HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kkelly@TC1.ccs.ryerson.ca (Kevin Kelly)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: Ryerson
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:27:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.014114.1347@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
>Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
>Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:41:14 GMT
>In article <93020.174629SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>In article <1993Jan19.174121.4480@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim
>>Robinson) says:
>>>Just out of curiousity, do you support doing away with the secret ballot
>>>that was used for union certification purposes? This was one of Harcourt's
>>
>>Automatic certification exists in Ontario. It seems to me a waste
>>of money to run a vote when almost 50% of the possible voters have
>>already committed themselves to vote for one side.
>>
>
>Democracy is never a waste of money...and a secret ballot is essential
>to protect the rights of the individual.  But then the labour movement
>has never been interested in democracy!

On what do you base this pearl of wisdom. What is your experience of 
Unions? Have you ever belonged to one? Or are you one of these "I know 
people in Unions and...". Or do you base this statement on what you read in 
the press?

>
>Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 12:00:02 GMT

In article <93022.171907SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.223109.2347@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim
>Robinson) says:
>>
>>John G. Spragge (SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA) wrote:
>
>And one correction: union executives represent only their members.
>Nobody ever has to join a union; non-union workers in a certified
>workplace need only pay a service fee (for the union services they
>use).

They only represent themselves - between annual elections they do not
represent the members - indeed, they tend to perpetuate themselves too. The
Union Members may belong but not agree. If I have to pay, then I might as
well belong and we have had some very scary court cases about members who
did not agree with their money going to where the executive wanted to send
it. We have also had unions coming into court against members who went to
work during a strike with which they did not agree. Can't you see that
Unions are not democratic institutions.

I will give another example. I belong to the American Public Health
Association which purports to represent me on things like abortion - they
don't reflect my views at all. I belong because that is the way to get the
journal and that I really do want. I have written letters until I am tired
telling the executive that I do not agree with their lobbying on certain
issues yet they can say they represnt some 10,000 people in their lobbying -
all professionals. Is that democracy?


>

Xref: sparky can.politics:11771 soc.culture.canada:10529 can.general:6458
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,can.general
Subject: Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:34:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1993Jan27.173453.7131
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: Deep Space Nine (DS9)

yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>
>Facts:
>
>-  The GST has caused caused inflation to soar.  According to Stats 
>Can, the GST was responsible for a 1.6% increase in the CPI in Jan 1991.  
>Consequently, the implementation of the GST was in direct conflict with 
>the government's own inflation target.

This would be true if the GST were a new tax.  It replaces a hidden
wholesale tax that previously existed.

>- cross-border shopping has increased.

Read your newspaper.  It has gone down, due in large part to better
domestic marketing and internal streamlining in the private sector
(leaner and meaner).  If you have to, get last Wednesday's NYT.

It looks like I've left the federal Liberals for good now ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@columbia.EDU 			GO  Winnipeg Jets  GO!!!
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			Selanne + Domi ==> Stanley
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorry@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: Labrador boundary (was Re: S.N.A.G.G.)
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:27:46 GMT

In article <21JAN93.11063926.0102@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> writes:
> In article <1993Jan21.043235.22427@julian.uwo.ca> larocqu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JOHN LAROCQUE) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21.012015.10051@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>
>>>Newfoundland is part of Canada, you know, and I think it is not unreasonable
>>
>>Ever since Mackenzie King manipulated Labrador in the Newfie's favor and
>>they foolishly voted for Confederation.....
>>
> Does this come from the same John LaRocque history text which has
> World War 2 being started by the assassination of a Yugoslavian
> politician in 1917?  Are you seriously suggesting that Nfld opted
> for Confederation in 1949 because they had won the Labrador
> boundary dispute 22 years earlier?  Care to provide details?

Wait, Tom, maybe John has something here. We were always under the 
impression that Newfoundlanders who voted 
for Confederation in 1948 mostly did so out of disgust with the 
previous way our country was run. MAybe, just maybe, the RCMP (acting through 
their secret Newfoundland operative Joey Smallwood) was
behind a mass brainwashing/hypnotism of the Newfoundland people to 
make them think they were really thanking MacKenzie King for 
convincing the Privy Council to go with Newfoundland's interest's over 
Canada's in 1927. Maybe John could even write a thesis on this 
exciting new concept in revisionist history.

...Jamie
> 
> Tom Box
> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
> 
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
Subject: Re: Misleading stats
Reply-To: chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask)
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 16:40:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.063014.8618@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.052001.11893@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes:
>>>   On the "Facts (sic) & Arguments" page of the _Globe & Mail_ today,
>>> there's a statement that "The majority of men who assault women in 
>>> Canada are white (71.9 per cent) and Canadian-born (63.4 per cent)."
>>>   Does anybody know what the percentages of men in Canada total that 
>>> fit these characteristics (white and born here)?  Somehow, I suspect
>>> that the numbers would be remarkably similar.
>>
>>Not exactly, but I have some numbers that should be close enough, from
>>the 1993 Canadian Global Almanac.
>>
>>Of Canadian residents, 40% are of British, 27% French, and 20% other
>>European ethnic origin.  (No date is given for this statistic; I would
>>suspect it comes from the 1986 census.)  Depending on who is doing the
>>classifying, some Europeans might not be considered white, but probably
>>not many; and I would expect men and women to be distributed similarly
>>in this regard.  Therefore the portion of men who are white should be
>>something over 80%.

Don't know anything about it, but it reminds me of another interesting stat:

By per-capita representation, native born Canadians are more likely to be
on welfare than immigrants, and equally likely to be on unemployment.  As
an immigrant myself (American, which wome of you will view differently), I
can say taht in over ten years, I've accepted _no_ public assistance,
though I have been eligable.

Another note,

My cousin runs the Manhattan Naturalization Center of US immigration (the
largest immigration centre in the US), and she tells me that Canada is
highly thought of in the global immigration community as a perfect example
of how to do great work without being taken for a sucker.  By US law, an
immigrant who has been on welfare the ENTIRE TIME of his/her stay in the US,
will get US citizenship after five years.  In Canada, despite popular
belief, illegal immigrants and immigrants with criminal records are almost
always packed up and sent back, period.

I've had the pleasure to work with many immigrants, most recently
Ethiopians, who, while speaking a little funny (in three to seven
languages), are quite willing to work for a living.  Most of the people on
Pogey I've known looked just like me; white.

-chris blask

An American who seems to appreciate Canada more than most Canadians.
From: chrise@gtm-inc.com (Chris Ecclestone)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Comparisons based on skin colour/ethnicity or Male/Female
Keywords: Discrimination, Statistics, Study, Race
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 20:48:04 EST
Reply-To: chrise@gtm-inc.com (Chris Ecclestone)
Distribution: world
Organization: G.T.M. Incorporated, Kingston, ON (613) 546-3078

I have seen several postings and news items (in all different media) 
which seek to explain or understand human behaviour by dividing the 
population into categories based on skin colour.  Other studies devide 
the population by gender.  Regardless of the fact that statistics are 
never proof of anything, people still try to use them to that end.  
Usually, statistics are compiled (or quoted) by a member of one of the 
identified groups in an attempt to "prove" that the other groups are 
worse than they are.  My question is this :  If statistics are to be 
kept, why are they not kept for all possible dividing (or uniting) 
criteria?  If they serve a purpose other than the promotion of racism, or 
the justification of discrimination based on race or gender, why don't we 
have ready access to statics such as the ratio of blue eyed embezelers to 
brown?  Why not compare the number of blonde green-eyed murderers to 
those with jet black hair and a missing right eye - the left one being 
pink due to contact lenses which are red?

What are people trying to prove with all these racist (sexist) 
statistics?

--------------------------------------------------
chrise@gtm-inc.com (Chris Ecclestone)
G.T.M. Incorporated BBS - 613/546-3078 [9600 v.32]
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN)
Subject: Re: Deficit, Deficit, who's got the Deficit? was: NDP "communism?"
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:49:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.041824.7161@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>Technology (and crime) are making big cities obsolete...the big
>deflation in real estate due to technology is yet to come...how's
>that for a apocalyptic prediction.  If war doesn't get the value
>of your house, the personal computer with a modem will.
>
>Gerald

  Don't let the city die!  Live downtown, not in the suburbs!  Be social
creatures -- work with others, not at home!  Don't commute!  We don't have
to let our cities go the way of the American ones!  They can be saved!

-- 
	               / )/ )/ )        /    /
			/  /  /      --/----/--
                       /  /  /  / \   /    /
		      /  /  /   \_/\ /    /  
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy)
Subject: Gay Rights and Political Parties
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:49:19 GMT



I'm curious is Canada's five major political parties have any 
significant differences of opinion on gay and lesbian civil rights
and all that?
-- 
-------------------
Daniel A. Murphy        Net:         murphy@well.sf.ca.us
San Francisco, CA       GEnie:       D.MURPHY11
U.S.A.                  MCI Mail:    377-7947
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,soc.culture.usa,talk.politics.misc
From: murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy)
Subject: Re: Clintonmania vs. Trudeaumania (was MTV BALL 10,000 Maniacs)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:55:24 GMT



> $23 million inauguration

None of which is public money, it should be pointed out, so it says
nothing about Clinton's attitude about *government* spending.
-- 
-------------------
Daniel A. Murphy        Net:         murphy@well.sf.ca.us
San Francisco, CA       GEnie:       D.MURPHY11
U.S.A.                  MCI Mail:    377-7947
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart)
Subject: Re: Deficit, Deficit, who's got the Deficit? was: NDP "communism?"
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:18:44 GMT

In <1993Jan25.163624.18867@Princeton.EDU> nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker) writes:

>In article <jstewart.727977919@cunews> jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:
>>
>>I think the problem is that your fancy equilization formula doesn't
>>take into account the higher expenses of living in Ontario.  We 
>>would need a lot less money to attain the same livestyle in one of
>>the porrer provinces.

>Well, there's always a simple solution.  Why don't you write to Bob
>Rae and suggest he pass legislation cutting the price of houses in
>half?  That should solve the "higher expenses of living in Ontario"
>problem.

House prices have dropped in some areas, most notably Toronto, and prices
are stagnant just about everywhere else in Ontario.

This is just another example of the decrease in wealth in Ontario.
When houses appreciated in value at a rate well beyond the rate of 
inflation people at least had the satisfaction of knowing that
they were increasing their wealth even if their entire income was
being spent on basic necessities and taxes.  Now that prices are
stagnant (and likely to remain so for many years), a house can no longer
be viewed as an investment.

We ddidn't get into the house market until it was near its peak.  I wish
I had been born 10 years earlier! :-)
-- 
John Stewart -- Computing and Communications Services, Carleton University
Internet: jstewart@ccs.carleton.ca or Mr.Canoehead@algonquin.carleton.ca  
"The average middle income family with two parents and children pays $2,945
more in Federal taxes than they would have under the tax policies in place
before the Tories first came to power in 1984."
Xref: sparky can.politics:11702 talk.politics.theory:5782
From: msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Ethnic origin of Canadians (was Re: Misleading stats)
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 18:47:40 GMT


>>>>>>> ... from the 1993 Canadian Global Almanac.
>>>>>>> Of Canadian residents, 40% are of British, 27% French, and 20% other
>>>>>>> European ethnic origin.  (No date is given for this statistic; I would
>>>>>>> suspect it comes from the 1986 census.)

>>>> 40% of Canadian residents are of British origin !????

> Here are figures from the 1986 census.  In that census, 20 % of
> households received a "long form".  One of the questions asked
> on that form was (roughly) "What is your ethnic origin?"  Multiple
> responses were allowed.  The following  are the percentages who
> gave a "British" response to this question, either as a single
> response or part of a multiple response.
> ...
> [breakdown deleted]
> -----------
> Canada 48.8%

Thanks for posting that, Tom.  Note that multiple responses were allowed.
My conjecture is that the total percentages added up to something like
122%; if you scale 48.8% down by that factor, 40% is what you get.

By the way, the recent posting estimating the number of British-origin
residents in Quebec actually included only those retaining the "English
mother tongue" -- that's what the unexplained acronym EMT meant.  I asked
the poster in email.  Maybe everyone else on the newsgroup is familiar
with it, but I didn't see the point taken up in any followups.
-- 
Mark Brader		    "It can be amusing, even if painful, to watch the
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto	     ethnocentrism of those who are convinced their
utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com     local standards are universal."	-- Tom Chapin

This article is in the public domain.
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: Deficit, Deficit, who's got the Deficit? was: NDP "communism?"
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:58:19 GMT

>
>The problem of higher taxes decreasing (or seeming to) real disposable
>income is not unique to Ontario.
>
>I believe that Vancouver area home prices are comparable to, or greater
>than, TO area home prices. Ditto for other expenses (heating excepted). Yet
>BC is still a "have" province as well. [An interesting aside which does
>somewhat support John's complaint is that the home ownership rate in
>Newfoundland is about 80% and is, I believe, the highest in the country]
>
>One thing, however, that I could never understand is how Quebec is a
>"have-not" province. It seems quite well off compared to the Atlantic
>provinces and even Sask & Manitoba. Could Doug possibly address this?

The formula takes into account revenues of many different types.
Saskatchewan varies between a have and a have not province from year-to-year
based on the fact that it's revenue base changes quite a bit from year to
year (both natural resources and grain vary tremendously in price and thus
revenue bases for that province). Manitoba and Quebec are closer to the
accepted standard than the four eastern provinces but the formula brings the
poor provinces up to a six province average which was designed by the
Trudeau government (when it was last changed) to include those provinces as
poor provinces. 

Thus, if the Conservatives wanted to reduce the amount going to poor
provinces, particularly Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, all that has to
be changed is the standard level of revenues to equalize to - if that were
based on the national (all ten province average) Quebec and Manitoba would
still qualify (I think) but if it were say 40% of the national ten-province
average, both provinces would not qualify as poor provinces. Our
constitution since 1982 has guaranteed an equalization formula but never has
specified what formula. Thus, for those who want to complain, I suggest that
the acceptable standard be 40% national ten-province standard and billions
of dollars would be saved - can you imagine the hus and cry about how cruel
the Feds were being then? I just cannot imagine any government bring such a
policy in except maybe Reform and I don't believe they would even be
willing.

>Jim Robinson
>robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
>{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
>
From: ddjohnson@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Gay Rights and Political Parties
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:09:43 -0800
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

In article <murphy.727951759@well.sf.ca.us>, murphy@well.sf.ca.us (Daniel A. Murphy) writes:
> 
> I'm curious is Canada's five major political parties have any 
> significant differences of opinion on gay and lesbian civil rights
> and all that?

Given the poster's non-Canadian origin, I will assume the 
question is genuine. To summarise:

Reform: Homophobic
Progressive Conservative: Homophobic with some of a semi-tolerant
			  nature.
Liberal: depends on the day of the week.
NDP: Tolerant and committed.
BQ: ?
CHP: see Reform.

DDJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Johnson			"Injustice anywhere is a threat
Smithers, British Columbia	 to justice everywhere."
CANADA				 Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-68
This Account: DDJOHNSON@GALAXY.GOV.BC.CA
Direct Mail:  DJOHNSON@SMITHERS.ENV.GOV.BC.CA
Xref: sparky can.politics:11647 soc.culture.canada:10307
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Date: 23 Jan 93 17:31:03 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:

> i forget all the other details of the NDP's vicious anti-business
> labor laws. maybe it is the result of subconscious repression; they made
> me almost literally ill when i first read about them. and then he wonders
> why businesses are leaving the country. the man is the biggest
> ass ever to hold office.
> 
> --
> charles



The only "vicious" thing about Ontario's new labour laws is the vicious 
mis-characterization of them by the loony representatives of the 
infantile right. Your wild exaggeration is typical.


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

     "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital.  Capital is only
the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not
first existed.  Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much
the higher consideration."  - Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: NDP "communism?" (was Re: A vote for Reform...)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:00:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.014114.1347@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <93020.174629SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>>In article <1993Jan19.174121.4480@mdivax1.uucp>, robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim
>>Robinson) says:
>>>Just out of curiousity, do you support doing away with the secret ballot
>>>that was used for union certification purposes? This was one of Harcourt's
>>
>>Automatic certification exists in Ontario. It seems to me a waste
>>of money to run a vote when almost 50% of the possible voters have
>>already committed themselves to vote for one side.
>>
>
>Democracy is never a waste of money...and a secret ballot is essential
>to protect the rights of the individual.  But then the labour movement
>has never been interested in democracy!

and didn't Comrade Rae just author legislation which would allow
for certification with only *40%* support? how is that justified
(assuming it is true, not 100% sure)?

i forget all the other details of the NDP's vicious anti-business
labor laws. maybe it is the result of subconscious repression; they made
me almost literally ill when i first read about them. and then he wonders
why businesses are leaving the country. the man is the biggest
ass ever to hold office.

--
charles
Xref: sparky can.politics:11680 soc.culture.canada:10347