HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong)
Subject: Re: 95 % rep by pop (was Re: Joe Clark's Session ...)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:11:49 GMT

dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:

>Mark Anthony Young (marky@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
>: 
>: In any case, the 25% guarantee will become more and more important as
>: the next century progresses.  By 2041 Quebec will have dropped to about
>: 20% of Canada's population.  By that time the House may have swelled to
>: more than 400 members.  Quebec's 25% guarantee would then be getting it
>: at least 20 extra seats in the HoC.  

>How can you predict the future in this way? Much of the growth industries are
>located in Quebec. High-tech companies such as NT, BNR, NRC. The Canadian
>Space Agency. This is were the future lies.

According to Statistics Canada Quebec's population will be 2041 be
below 25% of Canada's population.  It may in fact be reach 20%.
Though Quebec may have some very notable high tech companies the desireablity
of living in place is more important.  This does include job opportunities
but also includes climate, education opportunites, lifestyle, economic
prospects, demographic trends, immigration, and other important factors.
In the future it looks as though Ontario will continue to dominate both
in population and economic strength.  However, B.C. in fifty years may
grow to such a level that it matches Quebec's population.  That is it
matches the grow trends exhibited in California.  People may be moving
to B.C. because it has real growth opportunities.  The climate in B.C.
is very mild.  That means NO SNOW.  If people had the choice of freezing
on a winter day while walking on snow and ice to a gray day in Vancouver
where the ground is clear and green there is no choice.  Freezing
in Quebec at -30 C is like sticking yourself in the freezer and staying
there.  In Vancouver on the same day you could be enjoying the day 
without freezing and playing golf and (unbelievable) watching the
early flowers blooming.  Language choice is also important to people.
The first choice of immigrants is to learn English not French.
All in all B.C. has the makings to grow at a phenomenal rate.

Doug
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:49:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.224636.10003@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>
>>thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes: 
>
>>>What should happen after the accord is rejected?
>>
>>Nothing on the constitution, hopefully.  And maybe the gov't can get on
>>with the day-to-day running of the country instead.
>
>In other words, ignore the concerns of 
>	-francophone Quebeckers who feel cheated after 1980-82, 
>	-residents of western, atlantic, and northern Canada who
>	 feel they don't have adequate representation in the
>	 country's central institutions, and
>	-aboriginal Canadians, who have been trampled on for 350
>	 years and want the guarantee of being able to govern
>	 themselves with Canada.
>
>These are problems that will not go away. If the government just
>ignores the constitution question after a No result, national
>discontent will fester, and everyone, except some Ontarians, will
>be unhappy with Canada.
>

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.

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.

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.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:01:33 GMT

Steve Potter (steven@spxtech.qc.ca) wrote:
: From article <1992Oct1.015139.25793@unixg.ubc.ca>, by mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander):
: > Some postings have said or implied that under the Canada Clause,
: > individual rights are not recognized as a fundamental characteristic
: > of Canada.
: > 
: > This is incorrect. The text is:
: > 	
: > 	2. (1) The Constitution of Canada, including the _Canadian
: > 	Charter of Rights and Freedoms_, shall be interpreted in a 
: > 	manner consistent with the following fundamental character-
: > 	istics:
: > 		[...]
: > 	    (f) Canadians are commited to a respect for individ-
:                 ^^^^^^^^^
: > 	    ual and collective human rights and freedoms of all
: > 	    people;
: > 		[...]
: > 
: 
: 
: "Canadians" - Not their governments! - sorry.

The governments are Canadian.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Xref: sparky can.politics:8063 soc.culture.canada:7228
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Reasons to STAY AWAY from the NO side
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 05:57:08 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #2, Edmonton, AB, Canada

sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:

- >>>>> On 5 Oct 92 12:13:52 GMT, yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Y
-
-   > 1. Preston Manning, Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard.
-
- What about our fellow canadians from the CORE ? :-)

  Merci, Stephane, que j'ai rate de mentionne Elmer Knutson.
-
-   > 2. INterests WOULD sore on 27. OCT and the exchange value of the Candaian
-   > dollar WOULD plummet.
-
- Yeah right!

 Un moment.  SI on regarde la France pendant le referendum de Maastricht, la
Franc a echoue un peu, et pouvait echoue plus s'il y a eu le NON, mais
moi je suis contre Maastricht.

-
-   > Mind you though, if this referendum was more sensible, I would do the
-   > following:
-
-   > 1) Do you wnat QC a part of Canada?  Yes
-
- People should also have to say why. Otherwise, for exemple,
- this guy from McGill who wants to send in the Army if Quebec
- secede would also answer yes, and it would be confusing. :-)

 D'accord :-)

-
-   > 2) DO you think QC should be a Dicstinct Society? No
-                                    ^^^^^^^^^
-
- Why not stinking ? (I could have made something with the
- first three letters, but anglophones would get upset) :-)

  Voyons!! :-)  Un autre errer fameux.
-
-   > 3) Do you support the concept of Economic Union?  Yes
-
- Weren't you against Free Trade Dave?

  L'idee que notre premier ministre a, oui.

-
-   > 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.
-
- (A bit contradictory, I think)
-
- Why are westerners against a decentralised government? This
- would free the western provinces from the "nasty
- central government", while accomodating Quebec.
-

  Moi, je ne suis pas un de ce gens de l'Ouest.  Je suis plutot POUR un
gouvernement centralisee.

-   > 6) Do you which to have Capital Punishment reinstated for Separatists?  Y
-
- Please Dave, take the time to add smileys where appropriate.
- It is not at all obvious when you are the poster.
-
- --
-   ,                          ,                           ,
- Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
- sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
- sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078


Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca,
userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Canadians: send a clear message to the government!  ON Oct. 26, Abstain
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Beyond the referendum
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:45:10 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

It looks like Quebec and B.C. will be voting "no" in the referendum.

If so, then Canadians will miss another opportunity to resolve
the constitutional dispute.

Worse, it will create an unwelcome opportunity for separatists
to argue that Canada is a dead end for Quebec.

But we will be free of this abortion we call the Charlottetown Accord.

What should happen after the accord is rejected?

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: New social programs if Charlottetown passes
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:52:35 GMT

dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Mathew B Englander (mathew@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: Why would the federal government want to pay for a program when in some
>: provinces the provincial government will get all the credit?
>
>This notion of 'credit' is a strange one. What happened to altruism? What
>happened to the federal government governing all of us? If we are prosperous,
>do we not give them 'credit'?

I'm not suggesting that everyone has a personal list of brownie points
for each level of government. However, when people get a cheque that says
"Government of Canada" on it, or utilize a service with that label, it
usually registers on their consciousness. This of course is not the only
reason a government initiates a spending program, but I believe it is
important. At election time, there are always people who think "what has
this government done for me lately". Maybe this isn't nice, but it's true.

If I pay for a present to give to you, I won't be happy if someone
else's name is on the card.

Mathew Englander.
From: michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:12:54 GMT
Organization: Rhinoceros, chargez!


thood@hilda.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes :

>I agree with this history, but it does not change the facts: a "no" puts
>Quebec separatists in a strong position.

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
(514) 671-8820				   OU :	michele%catnix@cam.org

La Liberte n'est pas une marque de yogourt.
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:01:20 GMT

ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare) writes:
>>
>>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).
>
>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.

It is well nigh impossible to get information at that level of detail
outside of Canada.  Even Columbia B-school grads that I know who've
gone on to work on Wall Street as Canada-watchers (most Canadian, but
quite a few not) don't bother with sources like UPI's online Clarinet
which we do get at Columbia ... there are bigger things for them to
consider than Mulroney mouthing off in some little rural Quebec town.
Heck, some of the non-Canadian Canada watchers don't even know much
about our smaller cities let alone small towns ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: 95 % rep by pop (was Re: Joe Clark's Session ...)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:07:02 GMT

In article <BvM9DE.557@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Douglas Ming Chong (douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
>: early flowers blooming.  Language choice is also important to people.
>: The first choice of immigrants is to learn English not French.
>: All in all B.C. has the makings to grow at a phenomenal rate.
>
>The first choice of immigrants TO BC is to learn english. This is because
>if you speak french in BC you are liable to be treated like dirt.

Wrong. If you speak French in BC, people won't understand you. It's that
simple, there's no need to invent hostility. Actually, I've heard French
spoken openly, especially around UBC, etc, and nobody on the bus or street
started burning fleur-de-lis, or anything like that. People in BC are used to
hearing other languages.

>
>I rather think the majority of immigrants to Quebec would learn french.
>
>--
>Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegemony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Why I like the Charlottetown Accord
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:03:35 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: The Senate is a fraud...and an equal Senate is a stupid idea.

I'm sure Don Getty agrees with you that an equal Senate is a stupid
idea. I'm sure all Canadians do, that why we told Keith we wanted one.
We're too stupid to know any better.

: 
: The federal government is not likely to raise taxes to provide the 
: necessary funds for a equivalent level of training in poor provinces,
: and their is no commitment to labour mobility or to portable of
: qualifications or training.  If you live in a poor province you 
: are being royally screwed by Charlottetown...

The constitution under Charlottetown commits the federal government to
equivalent training and economic oportunities for all provinces. This
is justiciable.

: >A lot of political capital is made by the "NO" side as to the
: >unavailability of the deal. Read the summary. It's not going to change
: >drastically. Any major change would require the consent of all of the
: >premiers, the first peoples, the federal government, etc. You can rest
: >assured that there will be no surprises between the summary and the final
: >document.
: >
: 
: Let us deny Bob Rae the final legal text of NAFTA...and see what
: results.

Any changes require unanymity. How do you think that is going to be
achieved behind our backs as it were?

: 
: >It is extremely important that every Canadian vote in this plebescite. It
: >is of fundamental importance that you vote on the contents of the
: >Charlottetown Accord. You should not vote the way someone tells you to. You
: >should not vote because of something you heard. Ignore the rhetoric, rise
: >above the name calling. Don't vote "NO" because you like Preston Manning.
: >Don't vote "YES" to spite Jacques Parizeau. Vote your mind. Read the
: >Accord, check those items you like, check those items you do not. Balance
: >the two. What can you live with. What do you like. What do you dislike, but
: >would campaign to change. Remember, we all have to live with the
: >consequences of a vote.
: >
: 
: Understand the likely implications of voting for the deal...most
: definitely...and vote on content...and not out of fear.

Agreed. Because if you vote on the contents, you will vote YES. If you
vote NO because you are afraid of the future you are really just
hiding from reality.

: 
: >Remember, a YES vote gives us a framework for future discussions,
: >revisions, and clarifications. A NO vote simply puts us back to the start,
: >looking for consensus in a strained environment.
: >
: 
: The current constitution has worked for 125 years.  A YES vote does
: ...

This is a specious argument. My car has worked for 10 -- will it work
forever? Of course not -- there will come a day I will need to repair
it.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:16:17 GMT

In article <BvEFsF.5DF@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>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.

It not what I asked for.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:55:23 GMT

David Adrien Tanguay (dat@thinkage.on.ca) wrote:
: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: >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.
: 
: Only for the one reapportionment following the 1996 census. Subsequent
: re-allocations are not covered by the 95%.

Subsequent re-allocations are handled by elections Canada in the manner in
which they always have.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Challenge
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:46:47 GMT

(Thomas Hood) writes:

>No matter.  They are still guaranteed;  the Charter still applies,
>but differently.  It now takes into account rights of collectivities
>that some people care about.

The only right a collective needs is the individual right of freedom of
association.

>B.C. will not necessarily be more underrepresented than other
>English-speaking provinces, and I am not interested in yet
>another childish separation project.

Of course you're not.  I don't think Quebec could bear the thought of
bending to the demands of some other separatist province.

>Apartheid was imposed by whites.  Aboriginal self-government is
>demanded by natives.  The moral foundations are poles apart.

Rubbish.  You are just looking at the two from different angles.
Try "apartheid was demanded by whites", and you begin to see the
similarities.  Collective rights is nothing more that apartheid.
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A thought for the Trudon'ts
Date: 4 Oct 92 06:17:59 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

Ross Wetmore, in a somewhat incoherent posting, asks a "simple question" that
I've had to read three times before giving up. The best I can do (sorry, I'm
just an MA with 25 years in reading student prose) is that he wants someone
to explain why Trudeau is raising his arguments at this point.

Ross, I'll tell you a story. In 1983 I taught in China, where each class in
my school had a political officer. His job was to make sure everyone said the
right things and did the right things, and those who didn't got jobs in Tibet
right after graduation. Some of the students were bright, well-schooled urban
kids; some were hicks from the country who spat on the classroom floors. But
they came from "good class backgrounds," so despite their poor training and
worse manners, they got some mighty scarce classroom space.

The Chinese preference for "good classes," and persecution of "bad classes,"
is an extreme form of the collectivism we are now about to enshrine in our
constitution. It says some of us are more deserving than others because of
the language we speak, or our genetic inheritance; and other are less
deserving because we speak the wrong language or have the wrong genes.

China has survived 40 years of collectivism, but not well. Why should we
repeat their mistakes by entrenching racism and sexism in our constitution?
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:21:45 GMT

In article <CLAMEN.92Oct1181634@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>
>By calling yourself a Canadian, you are claiming certain rights not
>given to those human beings that are not Canadian.

That is because it is the limit of the present world system.  If we had
a world gov't I would want only individual rights there.  Until then, I must
content myself with ensuring individual rights in Canada.
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:58:03 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 666

From article <1992Sep28.214510.21071@pandora.matrox.com>, by thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood):

> What should happen after the accord is rejected?
> 

What do we (as individuals) wish would happen?

What do we (as individuals) think ought to happen?

What could happen?

What might be reasonably expected to happen?

What might actually come to pass?

:-)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Reply-To: marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 15:19:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep21.225456.20015@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
[...]
>Any astute politician would have waited until a better political climate
>ensued before bringing the document [the constitution] over.  But noooooo...
>Pierre wanted to grab this historical prize for himself.  Pretty foolish.

There's no doubt that ego played a role in Trudeau's desire to repatriate the
constitution.  He wanted to do it, and he saw the end of his political career
in the not-too-distant future.

So the man is human.  What a revelation!  What politician does _not_ want to
leave his mark on the country?

I'll give him this much: he was trying to leave the country with a good, fair
and equitable constitution.  In the meantime, Mulroney is trying to leave the
country with a set of perverted amendments which pander to special interest
groups...
-- 
Marc Riehm      Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
marc@meadow.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada