HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:31:31 GMT

Ross W. Wetmore (wetmore@theochem.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>In article <1992Sep25.200415.1751@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>Andrew M. Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.UUCP) wrote:
>>>In article <wcLkRB1w165w@aqua.ocunix.on.ca> cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:
>>>
>>>>throws away democracy by guaranteeing a minimum number of seats in the house
>>>>to a minority REGARDLESS of the population balance
>>>
>>>_this_ one I'm sick of:  yes, it's possible for Quebec to wind up with a
>>>radically disproportionate number of seats, but in the grand scheme of
>>>things it's not likely to happen.  There's no good reason for Quebec's
>>>population to decline that sharply... so they wind up with 25% when they
>>>really deserve 23%, does that minor inaccuracy really affect anything?
>>
>>If there's no good reason for Quebec's population to decline that sharply,
>>then there is no good reason to put the floor provision in the
>>Constitution. 
>>Jim Robinson
>
>  There is no good reason to shove a pacifier in a child's mouth.
>
>  On the otherhand there is no good reason not too, and since the result is
>usually a bit more peace and quiet for the rest of us, why not?

I believe that many harried parents would say that there is a very good
reason to shove a pacifier in a child's mouth; namely, to shut him up. I
believe that they would also say that there are no long term dangers in
taking this action.

The floor provision, on the other hand, presents serious long term dangers.
In 40 or 50 years it is quite possible that BC's population will equal
Quebec's. However, because of Quebec's 25% floor in the HoC, BC will be
seriously under-represented and a major inequity will exist in terms of
relative power. This is simply not fair (please argue otherwise if you
disagree, Ross). There is no justification for this kind of entrenchment of
power, and it will in the future cause problems. A constitution is supposed
to be a living document, but this provision attempts to freeze certain 1992
demographics - ludicrous.

Quebec is not a child that needs a pacifier (especially a potentially
dangerous one) shoved in its mouth, and I see no reason to treat it as
such.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: I couldn't hold back any longer...
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:17:47 GMT

In article <gill.717704846@physics.ubc.ca> gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill) writes:
>brea9430@mach1.wlu.ca (breadner kenneth cecil joseph u) writes:
>
>
>     BTW, this is a referendum.  The vote is binding in BC anyway, and I would
>love to see what happens to a provincial government that goes against the vote 
>in their province.  Besides, Mulroney himself has said that as far as he was
>concerned, a 50% pass in each province (separately) is what he is looking for.

Is it clear that this particular vote is in fact binding here? Has
the provincial legislature approved the vote? Is it being conducted
under the terms of the BC legislation? If the result is close, but 
No, what would prevent the BC government from having another vote in 
a few months on the actual accord? 

All that they would need to say is that the Oct 26 vote was not the 
vote called for in our provincial legislation. If the Oct 26 vote is 
massively No in BC and elsewhere then I think that this would be 
unlikely. If it is say 55% No in BC but passes elsewhere in Canada, 
then I expect that we will either have another vote. Or the 
legislation requiring a vote will be changed, and the legislature will
simply pass it. As far as I can see, the vote here in BC is not
unambiguously binding. (If I am mistaken, I am sure someone on the net
will see fit to correct me.) 
Newsgroups: can.general
From: mskucherawy@math.uwaterloo.ca (Murray S. Kucherawy [MFCF])
Subject: Re: October 26th "Referendum"
Organization: Math Faculty Computing Facility, University of Waterloo, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:58:36 GMT

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will), but isn't "referendum"
the wrong word to be using here?

As I understand it, the word "referendum" implies a binding decision made
by the population via a vote.  But this is not binding on anyone, and could
conceivably be a big fat waste of money.

Perhaps "plebiscite" is the more appropriate word.  So why doesn't the
government call it what it is?

#include <std/disclaimer.h>
--
-- Murray S. Kucherawy ----------------------------------------+--------------
Software Systems Co-op, Math Faculty Computing Facility [MFCF] | Our PDPs go
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada                        | to eleven!
E-mail: mskucherawy@{math,watdragon}.UWaterloo.ca              | 
---------------------------------------------------------------+--------------
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:10:59 GMT


In article <BvEIFw.5Dq@animal.er.bell.ca> alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney) writes:
{stuff deleted}
>
>I am amazed at you, an anglo in Quebec not wanting the francophones to have
>the powers they need. What gives you the right? Do you know better?

Unless I missed something, at the moment "what gives you the right",
is Canadian citizenship. Of course, if the accord goes through it will
be much less clear as to how his right to free speech is, or is not,
restricted by the constitution. 

Part of free speech is that one is not obliged to "know better", it
includes the right to be mistaken. 

