HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: Re: What about the Canadians?
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:53:05 GMT

In article <ldbn05INNrp@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> mre@teal.Eng.Sun.COM (Mike Eisler) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.144728.18864@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> kenm@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (...Jose) writes:
>>	But while we're on this flight of fancy, it's worth considering
>>that Montreal would probably have to rename it's team.... "Les Canadiens"
>>might not cut it any more.  Peut-t'etre "Les Habitants", ou "Les
>>Quebecois", ou "Les Souvraintistes"?  (pardon the spelling, SVP)
>
>No, the Habs' organization has said publicly that they will always be
>called the Canadiens. Residents of a separate Quebec have as much right
>to call themselves Canadian(en) as the rest of Canada. 
>
>Besides, last time I was in Calgary, I looked at a book in the "Canadianna"
>section of a bookstore that discussed geography after Quebec separation. 
>The author suggested that Montreal itself might be carved up into sectors
>each governed by Ottawa or by Quebec City. Perhaps his proposed map had
>the Forum in the Ottawa sector!
>
>	-Mike Eisler
>	mre@Eng.Sun.Com

One thing that may happen (more likely than splitting Montreal City):
Quebec would keep the Canada name and symbols.  After all, the first time
Canada word was used to define a geographical place, it was in 1535 by
Jacques Cartier and defined Quebec City.  Maple leaf was proposed by
French Canadian nationalists (to use the then vocabulary) to replace
the Union Jack.  The same way, the O Canada (original version) was to
replace the God Save the King (if it was a king at that time.  Or was it
Vicky?  Then it replaced God Save the Queen).

So, it Quebec keeps her symbols (OK, we can drop the beaver) which,
anyway, symbolise the central Canada, what will happen to:
Canucks (from Canada)
Maple Leaf (renamed Trillium Power?)

Someone suggested (in the 1865's?) to call it Borealia (i.e. Northland, just
like Australia is Southland).  In this case, the Canucks would be renamed
the Boreals.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Ge'ne'alogiste des familles : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Que'bec renouvele' dans une Ame'rique renove'e
\_.-===  Une entente au contenu insatisfaisant!     Mon opinion ? Non !
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: grogono@cs.concordia.ca (Peter Grogono)
Subject: Re: Does Canada sell immigration permits?
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:46:01 GMT

In article <bkt.719108070@blacks> bkt@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Barrie Trinkle) writes:
>Today's Wall Street Journal has an editorial by Gary Becker (who
>won the Nobel Prize in economics yesterday) touting the advantages
>of an immigration system in which permits are auctioned.  He
>cites Canada as an example of a country which currently sells permits,
>"although in a partial and elitist fashion."  Does anyone know what he
>means?  Are immigration permits available for money in Canada, and if
>so, for how much and to whom and under what conditions?

As far as I know, if you have a million dollars or so which you are
prepared to invest in Canada, you can immigrate, no questions asked.
This is official policy, but not widely publicized.

Peter
From: uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: What if it's No-No?
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:45:35 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


>In article <1992Oct9.193210.24603@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>> 
>> The triple NO scenario...a Quebec NO, a BC-Alta-Man NO, and an overall
>> NO is the only way the country is going to come out of this thing
>> unified.  A double NO...a Quebec NO, and one Western NO, might be
>> almost as good.

The difficulty is that it seems to me that the only thing the country
would be united on is a profound irritation (to put it no more 
strongly) with B. Mulroney.  And I think we are united by that
already.

It seems fairly clear that there is no consistent reason why people
are voting no.  I find it difficult to read a double or triple
no vote as meaning anything other than that we remain profoundly
divided on virtually every issue under discussion.  

It is not at all clear to me how that can mean that "the country
would come out of this thing unified".  That is not a reason to vote
yes, of course; but it sure ain't a reason to vote no.

