HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:41:57 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1023

From article <1992Oct1.015139.25793@unixg.ubc.ca>, by mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander):
> Some postings have said or implied that under the Canada Clause,
> individual rights are not recognized as a fundamental characteristic
> of Canada.
> 
> This is incorrect. The text is:
> 	
> 	2. (1) The Constitution of Canada, including the _Canadian
> 	Charter of Rights and Freedoms_, shall be interpreted in a 
> 	manner consistent with the following fundamental character-
> 	istics:
> 		[...]
> 	    (f) Canadians are commited to a respect for individ-
                ^^^^^^^^^
> 	    ual and collective human rights and freedoms of all
> 	    people;
> 		[...]
> 


"Canadians" - Not their governments! - sorry.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Us and them (was Re: Analyzing the Deal)
Date: 25 Sep 92 14:42:31 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <12950@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article <17SEP92.09420718.0067@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>]I don't think there's a contradiction between what David is saying
>]and what Francois is saying.  David says that people tend to divide
>]the world into "us" and "them".  Francois explains, with supporting
>]arguments, why *his* division is based on language.  This is a
>]perfectly legitimate way to view Canada.  But the core of David's
>]argument is that this is *not* the only possible way to make
>]the us/them division.  Linguistic duality is *a* fundamental
>]characteristic of Canada, but it is not *the* sole, unique fundamental
>]characteristic.  If Francois wants to convince us otherwise, he'll
>]have to come up with more supporting arguments than he has so far.
>
>I didn't say it's *the* sole unique fundamental characteristic of the
>country. However, I think it's probably one the most important.  It's
>for sure the most visible in day-to-day life.
>We could also look at westerners vs esterners, newfoudlanders vs
>mainlanders, cental-canadians vs the Rest, etc.
>
>Trying to minimize the impact of having a two predominant
>languages/cultures in the country is a mistake and is more likely to
>generate intolerance than unify the country.

It's highly visible to you, in Ottawa-Hull, and to me, in Montreal,
but this is simply not the case for people in many regions of
the country.  I certainly don't want to discount the importance
of linguistic duality in Canada, but the tendency to view all
issues from this perspective is alienating to people for whom
French/English questions are largely irrelevant in their daily lives.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:49:04 GMT

In article <BvCsyx.6M7@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>You'll have to get your head out of the sand. If the constitution is not
>fixed, there will be no Canada. We can't go on without a constitution. Quebec
>will not remain unless they are a part of a new constitution. Voting NO will
>simply require that we amend the constitution in a new way. That the
>Charlottetown agreement is the first to be agreed to by all provinces, native
>groups, the federal government, the territories, etc is very significant. It
>implies that the only type of agreement that will be acceptable to these
>groups will be fundamentally similar to the Charlottetown Accord.
>You won't be able to get by with the current situation.
>

The deal that came out of Charlottetown was nothing like what
ordinary Canadians were willing to consider in the 5 peoples'
conferences.  The premiers went back behind closed does and
came up with Meech again.  Ordinary Canadians, although I
personally don't think significant asymmetry can work, were
open to the idea of asymmetrical powers, proportional representation,
a more inclusive Canada Clause...we need to get someone other
than the premiers to control the proposition part of the process.
The legislatures can still control ratification, but we're in
an idea straitjacket, because first ministers when they go behind
closed doors revert to the old ideas and turf protection and 
empire-building.

The people should be able to consider a whole slew of options 
including things like proportional representation, a triple-E
Senate, asymmetry, and even sovereignty, but the premiers block
the consideration of different ideas by their control of
the process.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: A few of Trudeau's points
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:48:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.130142.630@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>: 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).
>
>Yes they are... characteristics of Canada!

Not according to Mary Ellen Turpel, a law professor at Dalhousie and
head of the Assembly of First Nations constitutional team. She argues
in the Globe and Mail (Oct 5, page A4) as follows: "'there is nothing
which says there won't be elections.' The point is that aboriginal
people would not have to follow the British parliamentary model of
government, but be allowed to develop new forms that will blend in a
system that might also rely on hereditary chiefs or elders, she said."

As I understand it, giving power on the basis of heredity is not the
conventional notion of being democratic. Whether you choose to support
heredity as a basis for governing, is up to you. The legal team of the
aboriginals do believe that that is part of what a Yes vote will cause
to be embedded in the Canadian constitution.

By the way, Ms. Turpel's comment is precisely what has many of the 
aboriginal women worried - hereditary power of the chiefs.
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:26:08 GMT

ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>>Gary L. Dare				
>>> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
>>> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
>
>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!

Peter Lougheed said last week that a Yes victory will no guarantee
that there will be an end to the Constitutional issue, either, but
will move it off into the future after we've had time to take a much-
needed breather and looked after all the other stuff that we have
become distracted from.  I believe that the outcome, Yes or No, will
not close the constitutional issue but there will be a real economic
impact; a No result will keep us in the loop while a Yes will send us
all back to work and to reforming government itself (cutting wasteful
spending, put more money into universities and health insurance, etc).
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).

I'm not being hit by any of the tactics on either side, since I'm
outside the country ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:38:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.180042.16120@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Denis Beauregard (beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca) wrote:
>>
>>Drawback of this point : Quebec wants decentralized federalism and CHQ don't.
>>We can see Asymmetrical Federalism as : allowing every provinces to all
>>powers available (except those really needed to supervise/perform general
>>tasks like post offices etc.), but since most provinces won't want these
>>powers, Ottawa will keep them for every provinces except Quebec (and other
>>that will eventually need specific powers like Alberta on natural resources).
>
>As long as the option exists for a province to acquire a power and as long
>as increased economic barriers do not result, then this definition of
>asymmetrical federalism makes a great deal of sense to me.  It will be
>interesting to see if something like this emerges as a valid possibility
>should the no side prevail.

I would second that approval.  I think that would be the basis for a very
solid deal.   Maybe, just maybe, it might happen.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Credibility
Keywords: 
 
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:01:30 GMT

page A4: "Mr. Trudeau put on his glasses and ripped into the accord
clause by clause, even word by word."

page A9: "In Ontario, Premier Bob Rae described Mr. Trudeau as an
'extremely petty' politician who is appealing to 'the most
mean-spirited and in my view the most destructive forces as work in
Canada today.' With unaccustomed fury, Mr. Rae dismissed the former
prime minister's argument against the accord as 'a 19th-century view
of how the modern federation is supposed to work.' The speech at La
Maison Egg Roll consisted of 'cheap shots, cheap polemics, cheap
rhetoric combined with arguments that I can only describe as
intellectually dishonest,' the Premier told reporters."

It seems that flamming is not limited to the net!! Too bad Mr. Rae did
not (as far as is reported) try to deal with the substance of Mr.
Trudeau's attack on the accord. A point by point rebuttle might have
had more impact than throwing a little temper tantrum. This sort of
thing strikes me as quite damaging to the credibility of the Yes side,
and unfortunately politicians more generally. Flawed arguements need
to be rebutted rather than denounced by name calling. 
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:25:42 GMT

In article <28SEP92.16933760.0061@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.184122.6334@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>
>>BC, Alberta etc. were seperate enitities when they *negotiated* entry into
>>Canada.
>>
>BC yes, Alberta no.  The prairie provinces were not separate entities
>which negotiated entry into Canada.  They were created by Ottawa
>out of land which it bought from the Hudson's Bay Co. in 1870.

The borders of the time were different, but then so were most other
provincial borders, before the provinces chose to join. There were
already people in BC running things before BC became a province. Ottawa
didn't just create a province out of nothing, and create a government.

You should review some of the agreements: Ottawa made certain promises
to BC so BC would join. If BC didn't negotiate entry into Canada, then
why did Ottawa bother making those commitments?
>
>Tom Box
>CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 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.
________________________________________|_________________________________
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:17:23 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

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.  

-- 
  \_\    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: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Date: 3 Oct 92 15:38:01 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <BvGnGB.2IL@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>David Adrien Tanguay (dat@thinkage.on.ca) wrote:
>: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>: >This document proposes that, after the 1996 census, no matter what your
>: >population, you will have no worse than 95% of the seats you deserve. Find
>: >that good a deal elsewhere, I ask you.
>:
>: Only for the one reapportionment following the 1996 census. Subsequent
>: re-allocations are not covered by the 95%.
>
>Subsequent re-allocations are handled by elections Canada in the manner in
>which they always have.
>
Not so.  The accord says a "permanent formula" for reallocation is to
be developed, but it doesn't say what that formula will be.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Date: 3 Oct 92 15:34:36 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <13064@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>Trudeau saw in the rapatriation process a way to disguise his goals:
>to make Canada's Constitution more conform to his vision of a powerful
>centralized federal government, and to make the provinces knee before
>him. By making his modifications look as a rapatriation "Maitre chez
>Nous concept", he appealed to uniformed part of the Quebec population,
>and to the canadians that were tired of this link to the UK. His
>so-called Charter of Rights was directed exclusively towards Quebec
>and appealed to most anglo-canadians.
>
Section 23 of the Charter was directed specifically at Quebec, to
replace the Quebec clause of Bill 101 with a Canada clause.

However, this section does not apply exclusively to Quebec.  (Yes,
Steve, we all know that part of this section does *not* apply to
Quebec at all.  You don't need to remind us.)  It applies to
other provinces too.  I think it may ultimately benefit francophones
outside Quebec more than anglo-Quebecers.  Consider for example the
establishment of francophone school boards in Ottawa and Toronto,
as a result of court decisions based on Section 23.

As for the rest of the Charter, I completely fail to see how you can
say it was directed exclusively towards Quebec.  This is "nombrilisme
quebecois" at its worst.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Challenge
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:43:29 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

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

>In article <1992Sep24.181729.5728@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>We don't like all of the reasons, so the question is, are there any
>>changes we cannot accept?
>The challenge is to find any changes that are ACCEPTABLE.

:-)

>With three Justices named by Bob Rae and three more by Jacques
>Parizeau, I think not.  The Charter is hardly intact.  This
>agreement says that individual rights are not a fundamental
>characteristic of Canada.

The agreement does not say that individual rights are not a
fundamental characterisic of Canada.  It just fails to say they
are.

No matter.  They are still guaranteed;  the Charter still applies,
but differently.  It now takes into account rights of collectivities
that some people care about.


>Get used to hearing of Cascadia...leaving BC underrepresented in
>the Commons is a terrible idea...this deal won't solve the 
>Quebec "problem", and will create the BC "problem". 

B.C. will not necessarily be more underrepresented than other
English-speaking provinces, and I am not interested in yet
another childish separation project.


>>New governments?  The current governments could hardly have governed
>>aboriginal peoples more poorly, and self-government is worth a try.
>
>Been tried in South Africa...call the homelands policy and apartheid.

Apartheid was imposed by whites.  Aboriginal self-government is
demanded by natives.  The moral foundations are poles apart.
(However, the idea that reserves could become quasi-independent
states is alarming because it could mean the creation of havens
for organized criminals.  We had better make sure that criminal
law still applies to aboriginals).

>The new Canadian politburo (a.k.a the First Ministers Conference)
>could not bargain away the authority of a future legislature or
>parliament before in any field whatsoever.

This is troubling.  I hope to see the legal text on this.


>You lay out the options and let the people vote either in referenda
>or elections.  We are again be presented with fait accompli...a
>single option or nothing.

This does not answer the question, "when do we compromise?". We can
only compromise on a *package* in which give and take are balanced.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Reasons to STAY AWAY from the NO side
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:00:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.154425.4938@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>: In article <SBO.92Oct5121807@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>: >Why are westerners against a decentralised government? This
>: >would free the western provinces from the "nasty
>: >central government", while accomodating Quebec.
>: >
>: 
>: Canada is already the most decentralized federation in the world...
>: Quebec and the rest of the provinces are already among the most
>: autonomous and powerful subunits of any federal state anywhere.
>
>This perhaps holds with respect to economic trade barriers. 
>It certainly doesn't hold politically.  For example, the political
>decentralisation amongst states in the USA is vastly more pronounced than 
>in Canada. Even the death penalty can vary among states.
> 

Money is power...the ratio of provincial spending to federal spending
in Canada is significantly larger than the ratio of state spending to
federal spending in the US.

Gerald
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:13:25 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

If the consequences of voting No are so horrendous, according to the bankers,
party leaders, and other assorted Jeremiahs, then why on Earth have responsible
leaders put the country in a position to do itself such damage? Would they put
a loaded pistol in a kindergarten and tell the kids not to pull the trigger?
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:38:38 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1411

From article <1992Sep30.220707.1548@ee.ubc.ca>, by jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison):

> In article <1992Sep29.221711.5617@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>You are still advocating restrictions on choice of schooling which I find
>>totally unacceptable.
> 
> What restrictions? Do you think removing government linguistic theology
> from education, and giving the decision to parents is restrictive? How
> much more liberal/libertarian can you get? The choice of shcooling would
> be limited to what parents want.
> 

You can exagerate to the point of being absurd if you wish. Go ahead.

The issue of the parents' right to choose the kind of education that shall be
given to their children will not go away while it is being violated!

Children are being denied access to English public schools in Quebec on the
basis of the language and place of their parents education and their date
of arrival in Quebec (whether they are citizens or not).

This is unacceptable.

I, and others, will continue to whine, bitch, complain, scream and make a
fuss for as long as it takes.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||