HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: NHI ( was: Canada Clause)
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:48:04 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: In article <Bv37HE.MuA@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: >
: >Medicare is one area where government control is good. One only has to look
: >to the US to see what happens otherwise. A US hospital has an accounting
: >department 11 times larger for the same size than a Canadian one. This is to
: >account for all the different insurance schemes, etc. Think of the cost
: >overhead here which has nothing to do with medical care. Also, medical care
: >is the LEADING cause of personal bankruptcy in the US. I am more than willing
: >to pay high taxes if it means I can break my arm without mortgaging my house.
: >
: 
: It is a good question to ask whether national health insurance would
: have ever come about under the Charlottetown Accord...the answer
: is probably NO.

The answer is, of course, yes. 

B.4 Canada's Social and Economic Union

-- providing throughout Canada a health care system that is comprehensive, 
   universal, portable, publicly administered, and accessible;

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Social programs: Manning vs Redick: who's correct?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 92 15:13:52 GMT

CBC Radio reported this morning that Preston Manning, in his speech to
a group of Sasketchewen farmers, said that the constitutional proposals
will increase spending on universal social programs forever.

I thought Judy Redick of the NAC said the proposals will lead to the
disintegration of universal social programs and that was the number one
reason the NAC came out on the No side.

Here I am, unable to understand (let alone even recognize all the
words) anything in my VCR owner's manual, do not understand the
Consensus Report, don't know who to believe, Mulroney or Trudeau, and
I'm being fed even more contradictory comments. So I appeal to the net
for guidance.  Please couch your explanation in pedestrian language so
that those of us who have to walk rather than drive can understand.
And, oh, speak slowly, since I need time to distinguish between
platitudes vs. analysis, propaganda vs. facts, and conjectures vs.
extrapolations.

One simple question: how will social programs be affected if the
                     proposals are adopted into our constitution?

Michael MY Hui  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
<< Charles Taylor for NDP Prime Minister >>
From: warkent@ltisun14.epfl.ch (Ken Warkentyne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Quebec's percentage of the population
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:49:31 GMT
Reply-To: warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

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.

Personally, I am for more devolution, and not just to the provinces
but to the cities as well.
Xref: sparky can.politics:7518 soc.culture.canada:7005
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:55:29 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <13024@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>An examination of the consensus agreement on the constitution has
>revealed to me that there is nothing of Canada in it. There is a great
>deal of accommodation of the interests of various interest groups
>but there is nothing which unites these groups into a common
>nationality.

Mainly because such a "common nationality" never existed in the first
place: it was all an artificial trudeauesque dream. Instead of wasting
time (and patience) trying to create a fake Canadian unity, a fake
Canadian culture and a fake Canadian "spirit", the governments should
have seen their role as a mediator, especially in the economic/trade
field.

>arrangement. Ontario shares common economic opportunties and environmental
>problems with these regions. Ontario's interest in Newfoundland, Yukon,
>and Quebec as examples is more nebulous.

Proportionaly, most of Ontario's trade is with Quebec, not the US.


-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: glocke@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Gordon Locke  )
Subject: Any GREENs?
Summary: Looking for Green party people on the net. 
Keywords: Green, environment, GPC 
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:37:29 GMT


	As a brief refreshing break from all the constitutional
discussion, (although I am enjoying the debate, and will probably add my
voice into _that_ fray as well, soon), I am just wondering if anyone
reading can.politics is either a member/whatever of the Green Party of
Canada / Canadian Greens, or just warm to the ideas of Green thinking,
"deep ecology", etc.  There was a Green Party of Newfoundland and
Labrador, until about a year ago when it seemed interest dropped off and
it was kind of `put on hold' for a while.  Wasn't there a national
convention-type-thing a while back?  Let's get some more political
topics discussed on this group besides the referendum / Charlottetown
Accord threads (though like I said, I can understand why that would
dominate the forum).
	- Gord
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: UIC and labour market training
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:36:54 GMT

In article <Bv8puw.93v@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>
>I think the issue on that point is the opposition to assymetrical federalism:
>what Quebec may need because of a different language, others want the same.
>
>Except for francophones training in Quebec in French because otherwise,
>there is not enough persons to have course, or economy integration in
>Quebec (Quebec Inc.), in most cases, there is no need to limit training
>management to one province.
>
>It is time that Federal begins to work on a true solution : 
>asymetrical federalism.  

I think more asymmetry is possible within Canada without dismantling
the federal government and without creating huge disparities in the
powers of different provinces, but we are trapped from negotiating
such flexible arrangements by outdated thinking about the nature
of government and how it should be structured, and turf protection
by premiers when they get behind closed doors.

The problem with the current constitutional process is that the
debate over division of powers is between the federal and provincial
governments...what the federal government gives up goes to the
provinces...and every province wants what every other province gets.

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.                            

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.

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

Gerald
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: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:50:49 GMT

Mike Gore (magore@icr2.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: 
: [ Minor nit ]
: 
: 	Idealy one needs good choices first. Considering the margins that
: one often sees in a election - having bad choices can result in even worse 
: representation - in any event it is only representation - I don't
: think may societies have TRUE democracy ...
: 

If you don't like the choices, put your own forward. You can run as an
independent. Vote for yourself. I agree with you about the TRUE democracy
thing -- who wants it? In order to have a true democracy, everybody would
have to represent themselves, and there would be an incoherent mess.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:44:25 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2261

From article <13073@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):
> In article (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>>Just because someone can't speak French doesn't mean the person is
>>intolerant of francophones. You're right that most Vancouver
>>restaurants couldn't take your order in French, but it's because
>>they don't get enough francophone customers to justify making French
>>a condition of employment.
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> However, the fact that a huge proportion of francophones in Quebec
> also speak english AND will use it when talking to anglophones even
> within Quebec definitively shows TOLERANCE.
> 
> However, being answered "Speak English, this is Canada!" when
> Canada-Direct (a suppositively bilingual service that allows you to
> get a "friendly canadian operator" anywhere in the world and "avoid
> foreign language operators") from Japan (thus a BC operator) is
> profoundly intolerant and unacceptable.
> 

Being told that your English-speaking children "have been declared
ineligible for instruction in English in Quebec" (i.e. "Your childen
must go to French school, this is Quebec!") is at least as profoundly
intolerant and also totally unacceptable!

> I understand that most people in BC don't speak french and have no
> desire to do so. What I don't understand is their concern about
> english in Quebec.
> 
> Even in the Ottawa region (25%-30% francophone), most anglophones
> don't speak french. The francophones however speak english. And guess
> who's preaching tolerance?
> 
> This is a falsified debate.

Why don't francophones campaign for better French language instruction
in Canadian schools in general?

> 
>>I doubt you speak Swedish, Francois, but are you intolerant of Swedes?
> 
> But I wouldn't say the sewidish are intolerant if they expect people
> to speak sweedish in Sweede.
> 

I wouldn't say English-speaking parents are intolerant if they expect to
send their children to English school!

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
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: Mon, 05 Oct 92 16:21:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct04.054609.17657@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>The new world (i.e. over here) will hence represent enlightenment,
>and the old world represent tribalism. Europe will be the one place
>most torn by the two, since its decendents populated most of the new
>world, and now thumb their noses back at the old world at their old
>way of doing things (i.e. tribalism). The Asian world will continue
>on its tribalistic ways for quite a few centuries yet. Don't ever go
>campaigning in China for multiculturalism. You'll be wasting your time.
>
>It is, actually. Tribalism results in the lack of some of the above
>for those from another tribe. When those "others" are so few in
>numbers that special enlightened treatment can be granted to them
>so that they truly feel welcome, things will be fine. It's when 
>"they" grow in number to become a "visible minority" that things
>start to get ugly. The solution is to separate the two, and then
>you'll have liberty, fraternity, and profitablity for all in the
>tribe.


I agree that the choices have to be made, but I don't know if the
"New World" is going to make the right choice. The fact that the
constitutional proposal is being so obscured is a big problem. 

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.

If this deal is passed, I see a reactionary current escalating in this
country and it will be reacting against the wrongs of this Const. proposal
and it will use that resentment to do grave harm.

Those of us who care enough should make our views known and let it be
known that we will vote NO because we believe in equality and equal
right for all citizens, not because we don't.


Frank.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:00:17 GMT

In article <BvE9wJ.FFF@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>>     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!

     Paul, you really must get into the habit of reading my
articles past the first paragraph.  What do you propose to
replace the current relationship of the Native peoples to the
federal government?

--Jamie.
Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:44:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.170502.12470@meadow.uucp> marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm) writes:
>
>Denis, you're overreacting.  Clark never mentioned civil war, and neither did
>Randy Armstrong.  Randy just said that an amicable solution would not be
>likely.  This does not mean that we will be clawing at each other's eyes the
>morning after the vote if it fails.  Did Joe Clark actually say that there
>will be secession and civil war if the vote fails?  I sincerely doubt it.
>

Clark and Andre have mentioned Beirut and Yugoslavia, but not Norway
or Czechoslovakia (knock on wood).

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Watch the Journal this week
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:05:26 GMT



All the consitutional pundits on this newsgroup should watch the Journal
this week, which is featuring discussions of components of the constitution 
with four constitutional lawyers.  It is very refreshing listening to 
informed debate on excerpts of the consitution, rather than the rhetoric 
from the politicians and the amateur speculations on this newsgroup.  

The issue of whether the document creates a hierarchy of classes, as Trudeau 
claims, was generally refuted. The Canada Clause is a set of principles for 
interpreting the rest of the constitution, and as a result, would not take
precedence over the charter.  However, they admitted that aboriginal groups
could revert to the not withstanding clause to circumvent the charter.
In fact, the aboriginal section has a lot of ambiguities, which a legal text 
would clarify.  One of them, Bryan Schwartz, a law professor from the 
University of Manitoba, believes that the current accord improves over Meech 
in many ways, especially in protecting minority language rights. However, he 
is still undecided on how to vote.  

It's interesting that these four experts do disagree on many issues.  
The consensus among them is that a legal text is required before they 
can make many definite conclusions.  

-- 
Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists 
bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens and
                                    confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Xref: sparky can.politics:7440 soc.culture.canada:6968
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:06:45 GMT

Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz wrote:
>In article <1992Sep28.133817.26019@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>> 
>> On the contrary, try Howard Levitt's article in the Toronto Star
>> on page C1 of the Toronto Star, Sept. 28, 1992.
>> "Why Companies will leave Ontario"
>> 
>> Gerald
>> 
>
>The TORStar is run by business stooges for business.....(there...that ought to
>either open some eyes, or inflame some folk who want to pretend otherwise.)

No, no, no. The Star is *clearly* the publishing arm of the Liberal Party
of Canada :-).
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: How I'm Voting on Oct. 26
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:29:41 GMT

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>There is nothing wrong with strategic voting, as Mathew has described.
>

For example, suppose in a federal election my favourite candidate
is from the Green Party, but I know, through polling information or
just common sense, that the winner will be from either the Liberal or the
Conservative Party.

Now if I decide to vote Liberal, even though it isn't my first choice,
and then post my decision to the net, will I get flamed by people telling
me to make up my own mind rather than using external data?

Mathew Englander.
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Trudeau - Dark Lord of Hypocrisy, Anti-christ, Non-eater of Vege
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 06:03:11 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #2, Edmonton, AB, Canada

bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:

-[Mr Ross Anti Trudeau rhetoric deleted]
- --
- Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists
- bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens an
-                                     confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

  brian, FTR, Mr Mulroney is more respnible for creating a yet bigger mess when
he CLAIMED that Quebec was alienated.

  Furthur: Mr. Levesque, then Quebec premier in 1982, would NEVER want equal
rights on an equal playing, i.e. the term Quebec's distinct Society.

PLEASE, get the facts straight!!

Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca,
userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Canadians: send a clear message to the government!  ON Oct. 26, Abstain
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:28:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.015139.25793@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
>		[...]
>	    (f) Canadians are commited to a respect for individ-
>	    ual and collective human rights and freedoms of all
>	    people;
>		[...]

I'm Canadian.  I'm not committed to collective rights.  In fact, I strongly
oppose them.  Therefore that statement is false.  At least one Canadian (me)
is not committed to collective rights.

So, give me a reason to vote yes, in spite of that clause.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Leadership and majority
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:54:08 GMT


Whatever your vote will be, doesn't it seem that SOMEBODY screwed up,
if BC and Quebec both seem to be voting no? I don't think the politicians
should be thinking "OK, we got something, now we just gotta sell and hype
it enough for people to vote yes".

And if it does pass with 51% accross Canada, something is still wrong.
A referendum on the CONSTITUTION isn't something that should be getting
a barely passing grade from its citizens.

They must all be really out of touch if they can't do something decent enough
to please at least 60% of the voters in every province.

In France, the Maastricht referendum passed by barely over 50%. A yes to
Mastricht, but it doesn't solve anything, or calm any fears of foreign
exchange bankers.

A 51% yes to Canada won't mean much, especially if several provinces are
resolutely no.

-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegemony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: Problem with net news
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:36:33 GMT

In article <BvAq24.DCn@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Wayne Smith (wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca) wrote:
>: Are they cencoring the news ?  :)
>: There seems to be a problem with the news feed out of toronto to
>: western, and I was wondering if you guys in TO had a similar
>: problem.  It seemed to start Friday at midnight.
>: 
>: I'm posting it here because this is the only group in my reading list
>: that is being updated with new postings.  Everything else is old
>: (last date = friday night).
>: 
>
>Just a slow weekend. We had the same here.


No, I have found out that there is a problem at TO.
When there are no new postings in groups like rec.autos for 2 days, including
this morning, then there is a problem.  
Is anyone in TO able to read the full compliment of news?


Newsgroups: can.politics