HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:50:41 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <1992Oct1.162716.15918@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>I don't know how the deal is being sold in Quebec, Denis, but here we are
>being told that a yes vote will keep Quebec in Canada, and a no vote will
>result in Quebec leaving. How is the deal being presented in Quebec?

Here, it's more of "Voting yes will be prosperity to Quebec and
Canada, while voting no will bring economic chaos". The quebec-leaving
option is not tied to the referendum, although it is of course a step
in that direction.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Reply-To: marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 15:08:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep21.182959.11524@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>
>If Pierre hadn't started the whole Constitutional repatriation process in the 
>first place, there'd have been no need for Meech. [...]

So now you are blaming the man for having the vision to repatriate the
constitution in the first place.  In an earlier posting, you blamed him
for damaging the process.  Make up your mind!

-- 
Marc Riehm      Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
marc@meadow.UUCP
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: RE: The Can. Chrtr. of Rts. & Frdms.
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:27:46 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Oct1.090611.26401@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>
>Para. 23(1)(a) of the Can. Chrtr. of Rts. & Frdms. is not in force in
>Quebec. = Para. 59 of the Constitution suspends this particular provision
>in Quebec. WITH NO TIME LIMIT! :-(((((((((
>
>Look at the list of subjects discussed in the Ch'town report. Isn't it
>significant that they could discuss forestry, tourism and mining but
>couldn't even mention the word "education"? :-(((((((((
>
Perhaps it's significant, but it's certainly not surprising.
Education has always been a provincial responsability.  The
only exception to this in the 1867 constitution was a provision
for the federal government to intervene to protect the rights
of religious (not linguistic) minorities.  The Manitoba schools
question of the 1890s and the resulting Laurier-Greenway agreement
showed that Ottawa was not prepared to vigorously exercise this
provision.

Section 23 of the 1982 Charter was clearly intended to modify the
"Quebec clause" of Bill 101 and replace it with a "Canada clause."
Other provinces were affected, too, but this section was obviously
aimed at Quebec, and imposed on it against its will.  Although I
am in favor of increased access to linguistic-minority schools,
I think there are legitimate objections to the way this clause
was implemented in 1981-82.  Quebec adopted a clause in 1977 which,
though you and I may not like it very much, was perfectly within
its powers.  Then Ottawa and the other provinces got together and
decided to change the rules of the game over Quebec's objection.
And this change was not one that just incidentally affected Quebec;
it was specifically aimed at it.

Given that one of the goals of the current round is to "satisfy"
Quebec, and given that this province guards jealously its fields
of jurisdiction, and given that many other provinces are less than
enthusiastic about improving their French-language schools, it can
hardly be surprising that education isn't mentioned in the Ch'town
Accord.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: A few of Trudeau's points
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:22:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.130142.630@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>
>That is a pretty literal interpretation.  Most constitutions proclaim 
>concepts which could be antagonistic, but are not interpreted that way.
>It *is* possible to have individual and collective rights that don't
>infringe on one another, if they are interpreted with a measure of 
>intelligence.  
>

All you need is one person to dissent from the collective, and
collective rights will infringe the rights of the individual.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: 95 % rep by pop (was Re: Joe Clark's Session ...)
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 18:04:51 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Mark Anthony Young (marky@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
>: 
>: In any case, the 25% guarantee will become more and more important as
>: the next century progresses.  By 2041 Quebec will have dropped to about
>: 20% of Canada's population.  By that time the House may have swelled to
>: more than 400 members.  Quebec's 25% guarantee would then be getting it
>: at least 20 extra seats in the HoC.  
>
>How can you predict the future in this way? Much of the growth industries are
>located in Quebec. High-tech companies such as NT, BNR, NRC. The Canadian
>Space Agency. This is were the future lies.
>
I guess I said that a little stronger than I meant.  I should have said "will
_likely_ have dropped to 20%...."

The basis for this statement is just history -- nothing more.  BC has been
growing as a proportion of Canada, Quebec (except for a brief period in the
middle of this century) shrinking.

If you take the populations of Quebec, BC and Canada at each decenniel census
and project to 2041 based on how much each has grown, you get:

2041 predictions
----------------
Year    BCpct    QCpct
----    -----    -----
1871    28.97    19.30
1881    29.63    19.26
1891    25.97    20.29
1901    22.67    20.96
1911    18.98    22.90
1921    19.11    23.31
1931    18.96    22.62
1941    19.57    21.21
1951    18.50    20.67
1961    19.06    19.58
1971    17.94    19.09
1981    16.31    19.77

('Year' means 'base year'.  Thus 1921 gives the percent each province would
have if they continued to grow from 1991-2041 at the same rate as they grew
from 1921-1991.)

Two thirds of these predictions fall into the 19-21 percent range, including
each of the last four.  The best prediction for Quebec is still only just
over 23%.

I'd love to see some numbers with more basis in what's going on _now_, but
until I do, I have to go with what I've got.
>: 
>: As Canada continues to grow and Quebec to shrink as a proportion of the
>: total, this disparity will only get worse.
>
>Canada and Quebec are one and the same. It is divisive to call people outside
>Quebec "Canadians" and those inside Quebec "Quebecers".
>
Huh?  You must have read something wrong.

...mark young
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Reply-To: marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm)
Organization: Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 17:05:02 GMT

In article <Bv33nK.HrK@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>>randy@mdavcr.mda.ca (Randy Armstrong) writes:
>>
>>: What we need is leaders who will
>>: not give Quebec leaders the illution that an amicable separation is possible. 
>I hope you clearly understand that this IS ACTUALLY PROMOTING CIVIL WAR!!!
>
>What are the seeds of a civil war?  A silly government promising a civil war
>if one province want to secede.  I believe in Quebec secession, and I 
>am afraid too if federal government continues to promote civil war, there
>will be civil war.  And by saying if Canada votes NO to a cheque en blanc
>(an agreement that will be completed AFTER referendum) there will be
>Quebec secession and civil war, then Joe Clark is actually promoting
>and will be known in the history as father of (first ?) canadian civil war.
>
>Hope this won't occur.  Hope that Joe Clark will recognize he is a very
>stupid politician and lost any credibility he may have before by doing that.

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.

Maybe you're too sensitive because you are thinking too much about the
pitchforks and shotguns you've been collecting in your basement :) :) :) :).

-- 
Marc Riehm      Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
                2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
                Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
marc@meadow.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:07:39 GMT

Mathew B Englander (mathew@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
>donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:
>>
>>Two major banks have come out with heavy public announcements
>>that we had better all vote yes or we will be shooting ourselves
>>in terms of the financial state of the nation. [...]
>>
>>All we need to do is remember the non-consequence of the Death of Meech
>>to know what *should* happen.  [...]
>
>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.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Canadian newspapers
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:46:27 GMT

In <1992Sep27.210026.22617@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:


>Lately, they seem to me to have taken a turn to the right.  Susan Riley
>no longer writes political commentary columns anymore, even though she
>was the best Liberal (with a very big "L") contributor in the paper.
>Her columns in the Lifestyles section is still excellent. I want her
>back in the political section of the newspaper.

AAARRRHHHHH!!!!!  You mean to say her "I can't find a radio station"
whine was interesting????

And her Friday column on Carleton's bad professors was not only
unfair, but simply bad journalism. You cannot come to a conclusion
such as that by only watching the ITV channel. If I tried to do that
for a story (and I'm a journalism student in the masters program at
Carleton) I'd be bounced on my ear. That's lazy journalism. Period.
Even for a column.

And its funny, too, that in the entire column, she never mentioned
once that she has been a sessional lecturer at Carleton.

I have other problems with her as well, but I digress.

Frank magazine, on the other hand, could very well be the best
publication in Ottawa.

And overall, I disagree with your assessment that the Citizen is
veering right. As a person who frequently frequents the political
right, I find little in the Citizen that is agreeable. Socially, they
are still towing the PC line. (And don't talk to me about their
employment habits...white males need not apply.) Perhaps some of their
columnists are right-wing, but overall, I find the editorial slant of
the paper firmly on the left side of the spectrum. It ain't "The
Workers of the World" but it certainly isn't "The New Republic."

Michael
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: NHI
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:44:59 GMT

dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Paul Ward (ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: 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.

Sorry, Don, you're the one who misunderstands.

"Non-justiciable" means "cannot be enforced by the courts".

Under Charlottetown, a government could legally decide to repeal
the Canada Health Act. The courts would not be able to stop this,
but public opinion would run very much against any government that
took such an action.

Mathew Englander.
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:01:44 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

jnetto@bnr.ca (John Netto) writes:

> NOW, if the referendum is passed (YES), can anyone please show (not tell) us
> without a doubt that Qc will not ask for more powers (etc) next year.

Quebec may ask, but it will not get.  Once these amendments have been passed,
most Canadians will be unwilling to reopen the issue, and Quebec will get
nowhere with new demands.  It will not be able to threaten separation again
because it accepted the Charlottetown Accord as adequate for the present.

> Would this not lead to a similar scenario as above ? If not , please explain.
> Bourassa has already STATED (for those of you who do not understand French,
> or live within range of Qc media), there will still be ongoing negotiations
> over the constitution once this is over.

This is well known:  the accord provides for more negotiations over
details.  However, wholly new demands will be ruled out.  There will
be light at the end of the tunnel!

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Challenge
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:50:53 GMT

In article <BvGn1v.qJ@animal.er.bell.ca> alex@animal.Bell.CA (Alex Laney) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>: The Charter still applies, but is much weakened...
> 
>How could it be any weaker? There was always the 'not withstanding' clause ...
>

The Canada Clause sets the rights of governments and designated
collectivities unequivocally above the Charter Rights.

The notwithstanding clause does not elevate collective rights above
individual rights...the notwithstanding clause refects the creative
institutional tension between the legislature and the courts, especially
in the evolution of a parliamentary system into an coping with a
justiciable Charter...

...and
recognizes the possibility that the courts could make a mistake...
and that tyranny of the minority (in this case the court) is sometimes
possible.  The notwithstanding clause also serves to protect the
courts from politicization.

The Canada Clause however makes a philosophical judgement about rights,
and is not a mere philosophically neutral procedural device like the
notwithstanding clause.

Over time, I expect that as Canada becomes comfortable with the
Charter in the context of a parliamentary system, and once a
satisfactory appointment procedure for Supreme Court Justices
is agreed upon, that a consensus will be reached to eliminate
the notwithstanding clause.


Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:51:07 GMT

In article <gF8ZRB1w165w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> jason@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Rasku) writes:
>        A NO VOTE IS NOT A VOTE AGAINST CANADA BUT A VOTE AGAINST A DEAL 
>WE CANNOT SEE BEFORE WE VOTE!!!!!

     This is completely bass-ackwards.  A no vote on the
referendum question ("on the basis of the agreement") is a
STRONGER statement than a no vote on the specific legal text
which they come up with to implement the agreement.

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Standard brain-toy bullet list for any GnuAge grokabilly shopping trip"
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: twong@civil.ubc.ca (Thomas Wong)
Subject: Re: Polling results : Canada
Organization: Dept. of Civil Engineering, U.B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:58:47 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.174248.8515@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>Jamie Andrews (jamie@cs.sfu.ca) wrote:
>>In article <Bv9M75.K4v@news.cso.uiuc.edu> epritcha@s.psych.uiuc.edu (EVAN pritchard) writes:
>>>From the looks of this, BC people are really against this the
>>>referendum.  Moreover, more of them have made up their minds about it.
>>>Why is this?  
>>
>>     Because the electorate in BC is BRAINLESS.
>                                      ^^^^^^^^^
>and
>
>>before the Brainless BC Electorate finally decided to get rid of
>            ^^^^^^^^^
>and, again
>
>>overturned by subsequent provincial governments!), the BC
>>electorate has re-asserted its archetypal BRAINLESSNESS and
>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>There goes Jamie once again trying to win friends and influence people
>:-) Seems like a good beer garden topic to me.
>

He's right everyone. There goes Jamie again. He has been doing this
through just about every election we had, from federal to provincial, from
can.general to bc.general. While others were talking politics, he was
calling names. Remember the BC election? He called the BC electorates
"brain dead" in how many messages which resulted in a thread of its own.

So please ignore his message everyone. We don't need anymore flamatory
threads like we've had with this guy again and again. If he wants to
flame, he can move over to alt.flame instead.

Thomas.

P.S.
As for his arguments, sorry Ontario. He's one of those who is too much 
of a pro-NDP to listen to your warnings before our BC election. And even 
now, after Harcourt has shown his stuff, is too pro-NDP is see what
the rest of BC is beginning to see in him and how his party is doing
things. So just because we don't see it his way, BC is now "brainless".

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: The $ again...
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:18:39 GMT

Un-biased currency traders are saying that the current run on the $ 
by overseas traders was caused by the doom'n'gloom of the yes side,
and particularly the recent spew from the mouth of the BM'er, which
included statements like a NO vote will mean the breakup of Canada,
as opposed to what was thought internationally (ie the status quo).

This comment by the BM'er is just another in a long list of 
criminal statements he's said in the past that has required heavy
intervention by the bank of canada to support a falling $.

I'd guesstimate that the bank of canada has spend a few BILLION dollars
over the years out of reserve funds to support the can $ because of
statements that the MB'er has urinated out of that foul mouth of his. 

Well, on the plus side, I can forsee a 1 or 2% rise in interest rates
by the time Canada Savings Bonds roll around, which means that their
current rate of return (7.5%) is at least not going to go down,
and people with investment money coming due can take advantage of
what could be temporary high interest rates. 

Thanks BM'er for putting your own political interests here at home
in front of international consequences.  You're a prime example of
a politician's politician...

Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: The economic effects of the "referendum"
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:15:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.022648.2888@julian.uwo.ca> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:

>It's time we stopped being the banana republic of the world that knows only
>how to cut trees or dig crap out of the ground and started exporting
>high value-added finished products instead vomiting our natural resources
>all over the world at an ever increasing pace.

I agree. I don't wan't to to be too for/against the NAFTA, since
in this recession, it is impossible to seperate jobs lost/gained
due to the FTA. Time will tell.

But I hope a bit of competition from hard-ball US companies like Hewlett-Packard
Motorola etc, will ween a lot of Canadians off of state subsidised protection.
Fortunately, Canada has good enough people for both those companies to invest
in Canadian R&D, and product development, not just branch plants and marketing.

Canda needs about 10 more companies like NT as far as size, R&D and technology
go!

The social programs/taxes issue is a myth: Canada's tax burden is comparable
to Germany's. But protectionism has made Canadian business lazy. Instead of
boosting quality, protectionism has allowed businesses to shaft the consumer
through multiple tiers of middle men, inefficient distribution, and
profits from a captive market. (Canada: 40% of GDP for taxes, Germany 38%)

We do need to spend taxes better though: the recent OECD report ranks
Canada at the top of education spending, but our students rank near the bottom
of education performance tests.  And teachers have the nerve to demand more.

We need to cut redundancy and waste in government: there is a lot of
overlap in federal ministries, and even more when you add in provincial
ministries.

Our social programmes should make us happier, and better prepared to work,
yet Canadian productivity has declined significantly over the past 15-20 years,
relative to US workers.

[ I can dig up the references to these economic statements, if needed.
  Clue: check the Financial Post, Financial Times, The Economist, Globe & Mail
  etc. for somhard-hitting analysis of our woes ]

I think it's obvious that:

- we must keep our social programmes, but spend the money more effectively.
- we must fix our whole education-training system from kindergarten to
  technical, apprentice, and university training.
- face the fact that our productivity is declining, along with our 
  competitiveness, and fix that. It is useless to blame the rest of the
  world, when it is ourselves to blame for falling behind.

-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 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                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________