HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:09:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.203128.13711@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
>robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
>: 
>: IMHO, the status quo is better than the proposed deal. Others may disagree
>: and vote accordingly, but I do not see why I should vote for a package
>: that I view to be inferior than what we have now.
>
>This is perfectly reasonable.  My opinion differs, however, in that I think 
>that the status quo is not good.  The aboriginal people certainly don't 
>like the status quo, even though their support for the accord itself is 
>starting to wane. The status quo isn't serving national unity very well 
>either. I also believe that a Canada sans Quebec will be inferior,
>and that Quebec secession will be boosted by a rejection of the accord.  
>If it is indeed rejected, I hope I'm proven wrong.
>

This Accord is alleged to address the grievances of Quebec, the
West, and the aboriginals...how come the strongest opposition to the
Accord is now in Quebec, the West, and among aboriginals...and not
for antagonistic reasons...aboriginals are concerned about the
diminishment of their treaties, the West about underrepresentation and
a partly elected, ineffective Senate, and Quebec because of the
division of powers.

The only strong support for the Accord is in Ontario, and the main crafters
of the Accord are Rae and that sellout Clark...things that make one
go hmmm? 

>Like a lot of Canadians, I'm finding this referendum painful. Two weeks ago,
>I was undecided, and was actually leaning towards the No side. The Yes side
>began to seem more reasonable as of late (no thanks to Trudeau's unconvincing
>remarks).  What has swayed me recently is that the common No complaints about 
>the technical ramifications of the accord aren't as absolute as they maintain, 
>but are more a matter of the mindset one uses when interpreting the text 
>of the constitution.  More disturbing, should the No side win, I don't
>see ANY hope of there being a settlement to this mess.  I certainly don't
>share a Manning or Parizeau view of Canada, and Mulroney nor Trudeau's
>stances on the constitution aren't very important to me.
>

Which is why we need an elected constiuent assembly or constitutional
convention so we can elect people we trust specifically on
constitutional issues to prepare a series of options and amendments.

Gerald
Xref: sparky can.politics:8296 soc.culture.canada:7353
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Reasons to STAY AWAY from the NO side
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 05:56:02 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #3, Edmonton, AB, Canada

- Oh, this one is a joke :-).  But, aren't the other jokes too?
-
- --
-   \_\    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 !

Merci a votre especes de gens, ce farce-ci est maintenant en forme d'un
provocation d'une crise.

Dave Shariff Yadallee (yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca,
userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca)
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All! Remember! Jesus Saves!!
Canadians: send a clear message to the government!  ON Oct. 26, Abstain
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:51:38 GMT

Murray Frank (frank@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:
: 
: Out of curiosity, how do you explain the now imfamous speech by Moe
: Sihota? 

The same way I explain ALL of the infamous speeches by Crosbie -- the man has
no credibility, and said something for immediate political gain, pandering to
the base emotions of people.


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Why this is a crock
Organization: (this space for rent)
  
   constitution "for the people", then what is the need for   
   negociations?  Is there not only one set of rules/principles/rights
   obligations that logically and moraly could be /should be applied
   to any / all persons living within the bounds of Canada, regardless
    of what province / race / language they belong too?
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:47:44 GMT

2) This is not a document that details any of the above.  It is an
    attempt to put down in ink what is now a somewhat wishy-washy 
    set of operating priciples regarding federal-provincial powers.
    It is essentially a set of political job descriptions, with a
    great deal of concern as to how various sub-parts are going to
    be interpreted by the supreme courts.

3) This document, if accepted, will condem Canada to our present
   stone-age style of democracy.  The real constitutional issue
   should focus on how we are governed, but naturally our politicians
   like things the way they are.  I doubt that canada would have half the
   political / financial trouble it now does if we had a more accountable
   form of gov't.
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Date: 9 Oct 92 14:16:27 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Oct8.210912.17300@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>The only strong support for the Accord is in Ontario, and the main crafters
>of the Accord are Rae and that sellout Clark...things that make one
>go hmmm?
>
"Sellout"?  Are you suggesting that because he's from Alberta, Clark's
first (only?) loyalty should be to that province?  Isn't it at least
possible that Clark believes this deal is in the best interests of
Canada as a whole?

Your comment is reminiscent of the lowest level of Quebec political
discourse, where anyone with the wrong opinion is a "vendu" and a
"traitre."

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:16:46 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
: 
: And you were doing so well for awhile before you had to abandon reason
: and resort to an ad hominem!   I guess you and Dan Quayle are cut from
: the same cloth...you both seem preoccupied about who is or isn't the father
: of the children of upper middle class women.  The best that can be said
: for you I guess is that you have chosen a real rather than a fictional
: one.

Gerald, some advice: try to smile.  Laugh.  
Don't take things so seriously.  (Or were your
Nazi witch-hunt rantings attempts at humour.  :O).


-- 
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
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Subject: Re: Watch the Journal this week
Reply-To: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:32:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.153557.23558@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct6.130526.991@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA> bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross) writes:
|> >
|> >All the consitutional pundits on this newsgroup should watch the Journal
|> >this week, which is featuring discussions of components of the constitution 
|> >with four constitutional lawyers.  It is very refreshing listening to 
|> >informed debate on excerpts of the consitution, rather than the rhetoric 
|> >from the politicians and the amateur speculations on this newsgroup.  
|> >
|> >The issue of whether the document creates a hierarchy of classes, as Trudeau 
|> >claims, was generally refuted. The Canada Clause is a set of principles for
|> 
|> It most certainly was not...they had four people whose views spanned the
|> range from seeing the Canada Clause as harmless, to Michael Bliss, who 
|> essentially agrees with Trudeau.  Whether it was refuted depends on
|> who you agree with...the concensus, if any, is that we really cannot
|> know how the Courts will use the clause...the Canada Clause may be
|> harmless, BUT IT MAY NOT BE as well.  
|> 
|> When it comes to constitutions as they bear on rights, I would argue,
|> that we should worry about worst case scenarios...

I agree with the Brian Ross - the 'hierarchy' argument had no substance.  Yes,
the courts will decide for each case, but it seems to me that the Canada Clause
is the best part of the deal - a perfect balance between the individuals and
societies rights - a perfect reflection of Canada.

Don Clayton
a.k.a. Rear-Adm. Maverick, DM of the Drow
My brain, my thoughts, my words.
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a K-car (a nice reliant automobile),
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:35:47 EDT
From: John G. Spragge <SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Bill 40 (Labour law) was Re: Ontario "socialism"
 <92280.195857SPRAGGEJ@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <1992Oct9.123701.6230@julian.uwo.ca>


In article <1992Oct9.123701.6230@julian.uwo.ca>, wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca
(Wayne Smith) says:
>
>It's extortion when companies don't have the ability (and now the right)
>to shop around for employees.
>
Your use of the word "extortion" assumes that a market in labour ought to
exist on the same basis as the market in food. Since the abolition of
slavery, no such market has existed, although we have maintained a number
of awkward pretences, so that while owners can no longer buy employees,
they can continue to rent them.

However, this paradigm no longer reflects our developing attitudes towards
work. More and more, the employees of a business are seen as legitimate
stakeholders, on the same basis as the owners and managers of the enterprise,
rather than just the interchangeable suppliers of a commodity called labour.
This new attitude is as much reflected in the writings of the upcoming
business class as it is in socialist theories. The tome of business in the
next century is being set by people like Paul Hawken, and the success of
enterprises such as Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream.

In any case, extortion is an extremely inappropriate term. Extortion
is a criminal offence, and there is nothing criminal about strike
action. You may wish the law was different, although (as I have shown)
it reflects our developing attitudes towards work very well. But to refer
to actions that fall well within the law as criminal is quite unacceptable
(and, in fact, illegal as well).
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@minotaur (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: UTILITY IN POLITICS
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 20:47:17 GMT

Alan Schianni (Alan_Schianni@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
: As a Canadian, I feel disgruntled with the attention and single-mindedness
: the governing party devotes to the infamous "Accord."  Considering what side
: to support, I trust in utilitarianism to rectify such normative problems.
: However, both sides do not promote the greatest happiness.  So, I suppose I
: will resort to voting No simply because to produce such a document is a
: wasteful attempt to divert attention away from the economy and other social
: issues that are in a present crisis.  I know too many people unemployed,

The government cannot deal with with these issues until the constitution is
fixed. If there is a NO vote, the governments will have to spend more time
trying to find a new agreement, instead of being able to continue
discussions with this as a framework. A YES vote leads to a strong
government devoted to economic problems, a NO vote to a government
paralysed by more constitutional problems.

