HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Robert Meunier)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Referendum Rhetoric
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:54:38 GMT
Reply-To: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Organization: Hydro-Quebec (IREQ)


	Je pensais justement a cela hier. J'ai l'impression que le gou-
vernement essaie de nous vendre une nouvelle marque de savon. La 
publicite americaine est semblable lorsqu'il tente de vendre un 
nouvel appareil d'exercise par exemple.
	Avec ce nouveau produit (constitutionnel), les milliers d'emplois
seront crees, tous le monde sera heureux, la pauvrete va disparaitre, ...
alors que si on le refuse, se sera la guerre civile, un taux de chomage
tres eleve, ...   Le debat est totalement ridicule.

	La population canadienne (et ici j'inclue le Quebec) est-elle
stupide au point qu'elle n'est pas en mesure de comprendre les explications
ou bien nos gouvernants n'osent pas l'expliquer?



---
Robert Meunier                     Institut de Recherche d'Hydro-Quebec
Ingenieur                          1800 Montee Ste-Julie, Varennes
Internet: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca  Qc, Canada, J3X 1S1 
maintainer: BASIC mailing list request to basic-request@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:04:42 GMT

In article <13064@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>If Trudeau's goal was only to "rapatriate" the Constitution, then why
>didn't he just do so, WITHOUT changing it! No one would have opposed
>to that.
>

What did Trudeau change...basically nothing...the Charter came with
the notwithstanding clause...no power change to Quebec...entrenched
minority education rights...this was more of an imposition on the
rest of Canada than on Quebec which has more English education than
the rest of the country had French...and a few more clauses about
respecting treaty obligations...and an amending formula, where most
everyone would agree that we really cannot use until Quebec agrees
to an amending formula...and also he gave provinces more control
of natural resources...the essential constitution was completely
unchanged.

>Trudeau saw in the rapatriation process a way to disguise his goals:
>to make Canada's Constitution more conform to his vision of a powerful
>centralized federal government, and to make the provinces knee before
>him. By making his modifications look as a rapatriation "Maitre chez
>Nous concept", he appealed to uniformed part of the Quebec population,
>and to the canadians that were tired of this link to the UK. His
>so-called Charter of Rights was directed exclusively towards Quebec
>and appealed to most anglo-canadians.
>

The Charter comes with a notwithstanding clause...it did not change
the powers of the Quebec National Assembly.

>
>I view it the other way around. Trudeau was trying to consolidate his
>domination on the country. By doing so, he caused irreparable dammage
>and generated a climate of tension between the provinces and between
>the people of Canada. Mulroney tried to patch everything up, not very
>skillfully I agree, but at least he tried.

Trudeau changed hardly anything...all he did was patriate the damn
constitution...the current gang is the gang that wants to change
everything.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: A few of Trudeau's points
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:01:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.130142.630@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>: In article <1992Oct4.204122.19088@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>
bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:

{stuff deleted}
>: 
>: It is like saying, "A and not A are fundamental charisteristics of
>: Canada"...              
>
>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.  

The point is that at some point the Courts must then decide which of
the incompatible arguments dominate. Whether they exhibit "a measure
of intelligence" is often a matter of seeing whether they uphold your
preferred side of the argument. What is intellectually dishonest is
for the Yes side to claim A when talking to an audience that favors A,
and claiming not A, when talking to an audience that favors not A. The
Yes side is presenting a very different accord to Quebec than it is
presenting to BC.

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@gorgon (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:10:51 GMT

Stephen Van Egmond (svanegmo@zeno01.math.UWaterloo.ca) wrote:
: 
: I do not think for a moment that a Quebecois deserves rights that I do not have;
: that 'Quebec society' is somehow superior, or deserving of more rights, than
: 'non-Quebec society' (whatever those two terms may mean) is greatly offensive.
: Same goes for any minority group.  I think that all people in Canada can
: get along quite fine in their lives with minimal government interaction.
: Protecting the rights of a particular group of society, supposedly to prevent
: discrimination against them, only polarizes that group even more from society,
: as people who are borderline mebers of this group seek to include themselves in it
: in an effort to gain those rights, which makes the group all the more vocal.
: 

I agree with you here. The part I disagree with is your assumption
that giving Quebecers as a group the right to protect their culture
detracts from your rights as an individual.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: switzer@alpha.uleth.ca (Dean Switzer)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: 27 Sep 92 12:15:20 GMT

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!!!

I'm having a rough time picturing in my mind exactly who would go to war
against who in the event of a "civil war"? At most it would be a
delightful posturing event. While Quebec is "laying seige" to the rest
of the country, what is it going to do for spare cash?
And in the event that Canada doesn't feel it can stop Quebec from
separating by any means, has Quebec government or any of it's parties
spelled out what Quebec intends to implement as a foreign policy?
I don't see Quebec leaving except to possibly become part of the u.s.
Will they be allowed their own legal system under u.s. law?

Mabye Quebec won't become part of the u.s., but how do the majority
envision the future? I'd understand (at least some) of the "current
attitudes" in Quebec at lot better if I new that.


--
Deano
* the guy with no sig *
Vc: (403) 329-3726
Internet: switzer@honte.uleth.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: What "Manning-Trudeau" manifesto?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:09:08 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
>
>As I recall, there's a clause which says that if a province achieves
>full rep by pop, it retains that forever.  So the factor above
>should be 95% for Nfld, NS, Ont, Alta, and BC, but 100% for PEI, NB,
>Que, Man, and Sask.
>
Only for the 1996 redistribution.  It is not guaranteed past that.

>In article <1992Sep25.144445.9380@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>   Thereafter:
>>     - Any province's seats >= "fixed floor"
>>     - Quebec's seats >= 25% of total seats
>>     - Any province's seats >= its Senate seats
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Are you sure about this one? (I don't have my copy of the accord
>handy).  This would mean two more MPs for PEI.
>
Actually, it's section 41(b) of the '82 Constitution:  "not less than
the number of Senators...at the time this Part comes into force".  Thus
it is not affected by the proposed change in the Senate.

...mark young
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Where's the $ (?!)
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:44:02 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

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?

-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: frank@unixg.ubc.ca (Murray Frank)
Subject: Re: Quebec's percentage of the population
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 16:55:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.154931@ltisun14.epfl.ch> warkent@ltisun.epfl.ch writes:
>Can we agree that French Canadians have gotten the short
>end of the historical stick, especially in Acadia and
>Manitoba?

As a general proposition for Canada as a whole, the answer is
certainly NO. Did they ever get the short end? Yes. Were Acadia and
Manitoba examples, probably. I will leave more precise interpretation
to professional historians.

Since I do not buy your intial premise, the rest of your argument does
not appear relevant from my perspective.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: What "Manning-Trudeau" manifesto?
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:59:53 GMT

CZ94 (CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA) wrote:
>In article <1992Sep25.144445.9380@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>
>>   Section 21
>>   ----------
>>   By 1996:
>>     - Ontario +18, Quebec +18, B.C. +7, Alberta +4 HOC seats and
>>       all provinces will have >= 95% of the seats their pop warrants
>
>As I recall, there's a clause which says that if a province achieves
>full rep by pop, it retains that forever.  So the factor above
>should be 95% for Nfld, NS, Ont, Alta, and BC, but 100% for PEI, NB,
>Que, Man, and Sask.

Given the lack of simplicity and coherence in determining seats I am truly
surprised that the phase of the moon does not factor into this somehow :-)


-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: Canadian newspapers
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:44:11 GMT

	Hmmm. KW has the KW Record, which is very conservative, and
which *used* to be owned by the Motz family but got sold to some
out-of-town  chain. I find it has excellent absorbancy (I have cats)
and a few people I like work  for it (Bill Bean, Miles Socha (sp?) who
refrained from making me look like an  idiot when he interviewed me, 
and Neil Randall  (Also a UW prof), to name  a few). On the whole, 
more fun than dislocating my kneecap, although it does present bone-headed
versions of the  news on  occasion; fairly regular occasions actually.

	Waterloo has the Chronicle, which seems to serve as the KW Wrecker's
bush league.

	UW  has the Imprint, and WLU has the Cord, neither of which I  read,
but which are student newspapers. I kinda miss the Chevron, which used to be
UW's paper, and which  in its latter days was run by raving Marxist lunatics.
Always good for a laugh.

	Anyone know how many independent newspapers still exist? For  that
matter, how  many independent news *services* exist, or do  papers all tap
the same wire services?

								James Nicoll
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:10:25 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: In article <1992Oct1.002605.23783@unixg.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander) writes:
: >
: >>The federal government can pass a law to allow for the election
: >>of Senators [...]
: >
: >No, Gerald, it can't. This would require resolutions of the House of
: >Commons and 7 provincial legislatures representing at least half the
: >population.
: >
: 
: amendment.  A prime minister who wants an elected senate can just
: begin appointing only people who have been elected...no need for
: a constitutional amendment.  A single prime minister can start 
: a democratic tradition or convention...and it would be extremely
: difficult for any future prime minister not to follow.  The current
: Senate can become elected without a constitutional amendment, 
: because the appointment power of the PM does not preclude election.
: 

Why is it better to just "do" something than to put it in the constitution?
: 

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 13:35:09 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: can

steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>
>Quebec doesn't have a right to declare independence!
>
Perhaps not, but it does have the power.

...mark young
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:46:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.145443.15941@bcrka451.bnr.ca>
	nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:

>Of course, we all tend to think that all the "right-minded" people
>agree with us - and anyone who doesn't agree on vital points is
>wrong-minded by definition, right?

I don't know. No matter which way you vote this time around, you'll be
sharing the side of folks you never wanted to be associated with.

If you vote yes, you're taking the side of BM the PM, snake-oil salesman
extraordinaire. In some ways, to me, this exercise is just his second
roll of the dice.

To vote yes is to side with Bob Rae, whose appeal as premier of Ontario
appears to be following the same trend as Mulroney. That Muroney and
Rae were architects of the accord is almost reason enough to reject it,
sight unseen.

On the other hand, vote no and you stand cheek by jowl with the looney
left, the looney right, NAC, Canadian Postal Workers Union, and the
flag burners on both sides.

What a choice. Sigh. All these "celebrity endorsements" have become, to
me, the most depresing part of the campaign. Which side, in the long
run, will present me with the most reasons for voting against them?

More important to me, which way are Mitsou and Erica Ehm voting?
Last I heard, I think Erica said she was going to vote for Murphy Brown.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
         "IBM's three letters are probably EBCDIC for CYA" - Nik H.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Norway (was: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<Bv33nK.HrK@ireq.hydro.qc.ca> <1992Sep29.170502.12470@meadow.uucp>
	<1992Oct1.154431.10754@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:18:55 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct1.154431.10754@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

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

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

Norway was already a country separate from Sweden.  It had its own
currency, its own bureaucratic elite.  It was however 'ruled' by the
Swedish monarch, who they had to kill to attain independence.

--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: mathew@unixg.ubc.ca (Mathew B Englander)
Subject: Re: Trudeau - Dark Lord of Hypocrisy, Anti-christ, Non-eater of Vegetables
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:26:41 GMT

bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>The current proposal is non-partisan, progressive, and recognizes the 
>pluralistic nature of Canada.  There are technical deficiencies -- the
>most notable being that there needs to be a clarification that the charter 
>of rights cannot be superceded by any other section of the constitution.  
>(Favour: Would one of the many self-proclaimed constitutional lawyers on 
>this newsgroup please point out to me how this is possible with the current 
>document?). 

I'm not a constitutional lawyer (yet), but I'd like to point out
that *at present* the Charter does not supersede the rest of the
Constitution.

There was a case a few years ago trying to get the Ontario government
to stop funding Catholic schools; one of the arguments used was that
such funding violates the equality section of the Charter. The court
held, however, that since the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly called
the British North America Act) allows the Ontario government to fund
Catholic schools, the Charter doesn't apply.

Mathew Englander.
Newsgroups: can.politics
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
From: kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken Mcvay)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 19:01:49 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: The Old Frog's Almanac, Vancouver Island, CANADA

In article <1992Sep28.170144.19817@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:

>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.

I understand that the PM (in a speech yesterday?) tells folks in Quebec that
the agreement gives them the right of veto over future constitutional
changes. If that's indeed the case, the scene has been set for yet more
decades of bickering. I suspect any electable politician there would have to
use threats of veto in order to 'bargain' for yet more. There is nothing in
the deal that says Quebec will agree to remain in confederation forever,
which seems to leave them right where they are today - with the "we'll take
our football and leave" game in uninterupted swing...

>> 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!

Where in the agreement does it state that there can be no new demands?

-- 
The Old Frog's Almanac - Public Access UseNet for Central Vancouver Island
     (604) 245-3205 (v32) (604) 245-4366 (2400x4) Waffle XENIX 1.64
Ladysmith, British Columbia, CANADA. kmcvay@oneb.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay)
                    < October 26th: voting NO >
Newsgroups: can.politics,ott.general
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: "A Rulebook for Arguments" by Anthony Weston
Followup-To: can.politics
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 19:53:13 GMT

BC177.W47 1987      ISBN 0-87220-029-9 paperback
                         0-87220-030-2
(c) 1987 by Avatar Books of Cambridge

$6.00 Cdn paperback.

In Ottawa, you may find this in the Philosophy section of
Octopus Books on Bank street in the Glebe. The section is
arranged alphabetically by the authors' last name.

For someone like me untrained in the "soft" sciences,
I find the book extremely valuable.

Michael MY Hui  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:15:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.035356.7255@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>I find it hard to imagine a deal worse than Charlottetown.

     Your imagination must be a little weak today, Gerald.
Just say "MEECH".  (or "1981")

>  We need
>a different more open process, perhaps with an elected constitutional
>convention to craft several different options for consideration by
>the people and the legislatures.

     Well, I would have very much liked this kind of thing too,
Gerald, but it didn't happen and it ain't gonna.  Do you really
think that voting "no" is likely to bring this about, when all
the pressure brought to bear last year didn't bring it about?

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca
"Standard brain-toy bullet list for any GnuAge grokabilly shopping trip"
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: BCTV poll
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 4 Oct 92 03:43:33 GMT


On Friday during the 6pm news BCTV (CTV), conducted a phone in poll asking
the question: do you support Mr Trudeau in his criticism of the
constitutional package. At the end of the program they reported the
results. 1051 people got thru (*) and of those people 91% said yes and 9%
said no.

Although this was obviously a far from scientific poll, the lopsidedness
of the results indicates some serious problems for the yes side.

(*) It turns out the poll overloaded BC Tel's exchange. I figured as much
since I tried about 15 times and of the 4 times that I did not get a busy
signal I instead heard a disembodied voice advising me that all circuits
were busy and that I should try again later.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Xref: sparky can.politics:7666 soc.culture.canada:7076