HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:23:38 GMT

In article <BvGnBr.2D5@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>Of course it matters whats in the deal. He's saying don't through this out
>because you despise the politicians. Vote on the basis of the accord. There
>is so little in it that anyone could disagree with (in my opinion, of course).

a)  Why not vote against it because you don't like the politicians.  If you
    don't like them, it is probably because you feel they make poor decisions.
    If they are prone to making poor decisions, then it is likely that this
    deal is poor.

b)  I will not vote based on (a), but have read the accord.  I find some
    of it good, some of it irrelevant, much of it missing (those little
    asterixes imply a lot), and a large chuck of it highly disagreeable.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6919 can.politics:7373
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:12:34 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:

>Our parliamentary system was designed on the assumption that there would
>only be two political parties.  Since there are three major parties plus
>a number of fringe parties we now have this ridiculous situation in
>which a party can get a majority with considerably less than 50% of the
>vote.  That's what happened -- the NDP got a majority government with only
>31% of the vote!  69% of the electorate indicated that they DID NOT want 
>an NDP government.

I'm sorry-- "Our parliamentary system was *designed*?!?!  Out of curiosity,
by whom?  The last time I think that argument was seriously tried, it had
to do with the divine right of kings (wherein the governmental system was
presumably `designed'), but I think we decided that wasn't right in the
eighteenth century.

And both in Canada and the UK, there have been at least three major parties
for most of the twentieth century; so any "designers" must have had them
in mind.

>>And be honest-- isn't it refreshing to have a government that
>>believes *something*?  At least sort of?

>I'd rather have a government that is responsible to the people.

I assume you therefore object equally to virtually all provincial and federal
governments elected in Canada in the last, say, fifty years (longer in some
places; not quite so long in others)?  

peter.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: Appointments to the Supreme Court
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:38:45 GMT

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

>The people of 8 provinces and 2 territories have no say in elected
>the Premier of Ontario and the Premier of Quebec, who will effectively
>name 2/3rds of the Court.

Gerald, as I've said before this is simply not true, for these
reasons:

1. There is a difference between "naming" and "nominating".
   Charlottetown would have the premiers nominate, but the appointing
   would be left to the prime minister (or technically the governor-
   general). If the prime minister doesn't like any of the names
   on any of the lists, there will be a special procedure for a temp-
   orary appointment.

2. The requirement of 3 Ontario judges is not entrenched. It is not
   even a firm constitutional convention: there was a short period
   in the 1970s when there were only 2 judges from Ontario, and three
   from the West.

3. Even assuming there has to be three Ontario judges, there's nothing
   to say that an Ontario judge has to be nominated by the Ontario
   government. When an Ontario judge retires, probably *every* premier
   will submit a list of nominees from Ontario. The prime minister would
   be free to choose an Ontario judge nominated by Saskatchewan, for
   example.

4. The same is true of Quebec. When a Quebec judge retires, *every*
   premier and territorial leader could submit a list of nominees
   who are members of the Quebec bar. If the Quebec government submits
   a list of names of people who are radical separatists, for example,
   the prime minister could appoint a federalist Quebecker on some other
   premier's list. This admittedly would have political consequences for
   the prime minister, but the option exists.
      In fact, this option was specifically included in Charlottetown;
   if you read the counterpart provision in Meech Lake you'll find that
   it would not have been available there.

>  I am not against some form of provincial
>input into the process of selecting the Justices or the number of
>Justices from Quebec or Ontario, only this particular appointment
>process.

Please, tell us of your preferred process for allowing provincial
input.

Mathew Englander.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Subject: Re: Florist Chain in Canada
Organization: On the Brew.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:02:13 GMT

In referenced article, harbirk@ifi.uio.no (Harbir Singh Kohli) writes:
>I can't find  a FAQ for this group, so I am posting here, I 
>am wondering if there is a some flower shop/chain which does 
>home deliveries in Mississauga(I can never spell it right)ONT, 
>it is just outside Toronto, and will accept orders over the phone 
>and charge to a credit card?

