HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:00:45 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: In the aftermath of a NO, I advocate an elected constitution convention
: which would prepare a variety of constitutional options including modest
: revisions to the mild asymmetrial federalism we have today, a model of
: full-blown asymmetrical federation, and a model of complete sovereignty
: for the Canada-Quebec relationship which would then be put to the people
: and the legislatures for debate and decision.  I may have strongly held
: views about what the correct position should be, but I advocate
: democratic decision-making.  It is the first ministers who insist that
: it is "their way or no way".

If you put 10 proposals to the people, you'll get no more than 1/5 of
the vote for any one of them. We elected these people to represent us,
why not let them? Let them make the decisions we mandated them to
make, and then let us ratify their decision. Hey, that's what we're
doing now! 

You refuse to answer why an elected constitution convention is better
than our already elected premiers, MPs, and MPPs.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Reasons to STAY AWAY from the NO side
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:32:17 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
: In article <1992Oct6.154425.4938@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
: >golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
: >: 
: >: Canada is already the most decentralized federation in the world...
: >: Quebec and the rest of the provinces are already among the most
: >: autonomous and powerful subunits of any federal state anywhere.
: >
: >This perhaps holds with respect to economic trade barriers. 
: >It certainly doesn't hold politically.  For example, the political
: >decentralisation amongst states in the USA is vastly more pronounced than 
: >in Canada. Even the death penalty can vary among states.
: > 
: 
: Money is power...the ratio of provincial spending to federal spending
: in Canada is significantly larger than the ratio of state spending to
: federal spending in the US.

Not a convincing argument, given that the US feds have enormous bills such
as military expenditures which inflate this balance. Federal and state powers 
are partitioned more distinctly than in Canada, and the states are given more 
control over them the equivalent situation in Canada.  If you want to
convince me that Canadian provinces are more decentralized than American
states, I'd have to see a breakdown of corresponding political 
jurisdictions, as well as of federal and provincial/state spending.

To be fair, the exception in Canada is Quebec, which has its own legal system,
as well as distinct language laws.  But come to think of it, I believe that
Louisiana has a civil law system also.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Where's the $ (?!)
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 21:51:58 GMT

Tom Gray (grayt@Software.Mitel.COM) wrote:
: In article <BvCtGD.7G0@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: >
: >Charlottetown is really an Accord for all Canadians.
: 
: This is an astounding statement. What benefits accrue to all Canadians
: from this agreement. This agreement is described even by its supporters as
: a maens of redressing the grievances of certain groups (Quebec, Aboriginals
: Westerners).
: 
: Now there is major opposition to the agreement in Quebec , among Aboriginals
: and among Westerners. Now just what problems does this agreement solve?
: 
: ps
: I'm from Ontario. I'm a Canadian. What do people like me get from this?

You'll get the benefits of a constitution that applies to all Canadians.
You'll get a government that is no longer paralysed by internal issues.
You'll get better representation the the HoC. If you are an aboriginal
Canadian, you'll get some recognition. You'll get a more united Canada,
with everyone pulling together to bring us into the 21st century.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Credibility
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 06:09:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.020130.10586@unixg.ubc.ca> frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank) writes:
>It seems that flamming is not limited to the net!! Too bad Mr. Rae did
>not (as far as is reported) try to deal with the substance of Mr.
>Trudeau's attack on the accord. A point by point rebuttle might have
>had more impact than throwing a little temper tantrum.

First, I won't take credit for teaching Premier Rae how to properly
flame, even though I do write him once in a while in my best net.prose;
The Premier was a Rhodes Scholar, so he must have written a few term
papers to know how to put out a spin without having to invest a lot of
time researching the background material and building a good argument.

   (school rule #1: it's the mark that counts, not the content)

But back on the issue at hand: it is not possible to rebut most things
Trudeau said about the Distinct Society, and why he is so offended by
it. His is an ideological stance that has substantial historical and
even philosophical grounding, and anyone trying to attack it head on
will invite the fury of a lot of professors in the aforementioned
fields. Even a lot of Quebecers do not like having Distinct Society
written into the constitution. Quebecers want Real Powers [tm], not an
airy phrase severely circumscribing (in their view) what those powers
may be. Rae et al. on the YES side is pushing the Consensus Report as a
Canadian Compromise [tm, obviously]. Trudeau was speaking as a retired
university professor, specializing in the field of constitution law. He
quite clearly made this point right at the beginning of his Eggroll
speech. Therefore, we can conclude that Trudeau is right, and the YES
side is also right. Trudeau was talking about theory; the YES side is
talking about the result of one long negotiation session that comprises
of a lot of clauses and agreements over a very wide field. The fact
that the Consensus Report had to use an impure phrase (Distinct
Society) to give Quebec more powers is being sold as a compromise by
the YES side and is being denounced by Trudeau as wrong. When taken
at face value, it IS wrong. But when it's a means towards an end not
nearly as sinister as what Trudeau made it out to be, then the end
does justify the means.

He's right. It is a bit of a mess. But so what?
Most compromises are usually messy.

Michael MY Hui  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Reply-To: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:18:31 GMT

In article <365@mindlink.bc.ca>, Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
|> If the consequences of voting No are so horrendous, according to the bankers,
|> party leaders, and other assorted Jeremiahs, then why on Earth have responsible
|> leaders put the country in a position to do itself such damage? Would they put
|> a loaded pistol in a kindergarten and tell the kids not to pull the trigger?

Because in a democracy one has the right to shoot himself, no matter you stupid
he or she is.

Don
My brain, my thoughts, my words.
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a K-car (a nice reliant automobile),
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a fur coat
  (but not a real fur coat, that's cruel),
If I had a million dollars, we wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner
  (but we would eat Kraft Dinner), of course we would, we'd just eat more. - BNL
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE NOT protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:28:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.143142.29470@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>
>Just as important are the things that are NOT in the consensus report.
>
>Why is "Education" not mentioned?
>

Education is already an exclusively provinicial responsibility except
the money the feds spend on postsecondary education.

>It is at least as important as culture, mining, tourism, housing and
>recreation.
>
>"Education" isn't even listed among "other constitutional issues discussed"
>or among "other issues discussed but not finally resolved.
>

Most everyone supports education remaining exclusively a provincial
responsibility, so there is nothing to discuss.

>
>Quebec can still force children of English mother tongue into the French
>school system against the wishes of their English-speaking parents. :-(((
>
>Why wasn't that discussed?
>

Because education is a provincial responsibility...not only Quebec, but
basically every province would go ballistic if the federal government
asked for power in this area, and there really is no need for the
federal government to be involved in basic primary and secondary
education.

Nonetheless, education is about to undergo a massive restructuring
in North America...but probably not until early in the next century.

The public education system is going to be privatized...with public
financing through a voucher system...it will happen first in parts
of the United States, since there public education system in most
places is much worse than ours...which still functions reasonably well...
and Canada will eventually follow, because the system will be incredibly
successful.  

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: gill@physics.ubc.ca (Arnold Gill)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:06:36 GMT

jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:

>     C'mon Preston and Jacques, Judy and Rafe.  Sit down and
>give it a try, and just see if you can all sign your names to
>anything better.

     I've already sent Rafe what (to me) minor changes should be made to 
improve the deal and make it palatable to many more people.  I started on
a writing spree when he was putting out numerical nonsense as TRUTH.  :-(
Perhaps we should have a session and fix it up completely!  :-)

     Actually, what I would like to see from the No sides is not a simple
rejection (any fool can do that), but a concensus on what minor changes
would change their vote.  If they feel that the premiers are purely playing
politics rather than writing a `good' constitution, this seems to be the
approach they should take.

     Fix it, don't burn it!

--
Arnold Gill --- astrophysician trainee in exile             gill@physics.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed)
Subject: Re: What "Manning-Trudeau" manifesto?
Keywords: Manning Trudeau
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 12:29:12 GMT

robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:

>In article <1992Sep22.145559.12768@sq.sq.com> donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:
>>
>>It is possible that a person could read the Trudeau article,
>>and agree with him, and then vote "Yes" on October 26th.
>>Clyde Wells is one such case.

>How do you know which way Wells is going to vote?

I cannot tell with absolute certainty, but this is what he claimed
on CBC radio, shortly after the article by Trudeau appeared.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: NHI ( was: Canada Clause)
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:03:35 GMT

Paul Ward (ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: In article <BvEF0y.4Cr@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: >
: >The Social and Economic Union section commits governments to certain basic
: >ACHIEVABLE social goals. Health care is one, housing, food, etc are others.
: 
: No it doesn't.  That's the whole point of non-justiciable.  If the gov't
: decided to remove health care, and someone took them to court under the
: SEU section, the court would simply say "Case dismissed."  That is what
: not justiciable means.

I'm afraid you misunderstand what it is saying. The fact that it is
non-justiciable means that you cannot mount a court-challenge AGAINST
medicare. Government is committed by this section to providing a universal,
portable, etc,etc health care system. It is thus entrenched in the
constitution, and cannot be changed by the courts. The government cannot
remove things from the constitution without an ammendment.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Problem with net news
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:06:03 GMT

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.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:39:33 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: 
: The difference is that you must stick that voucher in the hand of the
: student and force the university to interact with the student rather
: than with the government.  Then when a students association goes to
: a university administration and complains about the quality of teaching
: or the size of classed, they will have some clout...they will have their
: vouchers...and will be able to walk away with them.  If the university
: is taking their enrollment numbers to a government bureaucrat for
: numbers, there is no serious threat to the jobs of everyone at the
: university...if half the student body decides to withhold their
: vouchers, the university administration and faculty will take notice.

This is the way it works now. If half the student body (aside -- if half the
student body did ANYTHING I would be surprised) were to threaten to quit, the
university would lose half their funding. You're advocating what we have now.

By adding vouchers, you add to the bureacracy. Universities are top heavy
with bureacracy now, and this simply siphons money from legitimate needs.

: 
: I'm essentially talking about privatising the university system...
: the government will fund students, and students will fund the
: university. 

