HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:26:32 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <13024@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>An examination of the consensus agreement on the constitution has
>revealed to me that there is nothing of Canada in it. There is a great
>deal of accommodation of the interests of various interest groups
>but there is nothing which unites these groups into a common
>nationality.

  I firmly believe differently ...

  The Quebec issues bring Quebec back into the Constitutional family.

  The Native issues bring natives into the Canadian federation as a 
recognized component for the first time.

  The Senate issues redress provincial concerns about the federation 
recognizing the importance of regional diversity in needs and a forum
to counter the previous swing to autocratic centralization.

  The Social Charter and Economic issues are little more than noise and
should be dropped, but leaving them in won't hurt much more than defining
the starting line for the next round of tussles.

  The institutional tinkering is endemic to any political document and
not really all that important in the overall scheme of things.


  Now tell me you don't fall under one of the first 3 groups, or that you
don't think that resolving long held grievances by all three elements
(Quebec, native and regional) will result in a general improvement in the
national climate, or that this won't benefit the country.

  I will accept that it is redefining Canada (if you are worried about
there being nothing of the 'old' Canada in it) by changing the parameters
of interaction under the three main amendments, but exactly how this will
spin out in the next 50 years depends more on how all Canadians choose
to define themselves and interact under these changes than on the changes
themselves. If Canadians change, so must Canada.

  If you are concerned that the agreement does not tell us how to define 
ourselves, ie some national recipe that produces a Canadian, then my 
counter is I am just as happy to not have such a straight jacket imposed 
on me, but be left to define myself. Moreover, I think Canadian history
has always been an affirmation of the latter, whether it be the struggle 
for Home Rule and provincial autonomy from the central authority of the 
day, or cultural and social struggles of elements within society not to 
be blended into some homogenous pea souper.

---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:12:03 GMT

In article <BvGA9E.39I@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>Why is it better to just "do" something than to put it in the constitution?
>: 
>

If it doesn't work, then you can change it.  Constitutionalizing things
mean you have to live with it good or bad.  You should constitutionalize
things that you know work, or at least wait to see if they work.

You test drive a car...don't you?

Gerald

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 00:20:22 GMT

In article <Zr1-BY_@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.204619.22393@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>>>  1. Will Ontario and Quebec ever accept a pure EEE senate?  NOT!
>>
>>Don't know.  However, an equitable for equal (five regions model) with
>>straight 50% normal majority rules would be substantially superior to
>>this setup.  Of course, as Gerald has already pointed out, the Feds could
>>easily enact a law making the present Senate elected.  It would be very
>>close to this model in terms of equitable, would not require any
>>constitutional changes, and would give people a good opportunity to see
>>how good or bad such a Senate would be without enshrining it in a 
>>document that requires all premiers to agree to change.
>>
>Actually, under section 42(1)(c), it would take a constitutional amendment
>(general formula 7/50) to start electing Senators.  It could be done without
>Quebec's agreement, but then Quebec would have more evidence of Canada's 
>lack of concern for its feelings.
>

The prime minister, subject to a few requirements, can appoint anyone
to the Senate, he could easily appoint people nominated by the provinces
or elected by the provinces.  It doesn't require a constitutional
change...after all Stan Waters ended up in the Senate...and he was
elected.

Gerald
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A thought for the Trudon'ts
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:44:15 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Oct3.181003.7632@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>It is not clear, at least to me, whether compromise or peaceful
>coexistence is possible...
>
>...ultimately it comes down to the simple fact that liberty,
>tolerance, and democracy are not compatible with tribalism.
>Gerald

  You've been about 0 for 10 on correctness in the last few postings, but
this one is unfortunately such a common mistake that I couldn't let it go.

  You don't need to be 'all the same' and 'forgo all trappings of cultural
or other difference' to participate in a tolerant, democratic and free
society. To think differently is to condone the Napoleans, the Hitlers
the Stalins and such more familiar entities as the Catholic Church, who
afterall only persecuted and eliminated those who resisted throwing off 
their 'tribal' pasts.

  The problem is always the one dominant group (or person) that decides 
it will impose its particular brand of tribalism on the rest 'for their 
own good'.

  To continue to impose the federally mandated version of tribalism on 
the rest of us is what you continually advocate. The question is not whether
there will be tribalism or competing comunities and views, but always
whether there will be one dominant or a competing diversity of such. And
without the competing diversity, and its balance, the system soon stagnates
and fails.

  To reject diversity is an ecological deadend ...

  The one thing this accord does well is recognize the diversity of 
Canada and Canadians, and in shifting the balance back to a healthier
Federal system. 
---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:32:03 GMT

clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>In 40 or 50 years, we might also have a world government.  Or, the
>polar icecaps might melt a bit, flooding the coasts and making the
>plains of the Dene Province and Nunavut major wheat-growing areas.

And a meteorite could wipe out Canada tonight, so why bother planning for
tomorrow?
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Why I will vote NO on Oct. 26
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:04:04 GMT

> From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
> Message-ID: <1992Sep24.205340.6325@pandora.matrox.com>

> michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond) writes:
> >> In other words, Canadians are asked to pass judgement on a set of
> >> principles -- an outline.  They will not be asked to ratify the final legal
> >> text.  The constitution does not require that.
> >In other words, we are asked to sign a blank cheque.  NO thanks.
> What?  Under the Constitution, you are signing a blank cheque every
> time you vote in an election.  Legislators can change the Constitution
> without holding a referendum (although the Queen will only put up with
> so much. :-).  In the present case, they are asking for the moral authority
> to proceed along the lines described by the Charlottetown Accord.

	Then why bother asking us now?  However, we should not
	confuse an election with a specific mandate.  The way
	this deal is being rammed through, it looks like the
	checks and balances of democracy will suffer.

	This proposal is both very detailed and very incomplete.
	We are asked to rush into an endorsement of it; something
	largely unknown and evidently fragile.  The current situation
	is not that bad that we should blindly accept the proposal
	on just our faith in our leaders: this is not an abondant
	commodity.

	The fervor and zeal of the OUI proponents looks more like
	a desperate bid for a last minute reprieve.  I don't think
	I have ever seen our princes -- a desperate bunch at the
	best of times -- in such a tizzy.

	I understand those who wish to vote OUI.  There is not
	much of a choice.  My support for NON is because I object
	to being cornered, blackmailed, browbeaten when there is
	no urgency, no crisis.  The desperados are creating the
	crisis.  They are scared.  As they should well be.

> Thomas Hood

--
 The Vacuum Cleaner Man (reality sucks)
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: The "No" Camp
Date: 27 Sep 92 04:29:38 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

I think we're making a mistake in lumping all the No advocates in a single
camp, and then tittering at Trudeau, Manning, Parizeau and Rebick all
supposedly in the same bed. If the No camp has anything in common, it's only
that one or more aspects of the deal (not always the same aspects) are
unacceptable. Some of the No camp may be hostile to Quebec; but obviously not
all. Some of the No camp may be opposed to the 25% guarantee, or the uneven
representation; but obviously not all.

If the No side wins, I don't see universal rejoicing among its supporters (or
anywhere else, really). Nor do I see an automatic departure of Quebec; if
anything, Quebecers may take a long look into the abyss and decide to slog out
another round of negotiations as being duller but cheaper.

When we eventually do get something the country can agree on, many of the No
camp will be bitterly disappointed--and should be. I hope we can take the
opportunity to reconsider the damage we have already done ourselves through
accepting collective entitlement as a Good Thing, and try to repair it in a
constitution that respects individuals as individuals, and rewards them for
their achievements rather than their genes.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: An 18'th century enumeration for an 18'th century form of gov't!
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:38:50 GMT

I was at my parents house last weekend, and I could have got myself
enumerated there for the referendum, as well as here in London.
What a crock.  Spending millions in a truly pre-historic fashion for a
1-shot, single vote, single issue referendum.

What would be wrong with this...

Just like many university student cards, you put a sticker on the back of your
social insurance card.  This sticker has a strip of empty boxes that get
stamped if you participate in a vote of any kind.

So let's say that for this referendum, you go and show your card.
Even though some boxes have stamps in them, no box has a "red maple-leaf",
so it means you haven't voted.
You are then allowed to fill out a ballot, and when you're done, your card
gets the "red maple leaf" stamp.
Different events can have different colors/symbols.

When do we get these  stickers?
How bout they get given out in the first referendum of the year.
Just show up, they hand you a sticker, you apply it to your card, VOTE, 
then get a stamp.  How many boxes/votes? how bout 10 or 12?
Use it again for a provincial election (oops, you show up in Kingston
with a stamp indicating you've voted in a Quebec election. Sorry, you
can't vote in an Ontario election/referendum this time).

Or does that make it TOO EASY to give us more control over political/
governmental decisions?!  Are we, mere peasants to the politicians,
ready to demand more control?!

How much would this system cost?
Probably less than what they're shelling out right now for this
referendum on the "Charlatan Accord".

And this is supposed to be the "communication age".
What a joke.  The most important information to be communicated,  
-> how we wish to be governed, is not even given a chance to be
communicated.  And public editorials and public opinion fall on
deaf ears...

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: What does Quebec take with them when they go, and who decides?
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:46:41 GMT

A while ago I got a pamphlet from APEC (alliance for the preservation of
english in Canada).  It made 3 points concerning different land masses
within Q-bek.  I can dig the pamphlet up, but they gave somewhat
believable arguments about each point.

The point is, what are the rules that the fed gov't would operate under
with regards to Q-bek separation in terms of what territory they get?

Can we trust the current or future crop of fed politicos to negociate
the "correct" deal, as far as logic and past historical contracts go?

Xref: sparky can.politics:7973 soc.culture.canada:7190
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Date: 4 Oct 92 22:48:35 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department

In article <BvMAH9.60r@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: In the aftermath of a NO, I advocate an elected constitution convention
>: which would prepare a variety of constitutional options including modest
>: revisions to the mild asymmetrial federalism we have today, a model of
>: full-blown asymmetrical federation, and a model of complete sovereignty
>: for the Canada-Quebec relationship which would then be put to the people
>: and the legislatures for debate and decision.  I may have strongly held
>: views about what the correct position should be, but I advocate
>: democratic decision-making.  It is the first ministers who insist that
>: it is "their way or no way".
>
>If you put 10 proposals to the people, you'll get no more than 1/5 of
>the vote for any one of them. We elected these people to represent us,
>why not let them? Let them make the decisions we mandated them to
>make, and then let us ratify their decision. Hey, that's what we're
>doing now! 
>
>You refuse to answer why an elected constitution convention is better
>than our already elected premiers, MPs, and MPPs.
>

I have said repeatedly that a constitutional convention is necessary
because premiers are incapable of considering certain options which
adversely affect their powers.  I have never refused to answer the
question.  An elected consitutional convention could propose
asymmetry...premiers would never allow consideration of an asymmetrical
power.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Date: 4 Oct 92 02:14:02 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Oct1.162716.15918@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>I don't know how the deal is being sold in Quebec, Denis, but here we are
>being told that a yes vote will keep Quebec in Canada, and a no vote will
>result in Quebec leaving. How is the deal being presented in Quebec?
>-- 
>Jim Robinson
>robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
>{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

It depends on what publicity.

On Quebec (legal) advertising : YES is sold the future and very Quebecois.
Not a single word as being part of Canada.

On Federal (outlaw as Federal won't respect Quebec law limiting expenses
for the referendum) adv : Canada, not YES (I think they can't openly sale YES)
is sold as country of the future, the place for francophones, etc.

Journalists are usually not selling YES.  They are repeating the Wilhelmy
case.  They help us remember that Boubou is probably lying when he pretends
he can't get more using the Wilhelmy text.


I presume some Quebec network programs will include adv from Quebec, but
I am not sure at all.

-- 
  \_\    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 !
Xref: sparky can.politics:8076 soc.culture.canada:7234
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Reasons to STAY AWAY from the NO side
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:02:19 GMT

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

I think the problem is that the west is not at all homogeneous. For one, it
consists of 2 "have" and 2 "have-not" provinces. The 2 "have" provinces
would probably not be opposed to decentralization, at least to some extent;
I *suspect* this would especially be true for Alberta. The two "have-not"
provinces would probably be afraid of decentralization as they would see it
as the first step to the end of equalization payments (why would the
federal government want to pay the bill, if the provinces get all the
credit is how the argument goes).

As well, even in BC, one of the "have" provinces, there would be a
significant percentage of people who favour the strong central government
approach of PET and others.

>(A bit contradictory, I think)

No argument here.

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

I think this option definitely needs examining. Too bad the NDP and some
of the Liberals would find it unacceptable. 
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:25:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.182608.11143@news.columbia.edu> gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>>>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

Lougheed promised us ten years...but there are enough things left
to be negotiated to keep the constitutional industry in full employment
until then.

>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).

Gary, you really have to read this thing...the politicians will have
nothing but constitutional issues on their plate with a Yes vote.

>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).
>

It would help if Mulroney wouldn't be running around the country saying
"the sky is going to fall", "the sky is going to fall"...

...besides the NDP and the Liberals finally got what they've wanted
for the last 3 years...a dollar below 80 cents.  

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

Gary, when you read the Accord, tell me if you honestly believe that
it does not set Canada back in meeting the economic challenges of 
the future...especially read the provisions with regard to training
(in the face of continued provincial opposition to an economic union
and common market which includes the free movement of people), and
in relations to the marketing off of telecommunications.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:03:38 GMT

In article <BvG97p.ILD@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>Il y a des endroits au centre-ville de Montreal ou il
>est impossible d'avoir une reponse en francais.  Pas necessairement
>des restaurants.  Je connais un certain stationnement ou l'employe
>refuse systematiquement de repondre en francais.

Congratulations!

I guess if you go looking hard enough for intolerance, sooner or later
you'll find it. *Anywhere*.

Of course this kind of arrogance is no longer acceptable in Quebec, and
I don't think that most anglophones would condone it.

Of course, in Quebec, there is recourse. A single phone call to the
OLF would have this nosey parker in a padded cell by day's end, the lot
expropriated, and the owners hauled in for a public flogging at the site.

OK. So I exaggerate. A little :-).

But I maintain that two wrongs do not make a right. The intolerance
shown by some members of the ever-shrinking Quebec anglophone
population is a pitiful justification for the systematic mistreatment
of people like Steve. Not by an ignorant parking lot attendant, but by
the state.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.