HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Reasons to STAY AWAY from the NO side
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:47:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.174127.23633@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>>
>>I don't particularly think that asymmetrical federalism is workable,
>>but I would not be opposed to a constituent assembly developing a model
>>of asymmetrical federalism, because I think it would be summarily
>>rejected by both Quebeckers and Canadians when they saw the details.
>
>Why do you believe this, Gerald?

Asymmetrical federalism is a half-measure, and if fleshed out in detail,
either the mild asymmetry we have now, or sovereignty-association would
be much more attractive.  I could be wrong...of course.  The "profitable
federalists" advocate asymmetrical federalism, because they believe that
they can have their cake and eat it too...but any realistic model of
asymmetrical federalism would mean the end of equalization payments
from Canada, and other net transfers Quebec receives of which UI
is the next largest.  Together equalization and UI comprise a $3 billion
dollar flow into Quebec which would disappear.  If the money goes, than
Quebec might as well go all the way to sovereignty.  Asymmetrical
federalism is only a more attractive option to Quebec than sovereignty if
the fiscal subsidization comes with it.

The other problem with asymmetrical federalism is the dual status
MP's which Quebec would have in Ottawa, who could only vote on certain
issues.  I think this would ultimately be unsatisfactory to both
Quebec and Canada.  A half-choice just won't be a good choice.

The choice then comes down to the choice between mild asymmetry, and
sovereignty...which is then somewhat of an aesthetic choice about what
is in the better long term interests of Quebec...and I think Canada
would win.

I think, in some sense, Charlottetown, eliminates the clear choice,
because a YES vote is a vote for the disintegration of Canada, and
the subsequent choices will be much more confused, because TROC is not
likely to survive Charlottetown.  For Quebecker's, Charlottetown might be
sovereignty on the installment plan, but there may not be a Canada
left for it to associate with...          

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: A thought for the Trudon'ts
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:42:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct04.054609.17657@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>Marxism, suspended the great debate for a century or so, until both
>>the Western Enlightenment and tribalism prevailed over Marxism, and
>>now turn to do battle with each other again.
>
>The new world (i.e. over here) will hence represent enlightenment,
>and the old world represent tribalism. Europe will be the one place
>most torn by the two, since its decendents populated most of the new
>world, and now thumb their noses back at the old world at their old
>way of doing things (i.e. tribalism). The Asian world will continue
>on its tribalistic ways for quite a few centuries yet. Don't ever go
>campaigning in China for multiculturalism. You'll be wasting your time.
>
>>It is not clear, at least to me, whether compromise or peaceful
>>coexistence is possible...
>
>Of course it is. Just trade and visit between the two camps, and don't
>force your ideology onto others.
>

Marxism is still holding sway in China, but barely...one should fear 
tribal warlordism will return when Marxism fails...

>>...ultimately it comes down to the simple fact that liberty,
>>tolerance, and democracy are not compatible with tribalism.
>
>It is, actually. Tribalism results in the lack of some of the above
>for those from another tribe. When those "others" are so few in
>numbers that special enlightened treatment can be granted to them
>so that they truly feel welcome, things will be fine. It's when 
>"they" grow in number to become a "visible minority" that things
>start to get ugly. The solution is to separate the two, and then
>you'll have liberty, fraternity, and profitablity for all in the
>tribe.
>

You can't separate tribes in the global village...which is why it
will be an ideological civil war, and not an ideological cold war.

Gerald


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:53:39 GMT

Thomas Hood (thood@corvus.matrox.com) wrote:
: 
: The ruling party often has 70% of seats, and in any case, provincial
: parties are provincially-minded and incapable of devoting themselves
: to the national interest.

That's a little unkind. I don't believe provinces are _against_ the national
interest. In most cases, national interest and provincial interests coincide.
Employment, standard of living, peace, etc. Provinces are part of the nation
too.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: randy@mdavcr.mda.ca (Randy Armstrong)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: The Royal Bank Report
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:12:50 GMT
Organization: MacDonald Dettwiler, 13800 Commerce Parkway, Richmond, BC, Canada  V6V 2J3

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

I have an open question for all those out there who believe the separation
of Quebec is a feasible, even desirable alternative: How can you possibly
believe that the economic consequences would not devastating? How can    
the French language and culture be better protected if thousands of 
Quebecers are thrown out of work because of the uncertainty surrounding
the break up? In any case what kind of sovereignty would Quebec have if
it used the Canadian dollar without the consent of TROC; it would become
an economic colony of TROC with no say in it's own monetary policy. How
does that promote the preservation of French culture?

Randy Armstrong
<mine opinions are mine own>
 

A
A
A
A
Ai
 
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:55:55 GMT

In article <BvG1nD.u5@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca writes:
: No.  The reason the dollar is at $0.80 US is because the prime minister
: SAYS a no vote is the end of Canada.  Foreign investors listen to such
: comments and get nervous.  If the PM said something like "It will not
: have any long term effect on the economy" then foreign investors would
: not be nervous.

And he would be lying. He has to speak his mind too. If our prime minister
were to stand and tell Canadians something he did not believe to be true,
he could be impeached.

Nothing is stopping you from saying your opinion. The PM is saying what he
believes to be fact.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: The "No" Camp
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 13:57:31 GMT

In article <BvAHF5.M1B@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Yes, but will the rest of Canada go through another round? Anti-Quebec
>sentiment is running high, and is one of the primary weapons of the NO side
>outside Quebec. Many people will vote NO and think "Good. Let them rot. Let
>them go bankrupt as a sovereign state". This is the sad truth. The fact that
>we will go bankrupt with them will only serve to fuel this moral
>indignation.


I guess it depends on whether you base your principles on reason or emotionalism.
Personally I don't think that a separate Quebec OR a Quebec in a federal
democratic and EQUAL Canada makes all that much difference. I would prefer
the federal state because I oppose secession of peoples and support unity
of peoples on principles of equality and liberty. 

Of course I live in Ottawa and have lived here all my life. Quebec is
not "OVER THERE", it's 2 minutes across the bridge. My friends are my
friends, no matter what their citizenship....Quebec will not sail out to sea,
whatever the outcome of a referendum or even with secession.

We swim in Quebec, we watch the leaves fall in the trees of the Gatineau Hills, 
we grew up drinking at the Chaudiere club, I was married in Quebec because 
the court house was open on Saturdays, we can buy beer there on Sundays
at the corner store...

Frank.
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:21:57 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <BvG0uA.nt@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
]In article <13029@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
]]In article <BvALAy.CLE@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
]]]Well, they will be protected in New Brunswick, and also in Ontario, and
]]]quite probably in Manitoba.  You see, just because Quebec goes off the 
]]]deep end, doesn't mean the rest of Canada will become intolerant.
]]
]]Encore des idioties. Essaie de te faire servir au Restaurant en
]]francais a l'exterieur du Quebec et tu passeras pour un martien. Meme
]]a Ottawa, cas ne marche que tres irregulierement. Fait le contraire au
]]Quebec, et ca marche a peu pres n'importe ou.
]
]Have you ever lived in Northern New Brunswick.  I have.  It's 80% French.
]As to what language they use - they start in French.  In fact, in Shippigan
]I had to speak French to the doctor to describe my symptoms.
]Yes, Francois, there is a lot of French outside of Quebec.

That's not my point.
I'm saying that in Quebec, you can get service in english from
francophones almost anywhere while in TROC you are unable to get
french service from anglophones almost anywhere.

Of course francophones in NB (or anywhere) will be able to speak
french.

Secondly, I don't think that there is "a lot" of francophones in TROC,
except in NB and for very small pockets elsewhere.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:23:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.001925.11143@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>We have a precedent in Quebec: Bill 1.  This means:
>- English no longer permitted in Quebec legislature;
>- English court proceedings no longer guaranteed;
>- English school eligibility confined to citizens of Quebec (not Canada)
>- English no longer permitted on signs inside stores;
>- English-language catalogues, brochures and other advertising no longer
>  permitted;
>- the definition of "non-francophone" restricted to those with a language
>  other than French as mother tongue instead of as first language.
>
>On top of this, in a separate Quebec:
>- Protestant school boards eliminated;
>- English CBC television and radio networks disappear;
>- reciprocal university privileges disappear: McGill University
>  becomes officially francophone.
>- etc.
>
>Now Rheal, you tell me what will happen to the rights of francophones
>outside Quebec.

Well, they will be protected in New Brunswick, and also in Ontario, and
quite probably in Manitoba.  You see, just because Quebec goes off the 
deep end, doesn't mean the rest of Canada will become intolerant.
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: sex and the senate
Date: 23 Sep 92 17:04:25 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill) writes:

>     I guess what I am really saying is that in order to succeed in politics,
>women must emulate the males that are in power.  Or conversely, generally the
>females that naturally are `forceful', to use your terminology, are the ones
>with higher success rates in politics.  And this then just begs the question,
>is there a better way to run the country?

No.

Hurrah for Kim Campbell!

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:14:39 GMT

Paul Ward (ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: In article <1992Sep29.223014.5686@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
: >
: >An expensive sham, perhaps, but hardly a "token consultation", sir.
: 
: I believe it was a "token consultation" in the sense that the gov't set
: up many commissions to ask us what we wanted, and then turned around
: and said; "well that's nice.  Here's what you get."

Except that "What we get" is what we asked for. Rep by pop. Native rights.
Gender rights. Linguistic rights. Federal sharing of power.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: Where's the $ (?!)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:23:45 GMT

"all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
George Orwell, Animal Farm.
 
Or was that part of the legal text phrasing of the Canada clause?
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Quebec independence (was Re: Analyzing the Deal)
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:43:59 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <dregeczi.717382229@sfu.ca> dregeczi@fraser.sfu.ca (David Joseph Regeczi) writes:

>From my understanding, Quebec must hold a referendum on sovereignty before
>the government can declare independence.  (Someone correct me if I am wrong).

I don't think there's any law that says explicitly that this is the
case.  The tidiest way to bring about independence would be by an
amendment to the Canadian constitution saying that Quebec is no
longer part of Canada.  I don't think Ottawa would pass such an
amendment without a clear indication that this was the desire of
a majority of Quebecers.  A referendum would be the best way to
demonstrate this point.

If Ottawa refused to cooperate, Quebec could go the route of a
unilateral declaration of independence.  The success of such a course
would likely depend on the amount of foreign recognition.  Once
again, a referendum would be an important tool to show the
legitimacy of the UDI government.  So I think a referendum is
almost inevitable if independence is to come about.

You will recall that the 1980 referendum was just to give the
government a mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association.  I
suspect that the next PQ government will take the position that
its election is sufficient mandate to begin negotiations on
independence, and the referendum will only be on the final
declaration of independence.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:43:39 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond) writes:

>If you truly believe what you say, then I suggest you read the
>article written by (or about) Deborah Coyne in today's
>Financial Post.  This lady says the exact contrary, i.e.  a YES
>vote is definitely in favor of the PQ.
>Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ......  B.P.: michele@catnix.UUCP

You are right: separatists are in a good position either way.  I consider
this: Bourassa is campaigning for the "yes" by saying it would not tie
Quebec's hands in any way.  This undermines any value the Accord has as
a compromise.  Quebec's signature on the constitution becomes worthless.
The Accord becomes appeasement.

So the question becomes, should we accept the Accord on its merits?
My answer is "no", but "no" leaves us with the original problems that
Meech and Charlottetown tried to solve.  Hence this thread.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Why I will vote NO on Oct. 26
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:26:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct01.185740.28862@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>
>  As citizens we can change the Constitution anytime we want. As a matter of
>fact I thought that is what we were currently engaged in doing. You don't
>need to wait for a five year vote ...

No.  It requires the approval of 7 provinces with 50% of the population.
It is far easier to change the federal gov't than to change the constitution.
Just ask BM the PM.  He is painfully aware of how difficult it is to change.
To say that it is trivial is to ignore reality, but you do seem to relish
that.

>>b)  And far more relevant, just because I have to give my MP a blank cheque
>>    (I would like to change this), is no grounds for giving the gov't 
>>    another blank cheque.  Or to put it another way; tell me, Ross, if
>>    you do something stupid, do you go and do other stupid things, 'cause
>>    after all, you've already done one stupid thing?
>
>  I never thought democracy or voting was stupid ... I guess I didn't get
>taught the right things in political indoctrination class :-)

I did not start the "blank cheque" analogy (and if you don't think signing
a blank cheque is stupid, then I will tell you my mailing address and
you can send me one :-).  I merely indicated that IF you believe that
voting in an election is akin to giving the gov't a blank cheque (a stupid
thing to do), it does not follow that you sould do another stupid thing.
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 00:48:31 GMT

In article <BvEJ1G.Atw@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>: 
>: You don't need to change the constitution to address those problems.
>: 
>: The federal government can unilaterally withdraw from areas of
>: provincial jurisdiction where it is not wanted...and use it's
>: spending power more judiciously.  It can consult more before
>: taking actions precipitously which affect provinces.
>
>This is what the ammendments to the Constitution are all about. How can you
>believe it is good that this happen, but bad that the Accord says it should
>happen? Hypocritical.
>

But I included "use its spending power more judiciously"...I would
support some restrictions on the spending power only...Charlottetown
goes way to far...and this is the kicker.  I agree that the federal
government probably uses the spending power too much, but it is
absolutely essential occassionally...and the federal spending power
is crucial in limited but essential ways to meet the global
economic challenges we face...especially in terms of individual
empowerment initiatives.  The provinces were empire-building
in Charlottetown and the federal government surrendered to much.

>: 
>: The federal government can pass a law to allow for the election
>: of Senators, and we will have a double-E Senate...with 24 Senators
>: from the West, 24 from Ontario, 24 from Quebec, 30 from the
>: Maritimes, and 2 from the North...not perfect...but not bad.
>
>If you can swing this with Alberta, I would like to see it.
>If you can swing this with Quebec, I would like to see it.
>

>: 
>: And the federal and provincial governments can begin negotiating
>: and legislating self-government for aboriginals, entrenching
>: the laws and the agreements at some future date.  And I would
>: argue, that this would be infinitely superior for aboriginals,
>: since they will likely have to spend less time in court.
>: 
>
>This is what Charlottetown does.
>

But one does not need Charlottetown to do it.

>You are arguing in this entire article FOR the contents of Charlottetown, yet
>think it is better done piecemeal without provincial consultation. Why not
>have it done with Charlottetown, and be done with it? Why pressure the
>federal government a little bit at a time for this and that? Why?
>

Well there still are my objections to the Canada Clause, the appointment
procedure (but not the numbers) for the Supreme
Court, the abandonment of representation by population, the Canadian
Politburo, the surrender of training and telecommunications to the
provinces, the lack of an economic union and common market.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:16:14 GMT

Murray Frank (frank@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: 
: I live in BC. As far as I can see this document proposes to make my
: province permanently under-represented in the House of Commons and in
: the Supreme Court. Being a second class citizen is not the worst thing
: imaginable, but it is distasteful. If I can avoid it, I would prefer
: to do so. The entrenchment of certain special interests that happened
: to be in the right place at the right time is also distressing.

This document proposes that, after the 1996 census, no matter what your
population, you will have no worse than 95% of the seats you deserve. Find
that good a deal elsewhere, I ask you.
: 
: >
: >  1. Will Ontario and Quebec ever accept a pure EEE senate?  NOT!
: >  2. Will Quebec ever accept an accord without 'Distinct Society'?  NOT!
: >  3. Will the west ever get a better opportunity to guard it's natural 
: >     resources?  Probably NOT - unless they are their own country!
: 
: As I read the agreement there is essentially nothing present in the
: accord that would have prevented the National Energy Policy from
: having been implimented. The six senators from Alberta would not be
: enough. The question would be how much support do they get? 

The NEP would come under the protection of natural resources as a provincial
domain. Alberta could block this on these grounds.

: 
: >  4. Will the Federal Government, 10 Premiers, 2 Territorial Leaders, and the
: >     Natives ever reach a better deal?  NOT! NOT! NOT!
: 
: Why are you so sure about this? I am far from clear that the Accord is
: even as good as trying to bumbble along with the current Constitution.

We can't get along with the current constitution. It leaves 27% of the
population out. Over a quarter. That's not very fair.

: 
: It clearly reflects the thoughts of some elements of Canadian society.
: However, the ability of several special interests to have their special
: pleadings entrenched permanently in the Constitution may not be a
: reflection of the most noble elements of modern Canadian thinking.
: 

Which special interest groups are you against? Gender right? Native rights?
Minorities? I think entrenching these rights IS a reflection of the most
noble elements of modern Canadian thinking.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general