: making no income, having little hope in the future for their families.
: Quebec and Canada will not perish whether there is seperation or not.  But
: too many families and workers with survival at stake are getting very little
: attention. (P.S. One way to rectify the present problem is to make Mulroney
: resign contingent upon voting Yes.  Then immediately place a caring,
: economically-minded and true country-loving PM into place.
: 
: 

How do you mean "rectify the present problem"? The present problem is that
our country is being torn apart by its own people, divisive bickering and
arguing. It seems so important to us that we sigle-mindedly ignore all
else. Our current government has done much to fight the Trudeau-deficit.
Inflation has been conquered, and we had the highest G7 economic growth
last year. People who simply complain that the PM is the source of all
problems ignore reality.

If you really want attention paid to workers and families, vote YES, get
the deal in place and the framework under way, and then help your
government ease the internal bickering -- don't add to it.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Subject: YES in CHQ contradicts YES in Quebec
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:58:56 GMT

Heard on TV News yesterday :

In CHQ, the YES camp is selling the deal in saying it gives no new power
to Quebec.

In Quebec, the YES camp is selling the deal in saying it gives 31 more
new powers to Quebec.

Who's right?  Or aren't they both wrong?

Definitively NO to the Charlatan Accord.

-- 
  \_\    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: Curious Yes Campaign
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:36:17 GMT

In article <Bw2EJF.1Gx@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>
>They are having trouble with the fight because
>
>1) People, instead of reading the deal and thinking about it, are going to
>vote NO because they hate politicians.
>

How come the phone lines in Ottawa were jammed with people requesting
copies of the Accord, and that the YES side finally decided that they
had better send a copy of the Accord to every household.

>2) People love to hate, and are having an easier time hating the deal than
>thinking of what they would do differently.
>

It sounds like you don't have much faith in democracy...the fact that
Canadians are clamoring for information, and rejected the tactics of
the YES side to use positive and negative emotional appeals suggests the
exact opposite.

Gerald
From: merrett@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Recorded DISSENT. Where?
Date: 9 Oct 92 12:54:34 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


	Hello,

Wow!  I wanted some info on the Referendum so I registered can.politics and
found almost as much traffic as alt.flame (you may wonder why I use that
particular analogy...).  Well, I've been browsing the Guide (i.e. the stripped
down version of the agreement given out to us public folk) and one thing
bothers me.

In the Preface they specifically say:

	In areas where consensus was not unanimous, some participants
	chose to have their dissents recorded.  Where requested, these
	dissents have been recorded in the chronological records of the
	meetings but are not recorded in this _summary_ document.
	(emphasis mine)

Now I for one am not a constitutional lawyer.  Nor am I clever enough to realise
the results of much of what is contained in the agreement.  I do learn, however,
from the dissenting views of others with vested interest in the outcome.  Any
one side will weigh their remarks in their favour but when a number of diverse
groups are polled you can certainly get the feel.  Well, the only feel I get
from that last statement is SOMEONE wants to present a unified front.

I haven't decided which way to vote yet, but I would like to see those recorded
dissents.  The fact that a search through this group has produced NO references
to these missing remarks means either that everyone has a copy of them and has
discarded them (unlikely) or it simply hasn't been discussed.

Those dissents were recorded for a reason.  People who had a problem with the
language, wording, ideas behind what was discussed wanted their views noted for
reference.  Well, I suspect there was a 'reason' they were excised from the
reaedily-available summary too...

I don't want to start a flame war, I want to know what the dissenting remarks
were.  Anyone out there got 'em?  Mail me, I'm interested.


							Doug Merrett
--------------
Doug Merrett
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada					phone: (902) 494-1866 (o)

Internet: merrett@ac.dal.ca
              -or-
          merrett@mudchem.ocean.dal.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: UIC and labour market training
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: 9 Oct 92 16:24:20 GMT

Alan Schianni (Alan_Schianni@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
>
>Well its unfortunate in my view that no longer an individual can choose where
>he and his family can live and enjoy a prosperous livelihood.  One has to
>move to an area that either has economical momentum in terms of offering the
>kinds of work desirable or headroom to facilitate such work.  Shall we all
>move to the U.S.A. now or shall we wait until we've depleted all our
>opportunities to advance.
>I firmly believe that this philosophy is "wrong."  If government is to help
>the people at all, one must concede that it is of greatest happiness to do
>what one likes to do -where one likes to do it.  It is of no "greater-person"
>to have to move somewhere against their choice to sustain a livelihood better
>than working at a gas-pump.

Please ask the government to start with the software industry. I would
like to live in Whistler in the winter, and Squamish in the summer.

Sarcasm aside, it is totally unrealistic to expect to be able to practice
one's chosen profession anywhere one wants. As a software worker in a
particular niche, I am extremely limited in where I can work. I accept this
situation since I don't see how the government could change it without
spending oodles of tax dollars and creating large distortions in the
market place. Yes, it is very nice to be able to live where one wants and
work in the career of one's choice; but it is certainly not a god given
entitlement.

BTW, this does not mean that I do not support the removal of barriers to
the free movement of people (the original point of this thread). On the
contrary, I very much support this. However, there is a vast difference
between having the right to move somewhere and practice one's profession,
and being entitled to this.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Xref: sparky can.politics:8518 soc.culture.canada:7554
From: smith@gramian.harvard.edu (Steven Smith)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Individual Rights in the U.S. Constitution (was Re: Individu
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:53:24 GMT
	<12OCT92.17592629.0072@VM1.MCGILL.CA>
	<1992Oct13.164231.17506@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <1992Oct15.132114.18694@sco.COM>
Organization: Harvard Robotics Lab, Harvard University

rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:

> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
> >I agree with Tom. Not only are the American Constitution and amendments
> >quite different, but also quite superior to the Canadian proposal.
> >Frank.
> 
> The American Constitution is designed to create a 'Melting Pot' and
> strong internal national identity (ie 'We the people' not peoples or
> any concept of others).

Huh?  There is no secret about what the Constitution was designed to
accomplish:

	. . . to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure
	domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
	general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
	and our posterity.

The framers wouldn't have known what the hell you were talking about
if you mentioned a melting pot to them.  This concept would have to
wait for the great migrations of the next century.

> Canadian history, whether French, British, native or immigrant has been
> made up of people who saw value in their own identities and resisted  
> total assimilation into whatever nearby country or culture was currently
> felt to be the dominating presence. Our Constitution reflects the 
> diversity of our patchwork nationality, and willingness to tolerate
> regional differences in return for national solidarity in other areas.
> 
> Now you can just ask any foreign national which they prefer, Canadians
> or Americans and why - the result says something about which approach
> is superior or not.

When I ask my wife's parents, who immigrated from Venice to Vancouver
after WWII, they say without hesitation that they wish to be
unhyphenated Canadians, and are sick about the way multiculturalism
has divided and threatens to destroy Canada.

Steven Smith
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: AAA credit rating downgraded
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:20:47 GMT


[Front Page Financial Post]

Canada's AAA credit rating has been, for the first time in history,
downgraded to AA+. This has just cost us as money must be borrowed at 8.7
instead of 7.7%.

For those who still don't believe the economic consequences of a NO vote,
consider: the people who matter do. (Standard+Poor said that the major reason
for the downgrading was uncertainty over the results of the referendum).

My reason for posting:

 How can we keep our economy from being decimated in the short term by this
uncertainty? (The issue of consequences aside for the moment). The vote is in
11 days. With so much hype from both sides of the issue, I see no result
except a massive lack of confidence in the Canadian economy. 

Inasmuch as the people who make our monetary policy (chartered banks, etc)
have said that the results of a NO vote will be rising interest rates and
an unstable dollar, how can it be anything but this? I mean, these are the
people who decide when to raise interest rates, when to buy and sell the
dollar. If they say interest rates will rise, they are right by
definition.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: "Canadians and Quebeckers" (was Re: Canada apartheid)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:39:24 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 927

From article <11OCT92.15753964.0084@VM1.MCGILL.CA>, by CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94):
> In article <1992Oct11.170347.6977@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>....thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers died defeating
>>the evil ideas of tribalism and nationalism espoused by Hitler
>>and Canadians and Quebeckers can do it again, with a lot less
>>bloodshed by voting NO on October 26.
>>
> Why do you say "Canadians and Quebeckers"?  "Quebeckers" are a
> subset of "Canadians."  When you speak of the latter, you
> automatically include the former.
> 

... and vice versa.

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics