HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:04:08 GMT


Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: I think NO will go a lot further to resolving our constitutional
: debate than YES will, and cause a lot fewer new problems.

How does a NO vote resolve constitutional problems? It will simply pit
premier against premier again. Canadian against Canadian. People will be
blaming each other. There will be a lack of political mandate to renegotiate.
For better or for worse, the status quo is not an option. A NO vote is not a
vote for what Canada is now, but a vote against keeping it.

Voting NO because you somehow believe this will keep the status quo, take us
back to the glorious 70's of Trudeau, etc, etc, etc is wrong. We have to
accept the situation that we are in a hole, and there are two ways out:
continue the union based on Charlottetown, or scramble to continue the union
based on something else. There is no "I'll keep it the way it is" option. It
doesn't exist, it isn't on the ballot.

: 
: It was for the most part the YES supporters that opened the
: Pandora's box in the mid-eighties before the country was
: ready for or required a new constitutional debate.  Quebec
: nationalism was quiescent and it was reawakened prematurely by
: political incompetents.

This is false. How could we leave the largest province in the nation out of
the constitution? To think that Quebecers would have been happy to live in a
country where they were excluded from the constitution is quite insulting.

: >What should happen after the accord is rejected?
: 
: There will be elections in Alberta, Quebec, and federally...which
: means the economy gets a big Keynesian stimulus as politicians get
: whiplash moving from "the sky is falling" to "gee, I can't see
: nothing but blue sky."

If [heaven forbid] the NO side wins, the NO side will be the ones electing
the new governments. These people do not favour union. We'll end up with
politicians who are representing people who want no part of a united Canada.

: 
: The current constitution endured 125 years...it can endure a few
: more.   
: 

You'll have to get your head out of the sand. If the constitution is not
fixed, there will be no Canada. We can't go on without a constitution. Quebec
will not remain unless they are a part of a new constitution. Voting NO will
simply require that we amend the constitution in a new way. That the
Charlottetown agreement is the first to be agreed to by all provinces, native
groups, the federal government, the territories, etc is very significant. It
implies that the only type of agreement that will be acceptable to these
groups will be fundamentally similar to the Charlottetown Accord.
You won't be able to get by with the current situation.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:51:23 GMT

Don A. Bowman (dbowman@shade) wrote:
>Murray Frank (frank@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: I live in BC. As far as I can see this document proposes to make my
>: province permanently under-represented in the House of Commons and in
>: the Supreme Court. Being a second class citizen is not the worst thing
>: imaginable, but it is distasteful. If I can avoid it, I would prefer
>: to do so. The entrenchment of certain special interests that happened
>: to be in the right place at the right time is also distressing.
>
>This document proposes that, after the 1996 census, no matter what your
>population, you will have no worse than 95% of the seats you deserve. Find
>that good a deal elsewhere, I ask you.

As I understand it, that is a one-time "guarantee". After any changes
resulting from the 1996 census all bets are off. Indeed, with the Quebec
25% floor provision it is mathematically *impossible* to guarantee a
per-province 95% floor.

>: It clearly reflects the thoughts of some elements of Canadian society.
>: However, the ability of several special interests to have their special
>: pleadings entrenched permanently in the Constitution may not be a
>: reflection of the most noble elements of modern Canadian thinking.
>
>Which special interest groups are you against? Gender right? Native rights?
>Minorities? I think entrenching these rights IS a reflection of the most
>noble elements of modern Canadian thinking.

The problem is there is no agreement on what gender rights and minority
rights mean. To some gender rights & minority rights include quotas; and
quotas are anathema to those who value individual rights. Seems to me that
if the individual's rights are suitably protected then all other rights
will flow naturally from that. 
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney)
Subject: Re: UIC and labour market training
Organization: Bell Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:03:03 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:

: The debate is between a domineering federal government and a
: domineering provincial government.  Asymmetry and federalism and
: equal provinces can be obtained by changing the paradigm of
: the division of powers to a paradigm of empowerment of people.
: 
: The fact that we cannot achieve an economic common market and
: union, even when combined with a social charter and enhanced
: equalization is clear evidence of the narrowmindedness of this 
: Accord.                            

But look a the Maastricht treaty debate in Europe. It is no easier there.
The national governments are now the states of a larger union. Governments of
any stripe can't conceive of anything else. It is only by revolution that
something new can be done. Is there something inherently wrong with
the federal concept?

: People will create distinct provinces if they have the power
: to.  The issue should not be between a powerful federal government
: or a powerful provincial government, but making powerful people,
: who will create powerful and distinct provinces in a powerful
: federation.  Governments are taking even more power from the
: people in this Accord...not giving them more.

There is a need for collective rights too. There is a need to trust others
with their own affairs. The Accord does give more powers to the Aborigines and
the Francophones but why must we anglophones be paternalistic to them? We've
got so much, and it is not threatened.

: It is why we have to smash this process and this Accord by
: voting "no"...
: 
: Gerald

You have no respect for collective rights, Gerald. Are you some sort of
laissez-faire Libertarian individual who thinks everything would be
solved if everyone had complete powers? And no state could take any away?
Get Real. There are needs on a greater scale than the individual, Gerald.

Vote YES and this country can move FORWARD!

--
Opinions expressed are my own, and are not necessarily those of Bell,BCE,etc.,
or any corporation, agency or association I may be affiliated with.
  Alex Laney, Independent User Interface Guru, IWS/TRACS Project.
  Addr: animal!bnkc08!alex  (or maybe alex@bnkc08.Bell.Ca)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: PLAN B
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:33:48 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: >
: >  To broad a generalization, with supporting facts tending to fall the
: >other way ... why are you so afraid of letting provinces and other
: >communities think for themselves, or not HAVE to march in lock step
: >with the federal bureaucracy?
: 
: I am not afraid of letting provinces and other communities think
: for themselves...but we should not be putting locks on the doors
: of all the rooms in the big house and restrict the key distribution
: to the premiers...which is what Charlottetown is about...an
: entrenched domineering provincialism at the expense of individual
: liberty and democracy.              
: 

 Section 28:

          There should be a constitutional provision for an ongoing
   federal role in the establishment of national policy objectives for the
   national aspects of labour market development. National labour market
   policy objectives would be established through a process which could be
   set out in the Constitution including the obligation for presentation to
   Parliament for debate. Factors to be considered in the establishment of
   national policy objectives could include items such as national economic
   . . . 

Where do you get "entrenched domineering provincialism"? Its not there. Why
is a provincial government "domineering" and a federal not? Why? How do you
reason this? What causes you to expect that the provincial government YOU
vote for will be domineering? If it is, vote it out. That's democracy, my
friend.

How do you figure individual democracy is gone? You still can vote. You are
represented by the person you vote for. This is a democracy. 

How do you figure individual liberty is gone? The Charter of rights is
unchanged.


   B.4:
           A clause should be added to the Constitution stating that the
   Social and Economic Union does not abrogate or derogate from the
   Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Individual liberties remain protected under the Charter. Which rights are you
concerned about losing?


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: jason@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Rasku)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Charleton agreement
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 23:30:24 PDT
Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

I think that realy what we have to do is find something that we ALL agree 
in what Canada is.  I think that some things that we believe should be 
GUARANTEED should be put into the constitution that is what the 
constitution is for.  It is not for giving Quebec more powers or that 
type of thing.  MOST of what we are trying to put into the constitution 
realy (IMHO) should not be in the constitition.  The constition should be 
something that has to be modified to restructure the govenrment.  That is 
what we are doing.  Maybe we should re-write the constitution compleatly 
but that would take more time than the government could justify (or 
hide).  We should not accept a document because it is SOMETHING.  We get 
something we WANT then vote yes for it.  Don't vote yes because you want 
change change will either come on itself or it won't.  We won't get any 
diffrent rate of change by voting yes to this deal.  
 
                                                        Jason Rasku
Xref: sparky can.politics:7555 soc.culture.canada:7022
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: The Royal Bank Report
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:43:41 GMT
Reply-To: warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
Followup-To: can.politics
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

In article <3016@mdavcr.mda.ca>, randy@mdavcr.mda.ca (Randy Armstrong) writes:
|> I have an open question for all those out there who believe the separation
|> of Quebec is a feasible, even desirable alternative: How can you possibly
|> believe that the economic consequences would not devastating? How can    
|> the French language and culture be better protected if thousands of 
|> Quebecers are thrown out of work because of the uncertainty surrounding
|> the break up?

Is it feasible?  Sure it is, but not necessarily advantageous.

As far as I can see there are two main advantages to separation.
First, Quebec gets rid of a whole level of government (the feds),
an attractive deal in anyone's book.  Second, Quebec gets control
over everything, or so they think.  The irony is that a "sovereign"
Quebec may find its field of action even more constrained than it
is now.

However, I feel that arguing for or against separation on economic
grounds is entirely wrongheaded. I cannot agree that a region may
separate solely to fatten its pocket book; one might as well say that we
may eject a region because it is poor.  The only legitimate 
question is whether we can get along with one another.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:32:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.015139.25793@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>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;
>		[...]
>

The Charter is not recognized as a fundamental characteristics...
and to be meaningful, an entry in the Canada Clause should be
something like:

[my 2(f)]
2(f) Canadians AND THEIR GOVERNVENTS are committed to a respect
for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

With such a clause, I could reluctantly accept the Canada Clause,
but I would prefer the total absence of the clause.

2(f) as in the Charlottetown Accord is basically worthless.

Gerald
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A few of Trudeau's points
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:37:39 GMT
	<1992Oct5.130142.630@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
	<1992Oct5.152219.4287@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne---Laboratoire de
	Teleinformatique
In-reply-to: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca's message of 5 Oct 92 15:22:19 GMT

Someone wrote:
> All you need is one person to dissent from the collective, and
> collective rights will infringe the rights of the individual.

It is trivial to state that living in a community constrains individual
action.  If it did not, then the community would quickly disintegrate.
The question is finding a good balance between collective and individual
rights.  The people posting to this group obviously accept some constraints
(unless they are posting from jail :) and it galls me to see the
objectivist/randroid taint running through their hypocritical arguments.
--
Ken Warkentyne - warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
                 Laboratoire de Teleinformatique, EPFL, Suisse.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Where's the $ (?!)
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:14:36 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: The country did not fall apart after Meech, it will certainly not
: fall apart immediately after the collapse of Charlottetown.

Boy is that sound logic. Sounds good to me. Should we blame this
on Meech failing? Should the fact that Canada didn't immediately
fall apart after Meech count for anything? Or is Canada still in the process
of breaking up from the failure of Meech? I don't think any arguments can be
based on what happened at Meech, since that was a different time, a different
place, a different political climate. Not all premiers agreed to the Meech
deal, they do to this one. The rights of natives were not addressed there,
they are now. Rejecting Charlottetown rejects a much broader section of
Canadians.

The Charlottetown Accord is not just an amendment as Meech was. It is broader
in scope. It seeks to redress century-old wrongs. Meech was really just a sop
to get Quebec into the constitution. Charlottetown seeks to redress problems
across the country, including under-representation in BC, federal intrusions
into provincial jurisdictions, etc.

Charlottetown is really an Accord for all Canadians.


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: analyzing the deal
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:27:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.4112.10088@dosgate> "ronald sabourin" <ronald.sabourin@canrem.com> writes:
>PA>I'm not sure that they would have the legal authority.  Or to put
>PA>it another way, seperation is not a provincial responsibility.  I
>PA>think the feds would force a referundum.
>
>If so, it would seem a clear indication the results would be YES
>for separation, since "the provincials" have clearly told the "federals"
>to keep away from the present referendum campaign if they want to
>ensure a bigger yes response.

Not necessarily.  I know that if I lived in Quebec, I would be pretty
pissed off if the gov't unilaterally declared independence, without a 
referundum.  It would certainly not bode well for democracy in the
country if that can't even have a vote on whether on not they should be
independent. 
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:02:13 GMT

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

Out of curiosity, how do you know that the movement of the dollar has
been due to foreign investors? The largest private holders of Canadian
dollars must include the Canadian chartered banks. The head of the
Royal Bank says that a No vote means terrible things, and the polls
suggest a real risk that the No side will win. If he believes what he
said, then it would be reasonable for him to order his traders to
unload Canadian dollars. I would be very interested to learn about the
foreign exchange actions of the Canadian chartered banks over the last
few days. (Remember the Canadian dollar is a rather thinly traded
currency.)
 
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:09:13 GMT

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

It does not abandon rep by pop -- it guarantees it by at least 95% by the
next census.

There is no Politburo.

The provinces can train people at least as well as the feds.

We have an economic union based on Bank of Canada. We have a common market.


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Quebec's percentage of the population
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:48:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.154931@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch writes:
>Can we agree that French Canadians have gotten the short
>end of the historical stick, especially in Acadia and
>Manitoba?
>
>If so, is it possible to understand why French Quebeckers
>look for some guarantees that this will never happen again?
>
>If you find the 25% allotment an unacceptable way of doing
>this, please suggest an alternative.
>

25% of a Senate...and remember we do have the Official Languages
Act.

Getty and Bourassa were argueing over a trade of bicycles...and
Mikey Harcourt weighed in and offered Bourassa a Mercedes if he would give
Getty the bicycle he wanted.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.vlsi
From: offers@ilsole ( iccad)
Newsgroups: can.jobs,ont.jobs
Subject: VLSI CAD Specialist/Engineer
Keywords: VLSI/CAD/SIM
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:04:17 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.



REQ. NO.:      9595

DEPARTMENT:    Design Methods
               IC Product Development

DIVISION:      Semiconductor

APPLY TO:      Linda Nixon, Human Resources
 
 
 
Does your background include a BASc degree in Electrical
Engineering/Computer Science or BSc degree in Computer Science
with a minimum of 5 years of IC CAD/IC Product Development
experience?  If so, then an opening in the I.C. Product
Development group might interest you.  A background in VHDL, IC
Test, ATPG and high-level programming experience are definite
assets.  Strong interpersonal and communication skills are a
must.
 
In this position, you will benefit from working alongside and
interacting with some of the best I.C. development engineers in
the industry.  Your responsibilities will include being a Senior
Member of the Design Methods group in ICPD; strategic and
tactical work in areas of IC Product simulation and test;
specification, implementation, and user support in a UNIX
workstation environment.
 
If you qualify and are interested in this challenging, exciting
position, please apply to Linda Nixon before the expiry date.
 
 
Linda Nixon 
Mitel Corporation 
Kanata, Ontario, Canada 
TEL: (613)-592-2122
FAX: (613)-592-4784



Newsgroups: can.jobs
From: phb@sidefx.uucp (Paul Breslin)
Subject: Position available: Graphics Software Designer
Organization: Side Effects Software Inc.
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:30:00 GMT

This is a re-posting of a position submitted to ont.jobs
a couple of weeks ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Side Effects Software develops and sells worldwide a 3D animation
package called PRISMS.  PRISMS is used by artists and engineers to
create broadcast graphics, special effects and visualizations.

We are located in downtown Toronto and are currently looking to fill
the following position immediately:

Intermediate Graphics Software Designer:

Primary Responsibilities:
- Enhance and support the PRISMS 3D interactive modeling software.
- Work closely with other R&D staff to design and develop support
  for new surface geometries and operations within the PRISMS
  product family.
- Work on the development of new 3D modeling applications aimed at
  producing state of the art computer animation.

Desired Skills:
- Experience programming in C and C++.
- Object oriented design.
- Strong self motivation and direction.
- Solid grasp of the mathematics of 3D parametric surfaces.
- Experience with the design and development of direct manipulation
  user interfaces on SGI workstations.

If you feel that you qualify and are interested in this position,
please apply by mail, email or fax to:
	Paul Breslin
	Side Effects Software Inc
	20 Maud St.  Suite 300
	Toronto, Ontario  M5V 2M5
	FAX: (416) 366-6648
-- 
__________________________________________________________________
Paul Breslin				Side Effects Software Inc.
phb@sidefx.uucp				Toronto, Ontario
Newsgroups: can.jobs