HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:09:08 GMT

Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: In article <BvGA7E.36G@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: >Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
: >: 
: >: Well there still are my objections to the Canada Clause, the appointment
: >: procedure (but not the numbers) for the Supreme
: >: Court, the abandonment of representation by population, the Canadian
: >: Politburo, the surrender of training and telecommunications to the
: >: provinces, the lack of an economic union and common market.
: >: 
: >
: >It does not abandon rep by pop -- it guarantees it by at least 95% by the
: >next census.
: 
: And only for the next census...after that all bets are off for BC.

No. All bets are not off.

   21:
     A permanent formula should be developed and section 51 of the
   Constitution Act, 1867 should be adjusted to accommmodate demographic
   change

Demographics changes have happened in the past in Canada. They have been
dealt with in the past. They will be dealt with in the future.
: >
: >There is no Politburo.
: >
: >The provinces can train people at least as well as the feds.
: >
: >We have an economic union based on Bank of Canada. We have a common market.
: >
: 
: We do not have a common market....Europe has a common market...
: a common market allows for the free flow of goods, services, and people,
: and the provinces are obstinately opposed to allowing this.

The Accord leaves provision for future negotiations to achieve a common
market. This does not belong in a constitution (in my opinion) -- it belongs
elsewhere

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Royal Bank Report
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:33:51 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:

>1) Bourassa just said yesterday that a 'yes' will bring prosperity to
>   Quebec and Canada (again).
>2) Mulroney & Clark said that a 'no' would start the dismantle of
>   Canada and turn it into a Yogoslavia.
>3) The 'yes' campaing is the most over-budgeted propaganda I've ever
>   seen. Furthermore, it's paid by taxpayers money and doesn't repect
>   Quebec law in Quebec, while the 'no' campaign has to. It doesn't
>   have any arguments, just so-called celebrities saying how much they
>   love their Rockies. Looks like a detergent ad.

The propaganda is extremely inappropriate.  While a "no" would put
separatists in a strong position, they would not be assured success.
Furthermore, it is improper for a government minister to predict disaster
if his government's strategy fails.

Why?  Because, if it fails, that minister will have conflicting interests:
one in avoiding disaster, the other in proving his prediction correct.
Predictions of disaster also encourage the enemy and foster defeatism.

The Prime Minister had better have a fall-back position.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Challenge
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:42:41 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <1992Sep28.194329.20446@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>B.C. will not necessarily be more underrepresented than other
>English-speaking provinces, and I am not interested in yet
>another childish separation project.

  Since changing electoral boundaries and such is not a constitutional
issue, I fail to see why anyone would be concerned about this much past 
the next census.

>(However, the idea that reserves could become quasi-independent
>states is alarming because it could mean the creation of havens
>for organized criminals.  We had better make sure that criminal
>law still applies to aboriginals).
>--
>Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com

  I was worried about this 2 years ago, envisaging a patchwork of tiny
Monacos with no common authority to mediate or maintain order.

  However, the native *community* has been very reasonable in targetting
provincial government parity as the immediate goal. In a true federal 
system this should prove adequate independence for cultural and social
needs, while benefitting from the standard economic, legal and protective 
umbrellas of the federal government. I forsee problems in partitionning
powers and the standard sovereignty hassles, but nothing that does not
seem within reasonable negotiation bounds. My impression is the natives 
want to be included and have a say in their immediate environment, but not 
necessarily set up an independent state that has no ties to the Canadian
federation, and thus would make the criminal haven and other even more
disturbing possibilities a significant threat to Canada and its citizens.
I am more than willing to let things develop along these lines and see
what comes about several years hence before making any final decision.

  I am also very pleased with the rise of a third pole of power in the 
Canadian federation. I think the cold war mentality of many French/English
disputes could use a tie breaking or destabilizing third party on many
occasions. It certainly helps point out the inconsistencies in many
partisan arguments to suddenly introduce another viewpoint. I also think
that this is going to focus energy on Northern economic development and 
growth as well though not maybe in usual Western sense. We need some
new frontiers and challenges in the country to stimulate blood flow.

  Anyway, I am not upset about the short term native issues, and think
that nothing (even Constitutions) are so permanent over the long term
that serious frictions are impossible to resolve if the willingness is
there.
---- 
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.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: NHI ( was: Canada Clause)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:14:52 GMT

In article <BvG7E3.MAD@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: National shared-cost social programs are a thing of the past...
>: with Charlottetown.  It is misleading to suggest otherwise.
>: 
>
>It is misleading to represent your opinions as fact. Since the Accord does
>not say, "no more shared-cost programs" I don't think you can argue this. In
>fact, the Accord specifically entrenches national shared-cost programs.
>Social or otherwise. 
>
>   III.25
>           A provision should be added to the Constitution stipulating that
>   the Government of Canada must provide reasonable compensation to the
>   government of a province that chooses not to participatew in a new
>   Canada-wide shared-cost program that is established by the federal
>   government in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, if that
>   province carries on a program or inititiative that is compatible with
>   the national objectives.
>
>This ensures that Canada-wide shared-cost programs will continue. Provinces
>that opt out MUST implement their own program, and the federal government
>will compensate them.
>
>Simply saying that you think they will go away is not an argument.
>

I don't know many politicians who will raise taxes and then give
the revenue away for some other politician to spend and get the
credit and none of the blame.

Gerald

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: The "No" Camp
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:59:29 GMT

Crawford Kilian (Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
: 
: If the No side wins, I don't see universal rejoicing among its supporters (or
: anywhere else, really). Nor do I see an automatic departure of Quebec; if
: anything, Quebecers may take a long look into the abyss and decide to slog out
: another round of negotiations as being duller but cheaper.
: 

Yes, but will the rest of Canada go through another round? Anti-Quebec
sentiment is running high, and is one of the primary weapons of the NO side
outside Quebec. Many people will vote NO and think "Good. Let them rot. Let
them go bankrupt as a sovereign state". This is the sad truth. The fact that
we will go bankrupt with them will only serve to fuel this moral
indignation.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: What "Manning-Trudeau" manifesto?
Keywords: Manning Trudeau
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 14:18:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.122912.5700@sq.sq.com> donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:
>robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep22.145559.12768@sq.sq.com> donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed) writes:
>>>
>>>It is possible that a person could read the Trudeau article,
>>>and agree with him, and then vote "Yes" on October 26th.
>>>Clyde Wells is one such case.
>
>>How do you know which way Wells is going to vote?
>
>I cannot tell with absolute certainty, but this is what he claimed
>on CBC radio, shortly after the article by Trudeau appeared.


I heard the interview as well. I realize that he accepted the proposal
and let the process carry along (to my disappointment), but I also got
the feeling that he was not a happy man.

I wouldn't be surprised if he actually votes "no" when he votes.
I suspect that Trudeau's arguments may have emboldened his reservations.
He did say he agreed with most if not all of what Trudeau said.
Trudeau's essay does NOT strengthen the Yes vote.

Frank.
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Poll
Date: 26 Sep 92 03:03:32 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 1154

From article <g2gJRB6w165w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca>, by awesome@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Travis Leippi):
> sw@mdavcr.mda.ca (Scott Wood) writes:
> 
>> In article <g9LBRB1w165w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> awesome@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (
>> >I am taking a poll of opinions for the Constitutional Deal.
>> >If you want to take part, just mail me a message saying yes or no to
>> >awesome@tradnet.wimsey.bc.ca.  I will post the results a week before the 
>> >deal.  Thank you for your opinion.
>> 
>> This would be meaningless! You don't *invite* people to participate in 
>> a poll. We're being bombarded with enough bogus information, we don't
>> need more. Opinions are worth reading, but not pseudo-poll results.
>> -- 
> 
> Don't answer it then.  This is a unscientific poll conducted just for the 
> purpose of curiosity.  

Much like the "referendum"! :-))))

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:13:31 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <BvILHo.2tC@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>This is not a fraudulent argument. Our PM and premiers already have made a
>deal. We've just watched them do it. They did it because it was good for
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So, you assisted to secrete debates at Charlottetown?  Can you give us
some more secrets (we already know that Bourassa caved, that Ontario
particularly, but CHQ in general making pressure on him).  

>deal. We've just watched them do it. They did it because it was good for
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Canada. They did it because the electorate demanded it. Sure they were an
 ^^^^^^
You mean, they believed it would help them be re-elected without having to 
improve their economics policy?

>Canada. They did it because the electorate demanded it. Sure they were an
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The last time I saw some polling about what electors wanted, there was
nothing about improving constitution.  

>unlikely alliance, but they rose above personal differences to agree. I'm
>sure the NDP premiers would have loved more on the Social Charter. I'm sure
>the PC would have liked more for Government, etc,etc,etc. The fact is that
>they agreed. They compromised. They rose above personal differences,
>ideological differences, and compromised. This compromise is the best for ALL
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Canadians. The problem with the individual NO groups is that each solution is
 ^^^^^^^^^
>only the best for a SINGLE group.

So, if the YES passes 8 provinces on 10, or even on 7, will you agree
that the proposal was not the best for ALL?  Or do you mean among the
many possibilities, this compromise is ranked the best?  I would like
to see any demonstration of that, for example a survey of other
possible compromises like soft Asymetrical Federalism, hard A-F and
Quebec secession with or without Canada becoming a true common market,
that the current compromise be rated by ordinary people (or at least
people understanding a minimum of what each option means).

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===  Non a une entente au contenu indetermine'   Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:38:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.163801.28801@pandora.matrox.com> thood@hilda.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep28.214510.21071@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>
>>>it will create an unwelcome opportunity for separatists
>>>to argue that Canada is a dead end for Quebec.
>>
>>It was for the most part the YES supporters that opened the
>>Pandora's box in the mid-eighties before the country was
>>ready for or required a new constitutional debate.  Quebec
>>nationalism was quiescent and it was reawakened prematurely by
>>political incompetents.
>
>I agree with this history, but it does not change the facts: a "no" puts
>Quebec separatists in a strong position.
>

You have to believe that sovereignty is really a viable option for
Quebec to believe that the sovereignists are in a strong position.
If sovereignty is really a viable option, a rinky-dinky deal like
Charlottetown isn't going to change that reality.  All Charlottetown
does is weaken TROC, and its survivability.  If sovereignty isn't
a viable option (or even if it is), 
let us give average Quebeckers the opportunity
to vote on sovereignty in a climate without fear or threats, and
with the basic outline of the details of sovereignty before them,
so we can resolve the Quebec issue once and for all.

Let's add substance to the sovereignty debate, and give Quebeckers 
a chance to vote with both their hearts and minds on the question...
...and there is no need to fear the answer or the future.

>
>>>What should happen after the accord is rejected?
>>
>>The current constitution endured 125 years...it can endure a few
>>more.   
>
>Does this mean you would defend the status quo (which includes the
>Government of Quebec's non-endorsement of the Constitution) as
>a permanent solution? Or, would you argue for a constitutional
>convention? Or, would you prefer a referendum in Quebec
>on independence?
>

No...I would set up a process to allow for an informed choice by
Canadians and Quebeckers...an elected constitutional convention
to prepare three versions of a Quebec-Canada relationship in
as much preliminary detail as possible...a modest revision of
the current constitution (a mild asymmetry model), a model of
full-blown asymmetrical federalism (mainly as an education device
for TROC, to see if we could live with this), and a model of
Quebec sovereignty and the basic relationship between a sovereign
Quebec and Canada.  I think even Quebec nationalists would see
this as a useful exercise to eliminate the fear and uncertainty...
and would be willing to agree to a constitutional truce for
the two or three years it would probably take for a convention
to outline the models.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Why I will vote NO on Oct. 26
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 11:38:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.143552.18732@sco.COM> rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:

>  Everytime you vote you sign a blank check. There are term limitations,
>but elected officials are within the bounds of the laws fully empowered
>to do what they want with their elected office.
>  This is called representative democracy - why is this vote any different?

a)  There is a term limitation.  We have no such limitation on the
    constitution (how about, we vote on it Oct 26, if it passes it gets
    to be the constitution for 5 years, and then Oct 26, '97 we get another
    vote to decide if we want to keep it or not)
b)  And far more relevant, just because I have to give my MP a blank cheque
    (I would like to change this), is no grounds for giving the gov't 
    another blank cheque.  Or to put it another way; tell me, Ross, if
    you do something stupid, do you go and do other stupid things, 'cause
    after all, you've already done one stupid thing?
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:56:12 GMT

Paul Ward (ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: >
: >Except that "What we get" is what we asked for. Rep by pop. Native rights.
: >Gender rights. Linguistic rights. Federal sharing of power.
: 
: It not what I asked for.

It's what the majority asked for. It's what I asked for.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pasward@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Norway (was: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:48:50 GMT

In article <CLAMEN.92Oct1181852@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>
>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.

They killed the monarch?  Hmm, this is sounding good.  So what's the
chances that the PQ will pop off Mulroney? :-)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: A thought for the Trudon'ts
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 92 05:46:09 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>Marxism, suspended the great debate for a century or so, until both
>the Western Enlightenment and tribalism prevailed over Marxism, and
>now turn to do battle with each other again.

The new world (i.e. over here) will hence represent enlightenment,
and the old world represent tribalism. Europe will be the one place
most torn by the two, since its decendents populated most of the new
world, and now thumb their noses back at the old world at their old
way of doing things (i.e. tribalism). The Asian world will continue
on its tribalistic ways for quite a few centuries yet. Don't ever go
campaigning in China for multiculturalism. You'll be wasting your time.

>It is not clear, at least to me, whether compromise or peaceful
>coexistence is possible...

Of course it is. Just trade and visit between the two camps, and don't
force your ideology onto others.

>...ultimately it comes down to the simple fact that liberty,
>tolerance, and democracy are not compatible with tribalism.

It is, actually. Tribalism results in the lack of some of the above
for those from another tribe. When those "others" are so few in
numbers that special enlightened treatment can be granted to them
so that they truly feel welcome, things will be fine. It's when 
"they" grow in number to become a "visible minority" that things
start to get ugly. The solution is to separate the two, and then
you'll have liberty, fraternity, and profitablity for all in the
tribe.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Xref: sparky can.politics:8074 soc.culture.canada:7232
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Royal Bank Report
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:44:05 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>The Quebec Separatists will feed their people on dreams and promises. One of
>their characteristic qualities is they have only to denigrate a Canadian
>Union, they don't have to provide viable alternatives.

Hum... I wonder who's feeding the people with dreams and promises:

1) Bourassa just said yesterday that a 'yes' will bring prosperity to
   Quebec and Canada (again).

2) Mulroney & Clark said that a 'no' would start the dismantle of
   Canada and turn it into a Yogoslavia.

3) The 'yes' campaing is the most over-budgeted propaganda I've ever
   seen. Furthermore, it's paid by taxpayers money and doesn't repect
   Quebec law in Quebec, while the 'no' campaing has to. It doesn't
   have any arguments, just so-called celebrities saying how much they
   love their Rockies. Loolk like a detergent ad.

Draw your own conclusions.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:38:25 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Sep21.145658.21715@meadow.uucp> marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.011749.4008@bcrka451.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>
>>(BTW, I still don't understand why breaking the rep-by-pop principle
>>is OK when it benefits BC or PEI, and wrong when it benefits Quebec.)
>
>As far as I'm concerned it isn't breaking the principle that bothers me, it's
>entrenching that broach into the constitution!                         ve to
>
>If PEI (or Northern Ontario, for that matter) demanded that unequal
>representation be guaranteed them, I would be equally against it.
>
I hate to break the news to you, but unequal representation for
PEI was entrenched in the constitution in 1915.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada