HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Subject: Re: Why I will vote NO on Oct. 26
Reply-To: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:46:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.164758.20040@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, coghlan@bnr.ca (Patrick Coghlan) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep15.132844.28402@bnr.ca>, dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
|> |> I will vote YES because I like the deal.  Do you want to know why?  Well I'll
|> |> tell you anyway.  Because it does virtually nothing to change anyones life
|> |> and settles an annoying problem.  These changes are minimal : 
|> |> 
|> |>    1. Before we had a useless appointed senate, now we have a useless elected
|> |>       senate, 
|> |>    2. Ontario and Quebec have always had all the political power in Canada, 
|> |>       now they have a little bit more,
|> |>    3. Almost no powers were exchanged that didn't already exist,
|> |>    4. The Natives are actually getting something out of it, and since it
|> |>       does not violate the charter it doesn't bug me.
|> |> 
|> |> Yes, the 25% HoC guarranty in seats for Quebec bugs me, but if they ever fall
|> |> too far below that we'll just renegotiate anyway (can you see the RoC threatening
|> |> to hold a vote on kicking Quebec out?).
|> |> 
|> 
|> In essence, you are saying you will vote for the deal because it does
|> little more than give Ontario and Quebec a little more power and makes
|> the natives happy.

Yes.

|> 
|> If it does so little, why vote for it?  Have a look at the editorial
|> from J. Austin in today's Ottawa Sun.  He makes some very interesting
|> points re: what could happen to the west by continuing to concentrate
|> power in Ontario and Quebec. 

Because then I won't have to read about it constantly in can.politics :):)

Actually : 

Because it solves ever provinces gripes (Quebec - Distinct Society, Alberta -
control of natural resources, Ontario - proportional seats in the HoC, Natives -
Self Government, etc.).  It's the perfect Canadian solution, a compramise.  No
one gets everthing they want, but everyone (almost) gets something.

This is what Canada is all about!

|> 
|> In the Sun, they also published results of a reader poll taken yesterday
|> by the Ottawa and Toronto Sun papers that shows readers voting NO by a
|> margin of 4:1.

Distribution of powers will lead to lost jobs in Ottawa (and gained jobs in
Victoria, Edmonton,...).  Most of the people in Ottawa work for the government -
you figure it out.

Polls from late last week put it at 62% in favour nationaly, 42% in Quebec.

Don
My brain, my thoughts, my words.
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a K-car (a nice reliant automobile),
If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a fur coat
  (but not a real fur coat, that's cruel),
If I had a million dollars, we wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner
  (but we would eat Kraft Dinner), of course we would, we'd just eat more. - BNL
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: dat@thinkage.on.ca (David Adrien Tanguay)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: Thinkage, Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:03:09 GMT

clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>However, the problems with Canada's federal system cannot be simply
>solved by providing stronger voices to the "outer" provinces.
>Geographic isolation and population differences is only one of the
>sources of provincial tensions.  Canada also has a multinational rift
>that must be addressed.  If the Senate is the House for the
>geographically and numerically disadvantaged provinces,

The Senate is the house for all provinces.

> and the
>Commons for the majority, where is the House where English- and
>French- speaking Canada battle it out?  Where is the forum where the
>First Nations and the Europeans deal as equals?

Where is the House where men battle it out with women? Left-handers with
right-handers? Jews with Catholics with Protestants with Arabs?
We don't need these houses (and we probably don't need a Senate...).

>The double majority
>proposal for legislation affecting cultural institutions is but one
>place where the English/French duality is addressed, and the promise
>of self-determination for First Nation groups is where the
>Aboriginal/European duality is recognized, but are they sufficient?

Obviously not, given that some provinces are thinking of enforcing sex
quotas for the senate.

>The type of Canadian setup favoured by the nationalists in Bourassa's
>PLQ, envisions Quebec as an equal to (English-) Canada, in certain
>spheres at least, the way Denmark is an equal to France within the
>European Community.

The way Denmark == France == Germany == ...?
The way BC == PEI == Quebec == ...!
-- 
David Tanguay       dat@Thinkage.on.ca  dat@Thinkage.com  uunet!thinkage!dat
Thinkage, Ltd.           Kitchener, Ontario, Canada          [43.40N 80.47W]
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Why I will vote NO on Oct. 26
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:44:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.164758.20040@bmerh85.bnr.ca> coghlan@bnr.ca (Patrick Coghlan) writes:
>
>If it does so little, why vote for it?  Have a look at the editorial
>from J. Austin in today's Ottawa Sun.  He makes some very interesting
>points re: what could happen to the west by continuing to concentrate
>power in Ontario and Quebec. 
>
>In the Sun, they also published results of a reader poll taken yesterday
>by the Ottawa and Toronto Sun papers that shows readers voting NO by a
>margin of 4:1.
>

It's not a scientific poll...so it is basically useless...
...but it is a hopeful sign that perhaps the YES steamroller
can be slowed.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: pasward@maytag (Paul A.S. Ward)
Subject: Re: Why I will vote Yes on Oct.26 (DSY)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:50:28 GMT

In article <1RF2qB3w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:

>1) All provinces are equal.

But some are more equal than others ...

>2) French and English are the official languages of the country and deserve
>   protection righ accros the board.

Provided you don't wish to put up English signs in Quebec ...

>3) Quebec's Distinct Society is now subject to the Charter, and not the other
>   way around.

Which still has the not-withstanding clause (Why, why, why does Quebec
want more power to promote the French culture, when the not-withstanding
clause allows them (or any other province for that matter) to do whatever
they please?)

>4) The Multicultural aspect of Canada is recognized and to be protected.

Ah yes.  Now everything is determined by what group you belong to ...
(You mentioned something about apartheid earlier...)

>5) The Senate is Equal, eventually 100% elected and give time would become very
>   effective.

Eventually (ah yes, "in the fullness of time, when the people are ready for
it...".  That's the nice political code worf for when hell freezes over.
As to effective, I have yet to see a castrated man ever "become effective".
He just doesn't have it in him.  Same way with the Senate; it's been
completely castrated.  (As a side issue; should it be 50% women?  For all the
effectiveness you can send 100% women (better yet, send corpses - it'll save
on the pay)).

>6) I have heared the rep. by pop arguments acc the constitution, however since
>   1st-past-the-post is how we elect the HoC, it doesn't matter.  What would
>really matter would be if the HoC was based on proportional representation.  As
>it is now, it is based on party discipline.

Only because people vote that way.  If they voted for the best representative
for their riding, rather than who the PM/Party was, things would be much better.

>7) The aborginals are basically citizens of Canada just like the rest of us,
>wiht there Treaty right entrenched.

Hmm, self gov't = citizens of Canada?  That's definitely a good one for the
"newspeak" books.  (Who is going to pay for this self-gov't anyway - they
pay no taxes at the moment.  Is Ovid going to tell them they all have to 
start kicking in and paying taxes if they want things from now on?)

>God Save the Queen, 

Well, he better, 'cause no else is at the moment.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: European Union
Date: 12 Sep 92 18:33:31 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 788

From article <12842@audetf>, by audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet):
> I finally found the information I was looking for in relation to the
> allege "all countries are equal" in the European Union.

[stuff deleted on structure and form but not ignored]

> Germany: 24
> France: 24
> UK: 24
> Italy: 24
> Spain: 21
> Belgium: 12
> Grece: 12
> Netherlands: 12
> Portugal: 12
> Irland: 9
> Denmark: 9
> Luxembourg: 6

Anyone have the population distribution for these countries?

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
From: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: The Constitution and Laws
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:27:58 GMT
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Originator: mackenzi@aragorn.mcrcim.mcgill.edu


I have been hearing and reading a lot from people across Canada
who oppose the new constitutional deal because it does not contain
some rule, provision or whatever else they're after.  It seems to 
me that many are confusing a constitution with law making.  A
constitution is NOT the place to make laws - it is a basis upon
which we decide HOW to make laws, and by WHOM.  There can still
be good laws passed without their being expressly written into
the constitution.

Paul
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:04:25 GMT

In article <kkaTqB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>
>robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Look, let's put it in perspective. Sure, the agreement is flawed in many 
>>>ways - not all the senators will be elected, they sure aren't going to be 
>>>effective, I don't agree with the 25% floor for Quebec, and nobody has 
>>>yet defined for me exactly what aboriginal self government means, etc.
>>>Be that as it may, there is no way at all that Quebec will agree to less 
>>>than the current proposal. 
>>
>>Gee, when you put it THAT way, the deal's just irresistable!
   ^^^^^^^^

Jim Robinson did not write this. I did.

[rest of misquotes deleted ]




-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegomony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: tdwebste@stylus.uwaterloo.ca (Timothy D. Webster)
Subject: Re: What is the best situation for Quebec?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:05:32 GMT


In article <1992Sep10.160403.774@bnr.ca> you write:
>In article <BuCHK9.I36@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>, tdwebste@stylus.uwaterloo.ca (Timothy D. Webster) writes:
>|> I once had strong interest in this country (Canada).
>|> I think Canadians are losing interest in their own country and are now
>|> considering themselves citizens of the world, where ones country of
>|> origin is secondary. 
>
>Please don't assume you are speaking for all Canadians. I chose Canada
>as my country, and having lived in a few other countries, I know how
>privileged I am to be a citizen of this country. 

I am glad to here that you feel privileged to live in Canada. I do to.
I just think we have got to clean up our act. As some of our popular
ads now say. (Lead, Follow, or Get out of the way)
Canada should be able to produce people who are qualified to be
leaders in this world. Canada has an important role to play in cooperative 
efforts in this world community (U.N., internation exchange of ideas 
and information). I also believe Quebec has the right to, and should
protect their people's "preferred lifestyle. (The Quebec French Culture.) 
In fact I believe that is very much the purpose of a nation. 

<<Stuff Deleted>>

>|> Canadians are Lions governed by Donkeys.
  
>I can only conclude that any such Lions whine rather than roar.

I could not agree with you more, but it is perhaps because the
government is such an ass from time to time. I don't meen they don't
try. Taking time to consider the future effects of decisions made
today is not easy to do. But a good step would be starting to consider
future effects.

-Tim.
___ ___   __        __Timothy D. Webster  off:DC2560A ||      |\^/|      ||
| | | |   \ \  /\  / /tdwebste@stylus.uwaterloo.ca    ||  ._|\|   |/|_.  ||
| |_| | of \ \/  \/ / Dept. of Elec. & Comp. Eng.     ||   \  Canada /   ||
|_____|     \__/\__/  University of Waterloo, N2L 3G1 ||   <____ ____>   ||
fax:519 7463077 off:519 8851211x3169 home:519 8886835 ||        |        ||
STOP | look and feel suits | Software Patents | For info on "LFP" send mail.
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Where to get the text of the agreement (was Re: The new agreement)
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:43:15 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

> > From article <14861@mindlink.bc.ca>, by Walter_Gorlitz@mindlink.bc.ca
> >>I would like to read the entire text of the agreement before I vote on it.

Globe and Mail, September 1.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Access to English schools
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 03:37:39 GMT

In article <12774@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>                                                         There is no
>such thing as a bilingual society unless EVERYTHING is bilingual,
>including people. You can have bilingual institutions, bilingual
>services, bilingual people, etc. but only a very naive person would
>believe that a "bilingual society" exists. We can't even have a
>bilingual City! (Some part of some cities might be close to it
>however). Your principle of Quebec required to be bilingual (I mean
>really bilingual, not just by proclaiming itself to be like Canada) is
>based on false impressions that were forced through your brain by
>propaganda.

In article <12798@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>
>BILINGUAL (for a country) means that different regions (in Canada
>these regions are called Provinces and are a political entity) have
>different languages.

I think the only possible followup to this is to quote from Lewis
Carroll's "Through the Looking-Glass":

   "When *I* use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful
   tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor
   less."

   "The question is," said Alice, "whether you *can* make words mean
   so many different things."

   "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -
   that's all."

:-)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: rep by pop
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:36:46 GMT

Am I imagining things, or are the people who are screaming about the
sacred principle of rep by pop the same ones who want the EEE Senate,
which would give PEI the same representation in the Senate as Ontario?
I'm sure some of them are the same people!

Weird.  :-)

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:28:08 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Sep7.224701.1509@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>I agree that 24.x% vs 25% is insignificant. Indeed, I did not get terribly
>worked up over Mike Harcourt's math failings simply because the differences
>were small, but more importantly, because the situation would eventually
>converge to the correct percentage. Unfortunately, the 25% floor is an
>entirely different matter. We are starting with a good approximation of
>rep-by-pop and entrenching a clause that says that no matter how far
>Quebec's population falls below 25% it will *forever* have 25% of the seats
>in the Commons. In theory Quebec could have 1% of the population, yet 25%
>of the power in the Commons - an unlikely, but obviously *ludicrous* state
>of affairs. To even allow for such a possibility is, IMHO, inexcusable.
>It's like writing code that you *know* will fail at the boundary
>conditions.
>
I don't agree that what we have now is a good approximation of rep by
pop.  I posted extensively on this subject a week or two ago and got
very little response.  At the time, I figured it was because my
presentation was so clear and irrefutable that there was nothing to
add.  Now I suspect that what I posted was so boring that nobody read
it.

If we reject this deal, we'll get the status quo for reallocating
seats.  In the current system, *every* province is guaranteed a
minimum number of seats (the number it had after the reapportionment
following the 1971 census), irrespective of its present population.
This is not just a theoretical possibility.  Several provinces are
currently benefitting from this provision, in violation of the
principle of rep by pop.

One clause of the proposed agreement talks about developing
a formula that is closer to rep by pop, within some constraints,
including the 25% minimum for Quebec. We don't have the new formula yet,
but it sems far from inconceivable to me that we could end up closer to
rep by pop than what we have now.

I don't agree with most of the accusations of Quebec bashing that
get posted here from time to time.  But I truly wonder why the
many past and present deviations from rep by pop in favor of other
provinces draw so little comment, while one (potentially) in favor
of Quebec is seen as outrageous and unacceptable.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: "Quebec" defined? (Was: Analyzing the Deal)
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:34:15 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 852

Would somebody please explain to posters from out west (BC, in particular),
and also to some of the francophone posters in this forum, that "Quebec"
also includes a sizeable English community.

Members of the English community in Quebec might support their francophone
neighbours and friends in their efforts for more security. That doesn't
mean they want to be included with them in various suggestions as to their
motivation, or that they wish to be associated with potential threats to
their own security.

My Quebec includes the English? :-)


-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: pascal@nextasy.physics.mcmaster.ca (Pascal Gaudette)
Subject: A thought on rep by pop
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:58:19 GMT



Well, people have been complaining (for a change :-) here about
various things:

- The proposed 25% floor of representatives to the House of Commons
for Quebec violates (?) the rep by pop principle.

- But the House of Commons isn't rep by pop anyway, the party
that wins an election is over-represented, and small parties
have a hard time getting any seats, even if they get 5-10% of
the votes. Also, electoral ridings don't all have the same
number of people in them.

- And what about the EEE Senate? That also goes against
the principle of rep by pop.

Soooo, I remembered a little idea that we discussed a long
time ago when I took a political science course in CEGEP,
and I thought I'd submit it to you (not that it's incredibly
original, but hey, I'm *not* a political science
student! :^). 

Instead of going for a EEE Senate, do you think it would've
been a good idea for our politicians to turn the Senate
into a chamber elected "a la proportionelle directe"?
(by direct proportional representation?) That is, all parties
entered in the federal election submit a list of N names,
where N is the total number of seats in the new "Senate".
If they get 40% of all votes (nationally), then they get
40% of the seats in the new Senate (the first 0.4N people on
their list get "elected").

This would mean that
a) Small parties would have an easier time getting some
members into parliament
b) Although a government may have a good majority in the House
of commons with 40% of the votes, it might have to be a lot
more careful in its actions because it may not have a majority
in a joint seating...

Of course, one still has to decide how many seats in this
new Senate, what powers it has, etc, etc. But the goal
is to try to strive a bit closer to rep by pop (esp. for
small parties), while still maintaining a manageable system
(ie one in which most government have a majority of seats).

Comments?

--
Pascal "The Rascal" Gaudette       pascal@nextasy.physics.mcmaster.ca
MacNUG president                      | *NeXTmail encouraged* 
graduate student, McMaster university | Je ne suis pas infaillible.
Physics and astronomy dep.            | Vive le Quebec LIBRE!
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Adding insult to injury?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:17:26 GMT

In article <12838@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article (Steve Potter) writes:
>>I post this as an illustration of the sort of crap I have to put
>>up with, living in Quebec.
>
>Oh no, it goes again...
>
>>There are rumours that there is a movement at my son's (French) school
>>to change the school's name.
>
>Look, a school is for children. The name should at least be a name in
>the language of the children in the schools. Change the name, I
>support it 100%! The same would apply if a french school became an
>english schools.  If I was a kid attending a french school with an
>english name, I'd like to have it's name changed as well.

Here's a case from Ottawa.  This year, my daughters moved to a new
school, which had just been transferred from the French Separate to the
French Public board.  The week before classes started, they took down
the old sign, "Ecole St. Remi", and the crucifix, from the front of the
school.  And I would have been most unhappy if they didn't.

Note, however, that the change was made immediately; waiting a few
years before making the change would have been a different matter.

Obviously, when naming public places, it cannot be said that:
"A rose est une rose is a rose"  :-)

[ Hey, what's with the Rhealist this week?  First he quotes Lewis
Carroll, then Voltaire, and now he paraphrases Gertrude Stein.  Did
someone just give him a copy of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations?  Hmm,
they should have given him a good history book instead, eh?  :-) ]

The Rhealist - Rheal Nadeau - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: can.politics