HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:55:07 GMT

Peter Bartlett (uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk) wrote:
>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.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that with a
defined benefit plan, the *employer* is responsible for any shortfall that
may occur - i.e. the employer makes up the difference if contributions are
insufficient to generate the revenue required to satisfy the negotiated
benefit schedule. Given this state of affairs it does not seem unreasonable
that the employer should be able to withdraw at least some of its surplus
money, should it exist, as it is the employer that has assumed the risk and
is responsible for the negotiated benefits.

If on the other hand, *both* employer and employee were responsible for
making up a possible shortfall, that would be a different kettle of fish.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Xref: sparky can.politics:8452 can.general:4894
From: hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: Distinct Societies
Date: 15 Oct 1992 17:43:04 GMT
Followup-To: can.politics
Distribution: can
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <hugh-091092092637@192.139.129.128> hugh@imax.com (Hugh Murray) writes:

>
>Like it or not, Quebec has a different cultural history than English
>Canada, 

Where is English Canada? I have lived in Manitoba, Alberta, and Ontario,
and haven't found it yet.

Alberta has a different cultural history than Ontario, and very different
ethnic proportions. So?

                                         Myron Hlynka
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Oops
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:28:17 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: knight@mrco.carleton.ca's message of 9 Oct 92 14:11:58 GMT

Darin Cowan:
> No constitutional deal can be
>worth trading in the value of a vote of 76% of Canadians to keep a whiny
>24% happy.  The floor on Quebec's representation in the House of Commons
>is a sellout of all other Canadians.

Alan Knight responds to Darin Cowan:
> Currently, the votes of ninety-some odd percent of Canadians are
> traded in to give a very tiny minority who happen to reside in PEI or
> the territories several extra votes each. Even Canadians who live in
> provinces with small populations (Sask., Man., N.B.) are
> over-represented more than Quebec would be IF it's population fell to
> 20% of Canada's total. [...]
>
> Further, that variation is calculated by averages over province. I
> suspect that if you look at individual ridings it is much worse. [...]

Tom Box, myself, and others have made this argument within the past few
weeks.  Maybe Darin Cowan missed it or perhaps he suffers from amnesia.
The only response I have seen that doesn't contain the whiff of bigotry
is that it was not right before and it is not right now.  But if imperfect
proportional representation has been accepted by generations of Canadians,
maybe it is because Canadians recognize that our country requires such
compromises to exist and that, in the Canadian view, perfect proportional
representation is not terribly important.  I thank Alan for reminding
us of this, but I have to wonder why it is necessary.  Maybe it is time
for a can.politics FAQ.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:32:21 GMT

In article <BvtL94.K3@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@minotaur (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: to come out opposed.  A simple non-derogation clause in Charlottetown
>: probably would have been sufficient to satisfy aboriginals with Treaty
>: status, because Charlottetown is likely taking away from them more than
>: it is giving.
>: 
>
>I think you missed something. There is a non-derogation clause already
>dealing with treaty rights.
>

With respect to the Charter perhaps, but a lot of aboriginals with
Treaties are convinced that the Accord diminishes their Treaties
with respect to their relationship with various governments.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Amending Formula
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 13:43:40 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: can
Keywords: constitution

fwbent@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (Fred Bent) writes:
>
>My concern is that once the Charlottetown Accord is adopted,
>it will be very hard to change/fix unless everyone agrees.
>
>  [...]
>
>    Amendments to provisions of the Constitution related to the Senate
>  should require unanimous agreement of Parliment and the provincial
>  legislatures, once the current set of amendments related to Senate
>  reform has come into effect.  Future amendments affecting the
>  House of Commons, includings the Quebec's guarantee of at least 
>  25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons, and amendments
>  which can now be made under Section 42 should also require
>  unanimity.
>
>Is it me, or does this look like a potential for:
>
>  a) Constitutional reform grid lock; and
>  b) Constitutional blackmail.
>
It's not just you.  We have yet to successfully apply the Unanimous
Consent rule to amend the Constitution.

>Maybe I am being too cynical....
>
>Interesting questions for you (and me to ponder):
>
>Q: Why is section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (the notwithstanding
>clause) not being repealed?  Supposed to be resolved later.
>
The consensus was "not to pursue ... changes to the notwithstanding 
clause".  This is not the same as "resolve later".

The politicians want this clause.  They are afraid of losing power to
the Supreme Court.  If there were a constituent assembly (as Gerald has
been calling for), I have no doubt that it would be high on their list
of things to change.

>Q: Why have a silly method like joint sittings to resolve disputes
>between the House of Commons (337) and the Senate (62)?  Effective?
>
Not effective.

>Q: Why is there no method to "recall" a Member of Parliament, or a
>Senator?
>
Never has been.  It might come out of a constitutional convention.

>Q: Will the Senate have the same term as the House of Commons?  If so,
>will there be joint elections?
>
Yes and yes.

"Federal legislation should govern Senate elections, subject to ...
 provisions requiring that elections take place at the same time as
 elections to the House of Commons...."

...mark young
Xref: sparky can.politics:8332 soc.culture.canada:7420
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: the debate - before
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:03:54 EDT

In <14022@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca>
I wrote:

> [ ... ]
> In order to win, Bourassa only needs to confuse the issues.
> We know he can.  That's about the only thing he can do.  And
> he has a lot of experience at it.

	he did.

> In order to win, Parizeau must destroy Bourassa.  Will he?

	he did not.

> [ ... ]

	On tone, level and substance Parizeau was far
	superior.  In terms of communication, Bourassa
	won.  It happens to be where it matters.  Most
	people will vote on faith and on image.  This
	is what a TV debate is all about.  Parizeau
	was witty, articulate, erudite and technical.
	Bourassa was defensive, inarticulate, uneducated,
	uninformed, when not frankly misleading; he talks
	to his crowd at their level.

	I sometimes had to think for a while about what
	Parizeau had said in order to follow.  Not quite
	the way to counter a Bourassa that made it look
	like he was talking good old horse sense (he was
	not).  The crowd just could not follow.

	The interesting part of the evening came AFTER
	the debate, when I started zapping between
	Radio Canada and TVA.  The commentators, pundits,
	gurus, and media people must have been watching
	another debate.  On Radio Canada, Lysianne Gagnon (a
	devoted Liberal who writes for La Presse) gave
	Bourassa the ears and the tail.  Lise Bissonnette
	(editor at Le Devoir and a nationalist) gave
	Bourassa just about every point.  On TVA, JF Lisee
	(editor of l'Actualite and a nationalist) gave
	Parizeau a very slight advantage.  Over all, they
	felt like Bourassa had substance.  I have no
	problem granting him the edge in this debate, but
	SUBSTANCE?  The man was flapping his lips!

	This means that a number of undecided voters will
	go to the YES side and I don't believe Parizeau
	can do anything about it.  But even if they all
	went that way (unlikely) the NO would still be ahead.
	The NO side seems to be headed towards a victory.

	This is Don Cherry signing off.



--
 Alain
From: dbowman@griffin (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: sliding Clyde
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:09:11 GMT

Denis Beauregard (beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca) wrote:
: 
: Getty is to break if the final text is not available before October 10
: (something heard last week).

The feds have promised the deal just after Thanksgiving (I think Joe Clark
said he hoped by the 12th).

: 
: Ovide Mercredi said this week the Quebec can get more by saying no.
: If he is advocating YES for Natives and NO for Quebecois, is he breaking too?

I think he was trying Sihota's trick of gaining political capital from Quebec
-haters. A slimy trick indeed.

: 
: I predicted 2 provinces break-up from the accord.  Was I true?

I hope not.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:59:31 GMT

In article <2ADD82B7.5AF7@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>
>>: Bob Rae is essentially a clone of Clark, although Rae had slightly more
>>: integrity to stay in the party he belongs.
>
>I would disagree here. Rae has stood steadfastly by the unions which
>brought him to power, despite attracting the animosity of the business
>community. The current proposed labour laws in Ontario, which is the
>target of an elaborate and expensive media campaign, are hardly the work
>of someone unprincipled whose only interest is appeasement. I may not
>like most of his convictions, but at least he has some.
>

I don't particularly want to argue Ontario politics at the moment, but
I would argue Rae's stand on labour law reform is not based on principle
but on appeasement.  He has failed to deliver on so much of the other
parts of the NDP platform and agenda (Thank God!), that he has to
appease the unions by standing firm on labour law reform, even though
most reasonable people know that to do so is economically foolhardy.
There is no longer any rational basis for some of the principles of
labor law reform...it is an irrational belief, that might have once
been true in the past. 

The economic future lies in the empowerment of the individual worker
and entrepreneur, not in protecting unions or corporate bureaucracies,
and the new citizen of successful countries in the future will be
the worker-entrepreneur.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: Referendum Results Newsgroup
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 00:33:02 GMT

In article <wcsv2k.718551782@cunews> wcsv2k@alfred.carleton.ca (Bill St. Arnaud) writes:
>Has anybody looked into setting up a newsgroup like in the States to
>report on referendum results on Oct 26?
>This would be of assistance to our western friends becuase their
>broadcasters can't reveal the results from Quebec until the wetern
>polls close.
>
>Bill St. Arnaud                         Internet: wcsv2k@ccs.carleton.ca

I just see 3 reasons against : a can.politics.referendum can't be voted
and setup before the referendum; a alt.can.referendum.1992 can't be
received in every place; some postings may take 3 days to make it.

A better solution (it is used on soc.roots to hide the too technical data
that may afraid or annoy some users) is a mailing list.  One person in
east (NF?) can prepare a list of senders and a UNIX command to send
the messages, something like mail results <name1@sfu.ca,name2@uvic.ca \
name3@uedmonton.ca   etc.  You just edit the results file each 15 minutes
to show vote advance and results are instant instead of hours.
We can propose a limit so that the list of aliases will not be too long.
Suppose that Ontario time zone is not usable.  The alias list could then
be limited to central or west zone.

Anyway, how many will wait for Quebec results before voting?  One, two?
I mean over the net :-)

-- 
  \_\    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 !
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:28:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.161731.10241@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>>Now contrast this to Charlottetown...
>>Charlottetown entrenches executive federalism, and gives the first
>>ministers conference the right to make agreements bilaterally or
>>multilaterally without restriction and have them constitutionally
>>protected from elected legislatures.
>
>False.
>

Please read Section 23: "Entrenchment" and Section 26: "Protection of
Intergovernmental Agreements".

>
>One reason you do not like Ch'town is that you do not trust 
>provincial Premiers.  Your real aim must be to overhaul Canada's
>system of government.  Would you prefer a United-States-style republic?
>

You forget...I'm voting NO...if reform is needed, then let's have a 
constituent assembly elected to propose text for a variety of options.

>>...which side has said Canada will become Beirut or Yugoslavia.   
>>Gerald
>
>Of all participants you have been the loudest doom-crier.
>

I have not predicted violence...like Clark or Andre...or an economic
meltdown or an unfriendly rupture and separation of Quebec...all I
have predicted is a slow disintegration of the country, Quebec
separation on the installment plan, and BC and Alberta increasingly
looking at their Pacific Northwestern and Asian ties.

Gerald
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:58:57 EDT
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Bill 40 (Labour law) was Re: Ontario "socialism"

The word "extort" appears in this discussion when referring to
Union bargaining. This makes no sense, for two reasons: first,
refusing to cooperate with another person until they accept your
price is not "extortion". The supermarket sells me food at (their)
fixed price; that's not extortion.

To anticipate a counter argument, does the legislation not force
companies to employ only union members, and to shut down if they
and the union can't agree? We can disagree on the fairness of this
if you like (I will deal with it in a later post), but there is
no tinge of illegality to using a legislated prerogative. I own
half a corporation. Incorporation is really a species of legalized
fraud: I can declare (corporate) bankruptcy, say sayonara and tough
luck, and sail away from debts other people trusted I would pay, with
hardly a fillip. But the does not mean incorporation of itself is
fraudulent or unethical. I (and many other business people) could
not justify the risks I take without the protection of incorporation.
In the same way, unions who use the (enhanced) strike weapon in
negotiation may be short sighted, but they will not be guilty of
"extortion".

disclaimer: Queen's University supplies me with computer services, not
            my opinions.

John G. Spragge
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 14:43:21 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>Evan Leibovitch:
>> But the complaint Steve makes is on the wording in the Canada Clause.
>> Adjacent clauses and other statements specifically commit or empower
>> governments to act in certain ways. In one clause it refers to the
>> commitment of "Canadians and their governments" and in others refers to
>> the commitment merely of "Canadians".
>
>Me:
>You are right that an undesirable ambiguity is at play here.
>If a significant body of reputable legal opinion finds that your
>"worst case" interpretation is really plausible, then it needs to
>be fixed. But this can be done after voting yes if we can trust at
>least some of our elected representatives to truly represent us.
>If this trust does not exist, I doubt that any written text will
>fix the problem.

The thing is, if no one thinks that this "worst case" is plausible,
then no one has anything to gain by keeping the wording as it is.

If no one thinks this "worst case" is plausible, then they can gain
the support of several important groups by making a (to them) totally
inconsequential change to the document.

Yet our glorious leaders are not making this change -- this totally
inconsequential change.  Why aren't they?

The only reason I can see is that some of them _do_ think that the
wording is (or even _may be_) important.  Presumably they have the 
opinions of their legal advisors to back them up.

Many people do not trust their elected representatives to truly
represent them.  That's why they want these changes made _now_
(while the politicians all need something from us at once).  

These people are not trying to solve the problem of trust, they
are trying to solve the problem of a possibly-flawed constitution.
The wording change solves the flaw.  The trust will come when the
politicians start listening to the people's complaints and acting
on them (by, for example, changing the wording in this clause).

...mark young
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Term of Senate (was Re: Amending formula)
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:30:45 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <Bvv5rq.FBB@math.uwaterloo.ca> fwbent@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (Fred Bent) writes:
>
>Q: Will the Senate have the same term as the House of Commons?  If so,
>will there be joint elections?
>
Yes.  This is specified in the accord.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Watch the Journal this week
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:53:41 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1006

From article <1658@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, by hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka):
> In article <1992Oct6.130526.991@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>>
>>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. 
> 
> 
> He means OFFICIAL language minority rights, doesn't he?

Not in Quebec, it doesn't!

> There is nothing
> in the charter for languages of UNOFFICIAL Canadians - like German
> Canadians, Italian Canadians, Ukrainians. 

or UNOFFICIAL anglos in Quebec who can't send their kids to English
school here.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Distinct Societies
Date: 16 Oct 1992 16:30:51 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In an Ontario gov't publication inserted in most daily newspapers
yesterday (Oct. 15), the following appears.

Q: What does distinct society for Quebec mean?
A: Recognition of the distinct nature of Quebec confirms a historical
fact - Quebec has a French-speaking majorioty and a different cultural
and legal heritage. The Canada Clause recognizes the "diverse
charactersitcs" of all the provinces and their equality within
Confederation. IT DOES NOT CONFER ANY SPECIAL STATUS.

(The CAPITAL LETTERS are mine. M.H.)

Is this the way Quebec politicians view the concept of "distinct
society"?
                                              Myron Hlynka


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: NPD en Quebec (was: October 26th Referendum)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:10:25 GMT

In article <CLAMEN.92Oct8220207@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>In article <13164@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>				.
>				.
>
>   NDP? I think they never got a seat in Quebec. I don't even remember
>   the name of their leader.
>
>Phil Edmonston -- Granby.
>

And he's voting NO!

Gerald

Xref: sparky can.politics:8504 soc.culture.canada:7542
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Charter of Rights (was Re: The Manning-Trudeau ...)
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 22:01:29 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:

> In article <13253@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) wrote:
> > In practice, the "where number
> > warrants" clause never force any government to provide french
> > schooling.
> 
> What about the Ecole Victor Brodeur in Victoria, B.C.?  This is a francophone
> school, not an immersion one.  Victoria is hardly known for its francophone
> minority, which is rather tiny and not at all significant electorally.
> There are enough, however, to justify a school.
> 
> Any comments from emd?
> --
> Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
>                  Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.


I guess, in the strictest sense, Francois is right in that the "where 
numbers warrants" doesn't force governments to provide French schooling. 
My view is that: 

a) This is intended to be a pragmatic guide - not an absolute, and school 
   boards have a lot of latitude in how to apply it. If you don't have 
   enough students to make up a class, it doesn't make sense to set up
   a school for it; and
b) There is a LOT of support for French language education in B.C. The 
   courses that are available - especially in French schools or French
   immersion seem to be very popular - at least from media reports here.
   

emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

The way to get things out of a government is to back them to the wall, 
put your hands to their throats, and you will get all that they have. 
- Agnes McPhail