HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:38:19 GMT

Peter Bartlett (uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk) wrote:
>dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman) writes [re women senators]:
>
>>Actually, this is not in the Accord at all. This is a separate promise that
>>Bob Rae has made to Ontario, and Mike Harcourt made to BC. It is actually not
>>to do with Charlottetown, it arose during the negotiations.
>>We don't know how this system will work. Nobody has come up with a reasonable
>>way to achieve it. Some options are
>
>>1) women elect women senators
>>2) everyone votes twice, once for male, once for female
>>3) equal women/men candidates, let public decide
>
>>I am for 3)
>
>Thanks; this is starting to make some sense.  But does it mean that the
>method of appointment/election of senators is not going to be specifically
>written into the constitution?  As a lawyer, that strikes me as a rather
>bizarre outcome, and as someone trying to follow the politics, I find it
>hard to believe that the west would go for "unwritten rules" as to the
>appointment of senators (that's what we have now, after all!).
>
>Or is it expected that a different system of election will be in effect
>in each province?  Surely what in fact will happen is Ontario and BC will
                                                                   ^^^^^^^
>use what in my Globe and Mail Draft is labelled section 7 paragraph 1, and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>elect senators within the legislatures, using their majorities in their
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>assemblies to get the result they want?

Only if Mike Harcourt wishes to be lynched :-)

Harcourt never did say how he intended to achieve gender quotas in the
senate; however, there never was any question that senators would be
elected by the people of BC and not the legislature.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
From: fwj@reg.triumf.ca (JONES,FRED_W.)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Bill 40 (Labour law) was Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 9 Oct 1992 19:16 PDT
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: reg.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <92280.195857SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes...
>The word "extort" appears in this discussion when referring to
>Union bargaining. This makes no sense, for two reasons: first,
>refusing to cooperate with another person until they accept your
>price is not "extortion". The supermarket sells me food at (their)
>fixed price; that's not extortion.

A closer analogy would be: a supermarket convinces the government to
pass a law prohibiting me from shopping anywhere else, then it raises
prices.

>To anticipate a counter argument, does the legislation not force
>companies to employ only union members, and to shut down if they
>and the union can't agree? We can disagree on the fairness of this
>if you like (I will deal with it in a later post), but there is
>no tinge of illegality to using a legislated prerogative. I own
>half a corporation. Incorporation is really a species of legalized
>fraud: I can declare (corporate) bankruptcy, say sayonara and tough
>luck, and sail away from debts other people trusted I would pay, with
>hardly a fillip. But the does not mean incorporation of itself is
>fraudulent or unethical. I (and many other business people) could
>not justify the risks I take without the protection of incorporation.
>In the same way, unions who use the (enhanced) strike weapon in
>negotiation may be short sighted, but they will not be guilty of
>"extortion".

Whether you call it "extortion" or some milder term doesn't matter.
The concern is that draconian labour legislation giving too much power to
either unions or management will result in deteriorating labour relations
where everyone loses.  Too much union power can lead to unsustainable
labour costs and the resultant decline or exodus of industry;
too much management power can lead to a frustrated and unproductive work
force, general strikes, picket-line violence and so on.  Either way, a
negative climate for investment and economic recovery.  The government
can do grievous damage if it fails to find a middle ground where there is
a reasonable balance of rights and powers between the parties concerned.

Frederick Jones
fwj@reg.triumf.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO! Was: Why vote NO?
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:42:54 GMT

dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>It is surety that YES will bring more unity than a NO. Simply because
>the majority of the country would have agreed on something. (Agreeing
>together is not the same as disagreeing together -- in order to agree,
>they have to hold the same viewpoint, in order to disagree, they can
>hold widely different views).

Not if the majority of the YES votes are out of fatigue or fear.
(And not if the majority of NO votes are out of hatred of Mulroney, Quebec,
TROC, etc.)
After all, the 1982 patriation was popular, and look what it got us.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: getting enumerated
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:57:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.121000.22359@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> barry@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Barry G. Adams) writes:
>  How does one get enumerated for the referendum?
>  I am never at home when the enumerators call.
>

Phone 1-800-387-2323...which is the Elections Canada information office,
and they will be able to direct you to you local riding election office
where you will be able to get enumerated or check that you have been.

Gerald
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:56:42 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

In this morning's Globe, Tom Berger raised a respectable argument against the
"apartheid" issue: that present aboriginal governments are the successors of
the governments of the aboriginal peoples at the time of European arrival, so
the "racism" argument is beside the point.

What remains to be seen is whether de facto Bantustans would nonetheless
result from the agreement. I think all parties are handicapped by cultural
blinkers; it's hard to use the word "nation" to describe both 250 members of
a particular tribe, and the United States. We need a new vocabulary that
would enable us to discuss the role of small ethnic groups in a world of
large bureaucratic organizations.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: sliding Clyde
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:28:56 GMT

In article <14012@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca> alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon) writes:
>Isn't it a riot?  Slimy Clyde, the man who almost single handedly
>scuttled the Meech glitch, is now waltzing towards a not so gracious
>exit away from the Charlottetown clowns.
>
>Now that's a politician, a true unprincipled weasel!  And
>not afraid to show it.
>
>Who next?
>If Wells breaks, will Getty spawn?
>Can Fillman fork?
>
>
>--
> Alain

Getty is to break if the final text is not available before October 10
(something heard last week).

Ovide Mercredi said this week the Quebec can get more by saying no.
If he is advocating YES for Natives and NO for Quebecois, is he breaking too?

I predicted 2 provinces break-up from the accord.  Was I true?

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===  Non a une entente au contenu indetermine'   Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Cost of constitution debate in 1992
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:04:54 GMT

Someone told me that $2 billions have been spent only this year
for Constitutional talks, including an estimate of $895 M only for
Dobbie-Beaudoin commission.

Does any one has some accurate figures and sources of information?

I find those figures very high when we know that [1] this is a dilemma
with no solution without a major change in mentality and government
structures (i.e. you can't get a deal without one participant loosing
a lot, like the Federal loosing control on Quebec, for example)
[2] the referendum is about an agreement that will be completed AFTER
the referendum [3] the Dobbie-Beaudoin issues were mostly ignored.


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===  Non a une entente au contenu indetermine'   Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: AAA credit rating downgraded
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:44:55 GMT

In article <Bw6DMo.Ht4@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>[Front Page Financial Post]
>
>Canada's AAA credit rating has been, for the first time in history,
>downgraded to AA+. This has just cost us as money must be borrowed at 8.7
>instead of 7.7%.
>
>For those who still don't believe the economic consequences of a NO vote,
>consider: the people who matter do. (Standard+Poor said that the major reason
>for the downgrading was uncertainty over the results of the referendum).
>

From today's Toronto Star, October 15, front page:

"The Standard and Poor's rating agency said its decision, which covered
only a tiny portion of the $300 billion dollar federal debt, had nothing
to do with the constitutional impasse..."

or from The Globe and Mail, October 15, page B1:

"Philip Bates, a managing director with S&P, said the lower rating
reflected concerns that Canada's soaring current account deficit is
impairing its ability to repay foreign debt."

The downgrading has more to do with the huge deficits being run
by Mulroney and Rae and company...and if the international financial
community is losing confidence in their judgement, why should we the
Canadian people be trusting their judgement.

>My reason for posting:
>
> How can we keep our economy from being decimated in the short term by this
>uncertainty? (The issue of consequences aside for the moment). The vote is in
>11 days. With so much hype from both sides of the issue, I see no result
>except a massive lack of confidence in the Canadian economy. 
>
>Inasmuch as the people who make our monetary policy (chartered banks, etc)
>have said that the results of a NO vote will be rising interest rates and
>an unstable dollar, how can it be anything but this? I mean, these are the
>people who decide when to raise interest rates, when to buy and sell the
>dollar. If they say interest rates will rise, they are right by
>definition.
>

The market has already discounted a NO vote.  What happens subsequently
will depend entirely on the first ministers actions on the economy, and
on their budgetary deficits.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: A thought for the Trudon'ts
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 14:42:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct06.142005.17596@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>In article <1992Oct05.162120.6433@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>>To a large degree, a lot of enlightened and well-meaning people
>>are supporting the YES side because they want to do what is right,
>>because they care about people, and because they want to right past
>>wrongs.  Unfortunately, a YES vote (in my view) will do extreme damage 
>>to the principle of equality and justice and liberty. It will enshrine
>>the concepts of "difference" into the most important document of the country
>>and it will divide people on the basis of race, language and region. 
>>Nobody pretends we are not all different, but what is needed is a
>>Charter that ensures that we have equal rights, 
>>no matter what our differences.
>>Frank.
>
>  An excessive zeal for anything, be it democracy or equal rights, is just
>as dangerous and wrong as a zeal to any other extreme.


I would be curious as to how democracy and equal rights would be considered
extremist.



>  It is precisely because of this zeal for extreme equality, and refusal to
>acknowledge differences and build in protections for minority communities
>that countries like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia are fragmenting into 
>there minority components.  


What is "extreme" equality? I thought you either had it or you didn't.


>  Quit imposing your view of equality on the rest of us that don't accept
>either your views, or your right to force them on us. This is what many
>peoples around the world are saying. 


 
Who is imposing my view of equality on you? Do you feel oppressed by my
words?  The irony, of course, is that I am only defending the principles
that democracy has been based on up to now (more or less) and it is YOU
that wants to impose the new constitution on me (where those principles
are sullied.)


>...view, or you can limit the jurisdiction of enforcement of various rights
>and democratic privileges by stratifying the whole into a hierarchy of
>jurisdictions and insuring that unless the citizens of a particular...


There are other terms for this goggledegook, of course. One of them
is t"he suspension of individual rights for the benefit of some arbitrary
ruler" (for it is some ruler who will decide when individual rights should
fall to the dictate of the so-called collective, not some "collective".) 

But give me an example of a collective right that does not remove 
an individual right. Just one.

>  The key element is you must stop 'forcing' people to do things they do
>not want, ie forcing decisions from the top in the absence of an prior
>agreement on what rights and responsibilities people have exchanged or
>surrendered in order to belong to the whole. 



I also oppose the top-down dictate of power, which is why I insist on
equal rights for all, guaranteed in a common constitution based on 
citizenship, not race, language or region.



Frank.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Oops
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:32:24 GMT

warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne) writes:
>> Further, that variation is calculated by averages over province. I
>> suspect that if you look at individual ridings it is much worse. [...]
>
>Tom Box, myself, and others have made this argument within the past few
>weeks.  Maybe Darin Cowan missed it or perhaps he suffers from amnesia.

And you (collectively) have been answered several times:
   1) two wrongs don't make a right, a.k.a. yes it's wrong, but we should
      be fixing these old wrongs instead of creating new ones
   2) the 25% floor is *potentially* more distorting since it represents
      a greater number of seats -- it takes away more power from others,
      so it should be opposed first
   3) the over-representation of the smaller provinces are caused by a floor
      number, which can be fixed by increasing the size of the commons

>The only response I have seen that doesn't contain the whiff of bigotry
>is that it was not right before and it is not right now.  But if imperfect
>proportional representation has been accepted by generations of Canadians,
>maybe it is because Canadians recognize that our country requires such
>compromises to exist and that, in the Canadian view, perfect proportional
>representation is not terribly important.

For most of western voting history women were not allowed to vote, so, by
your reasoning, it must be okay to deny them the vote. Hell, for the vast
majority of history we did not have any form of democracy...

Quebec wanted a suit of armour; it got a sword. In Quebec, that sword looks
about 1cm long, in BC it looks about 1m long.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
From: davem@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave McCrady)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: The accord - legal text
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:17:13 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #8, Edmonton, AB, Canada

  For those who may be interested, the draft legal text of the
Charlottetown accord has been posted to can.general ... in
four parts.

Dave McCrady              davem@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca 
Xref: sparky can.politics:8376 can.general:4875
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: Distinct Societies
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:10:08 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Hugh Murray) writes:
]Like it or not, Quebec has a different cultural history than English
]Canada, and (not unnaturally) they are not too keen on losing the things
]that make home seem like home to them.  It is in this sense, and only in
]this sense, that they are claiming to be distinct.  They are not making any
]claim to superiority.

