HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
X-Disclaimer: I speak only for myself.
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:19:54 GMT

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.

     When Trudeau & co. proposed to make Native peoples just
the same as non-Natives in 1971, there were huge protests and
threats of direct action from the Native community.  For extra
points, you can throw in an explanation of how you would ignore
collective Native rights and still handle this potential trouble.

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Standard brain-toy bullet list for any GnuAge grokabilly shopping trip"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
From: q1hl@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Nameless CS Student)
Subject: Re: How I'm Voting on Oct. 26
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 07:16:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.162139.22848@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>There is no "neither"...spoiling your ballot or abstaining is the
>moral equivalent of a yes vote.
>
>They will only count "yes" and "no"...one might figure they might
>mention the number of spoiled ballots, but those will be viewed
>as a reluctant "yes"...but a "yes" nevertheless.

REALLY!?!?
I understand the concept of complicity through silence, but I've
never seen it applied to a democratic vote before.
I always figured a spoiled vote was a non-vote.  How silly of me.

-- 
Chris Rasley
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: Yes = ? No = ?
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:17:02 GMT

In article <BvnGnE.ICp@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>You're kidding (where are the smileys?).  Asymmetrical federalism is some
>kind of federalism.  A-F was proposed by PQ for years.  A-F is a suitable
>and more relevant renewing of the constitution than the make-up operation
>of Charlottetown.

     Fine... now try to convince Trudeau, Manning, Rafe Mair,
and all the people who say "all provinces and peoples should be
equal" that A-F is the way to go.  The fact that this can't be
agreed on is what *causes* all the problems, Denis.

>  In 1980, the subject of referendum was A-F.

     Where are the smileys here?  The subject of the 1980
referendum was about the Quebec government unilaterally taking
the position of negotiating with the federal government on the
basis of sovereignty-association.  The people voted NO to that,
by the way.

     I think the question in Quebec should have been "do you
believe that Canada should NOT be renewed on the basis of the
Charlottetown accord"... since Quebeckers seem to vote "NO" on
everything.   :-)

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Standard brain-toy bullet list for any GnuAge grokabilly shopping trip"
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7070 can.politics:7659
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 1 Oct 92 00:39:27 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>
>The current system half-heartedly subsidizes higher education, and
>deprives Canadians of having their present and future taxes spent
>well, and for their benefit. The current system imposes financial
>hardship on many people.

While I'd generally lean towards your points and Gerald's, one thing
sociological that I should point out is that up north, people become
financially independant faster than their American counterparts 'cos
the tuition is still low enough for many people to live on their own
even going to the best schools (one can't work their own way through
Harvard or Columbia or Stanford, etc. due to high private tuition).
The greatest extent of most student dependance is living at home and
that pales against knowing that your parents halfway across the world
forked out another $20,000 on your behalf.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: harbirk@ifi.uio.no (Harbir Singh Kohli)
Subject: Florist Chain in Canada
Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:16:25 GMT
Originator: harbirk@langlia.ifi.uio.no


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?

Also if there is anyone who knows about some cheap, places to stay
in Mississauga, I will be very grateful for that too. 


Thanks

  harbir
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: What happens on October 26?
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:48:25 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <baljeual.717701134@uther> baljeual@uther.calvin.edu (Alan Baljeu) writes:
>Anyway, I got the opportunity to watch Sunday report on CBC yesterday
>(thanks to SCOLA's broadcast) and I saw the news.
>
>Apparently some people are planning to vote yes, especially in Quebec, and
>others are planning to vote no.  Many are undecided.

I don't see where you take the vote planning :-)
In last pollings, No was in advance in Quebec, BC and Alberta.
Yes was in advance elsewhere and in total polling.

Agreement is so poor that the current debate is : will its content be
available before it is rejected (i.e. Alberta is to leave the YES camp
if the final text is not available before I think October 10).

I heard currently an advertising about the new agreement.  It said that
many points are costfull because of Federal and Province superposition of
powers.  Such points does not need any modification in the constitution 
(the why of the referendum).  They just need Federal respect existing
constitution.


-- 
  \_\    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,can.politics
From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Appointments to the Supreme Court
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:07:10 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: In article <1992Oct5.000055.27340@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
: >
: >Remember, the federal government will still have the final say.
: >I don't think provincial governments are any more likely to abuse
: >their power of nominating judges than the federal government.
: >
: 
: 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.  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.
: 

How does it matter who appoints a judge as long as the judge is legally
capable and impartial? Does it matter that the premier of Ontario was not
elected by people in Alberta? Why does this make the Ontario premier
incompetent?

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:24:56 GMT

In article <BvIG14.J2D@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Paul Ward (ward@sun15.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: You're environment example is very widely used, but false.  One only
>: needs the individual right to life to protect the environment - someone
>: should not pollute because it infringes on someone else's right to life.
>
>Yes, but entrenching it specifically is better, and less hard to define.

Why?
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7117 can.politics:7778
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:23:04 GMT

myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
> >The pro-union legislation is, of course, something that they would
> >HAVE to support, on principle.  Whether it is good for the economy, or
> >bad for the economy.
> 
> Having more workers working and a more cooperative labour-management
> relationship can only contribute to the economy. The proposed labour
> reform policy thus will *help* the economy.

I fail to see how 'instant unions',  legislated 'bargaining', and
a new power to extort are 'cooperative'.  The proposed bill is so
blatantly unfair that capital flight is a real concern;  and that
would certainly *not* help the economy.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: Chris.Freehill@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chris Freehill)
Subject: Living in Montreal
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:10:47 GMT

Hi,
   I am considering taking a position in Montreal.  Could somebody please 
give me some information on the cost of living in Montreal as compared to
a (specific) major U.S. city (say Dallas, N.Y., Boston, etc.)?  Also, any
information on Federal sales and income taxes and those associated with  
Montreal would be appreciated.  Finally, do U.S. citizens pay both
Canadian and U.S. income taxes while working in Canada?

                              Thanks
                                     Chris

free@max.ee.lsu.edu

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: The Accord and BC
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:57:56 GMT

In article <BvEG0E.5p1@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Paul A.S. Ward (pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>: In article <BvCsEq.5rt@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>: >
>: >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.
>: 
>: Whether or not they would join the US, if they did it does not mean that
>: they would have to give up medicare.  Did you know Hawaii has a medicare
>: equivalent?
>
>Medicare is funded through federal transfer payments from income tax. Many
>states have what they call medicare (California does too) but it only covers
>some 10% of the population, and doesn't cover many procedures. Additionally,
>many doctors and hospitals do not accept it.
>
>Where do you think BC would get the money to fund it? If BC had medicare, do
>you not think people would come from out-of[province|state] to get it? Would
>you pay for it through sales tax? 25% VAT? People would just shop in Alberta
>or Washington.

BC is a net tax LOSER in this country. We pay provincial and federal tax.
Provincial tax is spent in BC, for BC. Some federal revenue gets spent 
in BC, some doesn't. Where would BC get the money? Since money is 
being bled out of BC, we obviously generate enough tax revenue to pay for 
medicare ourselves. Nobody outside of BC is paying our bills for us.

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


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 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: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Royal Bank hypocrisy and the Telecommunications Sellout
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:55:05 GMT

Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz wrote:
: In article <BvIEv3.H75@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: > Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: > : Posted without permission...
: > : ...from the Globe and Mail, October 2, 1992: page B2:
: > 
: > [Rest of plagiarised article deleted] 
: > 
: > Is there no rules regarding theft of intellectual property and the Net?
: > People who wish to read the Globe and Mail can buy it. Why not simply say,
: > "There was an interesting article in Oct 2 G+M, here is what I like about
: > it..." rather than typing in page after page without adding anything
: > yourself?
: 
: Hi, Don......
:  
: Guess what. I can't buy the Globe and Mail. If we are to debate
: articles/publications, they must be quoted - with attribution made. Gerald did
: this. He did not try to misrepresent the Globe's article as his own
: (plagiarism). He quoted it for the purposes of dicussion and debate. The Globe
: is a newspaper of record. I see nothing wrong with this and i am sure a great
: many people will agree. 

He quoted it in its entirety. This goes beyond the reasonable use
guidelines of copyright law.

: 
: No academic paper could ever be written if the ability to reproduce/reference
: extracts/articles was as restricted as you seem to be suggesting. 

No academic paper could ever be accepted if it reproduced, verbatim,
an entire other paper. (Picture this, your graduate thesis contains the
entire text of an major reference "to prove your point". You didn't
ask the author. What do you suppose will happen?)
:  
: If copyright is carried to the ridiculous degree you suggest it should be,
: then the very media that convey the main points in any debate to readers
: become useless for purposes of debate. 

I'm not even suggesting that nobody post excepts or quotes from an
article. To post the article verbatim without any analysis is simply
robbing the author of the copyright, without providing debate.
Further, do you suppose Gerald will, out of the goodness of his heart,
post, verbatim, any corrections, clarifications, apologies,
retractions, etc, to this article if they do not prove his point?

:  
: The Globe is NOT on every news stand in most of the countries of the world. 
: 

So, get another paper. Read the articles in it on the same subject.

Further, you will never see the G+M if people post all the articles
from it that are worth reading.

I don't see any New Zealand papers here -- how about you type them in
verbatim so I can get caught up on the news there.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Charlottetown and the FTA
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:33:42 GMT

How Mulroney can use the Charlottetown Accord to prevent the
abrogation of the FTA by a future NDP or Liberal government!

The Charlottetown Accord passes.  Since the Quebec government,
both the Quebec Liberals and the PQ essentially support the FTA,
Mulroney can sign and bilateral accord with the government of
Quebec giving it or any other province (like Alberta, which is
in favor of free trade) to give it veto rights over abrogation
of the FTA.  These agreements are constitutionally protected for
five years...an NDP or Liberal federal government would then be
unable to abrogate the FTA.

Gerald
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7015 can.politics:7536
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: The Accord and BC and health care
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:50:28 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel

pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward) writes:
>dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>>
>>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.
>
>Whether or not they would join the US, if they did it does not mean
>that they would have to give up medicare.  Did you know Hawaii has
>a medicare equivalent?

Not quite.  Anyone who can't get real health insurance from working
for a company that can afford to offer that is stuck with Kaiser HMO,
in effect pseudo-socialized medicine with Kaiser acting as Hawaii's de
facto National Health Service a la the UK.  Having lived and worked in
both countries, all that our system is in Canada is just plain real
health insurance.  We just like to give it elaborate names, and it
seems that some Americans like to take those names and run with them,
creating some *really* interesting fantasies if you've ever dropped 
in on Talk.politics.misc.

If anyone cares to argue that it's not just health insurance, then:

1. Do you pick out your own doctor from the yellow pages or from
   word-of-mouth?

2. Does that doctor bill and get paid for your visit and whatever
   is done to you?  As do any specialists that follow thereafter?

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: schieber@jetson.uh.edu (Schieber, Jay D.)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:55:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.192254.19212@ee.ubc.ca>, jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes...
>In article <1992Sep29.123541.35516@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
>>
>>Pension funds grow (and of course get scooped back into corporate profits
>>by the employer, if they grow "too much"); and people have something to retire
> 
>some remedial accounting here, I'll try and explain:
> 
>Pensions funds are Defined Benefit funds. This is to prevent INFLATION from
>eroding all the gains. This way, someone can retire, and know that they 
>will get a decent amount: the amount they bargained for.
> 
>Since central banks have such a poor inflation record, inlfation is impossible
>to predict. A pension manager can only work out a worst case, and hope for
>the best. The Employer contributes to the pension fund, and if there is ANY
>shortfall in fund earnings, the EMPLOYER is repsonsible for making up the
>losses. Now, suppose the fund managers were too pessimistic: the employer
>actually OVER-contributed to the fund. It follows that the employer should
>be able to benefit from a surplus, just as he is hurt by a shortfall.
> 
>Basically, a pension is a deferred wage, and the union/employee etc is only
>entitled to what he contracted for. Any surplus doesn't belong to the worker.
>If we follow YOUR reasoning, the employee would become liable for shortfalls
>in a poorly performing year; I don't hear the unions crying for this though.
>>
>>peter.

Doesn't Canada have the same problem as the states in this regard?
Over here south of the border, we have employers unilaterally 
pilfering and destroying pension funds in large numbers.  Apparently,
the courts so far have determined that it is all perfectly legal,
and the employees have no rights to cry foul.

Also, why did you delete and not respond to the rest of the post?

> 
> 
>-- 
>__________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
>________________________________________|_________________________________
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:6916 can.politics:7370
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Date: 28 Sep 92 06:04:46 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada

In article <1992Sep27.004936.16528@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>It's not pro-union or anti-business or whatever. These are polarized
>attitudes that are only applicable in a boxing ring, where the purpose
>of the game is to have one side win. Here, the intent is to help both
>sides get along better. When one side insists on "winning" at the expense
>of the other side, the outcome will be less productivity than if both
>sides cooperate towards the common good of the company.

And one more practical note:

For all of you who are employees and not employers, the above attitude
is the only politically (office politics :-) acceptable one to take,
because to be fervantly pro-union is the same as suicide in a white
collar job environment, and to be fervantly pro-management will not
endear you to your non-management peers. The best way is to be
pro-company.  That's the Japanese way, by the way, and it will soon
be the Canadian way across this magnificent Great White North of ours.

  << Buy Northern Telecom hardware and software. They're the best. >>

  :->>

Michael MY Hui  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Supreme Court of Canada
Organization: Uxxxniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:37:46 GMT

thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>Actually, the Supreme Court should be larger than it is because its
>work load is so heavy.  It should probably be expanded from 9 to 12.
>Thus, at least one quarter of the judges would be from Quebec,
>only one half would be guaranteed for Ontario and Quebec, and the
>work load for each justice would be three quarters of what it is now.

However, this would have some disadvantages. The one cited most often
is a reduction in the "collegiality" of the Court.

As well, the Court tries now, wherever possible, to have its full
complement sit for every case it hears. Having 12 judges on a case
will sometimes result in a tie, which is undesirable. Also, each
judge's workload wouldn't be reduced quite to 75%, because with more
judges hearing a case the number of separate dissenting and concurring
reasons will rise.

Mathew Englander.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics,can.general