peter.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Mike Godfrey
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:57:00 GMT
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Oct15.131302.5243@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>, bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes...
>godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
>: In article <1992Oct14.133121.6157@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA>, bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes...
>: >Aha! A classic case of multiple personalities!
>: > 
>: >There's the benevolent Mike, who likes Canada and babies.
>: >And there's the domineering, evil Laurence, who hates Canada, babies,
>: >and believes that there's a world-wide plot by scientific grant agencies
>: >to kill him.
>: 
>: Do you think that might be it?  That we are really one in the same person
>: but each is unaware of being the other?  I hope not for Mike's sake, because
>: he certainly wouldn't like to receive my email postbag!
>: 
>: Actually i rather like babies, and have never had a problem with any 
>: scientific grant agencies.  Your ludicrous National Research Council, with
>: which i had a problem, were my employers not a grant agency.
>: 
>: Laurence
> 
>But elsewhere...
> 
>migod@turing.toronto.edu (Mike Godfrey) writes:
>> In article <13OCT199219354076@sscvx1.ssc.gov> godfrey@sscvx1.ssc.gov (LAURENCE GODFREY) writes:
>> >
>> >I feel sorry for poor Mike Godfrey, who people keep confusing with me.
>> 
>> Call it a pre-emptive strike.  
>> 
>> I post to this forum on occassion.  I do not wish to be confused with you.
>> I have already seen one other article refer to you as M. (presumably as 
>> in "Monsieur") Godfrey.
> 
>My God! This *is* a case of dual personalities. Mike/Laurence is
>exhibiting severe denial, and has even gone to the trouble of getting 
>different unix accounts.  Scary.
> 
>-- 
>Brian Ross                         "I fell into some ice and your scientists 
>bross@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca     thawed me! Your modern world frightens and
>                                    confuses me!" -- Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

I admit the possibility that I might be Mike Godfrey in another
incarnation with a different unix account (actually mine is a vax
vms account).  I know nothing about the price of 4 litres of milk
in Toronto and yet he seems to be an expert on it, so there are grounds
for supposing that each of us has a unique existence in his particular
dimension.  He (Mike) tells us that the bottom has fallen out of his
housing market (in Toronto), whilst in London I live on a council housing
estate that has all the appearances of having fallen out of someone's
bottom, so perhaps his dimension is a mirror image of my own.

Laurence
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Ontario "socialism"
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 20:20:22 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.101812.9018@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> uctlxpd@ucl.ac.uk (Peter Bartlett) writes:
>As you point out, the question is to whom this cash belongs.  I would
>of course take the position that it belongs to the beneficiaries-- i.e.,
>the workers.  The bargaining has been on the basis of what the employer
>is prepared to contribute monthly into the scheme (as well as what the
>workers contribute-- a fact conveniently ignored by some analyists).
>Those contributions are bargained for, and you can bet that the workers
>gave up something else, so that the pension plan would be put in place.

This is only the case with a defined contribution plan.  Most of the
excitement is about apparent abuses of defined benefit plans.

In a defined benefit plan, the bargaining is based NOT on monthly
contributions, but on the benefit to be received at the end.  The
CONTRIBUTIONS are not what they're bargaining about in this case -
it's the BENEFITS.

>For the employer to wander back and scoop the funds, thus unilaterally
>re-imbursing themselves for their contributions after the fact, seems
>to me akin to bargaining in bad faith-- they got the concession from
>the union on the basis of a specified payment into a fund where the
>workers are to be beneficiaries, and then pay themselves out of the
>proceeds.

I'll say it again: You're suggesting that the funds are defined
contribution plans.  Unions don't typically fight for defined
contribution plans - they want a defined benefit plan.

-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: H of C seats (was Re: I was going to vote...)
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:07:33 GMT

In <mN8-gyA@engin.umich.edu> marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:

>Again, there is not much deviation from rep/pop -- certainly nothing to
>justify the chance that they might soon have an extra twenty seats.

"might soon" meaning possibly in 50 years if nothing significant
happens to change circumstances. I hope this is not the same "might
soon" we get in "Mulroney might soon resign".

-- 
 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
From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIANS
Originator: clewis@bcarh1d7
Organization: Eh?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:59:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.230035.23476@morrow.stanford.edu> silva@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Holly Silva) writes:
>.   Irrespective 
>of assumptions regarding nationality, consigning M. Maillard
>to 'jerkdom' could reasonably have been done purely on the basis of the
>broad-spectrum viciousness of his posting. I'd copied the worst of it
>over into my article; you removed it, along with my lament to the effect
>that he'd not be censured by any of his own. I honestly didn't quite
>believe that when I wrote it. I stand corrected however. 

You shouldn't be - he is a member of jerkdom.

