HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:54:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.002605.23783@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>
>>The federal government can pass a law to allow for the election
>>of Senators [...]
>
>No, Gerald, it can't. This would require resolutions of the House of
>Commons and 7 provincial legislatures representing at least half the
>population.
>

Actually the provinces might have to pass laws...Stan Waters ended up
in the Senate and he was elected and there was no constitutional 
amendment.  A prime minister who wants an elected senate can just
begin appointing only people who have been elected...no need for
a constitutional amendment.  A single prime minister can start 
a democratic tradition or convention...and it would be extremely
difficult for any future prime minister not to follow.  The current
Senate can become elected without a constitutional amendment, 
because the appointment power of the PM does not preclude election.

>>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.
>
>Shouldn't we let aboriginals decide what would be "superior for
>aboriginals"?
>

There is no justiciability for five years anyway...aboriginals 
would see if the commitment of the various governments to good
faith bargaining warranted the concessions many aboriginals felt
they made.

Gerald


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<BvID8w.F1E@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> <BvIMIM.1x0@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:08:24 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <BvIMIM.1x0@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) 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.

5 years?  Try 60!
--
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: dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:06:04 GMT

Denis Beauregard (beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca) wrote:
: In article <BvEIuC.AKC@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: >
: >think that environmental damage would be confined to Quebec either -- we
: >breathe the same air, and drink the same water.
: 
: Dominant winds (i.e. dominant in the sense of mean or usual winds) are
: eastward and water on St.Lawrence go East, no West.

What about the Ottawa?

: 
: Air and water pollution is for geographical reason of higher impact from
: Ontario to Quebec.

What about NB, NS, NFLD, PEI?

I agree that Ontario has a large effect on Quebec, as does NY, etc. I'm
certainly not arguing for pollution anywhere.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong)
Subject: Re: The economic effects of the "referendum"
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:08:41 GMT

brea9430@mach1.wlu.ca (breadner kenneth cecil joseph u) writes:

>I fail to see why everyone is so jittery about the "slumping", "failing"
>dollar. The dollar's lacklustre performance of late, so I keep hearing, has
>something to do with the uncertainty over this approaching "referendum".
>Does the rest of the world know how meaningless this plebiscite actually is?
>I suppose not. In any case, we have this dollar which has dropped nine cents
>since last fall. And people are complaining about it. I don't understand.

>A low dollar is a good dollar for exporting. It's an economic fact. And God
>knows our exporters could use every possible advantage in this recession. I
>read recently that if the dollar were to remain at its present level for two
>years, the forestry industry alone would benefit to the tune of three
>hundred million dollars and thirty thousand jobs. 

>Why on earth is the government so anxious to see the dollar back up amongst
>the clouds?
> 
>-- 
>KEN BREADNER: student lunatic. Opinions expressed herein are mine, unless
>they aren't, in which case, well, they aren't. Wilfrid Laurier University:
>'abandon hope, all ye who enter here!' --Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 
>"2+2=5, the future is behind us and the past is on its way. Please hold."

Don't forget when the Meech Lake accord died the Canadian Dollar went
up not down.  So using this historical fact if the deal is scuttled
will the dollar go up or down.  Looks to me that it should go up
or at least stay the same.
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Watch the Journal this week
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:35:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.130526.991@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>
>
>All the consitutional pundits on this newsgroup should watch the Journal
>this week, which is featuring discussions of components of the constitution 
>with four constitutional lawyers.  It is very refreshing listening to 
>informed debate on excerpts of the consitution, rather than the rhetoric 
>from the politicians and the amateur speculations on this newsgroup.  
>
>The issue of whether the document creates a hierarchy of classes, as Trudeau 
>claims, was generally refuted. The Canada Clause is a set of principles for

It most certainly was not...they had four people whose views spanned the
range from seeing the Canada Clause as harmless, to Michael Bliss, who 
essentially agrees with Trudeau.  Whether it was refuted depends on
who you agree with...the concensus, if any, is that we really cannot
know how the Courts will use the clause...the Canada Clause may be
harmless, BUT IT MAY NOT BE as well.  

When it comes to constitutions as they bear on rights, I would argue,
that we should worry about worst case scenarios...

>interpreting the rest of the constitution, and as a result, would not take
>precedence over the charter.  However, they admitted that aboriginal groups
>could revert to the not withstanding clause to circumvent the charter.
>In fact, the aboriginal section has a lot of ambiguities, which a legal text 
>would clarify.  One of them, Bryan Schwartz, a law professor from the 
>University of Manitoba, believes that the current accord improves over Meech 
>in many ways, especially in protecting minority language rights. However, he 
>is still undecided on how to vote.  
>
>It's interesting that these four experts do disagree on many issues.  
>The consensus among them is that a legal text is required before they 
>can make many definite conclusions.  
>

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:04:38 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>From article <12993@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):
>> Furthermore, there is the "droit a l'autodetermination des peuples", a
>> principle defined by the United Nations.
>
>The English community in "English-Quebec" could use the same argument to
>separate from "Nouveau-Quebec".
>
If only they had an internationally recognized government to _use_ that
argument.

...mark young
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:48:37 GMT

Paul Ward (ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: In article <BvID8w.F1E@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> (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.

I know constitutions are difficult to ammend. Look at all the trouble the
NO campaign is giving us now :)

But seriously, constitutions have to be ammended to account for change in
our society. If the change is large enough, it will drive the ammendments
of the constitution. (look at the pressures that are driving this proposed
change -- women's rights, native right, enviromental rights, ... These were
nowhere near as vocal when Trudeau brought the const. home.)

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: The Royal Bank Report
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:07:32 GMT

Randy Armstrong (randy@mdavcr.mda.ca) wrote:
: Probably one of the most confusing questions I have about the current 
: constitutional debate is why separtists in Quebec actually believe that
: _economically_ they would be better off as a separate country. I can 
: understand the cultural reasons for desiring independence but not the
: economic ones. The Royal Bank report may had exagerated the negative 
: effects of separation, however, it is not possible to deny that there
: will be most likely a lot more economic bad news for this country if the 
: separatists get their way.

The Quebec Separatists will feed their people on dreams and promises. One of
their characteristic qualities is they have only to denigrate a Canadian
Union, they don't have to provide viable alternatives.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:13:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.233304.4638@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <BvCF8D.nB@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.011430.1586@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>>>     Because the electorate in BC is BRAINLESS.
>>
>>Well that's certainly a well-founded argument, isn't it.  Tell me, does
>>this work for all arguments you get into; anyone who disagrees with you
>>is brainless?
>
>     Well, as a matter of fact it usually does work, for the
>obvious reason.  (:-) for the humour-impaired)  But if you had
>read any further, you would have seen the reasons I gave.

I did read further.  You confuse political disagreement, and disagreement
over economic strategy with stupidity.  Just because you happen to disagree
with someone over how something should be done, does not make that person
an idiot.  I disagree with much of what the NDP are doing here in Ontario.
I believe that they are choosing the wrong approach.  I do not think they
are stupid.

(In fact, if I do think someone is stupid, then I would find it pointless
debating with them)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:47:26 GMT

In article <13073@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>However, the fact that a huge proportion of francophones in Quebec
>also speak english AND will use it when talking to anglophones even
>within Quebec definitively shows TOLERANCE.

I disagree.  They may respond in English "Bugger off, asshole".  They
would be adequately demonstrating English, but not tolerance.  

Tolerance is not an issue of capability, but one of allowance.  Will you
allow others to speak in whatever language they please?  That is tolerance.

As to those who say "English only in Canada", they are no more tolerant
than bill 178 (less so, in fact).
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Date: 25 Sep 92 14:48:40 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Sep23.010150.8067@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>
>You misunderstood the whole thing. "Equality" refers to equality of
>opportunity, not equality of outcome. There is a dramatic difference
>between the two ideas. Of course no one is advoating the equality of
>outcome, at least not yet on issues we seem to be debating these days.
>
>Yet you lept to the conclusion that the previous poster was advocating
>the equality of outcome. Do you really think that we are that stupid?
>
Equality of outcome, and not equality of opportunity, is exactly
what is advocated by proponents of a gender-equal Senate.

(Since I've deleted some of the previous posting, let me clarify
that this was not advocated by the previous poster.)

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Canadian newspapers
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 21:00:26 GMT

In article <mjenkins.717624900@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:

>And there's always the Grope and Flail.

Frank magazine calls it the "glockenspiel".

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.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:00:46 GMT

In article <BvG9Lo.2Go@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Paul Ward (ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>: >
>: >Except that "What we get" is what we asked for. Rep by pop. Native rights.
>: >Gender rights. Linguistic rights. Federal sharing of power.
>: 
>: It not what I asked for.
>
>It's what the majority asked for. It's what I asked for.

We will find out on Oct 26 if it is what the majority wants, or not.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: rodney@sq.sq.com (Rodney Boyd)
Subject: Re: Article by Deborah Coyne?
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 15:09:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct02.140845.22364@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>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".
>
I later found the article, which was in the September 18 issue
of the Citizen. Someone e-mailed me to say there was a similar article
in last Wednesday's Financial Post.

Rodney Boyd


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: Norway (was: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<Bv33nK.HrK@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> <1992Sep29.170502.12470@meadow.uucp>
	<1992Oct1.154431.10754@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	<CLAMEN.92Oct1181852@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Oct2.203912.12580@sq.sq.com>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:56:45 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct2.203912.12580@sq.sq.com> rph@sq.sq.com (Pontus Hedman (VE3RPH)) writes:

   clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) writes:
   > In article <1992Oct1.154431.10754@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
   >    Clark and Andre have mentioned Beirut and Yugoslavia, but not Norway
   >    or Czechoslovakia (knock on wood).
   > 
   > Norway was already a country separate from Sweden.  It had its own
   > currency, its own bureaucratic elite.  It was however 'ruled' by the
   > Swedish monarch, who they had to kill to attain independence.

   *Ahem*. As I said in private email to Stewart Clamen almost TWO YEARS ago
   when he made this very same allegation on the net (as retrieved from my
   mouldy old mail files):

   | Date:	Thu, 14 Feb 1991 13:59:00 -0500
   | From:	Pontus Hedman <rph@sq.com>

I apologize.  It appears that my brain is to rigid.  (Of course,
Pontus might want to refresh his knowledge of date arithmetic.)

Anyhow, could you please comment on the other (hopefully more
accurate) aspects of my post?

--
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: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: 4 Oct 92 03:10:06 GMT

Don A. Bowman (dbowman@rainbow) wrote:
>Jim Robinson (robinson@mdivax1.uucp) wrote:
>: 
>: As I understand it, that is a one-time "guarantee". After any changes
>: resulting from the 1996 census all bets are off. Indeed, with the Quebec
>: 25% floor provision it is mathematically *impossible* to guarantee a
>: per-province 95% floor.
>
>There is provision for a permanent formula to keep rep-by-pop.
>
>   21:
>     A permanent formula should be developed and section 51 of the
>   Constitution Act, 1867 should be adjusted to accommmodate demographic
>   change

I'm quite rusty with my math skills, but it is quite obvious to me that
should all residents of Quebec except Bourassa move to Guadeloupe &
Martinique in 1996 it is impossible for every province to meet the 95%
minimum when Quebec, population one, has 25% of the HoC seats. This is
obviously a ludicrous example, but it does indicate the mathematical
impossibility of what is being claimed above.

As well, the provision cited above will simply be interpreted as meaning
that demographic change will be accommodated after Quebec is allocated it's
minimum 25% of HoC seats. 
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Can. Chrtr. of Rts. & Frdms. (Was: PLAN B - aside)
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:25:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <BvIEGM.GMM@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Steve Potter (steven@spxtech.qc.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: Look at the list of subjects discussed in the Ch'town report. Isn't it
>: significant that they could discuss forestry, tourism and mining but
>: couldn't even mention the word "education"? :-(((((((((
>: 
>
>You are so wrong. Look at the things discussed again (for the first time, I
>suspect)
>
>The Social and Economic Union provides for,
>
>        providing high quality primary and secondary education
>        to all individuals resident in Canada and ensuring
>        reasonable access to post secondary education;
>

This clause is non-enforcebale. It comits the respective governments
to nothing and binds them to nothing.


In short the Social and Economic Union is nothing.













-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Reasons to STAY AWAY from the NO side
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:18:07 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

>>>>> On 5 Oct 92 12:13:52 GMT, yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) said:

  > 1. Preston Manning, Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard.

What about our fellow canadians from the CORE ? :-)

  > 2. INterests WOULD sore on 27. OCT and the exchange value of the Candaian
  > dollar WOULD plummet.

Yeah right!

  > Mind you though, if this referendum was more sensible, I would do the
  > following:

  > 1) Do you wnat QC a part of Canada?  Yes

People should also have to say why. Otherwise, for exemple,
this guy from McGill who wants to send in the Army if Quebec
secede would also answer yes, and it would be confusing. :-)

  > 2) DO you think QC should be a Dicstinct Society? No
                                   ^^^^^^^^^

Why not stinking ? (I could have made something with the
first three letters, but anglophones would get upset) :-) 

  > 3) Do you support the concept of Economic Union?  Yes

Weren't you against Free Trade Dave?

  > 5) DO you believe in the division of powers?  No

Now, someone will have to explain me something (and correct
me if necessary):

1. Westerners hate the "central" government

2. Westerners are against a division of powers so that this
"central" government stays strong.

(A bit contradictory, I think)

Why are westerners against a decentralised government? This
would free the western provinces from the "nasty
central government", while accomodating Quebec.

  > 6) Do you which to have Capital Punishment reinstated for Separatists?  Yes

Please Dave, take the time to add smileys where appropriate.
It is not at all obvious when you are the poster.

--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henrikson)
Subject: Re: Charleton agreement
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 13:00:43 GMT

Uh, should that be charlatan?
--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)