HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:28:37 GMT

mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>No, Gerald, it can't. This would require resolutions of the House of
>Commons and 7 provincial legislatures representing at least half the
>population.

Yes it can, since it has already been done. The method of selecting a Senator
is up to the Prime Minister, and an election could be the chosen method.
All that is really needed is a federal bill to provide the PM with the
financing for making this decision in this way (or participating provincial
bills).
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 19:11:35 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: can

I wrote (about a political accord to elect Senators):
>And while it is _technically_ feasible, it is not _politically_ feasible.
>Quebec wouldn't even agree to an elected Senate that was eviscerated by the
>Charlottetown Accord.  When Alberta tried to force the issue with Waters'
>election, Mulroney only agreed to appoint him after Alberta agreed not to
>do it again.  Clearly _someone_ was upset that the current Senate might
>get to be largely elected---someone with some pull.  If Cha'town goes down,
>that someone will be in the same position they were in before, and so no
>more likely to support (even partial) election than before.

ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>
>Yes it is easy - all it would take is for the PM to have enough political
>will to say, I will appoint senators who names by the province - they may
>name them by any means they wish.  Then the people could easily pressure
>their local premier - it wouldn't come all at once, Quebec would probably
>continue to appoint, while Alberta would be the first to start elections.

Gerald Olchowy writes:
>It would make a good campaign position for the Reform Party, and if
>the Reform Party adopted the position that the Prime Minister would
>only appoint elected Senators, other parties would come under extreme
>pressure to adopt the same position.  Democracy has a momemtum of its
>own.

OK, I back down.  It would be easy for a Prime Minister to start appointing
Senators that were elected provincially.  All it would take would be an
act of political will.

On the other hand, I believe it would not be easy for said PM to get
re-elected after having implemented this policy.  As I mentioned above,
BM didn't want to do it, so there must have been some opposition from
some parts of his caucus/Cabinet.  Perhaps Quebec.  Perhaps Ontario.
In any case, enough opposition that he (of little conviction) saw it
as too dangerous to allow, even for Alberta.  Given that kind of
opposition in his own party, what chance would a PM have in the next 
election?

One more thing.  If any province decided that having any elected Senators
was a bad idea, then it could (and likely would) challenge the political
agreement in the courts.  The Supreme Court might just find that that
agreement was unconstitutional because of Section 41(1)(c).  After all,
it is not conventional, and the current Constitution is quite clear on
that.  Any federal or provincial laws designed to enact that agreement
would then be struck down.  (Waters' election was not challenged in the
courts, but then they found a political solution to that problem.)

...mark young
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
From: jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton)
Subject: business is lousy
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Distribution: canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:34:11 GMT

Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about
the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat.  She called
her neighbours and said, "If we plant this wheat we shall have
bread to eat.  Who will help me plant it?"

	"Not I" said the cow
	"Not I" said the duck
	"Not I" said the pig
	"Not I" said the goose

"Then I will" said the hen, and she did.

The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain.  "Who will help
me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

	"Out of my classification" said the pig.
	"I'd lose my unemployment compensation" said the goose.
	"I'm too depressed" said the duck.
	The cow couldn't even be found.

"Then I will" said the hen, and she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread.  "Who will help me bake
the bread?" asked the little red hen.

	"That would be overtime for me" said the cow.
	"I'd lose my welfare benefits" said the duck.
	"I don't know how" said the pig.
	"If I'm the only helper that's discrimination" said the goose.

"Then I will" said the hen, and she did.

She took the bread home to her family but her neighbours saw it and
they all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share.  The little red
hen said "No - I and my chicks can eat the bread ourselves".

	"Excess profits!" cried the cow.
	"Capitalist leech!" screemed the duck.
	"I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose.
	"I've got kids too!" sniveled the pig.

They painted "unfair" signs and marched round and round the little
red hen shouting obscenitities.  Then the government man came and
said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy - you must share
what you have".

"But I earned the bread"  said the little red hen.

"Exactly" said the government man, "that is the wonderful free 
enterprise system.  Anyone can earn as much as he wants and under
our wonderful system the productive workers share what they produce
with the needy".

The little red hen shared her bread with the cow, the duck, the pig
and the goose, and naturally the government man got his share as well,
and they all lived happily everafter.

But her neighbours wondered why she never baked any more bread.

	Jim
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:24:51 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: >
: >In other words, ignore the concerns of 
: >	-francophone Quebeckers who feel cheated after 1980-82, 
: >	-residents of western, atlantic, and northern Canada who
: >	 feel they don't have adequate representation in the
: >	 country's central institutions, and
: >	-aboriginal Canadians, who have been trampled on for 350
: >	 years and want the guarantee of being able to govern
: >	 themselves with Canada.
: >
: >These are problems that will not go away. If the government just
: >ignores the constitution question after a No result, national
: >discontent will fester, and everyone, except some Ontarians, will
: >be unhappy with Canada.
: >
: 
: You don't need to change the constitution to address those problems.
: 
: The federal government can unilaterally withdraw from areas of
: provincial jurisdiction where it is not wanted...and use it's
: spending power more judiciously.  It can consult more before
: taking actions precipitously which affect provinces.

This is what the ammendments to the Constitution are all about. How can you
believe it is good that this happen, but bad that the Accord says it should
happen? Hypocritical.

: 
: The federal government can pass a law to allow for the election
: of Senators, and we will have a double-E Senate...with 24 Senators
: from the West, 24 from Ontario, 24 from Quebec, 30 from the
: Maritimes, and 2 from the North...not perfect...but not bad.

If you can swing this with Alberta, I would like to see it.
If you can swing this with Quebec, I would like to see it.

: 
: And the federal and provincial governments can begin negotiating
: and legislating self-government for aboriginals, entrenching
: the laws and the agreements at some future date.  And I would
: argue, that this would be infinitely superior for aboriginals,
: since they will likely have to spend less time in court.
: 

This is what Charlottetown does.

You are arguing in this entire article FOR the contents of Charlottetown, yet
think it is better done piecemeal without provincial consultation. Why not
have it done with Charlottetown, and be done with it? Why pressure the
federal government a little bit at a time for this and that? Why?


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:50:00 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Francois Audet writes:

> In article <BvG1nD.u5@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca
> (Paul Ward) writes:
>
>+ ]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.
>
> And the worst part is that he KNOWS it, and uses it on purpose to scare
> people and get their votes. A quite machiavelish behaviour. It's a shame
> that he his sacrificing the economy for personal ambition and opinion.

It also ignores the fact that the whole world is experiencing similar
problems with their currencies.  I just heard that the Canadian dollar, bad
as it seems to us, looks great against the Swiss franc (?).  Considered
relative to the rest of the world, Canada may be seen as a stable place,
despite the constitutional posturing.

  "There are lies, damned lies, and Mulroney's comments."  :)


--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: NHI ( was: Canada Clause)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:05:58 GMT

In article <BvCs85.5K2@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: In article <Bv37HE.MuA@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>: >
>: >Medicare is one area where government control is good. One only has to look
>: >to the US to see what happens otherwise. A US hospital has an accounting
>: >department 11 times larger for the same size than a Canadian one. This is to
>: >account for all the different insurance schemes, etc. Think of the cost
>: >overhead here which has nothing to do with medical care. Also, medical care
>: >is the LEADING cause of personal bankruptcy in the US. I am more than willing
>: >to pay high taxes if it means I can break my arm without mortgaging my house.
>: >
>: 
>: It is a good question to ask whether national health insurance would
>: have ever come about under the Charlottetown Accord...the answer
>: is probably NO.
>
>The answer is, of course, yes. 
>
>B.4 Canada's Social and Economic Union
>
>-- providing throughout Canada a health care system that is comprehensive, 
>   universal, portable, publicly administered, and accessible;
>

That serves mainly to prevent national health insurance from
disappearing...if NHI did not presently exist, it wouldn't be
in the social charter, and the conditions within the social
charter would be impossible to achieve under the restrictions
that have been placed on the federal spending power.

National shared-cost social programs are a thing of the past...
with Charlottetown.  It is misleading to suggest otherwise.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Hi-tech in Quebec (was Re: 95 % rep by pop)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 12:22:33 GMT

In article <SCHENG.92Oct1123741@bcarh886.bnr.ca> scheng@bcarh886.bnr.ca (Spencer Cheng) writes:
>In article <BvG7Ix.MHn@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>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.

And it will flourish only as long as there are qualified staff.  In
the news lately has been the fact that people are resigning in droves
over the move to Montreal.

It's not that they dislike Quebec; it's not that they dislike
francophones; the problem is that the federal government has made
important decisions about what is fundamentally a technical
organization for political reasons.

And three years down the road, politicians will ask why CSA isn't
accomplishing anything.  "They're supposed to be doing, well, space
stuff.  Why aren't they getting it done, whatever it is?"  And there
will be moaning and groaning about the waste of money on the black
hole of space research, when the real problem was that the qualified
people all left because of an ill-advised political decision.

-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
From: breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Pierre Breton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Keywords: referendum alternative proposal
Date: 25 Sep 92 23:12:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Originator: breton@olympus.mcrcim.mcgill.edu



golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Pierre Breton) writes:
>>
>>October 26th, 1992: To those who think there is no Plan B. 
>>______________________________________________________________________ 
>> 
>>PROPOSAL:
>>Every province has:
>>  An unconditional opt-out clause without compensation,
>>  A conditional opt-out clause with full compensation.
>>
>>  To obtain full compensation when opting out of a federal program, a 
>>  provincial legislature has to set up a substitute program with the 
>>  same goals.  (NOTE: this is writing in the constitution what is 
>>  current practice between Ottawa and Quebec City)
>>
>
>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.   When you
>accept federalism, you accept the notion that the whole is
>greater than the sum of the parts.           
>

If Canada would last about 15 minutes under this proposal... then 
Canada would last about 15 minutes under the "Charlottetown Deal"...
The "Charlottetown Deal" contains these two opt-out clauses.  There
is perhaps some ambiguity in the expression "full compensation".  I 
take for granted that the compensation is to be DETERMINED BY 
NEGOCIATION.  The federal government establishes the goals of the 
program and as the role of verifying if the programmes set-up by the
opting-out provinces  meet their goals.  

Within a federation, in general, I believe what amounts to a fair 
compensation corresponds to the amount dedicated to the program 
times the fraction of the population that the province correspond.  
For a "have not" province, this amount should gradually decrease to 
the amount it puts in the federation as the province opts-out of 
more and more programs or take over jurisdictions.  

>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.
>
>Gerald

Quebec does not intend to become a parasite and I can not imagine
how the other provinces could accept this situation.  I could say 
the same of any other province.  

Note that the structure I propose could evolve peacefully toward 
this extreme asymmetrical model of federation, but the regional VETO
should give people the assurance that they are better served by the 
federal government.  






-- 
       __
      (..)        Pierre Breton
   --mm--mm--     breton@mcrcim.mcgill.ca
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canadian newspapers
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:44:29 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1517

From article <1992Sep27.210026.22617@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, by myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui):
> 
> Let's have a net.poll of what major newspapers publish in what city and
> their political orientation. I'll make this entry:
> 
> Ottawa Citizen
> 
> Used to be left of center, certainly very Liberal, people-oriented,
> with more political information than analysis, and what analysis there
> is is OK by my standards.
> 
> Lately, they seem to me to have taken a turn to the right.  Susan Riley
> no longer writes political commentary columns anymore, even though she
> was the best Liberal (with a very big "L") contributor in the paper.
> Her columns in the Lifestyles section is still excellent. I want her
> back in the political section of the newspaper.
> 

Montreal Gazette

Shamelessly Fed. Conservative & Qbc. Liberal.

Ran a front page story on (Fed.) Liberals losing support a few months ago,
when they dropped 2 percent in 6 months. That 2 percent was regained and
the conservatives lost more a few weeks later. Front page? a paragraph
buried inside somewhere.

They also attack the Equality Party, when they give them any coverage at
all, with an excessive zeal.

The Gazette appears to be pro Bill 101. :-(

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Keywords: referendum alternative proposal
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:26:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

breton@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Pierre Breton) writes:

>The consensus needed for the VETO is actually not easy to reach.  It
>is likely to involve the opposition in the legislature to support the
>party in power in large provinces or the solidarity of several smaller
>provinces.  It would be more accurate to say that federal policy is 
>subject to veto if it SERIOUSLY DISPLEASES a region (the N.E.P. comes 
>to mind...).  

The ruling party often has 70% of seats, and in any case, provincial
parties are provincially-minded and incapable of devoting themselves
to the national interest.


>A buffet???  Both federal powers and provincial powers may be 
>transfered.

Surely you jest.


>Again, for a change to occur, either way, it is not so 
>easy.  Given a referendum where 70% of the electorate vote, 50% of 
>eligible voters + 1 means that the percentage of YES must be over 71%. 
>I don't think that too many provincial governments would be able to 
>generate sufficient interest unless something is really WRONG, 
>especially since the regional veto should reassure people that they 
>aren't getting screwed.  
>
>The eventuality that we might face (if I am wrong in my assessment 
>of the population's desire for decentralisation) is a slow erosion 
>of the "cabinet".  Within a jurisdiction the federal policy would be
>coherent.  When jurisdictions are intertwined, the two parties 
>involved will be forced to collaborate.  It is no worse than the 
>alternative provincial/federal collaboration.  

You would be adding a great deal of complexity to Parliament for
the marginal benefit of allowing the people of different provinces
to decide independently which level of government will perform which
functions.  It is far simpler to centralize and decentralize
symmetrically.

>I'm not a "nationalist politician" and what I propose is a federalist 
>option that attempts to be flexible enough to prevent the alienation 
>that lead to this crisis.  

I do not believe that the constitution is a cause of alienation per se.
The principal cause is separatist agitation.  For example, in the area
of culture:  the provincial minister let out a whine about federal
interference when the federal government dared to boast about its
contributions to Montreal's new museums.  But do Quebecers really
want the federal government to get out of arts funding?  Quebec artists
certainly don't!  If you get into the details, Quebecers are satisfied
with the division of powers.

What they really want is love and attention.


--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:01:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.001537.3578@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.035356.7255@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>  We need
>>a different more open process, perhaps with an elected constitutional
>>convention to craft several different options for consideration by
>>the people and the legislatures.
>
>     Well, I would have very much liked this kind of thing too,
>Gerald, but it didn't happen and it ain't gonna.  Do you really
>think that voting "no" is likely to bring this about, when all
>the pressure brought to bear last year didn't bring it about?
>

We haven't had a chance to toss out all the Meech "bastards"...
excuse my language...out of office...so they gave us Meech Lake II.

A "No" win and a few more elections, and politicians will go behind
those closed doors with a little more trepidation.  We should scare
the hell out of them instead of allowing them to scare the hell out
of us.

Gerald
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:29:33 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

>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!

BTW, is it just me, or has anyone else out there noticed this:  The ONLY
things I have heard from the YES side is:

Vote yes because its good for Canada.
Vote yes because a no is bad for Canada/the economy.
Vote yes because, although it's a bad deal, it's the best we could do.

None of the yes side are talking about what is in the deal, and why what
is in the deal is good.  The only exception is Clyde Wells (who is not
really on any side), who is going around explaining what is in the deal,
and why he supports it.

I have read the deal, and I have a number of specific problems with it,
as do many Canadians.  No one on the Yes side is addressing those problems
at all.  Why not?