Newsgroups: can.general
From: plau@qucis.queensu.ca (Peter S. Lau)
Subject: Bell wants my $$$ before my monthly bill came
Organization: Computing and Information Science, Queen's University at Kingston
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:09:36 GMT

I received a call yesterday from Bell Canada saying that since my new
bill is over a hundred dollar and since I am also a new customer, I
have to pay the next month bill in advance!

I asked her what if I don't pay now and wait for the monthly bill? She
told me if I don't pay in 24 hours, they will have to disconnect my
phone service. Or else I could pay $350 for desposit get away from
this trouble.

And I quote from the representative during the phone conversation...
".... basically, they don't want you to use the long distance service
..."

What on the world do they really up to? Do they have a cash flow
problem?  Could they really do that? Calling people up and ask to pay
the monthly bill in advance? (Hell, I just got the regularly bill two
days ago!) I lived in the States for 7 years and I had dealed with 2
local phone companies and 3 long distance carriers, and I have never
seen or heard of anything like that. I don't think they have the right
to do that. On what ground that they would need the money in a hurry?

Well, I will definitely look into the package from Roger Communication
next year and hell, I just use my U.S. Calling Card to make the calls
from now on since Bell doesn't want my money anyway.

No wonder people are shopping in U.S. I didn't expect I will pay my
long distance to American phone company while I am living in Canada.

Good luck Bell Canada.
Newsgroups: can.general
From: landolt@nexus.yorku.ca (Paul Landolt)
Subject: Logic Problem
Originator: landolt@nexus.yorku.ca
Organization: York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:26:38 GMT

A friend of mine gave me this problem to work on.  I go nowhere. So, I'm
posting it to see if anyone might have some ideas.

(btw, sorry about posting the magic square problem to the wrong group. Some
one pointed me to comp.lang.c) 


...Paul

---------------------------------------------

Logic problem
-------------

Club Fred Resort features a very popular "twofer" weekend special, at which
each couple chooses up to twp activities in which to participate each day --
one for the morning and one for the afternoon.  Last Saturday, five couples
arrived at different times and in different cars.  Each couple took part in
a different activity as soon as possible.  From the information below, can
you determine each couples' names (two husbands are Ed and Joe, and two
wives are Jill and Tess), the car each drove (one had a convertible), the
activities in which each participated on Saturday, and the order in which the
five arrived?

1.  The couple with the same initial played golf with the couple who came in
    the hatchback (which was not the first to arrive)

2.  Ginny and her husband went fishing in the morning, so they did not spend
    the afternoon on the water.

3.  There was no room for golf clubs in the compact car, so that couple did
    not play golf.

4.  The couple who arrived in the sedan went boating with Mary and her husband

5.  Tim and his wife played tennis.

6.  Max and Ellie, and their respective spouses had lunch together after their
    morning activities.

7.  The station wagon arrived after the compact, but was not the last car to
    arrive

8.  Two couples arrived in the morning; George and his wife arrived just in
    time for dinner.


NOTE that the guests did not all participate in the same number of activities
(The description said "up to TWO")



-- 
J. Paul Landolt - Guest of:         | If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
York University - Toronto, Canaidia | ...unless you're a consultant  
+1 416 736 5257                     | ----------------------------------
InterNet: landolt@nexus.yorku.ca    | My opinions. All mine. So sue me.
From: boucley@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Boucley Charles)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: The Queen. (of Canada?).
Date: 28 Sep 92 02:29:24 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: Universite de Montreal


 VOTE

    Do we wish to abolish British royalty here?

******************************************************************
* YES       *    Boucley@ere.umontreal.ca                        *
****************************************************************** 
Newsgroups: can.general
From: marc@r-node.gts.org (Marc Fournier - Sys Admin)
Subject: Re: 95 % rep by pop (was Re: Joe Clark's Session ...)
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organzation
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992 18:33:37 GMT

In article <BvK4nC.Kp6@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca writes:
>In article MHn@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca, dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>>Mark Anthony Young (marky@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
>>
>>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.
> -------------------------
>
>
>	Apres toutes les promesses et les pelletes de terre de nos bons 
>gouvernements, la construction s'est arretee subitement apres l'installation
>de la structure d'acier. Rien de nouveau depuis un an.
>
	Premierement, excuse mon francais

	Secondaire, qu'est-ce que va arrivee si l'accord est acceptee?
Moi, je pense que les industries preferais Quebec sur Ontario parce-que
l'electricity est plus moins cher...et puis l'environement est moins
regle pour les employeurs et employee.  L'autre choix c'est d'allee au
Etats Unix, et personnes veux ca :)

Marc
-- 
Marc G. Fournier      | R-node Public Access Unix running UnixBBS 1.03
Etobicoke, Ontario    | 416-249-5366   24hrs 7 days/week   network email
voice: 249-4230       | shell accounts available  1900+ newsgroups  FREE
marc@r-node.pci.on.ca | Telebit WorldBlazer/SupraModem2400/Cardinal 2400 
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca (Ken Dykes)
Subject: how not to vote...
Organization: Thinkage Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:06:46 GMT

federal, provinical and municipal elections all have slightly different
rules/behaviors in regards to NON-VOTEs (no votes but not to be confused
with voting no :-) and spoiled votes.

in a federal referendum/plebianciting what will happen to spoiied and
blank ballots?

ignored?
counted and published?
spoiled is distinct from blank?
or blank is equivalent to spoiled?

-- 
   - Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada    [43.47N 80.52W]
         postmaster@thinkage.on.ca  kgdykes@thinkage.on.ca  thinkage!kgdykes
         kgdykes@math.uwaterloo.ca  [129.97.128.1]      kgdykes@thinkage.com
Newsgroups: can.general
From: "ronald hands" <ronald.hands@canrem.com>
Subject: the economic effects
Reply-To: "ronald hands" <ronald.hands@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: can
Date: 3 Oct 92 10:33:28 EST

  In <1992Sep28.201532.15723@ee.ubc.ca>  John Paul Morrison wrote:

JP>Our social programmes should make us happier, and better prepared to work,
JP>yet Canadian productivity has declined significantly over the past 15-20 years,
JP>relative to US workers.

  I wouldn't attempt to challenge most of your posting, but this
paragraph caught my eye.  
  If indeed there has been a decline in Canadian productivity relative
to the U.S., part of it must surely be due to the fact that Canada is a
branch-plant economy, and branch plants don't tend to get the infusions
of capital that would make them more efficient and hence raise their
productivity.  (More machines, fewer people = higher productivity)
  At least that's been my unscientific, empirical observation.  Every
time there's a story in the paper about a U.S. firm folding its
Canadian operation, or some portion of it, and moving production back
to a production facility in the U.S., (and there've been a *lot* of
those stories in this area), there always seems to be a line
about how the Canadian facility was "old" or "obsolete" or "it would
have cost too much to bring it up to current standards." 
  And the U.S. facility to which production was being moved was "using
state-of-the-art equipment" etc.  
  Translation: we siphoned out every drop of profit over the years,
never put anything back, and threw the Canadian plant away as soon as
we no longer had to manufacture in Canada. 
  Or the short version: So long, sucker.

 -- Ron
ronald.hands@canrem.com
---
  DeLuxe 1.21 #10218  
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: New Constitution text??
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:17:31 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Sep28.151906.19161@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>1) A Canadian Politburo, an entrenched first ministers conference with
>>unlimited power to make agreements in any area, which can bind future 
>>legislatures and governments, regardless of election outcomes. [...]
>
>This clause does strike me as dangerous.
>--
>Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com

  Can anyone (anyone but Gerald who is rapidly losing credibility) explain 
how the current Accord grants any new executive powers that the current
executive branches do not collectively already have?

  Simply arranging a yearly meeting to discuss and coordinate policy, does
not strike me as dangerous.

  Putting a 7/50 requirement on what policies can already be implemented
under existing arrangements seems to be the only novel feature in my mind,
and this is sort of a practical matter anyway, as you are not likely to get
major initiatives without broad support. It could counter the NEP scenarios
to some extent, because it gives any targetted province a way to gain a
binding restriction on the federal government provided it can drum up
enough support.
---- 
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>
----
Newsgroups: can.general
From: singer@uwovax.uwo.ca
Subject: Oct.26,Switzerland,Opportunistic "No's"
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:21:42 GMT

Much of the flyspecking of the Accord seems to be motivated by fear of
expanded Provincial powers, or pluralism (this is not to deny that a great deal
of the flyspecking by various groups is hardly anything but irresponsible
political and individual opportunism--for press coverage). I wonder if anybody
has considered the case of Switzerland--also a federal system, but one in which
many powers, probably more than in the Accord, devolve to the cantons? While
there is much paranoia, opportunism, "reaching" for arguments based upon iffy
events some decades away, bitter alienation, sheer destructiveness being
expressed, I haven't heard ONE solid or reasonable or sane argument against the
Accord. 
-- 
Xref: sparky can.general:4788 can.politics:8032 ott.general:1200
From: bgray@engr.UVic.CA (Bob  Gray)
Subject: Re: The Queen. (of Canada?).
Reply-To: bgray@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:23:47 GMT

In article 717724556@physics.ubc.ca, leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler ) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.022924.28736@cc.umontreal.ca> boucley@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Boucley Charles) writes:
>>
>> VOTE
>>
>>    Do we wish to abolish British royalty here?
>>
>******************************************************************
>*  NO       *    leffler@physics.ubc.ca                          * 
>****************************************************************** 
 *  NO       *    bgray@sirius.uvic.ca                            *
 ******************************************************************




----------

     ______  
    |      |           VOTE               bgray@sirius.uvic.ca
    |      |
  ^ |      |     #   #  ###   #   #       INVADE QUEBEC.  BANISH ALL THE
  \||   .  |     ##  # #   #  ##  #       FROGS TO ST. PIERRE & MIQUELON.
   _|      \     # # # #   #  # # #
   \\\      \    #  ## #   #  #  ##       Bring back Wacky!
    \\\._____\   #   #  ###   #   #       Mikey has to go!

Xref: sparky can.general:4790 sci.research.careers:1274
Newsgroups: can.general,sci.research.careers
From: tlai@cs.toronto.edu (Tony Wen Hsun Lai)
Subject: Engineering education
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: can
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:45:31 GMT

The Oct. 5 issue of the Globe and Mail had an article saying that "Canada
must change its engineering education system or risk being left behind in
the global market, a report to be released today warns."  The report has
some interesting ideas, but the article later says, "Over the next 15
years, engineering schools `will have to hire at a massive rate to
compensate for retirements and to fill new positions.'"  Does anyone
really believe this?  The quote sounds like a regurgitation of old shortage
myths.

Tony Lai
Newsgroups: can.general
From: pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Re: For those who like the German example of highways ...
Reply-To: pt@geovision.gvc.com
Organization: Not officially GeoVision Systems Inc., Ottawa, Ontario
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:09:08 GMT

donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:

>pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin) writes:

>>very mention of a pile up in fog on an Autobahn "make the hair stand up on
>>your neck"?

>Oh, I guess it had something to do with the number quoted of over
>220 vehicles piled up.  I have no idea how many dead.  But if you
>find news of large scale highway accidents boring, never mind.

Note that your posting did NOT mention how many cars were involved.  All it
said was that there was a multi-car accident in the fog on an Autobahn.
Hardly an argument for keeping low speed limits here.  And if we had the
type of fog they have in Europe, you can bet that we'd have 200+ car pile
ups in our slow highways.

It's not the speed limit, it's the idiots who don't adjust thier speed for
the conditions.  (Anybody who drives the speed limit in dense fog will
probably have their head examined, by the Coroner!)


-- 
Paul Tomblin, pt@geovision.gvc.com or {uunet,revcan}!geovision!pt
(This is not an official opinion of GeoVision Systems Inc.)
I used to homebrew computers, now I homebrew beer.  Is this progress?
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: wetmore@theochem.uwaterloo.ca (Ross W. Wetmore)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:06:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.200415.1751@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Andrew M. Dunn (amdunn@mongrel.UUCP) wrote:
>>In article <wcLkRB1w165w@aqua.ocunix.on.ca> cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:
>>
>>>throws away democracy by guaranteeing a minimum number of seats in the house
>>>to a minority REGARDLESS of the population balance
>>
>>_this_ one I'm sick of:  yes, it's possible for Quebec to wind up with a
>>radically disproportionate number of seats, but in the grand scheme of
>>things it's not likely to happen.  There's no good reason for Quebec's
>>population to decline that sharply... so they wind up with 25% when they
>>really deserve 23%, does that minor inaccuracy really affect anything?
>
>If there's no good reason for Quebec's population to decline that sharply,
>then there is no good reason to put the floor provision in the
>Constitution. 
>Jim Robinson

  There is no good reason to shove a pacifier in a child's mouth.

  On the otherhand there is no good reason not too, and since the result is
usually a bit more peace and quiet for the rest of us, why not?

Ross

Newsgroups: can.general
From: tony@nexus.yorku.ca (Anthony Wallis)
Subject: I've just had "Sex"..
Organization: York University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:26:44 GMT

.. entered on my Enumeration Record as "M".

My sexual-estimation was done by two very nice young ladies in the pay
of the feds who seemed to have an unusual measure of common sense.
Rather than asking, they observed a few sexual markers such as beard,
deep voice, wearing trousers, body shape, toothpick in teeth,
honest automotive-origin grime under fingernails, etc.

It's nice to know that at least Elections Canada has not
yet hopelessly-liberalised "Sex" into "Gender".

--
tony@nexus.yorku.ca = Tony Wallis, York University, Toronto, Canada

Newsgroups: can.general
From: lavackm@wl.aecl.ca
Subject: What about the Canadians?
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:44:26 GMT



With all this talk on the referendum, I was wondering if the Montreal Canadiens
and the Quebec Nordiques will have to leave the NHL if Quebec separates?