This is what we have now. Universities are privately owned, and government
funded. Wake up.

: 
: What student is going to give their voucher to a school that treats them
: like "shit".  I'm talking about a system where universities are almost
: entirely dependent on their student enrollment for their economic
: continuation.  The reason why there tends to be lousy teaching and
: large classes at most universities is exactly because universities
: are not dependent on their student enrollment for their survival.
: That is what I would want to change by funding students instead of
: funding universities.

Your argument is illogical. If university funding were not dependent on # of
students, why would the class sizes by large? Illogical.

If you are unhappy at a university, you quit. If a university gets a bad rep,
fewer students apply. The university will have to rectify the situation, or
spiral downwards.

This is exactly how it works now. You are not advocating a change, you are
simply complaining about the status quo, and then saying it is good.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: What does Quebec take with them when they go, and who decides?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:24:59 GMT

In article <BvCKx9.I8r@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>What I predict would happen would be:
>
>1) Quebec will deny responsibility for any of the deficit

Even Belanger-Campeau recognized that Quebec would have to assume
part of the debt...(I think their number was 17%)...the debate will 
be over the share of the debt...the range of debate will likely
span from 15% to 33%.  Quebec would have to borrow internationally,
which means they are compelled to take a reasonable share of the
debt.

>2) All federal institutions in the province would be nationalised
>3) English Canada will not allow Quebec to use the Canadian Dollar

A Quebec that really wanted to be sovereign wouldn't want to use
the Canadian dollar except in a transitional period.

>4) Trade will go down the toilet

The more we would attempt to punish Quebec, the more we would punish
ourselves...neither Canadians nor Quebeckers are stupid.

>5) Atlantic provinces will be isolated.

We aren't living in the Stone Age...we have jet airplanes, satellites,
modern telecommunications.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:13:07 GMT

Jim Robinson (robinson@mdivax1.uucp) wrote:
: >
: >However, recall that during Meech it was only politicians, not banks,
: >who forecast doom and gloom if Meech failed. In fact, at the time
: >one or two banks released (or maybe leaked) reports that the Quebec
: >economy would be stable after separation.
: 
: So what has changed so drastically in the intervening time? Why did the
: banks predict economic stability then, and economic gloom now? It all
: smells awfully political to me.

What has changed? The global economy. Europe is becoming a trading block.
North America is becoming a trading block. The Pacific rim is becoming a
trading block. Quebec cannot hope to be economically stable in this
environment. Canada's economic stability is also much worse now than it was
then. Separating 30% of Canada will put both English and French Canada into a
tailspin. The investors pulling out of Canada now are proof of this. Think
what they will do if the NO side wins and there is major uncertainty about
what to do next.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Where's the $ (?!)
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:18:07 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <BvMA2n.5qx@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Tom Gray (grayt@Software.Mitel.COM) wrote:
>: In article <BvCtGD.7G0@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>: >
>: >Charlottetown is really an Accord for all Canadians.
>: 
>: This is an astounding statement. What benefits accrue to all Canadians
>: from this agreement. This agreement is described even by its supporters as
>: a maens of redressing the grievances of certain groups (Quebec, Aboriginals
>: Westerners).
>: 
>: Now there is major opposition to the agreement in Quebec , among Aboriginals
>: and among Westerners. Now just what problems does this agreement solve?
>: 
>: ps
>: I'm from Ontario. I'm a Canadian. What do people like me get from this?
>
>You'll get the benefits of a constitution that applies to all Canadians.

There is major opposition to this agreement in Quebec, among Aborginals
and among Westerners. If it does pass, it will only be by the slightest
of margins especially in Quebec.

Now where is your legitimate constitution accepted by all Canadians?

>You'll get a government that is no longer paralysed by internal issues.

There is major opposition to this constitution in Quebec, among Aboriginals
and in the West. Now why would these agrieved groups not press their issues
as strongly as ever?

>You'll get better representation the the HoC. If you are an aboriginal
>Canadian, you'll get some recognition. You'll get a more united Canada,
>with everyone pulling together to bring us into the 21st century.

Why will this agreement produce a more united Canada?













.
.

>
>--
>Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca


-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:49:23 GMT

In article <13040@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.143809.10290@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>Quebec doesn't have a right to declare independence!
>
>Any nation has the right to independence (self-determination).
>However, it is up to the countries of the world to recognize it or not.

It's very nice to see you are in favor of self-determination.  I hope
that applies to the natives of Northern Quebec, who just might want to
stay with Canada (or even have their own country), rather than stay
with Quebec.  That's quite a chunk of territory you will be giving up,
but I guess "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The courts continue to take away our self-defense capability.
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:09:02 GMT
Distribution: can

labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach) writes:
> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes: 
>    ...
>    But when I flew my theory that the courts generally want to take away
>    our ability to protect ourselves to a friend of mine, he said that
>    "get some of that new pepper spray.  It's organic, etc, etc". 
>    ...
> 
> Worried about the Serbs crashing over the border any minute now?

Very few people concerned about self-defense are paranoid
Rambo wanabees.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: can.politics