The easiest thing to do is to go to your local florist and use the
international flower delivery service.  Most places in Canada are members
of FTD.
-- 
Ray Dunn at home    |    ray@philmtl.philips.ca    |    (514) 630 3749
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6996 can.general:4656 talk.politics.misc:48501
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.general,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Bank incompetence! (Was: Doesn't *everybody*?)
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:02:36 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2494

From article <1992Sep25.171013.10672@col.hp.com>, by lpj@col.hp.com (Laura Johnson):
> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>> From article <1992Sep23.062937.6722@nntp.uoregon.edu>, by eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson):
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > For what it's worth, I had to spend 12 weeks in LA once and needed a local
>> > bank account.  The lady at the bank looked at my Washington state driver's
>> > license (*Washington*--should have been a clue, huh?) and said she could
>> > not open my acount without my passport.
>> > 
>  < more in the same vein >
> 
>> 
>> I think this is more to do with the general lack of training of bank
>> tellers in N.A.
>> 
> 
> Is this a joke? Are you really suggesting that banks should have to teach
> tellers that Washington state is in the U.S.A.?  Wouldn't it make more
> sense to put this instruction in the second grade where it belongs? (Foreign-
> born tellers would be at a disadvantage, of course, but somehow I think a
> foreign-born teller wouldn't have made this particular mistake!)  

I'm not joking.

I have tried several banks in the 12 years I have been here. They are 
all guilty of hiring an alarming percentage of underqualified people and
seem to have a hopelessly inadequate or non-existent training program.

Some bank clerk or other screws up something on at least one of my bank
accounts just about every month!

It's not the bank's responsibility to teach basic geography to their
junior (or senior :-)) staff. As you have pointed out - this should be
done in the school classroom. On has to question the minimum academic
standards required for employment in financial institutions in N.A.
One must also question the minimum training required of employees before
being permitted to deal with customers/clients directly. Banks are _not_
supermarkets!

This months goof: My bank statement shows a $5.00 charge for "branch to
branch banking services" - I pay a standard monthly service fee which
includes "branch to branch banking services" free. In any case, where
do banks get off charging for "branch to branch banking services" in
1992? They don't send couriers around with boxes of paperwork anymore
do they?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: epritcha@s.psych.uiuc.edu (EVAN pritchard)
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Organization: UIUC Department of Psychology
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:45:03 GMT

beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:

>Some more polling (Leger & Leger survey, 22-24 SEPT)
>Survey out of Quebec, Journal de Montreal. 26 SEP 92 

>Place        YES   NO   Not decided
>Maritimes    47.1  20.1  32.9
>Quebec (1)   23    43    34       /this is from another survey, for comparison
>Ontario      40.5  29.8  28.6
>West         38.1  35.6  26.3
>BC           28.7  58.6  12.7


From the looks of this, BC people are really against this the
referendum.  Moreover, more of them have made up their minds about it.
Why is this?  

Evan, a Winnipegger living in east central Illinois (temporarily, I hope) :-) 
  
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6945 can.politics:7401
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:55:57 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Sep28.133537.25911@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>The solution to the funding crisis in higher education is to reform
>the way it is financed.  The solution I would advocate is to replace
>direct government funding of universities with a student voucher 
>system, where any qualified student would be eligible for voucher
>to spend at the institution of their choice...the voucher would
>be considered a loan which could be paid back by paying back the
>loan directly, specified types of service, or through a higher
>marginal income tax rate for a period of time.

This is also a key idea in Bill Clinton's election platform.

( Let's not waste net.bandwidth on who thought of it first. )
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7001 can.politics:7516
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:01:00 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <BvALMC.CwE@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>>Some more polling (Leger & Leger survey, 22-24 SEPT)
>>Survey out of Quebec, Journal de Montreal. 26 SEP 92 
>
>>Place        YES   NO   Not decided
>>Maritimes    47.1  20.1  32.9
>>Quebec (1)   23    43    34       /this is from another survey, for comparison
>>Ontario      40.5  29.8  28.6
>>West         38.1  35.6  26.3
>>BC           28.7  58.6  12.7
>
>These results would be more helpful if they were broken up by province, 
>not by region, since it ios a provincial yes/no that counts.

They were published as is.  But, I think there was an Angus-Reid polling
recently, giving the NO in Alberta too.  Any one has the appropriate data?

Last polling in Quebec : something like 39% YES 47% NO.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: How I'm Voting on Oct. 26
Date: 26 Sep 92 04:01:03 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo


	Does the  equivalent of witholding one's vote exist for the
Oct 26 event? I will default to a no vote if the legal text is not
available and witholding is also not an option.

						James Nicoll
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: What happens on October 26?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:47:08 GMT

In article <baljeual.717701134@uther> baljeual@uther.calvin.edu (Alan Baljeu) writes:
>I'm sorry for being so ignorant of my own country's politics.  I haven't 
>been around much since December 91.
>Anyway, I got the opportunity to watch Sunday report on CBC yesterday
>(thanks to SCOLA's broadcast) and I saw the news.
>
>I saw all kinds of talk about what people on the street thought, what 
>politicians thought, and what experts in various fields thought.
>
>Apparently some people are planning to vote yes, especially in Quebec, and
>others are planning to vote no.  Many are undecided.
>
>NOBODY even bothered to mention what the issue was.  So I'm turning to the net.
>What is the October 26 referendum about?  What's it say?  What happens if it
>passes?  Fails?  How is this connected to the Quebec referrendum on seccession?
>

The referendum question is something awfully close to:

"Do you agree that the constitution of Canada should be renewed on
the basis of the accord reached in Charlottetown on August 28?"

The other questions you ask depend on whom you trust and believe,
on your assessment of the political and economic situation, etc.

I will vote NO...because I believe the Charlottetown Accord is
disastrous for Canada,

because it doesn't solve the Quebec "problem",         

because it weakens individual and democratic rights, 

because it sets the stage
for further western alienation and perhaps a new separatist movement
which may arise from the entrenched underrepresentation of BC and Alberta 
in the House of Commons (and which will worsen over time),

and because it fail to make the constitutional changes necessary for
Canada to meet the economic challenges we face in the near and
long term future.

Gerald
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7075 can.politics:7665 can.general:4690
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:06:52 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Sep29.222204.11961@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Mike Thorpe) writes:
>	En fait, l'adoption de la charte canadienne des droits et libertes
>m'a toujours deplu.  Jusqu'alors, la societe canadienne avait comme but 
>l'equilibre entre les droits individuels et collectifs.  La charte vient 
>destabiliser tout ca, comme le montre le recent jugement de la cour supreme
>en faveur de la pleine liberte d'expression (publication diffamatoire)
>au lieu de la paix sociale.
>	Normand Mousseau

  Moi aussi ...

  Given that civilization is an expression of the 'collective' actions of
individuals in surrendering certain 'individual' rights in order to live
and function cooperatively, I am surprised at the near anarchist stance of
so many Charter junkies when discussing this piece of paper.

  But then they are the ones that always want a big central bureaucractic 
government to then impose their lists of 'freedoms' on everyone else, and 
continually oppose individuality or freedom of action in any lesser authority.

  The contradictions are mind boggling ...
---- 
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: soc.culture.canada,can.general,tor.general
From: peterm@writer.yorku.ca (Peter Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Canadian politician discovers "junk faxes"
Organization: Computer Assisted Writing Centre, York University, Toronto, Canada
Distribution: canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:51:21 GMT

Re: the sending of junk faxes

A small business at which I recently worked had a lot of incoming
"junk" faxes.  They never "volunteered" their number to any such
directory, but this didn't seem to be a hindrance to the senders.
Perhaps some organziation is also pulling this info from other sources
?
a
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
From: alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: Bell Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:41:43 GMT

Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca) wrote:
: 
: Canadians: send a clear message to the government!  ON Oct. 26, Abstain

Abstaining is not a clear message. It is an abdication. In the UN they do
this because it means we will abide by the majority but we don't want the
losers of a vote to be mad at us.

Anyways, your blowing off steam about politicians didn't provide anything
new. We know about them already!

This referendum is our 'third at-bat'. Don't make it three strikes and
you're out. Vote yes despite the politicians, the interest groups, etc. These
are the divisive forces.

--
Alex Laney
User Interface Guru, IWS/TRACS Project, Bell Canada
animal!bnkc08!alex  (or maybe alex@bnkc08.Bell.Ca)
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6964 can.politics:7435
From: iaf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Innes Ferguson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:07:11 GMT
Reply-To: iaf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Innes Ferguson)
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:

>>Am I the only one who remembers that Ontario voted for a *change* from the
>>Liberals?
>
>I remember something about Ontarians being ticked off with the Liberal
>leader for timing the election so as to try to take advantage of
>ignorance/apathy.  I don't particularly remember anything about
>particularly wanting socialism...

They could have voted PC but they didn't! Do you think voters are
that stupid? Do you think they base their votes solely on knee-jerk
reactions to the ruling party?

>I would show you exhibit #1: My tuition bill for LAST summer.  And
>exhibit #2: Tuition bill for THIS summer.  Guess what.  There's a 78%
>difference between 'em.  And I was part time for both terms.  Not
>exactly a decrease.

Always thinking of yourself... Must be a tory.

Innes
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 23:56:19 GMT

clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Not quite.  It specifies a "Double Majority", which means that it must
>have a majority of BOTH anglophone and francophone (or European and
>Native) senators to pass.

The double majority refers to the Senate as a whole and to the francophone
(or native) part thereof. It is possible for a majority of non-francophone
senators to vote against legislation (subject to the double majority) and
have the legislation pass.
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:33:54 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1992Sep30.174300@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch writes:
>In article <BvE9wJ.FFF@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca>, ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>|> In article <1992Sep29.231954.4525@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>|> >In article <BvBGDu.tH@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>|> >>BTW, could someone please explain to me how collective rights is different
>|> >>from apartheid.
>|> >
>|> >     Sure... as soon as you explain to me how the present Indian
>|> >Act and reserve system is different from apartheid.
>|> 
>|> Oh, I get it.  If you have apartheid now, it's OK to enshrine it in
>|> the constitution.  Well that certainly makes sense!
>
>No, you don't get it.

Then explain to me.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Appointments to the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:26:50 GMT

In article <Bv75vs.IJK@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> wetmore@theochem.uwaterloo.ca (Ross W. Wetmore) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.021724.9971@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep25.223304.27238@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep24.025252.24191@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
>>> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>>>The Canada Clause clearly gives precedence to collective and government
>>>>rights over individual rights...what we won't find out until a Supreme
>>>>Court (with 3 justices named by the Premier of Quebec and 3 justices
>>>>named by the Premier of Ontario, neither of whom is responsible to
>>>>the people of Canada) is how badly the Charter has been imperiled.
>>>
>>>Gerald, you are misrepresenting the contents of the Accord. No premier
>>>will be able to "name" Supreme Court Justices. Premiers will be able to
>>>present lists of potential judges from which the federal cabinet chooses
>>>someone. If no one on the list is acceptable to the federal govenment,
>>>then they can delay until they receive another list with a name they like.
>>
>>So what if Premier Jacques Parizeau keeps nominating ultra-nationalists...
>>or Premier Rae keeps nominating Canadian Catherine MacKinnon clones.
>>
>>...we've then got a nice fine constitutional crisis with no Supreme
>>Court to resolve the issue...the defacto nomination power for two-thirds
>>of the court has been given to two premiers, neither of whom is 
>>responsible to the people of Canada in the general sense, but whose
>>responsibility is to their provinces.
>>
>>The Charlottetown Accord doesn't tell us how such constitutional
>>crises are to be avoided.
>
>  You haven't read your accord correctly again.
>
>  The PM can refuse all name presented by the premiers, it is in the accord.
>
>  If there are no satisfactory names, then a temporary appointment is
>to be provided for, it is in the accord.
>

Exactly how does this not cause an immense crisis and the politicization
and delegitimization of the highest Court in the land the first time
it happens. 

We are building in a appointment procedure that comes with a nuclear
bomb, that we tear the judicial system of our country apart.

>  There is no provision stating 3 judges must come from Ontario in anything
>I have seen, and the provision as regards Quebec is that 'three must have
>been admitted to the bar of Quebec (civil law bar)'.
>

The tradition has been 3 from Quebec, which will be entrenched and I
don't oppose, and 3 from Ontario...is Ontario going to tolerate fewer
justices than Quebec, I think not...

Gerald
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7000 can.politics:7515
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: The Accord and BC
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:52:02 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

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

[Large plagiarised article deleted]

: Comments and notes:
: 
: The concern BC will drift into a closer relationship with the US
: (a Cascadian scenario) should the Charlottetown Accord
: be approved should not be dismissed lightly...the Accord may not 
: "save" Quebec and we may "lose" BC because of it.
: 

BC is very unlikely to join the US. Like all Canadians, the people of British
Columbia are very attached to Health Care. Under US rule, they would be
unable to have this.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general