HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: L'invention d'une minorite
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:07:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.221711.5617@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>From article <1992Sep27.065648.7108@ee.ubc.ca>, by jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison):
>> 
>> Geez, why don't you two cut the crap! This education thread is out of hand,
>> especially since there is an obvious solution:
>> 
>   [A voucher system proposal deleted]
>>
>> A voucher system would bypass this rights bickering, I think. It would 
>> take some of the politics out of things, and return the issue to quality
>> of education.
>> 
>
>This is not an obvious solution. It is a suggestion.
>
>You are still advocating restrictions on choice of schooling which I find
>totally unacceptable.

What restrictions? Do you think removing government linguistic theology
from education, and giving the decision to parents is restrictive? How
much more liberal/libertarian can you get? The choice of shcooling would
be limited to what parents want.

>
>> <issue closed> ;-)
>
>No! :-(     :-)

yes! :-P
>
>-- 
>  ///==================================================================\\\
>  ||| Steve Potter:         steven%spxtech@CAM.ORG                     |||
>  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
>  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegemony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
From: michele@catnix.UUCP (Michele Simond)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Date: 4 Oct 92 03:32:15 GMT
Organization: Rhinoceros, chargez!


evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes :

> On the other hand, vote no and you stand cheek by jowl with the looney
> left, the looney right, NAC, Canadian Postal Workers Union, and the
> flag burners on both sides.

Not necessarily.  I don't think my vote has anything to do with
anybody in particular.  I just believe this accord is worthless
and will vote accordingly, no matter what Joe Blo amd the rest think.
That's their problem, not mine.

> What a choice. Sigh. All these "celebrity endorsements" have become, to
> me, the most depresing part of the campaign. Which side, in the long
> run, will present me with the most reasons for voting against them?

Do you really need "celebrity endorsements" to make your choice?
Can't you decide on your own?  If I were to change my mind just because
some "supposed celebrity" said I should, or because some other made a
terrible goof, I'm not sure I could still look at myself in the mirror.


>More important to me, which way are Mitsou and Erica Ehm voting?

Is it that important? If they're intelligent enough, they'll shut
up and vote according to their beliefs.




--
Michele Simond ...... Traductrice ......  B.P.: michele@catnix.UUCP
(514) 671-8820				   OU :	michele%catnix@cam.org

La Liberte n'est pas une marque de yogourt.
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Trudeau's Speech
Date: 2 Oct 92 03:08:48 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: can

I haven't more than a couple of sound bites from Trudeau's post-speech press
encounter, but it's clear he strongly opposes the constitutional
deal--basically, I gather, because he sees it as creating unequal classes of
Canadians with Quebecers as most privileged and aboriginal peoples as nearly
so. I don't know what else he said, though I expect it was consistent with
his recent Maclean's polemic.

A couple of questions: Is this brief summary accurate? What else did Trudeau
say? And could people offer critiques of the talk that will deal with the
substance of his argument, rather than his role as yesterday's man, his
putative attitude toward Quebecers, or any other ad hominem attacks.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:31:26 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: can

ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.204619.22393@bnr.ca> dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton) writes:
>>  1. Will Ontario and Quebec ever accept a pure EEE senate?  NOT!
>
>Don't know.  However, an equitable for equal (five regions model) with
>straight 50% normal majority rules would be substantially superior to
>this setup.  Of course, as Gerald has already pointed out, the Feds could
>easily enact a law making the present Senate elected.  It would be very
>close to this model in terms of equitable, would not require any
>constitutional changes, and would give people a good opportunity to see
>how good or bad such a Senate would be without enshrining it in a 
>document that requires all premiers to agree to change.
>
Actually, under section 42(1)(c), it would take a constitutional amendment
(general formula 7/50) to start electing Senators.  It could be done without
Quebec's agreement, but then Quebec would have more evidence of Canada's 
lack of concern for its feelings.

...mark young
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: Why vote NO?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:28:24 GMT

In article <BvICyH.EKz@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Jim Robinson (robinson@mdivax1.uucp) wrote:
>: 
>: As I understand it, that is a one-time "guarantee". After any changes
>: resulting from the 1996 census all bets are off. Indeed, with the Quebec
>: 25% floor provision it is mathematically *impossible* to guarantee a
>: per-province 95% floor.
>
>There is provision for a permanent formula to keep rep-by-pop.
>
>   21:
>     A permanent formula should be developed and section 51 of the
>   Constitution Act, 1867 should be adjusted to accommmodate demographic
>   change

And does that formula (who knows what it will be) magically override the
clause in the same section that guarantees 25% to Quebec?  I doubt it.
Xref: sparky can.politics:7883 soc.culture.canada:7152
From: audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Vote Yes - since Canada is a Lost Cause
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:32:02 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

In article <BvG1nD.u5@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
]No.  The reason the dollar is at $0.80 US is because the prime minister
]SAYS a no vote is the end of Canada.  Foreign investors listen to such
]comments and get nervous.  If the PM said something like "It will not
]have any long term effect on the economy" then foreign investors would
]not be nervous.

And the worst part is that he KNOWS it, and uses it on purpose to
scare people and get their votes. A quite machiavelish behaviour. It's
a shame that he his sacrificing the economy for personal ambition and
opinion.
-- 
                                                       Francois Audet
                                                           '
        Telephone: (613) 592-2121 x1754     Facsimile: (613) 592-4784
                          Internet: Francois.Audet@software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 02:38:48 GMT

In article <13101@audetf> audetf@Software.Mitel.COM (Francois Audet) writes:
>In article <BvG2rJ.zu@sun3.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca> ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward) writes:
>>I'm Canadian.  I'm not committed to collective rights.  In fact, I strongly
>>oppose them.  Therefore that statement is false.  At least one Canadian (me)
>>is not committed to collective rights.
>
>There is a word for a Canadian who doesn't believe in collective
>rights: an American.
>
>:-)
>

Or a Cascadian: -)

Gerald


Newsgroups: can.politics
From: donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed)
Subject: Banks and the October referendum: fear and drooling
Keywords: hype
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 12:55:28 GMT


Two major banks have come out with heavy public announcements
that we had better all vote yes or we will be shooting ourselves
in terms of the financial state of the nation.

I know that people have a terrible long term memory when they hear
these types of statements and fear pin striped over weight
men wagging their fingers at each of us after the crucial date.

All we need to do is remember the non-consequence of the Death of Meech
to know what *should* happen.   Even if what they said were true, why
would the blame fall on the voters and not Quebec for suggesting that
this instability exists?  As Trudeau says, if Quebec is going to leave,
for where, for what?  This is the basis of any financial uncertainty
that exists.

The bankers themselves will cause more fluctuation in the
markets than the politicial outcome of the referendum itself,
as their speculation will have an instant truthhood in terms of the
effect.  The bank announcements will do more damage than the real
uncertainties that existed prior to this point.  I am judging this
by the fact that in the case of Meech it was only the Prime Minister
and Wilson who forecasted doom.  This time it is the people who
handle your money.  Wonder what is in it for them?  Can they predictably
gain from the types of fluctuations that would be expected as the 26th
approaches and polls are taken?

Newsgroups: can.politics
From: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Sep26.184122.6334@ee.ubc.ca> <28SEP92.16933760.0061@VM1.MCGILL.CA>
	<1992Sep30.212542.1266@ee.ubc.ca>
Reply-To: clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:54:24 GMT
X-Posted-From: byron.sp.cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep30.212542.1266@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:

   Newsgroups: can.politics
Path: sol.ctr.columbia.edu!caen!uunet!uunet.ca!xenitec!van-bc!cs.ubc.ca!fs1.ee.ubc.ca!jmorriso
   From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
   Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
   References: <CLAMEN.92Sep25003225@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> <1992Sep26.184122.6334@ee.ubc.ca> <28SEP92.16933760.0061@VM1.MCGILL.CA>
   Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 21:25:42 GMT
   Lines: 30

   In article <28SEP92.16933760.0061@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94) writes:
   >In article <1992Sep26.184122.6334@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
   >>
   >>BC, Alberta etc. were seperate enitities when they *negotiated* entry into
   >>Canada.
   >>
   >BC yes, Alberta no.  The prairie provinces were not separate entities
   >which negotiated entry into Canada.  They were created by Ottawa
   >out of land which it bought from the Hudson's Bay Co. in 1870.

   The borders of the time were different, but then so were most other
   provincial borders, before the provinces chose to join. There were
   already people in BC running things before BC became a province. Ottawa
   didn't just create a province out of nothing, and create a government.

The British province of "British Columbia and Vancouver Island"
entered into Confederation with the Dominion of Canada in 1870, after,
among other things, promises were made that a transcontinental
railroad would be built to connect it to Central Canada.

All provinces except for Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan were
created by the British.  The latter were created by Canadian Acts of
Parliament.  The Supreme Court of Canada has even found that Alberta
and Saskatchewan are constrained by aspects of the basic law of the
Northwest Territories, wrt to French as an official legislative
language.  (They, however, opted out of this ruling using the
"Notwithstanding" clause.)

--
Stewart M. Clamen			Internet:    clamen@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science		UUCP: 	     uunet!"clamen@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University		Phone: 	     +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue			Fax:	     +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: bross@spartan.ac.BrockU.CA (Brian J Ross)
Subject: Re: Reasons to STAY AWAY from the NO side
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Brock University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:44:25 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
: In article <SBO.92Oct5121807@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca> sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
: >Why are westerners against a decentralised government? This
: >would free the western provinces from the "nasty
: >central government", while accomodating Quebec.
: >
: 
: Canada is already the most decentralized federation in the world...
: Quebec and the rest of the provinces are already among the most
: autonomous and powerful subunits of any federal state anywhere.

This perhaps holds with respect to economic trade barriers. 
It certainly doesn't hold politically.  For example, the political
decentralisation amongst states in the USA is vastly more pronounced than 
in Canada. Even the death penalty can vary among states.
 
-- 
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: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Individual Rights ARE protected in the Canada Clause
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:39:23 GMT

In article <BvGBE2.4LI@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>: 
>: I'm Canadian.  I'm not committed to collective rights.  In fact, I strongly
>: oppose them.  Therefore that statement is false.  At least one Canadian (me)
>: is not committed to collective rights.
>
>You're not committed to collective rights at all? You don't think that we
>should do something to equalise rights of, say, children? women? natives?
>disabled people? Why not? Yes I understand that they are all still Canadian,
>and protected under the Charter. I believe that we also need to do more for
>some of these groups to make their rights equal to ours. Its fine to say we
>have gender equality, but as long as women only earn 70% of men for the same
>jobs, they need something more.


I am against "collective" rights. Why? Because it is redundant. Minorities
and other collectives are composed of individuals. Protect individuals, and
women, natives etc. will be protected too.

The fact that people want collective rights just shows that we are just doing
a poor job of protecting individual's rights. People naturally form groups,
and when threatened, they are going to say protect OUR group. This is fine,
and is a reflex reaction to threats, but it does not go to the root of
the problem.

The problem with colective rights is that ultimately an individual, or
a different group will become subordinate to some group.

When people are discriminated against, find the culprit. If one person
is not responsible for another's suffering, they shouldn't be punished
as the result of some punishment. We do not punish people arbitrarily
or according to what group status they have. Collective rights will 
cause this.

>
>--
>Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
 Electrical Engineering                 |  hegemony and fear-mongering
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  by politicians/scum.
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: fwbent@watmsg.uwaterloo.ca (Fred Bent)
Subject: Charlottetown Constitutional Agreement
Keywords: constitution
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:43:51 GMT

For those who care, there is a machine readable copy of the
Charlottetown Constitutional Agreement.  It is available
by anonymous FTP from

	watserv1.uwaterloo.ca:\pub\accord.Z

--
Fred Bent
fwbent@plg.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Ward)
Subject: Re: NHI ( was: Canada Clause)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:19:40 GMT

In article <BvGn5n.278@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Paul Ward (ward@sun17.vlsi.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: And what would happen if the gov't decided to stop providing medicare?  
>: Answer, there is nothing you could do.  The section is meaningless.
>: Non-justiciable simply means "we'd like to provide these things, but if
>: we decide (for whatever reason) not to, you cannot take the gov't to
>: court and force them to provide these things".
>
>Any government that stopped providing medicare if the citizens wanted it
>would find itself in bigger trouble than a court-challenge. 

I agree entirely.  My point, quite simply, is that there is a whole
section in the deal that is completely useless.  Not-justiciable means
it might as well not be there.  Note; I would not vote aginst the deal
simply because of the presence of immaterial text.  I simply feel that
it is dishonest to put it in there, because it means nothing, but will
garner votes from those who think it does.
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: The Manning-Trudeau Manifesto?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 17:13:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.183439.27422@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>But the question is not whether PET is a demigod and Manning snookers GIS
>cheques from little old ladies. The question is whether the two men are
>saying basically the same thing wrt to the Constitution and Quebec
>nationalists.  So far nobody appears willing to attempt to prove that they
>are not. (no brownie points for stating the obvious: i.e., that Manning's
>language has been much more toned down than Trudeau's)


No, I think the issue is whether what they are saying is true or not,
not if one is saying the same as the other. 

I am no fan of Preston Manning, but not everything that issues from his
mouth is a lie. One reason he is gaining influence is because a lot 
of things he says are obviously true and are no longer being said by
the rest of the political elites. (We can go into his evils if you want,
but he also says "distinct society" is wrong constitutionally, and he is
right on this.)

Trudeau has always defended the idea of equal rights for all under
the constitution. (There are other things I disagree with him about.)

But let's attack the CONTENT of their arguments if we disagree and commend
the CONTENT if there is validity.  I'm a little tired ot all the ad hominem 
garbage, which discusses Trudeau as "yesterday's man", instead of what he
says. His arguments in the essay seem pretty well reasoned to me.
Convince me otherwise with reasoned ideas.

I mean, does anyone from the YES group have a problem with the Canadian
Labour Congress taking the same position as the Business Council on National
Issues?

Time to THINK folks. Forget the guilt by association stuff.

Frank (A definite NO vote.)
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Beyond the referendum
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 4 Oct 92 02:48:47 GMT

Don A. Bowman (dbowman@rainbow) wrote:
>Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: In article <BvGA7E.36G@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>: >Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>: >: 
>: >: Well there still are my objections to the Canada Clause, the appointment
>: >: procedure (but not the numbers) for the Supreme
>: >: Court, the abandonment of representation by population, the Canadian
>: >: Politburo, the surrender of training and telecommunications to the
>: >: provinces, the lack of an economic union and common market.
>: >: 
>: >
>: >It does not abandon rep by pop -- it guarantees it by at least 95% by the
>: >next census.
>: 
>: And only for the next census...after that all bets are off for BC.
>
>No. All bets are not off.
>
>   21:
>     A permanent formula should be developed and section 51 of the
>   Constitution Act, 1867 should be adjusted to accommmodate demographic
>   change
>
>Demographics changes have happened in the past in Canada. They have been
>dealt with in the past. They will be dealt with in the future.

It is mathematically impossible to guarantee the 95% minimum as long as
Quebec has a 25% HoC floor. As well, the above section could (and would
have to) be interpreted as meaning that after Quebec is assured its 25%,
demographic changes would be accommodated. Let's not try to pretend that
the 25% floor has no meaning.

-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Why I like the Charlottetown Accord
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:35:51 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

To prepare it for commentary, I have boiled Mr. Bowman's article down to
its essential points.

dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
>Why I like the Charlottetown Accord
>-----------------------------------
>[...]
>Here is what I like about the Charlottetown Accord:
>Canadians were consulted before negotiations started. [...]
>I believe the Canada clause is going to prove beneficial to all Canadians.
>[...]
>There is another important section of the Accord which deals with our
>Social and Economic Union.
>[...]
>An extremely important part of this Accord is the environmental sections.
>[...]
>Also important in our economy is the free movement of trade and people.
>[...]
>The Accord commits governments to ensuring sustainable and equitable
>development.
>[...]
>Even more importantly, nothing in this accord detracts from any rights
>guaranteed by the Charter of Rights. You will not lose any rights as a
>Canadian because of this proposal.
>[...]
>The Accord commits the Federal Government to provide funding to regional
>governments to alleviate regional disparity.
>
>Charlottetown rectifies [problems with alienation] by providing equal
>representation in the Senate for all provinces, and by including in the
>Canada Clause that all provinces are equal.
>[...]
>It also provides some guarantees so that no province or region will ever
>have less than 95% of the representation its population mandates.
>[Not true! -TH]
>[...]
>Any province that feels it can do a better job of training its workforce
>(and this is often the case) can simply obtain the funding from the federal
>government to do so.
>
>In addition to the benefits of the Accord, one has to look at the
>consequences of non-approval.
>[...]
>A lot of political capital is made by the "NO" side as to the
>unavailability of the deal. Read the summary. It's not going to change
>drastically.
>[...]
>Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal
Newsgroups: can.politics