HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: burke@seachg.uucp (Michael Burke)
Subject: Re: Quebec's percentage of the population
Reply-To: burke@seachg.UUCP (Michael Burke)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 18:56:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.141156.22233@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct01.133814.26392@mongrel.UUCP> amdunn@mongrel.UUCP (Andrew M. Dunn) writes:
>>
>>Here's a new thought (and boy, do we need some in this constitutional
>>muddle):
>>
>>   If the referendum/plebiscite passes, and everything gets sorted
>>   out, perhaps the increased stability will halt the decline in
>>   Quebec's population.  Perhaps more people, businesses etc. will
>>   consider locating in Quebec.  Perhaps people might move there
>>   from other provinces.  Perhaps more people will immigrate.
>>
>>   Then the 25% guarantee may not come into play at all, because
>>   Quebec may not drop below 25% of the population.
>>
>>   Something to chew on...
>>
>
>In that case, I assume everyone is agreed that the 25% clause
>can safely be removed from the package...and not entrenched for
>perpetuity...
>
>...let's hear the AYE's
>
>...and the NAY'S
>
>...what Robert Bourassa says NAY...I wonder why?
>
If we really want to change the way Canada is governed, and make it a real
democracy for the people -  then let us force our represenatives to
represent us rather then their party. Who cares about 25% when the seats
represent a politcal party rather than the electors.  Party forced voting
should be banned outright.... In either house. And all parties in these
houses.

The only good thing associated with the current situation is the refreshing
way all of the government members have shared the governing of the country.
While it seems anti-Canadian to witness, I for one, am really pleased to
see this change of working relationship, even if it will be short lived.

(I am not demanding that the government thinks and works as a single entity
all the time - and for the same reason I do not demand that everyone in any
party must carry the party line all of the time).

Canadians are quite stupid when it comes to our reaction to politics. Take
for example the leader of the Liberal Party in BC who says that he will not
force anyone to vote "No" and then turns around and forces his caucus to
support the "No" vote - even though at least two members did not wish to.
This "leader" has in two actions (covered by national Canadian TV in a
single day) stripped the rights he has allegedly granted to the electors
of his province from his own caucus members).

-- 
---
Michael Burke

Sea Change Corporation
6695 Millcreek Drive, Unit 8 
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 5R8
Tel: 416-542-9484  Fax: 416-542-9479
UUCP: ...!uunet!uunet.ca!seachg!burke
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Why Would the Charlottetown Agreement Make People Feel Canadian
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:18:30 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
: In article <1992Oct9.125307.1074@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
: >
: >I hope you wouldn't want socio-political value judgements put into it.
: >I suspect that a lot of the No people would prefer their special interest
: >platforms entrenched into it, for example,
: >
: >	Canada is a country characterized by albino Ayn Rand
: >	worshippers who don't eat meat and watch Cheers...
: >
: 
: I don't see any Objectivists or Libertarians in this argument...
: Randian arguments aren't going to have much sway in a society where
: 90% of the people think public health insurance is a great idea.
: 
: Most of the people advocating "individual" rights in this debate
: are economic centrists, and essentially noone is advocating the
: "individual economic rights" that a Randoid would demand.  Trudeau
: is a social democrat...not an Objectivist.
: 
: There is not a great movement out there for the entrenchment of
: "property rights"...                                           
: 
: To say that the critics of the collectivist ideology of Charlottetown
: are Randian is absurd.

Whoa, Gerald!  My example was just a random assortment of colourful
adjectives and nouns.  I wasn't implying that the No side are libertarians,
or even albino, probably.

However, your response brings up the point I was trying to make:  the 
constitution shouldn't be libertarian/objectivist, NOR social democrat,
NOR <insert your political philosophy here>.  If we had a Canada clause
that defined Canadians as being libertarian, socialist, capitalist, or
what have you, then I'd consider emigrating.

-- 
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: can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: TV ads for the referendum
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:38:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.140745.16392@sq.sq.com> donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:
>The arguments in the TV ads sponsored by the "yes" campaign:
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
[YES adv deleted]

BTW, we get similar advs, but they are not YES advs (see the unlimited
federal power of spend and that it can be outlaw by provincial law
and be untouchable).

>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Are there more advertisements like these?

Campaign for YES in Quebec:
a blue sky with many Quebec flags.  Not the shadow of something remembering
Canada.  Except for what YES means (pro-accord), the NO camp could have
use exactly the same pictures.  The bullshiting is that the accord is
presented as something giving a lot of powers (Boubou continuously talks
about the gain of 31 veto rights) to Quebec, while outside of Quebec
Mulroney says that Quebec gets nothing more (can someone from CHQ confirms?).

-- 
  \_\    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: 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: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:52:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.151003.1484@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: Which is why we need an elected constiuent assembly or constitutional
>: convention so we can elect people we trust specifically on
>: constitutional issues to prepare a series of options and amendments.
>
>This is wishful, unrealistic thinking.  Do you really believe that
>so-called "constitutional experts" will be able to draft a universally
>acceptable constitution?  As soon as we elect such mythical beings, they
>won't be any different than our beloved politicians anyway.  Besides,
>its painfully obvious that a universally acceptable constitution is an 
>impossibility in Canada.  The "options" and "amendments" you mention
>will get shot down like B17's over Schweinfurt. And that would be the
>result if we only allowed the involvement of the current NO campaigners,
>let alone the country as a whole!
>

A constituent assembly need not be charged to come up with one option,
but more than one option which would be debated by the people and the
legislatures.  The assembly need not draft a universally acceptable
constitution...where there is no concensus, they need only draft two
options which can be put to the people to decide in a referendum or
for the legislatures to decide and debate.

The problem with the current process is that the drafters of the
amendments are also the ratifiers...which presents a conflict of
interest and which means the informed debate that is supposed to
occur between drafting and ratification never occurs.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: tcifelli@bmerh717.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli)
Subject: bourassa vs. parizeau
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 17:55:39 GMT

I watched the debate last night and I just thought I'd report
my impression to the rest of the country.

It is clear to me that Parizeau is an absolute jerk.  I couldn't
stop laughing when he pulled out the map of Quebec.  Entirely
and utterly irresponsible action.  He appeared hesitant and 
less-certain than Bourassa on just about all topics and stuck 
less to the facts and relied more on emotional outburst and fear
mongering.  Bourassa appeared more credible and offered greater 
logic and pragmatism.  

For the record, I'm voting Yes to the Charlottetown Accord.  
My rationale: It's good enough - amongst thousands of other 
              reasons.
--
[Tony Cifelli              ][Phone:    613-765-2798   ][BNR is not accountable]
[Bell-Northern Research    ][FAX:      613-763-7043   ][for the opinions      ]
[P.O. Box 3511, Station C  ][Internet: tcifelli@bnr.ca][expressed herein.     ]
[Ottawa, On. K1Y 4H7 CANADA]["Still looking for a dramatic quote to put here!"]
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: How others see Canada
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:18:21 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1671@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka) writes:
]In the Detroit News, Oct. 14, 1992, p. 15 A, Columnist Chuck Moss
]discusses the fact that the Ontario government has approved
]casinos for Windsor. His comments show how Canada is viewed to
]at least one American. 
]
]   "Call it Club Canadian.  A slot machine - pull the handle.
]Too bad: two lemons and Pierrre Trudeau. Again: tow mulroneys and
]a can of Bass Ale. Pull again: three hockey players. Jackpot!
]   Half of the casino works like that. In the other half they
]make you speak French that no Parisian can understand, and fine
]you a hundred bucks if your name tag says Hello instead of Bonjour.
]Every couple of minutes a committee comes up and demands that
]the French half be walled off and get 90 percent of the revenue.
]In both halves, the casino workers go on strike every five minutes."

Well, well. This confirms a lot of preconceived opinions that we might
have on americons.

Also, Bass Ale is not Canadian.
And, I'm sure that Londonners have more facility to understand
americon english than Parisians to understand Quebecois french.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Curious Yes Campaign
Date: 9 Oct 1992 18:35:37 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: kynok.ucs.ubc.ca

I am a bit puzzled. The Yes team decided to have the referendum. They
chose the question. They defined the rules under which the debate
would take place (financing, tv time allocation, etc.). Yet the seem 
not to have thought through how to fight the battle. What is going on?
Can someone please explain this to me. Thanks.
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Charter of Rights (was Re: The Manning-Trudeau ...)
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:41:37 GMT
	<09OCT92.10530301.0067@VM1.MCGILL.CA> <13253@audetf>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM's message of 14 Oct 92 21:28:36 GMT

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.
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:23:20 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Oct4.235046.27055@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>In article <1992Oct01.220829.1331@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>> Isn't Ms Coyne the Nfld aide to Clyde Wells that had Trudeau's baby?
>This is a sexist way of stating the question; if she gave birth to it
>it is not only "Trudeau's baby".

  Ah, yes, the negative labels ... next to the 30 second clip one of the 
most favoured way to avoid any intelligent discussion. McCarthyism or
its modern counterparts are alive and well :-).

  Given that the affair had rather wide coverage at the time, and Ms.
Coyne herself was quoted as saying she actively sought to have Trudeau's
baby because she admired the genetic potential, I find it difficult to
understand how the above sentence fails to convey the same thing it did
back then. There are two people referenced, and most people have no 
difficulty understanding the family relationship between a woman and her 
child without having to explicitly clutter the sentence with a redundant
phrase, no?

>In any case, it's offensive to imply that her personal life should
>discredit her legal and political opinions.

  Perhaps for those who are so easily prone to offense, I should explain
more fully. Besides, I disagree about the personal life not being pertinent
to her political credibility. If the quality of a government contractor
is somehow determined by the political friendships of its executives, or
the suitability of an employee related to the family relationship to the
boss, then the political and stated personal relationships of Ms. Coyne is
certainly germane to a political debate in which she is actively campaigning
for one proponent's position. She is hardly and independent or unbiased
party. (I note that the 'discredit' concept is your own and not mine, shame).
  
  It was also done in response to a previous poster who commented on
the cogency and rationality of her arguments, without apparently being
aware of whose arguments they were.

  This is what was stated, no more ... no less. 

>And one more thing: she's no longer an aide to Clyde Wells.
>Mathew Englander.

  I believe the grammar and tense is perfectly consistent with this fact.

  Now can we get back to the debate?
---- 
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>
----
Xref: sparky can.politics:8488 can.general:4902 soc.culture.canada:7522
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Will Mulroney resign?
Date: 16 Oct 1992 01:09:39 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca
Originator: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca

I am all-but-certain that if there is a Yes vote in every province,
Mulroney will resign. If there is a No vote in one or more provinces
he is more likely to hang on as Progressive Conservative leader.

My reasoning is this: you can tell just by watching him over the
last few months how tired he is of the job. I'm sure he'd love to
say "Well, I've had two terms and accomplished what I set out to,
so now I'll give somebody else a chance." This would be easy to do
after a Yes vote, but if Charlottetown fails he couldn't resign
because it would make him look like a quitter, getting out when
the going's rough.

I think the next Conservative leader will be either Kim Campbell
or Barbara McDougall. Perrin Beatty has an outside chance.

Mathew Englander.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 11:31:31 EDT
From: bob burge <BURGER@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Referendum Results Newsgroup

I heard that the Chief Electoral Officer has allowed _Newsworld_ to go on
the air live, just as they normally would, to all parts of the country.

Can anyone confirm this?

Bob Burge                                  Internet: burger@qucdn.queensu.ca
Opinion Research Unit - Queen's University - Kingston - ON - Canada - K7L3N6
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Bye for now < busy busy busy
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:52:28 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 794

I don't have the time to keep up to date with you all now.

My work is behind and I have a lot to do before AND AFTER the 26th.

You can still e-mail me.

I won't be scanning the news here very often from now and for a while.

Just a last parting word:-


  It's not a vote to keep the country together; it's not a "unity vote";
  Read the question; then vote "NO!" (meaning you DO NOT want the 
  constitution of Canada renewed on the basis of the Ch'town "consensus").

Bye for now. :-)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Referendum Results Newsgroup
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 21:32:41 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

> In article <wcsv2k.718551782@cunews> wcsv2k@alfred.carleton.ca (Bill St. Arna
> >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 !


There are thousands of people in B.C., including me, who will know how 
the East (everybody on the east side of the Rockies :-) ), voted before 
the polls close here. The information is widely available - on shortwave 
radio, satellite dishes, and by telephone from friends and relatives. 
There is NO practical way to enforce ANY kind of information ban.

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
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:19:29 GMT

myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:

>Manning has directed his fine mind towards reinforcing people's
>grievances and channelling the blame for those grievances towards a
>source of his own choosing, all the while conveniently offering weak or
>even incorrect reasons for linking the two (the grievance vs. the
>source).

>Hitler also had that very same magical gift.
>Hitler was a _very_ smart man too.

>Listen to this week's Double Exposure. I got a good laugh out of it.

Why? I've already had a better laugh from your comparison.

>Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada

Charles Jobagy
charles@cs.ualberta.ca
Xref: sparky can.politics:8349 soc.culture.canada:7439
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Reform ads misleading, ironic
Keywords: penguins, lobotomy
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:02:56 GMT


  It's interesting to note, that although the Reform party ads purport
to be based on facts and issues, rather than making emotional appeals,
they consistently refer to the Charlottetown Accord as "Mulroney's
Deal", attempting to make use of the negative connotations associated
with the word Mulroney. As Chris Cobb in the Ottawa Citizen points
out, this is "at best misleading, and at worst an outright lie". 

  I also find it very ironic that the "Reform" party now says that
Canada's constitution does not need to be changed.

-- 
 Alan Knight  knight@mrco.carleton.ca  +1 613 788 2600x5783   Vote
 Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering                Yes/Oui
 Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1S 5B6        Oct. 26

Xref: sparky can.politics:8560 soc.culture.canada:7582