But he can't hold a candle to Mr. K.  Or Lord Godawful.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Internal passports
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:21:27 GMT

In article <5s3NsB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
>
>> 
>> There are already limits on the mobility rights of Canadian citizens which
>> have nothing to do with aboriginal rights. Certain provinces have
>> legislated residence requirements for the practice of certain trades.
>> Tradesmen must be resident in Quebec to work on Quebec construction
>> projects as one example. This has caused real resentment in Eastern Ontario
>> as Quebec workers come into Ontario to work but Ontario workers are
>> barred from Quebec.
>> 
>> This restriction is now to be specifically allowed under the Charlottetown
>> agreement.
>> 
>> We don't have to wait for the world of internal Canadian passports. They exis
>> currently and are now to be placed under constitutional protection.
>> 
>
>How do you arrive at this conclusion? When I read the following:
>
>The policy objective in the Social and Economic Union....
>
>  . the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital;
>

This is only a goal, and it has been a goal of first minister for
half-a-century, yet restrictions still exist in labour mobility,
and internal trade barriers which are estimated to cost business
and extra $6 billion dollars a year.

>
>The clause above would seem to rule out this sort of restriction 
>(although there may well be other "rules" that could be invoked here to 
>give the same effect.)
>

This is a non-justiciable clause, with a monitoring mechanism to
be set up, but the political accord on the economic union allows
for exemptions for almost every one of the existing internal trade
barriers, and the provisions for training are inevitably going to
create more barriers to labour mobility.

>Also, when I read the political accords that are supposed to follow, it 
>says,
>
>" The Parliament and Government of Canada, the provincial legislatures 
>and governments and territorial legislative authorities and governments 
>shall not erect interprovincial trade barriers by a law or practice that,
>(a) arbitrarily discriminates on the basis of province or territory of 
>residence, origin or destination, and
>(b) impedes the efficient functioning of the Canadian economic union
>

You should read the list of exceptions in the associated political
accord...which were part of the July constitutional text, but which
was removed to a political accord in Charlottetown.  The economic 
union provisions are a complete fraud, the first ministers made
zero progress, and many commentators including Michael Wilson and
Don Mazankowski were appalled at the initial July agreement which
made things worse and not better, and which was why the entrenchment
of barriers provision (which was what the July free market clause 
really was) was removed in August.

Gerald
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: RNM192@paccvm.corp.mot.com (Irene Pan)
Subject: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!
Organization: Motorola
Date: 9 Oct 1992 14:22:45 HKT

I will move to Canada just in few weeks from Japan.  I would appreciate
if anyone can tell me more about Canada.  Since I will be living in
Toronto for only eight months, I would like to know something like where
to shop , where to go for sightseeing and the lifestyle in Toronto.
I would also like to know which church I can go on Sunday since I won't
have a car while I stay in Toronto.
Please send those information to me through EMail.
Thanks in advance!

Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7296 can.politics:8231
From: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Normand Mousseau)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: I was going to vote yes, BUT NOW ....
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:38:30 GMT
Reply-To: mousseau@paun01.pa.msu.edu (Normand Mousseau)
Organization: Michigan State University


In article <1992Oct08.141134.844@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
|
|> >
|> >Actually, no, not exactly; but you're right, it's pretty iffy.  The draft
|> >says:  "On entering the Senate, Senators should be required to declare
|> >whether they are Francophones for the prupose of the double majority 
|> >voting rule.  Any process for challenging these declarations should be
|> >left to the rules of the Senate."
|> >
|> >Whatever that means...
|> 
|> 
|> In either case, the clause is racist as hell.
|> Why not pre-select Senate seats for skin colour and gender too?
|> Frank.
|> 

	Non, ce n'est pas une clause raciste, elle represente seulement
la dualite linguistique canadienne.  En ce qui a trait a sa mise en 
application, il me faut reconnaitre que c'est un peu tire par le cheveux
mais il y a peut-etre espoir de ce cote.  Cette clause concernant les
senateurs francophones est indispensable si l'on que la population
francophone (25% de la population canadienne mais largement concentree
dans une seule province) puisse avoir un quelconque pouvoir au senat.

	Normand
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7493 can.politics:8430
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Internal passports
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:42:15 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:

> In article <Bw2Eqr.1q3@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) w
> >Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
> >: News reports on the legal text of the Charlottetown Accord indicate
> >: that there are going to be limitations on mobility rights, certainly
> >: as it relates at least to aboriginal governments. 
> >
> >No it doesn't. It says that an Aboriginal self-government could limit who
> >could move into a reserve. Could is different than will be.
> >
> 
> There are already limits on the mobility rights of Canadian citizens which
> have nothing to do with aboriginal rights. Certain provinces have
> legislated residence requirements for the practice of certain trades.
> Tradesmen must be resident in Quebec to work on Quebec construction
> projects as one example. This has caused real resentment in Eastern Ontario
> as Quebec workers come into Ontario to work but Ontario workers are
> barred from Quebec.
> 
> This restriction is now to be specifically allowed under the Charlottetown
> agreement.
> 
> We don't have to wait for the world of internal Canadian passports. They exis
> currently and are now to be placed under constitutional protection.
> 

How do you arrive at this conclusion? When I read the following:

The policy objective in the Social and Economic Union....

  . the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital;


The clause above would seem to rule out this sort of restriction 
(although there may well be other "rules" that could be invoked here to 
give the same effect.)

Also, when I read the political accords that are supposed to follow, it 
says,

" The Parliament and Government of Canada, the provincial legislatures 
and governments and territorial legislative authorities and governments 
shall not erect interprovincial trade barriers by a law or practice that,
(a) arbitrarily discriminates on the basis of province or territory of 
residence, origin or destination, and
(b) impedes the efficient functioning of the Canadian economic union

Are you arguing that any law which restricts the hiring of people based 
solely on the province of origin would not violate this?


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

The way to get things out of a government is to back them to the wall, 
put your hands to their throats, and you will get all that they have. 
- Agnes McPhail
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: RNM192@paccvm.corp.mot.com (Irene Pan)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!
Organization: Motorola
Date: 14 Oct 1992 15:25:18 HKT

------------------------- Original Article -------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
From: scooper6@mach1.wlu.ca (stephen cooper 9209 U)
Subject: Re: TO ALL CANADIAN WHO LIVE IN TORONTO!!
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:21:26 GMT

great place to live.  If you want any information at all about Canada, the
best source would be from the Canadian Embassy.  I'm sure they have all
sorts of tourism material and other information.  I'm also sure they'd be
more than willing to help.
=======================================================================

I hope you are correct about Canadian Embassy in Japan.  I am having
some difficulty to get my visa here.  First the person who work in the
embassy told me how much more money I have to pay and later said I don't
have to when I went to the Embassy in the morning.  Later, the embassy
stuff called and said that I still have to pay.  Therefore I have to go
to Embassy in the afternoon again.  This is not yet finished.
They told me that wait our call and the visa can be permit on 7th of Oct.
 I wait all through last week without getting any phone call from the
Embassy.  So I try to call them on 12th of Oct..  Guess what I got?!!
"Just wait until we call you!"  Without second word after that.
This morning, I tried to call Embassy and Embassy stuff asked me same
question and give me same answer. So my Canadian boss called and finanlly
get a response from Embassy.  Answer is "next Monday".
Those stuffs I had talken with are Japanese.  I thought they are supposed
to helpful since they work in Embassy.  But..., can they be more helpful?
This is not my account!!
Nakagazu Urabe

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: community, compromise, and individual liberty
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 00:45:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.144530.1918@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>I disagree that a "social" charter should be in the constitution, at least
>to extent being advocated now. Certain policies should be changeable 
>according to the government of the day, to the changing views of the 
>population.

A constitution is an ever changing document, and the nonjusticiable
social charter is a nice preamble that will guide our interpretation of
the entire constitution and defines the values we as Canadians hold
dear to our society. Your brothers and sisters on the Left fought hard
for that one; it is a sad day indeed to hear you denounce it. Truly sad.

Or, perhaps it's not Left enough for you, so you're saying NO to it?
That sure smells of BQ and PQ double-speak.

>This is why I oppose the concept of private property rights
>being placed in the constitution. I think it is wrong that the wealthy
>should be able to "own" my country, simply by the investment of their
>capital. I think this country should be owned by us all.

The Indians think so too. Contradictory, eh? So why don't you support
aboriginal self government then? Think about it. Your views quite
closely correlate with theirs.

Michael MY Hui          myhui@bnr.ca           Ottawa Canada
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:7474 can.politics:8405
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Internal passports
Date: 14 Oct 92 11:39:02 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <Bw2Eqr.1q3@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: News reports on the legal text of the Charlottetown Accord indicate
>: that there are going to be limitations on mobility rights, certainly
>: as it relates at least to aboriginal governments. 
>
>No it doesn't. It says that an Aboriginal self-government could limit who
>could move into a reserve. Could is different than will be.
>

There are already limits on the mobility rights of Canadian citizens which
have nothing to do with aboriginal rights. Certain provinces have
legislated residence requirements for the practice of certain trades.
Tradesmen must be resident in Quebec to work on Quebec construction
projects as one example. This has caused real resentment in Eastern Ontario
as Quebec workers come into Ontario to work but Ontario workers are
barred from Quebec.

This restriction is now to be specifically allowed under the Charlottetown
agreement.

We don't have to wait for the world of internal Canadian passports. They exist
currently and are now to be placed under constitutional protection.








.

-- 
i.sinature
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada