HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
Subject: Re: The Queen. (of Canada?).
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:13:37 GMT
	<1992Sep29.002347.769@sol.UVic.CA>

In <1992Sep29.002347.769@sol.UVic.CA>
bgray@engr.UVic.CA (Bob  Gray)
gets excited on behalf but not by appointment of HM Elizabeth Regina:

> In article 717724556@physics.ubc.ca, leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler ) writes:
> >>In article <1992Sep28.022924.28736@cc.umontreal.ca> boucley@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Boucley Charles) writes:
> >> VOTE
> >>    Do we wish to abolish British royalty here?
>  *  NO       *    bgray@sirius.uvic.ca                            *

	Hey, to each his own.  I rather like the old biddy, she
	looks good on our three dollar bills.  And anybody who
	likes horses can't be all wrong.  I wonder, does she
	do her own hair?

>   ^ |      |     #   #  ###   #   #       INVADE QUEBEC.  BANISH ALL THE
>   \||   .  |     ##  # #   #  ##  #       FROGS TO ST. PIERRE & MIQUELON.
>    _|      \     # # # #   #  # # #
>    \\\      \    #  ## #   #  #  ##       Bring back Wacky!
>     \\\._____\   #   #  ###   #   #       Mikey has to go!

	Let's look at the four part program hereabove:
	a) NON.
	   I am glad we agree on something important.
	b) Bring back Wacky...
	   I suppose you never had the pleasure...
	   One of the last great megalomaniacs, along
	   with Drapeau, Dore, Trudeau, de Gaulle, Idi Amin,
	   Ghadafy, Sadam Hussein, Noriega, Mussolini, Alain
	   Simon, Stalin, RaeBob, Imelda Marcos, Mila Mulroney,
	   etc...
	   If I remember well, he named a dam after himself.
	   What an endearing person...
	c) Invade Quebec.
	   Last I looked, we had done this already.
	d) Banish all the frogs to StP&M.
	   The best thing that could happen to these
	   blighted islands.  The frigging frogs might
	   object though.  I have a better idea, let's
	   send all the dynosaurians back to fair Albion.



--
 Alain
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
From: roihar@cc4.crl.aecl.ca
Subject: RE: One Canada. Invisible.
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:38:24 GMT

love the Freudian slip in the subject line!
Xref: sparky can.general:4794 can.politics:8054 ott.general:1204
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:54:39 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <douglasc.718224891@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:
>cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:
>>wetmore@theochem.uwaterloo.ca (Ross W. Wetmore) writes:
>>>   On the otherhand there is no good reason not too, and since the result is
>>> usually a bit more peace and quiet for the rest of us, why not?
>>That is the yes side motivation that I am afraid too many people have.
>>Vote yes for imagined peace and quiet.   Sad that those people would see
>>democracy eroded away in favour of "peace an quiet".

  Nonsense ... this is one piece in a comprehensive package. The package
neither rises nor falls on any one component, and no one is getting every
thing they wanted or pristine perfection since that is unattainable - ever. 

>The decision should not be based on why not.  It should be based on
>logical reasoning.  Is the 25% floor fair and just?  Is it fair to
>take from other provinces to give to another province to maintain the
>25% floor?  Is it fair to a province like B.C. that may in the
>next 50 years have 25% of the population of Canada but only get
>20% of the representation?  Will the province's people that are under represented think it is fair?

  Sure ... they gave up ~25% guarantee in a regional Senate to go to a 
provincially based one. 25% HoC guarantee was the trade.

  Scratch the 25% guarantee, scratch the EEE Senate, scratch the ...
the art of compromise involves accepting a reasonable position at the
current time in order to gain a reasonable change in the status quo.
If the situation changes, presumably we will discuss reasonable changes
at that time. 

  However, the guarantee *in writing* that Quebec has its safety net to 
insure the continued influence of a francophone bloc, is something it is
willing to trade for significant other points. View it as an IOU or
insurance policy that Quebec will cash in for some other form of protection
in a future Constitutional deal if trends turn out differently, if you wish.
---- 
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: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:51:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct01.232156.10478@r-node.gts.org> yung@r-node.gts.org (Amos Yung) writes:
>In article <q74uRB1w165w@aqua.ocunix.on.ca> cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:
>>wetmore@theochem.uwaterloo.ca (Ross W. Wetmore) writes:
>>
>>>   On the otherhand there is no good reason not too, and since the result is
>>> usually a bit more peace and quiet for the rest of us, why not?
>>
>>That is the yes side motivation that I am afraid too many people have.
>>Vote yes for imagined peace and quiet.   Sad that those people would see
>>democracy eroded away in favour of "peace an quiet".
>>
>>
>
>I tend to agree with Ross. Vote "yes" just to get the damn thing over with
>and to get the much needed attention from our beloved politicians back to
>the desparate economy.
>

There are a hell of a lot of asterisks in the Charlottetown Accord
which mean the politicians are NOT going to be able to get on with
the economy.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.general
From: west@jade.ab.ca (Darrin West)
Subject: Seats in Parliament
Organization: Jade Simulations International, Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:29:32 GMT

So where is all the great debate about the referendum on this group?

I received a flyer which showed how many parliamentary seats each province
would receive as a result of the reformation along with their 6 senate
seats.  Comparing that to some recent figures on the breakdown of
population in canada the my wife got from some geography courses she is
taking, I came to the following conclusion.  There seems to be a rather
good correlation (plus or minus one or two seats) between the percentage
of seats to be given to each province and the percentage of population.

Given this approximate fairness plus the representation in the senate (even
if it doesnt have any power), this deal doesnt sound as unfair as it
has been made out.  It is NOT the case that we are getting an equal senate
at the expense of an unequal parliament.  And another point, the current
senate doesnt seem that useful right now anyway.

I think the deal sounds better than the current senate.  It is reasonably
fair.  It provides reasonably fair representation in the parliament and
in the senate, and the senate is elected.  I think we can worry about
getting the senate some more power in the future, but I dont think we
are giving away any power it has (and uses) now.

Please note the vagueness of these comments and the lack of supporting
figures.  If anyone wants the numbers I am refering to, please send me
mail, and I will elaborate, but dont flame here (it wont help).  If someone
has contrary numbers lets have some reasoned discussion.

I have flip-flopped on this issue more times than I am comfortable in
admitting, mainly due to lack of information and extreme and unsubstantiated
media positions, and have still not made up my mind, and will not until I get
some official description of the deal.

-- 
Darrin West, MSc.
  Jade Simulations International Corporation. west@jade.ab.ca
Newsgroups: can.general
From: don@dgbt.doc.ca (Donald McLachlan)
Subject: Re: New Constitution text??
Organization: The Communications Research Centre
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 19:54:06 GMT


>>	IT'S LIKE SAYING NO TO MOTHERHOOD AND APPLE PIE.

The problem with the yes campaign (like the above statement) is:

- half of it is emotional,
- and the other half is wrong.

The saying about apple pie is AMERICAN not Canadian.

Please get a copy of the info, read it and decide that way. Not because
Lyin Brian (or anyone else who) says you are unpatriotic if you vote no.

-- 
Donald McLachlan			e-mail	don@mars.dgrc.doc.ca
Communications Research Centre / DRL	office	613-998-2845
3701 Carling Ave.,			lab	613-998-2423
Ottawa, Ontario				fax	613-990-7987
Newsgroups: can.general
From: douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong)
Subject: Re: Bell wants my $$$ before my monthly bill came
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 19:21:20 GMT

plau@qucis.queensu.ca (Peter S. Lau) writes:

>I received a call yesterday from Bell Canada saying that since my new
>bill is over a hundred dollar and since I am also a new customer, I
>have to pay the next month bill in advance!

>I asked her what if I don't pay now and wait for the monthly bill? She
>told me if I don't pay in 24 hours, they will have to disconnect my
>phone service. Or else I could pay $350 for desposit get away from
>this trouble.

>And I quote from the representative during the phone conversation...
>".... basically, they don't want you to use the long distance service
>..."

>What on the world do they really up to? Do they have a cash flow
>problem?  Could they really do that? Calling people up and ask to pay
>the monthly bill in advance? (Hell, I just got the regularly bill two
>days ago!) I lived in the States for 7 years and I had dealed with 2
>local phone companies and 3 long distance carriers, and I have never
>seen or heard of anything like that. I don't think they have the right
>to do that. On what ground that they would need the money in a hurry?

>Well, I will definitely look into the package from Roger Communication
B
>next year and hell, I just use my U.S. Calling Card to make the calls
>from now on since Bell doesn't want my money anyway.

>No wonder people are shopping in U.S. I didn't expect I will pay my
>long distance to American phone company while I am living in Canada.

>Good luck Bell Canada.

Strange. This must be a new policy.  I was sharing a phone in Ottawa
with a friend and we racked up over a hundred dollars in long distance
calls but we never got a phone call to pay next month in advance.

The best thing for you to do is phone Bell and ask to talk to a
supervisor of customer service.  Explain your situation and they may
in fact change their mind about advance billing.
Good Luck

Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
From: alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: Bell Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:11:56 GMT

Steve Potter (steven@spxtech.qc.ca) wrote:
: From article <Bv5114.B3n@animal.er.bell.ca>, by alex@animal.Bell.CA
:  Alex Laney declares:
: 
: 
: Please don't listen to the yeasayers who are holding their noses.
: 
: Rejet the sellout of our democratic principles.
: 
: VOTE AN EMPHATIC "NO!" on OCT> 26th.
: 

I am amazed at you, an anglo in Quebec not wanting the francophones to have
the powers they need. What gives you the right? Do you know better?


--
Alex Laney
User Interface Guru, IWS/TRACS Project, Bell Canada
animal!bnkc08!alex  (or maybe alex@bnkc08.Bell.Ca)
Newsgroups: can.general,ott.general,can.politics
From: rstory@eci386.uucp (Robert Story)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:35:59 GMT

Erik,

In article <1992Sep23.130907.2554@bmerh85.bnr.ca> stu1d46@bmerh255.bnr.ca (Victor Koa) writes:
|How can any Canadian who believes in their country vote no on the 26th???

You are confusing the issue here.  Just because thoughtful people
don't believe that the agreement is good for Canada doesn't mean that
they don't love their country.  You sound like the hardhats that used
to parade in New York City in the early '70s shouting "My country love
or leave it" to the Vietnam War Protesters. Ie: what you're saying is
that you know better than I about what is good for Canada.  Well,
thanks but I will vote my *own* thoughts!

|No, the accord is not perfect by any means, but what do you think is going
|to happen if is not accepted on the 26th?  Anyone who believes that another
|group of people, elected or not, are going to be able to put together another
|accord that will satisfy everyone accross this great nation has to take a 
|reality check.  We've already said no to the Meach Lake accord, one more no
|might just give the PQ and any other seperatists the support they need to
|separate Quebec from Canada.  And if you believe that Canada would be better
|off without Quebec...well, I'm not even going to get into that debate.

Further, I don't believe that a "no" win means that Quebec will
separate just as a "yes" win does not mean that they won't.  Quebec has
to choose what it wants to do but this dosn't mean that we should
saddle our country with a bent constitution.


|I urge all Canadians to get a copy of the accord, read it carefully, accept its
|strengths and deficiencies, and vote YES on October 26, 1992.
|I love my country too much to tear it apart.

And I urge all Canadians to study the matter closely.  Don't just be
stampeded or scared into to voting "yes".

While you can get a copy of the accord you *can't* get the final or
legal version.  Ergo how do you know what you're voting for?  

-Robert.
-- 
 _________________________________________________________________________
 Robert.Story@Elegant.COM                      Elegant Communications Inc.
 Tel: +1 416 362 9772                        4 King Street West Suite 1101
 Fax: +1 416 362 8324                     Toronto, Ontario; CANADA M5H 1B6
Xref: sparky can.general:4784 can.politics:8018 ott.general:1196
From: coxm@Software.Mitel.COM (Michael Cox)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:57:15 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <douglasc.718224891@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:
>The decision should not be based on why not.  It should be based on
>logical reasoning.  Is the 25% floor fair and just?  Is it fair to
>take from other provinces to give to another province to maintain the
>25% floor?  Is it fair to a province like B.C. that may in the
>next 50 years have 25% of the population of Canada but only get
>20% of the representation?  Will the province's people that are under represented think it is fair?
I think you must look at what our current system is:  a mix of population,
size, and historical agreements.  One hunred years ago PEI, NB, and NS might
have more equally represented their populations in Parliament.  Now they
are over-represented.  What do we do with them?  In some cases (for example PEI)
they have historical agreements for a minimum number of seats in the HoC.  I
really don't see any problem with giving 25% to Quebec.  If this agreement
goes through, you may actually see a net flow back into Quebec and the 25% may
be right on (especially now that they have this "bonus" for more babies -- with
all the problems in the world just what we need:  a government which encourages
more people pollution, will the insanity ever end?).  


-- 
Michael H. Cox      | Referendum vote:
                    | Remember:  Preston Manning would not have a job if he
Mitel Corporation   | went to the YES side.
                    | 
Xref: sparky can.general:4641 can.politics:7445 ott.general:1132
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 28 Sep 92 13:48:43 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Sep25.184658.1520@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Ross Wetmore (rossw@sco.COM) wrote:
>>  There is a Russian joke about a peasant farmer living on the borderline
>>(Russian agriculture is a favorite target for their jokes, I believe) who
>>one day is just about to pack it in when God appears to him and offers him
>>anything he wants. The only condition attached is that he will also give
>>this to the farmer's neighbour, but in double measure. The farmer ponders
>>this carefully for a couple minutes, then tells God to strike him blind
>>in one eye. (Note God is sometimes replaced with the spirit of Lenin by 
>>the politically correct).
>>
>>  I find so many who seem irremedially imprinted with PET and the glories
>>of his philosophical ideology sounding like the Russian peasant farmer. I
>>can't help but wonder why the appeal of the dark side is so strong in them :-)
>
>I wonder what God (or Lenin) would have said if the farmer had asked why
>both he and his neighbour could not instead each have 1.5 of the offered
>goodies. Seems to me that that is what PET is saying.
>-- 
>Jim Robinson

  Not in the PET article I read - the slant was pretty much 'my way or no way'
with his way basically zip to anything that seemed to be more or less along
the lines of Quebec aspirations. I would say the tone was pure spite.

  Anyway, there are many instances (eg. Solomon's choice) where absolute
equality is a loser, and ultimately leaves everyone with nothing.
---- 
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: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:32:49 GMT

In <douglasc.718224891@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:

>cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:

>25% floor?  Is it fair to a province like B.C. that may in the 
>next 50 years have 25% of the population of Canada but only get 
>20% of the representation?  Will the province's people that are
> under represented think it is fair?

 How do you figure that BC could have 25% of the population and only
20% of seats? That's only 80% of what they're entitled to. As far as I
can see, for that to happen, Quebec would have to be reduced to
approximately 5% of the population.

-- 
 Alan Knight  knight@mrco.carleton.ca  +1 613 788 2600x5783   Vote
 Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering                Yes/Oui
 Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1S 5B6        Oct. 26

Xref: sparky can.general:4804 can.politics:8099 ott.general:1212
From: rstory@eci386.uucp (Robert Story)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:18:51 GMT
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.

In article <1992Oct01.232156.10478@r-node.gts.org> yung@r-node.gts.org (Amos Yung) writes:
|In article <q74uRB1w165w@aqua.ocunix.on.ca> cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:
|>wetmore@theochem.uwaterloo.ca (Ross W. Wetmore) writes:
|>
|>
|>>   On the otherhand there is no good reason not too, and since the result is
|>> usually a bit more peace and quiet for the rest of us, why not?
|>
|>That is the yes side motivation that I am afraid too many people have.
|>Vote yes for imagined peace and quiet.   Sad that those people would see
|>democracy eroded away in favour of "peace an quiet".
|>
|>
|
|I tend to agree with Ross. Vote "yes" just to get the damn thing over with
|and to get the much needed attention from our beloved politicians back to
|the desparate economy.

But would it "get the damn thing over with" ????  There appear to be
several sections that require discussions at a later point.  Bourassa
is also saying that this is *just* the beginning.

And is it really *responsible* to vote either way just to "get the
damn thing over with"?

-Robert.

-- 
 _________________________________________________________________________
 Robert.Story@Elegant.COM                      Elegant Communications Inc.
 Tel: +1 416 362 9772                        4 King Street West Suite 1101
 Fax: +1 416 362 8324                     Toronto, Ontario; CANADA M5H 1B6
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: dmongrai@gandalf.ca (Dan Mongrain)
Subject: Re: Bell wants my $$$ before my monthly bill came
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 17:14:39 GMT

In <PLAU.92Sep30080936@canopus.qucis.queensu.ca> plau@qucis.queensu.ca (Peter S. Lau) writes:

>I received a call yesterday from Bell Canada saying that since my new
>bill is over a hundred dollar and since I am also a new customer, I
>have to pay the next month bill in advance!

>I asked her what if I don't pay now and wait for the monthly bill? She
>told me if I don't pay in 24 hours, they will have to disconnect my
>phone service. Or else I could pay $350 for desposit get away from
>this trouble.

>And I quote from the representative during the phone conversation...
>".... basically, they don't want you to use the long distance service
>..."

>What on the world do they really up to? Do they have a cash flow
>problem?  Could they really do that? Calling people up and ask to pay
>the monthly bill in advance? (Hell, I just got the regularly bill two
>days ago!) I lived in the States for 7 years and I had dealed with 2
>local phone companies and 3 long distance carriers, and I have never
>seen or heard of anything like that. I don't think they have the right
>to do that. On what ground that they would need the money in a hurry?

>Well, I will definitely look into the package from Roger Communication
>next year and hell, I just use my U.S. Calling Card to make the calls
>from now on since Bell doesn't want my money anyway.

>No wonder people are shopping in U.S. I didn't expect I will pay my
>long distance to American phone company while I am living in Canada.

>Good luck Bell Canada.

If I am not mistaken, when you are a new customer, Bell gives you a
credit line of about $100 for long distance.  If you go over the
limit, red lights go off at their office and they ask you to pay up
(had the experience as a student).  After a few months of this, they
finally start to trust you.

It is not that bad.  If you are a student in Saskatchewan for example,
you must put down a deposit to get a phone line.  Bell requires this,
but only for customers with bad payment history, or newly arrived
immigrants.  They justify this by saying that new immigrants, new to
using a phone, sometime rack up huge phone bills to their country of
origin (that the line they used in a call in show a few month ago).

  					Dan Mongrain
					dmongrai@bach.gandalf.ca
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,ott.general
From: douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:35:07 GMT

knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight) writes:

>In <douglasc.718224891@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:

>>cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:

>>25% floor?  Is it fair to a province like B.C. that may in the 
>>next 50 years have 25% of the population of Canada but only get 
>>20% of the representation?  Will the province's people that are
>> under represented think it is fair?

> How do you figure that BC could have 25% of the population and only
>20% of seats? That's only 80% of what they're entitled to. As far as I
>can see, for that to happen, Quebec would have to be reduced to
>approximately 5% of the population.

According to my calculations if B.C. had 25% of the population 
and had 20% of the seats then Quebec could have roughly 20% of the
population and 25% of the seats of the House of Commons.

Doug
Newsgroups: can.general