Am I dreaming? Finally, "du bon gros bon sens" on the network. I wish
more people would see that.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:56:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.173432.10376@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <BvI6IM.BH2@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>>The ONLY thing I would propose is IF the aboriginals so desire, they
>>may become ordinary citizens of Canada.  Other than that, well I guess
>>we will continue with the various treaties, etc.  I would not force
>>them to be citizens in the same sence that you and I are; but that or
>>the present system is all I would present.
>
>     OK, then I ask you once again (as in the very end of that
>article you claimed to read to the very end) what you are going
>to do about the resultant violent and non-violent protests.
>Appoint a "Minister of Law and Order" to handle the "problem of
>violence in the native Homelands"?
>

Going ahead with Charlottetown will likely result in more aboriginal
civil disobedience, because for any aboriginal group with a Treaty or
that expects a Treaty (like many of the groups in BC)...
the Charlottetown Accord is a disaster...most of the aboriginals with
Treaties have already come out in opposition, and it is seemingly more
and more likely and the aboriginals in Manitoba with Treaties are going
to come out opposed.  A simple non-derogation clause in Charlottetown
probably would have been sufficient to satisfy aboriginals with Treaty
status, because Charlottetown is likely taking away from them more than
it is giving.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher)
Subject: Re: bourassa vs. parizeau
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:53:00 GMT


I believe that Boubou has won the debate. Bourassa is known
to be a better debater than Parizeau.

That said, here is a repply to a netter.

>>>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 92 17:55:39 GMT, tcifelli@bmerh717.bnr.ca (Tony Cifelli) said:

  > It is clear to me that Parizeau is an absolute jerk.  I couldn't
  > stop laughing when he pulled out the map of Quebec.  Entirely
  > and utterly irresponsible action.

Clear on what basis? (I'm not saying he's not a jerk)
Irresponsible to pull out a map?

  >  He appeared hesitant and 
  > less-certain than Bourassa on just about all topics and stuck 
  > less to the facts and 

Parizeau has always looked hesitant.

If my memory serves me good, Bourassa was the only one to be
told by the moderator, in one occasion, to stick with the
subject.

  > relied more on emotional outburst and fear
  > mongering.

If Boubou says that the deal is good for the security of the
Quebecers, isn't he implying that if the deal does not pass
it is not good for the security of Quebecers?

BTW, Parizeau said that if there's a no vote, things won't
be different after the 26th, which is certainly not fear
mongering.

  >  Bourassa appeared more credible and offered greater 
  > logic and pragmatism.  

Ask a federalist, and he'll tell you that Bourassa is more
credible, and ask an independantist and he'll tell you that
Parizeau is more credible.

In the end, this debate was steril. Neither of the debaters
said anything brilliant. 

Bourassa has won because he's better at speaking while
saying nothing, and probably has a better image on TV,
somehow.

As far as I'm concerned, the frequent debates on Le Point
(SRC) are far more interesting.

No offense intended, but I think your analysis of the debate
is quite biased (maybe it was because the translation on
newsworld might have not been so good). Most of the people
probably heard what they wanted to hear.
--
  ,                          ,                           ,
Stephane Boucher, ing. jr. | Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca        | Tel: (514)340-5950
sbo@info.polymtl.ca        | Fax: (514)340-4078
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Quebec restricts freedom of speech
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:43:50 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Oct14.221317.12443@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>In Quebec, the law governing referendums restricts the amount of money
>that can be spent by the Yes and No "sides" of the debate.  The
>allocation of each quota is controlled by a committee (one for the "yes"
>side chaired by Premier Bourassa, one for the "no" chaired by P.Q.
>leader Jacques Parizeau).
[ ... ]
>In Quebec "progress" is movement away from individual towards
>collective rights -- in this case, the right of society not to be
>disquieted by unofficial opinions.

The more I look at postings like this, the more I think that the
anglo-canadian view of Canada becomes almost indistinguishable from
the American ideals. It is total bullshit to pretend that allowing
ORGANISATIONS (not individual) to use huge amounts of money to
brainwash the electors is a basic individual right. That law simply
gives equal opportunity to both sides (unless, like in this
referendum, the Feds decide to do otherwise).

The law on referendum, just like the law on election (in fact, they
might be under the same law, I don't know) ensures that the
election/referendum does not become a money war where the side with
the deeper pockets wins. It is an anti-"capitalisme sauvage" law. I
don't believe it's perfect, but I'm sure it is a lot better than
american-style patronage.

-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics