Jim Keegstra or Mister Dressup. Can they be debated on their
: merits, please? The side-issue of "who's bedfellows with whom" is
: interesting trivia, but of far less relevance to those of us who are
: still undecided on the vote.

Nonsense.  99% of the postings on this newgroups are -- and always have
been -- biased emotional rantings.  If I've said things which have
offended your delicate sensibilities, then unsubscribe.

Let the round continue...

-- 
Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists 
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens and
                                    confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:43:22 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Oct2.125410.12016@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>
>I sincerely doubt that there could ever be another accord which can 
>satisfy all the malcontents.  The reactionary NO side will immediately
>splinter into a dozen opposite forces if they win the referendum.
>
>Besides, every voice involved in this referendum is using scare tactics.  
>The YES side proclaim financial and national destruction if the NO side 
>wins. The NO side say a variety of the following: the dissolution of 
>individual rights (NAC) , a weak federal Canada (Trudeau), future threats 
>from Quebec(Trudeau, Manning), a sell-out of Quebec (Pariseau), a sell-out of
>BC (BC public opinion), the threatening of social programs (NAC, Carstairs), 
>not enough aboriginal powers (some BC aboriginals, and the Mohawks(?) ),...
>
>I think that, in the unlikely scenario of there being yet another round
>of constitutional talks (gag!), the degree of diverse, opposing opinions as 
>to what Canada should be as a country will make an accord impossible.
>Possibly the only kind of constitution which makes any sense for Canada
>is one that reflects this reality.  

Consider this : without any legal text, the YES camp is a mere indication
that a roughly majority of CHQians will accept almost any thing, provided
it comes from Ottawa.  Say 40% will accept any thing.

Thus, you only have to convince a majority of the other 60%.  
This 60% includes extremists and out of center voters.  They will make
the vote decisive, so, why not an agreement in function of them instead
of something in function of the 40% that will accept anything?

Asymmetrical federalism is something achieving this goal.  It will satisfy
Quebec need of more powers and control on herself, Alberta need of some
way to protect her natural resources, Ontario need of protecting her
canadian market, Feds need of a single "country" (even if the meaning of
a country change with A-F), and even need of aborigenals for some specific
powers for them.  

A-F is per se a new proposal strong enough to unify all those opposers, 
or at least a majority.

A NO will then mean that a new proposal in a very different direction
is preferred to a make-up agreement.

A final point, in the agreement summary published this week-end, it is
said that there will be an increase of M.P. and more powers to provinces.
If this is true, there is a contradiction in the agreement.  And if there is
a contradiction and you want an agreement without contradiction, then 
anything can be drafted from it, anything.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===  Non a une entente au contenu secret      Mon opinion ? Non !
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Why I will vote NO on Oct. 26
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:35:52 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <430@catnix.UUCP> michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond) writes:
>> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>> In other words, Canadians are asked to pass judgement on a set of
>> principles -- an outline.  They will not be asked to ratify the final legal
>> text.  The constitution does not require that.
>
>In other words, we are asked to sign a blank cheque.  NO thanks.
>--
>Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ......  B.P.: michele@catnix.UUCP

  Everytime you vote you sign a blank check. There are term limitations,
but elected officials are within the bounds of the laws fully empowered
to do what they want with their elected office.

  This is called representative democracy - why is this vote any different?

Ross

PS: If we chuck the constitutional lawyers, politicians and all the other
    intermediaries, and collectively take over our own case, can we then
    sue ourselves for malpractice when the results start to come in after
    the fact and we find we don't like it :-?

    Think of the boost to the economy that a failed deal would bring as
    we divvied the settlement amongst ourselves ...
---- 
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: Re: Challenge
Date: 23 Sep 92 13:24:14 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1442

From article <BuznHJ.Jwv@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, by beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard):

> People of British origin are about 6% in Quebec, that is 6% of 7M = 420k.
> Chinese will accept Quebec secession and will stay.  Many of British
> origin said they would leave.  Thus, it is quite possible that the
> number of chinese speaking persons be over the number of british
> origin persons.  And even without secession, Quebec will continue to ask
> more power and if secession can't be done despite democracy, we can expect
> some troubles.  Not a civil war, just some annoying events, mostly
> by people believing they are acting legally, thus either other unilingual
> anglophones will leave, or they will learn French if they have 
> not done so already.  
> 

Il n'y as pas de problem a apprendre la francaise.

Ce n'est pas le problem.

C'est un question de permettre les anglophones de continuer a utiliser
leur langue propre quand ils veulent; de continuer a (ou obtenir le droit de)
envoyer leurs enfants aux ecoles de leur propre langue; de continuer a
utiliser des services medicaux et juridique a leur propre langue etc.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:10:08 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: In article <BvGA9E.39I@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: >
: >Why is it better to just "do" something than to put it in the constitution?
: 
: If it doesn't work, then you can change it.  Constitutionalizing things
: mean you have to live with it good or bad.  You should constitutionalize
: things that you know work, or at least wait to see if they work.
: 
: You test drive a car...don't you?

Constitutions can be ammended.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO! Was: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:29:09 GMT

Steve Potter (steven@spxtech.qc.ca) wrote:
: 
: > 
: > Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Where do you get this erroneous thinking? A YES vote
: > will bring unity. This is a surety. All the provinces have agreed to this
: > deal. If all the provinces were to ratify it (a YES vote), all would, by
: > definition agree. We would be left with one united Canada, ready to face the
: > world. Internal strife would go on the back burner since all Canadians would
: > have agreed on something.
: > 
: 
: You are dreaming in technicolour if you think a deal based on the Ch'town
: report will "bring unity" and end constitutional squabling.

It is surety that YES will bring more unity than a NO. Simply because
the majority of the country would have agreed on something. (Agreeing
together is not the same as disagreeing together -- in order to agree,
they have to hold the same viewpoint, in order to disagree, they can
hold widely different views). In this way, regardless of what the
country was voting on, a YES vote is better for unity than a NO vote
simply because you know that Canadians as a whole agree with you.
Picture instead if the referendum were on something else. Something
less to do with unity. What if the referendum was on changing the
flag, perhaps. Or maybe whether we should accept a fishing deal with
France. If Canadians as a whole vote in favour of one thing, they
agree. This raises public morale. However, if they disagree, the
result is less unity.
I am too much of a realist to expect that this Accord will end
constitutional problems. I've never claimed that. I believe that it
will simply provide a framework for negotiations, and that we are
better off with a framework than without. (I also happen to like the
contents of it, but that is besides the point of this argument).

: 
: > If you know what it really means, you will vote YES since you would know that
: > YES is better than NO.  Agreement is, by definition, better than
: > disagreement.
: 
: Now if you think a YES result will end disagreement you maust be living in
: virtual reality. :-)

I never said that YES would end disagreement. I said that agreement
was better than disagreement. Is this not so? (The issue aside,
wouldn't you rather that Canadians all agreed on something than
disagreed?)


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Xref: sparky can.politics:7559 soc.culture.canada:7025
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Date: 30 Sep 92 10:01:09 GMT
Reply-To: warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
Followup-To: can.politics
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

Tom Hood asks for apres-referendum suggestions.

First let me say that I believe the basis of predicting further
action should not be whether the accord is accepted or rejected but
whether "English" Canada votes massively one way and French Quebec
the other.  Such a division is the worst possible outcome.  The best
possible result is massive agreement, either for or against - it doesn't
really matter.

However, the polls indicate that the result is likely to be mixed
right across the country, which I think is moderately good news.
This will allow federalists who did not agree with the accord
to claim that Canadians are united in their disagreement.

So what should happen?  Everyone should shut up.

Motivated and competent groups should create their own versions
of a new accord in private.

These packages can then be submitted to the public for a final
selection.  If this fails, we should then recognize that we are
all idiots and move to Baffin Island.
Newsgroups: can.politics