HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: economic impacts of what?
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:48:42 GMT

One of the issues being harped upon by the YES side of the
referendum campaign is the economic impact of a NO.

While there is no denying the chill effect of a divided vote
(hence a divided country), and the negative message of a NO
victory (our government has lost our trust), there are other
factors affecting investors perceptions of our economy.

The first thing to remember is that our economy has been in
bad shape for some time; the jesuistics of constitutional
negociations are for nothing in this.  We have one of the
largest per capita public debt in the world, accumulated over
the last 20 years of ever increasing deficits.

Then, there is a world wide recession, during which we chose to
go through a transition to a freer trade economy.  Whatever the
long term gains of such a move, it is bound to hurt us in the
short term.  The fact that our southern brothers don't play quite
as fair as they should, because their Prez needs votes in a hurry,
is not helping either.

On top of that, our political elites play with fire when they
attract everybody's attention on our frailty, overdoing it more
than just a bit, for the sake of a few votes.  This is a good
example of self-fulfilling prophecy.  The synergy is achieved
when money lenders, currency traders and banks see the opportunity
this created and exploit it to the hilt, in the name of profits.

This little stunt by our princes confirms, in the mind of those
who still had doubts, that our leadership is not quite as wise
and responsible as they should be, and their management of the
situation warrants doubts as to their competence.  Another bad
mark for us.

Finally, the most significant item, is that half of the Canadian
public date, in some form or another, reaches a term during 1993.
This means renegociation of the debt, its terms and its conditions.
Money lenders position themselves now and create market conditions
which will allow them to get the best possible conditions.

Our referendum is just a pinch of salt on a suppurating wound.  It
hurts a bit more, that's all.  Whatever the result is.  In case of
a defeat of the proposed agreement, investors may very well detect
a different message: the people of Canada are telling something to
their leaders, and that something is "wake up and smell the coffee".
Such a message would be good economic news.



--
 Alain
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:29:44 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Oct1.230442.2671@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>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.
>>
   Much text omitted.  Francois says, "The 1982 patriation was an evil
   Trudeau plot."  Gerald says, "No, it wasn't."
>
>The Charter comes with a notwithstanding clause...it did not change
>the powers of the Quebec National Assembly.
>
I agree with the main thrust of Gerald's posting.  However, I think
it's worth underlining the point, too often forgotten, that the
notwithstanding clause can only be applied to certain sections of
the Charter, not to all of them.  Section 23 of the Charter was
clearly intended to replace the "Quebec clause" of Bill 101 with
a "Canada clause."  Even though I believe this section of the
Charter will ultimately have a bigger impact outside Quebec than
inside, by guaranteeing French schools for francophones outside
Quebec, I think it was poor tactics on the part of Ottawa and the
other provinces to impose a change in Quebec law in what had
previously been an unquestioned field of provincial jurisdiction.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 16:44:52 GMT

In article <2AD3B66B.5BF@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>In article <1992Oct06.132320.16949@sco.COM>
>	rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:
>
>>>> Isn't Ms Coyne the Nfld aide to Clyde Wells that had Trudeau's baby?
>
>Don't these discussions have enough ad hominums?

 


Unlike some un-named people on this net, Ross, 
at least the child will know who his/her father is.


Frank
(guffaw)

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada,mtl.general
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henrikson)
Subject: Re: referendumdum
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 15:11:32 GMT

In article <Bw67Ar.D7@newsflash.concordia.ca>, rclark@alcor.concordia.ca (Richard Clark) writes:
|> In article <14024@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca> alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon) writes:
|> >Alea jacta est... or, as they say out West, them cookies they
|> 
|> 
|> There are newsgroups for political discussions - use them.
|> 
|> rick clark
|> -- 
|> rick clark (rclark@alcor.concordia.ca) | Ban Handguns.
|>            (CIS 70272,3270)            |
Uh - run that past me again.
--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: hugh@imax.com (Hugh Murray)
Subject: Re: Distinct Societies
Followup-To: can.politics,can.general
Organization: Imax Corporation
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:31:43 GMT

In article <BvtF8I.AxJ@mach1.wlu.ca>, brea9430@mach1.wlu.ca (breadner
kenneth cecil joseph u) wrote:
> 

> 
> Has anyone realized that ALL of us are distinct societies? Think about it.
> Nearly all of us can be placed into the class of visible minority in some
> way or another. I wear glasses. Somebody has flat feet. Someone else wears
> braces.
> 
> This carries over to thoughts and opinions. Nearly all of us passionately
> believes in something that the majority disdains. And, for those who don't,
> you are certainly distinct from the rest of us.
> 
> I conclude that we ALL deserve the rights that come with distinctness.

You seem to be having some difficulty with a basic point about the nature
of society here.  If you have ever worked with people from other cultures
(and in Canada I would assume it must be rare not to have), you will notice
that as individuals we have indeed a great deal in common.  The things that
concern us, our goals for ourselves and our families are all very similar -
no matter where we come from.  If you go and live for a time in other
countries (and perhaps fewer people have done this) you will notice that at
first you feel quite uncomfortable or "out of place".  There are miriads of
things - from table manners, appropriate forms of address, appropriate
forms of dress, common beliefs (and not just religous), local by-laws etc.
etc. that form the pattern of daily social life and which feel very strange
to an outsider.  Nobody invented these things - they are the result in each
case of a long historical process, a continuity.  It is called culture, and
your complete and unconcious familiarity with the mores of your own society
is what makes you feel at home when you are at home.

Like it or not, Quebec has a different cultural history than English
Canada, and (not unnaturally) they are not too keen on losing the things
that make home seem like home to them.  It is in this sense, and only in
this sense, that they are claiming to be distinct.  They are not making any
claim to superiority.

I find it infinitely sad that it now looks as though we may lose this
rather amazing country to small minded attitudes and fear of self generated
phantoms such as those expressed in this article.

Hugh Murray   hugh@imax.com
Imax Corporation                   |Opinions expressed are personal
opinions|
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: AAA credit rating downgraded
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: can
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 02:43:09 GMT

In <16384@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:

...
>referendum, and a NO vote.  The two are not the same.  There's no certainty
>over which result would produce more stability for Canada; I believe a NO
>vote would bring more stability.  Besides, I think the downgrading of the

...

>Those chartered banks may have ulterior motives for their public comments on
>the referendum.

Well, the main thing that banks hate is instability, so they have at
least one strong motive for supporting whichever side they believe
will bring the most stability. The thing they like most is prosperity,
so they have a motive to support the side they believe will bring
that. Maybe those are their ulterior motives...


-- 
 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: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Bouh, bouh
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:38:20 GMT

If I am to believe my daily dose of un-news,
as administered by The G&M, The FP and (God
forbid!) Le Devoir, Bour'ass-hole now thinks
that a NO to the Charlatan Accord would not
be such a terrible disaster after all.  He
would not even consider resigning.

It must be great to be a politician.  You say
anything you want and damn the consequences.
There are none for you.  After all, you write
the rules of the game... and you rewrite them.

Now that I think about it, even the results of
this referendum are not binding.  We could
be all voting YES and they could still decide
that we start all over again anyway...  Which
also means that, should we all vote NO, they
could still decide to go ahead with the plan.

These people are willing to divide us even more
than we are, for what, if not their own petty
glory?



--
 Alain
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 14:41:55 GMT

In article <16377@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>In this morning's Globe, Tom Berger raised a respectable argument against the
>"apartheid" issue: that present aboriginal governments are the successors of
>the governments of the aboriginal peoples at the time of European arrival, so
>the "racism" argument is beside the point.


Are governments successors? Do present governments take responsibility
for the colonization of hundreds of years ago? Treaties must be
based on land, not "race", if they are not to be racial.

I don't think the problem is that Aboriginal nations/bands etc
might want to govern themselves (like the rest of us) on the
territories they can legitimately claim by treaty.
My objection is that some (or their leaders perhaps) want to
remain IN Canada and yet have separate status based on "race".
Whether "aboriginal" is determined  by who lives on treaty lands or by
some genetic definition, I don't know. I have a distinct feeling it 
is the former (otherwise why this talk about "urban aboriginals' treaty
rights" even where treaties (apparently) don't apply? 

So that is a form of apartheid, without question.
The successors of government theory has validity only in the sense of
LAND-based rights succeeded by treaty. We should not confuse here, either, the
colonizers with their children, or the Originals with theirs.
Otherwise we are attributing different status on PEOPLE, based on
their parental lineage, and that is an endless and thankless task.
I see no other SPECIFIC rights that accrue to aboriginals that don't apply
to any other citizens.

The questions that come from this: Can "non-Aboriginals" take on
Treaty rights by moving onto the treaty land (is it by marriage or
immigration).  If not, why not (ie is the shunning based on "race" or
what?) 

Frank.





Newsgroups: can.politics,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: Will Mulroney resign?
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:04:36 GMT

In <1992Oct16.200302.1272@math.toronto.edu> jjchew@math.toronto.edu (John J. Chew III) writes:

>In article <1bl4ojINNevq@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> mathew@unixg.ubc.ca 
>  (Mathew B Englander) writes:

>Speaking of threatening voters, I heard someone quoted on Morningside
>today to the effect that a Blue Jays win in the World Series would be
>just the thing that Toronto needs to energize its flagging economy.

>I suppose the logical converse to this would be that a World Series
>defeat would mean the end of the economy as we know it, and the collapse
>of the dollar.  :-).

>John

Actually, the Blue Jays getting into the world series is sufficient to
energize Toronto's economy. The world series was estimated to bring in
10 million dollars to the Toronto area. Whether the Jays win or lose
doesn't really matter. After all, as soon as the series is over people
won't spend any more baseball money, they will just switch to watching
football or hockey.

-- 
 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

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 92 14:25:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.212955.12242@cs.sfu.ca> jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:
>In article <16124@mindlink.bc.ca> Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:
>>I don't like the idea of *any* kind of government based on the genetics of a
>>given group of people.
>
>     Neither do I.  Neither do the Natives, apparently.  One has
>only to look at Phil Fontaine, Neil Sterritt, or any number of
>the Native chiefs of Quebec or the Atlantic provinces to confirm
>that they have no *racial* barriers to who joins or does not
>join their communities, or who holds power.


Only apparently?  I would like a clear statement from aboriginal
leaders and in legal text that "aboriginal rights" 
will be defined by territorial claims  (treaty, etc.) alone
and not by "race". And that the access to those territories is not
based on "race" but on free mobility by all citizens.  Similarly I want
proof that laws on those territories will not over-ride the Charter.

IN fact the evidence is already out. There is a notwithstanding clause
inserted allowing Aboriginal governents to over-ride the law of the land. 
This is unacceptable, and ironically the Const. proposal is being denounced
by some Aboriginal leaders, allegedly because it doesn't go far 
enough!  (Sort of like the PQ claiming "distinct" society is not racist 
enough.) 
So it looks like the new COnstitution will define rights based on
(aboriginal/non-aboriginal) "race" and (francophone distinct/anglo-french)
language. I want rights based on citizenship, nothing more, nothing less.
 
I think Kilian's skepticism is warranted.


Frank
From: Alan_Schianni@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan Schianni)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: UTILITY IN POLITICS
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:19:47 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

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,
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.

Sincerely,
Alan Schianni

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Why Would the Charlottetown Agreement Make People Feel Canadian
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:53:07 GMT

grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:
: After reading the "Canada" clause in the constitutional agreement, I was left
: with the question of why anyone would classify themsleves as Canadian.
: This clause does not define Canada but lists ethnic rights and some bland
: principles that could be appplied to almost any western country.
: Charlottetown lists many rights for certain groups and provides obligations for
: assitance to other groups (equalization and such). 
: 
: Now upon reading this why would anyone wish to be Canadian as oposed to being
: a citizen of some other country. As a citizen of Ontario, I find this most
: interesting. Being Canadian seems to provide me with the opportunity of
: subsidizing other regions, being under-represented in the federal legislature
: and generally being blamed for all that is ill in the federal state.
: 
: Now why would I want to be Canadian?

What would you prefer there to be in the Canada clause?

I hope you wouldn't want socio-political value judgements put into it.
I suspect that a lot of the No people would prefer their special interest
platforms entrenched into it, for example,

	Canada is a country characterized by albino Ayn Rand
	worshippers who don't eat meat and watch Cheers...

Seriously, I'm *relieved* that the Canada clause isn't partisan, which
I feared would happen during the conventions.  A bland, generic definition
of Canada seems to be the most apt one, rather than having one with
an "edge" that will be assured of alienating large portions of the population.

: -- 
: i.sinature

x.7Y7Y::25

-- 
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
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:17:46 GMT
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto

In article <1992Oct06.132320.16949@sco.COM>
	rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:

>>> Isn't Ms Coyne the Nfld aide to Clyde Wells that had Trudeau's baby?

Don't these discussions have enough ad hominums?

>It was also done in response to a previous poster who commented on
>the cogency and rationality of her arguments, without apparently being
>aware of whose arguments they were.

I guess when someone else read her comments, and you hadn't, it was
easier to attack the source rather than the comments themselves...

Of course she's biased. Every single person has their biases. What
biases a person has doesn't *necessarily* make that person's comments
rational or well-researched.

If Coyne's comments had come from Joe Public, would they be less
rational? Less biased?

If you have a bone to pick with Coyne's arguments, please do so. If you
have a bone to pick with her lifestyle or choice of sexual partners,
that's well beyond the scope of this discussion.

>  This is what was stated, no more ... no less. 

What was stated was a criticism of the speaker rather than the
words spoken. Or, at very least, a tacit warning that her comments
(sight unseen) might be less rational because of her choice of
friends.

>  Now can we get back to the debate?

It was your choice to side-track the discussion on personalities and
motives, rather than the arguments at hand.

-- 
 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,soc.culture.canada,mtl.general
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: referendumdum
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:39:39 GMT

alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon) writes:
>All polls tend towards a NO majority accross Canada, and a
>total victory in BC, Quebec and possibly Alberta.  But polls
>have been wrong and there are still a few days to go.

I suspect that a lot of the NO support is very soft. They say NO to pollsters
as a way of registering discontent, but when faced with two empty circles
many will put Canada ahead of their own grievances and vote accordingly
(either YES or NO).
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
From: ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: getting enumerated
Date: 10 Oct 92 01:25:57 GMT
Organization: On the Brew.

In referenced article, barry@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Barry G. Adams) writes:
>  How does one get enumerated for the referendum?
>  I am never at home when the enumerators call.


If they didn't leave you a form, you should contact your local revision
office.  Look in the Blue Pages under Elections or whatever (it's different
here in Quebec).

Oh, Um,  I've just noticed the date, I think this may have been the last
day to get on the list.

-- 
Ray Dunn at home        |  Beaconsfield, Quebec  |  Phone: (514) 630 3749
ray@philmtl.philips.ca  |  dunn@cam.org          |  uunet!sobeco!philmtl!ray
Newsgroups: can.politics