HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: UNIMPLOYMENT
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:28:46 GMT

LAURENCE GODFREY (godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov) wrote:
: In article <901003l.17.718469027@ace.acadiau.ca>, 901003l@ace.acadiau.ca (MISHA LEBLANC)    writes...
: >Can someone please give me a comprehensive unimployment rate for Canada as 
: >well as each province.
: > 
: >Can you include the numbers of persons not seeking work.
: >		the # of persons working recieving less than $ 10 000. 
: >		those who cant work.
: >Finally can you give me sources.
: >thankyou
: > 
: >Misha LeBlanc
: 
: What is an imployment?  Do you mean unemployment rate?  In that case the
: figure is 25,000,000 and i have included those who don't do anything useful.

If you have nothing to add to a discussion but pseduo-humour and hate, why
not go elsewhere? (I have some suggestions...)

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: brb@falcon.is (Bjorn R. Bjornsson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution (was Re: Individu
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:52:02 GMT
Organization: Gagntaekni/Bijective Tech.

rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>  Now you can just ask any foreign national which they prefer, Canadians
>or Americans and why - the result says something about which approach
>is superior or not.

Ok, I'll take the bait.  I don't have any data but my bet would
be that the people that intend (or want) to move to North America
would say Americans.  I've at other times stated my belief that
a subset of Europeans are nicer to Canadians than US citizens for
bogus political/guilt reasons.  I.e. Canadians are Yankees that you
can be nice to, without compromising your beliefs, and thus confirm
in your own mind that you're a nice non-prejudiced person.  Go figure.

Needless to say, I have no problems being nice to either group,
since I AM A NICE NON-PREJUDICED PERSON B-).
It's more fun to meet Canadians when in an argumentative
mood.  I'll leave the cause as an exercise for the reader.

Bjorn R. Bjornsson
brb@falcon.is
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7425 can.politics:8339
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:55:12 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa

In article <1992Oct08.102855.42011@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
>cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>In a defined benefit plan, the bargaining is based NOT on monthly
>>contributions, but on the benefit to be received at the end.  The
>>CONTRIBUTIONS are not what they're bargaining about in this case -
>>it's the BENEFITS.
>
>Are you seriously suggesting that in a negotiation session,
>both union and management are not ACUTELY aware of what the
>plan will cost both of them, in terms of monthly contributions?
>And are you seriously suggesting that that is not what is
>haggled over?  
>
>If so, I simply don't agree.  I think negotiation happens over
>the costs of plans, whether defined benefit or defined contribution.

Perhaps I should have said something more like:
"the bargaining is NOT based DIRECTLY on monthly contributions".

Naturally, if the pension plan involves "larger" benefits (as compared
to "smaller") benefits, it will require greater funding.

But if the plan is a defined benefit plan, it is possible for the
contributions to vary, as the plan prospers/flounders, in order to
keep the benefits stable.  

And that may mean REDUCING the funding, if the plan is doing really
well.  If the company has agreed to provide a pension of $40,000, and
in managing the pension funds, there's more than enough, they are well
within their rights (legally and morally) to claim the surplus.

Does negotiation take place over the COSTS of the plan, or the
BENEFITS?  Well, the company is gonna primarily be concerned with the
COSTS, and the union (a typical negotiator) with the BENEFITS.  If
they're enlightened enough to think of what the other side may want,
the negotiations may go more successfully than if they don't.  

The union is not likely to go to the members and say "Hey, we
negotiated a pension plan that's going to cost the company $43 million
dollars this year!"  They're much more likely to try to make deals to
the effect of: "Hey, we got your pensions up to 63% of your final
salary.  Looks like a good level of benefits!"

They may be aware of the costs/contributions, (if they are, they're
more likely to come up with a good strategy for getting the benefits
they want) but what they negotiate FOR, and the contract that gets
SIGNED talks about the benefits.  Not the costs.  Unless it's a
defined contribution plan...  in which case, if company management is
wise, they'll put the funds into an external trust, so that they can't
touch it at all...
-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:50:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.185857.25295@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>Thus the Constitution did not define citizen when originally written.  The
>14th Amendment did, however, define citizen as all persons born or naturalized
>in the United States.  If a state denied voting to any "person" over 21 years
>of age, they lost representation in Congress.
>
>The 15th Amendment denied States the right to deny voting to anyone because
>of race, the 19th Amendment likewise wrt the question of sex.  The 26th
>Amendment lowered the age from 21 to 18 wrt voting.
>


If the 14th Amendment clarified what a citizen was, ie all persons born or
naturalized in the US, why the need for the 15th/19th etc Amendments?
Are they not redundant?  Or were slaves and women not considered persons?

(My point here is that the 14th Amendment should have been adequate to
use the courts to enforce the constitutional rights of all citizens, in
that citizen was finally defined.)

Frank.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7307 can.politics:8247
From: pierre@chaos.phys.ualberta.ca (Pierre Rouleau)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!
Keywords: Chevalier de la Table Ronde
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:20:57 GMT

In article <Anthony_Maillard-121092100126@appletalk-83.
mdd.comm.mot.com> Anthony_Maillard@Mdd.comm.mot.com
(Anthony Maillard) writes:
[about Jim Robinson]

> For your information Mr. Robinson, the temperature in
> Vancouver rarely achieves the highs or lows as in Toronto.
> Obviously one of those people who should be living in IOWA.

I think you missed the point of Jim Robinson's reply to
L. Godfrey. Jim is a Vancouverite and knows pretty well
the difference in meteorological vagaries between Toronto
and Vancouver. He also has a delicious sense of humour, which
does not require much imagination to appreciate. Perhaps this
is a character common to many Canadians, namely carrying-on
one's thought, but with a great deal of sarcasm ...

Pierre R.

P.S Please do not bash Iowa; I have little doubt that many
    good-hearted people live there...

 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Internal passports
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:11:53 GMT

In article <Bw2Eqr.1q3@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>: 
>: Further, the lack of a free market clause which allows for the free
>: movement of goods, services, and people, coupled with the
>: provincialization of labour market training with NO provisions for
>: provinces to recognize each other standards, raise the spectre
>: that provinces to will be able to restrict mobility also, and may
>: be more inclined to do so, to assert powers to restrict movement
>: similar to the powers given to another, the aboriginal, order of 
>: government.
>
>There is no provincialisation of labour training -- provinces MAY opt out.
>This doesn't mean that provinces WILL opt out.
>

First line of the second paragraph of #28 of the Accord:

"Labour market development and training should be identified in Section
92 of the Constitution as a matter of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction..."

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: community, compromise, and individual liberty
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 17:16:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.004547.4395@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>In article <1992Oct08.144530.1918@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>I disagree that a "social" charter should be in the constitution, at least
>>to extent being advocated now. Certain policies should be changeable 
>>according to the government of the day, to the changing views of the 
>>population.
>
>A constitution is an ever changing document, and the nonjusticiable
>social charter is a nice preamble that will guide our interpretation of
>the entire constitution and defines the values we as Canadians hold
>dear to our society. Your brothers and sisters on the Left fought hard
>for that one; it is a sad day indeed to hear you denounce it. Truly sad.

Of course constitutions can change. Are we not debating HOW they should
change, not whether they should change?
There are lots of problems with putting in a non-binding social charter,
aside from the waste of type and paper.  For one thing there are concepts
that many Canadians DO NOT hold dear inside. While I may embrace certain
social reforms politically, that does not mean that everybody,
or even the majority, does also. Consititutions should reflect generally held views
and defend rights and liberties. They should not dictate social policy.
My brothers and sisters continue to fight hard, don't you worry. There is no
reason to put the supremacy of god in the constituion, for instance. It
contradicts the clause about freedom of thought and freedom of/from religion.
There is no reason to ramble on about the english/french nature of canada,
for not only is it dated, but also inaccurate (the first peoples were neither
french nor english; the english were fourth in line in terms of demographics:
french, irish, scottish, english was the actual order of numbers.)

>
>>This is why I oppose the concept of private property rights
>>being placed in the constitution. I think it is wrong that the wealthy
>>should be able to "own" my country, simply by the investment of their
>>capital. I think this country should be owned by us all.
>
>The Indians think so too. Contradictory, eh? So why don't you support
>aboriginal self government then? Think about it. Your views quite
>closely correlate with theirs.

There is a lot of irony here.
The aboriginal leadership has come around to the concept of PRIVATE property
("first nations", etc) that are the European concepts that initially
enslaved their ancestors.  I embrace the idea of commonly-held land, and
I reject the idea of a country held privately.  So my views are similar
in that sense to some traditional aboriginal values. 
The idea of different "races" having different property rights is certainly
foreign to "aboriginal traditions", I agree. But who is demanding these
"race-based" exclusionary rights. Certainly not me ...
nor my brothers and sisters.

Frank.






Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Mike Godfrey
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:13:02 GMT

godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
: In article <1992Oct14.133121.6157@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>, bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes...
: >Aha! A classic case of multiple personalities!
: > 
: >There's the benevolent Mike, who likes Canada and babies.
: >And there's the domineering, evil Laurence, who hates Canada, babies,
: >and believes that there's a world-wide plot by scientific grant agencies
: >to kill him.
: 
: Do you think that might be it?  That we are really one in the same person
: but each is unaware of being the other?  I hope not for Mike's sake, because
: he certainly wouldn't like to receive my email postbag!
: 
: Actually i rather like babies, and have never had a problem with any 
: scientific grant agencies.  Your ludicrous National Research Council, with
: which i had a problem, were my employers not a grant agency.
: 
: Laurence

But elsewhere...

migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes:
> In article <13OCT199219354076@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
> >
> >I feel sorry for poor Mike Godfrey, who people keep confusing with me.
> 
> Call it a pre-emptive strike.  
> 
> I post to this forum on occassion.  I do not wish to be confused with you.
> I have already seen one other article refer to you as M. (presumably as 
> in "Monsieur") Godfrey.

My God! This *is* a case of dual personalities. Mike/Laurence is
exhibiting severe denial, and has even gone to the trouble of getting 
different unix accounts.  Scary.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: 890758k@ace.acadiau.ca (WING HO KWAN)
Subject: testing 2
Keywords: testing 2
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:05:28 GMT

testing 2
**********************************************************************
*		if (!love) || (!faith) || (!hope) || (!WORKS)        *
*		       dead ()				             *
*		else ;						     *
*		                                  From    Louie Kwan *
*			                                   copyright *
**********************************************************************
*			890758k@dragon.acadiau.ca                    *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: The Amending Process
From: hanly@brandonu.ca
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:05:35 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

Two good reasons in my opinion for voting NO on the referendum
are:    i) The amending formula is far too rigid. No further
changes to either the HOUSE of COMMONS or the SENATE are possible
without the unanimous consent of ALL provinces and the federal government.
This is particularly galling in the west because the revised Senate
looks to be relatively ineffective. In exchange for the equal
Senate Ontario and Quebec were compensated to the tune of 36
seats which gives those provinces even more relative power in
parliament and the same relative power in joint sittings of
Senate and Commons. Even non-westerners will admit the future
problems created by this unaminous consent requirement
 ii) The amending formula provides for no
binding referenda nor consitutional initiatives--such as exist
in Switzerland for example. 

A final reason for voting NO is that this is not a true agreement
at all. There well over three dozen matters that are subject to
further negotiations. Anyone who votes YES has a touching faith
in politicians. Those same politicians are totally unwilling to
give the people any real power to decide on the issue of what
basic laws we should live under.
From: hatton@socrates.ucsf.edu (Tom Hatton)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!
Date: 10 Oct 92 07:24:36 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes:

>>LAURENCE GODFREY (godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov) wrote:
>>>You have my sympathy - Canada is an extremely boring and mediocre country, 
>>>and Toronto is extremely cold.  Could you not have chosen an 8 months period
>>>that did not encompass the whole of winter?

>I keep hoping this charming fellow will dry up and blow away.  Since he
>seems intent on abuse, and since Godfrey is an uncommon name in North
>America, I would like to add that Laurence and I are not related, and in
>particular are not the same person.  Thank you very much.


Please, let him stay exactly where he is. It helps us Canadians feel
secure knowing that the Americans have the strangle-hold on most
bigoted numbskulls per capita. Of course, they're welcome to come
as tourists. We'll take their money, especially when they show up
in Toronto wearing fur jackets in August. :-)
 
"Oscar, I passed by your house yesterday."
"Thank you!"
 
Tom
 
P.S. Living in the US for a few years has revealed that not all Americans
are like L.G., but far too many are.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:23:55 GMT

In article <BvyuqA.MCo@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>In article <=95-58+@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>Are you sure it wasn't in the "Science Fiction and Fantasy" section (or
>>maybe the "War Stories" section)?
>
>	So, what  do people  think about the military exercise next
>Tuesday? Great timing, diplomacywise, or what?
>
>							James Nicoll

The exercise was modified to happen only in the Valcartier territory,
not in Quebec City.  It is based on trucks labeled with UNO logo to
prepare a shipment to ex-Yugoslavia.

I talked to someone in the army this summer and there is currently a
Quebec army.  That is, the Canadian army is already working with
a separate body with the Quebec soldiers.  You know, despite what
Mulroney may say, the Quebec secession will be done with the less harm
possible.  Everybody agrees on that.  So, many organisms are already
preparing the secession, INCLUDING Canadian government and many agencies.
How do you think they spend the 2 billions of $ in 1992 for Quebec
secession debates?


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Ge'ne'alogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Que'bec renouvele' dans une Ame'rique renove'e
\_.-===  Une entente au contenu insatisfaisant!     Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: allane@earth.gas.unsw.OZ.AU (Allan H. Evans)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIANS
Summary: Ranting about Americans by Canadians
Keywords: Stupidity, ranting, 
Reply-To: allane@earth.gas.unsw.OZ.AU
Organization: School of Geography, UNSW.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:42:19 GMT

A note from a Canadian living in Australia.

silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) responds to:
>(Anthony Maillard)'s ranting and raving:
>> [ranting and raving deleted]
>
>This really makes me sick.   Let's address it this way....
>     
>    [ reply to ranting deleted for brevity... summary: ]
>    [ no one here... bothers to hate Canada or Canadians ]
>    [ what ill-will does exist... product of... Canadian
>      nationalism which defines itself soley in the context
>      of being 'other' than American... ]

Although this is unfortuately true in many circumstances, realize that
if someone spends all their time comparing themselves to you it is 
probably the greatest compliment that they can give (although they 
most assuredly don't realize it).

> Because the concept of 
>'Oppressive America' is frequently used as an excuse for Canadians to 
>avoid confronting real and pressing internal political/social problems.

Not just Canadians. Half the world seems to love bagging Americans.

>> [a few of the original posters idiotic rants left in for effect]
>>
>>Why do people in the rest of the world hate Americans?
>>Is it because where-ever Americans go on vacation they have to be the most
>>obnoxious?
>>Could it be that they have to be THE LOUDEST, THE GROSS-EST, THE MOST
>>INSULTING person in the place.
>>
>	You are really a contemptible asshole. Doubtless the kind
>of Canadian who regularly makes a pig of himself abroad, while only
>the Americans' reputation pays the price for it.

Indubitably. But this sort of reprisal only displays the same sort of 
senseless labelling as the original post.

>	The real pity of this post is that, on the off chance that 
>anyone else censures you for it, I can be nearly certain it won't
>be one of your compatriots. This sort of anti-American jingoism 
>is far too politically acceptable for them to notice its
>intrinsic offensiveness.

I don't know about that Holly, while a great deal of imbecilic Canadians
get alot of mileage out of YankBashing (tm), most thinking individuals find
thoughtless ranting offensive. Besides, if you think anti-American jingoism
is bad in Canada, you should come down here sometime. 

Al
A Canadian living in Oz

---
_______________________________________________________________________________
| Allan H. Evans * School of Geography * UNSW * PO Box 1 Kensington 2033 Aust.|
| allane@earth.gas.unsw.OZ.AU  Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Systems |

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: William.Guan@bbs.oit.unc.edu (William Guan)
Subject: Working in the U.S.
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:42:55 GMT


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: zintel@mdd.comm.mot.com (Mike Zintel)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:08:46 GMT

In article <Anthony_Maillard-121092101128@appletalk-83.mdd.comm.mot.com> Anthony_Maillard@Mdd.comm.mot.com (Anthony Maillard) writes:
>Why do most Americans hate Canada or Canadians?  

They don't. Most couldn't care less about Canada unless things get a bit too
commie up there. It's Canadians that like to believe Americans hate Canadians.


-- 
---
Mike Zintel             zintel@mdd.comm.mot.com not zintel@mdi.com anymore
Motorola Mobile Data
Bothell, WA
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:46:21 GMT

In article <BvM9HE.586@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Paul Ward (ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>: In article <BvICIv.E05@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>: >
>: >Any majority of senators will be a majority of anglophone senators. Think
>: >about it for a bit.
>: 
>: Not necessarily at all.  Suppose that 6 of the senators are francophone,
>: and there are 62 in total.  The vote is 32 to 30, all six francophones are
>: in favor - subtract them and you get a vote of 26 to 30.  The result is
>: the opposite.  Think about it for a bit.
>
>You got me there! When this happens, mail me and say "I told you so".
>
>--
>Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca

You got it!  Suppose that 6 of senators are of german, ukrainian or
swedish origin, or are Natives, or are women or are ...

Moreover, 6 on 62 is very far from 25% rep-per-pop.  But, I am not
advocating the Charlottetown accord anyway.  ONly thing that afraid me
is the number of no (out of Quebec) because of that 25%.  It will
_eventually_ bias _slightly_ HoC, but discipline of party and the
current system (1 M.P. = 1 vote for party) are biasing any vote to
a greater extent.  Think to that too.


-- 
  \_\    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 indetermine'   Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada